DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL MOBILE
PAYMENT TECHNOLOGIES
An integration of theories to explain adoption
of mobile payment technologies
Author
Stefan Lenskjold Grønbek
Master of Science in Information Technology │ E-Business
Supervisor
Jonas Hedman
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Technology adoption has been scrutinised by researchers for decades, still the ambiguous nature of the
concept has left researchers far from a unanimous agreement. One of the most recent attempts to
integrate streams of technology adoption literature has resulted in a model that essentially brings the
research back to its origins, demonstrating that understanding why people accept or reject technologies is
a challenging issue. The adoption of mobile payment services has been no exception. Mobile payment
services has been a hot topic since the early 2000’s yet the adoption has not been smooth. Researchers
have tried to increase understanding of why new mobile payment technologies are adopted by focusing on
either the payee or the payer, which potentially yield a limited understanding of the payer-payee context.
I have scrutinised over 50 academic journals in the area of social psychology, technology adoption and
mobile payments to retrieve a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. To this I have identified
the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Technology Acceptance Model, The
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Task-Technology Fit model and the Diffusion of
Innovations as centrepieces in the academic literature. Founded on these the evolution of the concept has
been on-going where several antecedents have been identified to either facilitate or impede the adoption
of mobile payment technologies.
Different attempts have been made to conceptualise these complexities, however none incorporate a
comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of adoption of mobile payment technologies identified in
the mobile payment literature with both a payer and payee centric approach which comprehends the
payer-payee context. Acknowledging this, I have integrated a framework founded upon social psychology
rationales, technology adoption theories and mobile payment literature to increase understanding of why
new mobile payment technologies are adopted by payers and payees.
Applying my framework to real-life cases I have found several interesting findings such as (1) payer and
payee adoption is interrelated, (2) payee adoption is highly influenced by usefulness mediated through
task-technology fit and especially the presence of expected functions, (3) payee adoption can be influenced
by payer’s costs and the technologies’ consistency with payer’s lifestyle, (4) lack of ease of use is a barrier
of adoption in contrast to ease of use as a driver of adoption.
2
Most importantly my findings are evidence that the adoption of mobile payment technologies is highly
contextual and suggest that developers direct attention towards closer cooperation with payers and
especially payees. As such, mobile payment developers should gain keen understanding of the payees’
business and develop mobile payment solutions that support this. Furthermore, mobile payment
developers should consider what value the mobile payment technology brings to payers and include
usefulness, economic benefits and information value in these considerations. Relying solely on mobility
value
to
drive
payer
adoption
is
inadequate
according
to
my
findings.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. FRAMING THE THESIS
1.1 The research question ................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Motivation & scope .................................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Delimitations .............................................................................................................................. 11
2. A REVISION OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE
2.1 Social psychology review............................................................................................................. 14
2.1.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action ...................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 The Theory of Planned Behaviour ................................................................................................... 20
2.2 Prior attempts to model the complexities of technology adoption ............................................... 22
2.2.1 The Technology Acceptance Model ................................................................................................ 23
2.2.2 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ................................................................... 25
2.2.3 Task-Technology Fit ........................................................................................................................ 27
2.2.4 Diffusion of Innovations .................................................................................................................. 28
2.3 Mobile payment literature review ............................................................................................... 30
2.3.1 Consumer perspective..................................................................................................................... 31
2.3.2 Merchant perspective ..................................................................................................................... 34
3. DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
3.1 Contributions from social psychology theories and perspectives .................................................. 38
3.2 Contributions from technology adoption theories........................................................................ 43
3.3 Contributions from mobile payment literature ............................................................................ 44
3.3.1 The payer ........................................................................................................................................ 45
3.3.2 The payee........................................................................................................................................ 47
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
4
4.1 The mobile technology: Foreningsbetaling................................................................................... 51
4.2 The two case associations ........................................................................................................... 53
4.3 Applying the framework ............................................................................................................. 55
4.4 The results .................................................................................................................................. 55
4.4.1 Payers ............................................................................................................................................. 55
4.4.2 Payees ............................................................................................................................................. 60
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
5.1 The payers .................................................................................................................................. 65
5.2 The payees ................................................................................................................................. 70
5.3 Presenting the evaluated framework........................................................................................... 77
5.3.1 Limitations of the evaluated framework ........................................................................................ 80
6. METHODOLOGY
6.1.1 Research philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 81
6.1.2 Research approach ......................................................................................................................... 86
6.1.3 Research strategy ........................................................................................................................... 87
6.1.4 Validity ............................................................................................................................................ 90
6.1.5 Reliability ........................................................................................................................................ 90
6.1.6 Generalizability ............................................................................................................................... 91
6.2 The questionnaire ....................................................................................................................... 91
7. REFERENCES
8. APPENDIX
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING AN
EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF
METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
RESULTS
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
1.
FRAMING THE THESIS




INTRODUCTION
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
MOTIVATION & SCOPE
DELIMITATIONS
6
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
7
1. INTRODUCTION
The mobile payment service markets are currently undergoing a transition with a history of numerous tried
and failed solutions, and a future of promising but uncertain possibilities. Despite increased introduction of
new mobile payment technologies, adoption remains modest (Mallat & Tuunainen, 2008). The unstable
and insecure nature of this market leaves businesses, managers and developers eager to know what makes
one technology a success. Hence, from a business perspective it is indisputably important to understand:
Why are new mobile payment technologies adopted?
In the mobile payment literature there is a bias towards studying the above question from either one of
two perspectives; the payer or the payee. Consequently existing academic literature try to explain why new
mobile payment technologies are adopted by isolating the two extremes (i.e. the payer and the payee),
thereby neglecting the continuum and the relationship between payer and payee (Dahlberg et al., 2007).
Furthermore, a significant part of technology adoption research is based on the social psychology Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA) and its most popular extension; the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM has
been accused of diverting researchers’ attention and creating an illusion of progress in knowledge
accumulation (Benbasat & Barki, 2007). Attempts to expand TAM in order to adapt it to the constantly
changing IT environments have led to a state of theoretical chaos and confusion, epitomised below:
Ironically, a synthesis of these efforts has resulted in a model [UTAUT] that essentially brings us
back full circle to TAM’s origins (Benbasat & Barki, 2007).
In this thesis, I therefore combine knowledge from mobile payment literature with technology adoption
theories to develop a framework which encompasses payer, payee and the context to explain the adoption
of mobile payment technologies.
To begin with I (1) review existing technology adoption theories and the theoretical rationales underpinning
these, as well as the mobile payment literature, I then (2) formulate a unified model that integrates
8
elements across several reviewed models and theories, finally (3) I apply the unified model to an illustrative
case and evaluate the results.
By applying this unified framework to an illustrative case, I hope to illustrate the applicability and to
illuminate potential flaws that need to be resolved for the integrated framework to be utilised to explain
why new mobile payment technologies are adopted.
The figure below outlines the primary content and structure of the thesis.
Source: Own contribution
1.1 The research question
In the business world there generally exists a bias towards automatically attributing new technological
developments as future successes. This is grounded in the intuitive nature of technological developments
and the well-known successful developments, however many new developments still fail on a continual
basis (Rogers, 1983). Acknowledging this reality, I aim to develop a unified model which integrates several
strings of technology adoption theory, social psychology theory and mobile payment literature, to explain
the adoption of new mobile payment technologies. Employing the illustrative case of Pay4it and their
desire to enter the Danish market for payment handling in voluntary associations, I set out to explore and
answer the following research question:
Why are new mobile payment technologies adopted?
9
To answer this, the thesis is structured according to the sub-sections presented below:
A revision of existing literature:
 A review of the technology adoption literature and its underpinning rationales
 A review of the mobile payment research
An integration of theories, models and empirical findings:
 Integrate the findings from the literature review to a contemporary framework
An evaluation of the applicability of the framework
 Apply the integrated framework to real life contexts and evaluate the results
As such, my overarching objective with this thesis is to increase researchers’ understanding of why new
mobile payment technologies are adopted, by integrating social psychology theories, technology adoption
theories and findings from mobile payment literature into a framework which embodies a contemporary
understanding of technology adoption as well as a holistic perspective of payer, payee and context.
Following the integration I apply the integrated framework to the voluntary association case scenario, to
test its explanatory power.
By answering the research question I find that the novelty of this thesis yields insights into two areas.
Firstly, I review social psychology theories underpinning technology adoption theories as well as review
mobile payment literature. In propositional terms I then incorporate social psychology theories, technology
adoption theories and mobile payment literature into a framework which encompasses payer-payee
context. This effort is to my knowledge unseen prior in the academic literature and could yield vital insights
to researchers’ understanding of adoption of mobile payment technologies as well as technology adoption
in general. Secondly, I apply this new framework to a fundamentally new empirical setting (the voluntary
association market) to discuss potential limitations as well as future research propositions.
10
1.2 Motivation & scope
The motivation for writing this thesis is spurred by my fundamental interest in new technologies, the
payment ecosystem and my entrepreneurial mind. Thus a new payment solution in its early stage, quickly
caught my attention. By conducting further research as to determine if this could make up a whole thesis, I
was captivated.
As a consequence, the overall domain (technology adoption) of this master thesis has been rather fixed
throughout the process. However, the investigation of mobile payment technologies was partly based upon
my own background and the fact that I was able to establish collaboration with Pay4it, who is currently
entering the association market with a new payment technology called Foreningsbetaling (www1).
Finding the optimal focus of this thesis has challenged my original understanding of technology adoption.
Initially, my aim was to identify costs related to mobile payment solutions and the benefits of new mobile
technologies, and quantify that to a national level. Though achievable, this approach would reveal limited
insights by only answering why potential users should adopt new mobile payment technologies without the
possibility of increasing understanding of why new mobile payment technologies are in fact adopted by
users.
1.3 Delimitations
This section sheds light upon the elements that I intentionally have chosen to disregard and what the
subsequent implications are. Before highlighting some of the specific delimitations it is important to notice
that social psychology and technology adoption, which this thesis and the suggested framework are
founded upon, are longstanding and deep-rooted academic fields which have been applied by academics in
a wide-reaching variety of contexts. Therefore it is unlikely that a thesis such as this can take account of the
vast amount of different applications and modifications due to contextual applications. Consequently a
comprehensive understanding of the underlying theoretical concepts is pursued and supported by selected
empirical data that relates to the area of application of this thesis, in contrast to an all-encompassing list of
results and findings from context-specific applications.
One example of the continuous development and modification of the technology adoption literature is that
of the Technology Acceptance Model. The model has been extended several times, by numerous academics
and in several cases due to findings from context-specific applications. Instead of considering the results
11
from every single extension, this thesis draws on the original conceptualisation as well as the most recent
extension, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and thus disregards the Technology
Acceptance model 2 and 3. It is customary that researchers utilise the most up-to-date information and
models, and any model extension is expected to rely on the findings from continuous application of the
original model thus strengthening the model’s explanatory power and theoretically robustness, which limits
the risk of excluding any significant knowledge when choosing to disregard the transitional models.
Most mobile payment adoption literature applies either a payer or payee-centric approach, but some
literature takes the business environment as point of departure, focusing on providers, financial institutions
and other important stakeholders. This thesis places emphasis on the actual adopters of mobile payment
technologies and consider the characteristics of the mobile payment technology as the driver of adoption.
Consequently the business environment is only implicitly included in the thesis as perceived by the adopter,
in contrast to an explicit point of departure. A consequence of this approach is the exclusion of business
model theory, had the thesis approached adoption from the point of the business environment business
models could have been included to investigate the adoption of mobile payment technologies.
Despite disregarding business models, the thesis and suggested framework do include an economic
perspective following suggestions from mobile payment literature. My original intention was to undergo a
cost benefit analysis of a mobile payment technology, but this was disregarded as I realised that a cost
benefit analysis could be used to illustrate the benefits of mobile payment technologies to payees and
possibly change their knowledge and perception of mobile payment technologies or be used to examine
whether or not a discrepancy between the payers beliefs about mobile payment technologies and the
actual costs and benefits exists, but would not increase researchers understanding of why mobile payment
technologies are adopted and therefore not support the research objective..
There are countless academic contributions to explain adoption of technologies from a variety of angels,
such as personification of adopters, chasm literature, the adoption process, etc. many of which are related
to other academic fields such as economics, marketing, consumer behaviour, psychology, and more, further
broadening the width of related literature. Consequently, a line has to be drawn and in this thesis has been
done in regard to the research question and research objective by the explicit disregarding of the above.
12
1.
2.
3.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING AN EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
2.
4.
RESULTS
5.
6.
A REVISION OF THE EXISTING LITERATURE
 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LITERATURE REVIEW
 MOBILE PAYMENT LITERATURE REVIEW
13
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Reviewing existing literature not only leads to a better understanding of the state of the research, but also
discerns patterns in the development of the field itself. I begin this literature review with a review of social
psychology, followed by a review of several influential technology adoption theories. Subsequently, I
review the mobile payment research.
Source: Own contribution
2.1 Social psychology review
Several influential technology adoption theories are based upon social psychology rationales. A
comprehension of social psychology perspectives is therefore critical to understand how other researchers
have tried to answer corresponding research questions. I begin this treatment by providing a historical
overview, clarifying its origin and the developments in the academic literature. The field of social
psychology is wide-reaching, which is why it is important to notice that this review is far from allencompassing. More unambiguously, this review focuses on the perspectives or underlying rationales. The
purpose of this endeavour is to identify how the social psychology perspective influence the way
researchers try to explain technological adoption.
Social psychology is defined as the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are
influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport, 1985). It is an interdisciplinary
domain that bridges psychology and sociology. Social psychologists explain human behaviour as a result of
the interaction of mental states and immediate social situations.
Wundt & the origins of social psychology: 1862-1935
14
German psychologist Wilhelm Wundt is widely regarded as the founder of psychology (Allport, 1985). In
1862, he proposed there be two branches of psychology: physiological psychology and social psychology.
In 1908, psychologist William McDougall and sociologist Edward Ross published separate texts about social
psychology. McDougall presented the perspective of psychological social psychology which considered the
individual as the unit of analysis, while Ross, true to the sociological social psychology perspective,
highlighted the group-mind (www2). A third perspective followed; the Gestalt perspective rejected the
group mind and the individualist stand as it suggested that social environment consisted not only of
individuals, but of relations between individuals which have important psychological implications (www2).
Source: Own contribution
The coming of age: 1936-1945
The most significant contribution to the field came from the Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin, who
presented a conceptual formula which explained human behaviour (B) as a function (f) of the person (P) in
the environment (E). The formula is till date one of the most well-known formulas in social psychology.
When first presented it contradicted most popular theories in the sense that it gave importance to the
individuals momentary situation in understanding his or her behaviour, rather than relying entirely on the
past (Balkenius, 1995). The formula is presented below:
B = f (P, E) (Lewin, 1936).
Lewin’s work is related to later contributions in both social psychology and technology adoption theory, it
influenced the perspectives of social psychology as a discipline, depicted below.
15
Source: Own contribution
Rapid expansion: 1946-1984
Several contributions were made to the field, of which the most significant line of research was the theory
of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). This theory suggested that people’s thoughts and actions are
motivated by a desire to maintain cognitive consistency (www2), or more importantly that behaviour
actually can influence and change beliefs and attitudes (www6). Furthermore, the Theory of Reasoned
Action was proposed during the period, which is further scrutinised below (section 2.1.1)
View of social psychology: 1985-present
The social psychology which had developed in Asia placed new emphasis on intergroup and societal
variables in explaining social behaviour. During the late 80s this influence began to reshape the perspective
of social psychology, as social psychologists throughout the world actively exchanged ideas and
collaborated on multinational studies (www2). This cross-cultural focus offers social psychologists an
opportunity to escape what some consider limitations of existing perspectives and is likely to guide the
future development of social psychology (www2), however most technology adoption theory is based upon
social psychology rationales prior to the convergence of cross-cultural perspectives, thus most technology
adoption research has focused on either the individual or the group perspective, depicted below:
Source: Own contribution
16
Having briefly reviewed the discipline's history, it is apparent that there are two social psychologies, one in
psychology and one in sociology. The focus of psychological social psychology is how the individual
responds to stimulus where social is one such stimuli, whereas sociological social psychology focuses on
societal variables, such as people’s socioeconomic status, their social roles, cultural norms and systems
(www2). This relates to technology adoption research in which a bias exists towards studying adoption
from either the perspective of the individual or the group, which will be made evident in the review of
technology adoption theory.
Having identified the underlying rationales (perspectives) of social psychology, I revise two influential social
psychology theories. The Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of Planned
Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) build on the individualist stand and are fundamental to the technology adoption
theory emanating from social psychology. Therefore, revising each could contribute to answering the
research question.
2.1.1 The Theory of Reasoned Action
The Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that individual behaviour (B) is driven by behavioural intentions
(BI) where behavioural intentions are a function of an individual's attitude (AB) toward the behaviour and
subjective norms (SN) surrounding the performance of the behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It can be
presented as below, where “w1” and “w2” represent empirically derived weight of each (www5).
B ≈ BI = (AB) w1 + (SN) w2
The Theory of Reasoned Action, depicted below, underpins later contributions to the technology adoption
research field, such as the Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology; therefore the constructs are revised in the following sub-sections.
17
Source: Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975
Behaviour
Within social psychology behaviour is perceived as an accumulated sum of its parts, which the conceptual
formula presented above is one example of. Similar to other social psychology theories, the Theory of
Reasoned Action tries to understand, explain and/or predict behaviour by investigating the parts that make
up the whole. Below the antecedents of behaviour according to the Theory of Reasoned Action are
reviewed.
Behavioural intention
In social psychology models including the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen I. , 1991) the attitude-behaviour theory by Triandi and the protection
motivation theory by Rogers, behavioural intention is regarded as the most immediate antecedent of
behaviour. However, empirical evidence has identified a discrepancy between intention and actual
behaviour. The intention-behaviour discrepancy is a well-known problem of concern amongst social
psychologists (Sheeran, 2002) and according to Bagozzi (2007) it is the most uncritically accepted
assumption in social psychology and in information system research.
According to researchers there are several issues with models resting on an intention-behaviour linkage.
First of all, they treat behaviour as a terminal goal and fail to consider that much behaviour is done not so
much as ends itself but rather as a means to more fundamental ends or goals. Additionally, the focus on
behaviour is limited in the sense that decision makers may realise that obstacles and temptations can arise
following the decision to take action, resulting in an uncertain situation in need of effort. Essentially,
decision makers often focus on trying to adopt an action or behaviour (Bagozzi, 2007) which changes the
orientation of decision makers fundamentally and consequently change the predictive power of intentions.
Sheeran (2002) support the above by stating that variables such as behavioural control, intention type,
18
personality and cognitive variables have been found to influence the accuracy of intention as a predictor of
behaviour.
Secondly, a gap in time between intention formation and behaviour initiation exists. Models resting on the
intention-behaviour assumption neglect this gap and the various psychological steps intervening the
intention formation and behaviour initiation (Bagozzi, 2007). Ajzen (1991) acknowledge this by stating that
intentions can change over time, the longer the interval the greater the likelihood.
However the intention-behaviour discrepancy research is still inadequate and in a recent meta-analysis of
meta-analyses relating to intention-behaviour discrepancy, Sheeran acknowledge that intention will remain
the primary antecedent of behaviour in social psychology for the foreseeable future. According to Sheeran,
further research is required to understand the relationship between different moderators of intentionbehaviour consistency (Sheeran, 2002).
Attitude towards behaviour
Attitudes are an antecedent of behavioural intention and effect behaviour. Attitude towards behaviour is
regarded as the individual's feelings about performing the behaviour, which is determined by the individual
through an assessment of his/her beliefs regarding the consequences arising from the behaviour and an
evaluation of the desirability of these consequences (Miller, 2005).
Attitudes are a cornerstone of social psychology and failure to find a reliable relationship between attitudes
and behaviour has threatened to undermine the entire study of attitudes (www8). The so-called attitudebehaviour problem is based on studies which failed to find an attitude-behaviour relationship by assessing
just single instances of behaviour (www8), however according to Ajzen (1991) and the principle of
compatibility, measures of attitude and behaviour are only compatible to the extent that the target, action,
context and time element are assessed at identical levels of generality or specificity.
From all of the above it is important to realise that attitudes, intentions and behaviour do not correlate
perfectly, but that attitudes and intentions do have predictive power. In later sections, specific attitude
constructs utilised in technology adoption theory and mobile payment research are scrutinised further.
Subjective norm
Subjective norm works as an antecedent of behavioural intention, however it can influence attitudes as
well (Ajzen I. , 1991). According to the Theory of Reasoned Action, subjective norm is the individual's
19
perception of whether people, who are important to the individual, believe the behaviour should be
performed. The contribution of the opinion of any given referent is weighted by the motivation that an
individual has to comply with the wishes of that referent (Miller, 2005). From this definition it is made
evident how theories underpinned by the individualist rationale, treats subjective norm. These theories
consider subjective norm as either a constraint or enforcer on the individual and as originating from
“someone whose meaning is important to me”. The consequence of this is discussed in section 2.2.2 in
which subjective norm is understood in a technology adoption context.
Further limitations
The Theory of Reasoned Action has been widely criticised for its assumption that when someone forms an
intention to act, they will be free to act without limitations. In practice, constraints such as limited ability,
time, environmental or organisational limits, and unconscious habits will limit the freedom to act. In the
next section the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) which attempts to resolve this limitation, is revised.
However, technology adoption theories which build upon the Theory of Reasoned Action are subject to this
limitation as well.
This concludes the review of the Theory of Reasoned Action, from which it has been made evident that
there are certain limitations to the theory regarding intention-behaviour discrepancy, attitude-behaviour
inconsistency and freedom to act. Limitations related to subjective norm are discussed throughout the
thesis. In the following section the Theory of Planned Behaviour is reviewed.
2.1.2 The Theory of Planned Behaviour
The Theory of Planned Behaviour is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action. It suggests that
individual behaviour is driven by behavioural intentions, subjective norms and the individual's perception of
the ease with which the behaviour can be performed (i.e. behavioural control). This section places
emphasis on the added antecedent of behavioural control. The model is illustrated below:
20
Source: Ajzen, 1991
Perceived behavioural control
Perceived behavioural control is defined as the perception of the difficulty of performing the behaviour.
According to the theory, control over behaviour is found on a continuum from behaviours that are easily
performed to those requiring considerable effort (Ajzen I. , 1991) and originates from the research which
shows that people’s behaviour is strongly influenced by their confidence in their ability to perform the
behaviour, i.e. self-efficacy from social cognitive research. Perceived ease of use from the Technology
Acceptance Model refers to the degree to which an individual perceives a technology to be free of effort,
consequently the definition and origination of perceived behavioural control is not very different from
perceived ease of use. This is supported by Fishbein and Cappella (2006) who stated that perceived
behavioural control is actually the same as self-efficacy and by Venkatesh et al (2003) who found that selfefficacy was fully mediated through ease of use.
According to Ajzen (1991), the extent that perceived behavioural control is an accurate reflection of actual
behavioural control, perceived behavioural control and intention can be used to predict behaviour.
This concludes the revision of the theory planned behaviour which has showed that the added antecedent
of behavioural control is not adequately distinct from the perceived ease of use construct in later
technology adoption theories. This section is followed by an analysis of the technology adoption theories
underpinned by the reviewed social psychology rationales and models.
21
2.2 Prior attempts to model the complexities of technology adoption
Different theorists have attempted to gather the complexities of technology adoption in frameworks as to
create a complete picture of the mechanisms that exists and structure them based on how they influence
each other. In this section I will explore four major contributions made by Davis (1989), Venkatesh et al
(2003), Goodhue and Thompson (1995) and Rogers (1983). I do so in order to integrate a framework
gathering insights from existing conceptualisations. Additionally, the review of these frameworks will
illuminate the origin of the building blocks in the unified framework proposed later in this thesis. However,
the final framework draws on other theories and research as well, which will be made evident at a later
stage.
With regard to the social psychology perspectives reviewed above, the first two conceptualisations revised
draw on the individualist-stand and the two revised social psychology theories, i.e. the Theory of Reasoned
Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour as depicted below.
Source: Own contribution
22
2.2.1 The Technology Acceptance Model
The Technology Acceptance Model is the most influential extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action
reviewed above. The model was proposed by Davis (1989) and Davis et al (1989) and explains users’
intention to accept and use technology, by replacing the attitude measures from the Theory of Reasoned
Action with the following two technology measures:


Perceived usefulness – Expects the use of a specific technology will increase performance
Perceived ease of use – Expects the use of a specific technology to be free of effort
The framework posits that the two constructs above are of primary relevance for users’ intention to use IT
in an organisational context, as depicted below:
Source: Davis et al., 1989
I highly appreciate the work by Davis et al, as it is one of the most cited frameworks and the findings that 1)
perceived usefulness is a very influential belief and that 2) perceived ease of use is a strong antecedent of
perceived usefulness as well as a moderator of behaviour itself, are echoed throughout the technology
adoption research. However, I do advocate room for further scrutiny.
First and foremost, the Technology Acceptance Model determines the importance of perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use, to predict adoption of technology. The amplified research result of studies
utilising the model is that “usefulness is useful”. The Technology Acceptance Model treats perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use as black boxes, consequently results from the Technology Acceptance
Model are scarce of actual design recommendations. This view is supported by Benbasat and Barki (2007)
who constitute that:
The Technology Acceptance Model research has reinforced the knowledge of the underlying
TAM relationships without substantially extending that knowledge to a broader or more specific
set of relationships, especially those about design (Benbasat & Barki, 2007).
23
Another undesirable outcome of the Technology Acceptance Model has been the extensive focus on the
prediction or explanation of a single behaviour defined in a narrow manner, i.e. system use defined as
amount or frequency of usage. Delone and McClean (2003) point out that such a simplistic view has
important shortcomings in relation to information quality, system quality and service quality which all
influence the intention to use a system. In essence, system usage defined as amount or frequency is limited
to reveal only whether or not a system is used or how much it is used, and consequently not able to grant
any insights into how it is used. Answers to why and how a system is used could be effective in de-blackboxing perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Benbasat and Barki support this by stating that the
research is unable to provide actionable advice, highlighted below:
We believe that this is both creating an illusion of knowledge accumulation and acting as a
barrier to fruitfully extending the model backward toward IT, implementation and design
factors, leading to research that is unable to provide actionable advice (Benbasat & Barki, 2007).
As an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action, the Technology Acceptance Model has been charged
with the same offense as the Theory of Reasoned Action. Based on its strong behavioural elements The
Technology Acceptance Model assumes that once an individual forms an intention to act the individual will
be free to act without limitations (Davis et al., 1989). As shown in the review of the Theory of Reasoned
Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour above, the Theory of Reasoned Action was extended based on this
criticism. Consequently the explanatory power of the Technology Acceptance Model is limited by its
exclusion of a control construct.
Back when the Theory of Reasoned Action was extended to IT contexts and became the Technology
Acceptance Model, it was simplified by 1) removing subjective norm and 2) eliciting relevant salient beliefs
in IT usage contexts into two constructs (i.e. perceived usefulness and perceived ease of usage).
This simplification of the Theory of Reasoned Action has unquestionable been successful in facilitating
aggregation across studies as well as making it more efficient to conduct IT studies. However the elicitation
of salient beliefs into two constructs only constitutes a fragment of the perceived characteristics of
innovations through which, according to Rogers (1983) it is possible to capture all relevant beliefs in IT
usage contexts. Other researchers have successfully utilised the full set of perceived characteristics of
innovations (Moore & Benbasat, 1996), to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the use of
technology. Additionally, Benbasat and Barki (2007) criticises the parsimoniousness of the Technology
24
Acceptance Model, as they argue that extending the model is too complicated as researchers have to go
through a lengthy exercise to justify extensions.
With regard to the exclusion of subjective norm, the Technology Acceptance Model has evolved as a
framework for explaining behaviour by individuals separate to any form of social influence. This is
controversial as more often than not humans act interpersonally (Bagozzi, 2007). Consequently later
extensions of the Technology Acceptance Model have tried to bridge this gap by re-introducing social
influence. Nonetheless the removal of subjective norm has limited the explanatory power of the
Technology Acceptance Model.
Conclusively, the simplicity of the Technology Acceptance Model which led to its success turned out to be
its Achilles heel. The changing nature of IT applications has created conditions under which perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use have ceased to be or possibly have never been the sole salient beliefs
(Benbasat & Barki, 2007) and researchers are now looking for new research directions to explain adoption
of technology.
This review has showed that TAM is limited to only determining the importance of usefulness and ease of
use, treating them as black boxes and that there are limitations related to the dependent variable.
Furthermore, it has revealed that there exist limitations related to the lack of a control construct, the lack
of subjective norm, the parsimoniousness of the model and the complexity of extending the model.
2.2.2 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology is the most recent and most comprehensive
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. It was suggested by Venkatesh et al (2003) to explain user
intentions to use IT and subsequent user behaviour. The theory posits that four key constructs are direct
determinants of intention and behaviour, while four mediators impact the constructs, depicted below.
25
Source: Venkatesh et al., 2003
Prior to further scrutiny of the framework, a general concern is presented. The Technology Acceptance
Model was criticised for its lack of emphasis on de-black-boxing perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use, consequently not yielding any actionable results. Despite being an extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model, UTAUT does not deepen the understanding of perceived usefulness or perceived ease
of use. Instead it is a broadening of the Technology Acceptance Model, in the sense that it introduces
additional predicators of intentions. In contrast it does not introduce any new variables explaining how the
existing variables produce the effects they do (Bagozzi, 2007). Consequently perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use are not de-black-boxed, the understanding of technology adoption is broadened, not
deepened and no actionable results are produced.
In regard to moderators, it is noteworthy that the framework utilises up to four variables (gender, age,
experience and voluntariness) in order to yield more significant coefficients, which makes the model less
parsimonious than the Technology Acceptance Model (Van Raaij & Schepers, 2008). Below, the grouping
and labelling of items and constructs are discussed, focusing on facilitating conditions and social influence.
Performance expectancy and effort expectancy do not significantly differ from perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use from TAM (section 2.2.1) and will not be revised further.
The facilitating conditions construct integrates perceived behavioural control, facilitating conditions and
compatibility. Accordingly it combines items on the fit between the technology and the individual’s working
style, the availability of assistance, and the availability of required resources. It is difficult to see how these
26
disparate items would all reflect the same construct (Van Raaij & Schepers, 2008) and noticeable that
Venkatesh et al (2003) rely on perceived behavioural control despite arguing that self-efficacy, which is the
origin of perceived behavioural control, is mediated through ease of use.
The social influence construct integrates subjective norm, social factors, and image. Consequently the social
influence construct combines items on the individual’s perception that other people think he/she should
use the new technology, the perception that others are supportive of using the new technology, and the
perception that those who use the system have higher social status. It is difficult to see how these disparate
items would all reflect the same construct (Van Raaij & Schepers, 2008).
Of greater interest and concern is the underlying social psychology rationale expressed in the social
influence construct. From the above it is made evident that when social influence is considered, it is
treated as either a constraint or forcer on the individual and perceived as originating from the idea of
“other people whose meaning are important to me” (Bagozzi, 2007), which is a reflection of the
psychological social psychology perspective and the individualist stand it represents. Applied in this sense,
social influence has yielded inconsistent results of which UTAUT is one example, where Venkatesh et al
found social influence to only be significant in mandatory contexts. Consequently, Bagozzi (2007) suggests
group norms, social identity, group self-esteem, collective intentions and cultures as possible social
influence variables which could better explain its influence on behaviour. These in contrast, represent the
sociological social psychology perspective which potentially could change the results of social influence in
technology adoption research (Bagozzi, 2007).
This concludes the review of UTAUT from which it has been made evident that UTAUT does not de-blackbox the antecedents of behaviour, the model is less parsimonious than TAM, that theoretical concern exists
related to the composition of the constructs and especially to the way social influence is applied.
2.2.3 Task-Technology Fit
The Task-Technology Fit was proposed by Goodhue (1995) and Goodhue and Thompson (1995). It suggests
that individual performance increases when a good task-technology fit exists (Goodhue & Thompson,
1995). The Task-Technology Fit was developed to explain individual performance in mandatory use
contexts and consequently build on the important assumption that the technology in question is utilised.
27
In contrast to the above theories (TRA, TPB, TAM, UTAUT) which all focus on intention to use or actual use,
TTF focuses on individual performance attributable to actual use (Dishaw & Strong, 1999). However, tasktechnology fit is not only an important construct after the decision to use information technology, i.e. tasktechnology fit is an important construct between usage and performance impacts, and perceived tasktechnology fit is an antecedent of behaviour. Goodhue (2007) supports this stating that perceived tasktechnology fit is a key predictor of perceived usefulness and thus affects intention to use and actual usage.
In contrast to the black-box issue that TAM and UTAUT fell victim of, the TTF goes a step further in deblack-boxing perceived usefulness. It can be used to investigate the antecedents of usefulness, i.e. what
actually creates usefulness, in order to provide design-oriented advice. Researchers have also found that by
combining TAM with the Task-Technology Fit they can explain a greater variance of behaviour (Dishaw &
Strong, 1999), nonetheless the Task-Technology Fit is only a starting point and an augmented model is
necessary to provide finer and more focused design advice in specific contexts (Benbasat & Barki, 2007).
2.2.4 Diffusion of Innovations
Diffusion of Innovations was popularised by Rogers (1983) and explains adoption of innovations different
than the previously reviewed theories i.e. as a social change in a system (Rogers, 1983). Diffusion is defined
as the process by which a technology is communicated through certain channels over time among the
members of a social system. Accordingly, there are four main elements; the innovation, the communication
channels, time and the social system (Rogers, 1983).
In regard to the discussion about social psychology perspectives, Diffusion of Innovations applies another
social psychology perspective than the reviewed theories. It does deal with individuals and their
perceptions but does so by emphasising prevalent values and norms of social systems and consequently
represent the sociological social psychology perspective, depicted below.
28
Source: Own contribution
Rogers (1983) describes the five stages of adoption, the five adoption categories and rates of adoption, all
of which have spawned further research, however in the light of the research question this review
emphasises the characteristics of innovations. Rogers define the characteristics of all innovations as relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability (Rogers, 1983) and argue that these
influence the adoption of innovations.
Relative advantage is similar to perceived usefulness, in the sense that it acknowledges not the objective
relative advantage but the perceived relative advantage. However, they do differ as relative advantage
from Diffusion of Innovations emphasises economic profitability, social-prestige factors, convenience and
satisfaction (Rogers, 1983). Consequently, the relative advantage more explicitly answers which variables
constitute relative advantage, in contrast to perceived usefulness.
Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with norms and values of the
social system. The adoption of an incompatible technology will often require prior adoption of new values,
and consequently be adopted more slowly or not adopted at all (Rogers, 1983). From this it is made evident
29
how the social psychology perspective influences technology adoption as compatibility argues that norms
and values exist and individuals follow these, in contrast to the theories revised above where social
influence was considered as originating from “someone whose meaning is important to me”. Compatibility
is more equivalent to the proposal by Bagozzi (2007) to consider group norms, cultures and social values
when explaining adoption of technologies.
Complexity is very similar to perceived ease of use, as it is defined as the perceived difficulty to understand
and use a new innovation. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with.
Innovations that are risk free and easy to try will generally be adopted faster. Lastly, observability is the
degree to which results of an innovation is visible to other, which can stimulate peer discussion and thus
increase adoption.
The Diffusion of Innovations has been criticised for its high level of abstraction, which makes it difficult to
apply in concrete situations ex ante (Ondrus et al., 2009). Consequently, the theory is useful in explaining
how technologies spread and what generally speaking makes technologies spread, but less profound in
explaining what makes single instances of technologies spread, such as mobile payments. Thus de-blackboxing the characteristics of innovations reviewed above, could be essential to answer the research
question.
This completes the review of technology adoption theory from which it has been made apparent that each
of the theories have their own limitations and own unique way of explaining either use of IT, performance
enhanced by IT or adoption of IT. Furthermore, all these models intertwine; TAM and UTAUT draw on TRA
and TPB principles, as well as the characteristics of innovations by Rogers (1983) and have been extended
with task-technology fit constructs (Dishaw & Strong, 1999) (Zhou et al., 2010). To answer the research
question and fulfil the research objective of this thesis, insights can be derived from each revised theory,
which will be done in section 3.1 where the unified framework is developed.
2.3 Mobile payment literature review
This section focuses on empirical studies and findings within the mobile payment literature. The purpose of
this part of the literature review is to acquire knowledge which can be combined with the technology
adoption theories into a framework that can be applied to a case and possibly explain the adoption of
mobile payment technologies.
30
A considerable amount of mobile payment literature focuses on the adoption of mobile payment
technologies using a consumer (payer) centric approach (Dahlberg et al., 2007). Most of these research
efforts describe the adoption variables influencing the consumers’ intention to use the mobile payment
technology. I will review the empirical findings of what influences consumers’ intention to use mobile
payment technologies.
The success of mobile payment technologies depends considerably on the merchants (payee) as well. Some
researchers studied merchant adoption in order to better comprehend this important part of the market
and the drivers and barriers of merchant adoption. I will revise these as well and consequently I revise both
the consumer perspective and the merchant perspective as depicted below:
2.3.1 Consumer perspective
Consumers place demands on mobile payment services and drive their success by adopting and using
services. In order to launch mobile payment services that will be adopted by consumers, it is crucial to
understand payer adoption variables (Dahlberg et al., 2007). In a recent meta-analysis, Dahlberg et al
(2007) identified security and trust, usefulness, ease of use, social compatibility, and costs as the most
important variables of mobile payment adoption, while ubiquity has been identified as an important
variable by others (Clarke, 2001). These variables will be revised below.
Ubiquity
Most, if not all of the mobile payment services listed in the ePSO database in 2002 have been discontinued
(Dahlberg et al., 2007). Research has suggested that the high failure rate of mobile payment services is
linked to their inability to provide the right value proposition to customers (Carton et al, 2012). One of the
most important value propositions for the adoption of mobile payments has been identified to be related
to ubiquity (Clarke, 2001) (Frolick & Chen, 2004). Though “anytime, anywhere” accessibility of mobile
phones does increase payee access to location specific payers, thereby increasing sales opportunities, it
does not necessarily create value to the payers (Carton et al., 2012). Payer value however, can be driven by
31
ubiquity by providing the payer with direct access to decision support information such as account
balances, loyalty points, discounts and special terms. In these cases the payer value is created through the
information value as distinct from the mobility value (Carton et al., 2012).
Security & Trust
Security is a logical concern in regard to payments and researchers have identified that security risks affect
attitude towards using mobile payments negatively (Dahlberg et al., 2003). This is supported by Van der
Heijden (2002) who found perceived risk to be one of the three most influential variables of mobile
payments adoption and by Chen (2008) who found that concerns regarding identity theft and hacking are
likely to make consumers think twice before adopting an payment technology (Chen, 2008). Some studies
even posit that a lack of subjective security is the most frequently called reason for refusal (Poutsttchi &
Wiedemann, 2007).
Interestingly, Dahlberg and Mallat (2002) found that consumers trust banks as mobile payment service
providers more than mobile network operators, while other payment service providers were not
considered trustworthy.
Dahlberg and Öörni (2006) found that the role of trust come out strongly with regard to mobile payments.
This is supported by Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) who found that perceived confidentiality, the
degree to which an individual believes that the collection and subsequent use of personal data and
payment details is consistent with his expectations, was an important acceptance condition for mobile
payment. Confidentiality as an important factor was also supported by Chen (2008)
Ease of Use
Ease of use is one of the original constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model. Researchers suggest
that ease of use is an important antecedent of mobile payment adoption as consumers are more likely to
adopt if they believe that the technology is easy to use (Chen, 2008). This suggests that payment
technologies must be designed so that the procedure is straightforward and easy to execute, so that the
payment screens are easy to understand and navigate, and the number of steps involved in the process
must be minimised to reduce complexity (Chen, 2008). This is supported by Olsen et al (2011) who found
that on-screen learnability is important as people do not want to spend time searching for learninginformation. They also found that on-screen feedback to the user regarding the status of the transaction is
helpful in avoiding confusion (Olsen et al., 2011) (Chen, 2008).
32
The importance of ease of use in regard to mobile payments is epitomised by Dahlberg and Mallat (2002)
who found ease of use to be the most important aspect of mobile payments. This is contrary to the
Technology Acceptance Model, which stresses the role of usefulness (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002). Van der
Heijden (2002) supports that ease of use is of significant importance to adoption of mobile payment
technologies, as well as several others (Dahlberg & Öörni, 2006) (Poutsttchi & Wiedemann, 2007).
Usefulness
The other original construct of the Technology Acceptance Model, usefulness, has been found to also affect
consumer acceptance of mobile payments (Poutsttchi & Wiedemann, 2007), which indicate that relative
advantages over other means of payment are important to consumers and failure to demonstrate these
advantages to potential users is likely to result in a low rate of adoption (Chen, 2008).
Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) found that a better task-technology fit caused a significant change in
perceived usefulness. Dahlberg and Mallat (2002) found that mobile payments were found useful if able to
replace several plastic cards or otherwise make the lives of the consumers easier. Chen (2008) found that
transaction convenience and transaction speed influenced usefulness.
In a study of hyped technologies, Hedman and Gimpel (2010) found that contrary to expectations,
perceived usefulness has little impact on the adoption of technologies that are surrounded with significant
hype, instead emotional, epistemic and social values influence the adoption of hyped technologies. While a
discussion of whether or not mobile payments are a hyped technology is not appropriate at this point, this
does indicate that models relying on usefulness to explain adoption of technologies are at risk of
overlooking the importance of other variables, as noted by Bagozzi (2007) and Benbasat and Barki (2007).
Social compatibility
Compatibility refers to the extent to which mobile payment technologies are consistent with the user’s
lifestyle and the way he or she likes to shop (Chen, 2008). Chen (2008) found that compatibility has strong
influence on adoption and that the compatibility is reflected in the mobile payment’s ability to complement
the user’s purchasing behaviours and lifestyle, enhance buying experience, as well as enhance the user’s
lifestyle image.
Payment solutions incorporating new technology may require substantial behavioural change. This may
cause psychological discomfort and a reluctance to adopt (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002). Dahlberg and Mallat
(2002) suggest a risk-free trial or other educational means to help overcome this problem, however Chen
33
(2008) argue that new mobile payment technologies should be seamlessly integrated into consumer
purchasing processes without requiring extraneous steps, equipment or training. Consumers must be able
to understand what the payment technology is, what benefits it provides and how to use it. This requires
careful communication with consumers in their language and technologies that are consistent with such
communication (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002).
Economical profitability
Related to the economical perspective, the most investigated variable has been costs. Dahlberg and Mallat
(2002) found that consumers did not want to use mobile payment solutions if the price was higher than
with conventional payment solutions (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002), which is supported by Van der Heijden
(2002). Though costs has been greatly considered in the mobile payment literature, the influence of its
counterpart, economic benefits, has been neglected by researchers. Since Rogers (1983) notes that relative
advantage can be expressed through economic profitability, it could be interesting to examine the
relationship between economic benefits and the adoption of mobile payment technologies.
All of the above antecedents have been found to be of influence to the adoption of mobile payments, from
the consumers (payer) perspective. Which of the variables are most important is questionable and is
subject to further scrutiny in this thesis. In the following sub-section, the literature regarding merchant
adoption of mobile payments is revised.
2.3.2 Merchant perspective
This sub-section reviews only the most relevant findings from studies focusing on the merchants’ adoption
of mobile payment technologies, the other important side of mobile payment markets. The amount of
literature applying the payee-centric approach has been considerable less and therefore this part of the
review is not less comprehensive, it is simply shorter due to the lesser amount of literature.
Benefits of adoption
In a recent research paper, Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) found that the merchants perceive mobile
payment technology benefits as increased impulse purchases, enhanced customer service, increased
products and service availability, new services, new customers, enhanced image and lower fees and costs.
Consequently, merchants expect the adoption of mobile payment systems to reduce costs and facilitate
sales of products and services to customers, at any time and from most locations. Heijden (2002)
supplement the economical perspective by positing that merchant adoption is sensitive to actual costs and
transaction fees.
34
Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) found that although most merchants recognise benefits of mobile payments,
few associate them with increased sales or reduced costs, and it is therefore possible that only few
merchants are able to fully leverage the benefits of mobility in their business.
Another interesting finding by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) is the suggestion that merchants perceive
mobile payments systems as a form of customer service. Merchants expect to strengthen their existing
customer relationships and to attract completely new customers by providing the possibility to pay by
mobile phones.
Barriers to adoption
In contrast to benefits which drive adoption forward, barriers to adoption prevent adoption which is why
they are important to revise. Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) suggest that complexity is a barrier to adoption.
This is contrary to most mobile payment literature, which as showed in the previous section has identified
ease of use as a driver of adoption. Additionally, Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) identified incompatibility
with business, lack of standardisation, high costs, lack of critical mass, trust and security as barriers to
adoption. These are all variables that propose a risk for merchants and Heijden (2002) found that perceived
risk influence the adoption of mobile payment technologies.
This concludes the revision of the mobile payment literature which has revealed that payer and payee
adoption are driven and prohibited by certain belief variables. The next chapter draws on these insights and
insights from the revision of social psychology and technology adoption theories to propose an integrated
framework.
35
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING
EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
RESULTS
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
3.
6.
DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK




PRESENTING THE INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION THEORY
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MOBILE PAYMENT LITERATURE
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
36
3. PRESENTING THE FRAMEWORK
In this section I present and examine the integrated framework, which should make it evident that it is
founded on several well established and recognised social psychology models, technology adoption
theories and the most recent empirical findings from research related to mobile payment adoption. The
framework is depicted below, followed by further examination.
Source: Own contribution
This section follows the structure of the literature review, consequently I examine the model by analysing
the contributions from social psychology theories and perspectives, followed by technology adoption
theories and lastly the two important adopters of mobile payment technologies i.e. the payer and the
payee. All of the above interrelate and the coming sub-sections draw on the findings from every other
section. The purpose of this endeavour is to identify the logics of the framework and argue why it should be
able to increase understanding of the adoption of mobile payments. In section 4.4 the suggested
framework will be applied to a case to test its explanatory power, the result will be discussed and the
model re-evaluated based on the findings.
37
3.1 Contributions from social psychology theories and perspectives
The integrated framework draws on the social psychology theories revised in chapter 2, i.e. the Theory of
Reasoned Action and its extension the Theory of Planned Behaviour. How they contribute to the framework
is examined below.
Theory of Reasoned Action
As witnessed in the review of the Theory of Reasoned Action, it is a generic theory which explains any
behaviour by suggesting that an individual’s salient beliefs about a behaviour influences the individuals’
attitude towards the behaviour which in return influences the individuals’ intention to behave and the
resulting behaviour. In contrast to the Theory of Reasoned Action, the integrated framework only explains
adoption of mobile payments (behaviour) by payers and payees.
Nonetheless the framework is a modification of the Theory of Reasoned Action to adoption of mobile
payment technologies, since it draws on several rationales from the Theory of Reasoned Action. The
integrated framework essentially argues that the identified salient belief variables influence how the
individual perceive the value proposition (attitude) in the context, which influences the intention to adopt
and the resulting adoption, which is considered as an individual’s decision to begin consuming a technology
(Hedman & Gimpel, 2010). The salient belief variables related to the payer and the payee are reviewed in
section 3.3, while the contextual perceived value proposition and the intention construct are revised
below. However, prior to this it is important to notice that the Theory of Planned Behaviour contributes to
the framework as well.
Theory of Planned Behaviour
According to Miller (2005) and Ajzen (1991), perceived behavioural control is the degree to which an
individual perceive performing a behaviour as easy or difficult i.e. it lies in a continuum from very easy to
very difficult to perform. However, within technology adoption theory perceived behavioural control has
been applied as a crude classification into voluntary and mandatory contexts (Bagozzi, 2007).
As found in the literature review, perceived behavioural control originates from research which shows that
people’s behaviour is strongly influenced by their confidence in their ability to perform the behaviour
(Ajzen I. , 1991), i.e. the social cognitive research of self-efficacy. If the integrated framework followed the
original definition and suggested that perceived behavioural control is the degree to which the individual
perceive adopting mobile payments as easy or difficult, it would bring perceived behavioural control
38
indistinctively close to perceived ease of use. However, this is by no means something new; Fishbein and
Cappella (2006) stated that perceived behavioural control is actually the same as self-efficacy, while
Venkatesh et al (2003) found that self-efficacy was fully meditated by perceived ease of use.
Consequently, the original control construct from the Theory of Planned Behaviour is mediated by ease of
use. Therefore, a control construct is required to explain behaviour in situations with actual limited control
as self-efficacy does not account for such variables. This is supported by Venkatesh et al (2003) who draw
on the facilitating conditions by Thompson et al (1991) which states that objective factors in the
environment influence behaviour.
The control construct in this framework draws on the facilitating conditions by Thompson et al (1991) and
the findings that facilitating conditions have a direct influence on behaviour and when both ease of use and
usefulness are present, facilitating conditions will not influence intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003). The
control construct in this framework explains actual environmental factors directly influencing adoption of
mobile payments. As showed in the literature review, Ajzen (1991) argue that to the extent that perceived
behavioural control is an accurate reflection of actual control, perceived behavioural control and intention
can be used to predict behaviour. So when self-efficacy is mediated through ease of use the control
construct that is suggested should be a reflection of actual control and thus be used complementary to
intention to predict behaviour.
As identified, the integrated framework is a modification of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to the
adoption of mobile payments, which is in line with researchers’ recent proposals (Benbasat & Barki, 2007)
and a logical choice since the Theory of Reasoned Action was extended due to its limitations in dealing with
behaviours over which people have limited control (Ajzen I. , 1991).
Intentions
Behavioural intention has been regarded as the most immediate antecedent of behaviour in several
popular social psychology models, nonetheless intentions have been widely criticised due to intentionbehaviour discrepancy as witnessed in the literature review.
Models relying on intentions were criticised for neglecting the gap in time between intention formation and
behaviour. Similar to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, this framework acknowledges that intentions can
change over time and the longer the interval the greater the likelihood. Additionally, intention-based
models were criticised for failing to consider that much behaviour is done not so much as ends itself but
39
rather as a means to more fundamental ends or goals. These limitations are important to consider,
however Sheeran (2002) recognises that intention will remain the primary antecedent of behaviour in
social psychology for the foreseeable future. The framework endorses this view and points out that despite
wide criticism, plentiful studies have indicated a correlation between intentions and behaviour (Ajzen I. ,
1991)
The contextual perceived value proposition
The Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour both argue that attitudes are an
antecedent of behavioural intention and that attitude is regarded as the individual's feelings about
performing the behaviour, which is determined by the individual through an assessment of his/her beliefs
regarding the consequences arising from the behaviour and an evaluation of the desirability of these
consequences (Miller, 2005).
The technology adoption models underpinned by these theories, the Technology Acceptance Model and
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, both replace the attitude measure with specific
constructs related to technology adoption. The integrated framework follows its predecessors in the sense
that it does replace the attitude measure, however it does so with a measure of the perceived value
proposition in the context, which differs from TAM and UTAUT as explained below.
The perceived value proposition is regarded as the individual's feelings in the context about adopting a
mobile payment technology, which is determined by the individual through an assessment of his/her
beliefs regarding the consequences arising from the adoption and an evaluation of the desirability of these
consequences. In contrast to TAM and UTAUT which argue that individual variables related to ease of use
and usefulness directly influence intention to use, I argue that the salient belief variables identified in the
literature review constitute a combined value proposition which is perceived by the individual in the
context and that this combination of salient beliefs influence the intention to adopt. Consequently, guided
by recent research proposals to go back to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Benbasat & Barki, 2007) this
framework is more true to the Theory of Planned Behaviour than the Technology Acceptance Model and
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.
The above definition of the contextual perceived value proposition calls for further scrutiny. The construct
is made up of three parts, which is the (1) value proposition (2) perceived by the individual (3) in the
context and these are revised below.
40
As found in the literature review, many mobile payment services are discontinued and researchers suggest
that the high failure rate of mobile payment services is linked to their inability to provide the right value
proposition to customers (Carton et al., 2012). Researchers argue that until a solid value proposition
emerges which combines value for both payees and payers, payment technologies will remain sporadic and
piecemeal (Carton et al., 2012). In line with this proposition, the integrated framework place emphasis on
the value proposition as the primary antecedent of intention to adopt for both payees and payers, and the
relationship between payer and payee adoption.
It is noteworthy that the construct is not intended to reflect the actual value proposition. Quite the
contrary, the integrated framework relies on rationales from the Theory of Planned Behaviour in which
Ajzen argue that of greater psychological interest than actual control, is the perception of control and its
impact on intentions and behaviour. Similarly, the integrated framework argue that of greater
psychological interest than the actual value proposition, is the perceived value proposition and its impact
on intentions and behaviour. This is consistent with the original attitude construct which argue that
attitude towards behaviour is formulated through an assessment of beliefs and consequently something
that is perceived by the individual in contrast to something factual.
Moreover, a perceived value proposition implies that a cognitive inconsistency exists between the actual
value proposition and the perceived value proposition. This is supported by the Diffusion of Innovations
which build on the assumption that some heterophily exists between individuals and their relative
perception of the value proposition. According to Diffusion of Innovations this inconsistency should be
countered through communication as convergence occurs when two or more individuals communicate. The
importance of communication was also emphasised in the mobile payment literature review, in which it
was stated that individuals must be able to understand what the payment technology is, which benefits it
provides and how to use it and that this requires careful communication with individuals (Dahlberg &
Mallat, 2002). All of the above support that discrepancy between the actual and perceived value
proposition will exist, that individual’s act upon on their perceptions in contrast to actualities and that
these perceptions should be influenced by communication.
Lastly, the importance of considering the context when explaining behaviour and attitudes towards
behaviour was emphasised by Lewin who gave importance to the immediate social situation and by Ajzen
in the principle of compatibility (target, action, context and time elements). This was made contemporary
in a mobile payment context by Carton et al (2012) who consider the value proposition to include the
41
context of the purchase and payment transaction which they argue covers the nature of the goods or
service being purchased, where the payment is being made, and who is involved. Both social psychology
and mobile payment literature place emphasis on the importance of the context and the perceived value
proposition in this framework explicitly endorses this view and therefore is phrased as the contextual
perceived value proposition or the perceived value proposition in the context.
The next and last part of this sub-section reviews the social psychology perspective and how it contributes
to the framework.
Social psychology perspective and social compatibility
The conclusion to the review of social psychology was the statement that two social psychology
perspectives exist and that they influence the way researchers answer questions such as why new
technologies are adopted. In the review of technology adoption theory and mobile payment literature, it
was made evident that researchers who applied the individualist stand found little to none correlation
between social influence and behaviour, while on the other hand researchers found that social values were
more influential than functional values.
The Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour which underpins this framework
however, both build on the individualist perspective of psychological social psychology, in which subjective
norm originates from “other people whose opinion is important to me”. According to Bagozzi (2007) most
technology adoption research applies such a limited sense of social behaviour, UTAUT is one example.
On the other hand, the Diffusion of Innovations argues that compatibility with social values is influential to
the diffusion of an innovation. If an innovation is incompatible with social values in a system, the adoption
will require prior change of the value system and consequently be less likely to diffuse. Consistent with this,
the mobile payment literature that have applied the sociological social psychology perspective have found
significant results and some researchers even suggest that compatibility with social norms and values are
the most important antecedent of adoption of mobile payments (Chen, 2008). Bagozzi (2007) supports this
view and suggests that group, cultural and social aspects should be further explored.
Consequently, contrary to the Theory of Planned Behaviour, this framework applies a sociological social
psychology perspective as it emphasises social values through the social compatible variable. This build on
the compatibility characteristic suggested by Rogers (1983) and is consistent with Chen (2008) and Bagozzi
(2007).
42
3.2 Contributions from technology adoption theories
In the previous section I emphasised how the social psychology theories and perspectives contributed to
the framework, however throughout the section technology adoption models and mobile payment
literature contributed as well. This section emphasises contributions from technology adoption theories
that were not highlighted above.
The model is true to the original Technology Acceptance Model in the sense that it integrates the two
measures of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and similar to the Technology Acceptance
Model it explains the individuals’ intention to behave. However, the integrated framework includes
additional characteristics of innovations, is more adjustable to the changing nature of IT than the
technology model (discussed below) and contrary to the Technology Acceptance Model the integrated
framework builds on mobile payment literature in an attempt to de-black-box the antecedents of adoption.
Thus the integrated framework is not limited to only determine the importance of each antecedent, it
equally attempts to identify the individuals beliefs about each antecedent as well as what constitutes each
antecedent.
Like the Technology Acceptance Model, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology has
measures of usefulness and ease of use and the integrated framework is true to these as well. However,
the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology does not introduce any new variables explaining
how the existing variables produce the effect they do (Bagozzi, 2007), on the contrary the suggested
framework tries to deepen the understanding of the adoption of mobile payment technologies by providing
actionable results, as well as determine the importance of each antecedent and identify the individuals
beliefs about each antecedent. The differences regarding social influence, facilitating conditions and selfefficacy have all been discussed above.
According to Bagozzi (2007) the strength but also eventually the Achilles heel of the Technology Acceptance
Model, was its parsimoniousness. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology is exactly the
opposite, as it utilises four moderators to achieve explanatory power, making the model very far from
parsimonious. This framework follows the suggestion by Benbasat and Barki (2007) as it goes back to the
Theory of Planned Behaviour which opens up the antecedents where the salient beliefs are identified and
provide an adequate theoretical grounding to incorporate the various variables relevant to the changing
nature of IT (Benbasat & Barki, 2007). Consequently it is more parsimonious than the Unified Theory of
43
Acceptance and Use of Technology while being less parsimonious than the Technology Acceptance Model
yet more adaptable to the changing nature of IT.
As the literature review revealed, task-technology fit is not only an important construct in increasing
performance, it is an important antecedent of adoption as a key predictor of perceived usefulness
(Goodhue D. , 2007). In contrast to the Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology, task-technology fit initiates de-black-boxing of perceived usefulness as
it can be used to investigate the antecedents of usefulness in order to provide design-oriented advice.
Consistent with the above and the review of mobile payment literature in which Poutsttchi and
Wiedemann (2007) found that task-technology fit significantly influences perceived usefulness, tasktechnology fit contributes to the integrated framework as an antecedent of usefulness.
The Diffusion of Innovations has contributed to the integrated framework in several ways, some of which
have been discussed above such as the sociological social psychology perspective, the discrepancy between
actual and perceived value proposition and the importance of communication.
Several of the salient belief variables are grounded in the characteristics of innovations from Diffusion of
Innovations, such as usefulness, ease of use, social compatibility and economic profitability. However,
these are supported by the empirical evidence from the literature review and more thoroughly examined in
the following sections.
This concludes the analysis of how social psychology and technology adoption theory have contributed to
the integrated framework. It has been made evident that it is founded on several well established and
recognised social psychology models and technology adoption theories, however the latter has been
criticised for treating the antecedents as black boxes. Therefore, the next section is dedicated to
scrutinising the salient belief variables from the perspective of the payer and the payee. In the last part of
the thesis I test the antecedents which hopefully aid the continued de-black-boxing of these.
3.3 Contributions from mobile payment literature
In this section I build on the findings from mobile payment literature, as I suggest the salient belief variables
that are influential to the perceived value proposition by the individual in the context. Similar to the review
of mobile payment literature, this section is structured around the payer and the payee, both of whom are
important stakeholders in the adoption of mobile payment technologies. The purpose of this section is to
44
identify why these salient belief variables should be a part of the framework, as well as highlight the designoriented advises from the mobile payment literature. The following application of the framework to reallife contexts will test the validity of these antecedents.
3.3.1 The payer
The following sub-section emphasises the antecedents of adoption of mobile payment technologies by
payers.
Social compatibility
Compatibility is theoretically grounded in the characteristics of innovations by Rogers (1983). Some
technology adoption researchers have found that social compatibility was of significant importance while
others have found mixed results, as discussed above in the social psychology perspective section.
More unambiguously, the social compatibility in this framework follows Chen’s (2008) definition which is a
modification of Rogers (1983) definition to a mobile payment context, consequently it refers to the extent
to which mobile payment is consistent with the user’s lifestyle and the way he or she likes to shop.
Chen (2008) found that compatibility has strong influence on adoption and that the compatibility is
reflected in the mobile payment’s ability to complement the user’s purchasing behaviours and lifestyle,
enhance buying experience, as well as enhance the user’s lifestyle image. Theoretically social compatibility
should have a place in the framework, which is tested with the application of the framework.
Ubiquity
In the literature review, Carton et al (2012) suggested that customer value could be driven by ubiquity by
providing the customer with direct access to decision support information such as account balances, loyalty
points, discounts and special terms. Other researchers have suggested that ubiquity is one of the most
important value propositions for the adoption of mobile payments (Clarke, 2001) (Frolick & Chen, 2004).
Consequently, ubiquity should have a place in the framework and designers should try to create value to
the payer by providing information value. I test these suggestions when applying the framework.
Ease of use
Ease of use is one of the original constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model and a part of the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Furthermore, it originates from the complexity
characteristic defined by Rogers (1983). Consequently is has strong theoretical grounding. In the mobile
45
payment literature review the importance of ease of use was also stressed as researchers found ease of use
to be the most important aspect of mobile payment adoption (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002).
In terms of design advice, researchers have suggested that mobile payment technologies should be
designed so the procedure is straightforward and easy to execute, so the payment screens are easy to
understand and navigate, and the number of steps involved in the process are minimised to reduce
complexity (Chen, 2008). Researchers also suggested that on-screen learnability and on-screen feedback to
the user regarding the status of the transaction were important (Olsen et al., 2011) (Chen, 2008).
Consequently ease of use should have a place in the framework which is tested with the application of the
framework.
Usefulness
Similar to ease of use, the measure of usefulness originates from Rogers characteristic of innovations and is
one of the original constructs from the Technology Acceptance Model and a part of the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology. Consequently is has strong theoretical grounding.
As stated above, perceived task-technology fit is an important antecedent of adoption as a key predictor of
perceived usefulness (Goodhue D. , 2007) and Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) found that tasktechnology fit significantly influences perceived usefulness. Consequently perceived task-technology fit is
moderated through usefulness.
In the mobile payment literature review usefulness, was also found to influence payer adoption of mobile
payments (Poutsttchi & Wiedemann, 2007). Chen (2008) found that transaction convenience and
transaction speed influenced usefulness. Consequently, usefulness should have a place in the framework
which I test with the application of the framework.
Security
Security has surprisingly little theoretical grounding in technology adoption theories as none of the
reviewed theories take security into account. In contrast security is a logical concern in payment contexts
and in the mobile payment literature review it was identified that security risks affect attitude towards
using mobile payments negatively (Dahlberg et al., 2003), to the point that a lack of subjective security is
the most frequently called reason for refusal of mobile payment solutions (Poutsttchi & Wiedemann, 2007).
46
In regard to design advices Chen (2008) found that concerns regarding identity theft and hacking were
influential, while Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) found that concerns regarding data gathering and data
handling were important. Consequently, despite no theoretical grounding, security should have a place in
any mobile payment context and in this framework as well. I test the importance of security, the individuals
beliefs about security and the security concerns presented here when applying the framework.
Economic profitability
Economic profitability has its theoretical grounding in the Diffusion of Innovations by Rogers (1983). The
relative advantage characteristic states that the degree of relative advantage can be expressed in economic
profitability.
In the mobile payment literature it was identified that payers did not want to use mobile payment
technologies if the price was higher than with conventional payment solutions (Dahlberg & Mallat, 2002).
However no researchers investigated the influence of economical benefits. I will test the influence of
economic profitability to payer adoption of mobile payment technologies, when applying the framework.
In the following sub-section, the antecedents of adoption of mobile payment technologies by payees are
analysed.
3.3.2 The payee
The following sub-section emphasises the antecedents of adoption of mobile payment technologies by
payees. In the previous section I showed how all the antecedents are underpinned by technology adoption
theories or mobile payment literature, to avoid unnecessary reappearance this will not be mentioned in
this section.
Social compatibility
In the literature review, it was identified that payees perceive mobile payment technologies as a service to
customers and according to Chen (2008) building on Rogers (1983) the extent to which mobile payment
technologies are consistent with the users’ lifestyle is of significant importance to users, therefore payees
should be interested in providing a mobile payment service that is consistent with the payers’ lifestyle and
the way he or she likes to shop. Consequently payment technologies have to be compatible with social
values of payers to be adopted by payees and the social compatibility construct has its place in the payee
part of the framework as well. I will test this logic, as well as the importance of social compatibility and the
beliefs about social compatibility when applying the framework.
47
Ubiquity
Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) identify the payee’s expectations to mobile payment systems as the ability to
facilitate sales of products and services to customers, at any time and from most locations and ubiquity has
been identified throughout mobile payment literature as an important antecedent of adoption (Carton et
al., 2012) (Clarke, 2001). Consequently, ubiquity is an important antecedent of adoption of mobile payment
technologies by payees and should have a place in the framework, which I will attempt to uncover with the
application of the framework.
Ease of use
In the literature review, complexity was suggested as a barrier of adoption to payees (Mallat & Tuunainen,
2008). It was suggested that in order for mobile payment technologies to be adopted by payees they
should be simple and easy to use, consequently ease of use has its place in the framework as an antecedent
of payee adoption. However, no suggestions as to what creates ease of use were put forward. Instead
design advices from payer adoption literature are echoed here and tested with the application of the
framework, these include that mobile payment technologies should be designed so the procedure is
straightforward and easy to execute, so the payment screens are easy to understand and navigate, so the
number of steps involved in the process are minimised to reduce complexity and so on-screen learnability
is available.
Usefulness
The review of mobile payment literature revealed that payees perceive mobile payment benefits as the
ability to provide new services, gain new customers and enhance image as useful and influential to payee
adoption of mobile payment technologies. Furthermore task-technology fit was identified as a key
predictor of perceived usefulness (Goodhue D. , 2007) as Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) found that
task-technology fit significantly influences perceived usefulness. By applying the framework I test the
importance of usefulness, the beliefs about usefulness as well as the influence of Task-Technology Fit.
Security
In the literature review Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) suggested that trust and security influenced payee
adoption and Heijden (2002) suggested that perceived risk influenced the adoption of mobile payment
technologies by payees. Chen (2008) found concerns regarding identity theft and hacking were influential,
while Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007) found that concerns regarding data gathering and data handling
were important. I test the importance of security and the findings presented here, when I apply the
framework to a case.
48
Economical profitability
Economical profitability is important to payees as found by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008), most of the
perceived advantages and barriers are related to profitability such as increased impulse purchases,
increased products and service availability, and lower fees and costs. Consequently, payees expect the
adoption of mobile payment systems to reduce costs and facilitate sales of products and services to
customers, which indicates that payee adoption is sensitive to actual costs and transaction fees and I test
this with the application of the framework. Moreover, it implies that payees are interested in economic
benefits when deciding to adopt or not to adopt mobile payment technologies, which I will explicitly
investigate despite the lack of focus on this aspect from reseachers.
This concludes the development of the integrated framework, based upon the literature review, in which I
have revealed how the theoretical building blocks contribute to the framework, i.e. the Theory of Reasoned
Action, the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the Technology Acceptance Model, the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology, the Task-Technology Fit and the Diffusion of Innovations as well as why
these salient belief variables are included in the framework. The framework depicted below is applied to a
case and tested in the following sections.
Source: Own contribution
49
4.
1.
2.
3.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING AN EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
4.
RESULTS
5.
6.
EMPIRICAL RESULTS




