Feroz Sir

Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Mobile Payment
Platforms in Bangladesh
Research Proposal
(Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of BBA program)
Submitted by
Md. Ariful Islam
ID: 130314
Supervised by
Feroz Ahmed
Professor
Submitted to
Chairman
Research and External Affairs Committee
Khulna University
Management and Business Administration School
Business Administration Discipline
BBA Program
August 3, 2017
The Chairman
Research and External Affairs Committee
Business Administration Discipline
Khulna University, Khulna
Subject: Submission of Thesis Proposal
Dear Sir,
I am highly delighted to present my research proposal report on “Factors Influencing the

Intention to Use Mobile Payment Platforms in Bangladesh” which has been conducted as
per the requirement to complete 4 years BBA program. I am very thankful for the help you
extended throughout the period. I expect this report to be informative as well as comprehensive.
I have devoted my best effort to make the report an informative and useful one. Any backwards,
shortcomings or fault of this study is my fault or may be because of some misrepresentation of
information from the sources from where I have collected all information. I am apologizing for
any kind of mistakes. I will be available for facilitating any point or part of this report any time
when I will be asked to do so.
I, therefore, have enjoyed working in the study. I hope my sincere efforts will be blessed with
your kind approval and oblige thereby.
Sincerely, Supervised By,
____________________ ___________________
Md. Ariful Islam Feroz Ahmed
ID: 130314 Professor
Business Administration Discipline Business Administration Discipline
Khulna University, Khulna Khulna University, Khulna
[ii]
Acknowledgement
All praises to Allah the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful. First and foremost, I am very
grateful to Allah for giving me the blessings to successfully complete this study.
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Professor Feroz Ahmed,

Business Administration Discipline, Khulna University for his guidance, supervision and
support throughout my studies. I have learned tremendously from him and may Allah give him
great blessings.
I thank and acknowledge my parents who have supported me to complete the work. Thanks to
all of my friends who have helped me to prepare this research proposal as well as to understand
the work in the most effective way.
[iii]
Abstract
Purpose: With recent advances in mobile technologies, mobile payment (m-payment) service
has emerged which is enabling customers to pay for goods and services using their mobile
phone whenever and wherever they go. But yet mobile payment services are not widely
accepted by customers as it was expected at the beginning of its introduction. The objective of
this study is to investigate the factors affecting the adoption of mobile payment platforms
(MPP). Based on TAM3 theory, this study proposes a theoretical framework and examines
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived cost, perceived risk, and perceived trust
to explain the adoption of mobile payment platforms.
Design/methodology/approach: Quantitative questionnaire will be used to collect responses

from the respondents. The data will be collected from 6 districts of Bangladesh including,
Khulna, Dhaka, Rajshahi, Jessore, Gopalganj, and Barisal. A sample size of 500 will be taken
for data collection. Partial Least Square (PLS) based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
technique will be used to analyze data and test hypothesis.
Originality/value: This study adds to the literature by bridging the gap in explaining consumer
intentions to adopt new technological services amongst people who know about the service but
have not adopted it as yet. Moreover, no previous studies have been conducted in Bangladesh
using the variables of TAM3 to investigate the adoption of mobile payment platforms.
Keywords: Mobile payment, Technology Acceptance Model3 (TAM3), Perceived Usefulness,

Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Cost, Perceived Trust, Perceived Risk.
[iv]
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract.................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................... vii
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 10
1.1 Background of the Research .......................................................................................... 10
1.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 11
1.3 Objective of the Research .............................................................................................. 11
1.5 Research Scope .............................................................................................................. 12
1.6 Justification of the Research .......................................................................................... 12
1.7 Organization of Work .................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 14
2.1 Theories on Technology Innovation and Readiness ...................................................... 14
2.1.1 Diffusion of Technology Innovation....................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Theories on Technology Readiness ........................................................................ 17
2.2 Theories on Technology Acceptance ............................................................................. 18
2.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) ......................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ........................................................................ 20
2.2.3 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) .................................................................. 21
2.2.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ........................ 25
2.3 Studies on Technology Adoption ................................................................................... 26
2.4 Studies on Mobile Payment Adoption ........................................................................... 30
2.5 Overview of Mobile Financial Services in Bangladesh ................................................. 34
2.6 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development .................................................. 35
2.6.1 Constructs of Original TAM ................................................................................... 37
2.6.2 Perceived Cost (PC) ................................................................................................ 38
[v]
2.6.3 Perceived Trust (PT) ............................................................................................... 38
2.6.4 Perceived Risk (PR) ................................................................................................ 39
2.6.5 Determinants of PU................................................................................................. 39
2.6.6 Determinants of PEOU ........................................................................................... 41
Chapter 3: Methodology........................................................................................................ 43
3.1 Research Philosophy ...................................................................................................... 43
3.2 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 44
3.3 Population ...................................................................................................................... 45
3.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size............................................................................ 45
3.5 Measurement of Constructs ........................................................................................... 46
3.5.2 Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................... 47
3.6 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................. 47
3.7 Data Analysis Technique ............................................................................................... 47
References ............................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix 1: Tables and Figures ........................................................................................... 56
Appendix 2: Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 60
[vi]
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1: Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness .......................................... 15
Figure 2: Technology Readiness Index (TRI).......................................................................... 18
Figure 3: The Theory of Reasoned Action Model ................................................................... 19
Figure 4: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).......................................................................... 20
Figure 5: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ................................................................... 21
Figure 6: Technology Acceptance Model-2 (TAM2) .............................................................. 22
Figure 7: Technology Acceptance Model-3 (TAM3) .............................................................. 23
Figure 8: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) .......................... 25
Figure 9: Proposed Research Model ........................................................................................ 36
Table 1: Definition of Adopter Categories .............................................................................. 16
Table 2: Definition and Description of Each Attribute of the DOI Theory ............................. 17
Table 3: Determinants of Perceived Usefulness ...................................................................... 24
Table 4: Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use ..................................................................... 24
Table 5: Measurement Items .................................................................................................... 56
Table 6: Comparative Summary Statement of Mobile Financial Services .............................. 59
[vii]
List of Abbreviations
ANX Anxiety
AR Adoption Readiness
B2P Business to People
BB Bangladesh Bank
BDT Bangladesh Taka
BI Behavioral Intention
DOI Diffusion of Innovation
G2P Government to People
GHSOM Growing Hierarchical Self-Organizing Map
IS Information System
IDT Innovation Diffusion Theory
IMG Image
IT Information technology
JR Job Relevance
M-payment Mobile Payment
OQ Output Quality
P2B People to Business
P2G People to Government
P2P People to People
PBs Promotional Benefits
PC Perceived Cost
PEC Perceived External Control
PEOU Perceived Ease of Use
PLS Partial Least Square
PLY Playfulness
PR Perceived Risk
PRS Perceived Regulatory Support
PT Perceived Trust
[viii]
PU Perceived Usefulness
RD Result Demonstrability
SE Self-efficacy
SEM Structural Equation Modeling
SCT Social Cognitive Theory
SN Subjective Norm
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
TAM2 Technology Acceptance Model 2
TAM3 Technology Acceptance Model 3
TPB Theory of Planned Behavior
TRA Theory of Reasoned Action
TRI Technology Readiness Index
UTAUT Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
[ix]
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background of the Research
This dissertation argues that consumer adoption of mobile payment services in voluntary
settings should be considered as a process involving technology acceptance, use and adoption.
The world has become a global village and almost everything are being done through
technology. The growth of information technology (IT) in the world is becoming an important
factor in the future development of businesses and industries around the world.
There is no doubt that mobile payment (m-payment) development will strongly contribute to
improving countries’ competitiveness in many ways (Kamulegeya, 2010). Innovations in the
payment industry have also led to greater financial inclusion, where m-payment service
providers help to facilitate payment transactions into the formal financial system even in the
absence of banking accounts. The World Bank has also suggested that m-payment is crucial for
economic development (Klapper & Singer, 2014).
Mobile technology has become increasingly common in today’s everyday life. However,
mobile payment is surprisingly not among the frequently used mobile services, although
technologically advanced solutions exist. Apparently, there is still a lack of acceptance of
mobile payment platforms among consumers. The mobile payment platforms are capable of
enabling users to pay for goods and services using their mobile phones wherever they go.
Mobile payment is anticipated to enjoy a bright future.
Consumers’ acceptance and intentions to adopt new technology are crucial aspects of new
product development and marketing. In most cases, the successful diffusion of new technology
is partially determined by whether potential users adopt the innovation (Wang & Fang, 2008).
According to a statement of Bangladesh Bank (2017), there are over 49.8 million registered
clients of mobile financial services around the country among this there are 23.9 million active
accounts. These clients are conducting an average of 4.79 million transactions a day, which
worth BDT 79.74 billion. Around 0.69 million registered agents are serving this huge number
of clients.
This statistic might indicate a bright present status of mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
However, there are still many unresolved issues in mobile payment such as security, privacy
issues, and usability. These have long been an obstacle for further business growth. Thus, it is
extraordinarily important for service providers to understand these issues from the consumers’
perspective, when developing and providing mobile payment service.
[10]
1.2 Problem Statement
There are many benefits in using a mobile payment service for the customers. Mobile payment
platforms give them option to perform financial transactions and other related activities on the
go or from home, and the convenience of performing most financial transactions twenty-four
hours a day, 365 days a year.
Despite the arrival of sophisticated mobile payment platforms that are developed to make
financial transaction easier and facilitate daily transaction activities, unfortunately these
technologies are not completely accepted by the customers as it was expected in the beginning
and the number of mobile payment system users has not increased with the rate that was
predicted (Flavian, Torres, & Guinaliu, 2004). Millions of mobile phone users in Bangladesh
are not using mobile payment platforms, nor are they expected to do so in the near future.
As it is the case with many new technologies and innovations, mobile payment faces many
troubles regarding to its adoption. It is clear that a technology is considered successful once it
is well adapted. Consequently, there is a need to determine which factors influence the adoption
of mobile payment in order to be able to forecast or boost its adoption rate. Factors that affect
mobile payment adoption has been the subject of several research projects in both developed
and developing countries. However, only a few studies have been conducted to explore the
influencing factors which affect mobile payment platform's adoption in Bangladesh.
Due to the fact that Bangladeshi customers as with any other nations are unique in terms of
their cultural and social characteristics, there is a need for a massive investigation of all factors
that affect the intention of choosing mobile payment platforms over other platforms.
The main problem with this thesis is to describe the perceptions of Bangladeshi peoples of
mobile payment in terms of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) variables and to
examine the relationships between the variables and the actual adoption of the mobile payment
by the Bangladeshi people comparing the perceptions of the users and the non-users.
1.3 Objective of the Research
This paper focuses on the factors that influences m-payment adoption primarily, by using end
customers as the primary research subject. This paper will develop and certify models that
establish important elements that influence the adoption of mobile payment platforms.
A thorough understanding of the models may assist experts to analyze the reasons why
customers resist m-payment technology, and to improve user acceptance and usage of the
technology. According to Davis (1989), “experts evaluate systems for two purposes: (1) to
[11]
predict acceptability and (2) to diagnose the reasons for non-acceptance and to take proper
measures to improve user acceptance.” In this paper, the research objectives are:
➢ To examine the factors that influence the mobile phone users in Bangladesh to adopt
mobile payment platforms. To do so this paper will integrate technology acceptance
model (TAM).
➢ To uncover the connection between the factors that influence m-payment adoption,
discuss their implications and make further recommendation for further research.
1.4 Research Questions
Addressing the research objectives, this paper will bring together the possible factors that could
affect a customer's adoption intention, and then investigate the cause-and-effect relationships
among them, so that mobile payment platform providers can investigate in these new channels
more wisely by utilizing that knowledge. Therefore, broader research questions are:
➢ What are the main factors that drive consumers to adopt mobile payment?
➢ How do the factors that influence mobile payment adoption interlink and influence each
other?
To further elaborate on these research questions, this research will examine the following sub-
questions:
➢ To what extend the identified factors do affect adoption of mobile payment?

➢ Are there any differences in mobile payment adoption of customer demographic
criteria?
➢ What is the application of the findings to the policy makers?
➢ What is the level of importance of each of the factors for customers?
1.5 Research Scope
This study focuses on retail mobile payment as retail transactions cover most of the transactions
by customers, including customer-to-customer and customer-to-business.
The respondents involve in this study are customers as the main objective of this research paper
is to identify the factors that affect mobile payment adoption by the customers. This research
will collect its primary empirical data through hard copy and online questionnaires.
1.6 Justification of the Research
Despite the recent remarkable success in the introduction of some mobile payment platforms
in Bangladesh, their adoption and utilization is perceived to be low as the recent statement from
[12]
Bangladesh Bank shows that around 50 percent registered clients of different mobile payment
platforms are not active (Bangladesh Bank, 2017).
Few studies have been conducted to ascertain to find out the low adoption rate of mobile
payment in Bangladesh. This research seeks to discover the reasons underpinning the low
adoption rate as well as find the factors that influence the adoption of these platforms.
Previously, no research has been conducted in Bangladesh using the variables of TAM3 model
to determine the adoption of mobile payment platforms.
The finding of this research could be used by the government as well as all the stakeholders to
make decisions on the improvement of mobile payment systems in Bangladesh as this platform
can hugely contribute in building an efficient financial transaction system.
1.7 Organization of Work
This research paper is organized as follows. In chapter 2, the review of previous literature along
with the theoretical foundation and research hypothesis of this study is discussed. In chapter 3,
the research methodology is discussed that will be adopted to obtain the data to test the
hypothesis. In chapter 4, the primary quantitative results, data analysis and the findings of this
research will be discussed and in chapter 5, this paper will discuss and interlink the findings
and present the study’s implication and conclusion.
[13]
Chapter 2: Literature Review
In this chapter, this paper critically reviews the existing literature on technology innovation,
technology readiness, technology acceptance and mobile payment adoption to provide a firm
theoretical and empirical context for the study. Along with that theoretical framework of this
study and proposed hypothesis is discussed.
2.1 Theories on Technology Innovation and Readiness
Researchers have stated innovation as the key to gaining a competitive advantage in a highly
unstable environment (Neely & Hii, 1998). “The contribution of new technology to economic
growth can only be realized when the new technology is widely diffused and used” (Hall &
Khan, 2003).
Many researchers have tried to find out the behavioral factors that influence the adoption of a
certain technology. Each of them used a framework and identified some elements to measure
intention to use and behavior. Perceived usefulness, enjoyment, perceived risk, security and
privacy issues, perceived ease of use, Image, subjective norms, knowledge and information on
the related subject, are some of the factors mentioned in previous research (Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis, & Davis, 2003).
2.1.1 Diffusion of Technology Innovation
Before understanding the diffusion of technological innovation, it is necessary to define

technology innovation. Technology innovation is a computer-based information system and
telecommunication technology that store, process, and communicate (Anderson, 1990).
According to Garcia and Calantone (2002) “innovation is an iterative process initiated by the
perception of a new market and/or new service opportunity for a technology-based invention
which leads to development, production, and marketing tasks striving for the commercial
success of the invention.” While King et al. (1994) defines innovation “as a process whereby
inventions move into usable form.”
Researchers have considered innovation as a process of three overlapping stages: (1) invention,
(2) innovation, and (3) diffusion (King, et al., 1994). Here, invention is a new idea that may or
may not have an economic value. When an invention moves to a useable form it becomes an
innovation. According to Rogers (1995) “an innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is
perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption.” And diffusion is the spread of the
capacity to produce and/or use an innovation, and its use in practice (King, et al., 1994).
[14]
According to Rogers (2003) “adoption is a decision to fully use an innovation as the best course
of action available and rejection is a decision not to adopt an innovation”.
All individuals do not adopt any innovation at the same time. Rather, they adopt in a time
sequence (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). From this point the concept of different kinds of
adopters based on the time of adoption comes. It is very important to be able to find out in
which category a particular person belongs to. Human interaction through interpersonal
networks causes the adoption of a new idea.
If the initial adopter of an innovation discusses it with two members of a given social system,
and these two become adopters who pass the innovation along to two peers, and so on, the
resulting distribution follows a binomial expansion. Expect adopter distributions to follow a
bell-shaped curve over time (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).
100
75
Market Share %
50
25
0
Innovators Early Early Late Laggards
2.5% Adopters Majority Majority 16%
13.5% 34% 34%
Figure 1: Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness
Source: (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971)
Adopter Categorization
The above figure shows the percentage of adopters falling into five adopter categories:
innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. Innovators are the first
group to adopt any new innovation or idea. 2.5% individuals fall into this category. The next
category is called early adopters. They adopt any new technology just after innovators. 13.5%
individuals fall into this category. The third and fourth categories are called early majority and
late majority respectively. In size both categories are same. 34% individuals fall into both types
[15]
of adapters. And the last 16 percent is considered laggards, who are the last group to adopt any
new technology (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).
Table 1: Definition of Adopter Categories
Adopter
Definition
Category
Innovators are eager to take risks, have the highest social status. Usually
Innovators they have substantial financial resources. They have the ability to understand
and apply complex technical knowledge.
These individuals have the highest degree of opinion leadership among the
adopter categories. Early adopters have a higher social status, financial
Early liquidity, advanced education and are more socially forward than late
Adopters adopters. They are more discreet in adoption choices than innovators. They
provide advice and information sought by other adopters about an
innovation.
Members of the early majority category will adopt new ideas just before the
Early average member of a social system. They interact frequently with peers, but
Majority are not often found holding leadership positions. Early majority adopters
play an important part in the diffusion process.
The late majority is a skeptical group, adopting new ideas just after the
average member of a social system. Their adoption may be borne out of
Late Majority economic necessity and in response to increasing social pressure. They are
cautious about innovations, and are reluctant to adopt until most others in
their social system do so first.
Laggards are traditionalists and the last to adopt an innovation. They possess
Laggards
almost no opinion leadership.
Source: (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971)
Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) is the most used theory as an adoption model. The DOI theory
has been broadly used in different fields such as political science, public health,
communications, history, economics, and education. DOI theory has also been used as a
theoretical framework in the area of technology diffusion and adoption (Dooley, 1999); (Stuart,
2000).
[16]
Rogers (2003) has suggested five innovation attributes on how an individual perceives them
and predicts weather an individual will adopt an innovation. These attributes are relative
advantage, compatibility, complexity, trial ability, and observability. Except the complexity
attribute all these five attributes have a positive influence innovation’s rate of adoption.
Table 2: Definition and Description of Each Attribute of the DOI Theory
Attribute Definition Description
The degree to which an innovation The greater the relative advantage of

Relative is perceived as better than the idea an innovation compared to previous
Advantage it supersedes. product, it is more likely the
innovation will be accepted.
The degree to which innovation is The more compatible the innovation is,
perceived as consistent with the the more quickly the innovation will be
Compatibility
existing values, past experiences, adopted.
and needs of potential adopters.
The degree to which innovation is The more complex the innovation is,
Complexity perceived as relatively difficult to the more slowly it will be adopted.
understand and use.
The degree to which innovation If it is possible to try the new product

Trail Ability may be experimented with on a on a limited basis, it is more likely to
limited basis. be accepted quickly.
The degree to which the results of If it is possible to describe or to

an innovation are visible to others. observe the results of the innovation
Observability
with relative ease, adoption is likely to
occur more quickly.
Source: (Rogers, 2003)
2.1.2 Theories on Technology Readiness
Technology readiness is a measure of the degree to which a country, nation or the economy
may be ready, willing or prepared to obtain benefits which arise from any new technologies.
Technology readiness index (TRI) is used by most of the study in assessing individual’s
technology readiness.
[17]
Technology Readiness Index (TRI)
The technology readiness indexx is a multi-item scale model developed by (Parasuraman, 2000)
to access individual’s technology readiness. TRI uses four constructs to access an individual’s
intention to adopt any new technology. Those constructs are optimism, innovativeness,
discomfort, and insecurity. TRI model is presented in figure 1 below.
Optimism
Innovativeness
Technology
Adoption
Discomfort
Insecurity
Figure 2: Technology Readiness Index (TRI)
Source: (Parasuraman, 2000)
TRI framework says that, technology acceptance depends on the individual’s personality traits
and these traits differ among people. Constructs in TRI model influence the adoption of any
technology, both positively and negatively.
Optimism and innovativeness positively influence the adoption of any technology. While
discomfort and insecurity negatively influence the adoption.
2.2 Theories on Technology Acceptance
Many researchers have formulated different theories and models for determining the factors
that affect the acceptance or adoption of any technology. Each of these models has a different
approach to investigating the factors that affect the intention and behavior to adopt any
technology. However, among these theories, there are some common characteristics.
2.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed the theory of reasoned action (TRA) in 1967 and later it
was revised and explained in 1975. TRA is developed in the context of social psychology and
it attempts to explain the effect of attitude on the behavior. This theory not only explain but
also predict behavior considering beliefs, attitude and intention. According to Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980) TRA suggests that “a person’s behavioral intention could be determined by his
[18]
attitude towards the actual behavior together with the subjective norm that is associated with
the behavior.” The following figure represents the theory of reasoned action.
Attitude
Beliefs and
towards
Evaluations
Behavior
Behavioral Actual
Intention Behavior
Normative
Beliefs and Subjective
Motivation to Norm
Copy
Figure 3: The Theory of Reasoned Action Model
Source: (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)
TRA is considered to be a general theory and has been applied to explain behavior beyond the
adoption of information technology.
According to the TRA, “attitude is a learned predisposition for responding in a consistently

favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object.” It is a person’s positive or
negative feelings about performing the actual behavior (Koksal, 2016). A person’s attitude can
be measured by considering the sum of all the beliefs about the significances of performing the
behavior and an evaluation of those significances as shown in the formula below (Chuttur,
2009):
𝐴 = ∑ 𝑏𝑖 + 𝑒𝑖
And “subjective norm is an individual’s perception that most people who are important to him
or her believe that he or she should or should not perform certain behaviors” (Koksal, 2016).
Subjective norm (SN) can be determined by considering the sum of the product of a person’s
normative beliefs (nb) and his or her motivation to comply (mc) (Chuttur, 2009). This
consideration can be shown in the formula below.
𝑆𝑁 = ∑ 𝑛𝑏𝑖 + 𝑚𝑐𝑖
Thus, the behavioral intention (BI) of a person can be determined by the following formula:
𝐵𝐼 = A + SN
[19]
The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is effective to some extent in predicting one’s behavior.
But it also has some limitations such as there might have some error in subjective reporting due
to the fact that observations cannot be applied to the model. This model is limited to a person’s
attitude and subjective norms only. Only these two variables cannot completely determine a
person’s intention to a certain technology. This theory also ignores that some behaviors are nor
willingly done and out of the individual’s control.
2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
Theory of planned behavior (TPB) is an extended version of TRA. Along with the factors of
attitude and subjective norm TPB incorporates perceived behavioral control as a factor.
Behavioral Beliefs
and Outcome Attitude
Evaluation
Normative Beliefs
Subjective
and Motivation to Intention Behavior
Norm
comply
Control Beliefs and Perceived

Perceived Behavioral
Facilitation Control
Figure 4: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
Source: (Mathieson, 1991) (Chuttur, 2009)
TPB was developed by Ajzen in 1985. TPB evolved from TRA and was developed with the
purpose of understanding and predicting the influences of human behavior and the strategies
needed to influence change in a target behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In any situation where
individuals do not have total control over their behavior TPB can be used.
Perceived behavioral control is the most recent addition to this model which refers to “the
degree to which a person believes that they control any given behavior” (Ajzen, 1991).
According to Ajzen, perceived behavioral control is a mix of two dimensions: self-efficacy and
controllability.
“Self-efficacy refers to the level of difficulty that is required to perform the behavior, or one's
belief in their own ability to succeed in performing the behavior” (Armitage & Conner, 2001).
“Controllability refers to the outside factors, and one's belief that they personally have control
over the performance of the behavior, or if it is controlled by external, uncontrollable factors”
[20]
(Armitage & Conner, 2001). The person having high perceived behavioral control has an
increased confidence that they are capable of performing the specific behavior successfully.
2.2.3 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The technology acceptance model (TAM) was developed based on the theory of reasoned
action and it was developed to fit the field of information system. Davis (1985) first specified
TAM. In 1989 Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw refined TAM. TAM replaced behavioral attitude
and subjective norm factors of the TRA with two technology acceptance measures; the
perceived usefulness, and the perceived ease of use (Davis et al., 1989).
Perceived
Usefulness
Attitude Behavioral Actual

External
towards Intention to System
Variables
Using Use Use
Perceived
Ease of Use
Figure 5: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Source: (Davis et al., 1989)
TAM was proposed to address why users accept or reject any particular information technology.
TAM is a specific and a parsimonious framework for predicting and explaining people’s
adoption of IT in work settings Davis et al. (1989). According to TAM, two factors influence
the use and adoption of a new technology. Those two factors are, perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use.
Perceived usefulness (PU) refers to “the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system would enhance his or her job performance” while perceived ease of use
(PEOU) refers to “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would
be free of effort” (Davis, 1989). TAM suggests that the user acceptance of any technology is
determined by the user’s intention to use the system. User’s intention to use any system is
influenced by the user’s belief about the system’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use (Lin & Ding, 2007).
Several attempts have been taken to further refine TAM. In 2000, Venkatesh and Davis
introduced technology acceptance model-2 (TAM2) by adding social influence factors
(subjective norm, voluntariness and image) to the original model (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
[21]
Experience Voluntariness
Subjective Norm
Perceived
Usefulness
Image
Intention Usage
to Use Behavior
Job Relevance
Perceived
Ease of Use
Output Quality
Result
Demonstrability
Figure 6: Technology Acceptance Model-2 (TAM2)
Source: (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
According to Halawi and McCarthy (2009) TAM2 is used to study end-user acceptance for
adoption of information technology systems in a number of different disciplines. TAM2 clearly
investigates and tackles the role of the end-user when new technology is initiated. TAM focuses
on a user’s attitude toward one specific technology (Davis et al., 1989).
Combining TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and the model of the determinants of perceived
ease of use (Ventatesh, 2000), TAM3 model has been developed as an integrated model of
technology acceptance. TAM3 presents a complete nomological network of the determinants
of individuals’ IT adoption and use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). They have suggested three
theoretical extensions beyond TAM2 and the model of the determinants of perceived ease of
use.
Venkatesh (2000) suggested that, “individuals form perceived ease of use about a specific
system by anchoring their perceptions to the different general computer beliefs and later
adjusting their perceptions of ease of use based on hands-on experience with the specific
system.” The determinants of perceived ease of use represent several traits and emotions. But
the author also suggests that, there are no theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that these
stable computer-related traits and emotions will be affected by social influence or cognitive
influence processes. Venkatesh and Bala (2008) suggested that, perceived usefulness will not
be affected by the determinants of perceived ease of use.
[22]
From TAM to TAM3 researchers have tried to add relevant variables that can help to accurately
determine the influence of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on the adoption of
any information technology.
Experience Voluntariness
Subjective
Norm
Image
Job
Relevance Perceived
Usefulness
Output
Quality
Result
Demonstrability
Anchor Behavioral Actual

Computer Self- Intention Adoption
efficacy
Perceptions of
External Control
Computer
Anxiety Perceived
Ease of Use
Computer
Playfulness
Adjustment
Perceived
Enjoyment
Objective
Usability
Figure 7: Technology Acceptance Model-3 (TAM3)
Source: (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
In TAM3 model, the author proposed three new relationships which were not empirically tested
before they suggested that, experience will moderate the relationships between (i) perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness; (ii) computer anxiety and perceived ease of use; and (iii)
perceived ease of use and behavioral intention (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
[23]
Table 3: Determinants of Perceived Usefulness
Determinants Definitions
Perceived Ease The degree to which a person believes that using an IT will be free of
of Use effort (Davis, 1989).
The degree to which an individual perceives that most people who are
Subjective Norm important to him think he should or should not use the system (Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975); (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
The degree to which an individual perceives that use of an innovation

Image will enhance his or her status in his or her social system (Moore &
Benbasat, 1991)
The degree to which an individual believes that the target system is

Job Relevance
applicable to his or her job (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
The degree to which an individual believes that the system performs his
Output Quality
or her job tasks well (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
The degree to which an individual believes that the results of using a

Result
system are tangible, observable, and communicable (Moore & Benbasat,
Demonstrability
1991).
Table 4: Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use
Determinants Definitions
The degree to which an individual believes that he or she has the ability
Computer Self-
to perform a specific task/job using the computer (Compeau & Higgins,
Efficacy
1995).
The degree to which an individual believes that organizational and

Perception of
technical resources exist to support the use of the system (Ventatesh,
External Control
2000).
Computer The degree of an individual’s apprehension, or even fear, when she/he is

Anxiety faced with the possibility of using computers (Ventatesh, 2000).
[24]
Computer The degree of cognitive spontaneity in microcomputer interactions
Playfulness (Webster & Martocchio, 1992).
The extent to which “the activity of using a specific system is perceived

Perceived
to be enjoyable in its own right, aside from any performance
Enjoyment
consequences resulting from system use (Ventatesh, 2000).
“Comparison of systems based on the actual level (rather than

Objective
perceptions) of effort required to complete specific tasks (Ventatesh,
Usability
2000).
2.2.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Venkatesh et al. (2003) proposed the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT). This theory seeks to explain the user intention to use an information system and the
subsequent behavior of users. UTAUT has four core determinants of intention and use. These
determinants are, performance expectance, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating
conditions. These determinants are moderated by gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of
use.
Performance
Expectancy
Behavioral
User
Effort Intention
Behavior
Expectancy
Social
Influence
Facilitating
Condition
Voluntariness
Gender Age Experience
of Use
Figure 8: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
Source: (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Performance expectancy is the greatest indicator of user intention. This variable is moderated
by gender and age Venkatesh et el. (2003).
[25]
Effort expectancy regards that ease of use is actually a determinant of the use of a system or
service (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Previous models capture this concept as perceived ease of use
and complexity. Gender, age and experience are used as the moderating factors of this variable
(Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Venkatesh et al. (2003) defines social influence as “the degree to which an individual perceives
that peoples important to him or her want him or her to use a particular technology or not”. All
of the four moderating factors affect this variable.
Facilitating conditions are defined as “the degree to which an individual believes that an
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system” (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). Age and experience have a moderating effect on this variable.
This theory was developed through the review and integration of eight dominant theories and
models (Williams, Rana, & Dwivedi, 2015). Namely:
1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

2. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)
3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
4. Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)
5. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
6. The Motivational Model
7. Model of PC Utilization
8. Combined TPB/TAM
Since introduction, UTAUT has been widely adopted in technology adoption and diffusion
research. UTAUT has been widely used technology related studies, including the internet, web
sites, hospital information system, tax payment system and mobile technology.
2.3 Studies on Technology Adoption
If we take a look into the studies on technology acceptance the TAM is the most used model in
information science (Svendsen, Johnsen, Almås-Sørensen, & Vittersø, 2011). TAM has been
applied under different technologies, under different situations, with different control factors,
and different subjects (Lee, Kozar, & Larsen, 2003).
The TAM has been employed to test over thirty different types of information system. These
studies have been categorized into four different classes by (Lee et al., 2003):
[26]
i. Communication Systems: It includes e-mail, v-mail, fax, dial-up system and other
communication based systems. Communication systems are comprised of around 20%
of all TAM studies.
ii. General Purpose Systems: It includes Microsoft Windows, personal computers,
microcomputers, e-commerce, workstations, computer resource centers, the internet
and other computer facilities. These systems are comprised of around 28% of all TAM
studies.
iii. Office Systems: It includes word processors, spreadsheets, presentation S/W, and
database programs. These systems are comprised of around 27% of all TAM studies.
iv. Specialized Business Systems: It includes computerized models, case tools, decision
support systems (DSS), expert support systems (ESS), and telemedicine. These systems
are comprised of around 25% of all TAM studies.
Along with the above four types, various other study contexts have employed TAM. This can
be categorized as follows:
➢ Studies on technology acceptance pertaining different types of technologies (Davis,

1989), and
➢ Studies on technology acceptance in relation to e-payment, particularly in Internet
banking (Suh & Han, 2002); (Lai & Li, 2005); (Cheng, Lam, & Yeung, 2006); (Al-
Somali, Gholami, & Clegg, 2009); (Lee M.-C. , 2009); (Alsajjan & Dennis , 2010);
(Chowdhury, Patro, Venugopal, & D. Israel, 2014) and e-shopping (Chen, Gillenson,
& Sherrell, 2002); (Shih, 2004); (Vijayasarathy, 2004); (Ha & Stoel, 2009); (Al-
Gahtani, 2011).
The earliest empirical TAM studies were conducted by Davis (1989). He developed two
specific variables (PU and PEOU) and then validated these two variables in 1989. He
hypothesized these two variables as the fundamental determinants of user acceptance. He took
a sample size of 152 users for his study and the findings tell that PU and PEOU were
significantly correlated. Then Davis (1989) specified causal relationships between the system
design features PU, PEOU, attitude towards use, and actual usage behavior. With a sample size
of 112 users he conducted a study and the findings explain that TAM fully mediated the effect
of system characteristics on usage behavior and PU was 50% more influential than PEOU in
the determination of actual use of any technology.
Suh & Han (2002) conducted a study on the customer acceptance of internet banking.
They collected data from a sample size of 845 to survey user’s behavior towards
internet banking. They found that trust was the most significant factor affecting
consumer’s attitude towards the adoption of internet banking. They also found that PU
[27]
and PEOU had significant effect on consumer’s attitude towards the adoption of
internet banking.
Cheng, Lam, & Yeung (2006) investigated the perception of internet banking in Hong Kong.
With a sample size of 203 they used TAM and added ‘perceived web security’ as a new
construct to explain customers’ behavior intention towards the adoption of internet
banking. Using SEM, they analyzed the relationship between the variables and found
that their extended TAM was able to predict customers’ intention to adopt internet
banking.
Lee (2009) examined the factors that influence the adoption of internet banking.
He took a sample size of 368 and collected data from the online survey. He integrated
technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior with perceived risk and
perceived benefit to determine the behavior of customers towards the adoption of
internet banking. He used SEM to analyze data and the finding shows that security and
financial risk negatively affects the intention to use internet banking while perceived
value and usefulness positively affects the intention to use internet banking by
customers.
Al-Somali, Gholami, & Clegg (2009) conducted a study in Saudi Arabia.

They examined the factors that encouraged customers to use internet banking services
in Saudi Arabia. They adopted TAM2 model to conduct this study. With a randomly
chosen 202 bank customers as the sample they conducted their study and found that the
quality of internet connection, awareness, benefits, social influence and computer self-
efficacy had significant influence on the attitude towards the adoption of internet
banking services of the respondents.
Alsajjan & Dennis (2010) proposed a revised technology acceptance model (TAM).
With this model, they tried to measure the acceptance of internet banking by customers.
They named this model as an internet banking acceptance model (IBAM). They
collected empirical data from a sample size of 618. All of the respondent ware
university students from United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. Using SEM to analyze
data they found that perceived usefulness and trust fully mediated the impact of
subjective norms and perceived manageability on attitudinal intentions. Trust and
system usefulness also influenced attitudinal intentions between the two country
groups, which highlights the potential role of culture in IS adoption.
[28]
Chen, Gillenson, & Sherrell (2002) conducted a study on e-shopping.
They tried to determine the customer’s attitude towards the acceptance of the virtual
store. They combined TAM and innovation diffusion theory to examine the behavior
of the customers in using virtual stores. They found that their study was able to predict
the acceptance and use of virtual stores. They found that PU, compatibility, and PEOU
were the primary determinants of customers’ attitude towards using virtual stores.
PEOU and compatibility had a direct effect on PU of virtual stores.
Shih (2004) examined individual attitude towards the acceptance of e-shopping.

He developed an extended model based on TAM and TRA. They collected data from
a sample size of 212 and analyzed using multiple regression analysis and found that
user acceptance and attitude towards online shopping are positively correlated. They
also found that PEOU had a significant effect on PU but PU did not have any significant
effect on user acceptance.
Vijayasarathy (2004) explained the customers’ intention to use online shopping.

He adopted TAM model and included compatibility, security, self-efficacy, privacy,
and normative beliefs. He conducted this study with a sample size of 281 and found
that compatibility, PU, PEOU, and security had significant impact on customers’
attitude towards online shopping.
Ha & Stoel (2009) examined customers’ acceptance towards online shopping.

They incorporated e-shopping quality, trust, and enjoyment into TAM. With a sample
of 298 college students they conducted a study and found that PU, trust, and enjoyment
were determined by e-shopping quality which affected the attitude towards e-shopping
adoption. The authors also found that trust and enjoyment have a significant role in the
adoption of e-shopping by customers.
Al-Gahtani (2011) integrated trust, credibility, and risk with TAM.

In predicting acceptance of online transaction in Saudi Arabia he took a sample size of
128. The data were collected from faculty members, staff, and students from
universities. Using SEM to evaluate his causal model and explain its reliability and
validity, he found that trust, credibility, and risk had significant influence towards the
acceptance of online transaction.
[29]
2.4 Studies on Mobile Payment Adoption
Mobile payment is the act of transferring funds for goods and services through mobile phones.
The literature on mobile payment is extremely diverse. In recent years, several studies have
attempted to evaluate customers’ perception towards the adoption of mobile payment by
customers.
Mallat (2007) conducted a study on customer adoption of mobile payment in Finland.

In his qualitative research focus group interview method was used for data collection.
The size of the sample for this study was 46. He found that lack of other payment
methods or urgency were situational factor influencing the adoption of mobile
payment. Premium pricing, complexity, a lack of critical mass, and perceived risks
were found to be barriers to m-payment adoption. The findings provide the foundation
for an enhanced theory on mobile payment adoption and for the practical development
of mobile payment services.
Kim, Mirusmonov, & Lee (2009) conducted a study on m-payment usage.

In their study tried to find out the impact of m-payment system characteristics and user-
centric factors on m-payment usage. They proposed a mobile payment research model
by modifying TAM which includes personal innovativeness and m-payment
knowledge as user-centric factors, mobility, compatibility, innovativeness, and
convenience as system characteristic factors. They also categorized m-payment users
into early and late adopters. They collected data from a sample of 269 and used SEM
to analyze data to test hypothesis. The result of their study shows that both PU and
PEOU are strong predictors of the intention to use m-payment. They also found that
early adopters respond very positively to PEOU while late adopters responded very
positively to PU.
Arvidsson (2014) tried to understand the customers’ attitude to start using mobile payment.
They conducted their study in Sweden. Then conducted a quantitative study based on
the theoretical foundation of TAM and innovation diffusion theory. The study found
that PEOU was the most important factor towards mobile payment service adoption. In
addition, relative advantage, high trust, low perceived security risks, higher age and
lower income were associated with a positive view on adopting the service.
Thakur & Mala (2014) in their study, they tried to accomplish two objectives.
One is to test the functional relationship between adoption readiness (AR), perceived
risk (PR) and usage intention for mobile payments in India and the other is to
investigate the stability of proposed structural relationships across different customer
[30]
groups. A sample size of 774 was taken to conduct the survey to collect empirical data.
The result of the study shows that both adoption readiness and perceived risk
significantly influenced the adoption of mobile payment in India.
Jaradat & Faqih (2014) conducted their study on the adoption of mobile payment in Jordan.
In their study, they tried to determine the moderating effect of gender and self-efficacy
on the adoption process of mobile payment in Jordan. They adopted Technology
Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) as the conceptual foundation of the study. The sample
size of 366 was taken for the purpose of the study of this sample 50 are female. And
from this study they found that, PU, PEOU, subjective norm, output quality, and result
demonstrability had significant influence on the behavioral intention towards mobile
payment adoption. Their study also found that gender difference had a little moderating
influence on the adoption process of mobile payment. However, they also found self-
efficacy as a significant decision factor for adoption of mobile payment technology.
Liebana-Cabanillas & Sanchez-Fernandez (2014) tried to determine the role of gender on the
acceptance of mobile payment.
They tried to explain the intention of adopting the mobile payment system in a country
where these types of systems do not have a presence. They proposed and tested an
integrative theoretical model to determine trust and risk for the acceptance of new m-
payment system. They conducted this study based on a general population sample.
They found that gender difference had significant influence between PEOU and PU of
the new system, between PU, attitude, and intention to use as well as between users’
trust and favorable attitude towards its use.
Zhou (2014) conducted a study to examine the effect continuance usage of mobile payment.
SEM was used to analyze data and examine the research model. The results indicated
that performance expectancy, trust in mobile payment and flow effect continuance
usage. Flow has a relatively larger effect. They also found that, system quality has
strong effects on performance expectancy and flow.
Yang, Liu, Li, & Yu (2015) tried to identify different uncertainties of perceived risk.
Perceived risk hinders mobile payment acceptance. To do so, they proposed
uncertainty-risk-value framework based on perceived risk theory, prospect theory, and
perceived value theory. They used SEM to test research model and found that,
Perceived information asymmetry, perceived technology uncertainty, perceived
regulatory uncertainty, and perceived service intangibility are the main determinants of
perceived risk, while perceived performance risk, perceived financial risk, and
[31]
perceived privacy risk were found to have strong negative effects on perceived value
and acceptance intention.
Upadhyay & Chattopadhyay (2015) conducted a study on the mobile payment system.
They conducted their study with the purpose of making a unified approach that can
identify the issues affecting usage intention of mobile-based payment services. They
conducted a nationwide primary survey using a valid questionnaire which had 11
factors. The data were analyzed using Growing Hierarchical Self-Organizing Map
(GHSOM) model to automatically determine the filtering rules for clustering. In their
study, they found that innovativeness, discomfort, system quality, perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, task-fit, connectivity, absorptive capacity and
structural assurance had a significant effect on the adoption of mobile payment
services.
Upadhyay & Jahanyan (2016) made an integrated approach.

This approach was made to identify the factors that affect the intention in using mobile-
based payment services. These services were marketed by cellular service providers
and were different from mobile-based banking. The formulated 11 hypotheses to
determine the relationship between the factors used in the study. 196 respondents
participated in the survey. The study found that PU, PEOU, system quality,
connectivity, discomfort, task-technology fit and structural assurance have significant
impact on the usage intention of mobile money services. On the other hand, perceived
monetary value, absorptive capacity and personal innovativeness did not have any
significant impact.
Liu & Tai (2016) conducted a quantitative study in Vietnam.

They tried to spot out the factors affecting the intention of customers to use mobile
payment service plan. In their study, they adopted the TAM model to study consumers’
reactions and behaviors when a new product is launched. Mobility, convenience,
compatibility and m-payment knowledge were included as constructs along with PU
and PEOU to determine the actual behavior of the customer. They used SEM to test all
hypothesis and found that, both PU and PEOU have significant impact on the adoption
of mobile payment services. They also found that, convenience of mobility,
compatibility, and mobile payment knowledge have impacts on ease to use and
usefulness and risk do not have any impact when customers have intention to use
mobile payment services.
Phonthanukitithaworn, Sellitto, & Fong (2016) conducted a study in Thailand.
[32]
They tried to find the factors that promote users to adopt mobile payment services. The
developed a research model based on TAM and innovation diffusion theory and
collected empirical data from 529 Thai mobile phone users. They empirically validated
the research model using SEM and the research findings tells that the adoption of
mobile payment services were determined by compatibility, subjective norms,
perceived trust, and perceived risk. Surprisingly, PU, PEOU, and perceived cost did
not have any significant effect on behavior intention.
Madan & Yadav (2016) conducted a study on mobile wallet adoption.

They tried to determine the factors that affect consumers’ adoption of mobile wallet as
an alternative method of making payments to purchase goods and services. They
proposed an integrated approach to understand mobile wallet adoption. The
hypothesized relationships were analyzed via SEM. A survey of over 210 mobile phone
customers was made and found that performance expectancy, social influence,
facilitating conditions, perceived risk, perceived value, PRS, as well as PBs, to be
significant factors in predicting behavioral intentions to adopt mobile wallet solutions.
The impact of effort expectancy was found to be statistically insignificant. The study
is the first of its kind in India and has added a new dimension in the assessment of
technology adoption by proposing two new variables-perceived regulatory support
(PRS) and promotional benefits (PBs).
Nguyen, Cao, Dang, & Nguyen (2016) conducted a study in Vietnam.

They attempted to examine the factors that influence customers’ intention to use mobile
payment services in Vietnam. Empirical evidence was collected from 489 Vietnamese
customers. From their study, they found that perceived trust is the strongest predictor
of intention to use mobile payment services followed by perceived ease of use
perceived enjoyment, perceived behavioral control, perceived usefulness and
subjective norm, respectively. The research suggests that mobile payment service
providers should focus on building up consumer trust, and making their services clear,
understandable and easy to use.
Summary of Previous Studies
In different geographical location, several empirical studies have been conducted by several
authors. Even in Bangladesh some studies have been conducted to identify the influencing
factors in the adoption of mobile payment systems and mobile banking. In the both cases of
studies on technology adoption and mobile payment adoption each study shows quite different
findings. This is the reason behind conducting same studies in different geographical locations.
As any technology innovation is an ongoing process and adoption of any new technology differs
[33]
from country to country, it is very important for continued investigation. Previous studies show
that the influential factor behind mobile payment adoption differs in different geographical
locations. Even in the same geographical location it differs from time to time. So, it is highly
recommended to continuously investigate mobile payment adoption factors to better understand
the behavior of customers and help mobile payment platforms to improve their service.
2.5 Overview of Mobile Financial Services in Bangladesh
There are around 151.82 million people in Bangladesh of which 13% have bank accounts. More
than 95% peoples are mobile phone users. So, banks can now provide financial services to both
rural community and the population through a mobile phone.
In Bangladesh, mobile financial services are provided by different commercial banks. Among
the mobile financial services, mobile payment is the most popular financial service, which
involves the use of mobile devices to pay for goods and services either at the point of sale or
remotely.
Bangladesh Bank (BB) is the central bank and controls all the private and scheduled banks in
Bangladesh. As all banks are controlled by Bangladesh Bank, mobile payment services
provided by these banks are also controlled by Bangladesh Bank.
There are currently 17 banks providing mobile payment services in Bangladesh (Bangladesh
Bank, 2017). These banks are providing their services through 5 mobile networks, namely,
Grameenphone, Banglalink, Robi, Airtel, and Teletalk. Among the mobile payment platforms,
DBBL Mobile Banking is the oldest platform. But bKash has the height market share. All of
the mobile payment platforms are providing their services to the customers through a large
number of agents.
Agents and Clients
Mobile payment platforms are providing their financial services mostly payment services
through their agents. There are 717,046 agents (as of March, 2017) of all mobile payment
platforms operating in Bangladesh (Bangladesh Bank, 2017). These agents conduct several
activities including, opening account, cash-in, and cash-out. Agents do not charge to customers
directly. All of the charges are initiated by the service provider.
There are around 50.429 million registered clients of mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
Among these, the numbers of active accounts are around 24.570 million (Bangladesh Bank,
2017). So, 48.72% of the total registered clients are active. And the rest of the registered clients
are not using their accounts.
[34]
Types of Transaction and Limits
There are mainly five types of transactions they are, Business to Person (B2P), Person to
Business (P2B), Person to Person (P2P), Government to Person (G2P) and Person to
Government (P2G).
Bangladesh Bank has fixed the transaction limit for individual account holders of mobile
financial services at a maximum of BDT 10,000 daily and a total of BDT 25,000 on a monthly
basis. There is no restriction with regard to number of P2P transactions and it is up to individual
providers to set their own limits. Customers are allowed to make five cash-in transactions in
their account daily and 20 cash-in transactions monthly. The limit for cash-out transactions is
three per day and 10 per month. With regard to the amount, the upper limit for cash-in and cash-
out is BDT 25,000 daily and BDT 150,000 monthly. The above limits are not applicable to
P2B, B2P, P2G or G2P transactions. Banks are required to devise appropriate mechanisms for
dealing with these types of transactions.
Amount of Transaction
In March 2017, the number of average transaction was 4,896,083 per day. And the amount of
the average daily transaction was BDT 8070.96 million per day (Bangladesh Bank, 2017). As
of February 2017, the average daily number of transactions increased by 2.28% and the average
amount of daily transaction increased by 1.32%.
Mobile financial services (MFS) comparative summary statement of February, 2017 and march,
2017 published by Bangladesh bank is provided in Appendix 1.
2.6 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development
The technology acceptance model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989) is one of the most widely
accepted, applied, and validated models in the area of information technology or information
system adoption studies. TAM is applied for various contexts as well as in a variety of
organizational settings. As TAM is used in different field of study, it often needs to extend its
scope by adding new related variables to capture the characteristics of a particular field
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). So, this statement says that dominant-specific contracts can be
added to TAM when applying to any new field of new technology. Even the traditional Tam
was modified to TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003), and further to TAM3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Each of these modifications was made to better identify and stimulate the use of technology.
[35]
Both TAM and TAM2 were criticized to provide little actionable guidance on how to develop
appropriate interventions and mechanisms to encourage users to modify positively their
behaviors toward adoption, acceptance and usage of a new technology. Addressing this concern
TAM3 model was developed which has made some significant contributions by identifying the
determinants of PEOU and PU. TAM3 has incorporated elements of context, process and
individual differences (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
The research model for this study presents a modified TAM3, which presents a complete
nomological network of the determinants of individuals’ IT adoption and use. The TAM3
model is modified by deducting two of the determinants of PEOU (Perceived Enjoyment and
Objective Usability). While Perceived Cost, Perceived Trust, and Perceived Risk is Included
along with PU, and PEOU as the determinants of Behavioral Intention to adopt mobile payment
platforms. None of the two moderating variables (Experience and Voluntariness) are included
in the research model. Undertaking all of these modifications, the proposed research model for
this study is developed, which is shown in fig. 9. The variables and proposed hypothesis are
also discussed below.
Subjective
Norm
Image
Perceived
Job Usefulness
Relevance
Perceived
Output Cost
Quality
Result
Demonstrability Perceived Behavioral Actual
Trust Intention Adoption
Self-
efficacy Perceived
Risk
External
Control
Perceived
Anxiety Ease of Use
Playfulness
Figure 9: Proposed Research Model
[36]
2.6.1 Constructs of Original TAM
TAM model theorizes that PU, and PEOU are two fundamental determinants of Behavioral
Intention (BI) and actual adoption of any technology (Davis et al., 1989).
Behavioral Intention (BI)
According to Davis (1993) and Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) behavioral intention (BI) is defined
as “the degree to which user’s motivations intend to adopt and use of a new system such as
mobile payment. Yaseen & Zayed (2012) defined BI as “an indication of a person’s readiness
to perform a given behavior, and it is considered to be the immediate antecedent of behavior.”
It is expected that customers’ intention behavior has a significant positive influence on the
actual usage of any technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Above argument leads to following
hypothesis:
H1: Behavioral intention has a significant positive influence on the adoption and usage of
mobile payment in Bangladesh.
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
According to Davis (1989) PU is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using
a particular system would improve his/her job performance.” Perceived usefulness a vital
element in TAM which influences the behavioral intention to use any technology (Davis, 1989).
PU will measure the willingness to adopt something new compared to traditional values of the
customers (Tan & Teo, 2000). According to Gong & Xu (2004) “PU is considered as customers’
trust that their expectation will be met when applying a new technology” (Gong & Xu, 2004).
Awamieh & Fernandes (2005) also added that, “perceived usefulness is that the new service
will offer more advantages than traditional services to individuals intending to use it.”
Therefore, from the above argument, it can be hypothesized that:
H2: Perceived usefulness has a significant positive influence on the behavioral intention to
adopt and use mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
PEOU is defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would
be free of effort” (Davis et al., 1989). According to Ndubisi & Jantan (2003) “perceived ease
to use refers to the clear and understandable interaction that users experience with the new
system, and it is also about how comfortable they feel when using the system to do what they
want.” Theoretically, the ease of use is perceived when a customer feels the new invention is
not difficult to understand, to learn, and to use. For this reason, ease of use is considered to be
[37]
one of the important factors affecting the acceptance and use of the new technologies by users.
TAM indicates that PEOU influences both PU and BI to adopt a technology. Above argument
leads us to following hypothesis:
H3a: Perceived ease of use has s significant positive influence on the behavioral intention to
H3b: Perceived ease of use has a significant positive influence on the perceived usefulness to
2.6.2 Perceived Cost (PC)
Perceived cost is defined as “the extent to which an individual believes that using m-payment
services will cost them extra money” (Luarn & Lin, 2005). Over the years, TAM has been
extended with additional variables like the perceived cost. It is observed that cost has an
important role in influencing PU and PEOU in the adoption of information technology. There
may be many additional cost involved with using mobile payment services. In mobile payment
services, this cost may include transaction cost, and subscription fees. Several studies have
found that perceived cost could be a major barrier to the adoption of new technology. Luarn &
Lin (2005) found that cost is a significant factor in the adoption of mobile banking in Taiwan.
Given that importance of perceived cost, it can be included as an important construct in TAM
to investigate the adoption of mobile payment platforms. With the adoption of mobile payment
platforms, the key question is the overall value delivered by MPP in exchange of cost incurred
by customers. On the view of the above discussion following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Perceived cost has a significant negative influence on the behavioral intention to adopt and
use mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
2.6.3 Perceived Trust (PT)
Mayer, Devis, & Schoorman (1995) defines trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable
to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular
action important to the trust or irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party.”
As mobile payment is conducted in a virtual environment without face to face interaction
between buyers and service providers, it creates the uncertainty and risk of sharing personal
information to the third party (Lu, Yu, Liu, & Yao, 2003). But Pavlou (2003) has argued that,
consumer perceptions of trust are more concerned with service providers rather than the
available technological infrastructure. Previous studies have found a significant relationship
between perceived trust and adoption of any new technology like mobile payment services.
Therefore, the hypothesis for this study with regard to perceived trust is proposed as:
[38]
H5: Perceived trust has a significant positive influence on the behavioral intention to adopt and
2.6.4 Perceived Risk (PR)
According to Featherman & Pavlou (2003), “perceived risk is a construct that reflects feelings
of uncertainty among consumers regarding the possible negative consequence of using new
technology that may dissuade adoption.” If the customers perceive that mobile payment service
is involved with high level of risk, it is less likely that the customers will engage in these types
of services. The perception of risk involved in mobile payment services might include security
risk, privacy risk, social risk, financial risk, time risk etc. Several studies on technology
adoption have found that perceived risk as a significant impact on the adoption of any new
technology. Therefore, the hypothesis for this study with regard to perceived risk is proposed
as:
H6: Perceived risk has a significant negative influence on the behavioral intention to adopt and
2.6.5 Determinants of PU
TAM3 incorporates two social determinants: Subjective norm, and Image and three system
characteristics determinants: Job Relevance, Output Quality, and Result Demonstrability as the
determinants of perceived usefulness (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008).
Subjective Norm (SN)
Subjective norm is defined as “the degree to which an individual perceives that most people
who are important to him think he should or should not use the system” (Fishbein & Ajzen,
1975). SN was earlier proposed in Theory Reasoned Action. While TAM was modified to
TAM2, this variable was included as an additional predictor of intention to use technology. SN
affects PU, image as well as the behavioral intention to adopt any technology. SN implies that
users are significantly influences by their peers in their decision making. Based on the above
discussion, this study suggests following hypothesis:
H7a: Subjective norm has a significant positive influence on the behavioral intention to adopt
and use mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
H7b: Subjective norm has a significant positive influence on the perceived usefulness to adopt
[39]
H7c: Subjective norm positively affects image to adopt and use mobile payment platforms in
Bangladesh.
Image (IMG)
Venkatesh & Bala (2008) defined image as “the degree to which an individual perceives that
use of an innovation will enhance his or her status in his or her social system.” It is assumed
that the individual would use new technology in order to get social status (Ventatesh, 2000).
Thus, theorized that image has a positive effect on PU. Based on this study, we formulate the
following hypotheses:
H8: Image has a significant positive influence on the behavioral intention to adopt and use
mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
Job Relevance (JR)
“Job relevance is the degree to which an individual believes that the target system is applicable
to his or her job” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). They discussed the effects of job relevance on
PU. They found that job relevance has an effect on users’ PU of information system. Studies
show that users adopt any technology if they find that the particular technology is relevant to
their job. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H9: Job Relevance has a significant positive influence on the perceived usefulness to adopt and
Output Quality (OQ)
Venkatesh & Davis (2000) defined output quality as “the degree to which an individual
believes that the system performs his or her job tasks well.” Further Venkatesh & Bala (2008)
defined output quality as “an individual’s perception of how well a system performs task
necessary to his or her job.” Output quality is a general determinant of perceived usefulness.
The output quality is also used to determine job relevance as, if the output quality of any
technology is not good it will not be relevant to the job and vice-versa. From above discussion
following hypothesis can be formulated:
H10a: Output quality has a significant positive influence on the perceived usefulness to adopt
H10c: Output quality positively affects job relevance to adopt and use mobile payment platforms
in Bangladesh.
[40]
Result Demonstrability (RD)
Result demonstrability is “the degree to which an individual believes that the results of using a
system are tangible, observable, and communicable” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). RD is
recognized as the tangibility of the results of using the innovation like m-payment (Venkatesh
& Bala, 2008). The more any system is perceived as useful, the higher result demonstrability is
associated with the system. Davis & Vankatesh (2000) suggest that result demonstrability will
have a positive direct influence on PU. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H11: Result demonstrability has a significant positive influence on the perceived usefulness to
2.6.6 Determinants of PEOU
Venkatesh & Bala (2008) suggest that perceived ease of use can be determined by self-efficacy,
external control, anxiety, and playfulness.
Self-efficacy (SE)
Shin (2010) defined self-efficacy as “an individual’s assessment of his or her ability to perform
desirable behaviors in specific situations.” When applied to mobile domain, “self-efficacy
refers to the degree to which an individual believes that he or she has the ability to perform a
specific task or job using mobile phone” (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Self-efficacy is a widely-
applied factor to determine the adoption and acceptance of any information technology studies.
Previous studies have revealed that SE had a significant positive influence on PEOU in several
mobile services and applications, such as mobile banking, mobile learning, SMS advertising,
mobile data service adoption, and smartphone acceptance (Faqih & Jaradat, 2015). Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed for this study:
H12: Self-efficacy has a significant positive influence on the perceived ease of use to adopt and
Perception of External Control (PEC)
Venkatesh & Bala (2008) defined perception of external control as “the degree to which an
individual believes that organizational and technical resources exist to support the use of the
system. Control relates to “one’s perception of available knowledge, resources, and
opportunities that are required to perform a specific behavior” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). So,
when one has certain knowledge and resources available, his level of control increases. Several
studies have found that perception of external control positively influences the perception of
ease of use (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
[41]
H13: Perception of external control has a significant positive influence on the perceived ease of
use to adopt and use mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
Anxiety (ANX)
Anxiety is defined as the degree of an individual’s hesitation or fear when using any technology
(Ventatesh, 2000). “Anxiety is an unpleasant emotional state characterized by feelings of
tension and fear (Faqih & Jaradat, 2015). So, an increased anxiety towards technologies will
lead to less favorable perceptions of the technology adoption and acceptance. Several
researchers have investigated the influence of anxiety on the adoption of technology and found
that, anxiety negatively influences PEOU as well as intention to adopt any technology.
Whenever anyone has fear or anxiety towards any technology, it is less likely to use the system.
In this study, the above discussion can be hypothesized as:
H14: Anxiety has a significant negative influence on the perceived ease of use to adopt and use
mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh.
Playfulness (PLAY)
Playfulness refers to “the degree of cognitive spontaneity in mobile interactions” (Venkatesh

& Bala, 2008). “Playfulness includes the aspiration for using technology for fun rather than
specifically for positive outcomes associated with use” (Jaradat & Al-Mashaqba, 2014).
Venkatesh (2000) found that those who are more playful with mobile are expected to rate a
system’s ease of use higher than those who are less playful. Playfulness and Anxiety has an
opposite relationship. Those who are more playful with mobile, usually has less anxiety. Thus,
following hypothesis are proposed:
H15: Playfulness has a significant positive influence on the perceived ease of use to adopt and
[42]
Chapter 3: Methodology
In this chapter, the research methodology is described which contains the research method,
place and time of the study, sample size, data collection procedure, data analysis method along
with some assumptions that should be considered while reading the analysis in the next chapter.
3.1 Research Philosophy
In the research process, research philosophy is the first step which is concerned with knowledge
creation and its nature. Mainly, there are three research philosophy. They are, Positivism,
Realism, and Interpretivism.
Positivism assumes that, the phenomenon being studied has a stable reality that is measured
from the outside by an objective observer (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The method in positivism
is highly structured and its main goal is to facilitate repetition. It is associated with the
observation of facts in the form of quantifiable measurements. Positivism uses laboratory
experiments, fiend experiments, and surveys as its research method. In this study, the researcher
neither influences the observed nor is influenced by it.
Realism is the application of positivism in social context. Realism believes that there exists
reality, but there also exist factors that influence the perception of reality among people of
society. According to realism philosophy, there are social forces that influence people without
their being aware of being influenced by these forces. Realism takes these forces responsible
for human perception and behavior and is a philosophy that well suits the study of human
behavior in order to investigate the individual’s perception of social constructs and meanings.
Interpretivism assumes that the researcher and reality are inseparable (Weber, 2004).
Interpretivism is a research philosophy well suited for complex business environments in which
it is necessary to comprehend the intentions, motivations and actions of the research subjects.
Interpretivism can be regarded as observing the details in a situation to either discover the
reality or to understand the reality behind the details of the situation (Elli, 2011).
In this study, the interpretivism philosophy is followed as the research area is a complex
business environment and it intends to understand the reality behind the intention to adopt
mobile payment platforms. As this research situation is unique and which includes a particular
set of individual perception and characteristics, social factors and individual decision-making
criteria, the result of this research may not be generalized, which is not the priority of
interpretivism.
[43]
3.2 Research Approach
There are mainly two approaches to a research. One is Qualitative and another is Quantitative.
But there is another advanced research approach, which is called Mixed approach.
According to Cresswell (2009), “qualitative research is a means of exploring and understanding

the meaning that individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem.” Qualitative data
are derived from broad answers to specific questions in interviews, responses to open-ended
questions in a questionnaire, through observations, or from already available information
gathered from various sources (Sekaran, 2003). According to Cresswell (2009), qualitative
research is a means of exploring and understanding the meaning that individuals or groups
ascribe to a social or human problem. Accordingly, qualitative research involves merging
questions and procedures, where data are typically collected in the participant’s setting. While
analyzing qualitative data the researcher inductively forms general themes and then interprets
the data.
Quantitative research is one that deals with numeric data, that means utilizing data collection
and analysis methods that are either using or producing numerical data (Cresswell, 2009). In
quantitative research data is collected through a structured questionnaire. “Quantitative
research is about testing objective theories by examining the relationship between variables
(Cresswell, 2009). As quantitative research collects and uses numeric data, the data can be
analyzed using statistical procedures.
A mixed research approach is the combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Mixed approach is adopted in various phenomena of interests that cannot be fully understood
using only a quantitative or a quantitative method (Venkatesh, Brown, & Bala, Bridging the
Qualitative-Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in
Information Systems, 2013).
In this research, quantitative research approach is adopted to collect and analyze data.
Structured close-ended questionnaire is used to collect data from the respondents.
There is a second typology of research approach consisting two research approaches. One is
Deductive approach and the other is Inductive approach.
In deductive approach research hypothesis and theories are formulated and tested. Deductive
types of research are mostly applied to those areas where there are pre-defined theories and
variables.
[44]
Inductive research approach is the opposite of deductive approach. In inductive approach, the
researcher tries to develop theories based on data analysis results. These types of research are
carried out in those disciplines where no previous theories are available.
As there already are several theories on the technology acceptance research field, there is no
need to build any theory to conduct this study. And this study does not have any for
generalizability and there are predefined questions to be answered and a model to be tested by
data analysis, the approach of this study is deductive.
3.3 Population
One of the most important ideas in a research project is the unit of analysis or population. Once
the research problem is defined and the data collection method is chosen, it is necessary to
clearly select the target population from which the sample will be taken to collect data. The
population is the major entity that should be analyzed in the study. In this study, the population
is anyone who has a mobile phone device. Because this paper is intended to analyze the different
factors that influence on the adoption of mobile payment platforms at an individual level.
Although it’s to be considered that this individual level doesn’t apply to all the mobile phone
users because the field survey will be conducted on a sampled population in Bangladesh.
3.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size
Sample reflects the characteristics of the population, they belong to. But it is not necessary that
all samples must reflect all characteristics of the majority of their members. In some areas of
research where the size of the population is very large, it is not always possible to take a large
research sample. Budget, time constrains and information processing facilities limit the number
of members to be studied.
According to Zikmund, Babin, Carr, & Griffin (2010) there are mainly two types of sampling
techniques. One is probability sampling and the other is non-probability sampling.
In probability sampling, every element in the population has a known, nonzero probability of
selection. The simple random sample, in which each member of the population has an equal
probability of being selected, is the best-known probability sample (Zikmund et al., 2010).
There are three types of probability sampling method, namely random sampling, systematic
sampling, and stratified sampling.
In non-probability sampling, the probability of any particular member of the population being
chosen is unknown. In non-probability sampling the researchers relies heavily on personal
judgment (Zikmund et al., 2010). In this sampling technique, there are no appropriate statistical
[45]
techniques for measuring random sampling error. Technically, non-probability sampling being
statistically inappropriate, sometimes researchers find this technique best suited for specific
research purposes. Non-probability samples are pragmatic and are used in market research.
There are four types of non-probability sampling method, namely convenience sampling,
judgmental sampling, quota sampling, and snowball sampling.
In this study, non-probability sampling technique is used as there is no intention of

generalizability of results. The convenience sampling method is used, which refers to sampling
by obtaining people or units that are conveniently available. In this research, there are no
categories or strata for selection of respondents yet the only condition is that the respondent
must be familiar with mobile payment platforms, or mobile payment services, or mobile
financial services.
To determine the sample size for this study, sample size of previous studies on technology
acceptance has been analyzed. Most of the studies have taken a sample size of between 100 to
500. So, for this study s sample size of 500 is targeted which is adequate for the main objective
of this study.
3.5 Measurement of Constructs
This study contains a total of seventeen variables. All of these variables and indicators are
adopted from Technology Acceptance Model 3 (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008), except for three
variables: Perceived Cost, Perceived Trust, and Perceived Risk (Phonthanukitithaworn , Sellitto
, & Fong , 2016). A questionnaire is developed to achieve the objective of this study. The
measurement items of this questionnaire are adopted from scale items that were validated and
used in previous research studies by (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008) and, (Phonthanukitithaworn et
al., 2016).
There is a total of 54 questions in the questionnaire for the survey purpose. A five-point Likert
scale will be utilized to gauge both independent and dependent variables in this study. With all
the variables related inquiries "Strongly Disagree (SD)" was allotted to 1 point, which implied
low level of agreement whereas, "Strongly Agree (SA)" was allotted to 5 points, which was the
most noteworthy score in estimation and which implied abnormal state of consent to sentences.
For the demographic information in the questionnaire each response will be assigned with an
ascending number label which implied nothing as the information acquired is nominal data.
All of the measurement items in this research are presented in table 5.
 Table 5 goes here
[46]
3.5.2 Reliability and Validity
Reliability analysis alludes to the test of the consistency of respondents' responses to all the
things in a measure, or the extent to which an instrument measures the same way every time it
is utilized under the same condition with the same subjects. The higher the coefficient, the better
is the reliability of what the instrument intends to measure (Sekaran, 2003). In this study, the
measurement items are adopted from previous studies by Venkatesh & Bala (2008) and,
(Phonthanukitithaworn et al., 2016). Indicators for each of the variables will be tested.
Budd (1987) prescribed that the adequate estimation of reliability study of Cronbach's alpha
between 0.50 to around 0.80. Generally, any alpha value greater than 0.60 in considered as the
lowest value of reliability (Lowenthal, 2004). In any case the alpha coefficient of 0.60 could be
acceptable.
3.6 Data Collection Procedure
For the purpose of this study, quantitative analysis (survey) will be utilized. The questionnaire
will be distributed to a representative sample. All participants will be randomly selected from
several districts (Khulna, Dhaka, Rajshahi, Jessore, Gopalganj, and Barisal) by using the
convenience sampling technique. A printed copy of the questionnaire will be provided directly
to the respondents. Statistical descriptive will be used to find out the respondents’ demographic
and general characteristics in order to provide a descriptive profile of the respondents.
3.7 Data Analysis Technique
In this study, the data will be collected by using a questionnaire consisting 54 questions. Partial
least squares (PLS) based structural equation model (SEM) technique will be used to analyze
data and test hypothesis. IBM SPSS Statistics 21, IBM SPSS AMOS 21, SmartPLS 3, and
Microsoft Excel software will be used to analyze the collected data to determine the
relationships among variables.
[47]
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. RGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND

HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
New Jersey : Prentice-Hall.
Al-Gahtani, S. (2011). Modeling the Electronic Transactions Acceptance Using An Extended

Technology Acceptance Model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 9, 47-77.
Alsajjan , B., & Dennis , C. (2010). Internet Banking Acceptance Model: Cross-Market
Examination. Journal of Business Research,, 63, 957-963.
Al-Somali, S., Gholami, R., & Clegg, B. (2009). An investigation into the acceptance of online
banking in Saudi Arabia. Technovation, 29(2), 130-141.
Anderson, R. (1990). Data Processing, Information Systems and Technology. London: Pitman
Publishing.
Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic
review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Arvidsson, N. (2014). Consumer attitudes on mobile payment services – results from a proof
of concept test. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 32(2), 150-170.
Awamieh, R., & Fernandes, C. (2005). Internet Banking: An empirical investigation into the
extent of adoption by banks and the determinants of customer satisfaction in the United
Arab Emirates. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 10(1), 1-12.
Bangladesh Bank. (2017, Febfuary). Mobile Financial Services (MFS) comparative summary
statement. Retrieved from www.bb.org.bd:
https://www.bb.org.bd/fnansys/paymentsys/mfsdata.php
Budd, R. (1987). RESPONSE BIAS AND THE THEORY OF REASONED ACTION. Social
Cognition, 5(2), 95-107.
Chen, Gillenson, & Sherrell. (2002). Enticing Online Consumers: An Extended Technology
Acceptance Perspective. Information & Management, 39, 705-719.
[48]
Cheng, T., Lam, D., & Yeung, A. (2006). Adoption of Internet Banking: An Empirical Study
in Hong Kong. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1558-1572.
Chowdhury, I., Patro, S., Venugopal, P., & D. Israel. (2014). A study on consumer adoption of
technology-facilitated services. Journal of Services Marketing, 28(6), 471-483.
Chuttur, M. (2009). Overview of the Technology Acceptance Model: Origins, Developments

and Future Directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9-37. Retrieved
from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/9-37
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and
initial test. MIS Quarterly, 189-211.
Cresswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches (3 ed.). USA: Sage Publication.
Davis, F. (1989). 'Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. Mis Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). Users Acceptance of Computer Technology: A
comparison of Two Theoritical Models. 35(8), 982-1003.
Devis , F. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user
Information Systems: Theory and Results. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Devis , F. (1993). User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics User

Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
38(3), 475-487.
Devis, F. (1989). 'Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
Information Technology. Mis Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Dooley, K. (1999). Towards a Holistic Model for the Diffusion of Educational Technologies:
An Integrative Review of Educational Innovation Studies. Educational Technology
and Society, 2(4), 35-45.
Elli, S. (2011). Investigating factors influencing customers intension for choosing electronic
banking services. Luleå University of Technology.
[49]
Faqih, K., & Jaradat, M.-I. R. (2015). Assessing the moderating effect of gender differences
and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce
technology: TAM3 perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 37-
52.
Featherman, M., & Pavlou, P. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 451-474.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley.
Flavian, C., Torres, E., & Guinaliu, M. (2004). Corporate image measurement: A further
problem for the tangibilization of Internet banking services. The International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 366-381.
Garcia, & Calantone. (2002). Critical Look at Technological Innovation Typology and
Innovativeness Terminology: A Literature Review. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19(2), 110-132.
Gong, M., & Xu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365-374.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park C: Sage
Publications.
Ha, S., & Stoel, L. (2009). Consumer e-shopping acceptance: Antecedents in a technology
acceptance model. Journal of Business Research, 62(5), 565-671.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & William, C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Halawi, L., & McCarthy, R. (2009). Which Theory Applies: An Analysis of Information
Systems Research. Issues in Information Systems, 252-256.
Hall, B. H., & Khan, B. (2003, May). ADOPTION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY. Cambridge:
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES. Retrieved from
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9730
[50]
Jaradat, M.-I. R., & Al-Mashaqba, A. M. (2014). Understanding the adoption and usage of
mobile payment services by using TAM3. Int. J. Business Information Systems, 16(3),
271-296.
Jaradat, M.-I. R., & Faqih, K. (2014). Investigating the Moderating Effects of Gender and Self-
Efficacy in the Context of Mobile Payment Adoption: A Developing Country
Perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(11), 147-169.
Kamulegeya, F. (2010, January 6). E-payment will improve country’s competitiveness.

Retrieved from http://www.monitor.co.ug:
http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Prosper/688616-836236-go1b8vz/index.html
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2009). An empirical examination of factors influencing
the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 310-322.
King, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, k., McFarlan, F., Raman, K., & Yap, C. (1994). Institutional
Factors in Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 5(2).
Klapper, L., & Singer, D. (2014). THE OPPORTUNITIES OF DIGITIZING PAYMENTS.

Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World
Bank.
Koksal, M. H. (2016). The intentions of Lebanese consumers to adopt mobile banking.

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(3).
Lai, V., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for internet banking: an invariance
analysis. Information & Management, 42, 373-386.
Lee, M.-C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM
and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 8, 130-141.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003). The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present,
and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752-
780.
Liebana-Cabanillas, F., & Sanchez-Fernandez, J. (2014). Role of gender on acceptance of

mobile payment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(2), 220-240.
[51]
Lin, C., & Ding, C. (2007). Comparing the Main Effects and Moderating Effects of Education
Among Three Models in IT Service: A Quantitative Approach. Quality & Quantity,
43(4), 617-633.
Liu, G.-S., & Tai, P. (2016). A Study of Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Mobile Payment
Services in Vietnam. Economics World, 4(6), 249-273.
Lowenthal, K. M. (2004). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (2nd ed.). Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Lu, J., Yu, C., Liu, C., & Yao, J. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless internet.
Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 21(3), 206-222.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile
banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 873-891.
Madan , K., & Yadav , R. (2016). Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: a developing
country perspective. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(3), 227-244.
Mallat, N. (2007). Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments – A qualitative study.

Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16, 413-432.
Mathieson, M. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the TAM with the Theory of
Planned Behavior. Information System Research, 2(3), 173-191.
Mayer, R., Devis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational Trust.
The Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.
Moore , G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research,
2(3), 192-222.
Moore, G., & Benbasat, L. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 192-
222.
Ndubisi, N., & Jantan, M. (2003). Evaluating IS usage in Malaysian small and medium-sized
firms using TAM. Logistics Information Management, 16(6), 440-450.
[52]
Neely, A., & Hii, J. (1998). Innovation and Business Performance: A Literature Review. The
Judge Institute of Management Studies.
Nguyen, T., Cao, T., Dang, P., & Nguyen, H. (2016). Predicting Consumer Intention to Use
Mobile Payment Services: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of
Marketing Studies, 8(1), 117-124.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. NY: McGraw-Hil.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI): A Multiple-Item Scale to Measure

Readiness to Embrace New Technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320.
Pavlou, P. (2003). Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk
with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 7, 101-134.
Phonthanukitithaworn , C., Sellitto , C., & Fong , M. (2016). An investigation of mobile

payment (m-payment) services in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration, 8(1), 37-54.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations (4 ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5 ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). ommunication of Innovation. New York: Free Press.
Sekaran. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. USA: John Wiley
and Sons.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research method for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.). John
Wiley & Sons.
Shih, H.-P. (2004). Extended Technology Acceptance Model of Internet Utilization Behavior.
Information & Management, 41, 719-929.
Shin, D. (2010). Modeling the interaction of users and mobile payment system: conceptual
framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(10), 917-940.
[53]
Stuart, W. (2000). Influence of Sources of Communication, User Characteristics and Innovation
Characteristics on Adoption of a Communication Technology. Doctoral, PhD thesis,
The University of Kansas.
Suh, B., & Han, I. (2002). Effect of Trust on Customer Acceptance of Internet Banking.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1, 247-263.
Svendsen, G., Johnsen, J.-A., Almås-Sørensen, L., & Vittersø, J. (2011). Personality and
technology acceptance: the influence of personality factors on the core constructs of
the Technology Acceptance Model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(4),
232-334.
Tan, M., & Teo, T. (2000). Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the
Association for Information System, 1(5), 1-42.
Thakur, R., & Mala, S. (2014). Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and
usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India. Internet
Research, 24(3), 369-392.
Upadhyay, P., & Chattopadhyay, M. (2015). Examining mobile based payment services
adoption issues: A new approach using hierarchical clustering and self-organizing
maps. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(4), 490-507.
Upadhyay, P., & Jahanyan, S. (2016). Analyzing user perspective on the factors affecting use
intention of mobile based transfer payment. Internet Research, 26(1), 38-56.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2).
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the Qualitative-Quantitative Divide:
Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods Research in Information Systems. Mis
Quarterly, 37(1), 21-54.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003, September ). User
Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly,
27(3), 425-478.
[54]
Ventatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating perceived behavioral
control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 342-365.
Vijayasarathy. (2004). Predicting Consumer Intentions to Use On-line Shopping: The Case for
An Augmented Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management, 41,
747-762.
Wang, & Fang. (2008). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to Mobile
Telecommunication Innovation: The Existence of Network Externalities. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 7(2), 101-110.
Weber, R. (2004). The Rhetoric of Positivism Versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1).
Webster, J., & Martocchio, J. (1992). Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure

with workplace implications. MIS Quarterly, 201-226.
Wei, T., Marthandan, G., Chong, A., Ooi, K., & Arumugam, S. (Ind. Manage Data System).
2009. What drives Malaysian m-commerce adoption? Ane mpirical analysis, 109(3),
370-388.
Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 28(3), 443-488.
Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H., & Yu, B. (2015). Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment
acceptance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(2), 253-269.
Yaseen, & Zayed. (2012). Exploring critical determinants in deploying mobile commerce
technology. American Journal of Applied Science, 7(1), 120-126.
Zhou, T. (2014). Understanding the determinants of mobile payment continuance usage.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 936-948.
Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2010). Bsuiness Research Nethod. (8, Ed.)
South-western, Cengage Learning.
[55]
Appendix 1: Tables and Figures
Table 5: Measurement Items
Construct Indicator Sources

