Advertisement

The Mediating Role of Perceived Security: An Empirical Study of Mobile Wallet Adoption in USA

  • Norman ShawEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9191)

Abstract

Because the USA is introducing ‘chip and pin’ card standards in 2015, payment terminals are being implemented that have the capability of reading plastic cards that are simply waved in proximity to the terminal. With the aid of a ‘mobile wallet’ app, smartphones are able to substitute for the physical card and complete contactless payments. The transaction flows through an ecosystem that is comprised of the smartphone manufacturers, software developers, mobile network providers and financial institutions. However, consumer adoption has been slow and, in order to help practitioners with their investment decisions, this study seeks to explain the factors that influence intention to use. Theory extends the technology acceptance model with the constructs of perceived security and personal innovativeness. An empirical study supports the hypotheses and explains the mediating role of perceived security.

Keywords

Mobile wallet Technology acceptance Perceived security Personal innovativeness PLS 

References

  1. 1.
    EMVCo: About EMV (2013). http://www.emvco.com/
  2. 2.
    Aite Group: Seventy Percent of U.S. Credit Cards to be EMV Enabled by the End of 2015 (2014). http://aitegroup.com/seventy-percent-us-credit-cards-be-emv-enabled-end-2015
  3. 3.
    Shin, D.: Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet. Comput. Hum. Behav. 25(6), 1343–1354 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kemp, R.: Mobile payments: current and emerging regulatory and contracting issues. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 29(2), 175–179 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ross, P.E.: Phone-y money. IEEE Spectr. 49(6), 60–63 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ingham, J., Cadieux, J., Berrada, A.M.: e-Shopping acceptance: A qualitative and meta-analytic review. Inf. Manag. 52(1), 44–60 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin, S., Lee, W.-J.: The effects of technology readiness and technology acceptance on NFC mobile payment services in Korea. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 30(6), 1615–1626 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez-Nicols, C., Molina-Castillo, F.J., Bouwman, H.: An assessment of advanced mobile services acceptance: contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models. Inf. Manag. 45(6), 359–364 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chellappa, R.K., Pavlou, P.A.: Perceived information security, financial liability and consumer trust in electronic commerce transactions. Logist. Inf. Manag. 15(5/6), 358–368 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dahlberg, T., et al.: Past, present and future of mobile payments research: a literature review. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 7(2), 165–181 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hartono, E., et al.: Measuring perceived security in B2C electronic commerce website usage: a respecification and validation. Decis. Support Syst. 62, 11–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Linck, K., Pousttchi, K. Wiedemann, D.G.: Security issues in mobile payment from the customer viewpoint (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kirton, M.: Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 61(5), 622 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hurt, H.T., Joseph, K., Cook, C.D.: Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Hum. Commun. Res. 4(1), 58–65 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decis. Sci. 30(2), 361–391 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A.: The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51(6), 1173–1182 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chandra, S., Srivastava, S.C., Theng, Y.-L.: Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption of mobile payment systems: an empirical analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 27(1), 561–588 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Inf. Syst. Res. 9(2), 204 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hair, J.F., et al.: A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equations Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Preacher, K.J., Hayes, A.F.: SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36(4), 717–731 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R.R.: The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In: Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N. (eds.) Advances in International Marketing (AIM), vol. 20, pp. 277–319. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cronbach, L.J., Meehl, P.E.: Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52(4), 281–302 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 19(2), 139–152 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shrout, P.E., Bolger, N.: Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 7(4), 422 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Helm, S., Eggert, A., Garnefeld, I.: Modeling the impact of corporate reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using partial least squares. In: Vinzi, V.V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H. (eds.) Handbook of partial least squares, pp. 515–534. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P.: Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 40(3), 191–204 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Turner, M., et al.: Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52(5), 463–479 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Jackson, P.: Management Research, 3rd edn. SAGE, London (2008). xvi, 351Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gefen, D., Straub, D.W.: The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption. J. AIS 1, 1–30 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ryerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations