| Literature DB >> 36118531 |
Ashwarya Kapoor1, Rajiv Sindwani1, Manisha Goel1, Amit Shankar2.
Abstract
This research aims to explore adoption intention towards mobile wallet (m-wallet) amid COVID-19 outbreak using mediated-moderation framework. This study, in its uniqueness, utilises the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) theory as its theoretical base. The study investigated the effect of relative advantage, ease of effort, favourable infrastructure conditions, security considerations, and touch-free transactions on m-wallet adoption. The model includes perceived values as a mediator and perceived critical mass (PCM), promotional benefits (PBs) and users' demographics as moderators for deeper understanding of the phenomenon. A total of 327 responses were collected using purposive sampling method. The results revealed that relative advantage, favourable infrastructure conditions, security considerations and touch-free transactions exert a positive significant effect on m-wallet adoption intention. Further, except for ease of effort, perceived values mediate the association among antecedents and adoption intention and PCM, PBs and age found to be crucial moderators between perceived values and intention. This study enriches the existing literature on the adoption of m-wallet. Practically, this study helps marketers frame strategies to enhance the adoption and usage of m-wallet.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Mobile wallet adoption; Perceived critical mass; Perceived values; Promotional benefits
Year: 2022 PMID: 36118531 PMCID: PMC9464313 DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.108646
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Ind Eng ISSN: 0360-8352 Impact factor: 7.180
Fig. 1Proposed Conceptual Model.
Fig. 2Research Methodology Process.
Measurement model assessment.
| Relative Advantage | RA1: m-wallet facilitates me to accomplish transactions more quickly | 0.834 | 1.291 | |
| RA2: m-wallet is more efficient and effective than other electronic payment systems | 1.321 | |||
| RA3: Benefits of using m-wallet system outweigh its drawbacks | 0.759 | 1.385 | ||
| Ease of Effort | EOE1: m-wallet is convenient to use | 0.881 | 1.443 | |
| EOE2: m-wallet has a user-friendly system | 0.765 | 1.642 | ||
| EOE 3: m-wallet saves a lot of time and mental efforts | 0.754 | 1.316 | ||
| Favourable Infrastructure Conditions | FC1: I have required resources and knowledge for utilizing m-wallets. | 0.721 | 1.273 | |
| FC2: Specialized instruction regarding m-wallet usage is available to me. | 0.733 | 1.348 | ||
| FC3: m-wallet is appropriate for me since it is compatible with other system used by me | 1.213 | |||
| ST1: m-wallet service providers will never reveal my personal credentials to third party | 0.731 | 1.802 | ||
| ST2: m-wallet service providers always fulfill their commitments | 0.877 | 1.524 | ||
| ST3: m-wallet is a reliable app | 0.860 | 1.621 | ||
| ST4: m-wallet has security mechanism to deal with viruses and hackers | 0.812 | 1.646 | ||
| ST5: I believe that my debit/credit card and bank accounts linked to m-wallet will never be misused | 1.612 | |||
| ST6: I feel self-assured while performing transactions on m-wallet | 0.772 | 1.654 | ||
| TT1: Touch-free transaction is health-friendly as it reduces the risk of getting infected from novel coronavirus | 0.892 | 1.297 | ||
| TT2: Touch-free transaction is more hygienic and safe in comparison to PIN card payment or cash transaction. | 0.817 | 1.345 | ||
| TT3: Merchants are also actively encouraging customers for contactless payments to avoid contact and cash handling. | 0.743 | 1.608 | ||
| Perceived Critical Mass | PCM1: Many of my companions utilize m-wallet for making payment | 0.654 | 1.343 | |
| PCM2: People in my friend circle use m-wallet quite often | 0.952 | 1.872 | ||
| PCM3: Most people to whom I interact with, frequently use m-wallet | 0.984 | 1.834 | ||
| PB1: M−wallets offer various discounts. | 0.892 | 1.512 | ||
| PB2: Over m-wallets, I get cash back after transactions. | 1.653 | |||
| PB3: M−wallets offer more promotional benefits than any other payment method | 0.843 | 1.614 | ||
| PV1: I perceive that learning and using m-wallet is quite straightforward | 0.723 | 1.874 | ||
| PV2: Paying bills, transferring money, recharge and shopping through m-wallet calls for minimal efforts | 2.217 | |||
| PV3: M−wallet is exciting and trendy | 0.808 | 2.013 | ||
| M−Wallet Adoption Intention | MA1: I would like to conduct transactions through m-wallet in near future | 0.845 | 1.578 | |
| MA2: I would recommend m-wallet app to my colleagues and relatives | 0.862 | 1.504 | ||
| MA3: I aspire to utilise m-wallet on regular basis | 0.799 | 1.295 |
Source: The Author.
Discriminant Validity.
| 1. Ease of Effort | 0.72 | ||||||||
| 2. Relative Advantage | 0.16* | 0.83 | |||||||
| 3. Touch-free Transactions | 0.31** | 0.30** | 0.80 | ||||||
| 4. Security Considerations | 0.52** | 0.19* | 0.36** | 0.87 | |||||
| 5. Favourable infrastructure conditions | 0.51** | 0.19* | 0.31** | 0.54** | 0.87 | ||||
| 6. Perceived Values | 0.67** | 0.03* | 0.29** | 0.54** | 0.53** | 0.76 | |||
| 7. Promotional Benefits | 0.41** | 0.34** | 0.43** | 0.66** | 0.57** | 0.46** | 0.85 | ||
| 8. Perceived Critical Mass | 0.35** | 0.43** | 0.51** | 0.52** | 0.47** | 0.34** | 0.67** | 0.84 | |
| 9. M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.17* | 0.29** | 0.69** | 0.26* | 0.26* | 0.18* | 0.36** | 0.46** | 0.82 |
Note: **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Source: The Authors.
Assessment of structural model.
| Relative advantages → M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.0672*** | 0.078 | 8.385 | Supported |
| Ease of effort → M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.09 ns | 0.083 | 1.024 | Not Supported |
| Favorable infrastructure conditions → M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.133 *** | 0.038 | 3.263 | Supported |
| Security considerations → M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.118 *** | 0.036 | 2.972 | Supported |
| Touch-free transactions → M−wallet Adoption Intention | 0.134 *** | 0.083 | 1.506 | Supported |
Note: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns = not significant; β = Standardized coefficient; SE = standard error.
Source: The Authors.
Mediation Analysis.
| Relative Advantage → Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | |||||
| Ease of Effort → Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | |||||
| Favourable Infrastructure Conditions → Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | |||||
| Security Considerations → Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | |||||
| Touch-free transaction → Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention |
Note: SE = Standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, ULCI = Upper-level confidence interval.
Source: The Authors.
Moderation Analysis.
| Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | 0.0601 | 0.0262 | 0.0083 | 0.1118 | Yes |
| Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | 0.082 | 0.0334 | 0.0145 | 0.1465 | Yes |
| Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | 0.0348 | 0.0176 | −0.0008 | 0.0697 | No |
| Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | 0.1153 | 0.0428 | 0.0232 | 0.1917 | Yes |
| Perceived Values → m-wallet adoption intention | 0.0165 | 0.0334 | −0.06 | 0.0656 | No |
Note: SE = Standard error, LLCI = lower-level confidence interval, ULCI = Upper-level confidence interval.
Source: The Authors.
Fig. 3Moderation effect of perceived critical mass on the relationship between perceived values and m-wallet adoption intention.
Fig. 4Moderation effect of promotional benefits on the relationship between perceived values and m-wallet adoption intention.
Fig. 5Moderation effect of age on the relationship between perceived values and m-wallet adoption intention.