Perceived Usefulness PU1: Using mobile payment improves my work performance. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(PU) PU2: Using mobile payment increases my productivity.
PU3: Using mobile payment enhances my effectiveness in my work.
PU4: Using mobile payment is useful to make my payment quickly.
Perceived Ease of Use PEOU1: My interaction with mobile payment is clear and understandable. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(PEOU) PEOU2: Using mobile payment does not require a lot of mental effort.
PEOU3: Mobile payment is easy to use.
PEOU4: I find it easy to use mobile payment to do what I want to do.
Perceived Cost PC1: I believe that the transaction fees for using mobile payment will be high. (Phonthanukitithaworn et
(PC) PC2: I believe that the communication or access fees for using mobile payment will be high. al., 2016)
PC3: Overall, I believe that using mobile payment will cost me a lot of money
Perceived Trust PT1: I believe that mobile payment service providers are honest. (Phonthanukitithaworn et
(PT) PT2: I believe that mobile payment service providers offer a secure payment service. al., 2016)
PT3: I believe that mobile payment service providers will not take advantage of me.
Perceived Risk PR1: In general, I believe that using mobile payment to conduct a payment transaction is or will (Phonthanukitithaworn et
(PR) be risky. al., 2016)
PR2: I believe that there is or will be a high potential for loss associated with using mobile
payment (for instance, loss of my financial details to hackers).
[56]
PR3: I believe that there is or will be too much uncertainty associated with using mobile
payment (for instance, money does not get through to the receiver due to network
problem).
PR4: I believe that using mobile payment will involve many unexpected problems (for instance,
overcharging from merchants or credit card providers).
Subjective Norm SN1: People who influence my behavior think that I should use mobile payment. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(SN) SN2: People who are important to me think that I should use mobile payment.
SN3: People with whom I interact with during payment has been or will be helpful in the use of
mobile payment.
SN4: In general, payment received has supported or will support the use of the system.
Image IMG1: People around me who use mobile payment have more prestige than those who do not. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(IMG) IMG2: People around me who use mobile payment have a high profile.
IMG3: Using mobile payment makes me distinctive from others.
Job Relevance REL1: In my job, usage of mobile payment is important. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(JR) REL2: In my job, usage of mobile payment is relevant.
REL3: The use of mobile payment is appropriate to my various job-related tasks.
Output Quality OQ1: The quality of the output I get from using mobile payment is high. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(OQ) OQ2: By using mobile payment, I will not have any problem with the quality of output.
OQ3: I rate the results from using mobile payment to be excellent.
Result Demonstrability RD1: I have no difficulty telling others about the results of using mobile payment. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(RD) RD2: I believe I could communicate to others the consequences of using mobile payment.
RD3: The results of using mobile payment are apparent to me.
Self-Efficacy SE1: I think that I can use mobile payment system even if there was no one around to tell me (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
what to do as I go.
SE2: I could use mobile payment system if I had just the built-in help facility for assistance.
[57]
SE3: I could use mobile payment system if someone showed me how to do it first.
SE4: I could use mobile payment system if I had used similar application before this one.
Perception of External PEC1: I have control over using mobile payment. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
Control PEC2: I have the resources necessary to use mobile payment.
(EC) PEC3: Given the resources, opportunities and knowledge it takes to use mobile payment, it
would be easy for me to use mobile payment.
PEC4: Mobile payment system is not compatible with other systems I use.
Anxiety ANX1: Using mobile payment does not scare me at all. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(ANX) ANX2: Working with mobile payment makes me nervous.
ANX3: Using mobile payment makes me feel unconfutable.
ANX4: Using mobile payment makes me feel uneasy.
Playfulness How you would characterize yourself when you use mobile payment system: (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(PLY) PLY1: Spontaneous
PLY2: Creative
PLY3: Playful
PLY4: Unoriginal
Behavioral Intention BI1: Assuming I had access to mobile payment, I intend to use it. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
(BI) BI2: Given that I had access to mobile payment, I predict that I would use it.
BI3: I plan to use the system in the next few months.
Actual Use (USE) USE1: how often do you engage in transaction via mobile payment system. (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008)
[58]
Table 6: Comparative Summary Statement of Mobile Financial Services
% change
Amount in Amount in
Description (February
February, 2017 March, 2017
to January
No. of Banks Providing Services 17 17
No. of Agents 696,722 717,046 2.92%
Number of Registered Clients in Lac 498.54 504.29 1.15%
Number of Active Accounts in Lac 239.06 245.70 2.78%
No. of Total Transaction 134,033,911 151,778,574 13.24%
Total Transaction (in crore BDT) 22,327.14 25,046.67 12.18%
No. of Daily Average Transaction 4,786,925 4,896,083 2.28%
Avg. Daily Transaction (in Crore BDT) 797.40 807.96 1.32%
Additional Information (Amount in Crore BDT)
Inward Remittance 6.15 7.71 25.37%
Cash In Transaction 9,445.34 10,667.48 12.94%
Cash Out Transaction 8.512.78 9.619.61 13%
P2P transaction 3,514.67 3,743.51 6.51%
Salary Distribution (B2P) 206.23 404.69 55.51%
Utility Bill Payment (P2B) 174.62 180.09 3.13
Others 413.34 423.58 2.48%

[1 lac = 0.10 million and 1 crore = 10 million]
Note: For average calculations, actual number of days in the respective months has been used.
Source: (Bangladesh Bank, 2017)
[59]
Appendix 2: Questionnaire
This is a research questionnaire of BBA program of Khulna University. This research analyzes
the factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment platforms in Bangladesh. The
following interview questions should not take more than 15 minutes. Please spend your time to
help answer these questions.
Confidentiality
The views expressed in the completed questionnaire will be treated in the strictest confidential. Any
information identifying the respondents will not be disclosed.
Section I
1. Name :
2. Contact :
3. Address :
4. Gender : 1. Male 2. Female
5. Age : 1. Below 20 2. 21-35 3. 36-50

4. Above 50
6. Occupation : 1. Student 2. Govt. Job 3. Private Job

4. Business 5. Housewife 6. Others
7. Income : 1. Below 10000 2. 10001-25000 3.25001-40000

4. 40001-70000 5. Above 70000
8. Education : 1. Below SSC 2. SSC 3. HSC

4. Graduation 5. Above Graduation
9. knowledge on 1. None 2.Low 3. Average
M-payment : 4. High 5. Advanced
Note: M-payment refers to payment through using mobile phone
[60]
Section II
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements on the
perception and attitudes towards new technology such as e-payment by circling the appropriate
number/scale.
(1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree)
SL. Particulars SD DA NU AG SA
Using mobile payment improves my work
1. 1 2 3 4 5
performance.
2. Using mobile payment increases my productivity. 1 2 3 4 5
Using mobile payment enhances my effectiveness in
3. 1 2 3 4 5
my work.
Using mobile payment is useful to make my payment
4. 1 2 3 4 5
quickly.
My interaction with mobile payment is clear and
5. 1 2 3 4 5
understandable.
Using mobile payment does not require a lot of
6. 1 2 3 4 5
mental effort.
7. Mobile payment is easy to use. 1 2 3 4 5
I find it easy to use mobile payment to do what I want
8. 1 2 3 4 5
to do.
I believe that the transaction fees for using mobile
9. 1 2 3 4 5
payment will be high.
I believe that the communication or access fees for
10. 1 2 3 4 5
using mobile payment will be high.
Overall, I believe that using mobile payment will cost
11. 1 2 3 4 5
me a lot of money
I believe that mobile payment service providers are
12. 1 2 3 4 5
honest.
I believe that mobile payment service providers offer
13. 1 2 3 4 5
a secure payment service.
I believe that mobile payment service providers will
14. 1 2 3 4 5
not take advantage of me.
In general, I believe that using mobile payment to
15. 1 2 3 4 5
conduct a payment transaction is or will be risky.
I believe that there is or will be a high potential for
16. loss associated with using mobile payment (for 1 2 3 4 5
instance, loss of my financial details to hackers).
[61]
I believe that there is or will be too much uncertainty
associated with using mobile payment (for instance,
17. 1 2 3 4 5
money does not get through to the receiver due to
network problem).
I believe that using mobile payment will involve
many unexpected problems (for instance,
18 1 2 3 4 5
overcharging from merchants or credit card
providers).
People who influence my behavior think that I should
19. 1 2 3 4 5
use mobile payment.
People who are important to me think that I should
20. 1 2 3 4 5
use mobile payment.
People with whom I interact with during payment has
21. 1 2 3 4 5
been or will be helpful in the use of mobile payment.
In general, payment received has supported or will
22. 1 2 3 4 5
support the use of the system.
People around me who use mobile payment have
23. 1 2 3 4 5
more prestige than those who do not.
People around me who use mobile payment have a
24. 1 2 3 4 5
high profile.
Using mobile payment makes me distinctive from
25. 1 2 3 4 5
others.
26. In my job, usage of mobile payment is important. 1 2 3 4 5
27. In my job, usage of mobile payment is relevant. 1 2 3 4 5
The use of mobile payment is appropriate to my
28. 1 2 3 4 5
various job-related tasks.
The quality of the output I get from using mobile
29. 1 2 3 4 5
payment is high.
By using mobile payment, I will not have any
30. 1 2 3 4 5
problem with the quality of output.
I rate the results from using mobile payment to be
31. 1 2 3 4 5
excellent.
I have no difficulty telling others about the results of
32. 1 2 3 4 5
using mobile payment.
I believe I could communicate to others the
33. 1 2 3 4 5
consequences of using mobile payment.
The results of using mobile payment are apparent to
34. 1 2 3 4 5
me.
[62]
I think that I can use mobile payment system even if
35. 1 2 3 4 5
there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.
I could use mobile payment system if I had just the
36. 1 2 3 4 5
built-in help facility for assistance.
37. I could use mobile payment system if someone 1 2 3 4 5

showed me how to do it first.
I could use mobile payment system if I had used
38. 1 2 3 4 5
similar application before this one.
39. I have control over using mobile payment. 1 2 3 4 5
40. I have the resources necessary to use mobile payment. 1 2 3 4 5
Given the resources, opportunities and knowledge it
41. takes to use mobile payment, it would be easy for me 1 2 3 4 5
to use mobile payment.
Mobile payment system is not compatible with other
42. 1 2 3 4 5
systems I use.
43. Using mobile payment does not scare me at all. 1 2 3 4 5
44. Working with mobile payment makes me nervous. 1 2 3 4 5
45. Using mobile payment makes me feel unconfutable. 1 2 3 4 5
46. Using mobile payment makes me feel uneasy. 1 2 3 4 5
How you would characterize yourself when you use mobile payment system?
47. Spontaneous 1 2 3 4 5
48. Creative 1 2 3 4 5
49. Playful 1 2 3 4 5
50. Unoriginal 1 2 3 4 5
Assuming I had access to mobile payment, I intend to
51. 1 2 3 4 5
use it.
Given that I had access to mobile payment, I predict
52. 1 2 3 4 5
that I would use it.
53. I plan to use the system in the next few months. 1 2 3 4 5
54. How often do you engage in transaction via mobile 1. None
payment system? 2. At least once a day
3. At least once a week
4. At least once a fortnight
5. At least once a month
Thank you very much for your patience and kind participation
[63]

Feroz Sir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feroz Sir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Mobile Payment

Research and External Affairs Committee

Business Administration Discipline

Khulna University, Khulna

Subject: Submission of Thesis Proposal

I am highly delighted to present my research proposal report on “Factors Influencing the

Sincerely, Supervised By,

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Professor Feroz Ahmed,

Design/methodology/approach: Quantitative questionnaire will be used to collect responses

Keywords: Mobile payment, Technology Acceptance Model3 (TAM3), Perceived Usefulness,

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables and Figures ..................................................................................................... vii

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ viii

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 10

1.1 Background of the Research .......................................................................................... 10

1.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................... 11

1.3 Objective of the Research .............................................................................................. 11

1.5 Research Scope .............................................................................................................. 12

1.6 Justification of the Research .......................................................................................... 12

1.7 Organization of Work .................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 14

2.1 Theories on Technology Innovation and Readiness ...................................................... 14

2.1.1 Diffusion of Technology Innovation....................................................................... 14

2.1.2 Theories on Technology Readiness ........................................................................ 17

2.2 Theories on Technology Acceptance ............................................................................. 18

2.2.1 Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) ......................................................................... 18

2.2.2 Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ........................................................................ 20

2.2.3 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) .................................................................. 21

2.2.4 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ........................ 25

2.3 Studies on Technology Adoption ................................................................................... 26

2.4 Studies on Mobile Payment Adoption ........................................................................... 30

2.5 Overview of Mobile Financial Services in Bangladesh ................................................. 34

2.6 Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis Development .................................................. 35

2.6.1 Constructs of Original TAM ................................................................................... 37

2.6.2 Perceived Cost (PC) ................................................................................................ 38

2.6.4 Perceived Risk (PR) ................................................................................................ 39

2.6.5 Determinants of PU................................................................................................. 39

2.6.6 Determinants of PEOU ........................................................................................... 41

3.1 Research Philosophy ...................................................................................................... 43

3.2 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 44

3.3 Population ...................................................................................................................... 45

3.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size............................................................................ 45

3.5 Measurement of Constructs ........................................................................................... 46

3.5.2 Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................... 47

3.6 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................. 47

3.7 Data Analysis Technique ............................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1: Tables and Figures ........................................................................................... 56

Appendix 2: Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 60

Figure 1: Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness .......................................... 15

Figure 2: Technology Readiness Index (TRI).......................................................................... 18

Figure 3: The Theory of Reasoned Action Model ................................................................... 19

Figure 4: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).......................................................................... 20

Figure 5: Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ................................................................... 21

Figure 6: Technology Acceptance Model-2 (TAM2) .............................................................. 22

Figure 7: Technology Acceptance Model-3 (TAM3) .............................................................. 23

Figure 8: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) .......................... 25

Figure 9: Proposed Research Model ........................................................................................ 36

Table 1: Definition of Adopter Categories .............................................................................. 16

Table 3: Determinants of Perceived Usefulness ...................................................................... 24

Table 4: Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use ..................................................................... 24

Table 5: Measurement Items .................................................................................................... 56