Factors Affecting the Adoption of Mobile Payment Systems: An Empirical Analysis

Authors

  • İkram Daştan Yalova University
  • Cem Gürler Yalova University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/emaj.2016.95

Keywords:

Mobile payment systems, M-Payment, Mobile payment adoption, Mobile Technologies, Adoption of MPS

Abstract

The world witnessed a rapid growth in the e-commerce in the recent years. Widespread use of mobile devices in the e-commerce has a role in this augmentation. Associated with growth of trading volume and the introduction of new devices, new products and solutions emerge and they diversify concerning online payments. Consumer attitudes and behaviors may change according to these developments. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors effecting adoption of mobile payment systems by the consumer. 225 individuals were surveyed online through convenience sampling method. A research model was developed and proposed relationships were tested using structural equation modeling. The empirical findings point out that perceived trust, perceived mobility and attitudes positively affect the adoption of MPS; perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have no effect on adoption of MPS. Furthermore perceived reputation positively related to perceived trust and finally environmental risk negatively related to perceived trust.

References

Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS quarterly, 227-247.

Amoako-Gyampah, K., & Salam, A. F. (2004). An extension of the technology acceptance model in an ERP implementation environment. Information & Management, 41(6), 731-745.

Barnes, S.,J. (2002). Wireless digital advertising: Nature and implications. International Journal of Advertising, 21, 399–420.

Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International journal of advertising, 24(2), 151-172.

Blöchlinger, M. (2012). Mobile Payment Systems. Internet Economics VI, 41.

Bozkurt, M. (2011). İşletmelerin İtibar Yönetimi Faaliyetlerinin Müşteri Tutum ve Tercihleri Üzerindeki Yansımaları. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,2011(7).

Chau, P. Y., & Hu, P. J. H. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & management, 39(4), 297-311.

Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of retailing,77(4), 511-535.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.

Demircan, N., & Ceylan, A. (2003). Örgütsel güven kavramı: Nedenleri ve sonuçları. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(2), 139150.

Devaraj, S., Fan, M., & Kohli, R. (2002). Antecedents of B2C channel satisfaction and preference: validating e-commerce metrics. Information systems research, 13(3), 316-333.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151312

Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study of ecommerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1(1), 8.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS quarterly, 27(1), 51-90.

Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tahtam R.L. and Balck V.C.. (1995), Multivarite Data Analysis with Reading” Prentice Hall, International Inc, A Viacorn Company, New Jersey.

Huang, E. (2005). The acceptance of womencentric websites. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(4), 75.

IAB (2010), $6.4 Billion in Q3 2010 Sets New Record for Internet Advertising Revenues, retrieved from http://www.iab.net/about_the_iab/recen t_press_releases/press_release_archive/press_release/pr-111710 (Access Date: 03.03.2014)

Ipsos ING (2015) http://www.ing.com/web/file?uuid=fde 0bb20-c23c-4a70-9b587ed3d6ec95e2&owner=b03bc017e0db-4b5d-abbf003b12934429&contentid=33730 (Access date: 10.11.2015)

Jin, B., Yong Park, J., & Kim, J. (2008). Crosscultural examination of the relationships among firm reputation, esatisfaction, e-trust, and eloyalty.International Marketing Review, 25(3), 324-337.

Kalkan, A. (2011). Kişisel Tutum, Öznel Norm Ve Algılanan Davranış Kontrolünün Girişimcilik Niyeti Üzerindeki Etkisi: Üniversite Öğrencileri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Journal Of Süleyman Demirel University Institute Of Social Sciences Year, 2(14).

Kannan, P. K., Chang, A. M., & Whinston, A. B. (2001). Wireless commerce: marketing issues and possibilities. In System Sciences. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE.

Karatepe, S. (2008). İtibar yönetimi: Halkla ilişkilerde güven yaratma.Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 23(23).

Karnouskos, S. (2004). Mobile payment: a journey through existing procedures and standardization initiatives. Communications Surveys & Tutorials, IEEE,6(4), 44-66.

Karnouskos, S., Hondroudaki, A., Vilmos, A., & Csik, B. (2004). Security, trust and privacy in the secure mobile payment service. In 3rd International Conference on Mobile Business, 35.

Kim, B. G., Park, S. C., & Lee, K. J. (2008). A structural equation modeling of the Internet acceptance in Korea. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(4), 425-432.

Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 310-322.

Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N., & Kim, K. S. (2010). An empirical study of customers’ perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 84-95.

Küçük, E. (2012). Planlanmış Davranış Teorisi Çerçevesinde Mali Müşavir (SMMM) Olma Niyetinin Altında Yatan Faktörlerin Analizi. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 7(14), 145-162.

Lu, J., Yu, C. S., Liu, C., & Yao, J. E. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206-222.

Mallat, N. (2007). Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments–A qualitative study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(4), 413-432.

Mallat, N. (2007). Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments–A qualitative study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(4), 413-432..

Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2002, January). A computational model of trust and reputation. In System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 24312439). IEEE.

Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system.Consulted, 1(2012), 28.

Özer, G., Özcan, M., & Aktaş, S. (2010). Muhasebecilerin bilgi teknolojisi kullaniminin teknoloji kabul modeli (TKM) ile incelenmesi. Journal of Yasar University, 3278, 3293.

Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), 101-134.

Ron, D., & Shamir, A. (2013). Quantitative analysis of the full bitcoin transaction graph. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 6-24). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Schierz, P. G., Schilke, O., & Wirtz, B. W. (2010). Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile payment services: An empirical analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(3), 209-216.

Srivastava, S. C., Chandra, S., & Theng, Y. L. (2010). Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment systems: An empirical analysis.Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 27, 561-588.

Szymanski, D. M., & Hise, R. T. (2000). Esatisfaction: an initial examination.Journal of retailing, 76(3), 309-322.

Tzou, R. C., & Lu, H. P. (2009). Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 311-322.

Ustasüleyman, T., & Eyüboğlu, K. (2010). Bireylerin İnternet Bankacılığını Benimsemesini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli ile Belirlenmesi.BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar, 4(2), 11-38.

Van der Heijden, H. (2002). Factors affecting the successful introduction of mobile payment systems. BLED 2002 Proceedings, 20.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365.

Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2004). It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19-31.

Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., & Zhang, R. (2012). Mobile payment services adoption across time: An empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and personal traits. Computers in Human Behavior,28(1), 129-142.

Yap, B. W., & Khong, K. W. (2006). Examining the effects of customer service management (CSM) on perceived business performance via structural equation modelling. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, 22(5‐6), 587-605.

Yılmaz, V., Çatalbaş, G. K., & Çelik, H. E. (2009). Kredi Kartı Kullanma Niyetini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Yapısal Eşitlik Modeliyle Araştırılması.Bankacılar Dergisi, 68, 20-29.

Zhou, T. (2013). An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services. Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 1085-1091.

Zmijewska, A., Lawrence, E., & Steele, R. (2004, October). Towards Understanding of Factors Influencing User Acceptance of Mobile Payment Systems. In ICWI, 270-277.

Downloads

Published

2016-02-02

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2016)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link.