THE MOBILE TECHNOLOGY
THE TWO CASE ASSOCIATIONS
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
THE RESULTS
50
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
In this section I present the results of the empirical investigation, however prior to this endeavour I briefly
outline the mobile payment technology in question and the two case associations. I do so to avoid any
misunderstandings related to the specific technology and since there are significant dissimilarities between
the two associations in regard to the application of the framework. Prior to presenting the results, I outline
how the framework is applied.
4.1 The mobile technology: Foreningsbetaling
Foreningsbetaling is a management information system designed to handle payments in associations. It
utilises the association members’ mobile phones and SMS to enable card transactions. The most essential
capabilities of the system are best explained by separating the members and the association (i.e. the payer
and payee).
The payer
Members of associations utilising Foreningsbetaling can encounter three processes, namely the registration
process, the payment process and the information process. The processes are described below.
The registration process flow:
The payer receives an SMS on his/her mobile phone with a username, password and an invitation to login
through the internet and register as a member of the association. Once logged in the member registers
his/her personal information and payment information and logs out.
The payment process flow:
The payer receives an invoice as a text message on his/her mobile phone, which requests the member to
transfer an amount to the association. The amount to be paid and exactly what to reply to initiate the
51
transaction is included in the SMS, as well as what the member is paying for (membership fee for example).
The member replies to the SMS with the correct text and money is transferred from the member’s card to
the association. Once complete, the member receives an invoice as a text message.
The information flow:
The member receives an SMS with information from the association, this could be a reminder to pay an
unpaid invoice, however it could be something entirely different as well.
The three flows above are basically the only interaction members of an association will have with the
mobile payment system. The registration process only occurs once, however personal information and
payment information can obviously be changed by the member whenever necessary, by logging in. The
payment and information flows are recurring events which occur whenever the association initiate these.
The Payee
Before the association can utilise the system, the association has to be generated by the developer of
Foreningsbetaling (pay4it). Besides signing of formal papers, Pay4it require a member list with name,
phone number and e-mail of each member in order to generate the association. Once the association has
been generated, Pay4it will send out the first text message initiating the registration process flow
illustrated above. Subsequent hereto, administrators will have online access to an overview of the
association and its members, shown below.
52
Source: www1 (logged in as administrator)
Association administrators can send out information or payment inquiries by SMS. Furthermore,
administrators can see who paid and payments still outstanding, as well as invite new members to the
association.
This completes the section describing the mobile payment technology. It is important to notice that the
ambition with this description is not to provide an all-embracing list of features, but rather to illuminate
how the technology works to counter possible misunderstandings in the following sections, in which the
developed framework is applied.
4.2 The two case associations
In the following section I briefly describe the two case associations to show the difference between the two
associations and differences in how the framework is applied to the two associations as well as how this
influence the results presented later.
Brødeskov IF (BIF)
BIF is a football association with 330 members of which 180 are youth players. Only around 60% of the
association’s costs are covered by membership fee (www9). The association has to work hard to raise
money through activities such as flea markets, garden expositions or other activities supported by
members and parents who volunteer, which is one reason why the association is interested in cutting
unnecessary costs.
I was able to fully implement and test the mobile payment technology in a part of the association, hence
the members of the association and the association treasurer were able to answer questions related to the
53
specific technology. Consequently from this part of the research I was able to get concrete results regarding
the applied technology, these are presented in the following sections.
Venstres Ungdom (VU)
VU is a political youth organisation with around 3.000 members, divided into small local associations. As
such, it is an umbrella organisation which handles member registrations, payments and more.
Besides membership fees and profits from events such as national rallies and courses, they are funded by
the state with a fixed amount per new member registered in the association and consequently
extraordinarily interested in signing new members and optimising the process of signing new members.
Following a professional demonstration of Foreningsbetaling, the national secretary concluded that it
would not be possible to implement and test the mobile payment technology in VU, consequently the
mobile payment technology was not implemented in this association and the national secretary not able to
answer questions related to the use of the specific technology. Therefore the framework was applied to
this association on a more general basis i.e. unrelated to the mobile payment technology, however only to
the back-office part of the association. The members of this association were invited to try the system, but
never did. Their comments as to why they never did are included in the results section.
To summarise, the framework is applied to payers (members) of one association who tried the mobile
payment technology, to back-office staff (payee) of one association who tried it and to back-office staff of
one association who did not try the mobile payment technology.
To support the above and get results from payers who did not try the mobile payment technology, the
framework was applied to payers by sending out an online survey. It is important to understand that the
framework is applied in two different ways i.e. in regard to a specific mobile payment technology and to
mobile payment technologies in general. It is the intention to test the frameworks ability to provide both
technology specific and technology unspecific results, furthermore how these supplement each other by 1)
attempting to uncover the importance of specific variables, 2) attempting to uncover what constitutes the
specific variables and 3) how well a specific technology perform in regard to specific variables, is both
interesting and to my knowledge unseen prior in academic journals.
54
4.3 Applying the framework
As identified in the literature review, technology adoption models such as the Technology Acceptance
Model and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology try to determine the importance of
different variables (usefulness, ease of use, etc.), while the mobile payment literature on the other hand
tries to identify what individuals believe about different variables and to some extent what constitutes the
different variables (design advices). Since this framework is an integration of mobile payment literature and
technology adoption theories underpinned by social psychology rationales, it embarks all of these
endeavours by attempting to 1) identify the importance attributed to the antecedents by the individual and
2) identify how the individual perceive mobile payment technologies in regard to each antecedent and
lastly 3) identify which variables constitute each antecedent. This data is divided by technology specific and
technology unspecific cases in which the technology specific case tries to identify how the individual
perceive the specific mobile payment technology in regard to each antecedent, while the technology
unspecific case tries to identify how the individual perceive mobile payment technologies in general in
regard to each antecedent, i.e. what the individual believes.
This demonstrates the complexity and comprehensiveness of the results to be presented and similarly the
comprehensiveness of this thesis. I present the results in the following section, by employing the structure
from the previous sections (payee and payer) while emphasising which results are from technology specific
and which are technology unspecific.
4.4 The results
Given this bi-modal distribution in the data (technology specific vs. technology unspecific), I created two
datasets. This is consistent with Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and Venkatesh et al (2003) and the results of
each are presented below.
4.4.1 Payers
Payers were asked to rate to what degree they agreed or disagreed with presented statements, on a scale
from one to six with one being “disagree” and six being “agree”. To the extent possible, results are
presented according to the aim of the framework, i.e. first the importance attributed to the antecedents,
secondly how the individual perceive mobile payment technologies in regard to the antecedents and thirdly
which variables constitute each antecedent. Table 1 represents results from the technology unspecific
dataset. Of the 40 respondents, 60% were male and 40% were female. About 57.5% of respondents were
55
between the ages of 21 and 25 and 20% were between 26 and 30, while 5% were younger than 20 and
17.5% were older than 30.
Table 1. Mobile payers – Technology unspecific dataset
Measure
Item
Agree (%)
Answer from 1 - 6 (%)
1
Ease of use
Usefulness
Importance:
Easy to learn to use
Easy to use
3
4
85
95
7.5
2.5
7.5 17.5
2.5
5
Beliefs:
Learning to pay is easy
Paying is easy
User interface is easy to understand
95
97.5
87.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.5
Constitutes ease of use:
On-screen guide make it easier
Transaction status make it easier
Video-guides make it easier
Tele-support make it easier
Manuals make it easier
75
75
67.5
50
62.5
7.5
5
5
12.5
5
Importance:
Advantageous to pay by mobile phone
80
5
Beliefs:
Will save time to pay by mobile phone
Will improve shopping experience
Will be advantageous
72.5
37.5
65
Constitutes usefulness:
Expects increased transaction speed
Appreciate increased transaction speed
Expects to see account balance on-screen
Appreciate to see account balance on-screen
Security
2
65
80
50
80
Importance:
Secure to pay by mobile phone
Who handles the payment
97.5
65
Beliefs:
Paying protected by satisfactory security
Would feel secure
Personal information used for other purposes
More risky - Compared to traditional means
65
62.5
40
55
Security concerns:
Worried about theft
Worried about hacking
57.5
67.5
5
6
30 37.5
25 65
7.5 22.5
10 17.5
25 32.5
65
70
30
2.5 15 20 25
5 15 20 30
5 22.5 10 32.5
20 17.5 17.5 17.5
15 17.5 30 12.5
30
25
25
15
20
2.5
2.5 12.5
2.5
5
15 22.5
5 15
30 27.5 22.5
20 7.5 22.5 42.5
25 17.5 7.5 12.5
15 30 22.5 12.5
5 12.5 17.5 17.5 27.5 20
2.5
5 12.5 22.5 30 27.5
12.5 15 22.5 10 17.5 22.5
7.5 7.5
5 20 25 35
17.5
15
2.5
2.5
2.5 2.5 92.5
30 17.5 17.5
5
7.5 22.5 40
12.5 25 25
17.5 22.5 20 22.5
10 10 25 15
5 22.5
5 17.5
15 30
10 27.5
10 15
20 17.5
10 7.5
30 10
15 12.5
20 20
56
Social
compatibility
Ubiquity
Importance:
Consistent with lifestyle
40
25 17.5 17.5 17.5 12.5
Beliefs:
Consistent with lifestyle
Consistent with the way I like to pay
Will improve lifestyle image
60
70
15
2.5 7.5 30 25
5 12.5 12.5 32.5
30 30 25
5
20 15
20 17.5
10
20
Importance:
Pay anytime and anywhere
72.5
10
Beliefs:
Can pay anytime and anywhere
52.5
12.5
75
90
7.5
Importance:
Economically profitable
Not economically harmful
62.5
95
12.5
Beliefs:
Economically profitable to pay by mobile phone
If it is eco. harmful. will not pay by mobile phone
27.5
95
20 22.5
2.5
30 15
2.5 12.5
7.5
5
20 62.5
Constitutes economic profitability:
Expects to receive loyalty points and discounts
Appreciate loyalty points and discounts
Expects it to be economically profitable
Appreciate economic profitability
32.5
75
60
90
15 17.5 35 17.5
7.5
5 12.5 22.5
7.5 12.5 20 32.5
2.5 2.5
5 25
10
5
30 22.5
10 17.5
25 40
Have a smartphone
Always brings phone
Phone is always on
87.5
100
100
Constitutes ubiquity:
Expects to be able to pay anytime and anywhere
Appreciate ability to pay anytime and anywhere
Economic
profitability
Facilitating
conditions
10
Perceived V. P. All of the above is important
All in all it will be sensible to use mobile payment
92.5
77.5
Intention
77.5
Intend to use mobile payments
5 12.5 22.5
10
25
15
30
25 12.5
5 12.5 22.5 25 27.5
7.5 2.5 17.5 27.5 45
7.5 17.5
2.5 2.5
12.5
15 27.5 20
7.5 20 67.5
87.5
15 32.5 52.5
2.5 25 72.5
2.5
5 30 42.5
22.5 32.5 30
5 17.5
25 32.5
20
15
20
Table 2 presents the results from the technology specific dataset all of the five respondents were male and
between the age of 23 and 27. The numbers marked by an asterisk represent instances where data is
gathered from fewer respondents, either due to respondents being unable to answer or to only presenting
the question to a limited number of respondents.
57
Table 2. Mobile payers – Technology specific dataset
Measure
Item
Agree (%)
Answer from 1 - 6 (%)
1
Ease of use
Usefulness
3
4
5
6
Importance:
Easy to learn
Easy to use
100
100
20
20
60
60
40
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
Learning to use was easy
Using was easy
The process was easy and understandable
User interface was easy to understand
100
100
100
100
20
20
40
40
80
60
40
40
20
40
Constitutes ease of use:
It was easy to register as a member
Registering was similar to something I had tried
It was easy to register my credit card
The SMS's I received were easy to understand
The SMS's I received were easy to reply correctly
80
80
100
100
100
20
40
40
40
20
20
20
40
60
60
80
On-screen guide could make it easier
Transaction status could make it easier
Video-guides could make it easier
Tele-support could make it easier
Manuals could make it easier
40
*50
60
40
0
Importance:
Advantageous to pay by mobile phone
The functions I expect are available
Mobile payment works when I need it
100
*100
100
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
Saves me time
Improves my payment experience
Makes it easier for me to pay contingent
All in all: Advantageous to me
Constitutes usefulness:
I expect increased transaction speed
I expect to be able to see my account balance
Features I expected were available
The mobile payment system works when I need it
Security
2
20
20
20
20
50
20
40
60
80
20
60
60
20
40
40
40
60
20
100
100
40
60
80
20
Advantageous that the association can send me
information on my mobile phone
Advantageous to always be able to pay by mobile phone in
the association (for candy, soda, etc.)
100
Importance:
Secure to pay by mobile phone
100
40
20
20
20
25
40
20
20
50
20
80
50
80
20
20
20
20
60
40
20
20
80
60
40
40
40
60
25
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
40
40
100
58
Treatment of my personal information
Who handles the payment
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
Payment information was protected
Paying was protected by satisfactory security
I felt secure
Worried about the personal information
Personal information used for other purposes
The system is a risk to my privacy
I believe the provider is reliable
More risky, compared to traditional means
Security concerns:
I think banks and paymentinstitutions are reliable
I think teleproviders are reliable
I think mobile payment providers are reliable
Worried about theft
Worried about identity theft
Worried about beeing hacked
Social
compatibility
Ubiquity
Economic
profitability
100
60
100*
100*
100*
20
0
0
100
20
60
80
80
20
20
20
60
20
100
100
100
0
0
0
80
80
60
20
20
20
Importance:
Consistent with lifestyle
60
20
20
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
Consistent with lifestyle
Consistent with the way I like to pay
Improves my lifestyle image
It is fun
It is appropriate for me
80
60
0
80
80
20
20
60
20
20
Importance:
Pay by mobile phone anytime and anywhere
80
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
Can pay anytime
Can pay anywhere
0
20
40
40
It is consistent with my lifestyle, to be able to do things
anytime and anywhere
80
20
Importance:
Economically profitable
Not economically harmful
Beliefs about the mobile payment system:
It is economically profitable
It is economically harmful
I will not use it if it is economically harmful
20
40
75
75
50
20
25
25
50
20
40
40
20
20
20
20
80
80
80
20
40
20
20
20
60
20
20
20
20
60
40
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
40
100
100
0
80
60
80
20
40
20
20
80
20
20
20
20
20
40
40
20
40
60
60
60
59
Facilitating
conditions
I have access to the necessary technology
I have smartphone
I always bring my phone with me
My phone is always on
100
100
100
100
100
100
20 80
100
Perceived V. P. All the above is important in regards to the system
I think it is hard to say what is most important in regards to
the mobile payment system
All in all it will be sensible to me to use the system
100
20
80
20
20
40
40
20
Intention
I intend to use the system whenever possible
20
60
60
20
20
60
20
20
20
Additionally, six members of VU were invited to try the system but never did, of these four stated that they
were unable to identify the personal benefits and in time had forgotten about it, while one said that he
simply did not have the time. I was unable to get in contact with the last member. I discuss the presented
results in future sections.
4.4.2 Payees
This section presents results from the other side of the two datasets, i.e. results related to payees, both
technology specific and technology unspecific. Payees were asked to rate to which degree they agreed or
disagreed with presented statements, on a scale from one to six with one being “disagree” and six being
“agree”. As I show the results from the two associations in one table, it is important to distinguish between
the association (BIF) who tried the mobile payment system and is able to answer questions related to the
technology and the association (VU) who is only able to answer questions based on the national secretary’s
beliefs about mobile payment systems.
The results that are marked in Table 3, are instances where the interviewee failed to answer from one to
six, but instead used explanatory wording. To make it clear and transparent, I have interpreted the
interviewee’s comments and filled in the appropriate answer. However, it is important to notice that this
auxiliary answer is not included in the discussion of the findings or the evaluation of the framework, in
these cases I discuss and evaluate the articulated response of the interviewee instead.
60
Table 3. Mobile payees – Technology specific and technology unspecific dataset
Measure
Item
Answers from 1 - 6
BIF VU
Ease of use
Importance:
Easy for association to learn
Easy for association to use
Easy for members to learn
4
6
6
5
5
5
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
Learning to use was/will be easy
Using was/will easy
The process was/will be easy and understandable
User interface was/will be easy to understand
Was/will be easy for members to learn
6
6
4
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
2
4
4
4
2
Importance:
Advantageous to association
Advantageous to members
Functions association expects are available
Works when association needs it
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
5
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
Did/will save the association time
Is/will be more flexible than other systems
Is/will be more confident that invoices reaches members
All in all: Is/will be advantageous to the association
1
4
1
2
2
3
5
5
Believe it did/will save members time
All in all: Believe members think it is advantageous
3
2
4
5
4
4
5
On-screen guide could make it easier
Video-guides could make it easier
Tele-support could make it easier
Manuals could make it easier
Usefulness
Constitutes usefulness:
Ability to send members information on phone
The mobile payment system works when I need it
Features the association expected were available
Is/will be quicker to register new members
Is/will be quicker to see who has paied
1
6
Comment
(VU) No justification
1* (BIF) No expectations
2
2
61
Security
Social
compatibility
Ubiquity
Importance:
Security in handling payments
Security in treating personal information
Who handles the payment
6
6
3
4
5
1
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
Payment information is/will be protected
Did/will feel secure
Was/will be worried about the personal information
Personal information used for other purposes
Provider will act in the associations interest
More risky, compared to traditional means
6
6
1
1
6
1
4
4
2
2
4
2
Security concerns:
I think banks and payment institutions are reliable
I think teleproviders are reliable
I think mobile payment providers are reliable
Was/will be worried about theft
Was/will be worried about beeing hacked
6
4
3
1
1
5
4
4
2
2
Importance:
Consistent with members lifestyle
Offer same possibilities as other associations
1
1
5
2
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
Consistent with members lifestyle
Consistent with the way members like to pay
Believe it is fun for members
Believe it is natural to pay association invoices by phone
3
3
1
3
5
5
4
4
Believes it improves association image
Believes it is suitable for the association
Believes other associations offer mobile payment
2
3
2
4
5
3
Importance:
Use mobile payment system anytime and anywhere
Members can pay anytime and anywhere
1
1
5
5
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
Payment system useable anytime and anywhere
Members can pay anytime and anywhere
5
6
4
4
62
Economic
profitability
Importance:
Economically profitable for association
Not economically harmful for association
Not economically harmful for members
3
3
3
3
4
3
Beliefs about mobile payment system:
It is economically profitable for the association
It is economically harmful for the association
Will not use it if it is economically harmful to association
4
1
2
3
2
2
It is economically harmful for the members
Will not use it if it is economically harmful to members
4
4
2
2
The association have access to necessary technology
The necessary proliferation of mobile technology exists
6
6
4
6
Perceived V. P. All the above is important in regards to mobile payment
Difficult to say which is most important
All in all it will be sensible to the association to use
5
2
1
5
5*
5*
The association intend to use the system
1
4
Facilitating
conditions
Intention
Economic profitability – BIF
According to the treasurer of BIF, the association collects fees from members twice a year. In the spring of
2012, they collected fees from 296 members and send out 83 reminders creating a total turnover of
146,450 DKK. In connection with this they had expenses of 1,485.84 DKK or 1% of the turnover.
Economic profitability – VU
Throughout the quarter of April, May and June 2012, VU had income from three different sources, PBS
payment service, debit cards and credit cards. According to the treasurer of VU, a quarter is representative
to the yearly activity. During this time, they had a turnover from debit cards of 40,190 DKK. They paid
758.92 DKK in fees and 887.5 DKK in fixed costs, making the total cost was 1,646.42 DKK or 4.1% of
turnover. During the same period they had a turnover of 58,300 DKK from credit cards while they paid
1,331 DKK in fees as well as 1,000 DKK in fixed costs, making the total cost 2,331 DKK or 4% of turnover.
During this period they also had a turnover of 16,000 DKK from PBS payment service. They paid 1440 DKK in
fees and 532.5 DKK in fixed costs, therefore the total cost was 1,972.5 DKK or 12.3% of turnover. To
summarise, VU had a turnover of 114,490 DKK and the total costs were 5949.95 DKK or 5.2% of the
turnover.
63
5.
1.
2.
3.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING AN EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
5.
4.
RESULTS
6.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
 FINDINGS FROM PAYERS
 FINDINGS FROM PAYEES
 PRESENTING THE EVALUATED FRAMEWORK
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
64
5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
In this section I discuss the results from the perspective of the payer and the payee and finally revise the
suggested framework based on these findings.
5.1 The payers
This section focus on the findings from the payers, unlike the section where the results were presented, the
technology specific and unspecific datasets are not separated in sub-sections, instead the findings
supplement each other and dissimilarities are discussed.
Ease of use
One of the interviewees (Interview 4 - Mathias Thygesen) expresses that easiness of learning to use a
mobile payment technology is important because if it is not easy to learn to use, he would never adopt it.
This implies that a lack of ease of learning to use is negatively related to the rate of adoption by payers,
which is interesting since part of the technology adoption literature integrated in this framework, i.e. the
Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified Theory of Use and Acceptance of Technology, argue that
increased ease of use will increase adoption by payers. From this point of view it is interesting and
unexpected to identify a negative relationship between lack of ease of use and adoption, in contrast to a
positive relationship between ease of use and adoption.
Another interviewee (Interview 5 – Morten Buus) argues that the existing payment technologies are so easy
to use, that increased ease of use would not provide any real value to him. This is inconsistent with the
finding by Dahlberg and Mallat (2003) who, as stated in the literature review, identified ease of use as the
most important managerial concern to increase the perceived value of mobile payment technologies by
payers.
The notion that a lack of ease of use is negatively related to the adoption of a technology originates from
the complexity characteristic from Diffusion of Innovations and Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) found such a
relationship to be the case for payee adoption of mobile payment technologies. As a matter of fact, I have
found no empirical evidence by applying the framework, that supports ease of use as a driver of payer
adoption, only that ease of use is important to payers and that payers believe and expect payment
solutions to be easy to learn to use and easy to use. Based on my findings, it would be more fitting to
65
suggest complexity of mobile payment technologies as an antecedent negatively related to adoption by
payers.
By applying this framework I also identified a discrepancy between the technology specific dataset and the
technology unspecific dataset in terms of what could make mobile payment technologies easier to use. The
results from the unspecific dataset indicate that payers prefer on-screen guides and video guides, as well as
information regarding the payment transaction on the screen, while the technology specific dataset reveals
that payers do not regard on-screen guides as valuable which is contrary to the finding by Olsen et al
(2011). However, according to the interviewees this is due to the simplicity of the tested system in which an
on-screen guide would have been inappropriate and I therefore echo the findings from Olsen et al (2011)
that on-screen guides, on-screen information regarding the transaction status and video guides increase
ease of use for payers, while manuals and telephonic support are less profound.
Usefulness
Applying the framework to payers, has identified that it is important to payers that it is advantageous to
pay by mobile and that payers can rely on mobile payment to work when they need it.
Payers expects to save time by using mobile payment, and my findings suggests that one way payers expect
to save time is by increased transaction speed which a significant amount of payers stated that they would
appreciate, indicating that increased transaction speed increases the perceived value of mobile payments
as found by Chen (2008).
According to the interviewees it is important that the functions they expect are available, one of the
functions in question was the payers ability to see his/her account balance on the screen. Only some payers
expected such a function, while a significant amount would appreciate it, indicating that the perceived
value of mobile payments can be driven by information value as suggested by Carton et al (2012) and that
task-technology fit increases perceived usefulness as suggested by Goodhue (2007) and further epitomised
by Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007).
Neither the technology specific nor the technology unspecific dataset indicates that mobile payment
technologies increases payer’s payment experience as found by Chen (2008).
66
Security
Applying this framework has identified that payer’s place importance on the security of mobile payments,
as found by Chen (2008). However, payers do not attribute the same importance to who handles payment,
indicating that banks, mobile operators and new mobile payment service providers all have the ability to
provide secure and trusted payment handling services, which is contrary the findings by Dahlberg and
Mallat (2002).
I have identified several discrepancies between the technology specific and unspecific dataset, indicating
that security concerns in general are greater prior to adoption. The best example indicating this is the
significant amount of respondents worried about theft and hacking from the technology unspecific dataset
and the exact opposite from the interviewees who tried the mobile payment system. This is an interesting
finding which I do not believe have been identified previously in any academic literature, and it indicates (1)
that the tested system has the required security measures to make payers feel secure and (2) that payers
are generally more concerned about security prior to experience with a technology, once a technology has
been tested the security measures are accepted or rejected, if accepted the worry vanishes. Though my
results are insufficient to conclude on the last part, it is conclusive that security is an important antecedent
of payer adoption of mobile payment technologies as identified previously in mobile payment literature
(Poutsttchi & Wiedemann, 2007).
Social compatibility
Chen (2008) identified social compatibility i.e. consistency with lifestyle and the way the payer likes to pay,
as the most influential variable of payer adoption and by applying the same definition as Chen, I expected
to produce similar results. Contrary to expectations, I found consistency with lifestyle to be of only limited
importance, and actually the antecedent that payers gave the least importance to. One of the interviewees
(Interview 3 – Gustav Skov) expresses consistency with lifestyle as unimportant, because he is certain that it
is consistent with his lifestyle, thus consistency is not important. When confronted with the idea of a
mobile payment technology that is inconsistent with his lifestyle, he quickly rephrases his answer, stating
that then he would never use such a technology. Another interviewee (Interview 4 – Mathias Thygesen)
support this view, stating that consistency with lifestyle is important, because the alternative i.e.
inconsistency, would lead to no adoption.
Contrary to the findings by Hedman and Gimpel (2010), who identified social values as more influential
than functional values in regard to the adoption of hyped technologies, these findings suggest that
usefulness is a more influential antecedent of adoption of mobile payment technologies than social
67
compatibility. The difference in these results could be related to the reliance on two different definitions of
“social”, i.e. Hedman and Gimpel rely on visibility and symbolic importance of a technology when defining
social value and thus to some degree incorporates the observability characteristic by Rogers (1983) which
the integrated framework does not consider, while the integrated framework follows Chen’s (2008)
suggestion to consider consistency with lifestyle and thus relies more on the compatibility characteristic by
Rogers (1983).
Consequently, I have found no evidence indicating that consistency with lifestyle or the way the payer like
to pay, can drive adoption of mobile payment technologies. My results on the other hand, indicate that a
lack of consistency with lifestyle can negatively influence the adoption of mobile payment technologies,
which is theoretically underpinned by Rogers compatibility characteristic, which as showed in the literature
review argues that the adoption of an incompatible technology will often require prior adoption of new
values, and consequently be adopted more slowly or not adopted at all (Rogers, 1983). Despite having
theoretical grounding in Diffusion of Innovations, it is to my knowledge unseen prior in the mobile payment
literature, that the lack of social compatibility is negatively related to the lack of adoption, in contrast to a
positive relationship as identified by Chen (2008).
Ubiquity
I found that payers consider it important to be able to pay by mobile phone anytime and anywhere,
furthermore my results propose that payers appreciate being able to pay anywhere and anytime by mobile
phone. In these cases, the perceived value by the customer is increased through the mobility value, which
is contrary to the proposal by Carton et al (2012) that value to payers should be created through
information value in contrast to mobility. However, I also identified that payers would appreciate the ability
to see their account balance on the screen, which is a case of perceived value increased through the
information value. Nonetheless, I find my results somewhat insufficient to conclude upon mobility vs.
information value, however one could argue that with the current payment means payers are able to pay
almost anytime and anywhere, which is why in relative terms the possibility of increasing perceived value is
greater in regard to information value than mobility value. Nevertheless, ubiquity has been identified as an
important antecedent of payer adoption which is supported by Clarke (2001) and Frolick and Chen (2004).
Economical profitability
All respondents, both technology specific and unspecific agree that it is important that it is economic
profitable to pay by mobile phone and all agree that it is important that mobile payment technologies are
68
not economically harmful, supporting the finding by Dahlberg and Mallat (2002) that consumers do not
wish to adopt mobile payment technologies if the price is higher than conventional payment possibilities.
It is interesting that the results indicate that payers will not use mobile payment technologies if they are
economically harmful, and nonetheless members of the association who tested the system express
willingness to use the mobile payment system despite being economically harmful, arguing that it could be
beneficial to the association. It is plausible that this willingness to suffer economically harmfulness is
unique to the specific case of voluntary associations in which members of the association spend several
years and get a sense of ownership. This is what is expressed by the interviewees (Interview 4 – Mathias
Thygesen) and is supported by the finding from the technology unspecific dataset, which echoes previous
findings from the mobile payment literature, that the adoption of mobile payment technologies is sensitive
to costs.
Applying the framework I also identified that few payers expect to receive special loyalty points and
discounts by paying by mobile phone, while many more would appreciate such initiatives, indicating that a
positive relationship exists between economic benefits and the adoption of mobile payment technologies
and not merely a negative relationship between economically harmfulness and adoption as previous
mobile payment literature has indicated. This is further supported by the finding that payers would
appreciate economically profitability, consequently economic profitability and economically harmfulness
are both important antecedents of payer adoption of mobile payment technologies.
Facilitating conditions
Regarding facilitating conditions I found that payers have the required technology to handle a mobile
payment, thus the necessary proliferation of mobile technologies is present. The actual environmental
factors which influence adoption of mobile payment technologies directly, are in favour of mobile payment
technologies in this case. The facilitating conditions construct is important to preserve as the actual
environmental factors that directly influence adoption is subject to change if the framework is applied in
other mobile payment contexts.
Contextual perceived value proposition and intentions
All respondents agree that all of the antecedents explored are important in regard to mobile payments,
supporting the perceived value proposition construct and my theory that the salient belief variables
identified constitute a combined value proposition which is perceived by the individual in the context and
that this combination of salient beliefs influence the intention to adopt.
69
Despite the fact that the presented results indicate that members of the association who tested the
system, do not find it difficult to identify the single most important antecedent of adoption, the results still
indicate that payers find it difficult to identify the single most important antecedent since all the
interviewees rely on more than one antecedent to explain which antecedent is the single most important,
except Mathias Thygesen (Interview 1 – Thomas Boie, Interview 2 – Patrick Borg, Interview 3 Gustav Skov,
Interview 5 – Morten Buus).
I have identified a relationship between the contextual perceived value proposition and intentions, since
60% association members state that it would be sensible for them to use the mobile payment system and
60% state that they intend to do so. Similarly 77.5% of the respondents to the questionnaire believe that it
will be sensible for them to use mobile payments and 77.5% intend to do so.
5.2 The payees
This section focus on the findings from the two associations and similarly to the results section the
technology specific and unspecific datasets are not separated by sub-sections, instead the findings
supplement each other and dissimilarities are discussed.
Ease of use
Both associations agree that it is important that it is easy to learn to use new mobile payment technologies,
as they continuously replace their workforce. According to Heijden (2002) this is similar to other business
scenarios as easiness to learn limits the resources required to training and knowledge management in
regard to personnel turnover.
However, according to the treasurer of BIF ease of continuous use is of greater importance to the
association, than the ease of learning to use. He argues that the association would be willing to invest time
in learning a new system that would somehow make daily tasks easier to complete.
Both associations agree that it is important that it is easy for members (payers) to learn to use the mobile
payment system, however none of the associations express it as an opportunity to increase purchases or
facilitate sales, quite to the contrary according to the associations it is important that it is easy for members
to learn the new mobile payment technology to maintain or as a minimum not decrease payment
propensity, i.e. it is expressed as a concern, not as an opportunity. This is supported by Mallat and
70
Tuunainen (2008) who found that complexity i.e. lack of ease of use, is a barrier of adoption in contrast to a
driver of adoption.
Actually, the only indication of a motivating variable is that from the treasurer of BIF who put emphasis on
more efficiency in the daily operations, i.e. something that makes his everyday routines take up less time.
This is a case of task-technology fit and mitigated through the usefulness variable, consequently no
motivating variables emerges from ease of use, which makes lack of ease of use or complexity as a barrier
of payee adoption a more appropriate terminology.
Both associations agree that on-screen guide, if designed elegantly and not distracting, as well as videoguide could increase ease of use. Both suggested that telephonic support could be a good last stance, while
none of them thought much of manuals.
I have found no empirical evidence by applying the framework, that supports ease of use as a driver of
payee adoption, instead all of the above echoes the finding by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) who identified
complexity or lack of ease of use as a barrier to payee adoption of mobile payment technologies, in
contrast to a driver of adoption. This is contrary to the Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology who argues that ease of use increase system usage,
nonetheless it is supported by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) and Heijden (2002) and has theoretical
grounding in the complexity characteristic from Diffusion of Innovations which argue that the complexity of
an innovation is negatively related to its rate of adoption. To recapitulate, evidence has been presented
that the ease of use variable is an influential antecedent of payee adoption as a barrier of adoption and
consequently should be included in the framework as such.
Usefulness
By integrating task-technology fit variables to the framework and applying the framework to the
associations I found that both associations agree that it is important that using a mobile payment system is
advantageous to the association.
One of the variables that could be advantageous to associations and is tested with the application of this
framework, based on Chen (2008), is time. It is an interesting finding that none of the associations believed
that a mobile payment system would save them time. VU did not believe a mobile payment system would
be able to replace their existing systems and BIF made it clear that the mobile payment system in question
71
could not replace their existing system. Consequently, in both cases a mobile payment system would be a
supplement to their existing systems and therefore take up more time.
This is an interesting finding for developers of mobile payment services as time saving has been echoed
throughout mobile payment literature as a perceived advantage (Chen, 2008) (Dahlberg et al, 2007). This
finding suggests that developers should design mobile payment systems to payees that can either entirely
replace existing systems or complement existing systems by providing relatively superior value propositions
and limit the amount of extra time required to maintain an additional system, i.e. technological
compatibility, integration with existing systems, easy import/export of data, etc.
Further related to the importance of advantageousness is the presence of expected functions, which is
important to both associations. According to the treasurer of BIF, their current system is called ClubOffice
and provided for free to all football clubs by the national football association. It includes essential
functionalities such as a platform for handling of player certificates and a communication platform for
handling of important information to and from the national football association. A mobile payment system
cannot simply replace these functionalities since the national football association controls the player
certificates and decides the formal communication channels regarding official rescheduling of games,
changes of referees for games, etc. Thus this is a case of lack of task-technology fit which decreases the
usefulness of the tested mobile payment system and this lack of task-technology fit is likely to be applicable
to all mobile payment systems entering this market.
The importance of expected functions was pointed out by the national secretary of VU, who stated that the
refusal to adopt Foreningsbetaling was based on the absence of one particular function, i.e. a lack of tasktechnology fit. According to him, VU require a mobile payment system that offers the possibility of charging
new members anytime and anywhere, without having to go through a considerable registration process.
During election campaigns, national rallies, VU meet numerous young people inspired by the moment to
join the association, but by handing these young people a giro or telling them to go online the majority
never gets any further. Consequently VU is in need of a system that is able to react in that spontaneous
moment and handle anywhere and anytime payment of first time payers in as short a time as possible.
Foreningsbetaling involves a standard and straightforward registration process (name, address, e-mail,
phone, payment information, etc.) which is too lengthy and consequently Foreningsbetaling was not
adopted by VU due to a lack of task-technology fit
72
Interestingly, the two associations had very different beliefs related to the degree of confidence that
invoices will reach members. VU believed that members often change addresses and neglect informing the
association resulting in invoices that bounce back, whereas people rarely change their phone numbers.
Therefore VU felt more confident that invoices would reach members by phone. BIF stated that if people
do move the invoice does indeed bounces back and in that case the association is notified, while with
phone numbers there is a risk that the owner of the number has changed and the new owner receives an
SMS intended to the prior owner and the association might not be notified about such faulty destination,
hence BIF felt much less secure that invoices would reach members.
Conclusively, the application of this framework to the two case associations has identified the importance
of usefulness driven by task-technology fit and thus can echo the findings from research applying the
Technology Acceptance Model, i.e. that usefulness is a very influential antecedent. The specific mobile
payment technology helped demonstrate this importance. The applications of the framework has identified
that disperse beliefs regarding mobile payment technologies exists as well as great differences in task
requirements, indicating that developers need keen insights in to the expectations and requirements of
their intended customers. All in all the lack of task-technology fit greatly influenced perceived usefulness as
suggested by Goodhue (2007) and found by Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007). This in turn was profoundly
influential on the perceived value proposition of mobile payment systems and the final decision to not
adopt.
Security
Both associations agree that security in handling payments and personal information is important, however
neither place much emphasis as to which company handles the payment. Banks and financial institutions,
telecom providers and new mobile payment providers were all found reliable and trusted with a slight
favour to banks and financial institutions, echoing the finding by Mallat (2008) that trust in mobile payment
providers is currently not the most significant barrier of adoption. This is further elucidated by the
associations who state that mobile payment is not considered more risky than traditional payment means.
According to the treasurer of BIF, password protected login and certifications by the national Financial
Services Authority provide sufficient security measures to avoid mistrust by payees. Furthermore I
identified no worry related to hacking or theft as suggested by Chen (2008).
Having applied the framework I can echo the findings that security is an influential antecedent of payee
adoption as found by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) and Heijden (2002), as both associations place emphasis
on the importance of security in both handling of payments and personal information.
73
Social compatibility
Related to the importance of mobile payment technologies being consistent with payer’s lifestyles, the
associations disagreed greatly. Based on their answers, this difference can be traced to the association’s
intentions with mobile payment systems. BIF is only concerned with collecting fees from the existing
members and that is why according to the treasurer lifestyle is not a concern. Oppositely, VU is interested
in acquiring more members, i.e. facilitating sales by offering mobile payment, which is why consistency of
the mobile payment technology with the payer’s lifestyle is important to the association.
Furthermore, the treasurer of BIF does not believe that paying by mobile phone is consistent with the
member’s lifestyle or the way members like to pay. He argues that despite having many young members
who might be in to mobile payment, the fact is that the ones carrying out payments of fees are the parents
of the young members and the adult members and according to him these have no interest in mobile
payment.
Contrary to BIF, VU believes that mobile payment is consistent with member’s lifestyle and the way they
like to pay. The national secretary of VU also relies on the age of the members as the reasoning, stating that
their members are young people who are interested in the mobile technology, that it will be fun for
members and improve the association’s image.
These results suggest that payee adoption is influenced by the payee’s perception of the consistency of the
mobile payment technology with the payer’s lifestyle and that the payee’s perception of the consistency of
the mobile payment technology with the payer’s lifestyle is strongly influenced by the context as defined by
Carton et al (2012) i.e. the nature of the service being purchased, where the payment is being made and
especially who is involved. Venkatesh et al (2003) also place emphasis on the “who” in regard to social
compatibility arguing that its influence is moderated by gender, age, experience and voluntariness.
By applying this framework I have found evidence that social compatibility can be influential to payee
adoption, however the degree of importance attributed to social compatibility is subjective to the context.
Previous studies which have identified social compatibility as important considered payer adoption, such as
Chen (2008), thus the finding that social compatibility can be influential to payee adoption is to my
knowledge an undocumented finding so far.
74
Ubiquity
Similarly to social compatibility, the two associations disagreed in regard to ubiquity. According to VU, the
ability to use the system anywhere and anytime and the possibility for members to pay anytime and
anywhere is very important and obviously related to both the expected functionality described in the
usefulness sub-section above as well as the intention to acquire more members by providing mobile
payment possibilities. This is consistent with Carton et al (2012) who argue that anytime, anywhere
accessibility of mobile phone increases payee access to location specific payers and thereby increases sales
opportunities, increasing perceived value proposition through mobility. Consequently, by applying this
framework I can echo the findings that payee adoption of mobile payment systems can be influenced by
ubiquity.
Contrary, the treasurer of BIF argues that ubiquity is not important for the association or the members as
he cannot see how this would increase payment propensity, which is in coherence with Mallat and
Tuunainen’s (2008) findings that payees have difficulty leveraging the benefits of mobility in their business.
Consequently the degree of influence ubiquity has on the perceived value proposition is related to the
context and the payee’s intention with a mobile payment system.
Economical profitability
The associations agree that to the association economic profitability is only of limited importance and that
other matters are of greater concern, and similarly the importance of economical harmfulness is limited.
Both associations agree however, that economic profitability is to some extend influential to their final
decision.
As shown in the results section, VU had costs of 5,949.95 DKK related to payment handling throughout a
three month period. Had all payments been handled via Foreningsbetaling, the accumulated costs for the
same period would have been 207 DKK. This is possible since Foreningsbetaling relocates costs from the
association to the members. The association only pays a monthly fee, variable according to the size of the
association, while the members pay a fee per payment variable to the amount of the payment.
According to the treasurer BIF had total costs of 1,485.84 DKK related to payment handling over a six
month period. He was unable to locate any additional costs even though the presented costs are lower
than those found on the provider’s webpage (Nets) which includes a quarterly fee of 450 DKK. BIF’s total
75
costs would have been 234 DKK or 0.16% of turnover in the same period had all payments been handled
through Foreningsbetaling.
It is interesting that the relative difference is so significant (5,949.95 is 28 times greater than 207), but since
the total amount of 5,949.95 DKK amounts to 5.2% of the total turnover, it is not a concern to the
association which limits the degree of importance. The treasurer of BIF supports this view, arguing that the
total costs related to payment handling is insignificant in the broader picture.
It is plausible that the importance of economic profitability is limited by the nature of associations in
contrast to other businesses who might place a greater emphasis on optimising profits, at least Heijden
(2002) and Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) found more significant results related to the importance of
economic conditions and their influence on payee adoption. Nonetheless, as both associations agree that
to some extent economic profitability is influential to their final choice, the application of this framework
has identified that economic profitability is influential on payee adoption of mobile payment technologies,
even though it is only to a limited extent in the case of voluntary associations. Consequently, developers
should consider cost and pricing structure when developing mobile payment technologies.
Another interesting point related to economic profitability and examined by applying this framework is the
voluntary associations concern about member’s costs. Neither of the associations expressed any real
concern, but both use contradicting arguments. The treasurer of BIF argue that since members only pay the
membership fee twice a year, a fee is of no concern and the national secretary of VU argues that the
association would most likely cover the members costs. These results are inconclusive and need further
examination, but they imply that payer’s costs to some extent are important to the payee and that this
degree is influenced by the payer-payee context.
Facilitating conditions
Regarding facilitating conditions both associations said that they have the required technology to handle a
mobile payment system and that the required proliferation of mobile technologies is present. Consequently
the actual environmental factors that directly influence adoption of mobile payment technologies which
are identified with the application of this framework, are in favour of mobile payment technologies in this
case. The facilitating conditions construct is important to preserve as the actual environmental factor that
directly influence adoption is subject to change if the framework is applied in other mobile payment
contexts.
76
Contextual perceived value proposition and intention
Both associations agree that all of the antecedents tested in this framework, are important in regard to
mobile payments. Both of the associations replied to the question that it is difficult to point out exactly
what is the most important, with an initial “no”. According to the treasurer of BIF the single most important
attribute was that a mobile payment system should not make his work anymore complicated and according
to the national secretary of VU the single most important attribute was that it was easy and intuitive to pay
via the mobile payment system.
However, when further questioned both associations revealed that the initial straightforwardness might
have been inaccurate. The national secretary of VU admitted that the functions of the system are essential
and the initial reason why Foreningsbetaling proved inadequate was its lack of one specific function as
mentioned above. This specific function is closely related to the ubiquity of mobile payment. Furthermore
he addresses that consistency with the members lifestyles, who are mainly young people, is the reason why
the association see such a great potential in mobile payments. Initially he argues that security and
economic profitability are secondary concerns, but later reveals that security should not be taken lightly as
the Privacy Act is important to follow and that the purpose of a mobile payment system is to acquire more
members which in turn grant the association funding from the state, i.e. economic profitability, thus
completing the full circle of antecedents that are tested in this framework. The treasurer of BIF states that
his answer, i.e. making his job more efficient, is based on his own premises and suggests that it is plausible
that the board of the association would place emphasis on several other attributes.
I have identified a relationship between the contextual perceived value proposition and intentions.
According to the treasurer of BIF, it would not all in all, be sensible for the association to use a mobile
payment system and he states that the association has no intention of using a mobile payment system. On
the other hand, the national secretary of VU argues that it would all in all be sensible for the association to
use a mobile payment system assuming that the system includes the expected functions and that the
association intend to use a mobile payment system.
5.3 Presenting the evaluated framework
Having presented and discussed my findings from applying the integrated framework, I present the changes
to the framework and reiterate some of the findings in a manageable manner prior to presenting the
evaluated framework. I conclude on the findings as well as discuss the limitations of the framework.
77
Table 4. Changes and
findings
Payer
Payee
Ease of use
Changed to "Complexity"
Reflects payer's belief, i.e. barrier
Video-guide increases ease of use
On-screen guide increases ease of use
On-screen status increases ease of use
Changed to "Complexity"
Reflects payee's belief, i.e. barrier
Video-guide increases ease of use
On-screen guide increases ease of use
Telephonic support as last stance
Worry about specific payers (older members)
Usefulness
Important driver of adoption
TTF increases Usefulness
Increased transaction speed appreciated
On-screen account balance appreciated (information value)
Important driver of adoption
TTF increases Usefulness
Presence of expected functions are influential to intention
Not time saving (supplementary system)
Important antecedent of adoption
Unimportant who handles the payment
Indicates more concern prior to experience
Sufficient security measures (Login and certifications)
Not more risky than other payment possibilities
Important antecedent of adoption
Unimportant who handles the payment
Not more risky than other payment possibilities
Sufficient security measures (Login and certifications)
Handling of personal information important
Inconsistency with lifestyle is a barrier
Image not improved
Importance is variable to the context
Adoption influenced by consistency with payer's lifestyle
Mobility value can be a driver
Opportunity for increased value through information value
Increases the value proposition through mobility value
Can be a driver of adoption
Economic harmfulness can prevent adoption
Payers can be willing to suffer economic harmfulness
Loyalties and discounts are appreciated
Is influential to decision making
Is not a significant proportion
Payer's costs are influential
All tested antecedents are important and influential
The importance is variable to the context
Difficulty identifying the most important antecedent
Accurate relationship between PVP and intention
All antecedents are important and influential
The importance is variable to the context
Difficulty identifying the most important antecedent
Relationship between PVP and intention
Measure
Security
Social compatibility
Ubiquity
Economic profitability
Perceived value
proposition in the context
To summarise some of the most interesting findings from the application of the framework these include
(1) the notion that payer and payee adoption are interrelated, since neither association adopted the mobile
payment technology, neither could the members. (2) Payee adoption is highly influenced by usefulness
mediated through task-technology fit and especially the presence of expected functions, since both
associations disregarded the mobile payment technology due to the absence of certain functions. (3) Payee
adoption can be influenced by payer’s costs and the technologies’ consistency with payer’s lifestyle and (4)
lack of ease of use is a barrier to adoption for both payers and payees in contrast to ease of use as a driver
of adoption.
78
Most importantly my findings are evidence that the adoption of mobile payment technologies by payees is
highly contextual, since the two association’s requirements to and intentions with mobile payment
technologies were widely disparate. Similarly, though not to the same extent as payees, the adoption of
mobile payment technologies by payers proved sensitive to the context as payers clearly stated economic
harmfulness would impede adoption, still some would endure such harmfulness in the right context.
Consequently my findings suggest that developers direct attention towards closer cooperation with payers
and especially payees, which is supported by the recent meta-analysis by Dahlberg et al. (2007).
By applying the integrated framework, I have demonstrated the frameworks ability to increase
understanding of adoption of mobile payment technologies, by both payers and payees. The application of
the framework has displayed its ability to explain behaviour by emphasising the importance ascribed to
each antecedent, the beliefs about each antecedent as well as what constitutes each antecedent from the
perspective of both the payer and payee. The framework has deepened the understanding of adoption of
mobile payment technologies by de-black-boxing the antecedents of mobile payment adoption which
provide design-advices to develop successful mobile payment technologies. Based on the findings from the
application I have evaluated the framework and below I depict the finalised framework.
Source: Own contribution
The most significant change to the framework is the rephrasing of the ease of use construct to a complexity
construct. As identified with the application of the framework, complexity better grasps the payer and
payee’s beliefs about mobile payment technology. Payers did not express that ease of use relative to
79
substitutes would lead to increased use, instead they expressed that mobile payment technologies should
be easy to learn to use because if it is the case that mobile payment technologies are not easy to learn to
use, payers will never use it. Similarly, payees did not express that ease of use relative to substitutes would
lead to increased use, contrarily they expressed concern that lack of ease of use would lower payment
propensity. Thus the complexity construct which has been identified by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) as
influential to payee adoption of mobile payment technologies and has theoretical grounding in the
complexity characteristic from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 1983) has been identified with the
application of this framework as influential to both payer and payee adoption of mobile payment
technologies.
The evaluated framework can be applied to explain the adoption or non-adoption of single instances of
mobile payment technologies, as done in this thesis. Applying the original framework in this manner
revealed that a lack of usefulness, the absence of expected functions, the maintenance of two systems, etc.
led to non-adoption of the mobile payment technology in question by payees and provided design-oriented
advices.
The evaluated framework can be applied to increase understanding of why mobile payment technologies
are adopted by payers and payees, as done in this thesis. Applying the original framework in this manner
revealed that payees consider payer’s costs of using mobile payment technologies, that consistency with
payer’s lifestyle can be influential to payee adoption, that the absence of expected functions is influential
to payee adoption and several other interesting findings discussed and epitomised above. Furthermore
applying the original framework in this manner revealed several findings related to payer adoption such as
information value can increase usefulness, it is unimportant who handles the payment, economic
profitability, loyalties and discounts can drive adoption of mobile payment technologies by payers. By
applying the framework either to increase understanding of mobile payment technology adoption or
explain adoption or non-adoption of a single mobile payment technology, the framework can and has
provided design-oriented advices to help develop successful mobile payment technologies.
5.3.1 Limitations of the evaluated framework
The suggested framework integrates social psychology theories which build on the main assumption that
individuals are rational in considering their actions and the implications of their actions and accordingly
behave rationally. Thus these underpinning theories exclude emotions and habits when explaining
behaviour (Benbasat & Barki, 2007). The technology adoption theories building on these social psychology
80
theories, the Technology Acceptance Model and the Unified Theory of Use and Acceptance of Technology
rely on the same assumption and have been criticised for not considering emotions and habits when
explaining adoption of technologies (Benbasat & Barki, 2007), as other researchers such as Hedman and
Gimpel (2010) do. Since the suggested framework is underpinned by these two social psychology theories
and these two technology adoption theories, the suggested framework rely on the same assumption that
individual’s behave rationally and thus is limited by its exclusion of emotions and habits in explaining
adoption.
The suggested framework follows its underpinning models and consequently relies on the criticised
assumption that behavioural intention is the most immediate antecedent of behaviour and that individual’s
act on their intentions. Sheeran (2002) and Bagozzi (2007) have expressed concerns about this assumption,
however Sheeran (2002) recognises that intention will remain the primary antecedent of behaviour in for
the foreseeable future and Ajzen (1991) point out that despite wide criticism, plentiful studies have
indicated a correlation between intentions and behaviour.
The integrated framework suggested in this thesis is also underpinned by the characteristics of innovations
from Rogers Diffusion of Innovations, however only three of five characteristics are assessed. Trialability
and observability are not mitigated through any of the antecedents and consequently their influence to the
adoption of mobile payment technologies by payers and payees are not uncovered with the application of
this framework. Consequently, the exclusion of trialability and observability risk yielding a limited
understanding of adoption of mobile payment technologies. Since other researchers have applied the full
set of characteristics a logical extension of the framework would be to include trialability and observability
and future research should attempt to do so.
When addressing social compatibility from the perspective of the payee, the framework builds on Chen
(2008) and Rogers (1983) and suggests that the extent to which mobile payment technologies are
consistent with the payers lifestyle is of importance to payees. Consequently the framework neglects to
consider payees as social actors themselves, i.e. that payees have a social profile which could be of
importance to them and mobile payment technologies could be influential to this social profile. The
framework only considers this by emphasising the payee’s image. Future extensions of the framework
should consider the social profile of the payee more thoroughly, as well as mobile payment technologies
influence on this.
81
The framework has been applied to two associations or more accurately it builds on findings from two
persons, one in each association. First of all, these do have insights into the association’s decision making
process but neither are the sole decision makers, nonetheless they still answer the questions based on their
own premises. It is plausible that the decision makers of each association, as a group, would place emphasis
on other attributes and this could change the results. Secondly, there are significantly contextual
differences between the two associations indicating that a larger sample could reveal more accurate
findings. Lastly, all of the association members were male between the age of 23 and 27, data from other
age groups could reveal different findings as well. Consequently future applications of the framework
should include more respondents as well as a more differentiated set of respondents.
82
2.
3.
FRAMING THE
A REVISION OF
DEVELOPING AN EMPIRICAL
DISCUSSION OF METHODOLOGY
THESIS
THE EXISTING
INTEGRATED
FINDINGS
LITERATURE
FRAMEWORK
6.
4.
RESULTS
5.
6.
1.
METHODOLOGY
 METHODOLOGY
 QUESTIONNAIRE
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN 2012
83
6. METHODOLOGY
This section shed light on my approach to the study. I find it relevant to elaborate on the different layers of
methodology as my perception and choices made in this regard affects the problem of concern and
consequently the final conclusions (Andersen, 2005) (Fuglsang & Olsen, 2004). The methodology section
will be structured according to the figure below, which is inspired by Saunders et al.’s “Research Process
Onion” (Saunders et al., 2009).
Source: Own contribution
The figure above illuminates the relationships between the different procedural layers. In the following I
shed light on my philosophical stance, research approach, research strategy, data collection and conclude
on the validity and reliability of my findings.
6.1.1 Research philosophy – My approach to science
The research philosophy can be seen as the approach to science. Reflections about the research philosophy
are critical to incorporate as they illuminate the important assumptions that underpin my overall research
methodology and subsequently my concrete choice of method (Saunders et al., 2009). I clarify my research
philosophy through ontology which is “(…) concerned with the nature of reality” and epistemology which
“(…) concerns what constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study” (Saunders et al., 2009)
84
To describe my scientific standpoint I show the individual extremes of ontology and epistemology. As
understanding the extremes yields an understanding of the continuum.
Ontological position – What is the nature of my reality?
The ontological position addresses how I perceive reality. Looking at the extremes within the literature, in
one end we find objectivism which is also referred to as the positivistic stance. Based on the fact that only
the observable and measureable exists, subscribers to this position believe in an unambiguous truth where
there is a universal 1-to-1 relationship between object and subject (Fuglsang & Olsen, 2004). The exact
opposite is the subjectivist position, in which the constructivists argue that what exists in the world is based
on individuals’ perceptions and beliefs, meaning that the truth is created among individuals.
Recognising both of the extremes I embrace the mind-set of the positivist. This position acknowledges the
observable and measureable and is independent of social construction. Relating my scientific stance to
adoption of mobile payment technologies and this thesis, I acknowledge only measurable and observable
parameters. Essentially I believe in quantifiable parameters. Below I illustrate my ontological stance:
Source: Own contribution
Epistemological position – What constitutes acceptable knowledge?
There is a close connection between what I believe is the nature of reality and what I believe constitutes
acceptable knowledge. When defining my epistemological position, I therefore naturally subscribe to the
positivist.
I believe that acceptable knowledge can be created by combining theoretical evidence and empirical
observations. Furthermore I disregard the social constructivist mentality which exclusively relies on
individuals’ perception of reality as acceptable knowledge. Conclusively an absolute truth supported by
sound argumentation is pursued. Relating my epistemological position to this thesis, I draw on theoretical
85
evidence and empirical observations when answering the research question. Furthermore, the theories in
the thesis are positivistic in nature and applied as such. I illustrate my epistemological position below:
Source: Own contribution
Having identified the philosophical and epistemological positions, I have stated my scientific standing point.
In the following sections the more practical approaches are emphasised.
6.1.2 Research approach
According to Saunders et al there are two ways to produce knowledge; deduction or induction (Saunders et
al., 2009). Deduction is characterised by its evidence-based approach, drawing conclusions on individual
events based on theories. In contrast, induction is characterised by the experience-based approach, making
general conclusions from observing a single event (Andersen, 2005).
Deduction
Deduction “(…) involves the development of a theory that is subject to a rigorous test” (Saunderset al.,
2009). Deduction involves a number of stages which in the end allow for examination of a theory. At first, a
testable theoretical proposition is outlined and then tried on a case and either confirmed or refuted.
This thesis operates closely within the realm of deduction. Following the stages of a deductive approach I
initially set out to collect data and structure mobile payment literature to integrate a framework supported
by social psychology theories and technology adoption theories that could answer the question of why
mobile payment technologies are adopted by payers and payees. I then set out to test the framework on an
illustrative case to identify potential shortcomings and finally review and evaluate my findings.
The selection of the deductive approach is a logical choice to this type of thesis, which affects how the
thesis has been generated as described above. Furthermore, the deductive approach is consistent with my
ontological and epistemological positions described above. Having outlined my research approach, the
more concrete research strategy will be emphasised.
86
6.1.3 Research strategy
Though the research question has been posed prior by technology adoption researchers, this thesis is
mainly explorative in nature as I attempted to gain new insights into adoption of new mobile payment
technologies, by applying a new framework which encapsulates the payer, the payee and the context to a
new empirical setting, i.e. voluntary associations.
More unmistakably, I integrated a framework based upon social psychology theories, technology adoption
theories and mobile payment literature. I applied the framework to a real life context in an ex ante setting.
This provided new insight into how new mobile payment technologies are adopted by users which supports
future development of new mobile payment technologies.
As a consequence of the above, the first part of the thesis is a review of social psychology theories,
technology adoption theories and mobile payment literature, which is followed by an integration of the
theories to a new framework. The framework is then applied to payers in an association who tried a new
mobile payment technology, payees in an association who tried a new mobile payment technology, payers
who did not try a new mobile payment technology and payees who did not try a new mobile technology.
The results of the application are presented, then discussed and lastly evaluated resulting in the proposal of
an evaluated framework.
Now that the structure of the thesis has been explained as well as why it is structured like this, the single
case method will be emphasised and a section about data collection will follow.
Case method
Saunders et al argue that a case method is “(…) a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical
investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence (Saunders et al., 2009). A case method facilitates both theory-building and empirical tests of the
phenomenon in question, and therefore is chosen to support the thesis.
A case study investigates only one or few units, but is highly relevant to test existing theories on an
empirical basis, in order to justify whether the theory is applicable in real life contexts. According to
Saunders et al a case study can be selected when it allows one to observe and analyse a phenomenon that
few have considered before. As this thesis is explorative in nature and integrates a framework in a way
87
which to my knowledge has not been done prior in any academic journals, the choice to utilise a case study
is a logical one.
Despite constituting a significant part of the Danish society, the amount of research in voluntary
associations has been very limited. Spurred by the possibility of uncovering new findings unique to the case
of voluntary association, I chose voluntary associations as the case study for this thesis. I discovered that
the practical implication of this choice is primarily associated with the people in voluntary associations, who
to my experience have a hard time allocating time and resources for a project like mine, thus resulting in
weeks of response time, difficulty scheduling meetings and only limited time to gain insights into the
mobile payment technology (Foreningsbetaling). Consequently, the results from the association who tested
the mobile payment technology, is founded upon an introduction to the mobile payment system, initial use
and only a very limited amount of continuous use. It is therefore possible that the association in question
had a hard time grasping the benefits and disadvantages of continuous use of the specific mobile payment
system, nonetheless the interview was conducted without seamless interference except for one question
related to the association’s expectation that the mobile payment system will work whenever necessary, to
which the association honestly replied that it had no foundation to answer.
Data collection
To go systematically about data collection a number of techniques are present. Andersen distinguishes
between qualitative and quantitative techniques (Andersen, 2005). I have used both of these techniques as
they support each other.
I collected quantitative data from an online questionnaire, with 44 respondents of which 40 completed the
questionnaire. The questionnaire addressed payer’s adoption of mobile payment technologies by
determining the importance attributed to each antecedent, the payer’s beliefs about each antecedent as
well as what constitutes each antecedent. The uncompleted questionnaires were disregarded.
I collected quantitative and qualitative data by conducting interviews with five payers who tested a mobile
payment technology (Foreningsbetaling). The interview addressed payer’s adoption of mobile payment
technologies by determining the importance attributed to each antecedent, the payer’s beliefs about the
mobile payment technology and each antecedent as well as what constitutes each antecedent in regard to
the specific mobile payment technology.
88
I collected quantitative and qualitative data by conducting interviews with two payees (Claus Chammon,
Treasurer of Brødeskov Idrætsforening and Morten Østergaard, National Secretary of Venstres Ungdom),
one who tested a mobile payment technology (Foreningsbetaling) and one who did not test a mobile
payment technology. The interview addressed payee’s adoption of mobile payment technologies by
determining the importance attributed to each antecedent, the payer’s beliefs each antecedent as well as
what constitutes each antecedent.
Another differentiation made by Andersen, is whether the gathering of the raw data is conducted by the
scientist himself or by other institutions or scientists. If the data is collected by the scientist himself, it is
denoted as primary data. If the data is collected by institutions or other scientists the data is denoted as
secondary data.
I have gathered data from primary data sources stemming from several stakeholders, including interviews
with Morten Østergaard Sørensen, National Secretary of Venstre Ungdom, Claus Chammon, Treasurer of
Brødeskov Idrætsforening, Rene Lundbæk Sørensen, Partner of Pay4it and several members of Brødeskov
Idrætsforening and Venstres Ungdom.
The interviews were conducted at a late stage, in order to build a profound knowledge base prior to
conducting the interviews. Consequently, the interviews were structured around predetermined questions,
with little to none deviation from the predetermined questionnaire, presented in the next section. All
interviews were conducted in Danish, the questions and answers were translated to English afterwards.
A vast amount of secondary data sources in the form academic journals and books were utilised in order to
build a comprehensive theoretical framework. These scientific papers were retrieved through an
explorative process where I through the use of various expressions such as “mobile payments”, “technology
adoption”, “technology acceptance” etc. sought out key contributions. Furthermore, a trace-back through
the articles found in this manner contributed to finding the most relevant publications. Consequently new
publications were initially pursued, and their list of references utilised to find most relevant data. This
process evolved and was conducted more thoroughly as my understanding if the concept grew. Databases
utilised included Information and Management, JAIS, Google Scholar, etc.
The consequence of this data collection technique is obviously the risk of overlooking entire streams of
relevant literature. This risk was countered by consulting the project advisor, by re-evaluating the collected
89
literature and by replicating the process to several fields of parallel research, for instance MIS research.
Furthermore, the project advisor suggested several research possibilities such as, social psychology, cost
benefit analysis, disjoint analysis, the theory of the offering, etc., some of which were included and others
excluded.
This completes the treatment of the approaches applied in the thesis. The next sections conclude on the
level of validity, reliability and generalizability.
6.1.4 Validity
Validity can be expressed via the terms currency and relevance. Currency is the degree of fit between the
theoretical variables and the operational empirical variables, while relevance expresses how applicable the
empirical variables are relative to the research question (Andersen, 2005). Combining the level of currency
and relevance I believe to have attained a strong validity, as argued below.
Currency
In the process of creating an integrated framework, I have reviewed a vast amount of scientific journals and
books to create a sound foundation to underpin my framework. Having achieved a comprehensive
understanding of the prerequisites that surround technology adoption, I have established a solid
foundation for the creation of currency. The application of the framework as well as the conclusions I
reach, will inherently reflect any weakness in the theories. I therefore argue that the level of currency in
this dissertation is high.
Relevance
The variables I have identified I argue are all directly related to the research question as these variables
have been directly classified by academics as influencers of mobile payment adoption. Therefore the
relevance of the empirical evidence as a remedy to answer the research question is high.
6.1.5 Reliability
Reliability is a term that identifies to what extent findings are subject to coincidences (Andersen, 2005). In
regard to my theoretical review, I have meticulously examined the academic technology adoption literature
and mobile payment literature for insights, as well as examined part of social psychology and as such
covered a vast amount of relevant journals and books. Regarding the case analysis, I have sought to verify
the data by utilising a significant amount of different independent sources as to ensure that the variables’
90
influence on mobile payment technology adoption is reliable. I therefore argue that the reliability of my
findings is high.
6.1.6 Generalizability
Generalizability concerns the extent to which my findings may be equally applicable to other research
setting (Saunders et al., 2009). In developing the integrated framework I utilise academic literature and
conceptualisations which draw on commonalities primarily from empirical findings and as such are general
in nature. From this perspecitve, I argue that the suggested framework is a general tool as it originates from
existing emperical commonalities.
6.2 The questionnaire
This section places emphasis on the development of the questionnaire to support the framework. It is
important to notice that four different questionnaires exist, one for each of the data sources. All four
originate from the same empirical data, i.e. mobile payment literature, but the questionnaire was adjusted
according to its purpose i.e. the online questionnaire had to be less comprehensive to achieve high amount
of respondents, each questionnaire had to be re-phrased to fit payer and payee context relatively as well as
technology specific or unspecific. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that the questionnaire
originates from academic literature and I therefore present antecedent by antecedent where the questions
originate from as well as point out specific examples.
In line with Technology Acceptance Model research and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology research, respondents were required to state to which degree they agree or disagree with the
presented statements on a Likert-scale. On this Likert-scale, the neutral option was removed to avoid
providing an easy option in cases of insecurity, thus a six-pointed forced choice Likert-scale was applied.
Complexity (ease of use)
Several academic articles contributed to the complexity construct including the original Technology
Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989), the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh
et al., 2003), E-Wallet properties by Olsen et al. (2011), What influences consumers' intention to use mobile
payments by Poutsttchi and Wiedemann (2007), Exploring merchant adoption of mobile payment systems
by Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) and A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment by Chen (2008).
As examples of the above, I draw attention to the four questions below:
91




Learning to mobile pay would easy for me (Poutsttchi and Wiedemann, 2007)
I would find mobile payment easy to use (Poutsttchi and Wiedemann, 2007)
I believe that when I use m-payment, the process will be clear and understandable (Chen, 2008)
I believe that the user interface on the m-payment device will be confusing for me to use (Chen)
These are similar to the questions in my questionnaire, highlighted below, though there are two
differences. First off, since my questions are addressed to respondents who have tried a mobile payment
technology, therefore they are in past tense and question a specific mobile payment technology. Secondly,
as highlighted above and below, I modified one question to be consistent with the majority of the
questions, i.e. a high rating indicates a positive relationship and a low rating a negative relationship. I did
so, as I experienced confused respondents who had to think twice, to express their beliefs correctly.




I think it was easy for me to learn to use the mobile payment system
I think it was easy to use the mobile payment system
I think that in the mobile payment system the process was easy and understandable
I think that the mobile payment system user interface was easy to understand
Usefulness
The usefulness variable draws on many of the same articles as the complexity variable; however it
integrates the Task-Technology Fit by Goodhue and Thompson (1995) as well. I have highlighted some
examples from the literature as well as from my questionnaire below. As indicated, the differences are
minimal and limited to only include conditional phrasing, such as fee instead of transactions.




