Integrating UTAUT with Trust and Perceived Benefits to Explain User Adoption of Mobile Payments

  • Rishi ManraiEmail author
  • Kriti Priya Gupta
Part of the Asset Analytics book series (ASAN)


This study investigates the factors affecting behavioral intentions to adopt mobile payment services by Indian citizens. The proposed model integrated factors from the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) along with other important factors like perceived benefits and trust. This research model was empirically tested in New Delhi—the capital city of India, using 341 responses from a field survey. Data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis (MRA). The results showed that behavioral intention to adopt mobile payments is significantly and positively influenced by facilitating conditions, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, perceived benefits, and trust. Theoretically, this study significantly contributes to the existing knowledge specifically related to mobile payment channels and technology acceptance area in general. Practically, the study looks forward to provide the mobile payment service providers in India with suitable guidelines for effectively implementing and designing mobile payment services.


Mobile payments Behavioral intention UTAUT India Perceived benefits Trust 


  1. 1.
    Gupta S (2013) The mobile banking and payment revolution. Eur Fin Rev 2:3–6Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Business Insider Intelligence (2016) Nearly half of millennials have used a mobile wallet. Available at
  3. 3.
    Statista (2018) Total revenue of global mobile payment market from 2015 to 2019 (in billion U.S. dollars). Available at
  4. 4.
    Kacker A (2017) Mobile payments in emerging markets—beyond m-pesa, Knowledge Centre, Available at
  5. 5.
    Masrek MN, Mohamed IS, Daud NM, Omar N (2014) Technology trust and mobile banking satisfaction: a case of Malaysian consumers. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 129:53–58Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slade EL, Dwivedi YK, Piercy NC, Williams MD (2015) Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote payments in the United Kingdom: extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychol Mark 32(8):860–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Foon YS, Fah BCY (2011) Internet banking adoption in Kuala Lumpur: an application of UTAUT model. Int J Bus Manag 6(4):161Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta KP, Manrai R, Goel U (2018) Factors influencing adoption of payments banks by Indian customers: extending UTAUT with perceived credibility. Forthcoming J Asia Bu StGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Hall M, Davis GB, Davis FD, Walton SM (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart 27:425–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miltgen CL, Popovic A, Oliveira T (2013) Determinants of end-user acceptance of biometrics: integrating the “Big 3” of technology acceptance with privacy context. Decis Support Syst 56:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tarhini A, El-Masri M, Ali M, Serrano A (2016) Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: a structural equation modeling approach. Inf Tech People 29:830–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oliveira T, Fariaa M, Thomas MA (2014) Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM international. J Inf Manage 34:689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alalwan AA, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP (2017) Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int J Inf Manage 3:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oliveira T, Thomas M, Baptista G (2016) Mobile payment: understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Comp Hum Behav 61:404–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alalwan AA, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD (2016) Customers’ intention and adoption of telebanking in Jordan. Inf Syst Manage 33:154–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu CS (2012) Factors affecting individuals to adopt Mobile banking: empirical evidence from the UTAUT model. J Elect Comm Res 13:104–121Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou T, Lu Y, Wang B (2010) Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain Mobile banking user adoption. Comp Hum Beh 26:760–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee MC (2009) Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Elect Comm Res App 8:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oh NY, Parwada JT Walter TS (2007) Investors’ trading behavior and performance: online versus non-online equity trading in Korea. Pac Basin Fin J, 112–130Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Akturan U, Tezcan N (2012) Mobile banking adoption of the youth market: perceptions and intentions. Market Int Plan 30:444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Erdem T, Swait J (2004) Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. J Cons Res 31:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang YS, Wang Y-M, Lin HH, Tang TI (2003) Determinants of user acceptance of internet banking: an empirical study. Int J Serv Ind Manage 14:501–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luarn P, Lin H (2005) Toward an understanding of the behavioural intention to use mobile banking. Comp Hum Behav 21:873–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brown I, Zaheeda C, Douglas D, Stroebel S (2003) Cell phone banking: predictors of adoption in South Africa—an exploratory study. Int J Inf Manage 23:381–394Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Amin H, Hamid MRA, Lada S, Anis Z (2008) The adoption of mobile banking in Malaysia: the case of Bank Islam Malaysia Berhad. Int J Bus Soc 9:43–53Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daniel PE-Z, Jonathan A (2013) Factors affecting the adoption of online banking in Ghana: implications for bank managers. Int J Bus Soc Res 3:94–108 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matthew D (2014) Factors that impact consumer adoption of mobile banking within the m-commerce domain. DissertationGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Venkatesh V, Thong JY, Xu X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quart 36:157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Belanger F, Carter L (2008) Trust and risk in e-government adoption. J Strat Inf Syst 17:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hair JF, Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective, 7th edn. Pearson Education InternationalGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo X, Li H, Zhang J, Shim JP (2010) Examining multi-dimensional trust and multifaceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of Mobile banking services. Dec Sup Syst 49:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morosan C, DeFranco A (2016) It’s about time: revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. Int J Hosp Manage 53:17–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eriksson K, Kerem K, Nilsson D (2005) Customer acceptance of Internet banking in Estonia. Int J Bank Market 23:200–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riffai MMMA, Grant K, Edgar D (2012) Big TAM in Oman: exploring the promise of online banking, its adoption by customers and the challenges of banking in Oman. Int J Inf Manage 32:239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Symbiosis Center for Management Studies—NOIDA, Constituent of Symbiosis International (Deemed University)PuneIndia

Personalised recommendations