I believe that using m-payment will improve my shopping experience (Chen, 2008)
I believe that using m-payment will save me time (Chen, 2008).
I can count on the system to be “up” and available when I need it (Goodhue and Thompson, 1995)
Using mobile payment make it easier to conduct transactions (Poutsttchi and Wiedemann, 2007)




The mobile payment system improves my payment experience
Using the mobile payment system saves me time
I can count on the mobile payment system to work when I need it
The mobile payment system makes it easier for me to pay fee
92
Security
Security, as identified throughout the thesis, did not have the theoretical grounding as several other
antecedents, why the security variable is based solely on empirical evidence from the mobile payment
literature, such as what influences consumers' intention to use mobile payments by Poutsttchi and
Wiedemann (2007), Exploring merchant adoption of mobile payment systems by Mallat and Tuunainen
(2008), A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment by Chen (2008) and Factors Affecting the
Successful Introduction of Mobile Payment Systems by Heijden (2002).












Payment data must be secured against unauthorized access (Poutsttchi and Wiedemann, 2007)
I don’t believe that m-payment methods will incorporate sufficient security (Chen, 2008).
I am concerned about the amount of personal information I will be required to provide when using
m-payment (Chen, 2008)
Compared to traditional payment methods, I believe that using m-payment is riskier (Chen, 2008)
Cooperation partners, such as financial institutions and telecom operators are trustworthy (Mallat
and Tuunainen, 2008)
In the mobile payment system, payment information was protected from unauthorized access
I think the mobile payment system has satisfactory security
I was concerned about the amount of personal information I had to report to the payment system
Compared with traditional payment methods, I think it would be more risky to use the mobile
payment system
I think banks and payment institutions are reliable
I think telecom providers are reliable
I think new mobile payment service providers are reliable
Similarly to the above antecedents, it is evident that the differences between the questions from the
literature and my questionnaire are merely due to minor adjustments. One interesting difference
presented above, is that where Mallat and Tuunainen question the trustworthiness of partners, I explicitly
separate these potential partners in subgroups to get a more accurate result.
Social Compatibility
As I have argued throughout the thesis, social compatibility builds on Chen’s (2008) definition which is
underpinned by the Diffusion of Innovations. Below I present questions from both Chen (2008) and my
questionnaire, from which the similarities are evident.


I believe that using m-payment will fit my lifestyle (Chen, 2008)
I believe that using m-payment methods is compatible with the way I like to shop (Chen, 2008)
93



I believe that using m-payment methods will enhance my lifestyle image (Chen, 2008)
I believe that using m-payment methods will be fun (Chen, 2008)
I believe that using m-payment methods is suitable for me (Chen, 2008)





I think the mobile payment system is consistent with my lifestyle
I think the mobile payment system fits with the way I like to pay
I think the mobile payment system improves my lifestyle image
I think the mobile payment system is fun
I think the mobile payment system is appropriate for me
Ubiquity
Several researchers have investigated ubiquity, below I present the questions by Mallat and Tuunainen
(2008) and my questions related to ubiquity. It is important to notice that Mallat and Tuunainen’s questions
are addressed at payees, while the questions from my questionnaire, in this case, are addressed at payers.




Mobile payment benefits include the ability of customers to pay independent
of time (Mallat and Tuunainen, 2008)
Mobile payment benefits include the ability of customers to pay independent
of place (Mallat and Tuunainen, 2008)
I can use the mobile payment system anywhere
I can use the mobile payment system at any time
Economic profitability
Cost has been the third most investigated antecedent of adoption in recent mobile payment literature,
according to the literature review by Dahlberg et al. (2007). I have revised all the articles identified by
Dahlberg et al as well as several others who identify costs as an important antecedent of behaviour, these
include but is not limited to Heijden (2002), Mallat and Tuunainen (2008), Shin (2010) Mallat et al (2004)
and Dahlberg and Mallat (2002). Neither of these provides their phrasings or questions, the few exceptions
such as Mallat and Tuunainen (2008) fail to provide the specific phrasings related to costs. Consequently I
was required to draw upon the structure of the questions from the mobile payment literature presented
above, Chen (2008) applied the same approach, which resulted questions such as the ones I have
highlighted here.


I think it is economically harmful for me to use the mobile payment system
If it is economically harmful, I will not use the mobile payment system
94

I think it is economically profitable for me to use the mobile payment system
Facilitating conditions
Below I present a question from Venkatesh et al (2003) as well as my question related to facilitating
conditions, of which the similarities are obvious.

I have the resources necessary to use the system (Venkatesh et al., 2003)

I have access to the necessary technology to use the mobile payment system
Perceived value proposition
As I argue in the thesis, this framework is more true to the Theory of Planned Behaviour than previous
models of technology adoption and this framework is the first to suggest the perceived value proposition
construct in the place of an attitude construct, consequently there are bound to be some dissimilarities
between previous studies and this one. Below I first present a phrasing from Venkatesh et al. (2003) and
then the phrasings from my framework. The dissimilarities in the phrasings are clear, but the difference in
the meaning is questionable since “using a system is a bad/good idea” and “all in all it would be sensible for
me to use a system” are in terms of phrasing very far apart, but not so much in terms of meaning.

Using the system is a bad/good idea (Venkatesh et al., 2003).



I think all of the above is important in regard to the mobile payment system
I think it is hard to say what is most important in regard to the mobile payment system
I think all in all, it would be sensible for me to use the mobile payment system
Intention
As stated in the thesis, intention has been regarded as the primary antecedent of behaviour in several
technology adoption theories. Below I present the question from the Unified Theory of Use and Acceptance
of Technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003) as well as the question from my questionnaire.

I intend to use the system in the next month

I have intention to use the mobile payment system when it is possible for me
95
The main difference here is the reliance on two different indicators of time. I had to adjust my question
since I was not able to guarantee the interviewees that it would be possible for them to use the system.
Had I not performed this adjustment, I would risk interviewees answering “no” because of uncertainty of
availability of the system, in contrast to “no” because of some of the investigated antecedents. However,
Chen (2008) uses the same question as I do, i.e. I intend to use m-payment when it is available to me (Chen,
2008).
This completes the revision of the framework questionnaire from which it has been made evident that the
framework questionnaire draws on technology adoption theory and mobile payment literature.
96
REFERENCES
Academic Journals, Books, News articles and Reports:
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision (50) 179–211.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.
Allport G (1985) The historical background of social psychology. In Handbook of Social Psychology (3) 1-46.
Andersen I (2005) Den Skinbarlige Virkelighed Vidensproduktion Inden for Samfundsvidenskaberne.
Forlaget Samfundslitteratur.
Bagozzi R (2007) The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.
Journal of the Association for Information Systems (8) 244-254.
Balkenius C (1995). Natural Intelligence in Artificial Creatures. Lund University Cognitive Studies.
Benbasat I, Barki H (2007) Quo Vadis, TAM? Journal of the Association for Informations Systems (8).
Carlsson C, Carlsson J, Hyvönen K, Puhakainen J, Walden P (2006) Adoption of mobile devices / services
Searching for answers with the UTAUT. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Carton F, Hedman J, Damsgaard J, Tan K-T, McCarthy J (2012) Framework for mobile payments integration
The Eletronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation (15) 13-24.
Chen L-D (2008) A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. International Journal of
Mobile Communications (6) 32-52.
Clarke I (2001) Emerging Value Propositions for M-Commerce. Journal of Business Strategies (25) 133-148.
Dahlberg T, Mallat N (2002) Mobile payement service development - Managerial implications of consumer
value perceptions. European Conference on Information Systems.
Dahlberg T, Öörni A (2006) Understanding Changes in Consumer Payment Habits - Do Mobile Payments
Attract Customers? Proceedings of Helsinki Mobility Roundtable.
Dahlberg T, Huurros M, Ainamo A (2008) Lost opportunity - Why has dominant design failed to emerge for
the mobile payment services market in Finland? Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
Dahlberg T, Mallat N, Ondrus J, Zmijewska A (2007) Past, present and future of mobile payments research:
A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications.
Dahlberg T, Öörni A, Mallat N (2003) Consumer acceptance of mobile payment solutions - ease of use,
usefulness and trust. International Conference in Mobile Business.
97
Dahlgren L, Lundgren G, Stigberg L (1997) Make IT Profitable: PENG - A practical tool for financial
evalutation of IT benefits. Ekerlids Forlag.
Danmarks Nationalbank (2012) Costs of payments in Denmark.
Davis F (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology. MIS Quarterly (13) 319-340.
Davis F, Bagozzi R, Warshaw P (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Managemt Science (35) 982-1003.
Dishaw M, Strong D (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs.
Information & Management (36) 9-21.
Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Fishbein M, Cappella J (2006) The Role of Theory in Developing Effective Health Communications.
Journal of Communication.
Frolick M, Chen L-D (2004) Assesing M-Commerce Opportunities. Information System Management, 53-61
Fuglsang L, Olsen P B (2004) Videnskabetori i Samfundsvidenskaberne. Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
Goodhue D (2007) Comment on Benbasat and Barki’s “Quo Vadis TAM” article. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems (8) 219-222.
Goodhue D, Thompson R (1995) Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly, 213-235.
Hedman J, Gimpel G. (2010) The adoption of hyped technologies: a qualitative study.
Information Technology and Management.
Heijden V (2002) Factors affecting the successful introduction of mobile payment systems.
The 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference.
Huang C-C, Lin T-C (2008) Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: An
integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit.
Legris P, Ingham J, Collerette P (2003) Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the
technology acceptance model. Information & Management (40) 191-204.
Lewin K (1936) Principles of Topological Psychology
Lewin K (1951) Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper & Row.
Mallat N, Tuunainen V (2005) Merchant adoption of mobile payment systems. The Fourth International
Conference on Mobile Business.
98
Mallat N, Tuunainen V (2008) Exploring merchant adoption of mobile payment systems: An emperical
study. E-service Journal, 24-57.
Mallat N, Rossi M, Tuunainen V (2004) Mobile Banking Services. Communications of the ACM (5) 42-46.
Miller K. (2005) Communications theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts. McGraw-Hill.
Moore G, Benbasat I (1996) Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned Action Models to
Predict Utilization of Information Technology by End-Users. Diffusion and Adoption of Information
Technology, 132-146.
Olsen M, Hedman J, Vatrapu R (2011) E-wallet properties. International Conference on Mobile Business.
Ondrus J, Lyytinen K, Pigneur Y (2009) Why mobile payments fail? Towards a dynamic and multiperspective explanation. Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
Poutsttchi K, Wiedemann D (2007) What influences consumers' intention to use mobile payments? Mobile
Commmerce Working Group.
Rogers E (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press.
Rouibah K (2009) The failure of mobile payment: Evidence from quasi-experimentations. Euro American
Conference on Telematics and Informations Systems, 153-159.
Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhil A (2009) Research Methods for Business Students. Prentice Hall.
Shampine A (2007) Another look at payment instrument economics. Review of Network Economics.
Sheeran P. (2002) Intention - Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. European Review of
Social Psychology, 1-36.
Shin D-H (2010) Modeling the interaction of users and mobile payment system: Conceptual framework.
Journal of human-computer interaction, 917-940.
Thompson R, Higgins C, Howell J (1991) Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization.
MIS Quarterly, 124-143.
Van Raaij E, Schepers J (2008) The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China.
Computers & Education, 838-852.
Venkatesh V, Davis F (2000) A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 186-204.
Venkatesh V, Davis F, Morris M (2007) Dead or alive? The develpment, trajectory and future of technology
adoption research. Journal of the Association for Informations Systems, 267-286.
Venkatesh V, Morris M, Davis G, Davis F (2003) User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a
Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.
99
Zhou T, Lu Y, Wang B (2010) Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 760-767.
Interviews/Correspondence
Claus Chammon, Treasurer/Cashier, Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Morten Østergaard Sørensen, National Secretary, Venstres Ungdom
Rene Lundbæk Sørensen, Partner of Pay4it
Peter Lykke Rasmussen, Pay4it
Thomas Boie, Member of Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Patrick Borg, Member of Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Gustav Skov Hansen, Member of Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Mathias Thygesen, Member of Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Morten Buus, Member of Brødeskov Idrætsforening
Websites
www1 – http://www.foreningsbetaling.dk
www2 – http://tinyurl.com/8tl4uyc (The History of Social Psychology)
www3 – http://statspotting.com/2012/05/mobile-payment-statistics-171-5-billion-in-2012-says-gartner/
www4 – http://www.dgi.dk
www5 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action
www6 – http://psychology.about.com/od/socialpsychology/a/attitudes.htm
www7 – http://psychology.about.com/od/socialinfluence/social-influence.htm
www8 – http://www.jeffstanden.net/attitudes%20behaviour%2001.htm
www9 – http://www.broedeskov.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153&Itemid=202
www10 – http://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html
www11 – http://www.vu.dk
www12 – http://www.dr.dk
www13 – http://www.socialpsychology.org
www14 – http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-psychology.html
www15 – http://www.gartner.com/technology/home.jsp
www16 – http://www.nfc-forum.org/home/
www17 – http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/
www18 – http://tinyurl.com/95f7zkf (Technology Acceptance Model Questionnaire Example)
100
www19 – http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1567&context=etd
www20 – http://www.irma-international.org/viewtitle/9038/
101
APPENDIX
Due to the vast amount of pages (+30), I have chosen to not include any of the additional material here.
Instead you will find an enclosed USB, which contains the interviews with the members of Brødeskov
Idrætsforening and the interview with Morten Østergaard Sørensen (VU) as audio-files, the interview with
Claus Chammon (BIF) as a text document, the interview procedure for all three different interviews, the
online questionnaire as well as the results from the interviews and questionnaire.
102
CHANGING THE RESEARCH QUESTION
Due to circumstantial and an unforeseeable change of events, the project changed drastically since the
hand in of the project agreement. The initial idea was to investigate how business model theory and the
use of new cashless payment technologies can increase revenue at festivals. However, my supervisor’s
contact at Carlsberg, a major stakeholder of several festivals and a forerunner of new payment possibilities,
resigned his position and failed to notify either me or my supervisor for at least three week period, despite
several attempts to get in contact with the person. The person, who replaced him, did not have a great
interest in my project and since he was new in his job it was not the best starting point for such a
comprehensive endeavour. Consequently the project was forced into a new direction and when the
opportunity with pay4it presented itself, the project took a necessary turn to adapt to the circumstances.
Consequently I lost some precious time, but gained information about business models and eventually
found the optimal focus of this master thesis, i.e. why new mobile payment technologies are adopted.
103