Microsoft Word - RB-Dissertation-081516

MOBILE COMMERCE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY
OF VARIABLES THAT PREDICT M-COMMERCE PURCHASE INTENTIONS
by
Robert Blaise
MARC MUCHNICK, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair
GAIL FERREIRA PhD, Committee Member
JOHN HERR PhD, Committee Member
Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
June 2016
ProQuest Number: 10148414
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 10148414
Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Robert Blaise, 2016
2
Abstract
Electronic and web technologies include a significant economic and social force in
contemporary life and business. Commercial activities conducted over computers and mobile
networks empower business processes and add value to consumers by introducing unique
channels for buying and exchanging information. Whereas past research expanded knowledge
about attitudes and perceptions toward e-commerce that drive consumer purchase intentions and
provide a competitive advantage, the fundamental behavioral dynamics associated with m-
commerce requires further investigation. Based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT), this quantitative, survey-based study investigates adult American users of
m-commerce to measure their perceptions of performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, the facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk. This study
surveyed 177 participants to measure their perceptions of performance and effort expectancies,
social influence, the facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk, and their m-
commerce purchase intentions. The results of this study indicated that performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the
use of m-commerce together predicted m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
significant level regarding competitive advantage.
i
Acknowledgments
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my mentor Dr. Marc Muchnick for his
guidance, mentoring, and support throughout this journey. I would also like to extend my
appreciation to my dissertation committee members: Dr. Gail Ferreira and Dr. John Herr. They
presented timely and constructive feedback that were significant in helping improve my
dissertation. Special recognition is given to my good friend Dr. Halloran for your personal
encouragement throughout this process.
I am especially grateful to my wife for her unwavering love, and support throughout this
journey. To children and parents who were patience while I “finished my book,” I extend my
most gracious thanks.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment ..................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures........................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
Introduction to the Problem ..................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ......................................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 6
Rationale .................................................................................................................. 6
Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7
Hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 8
Significance and Contributions ............................................................................... 9
Significance to Body of Research ......................................................................... 10
Significance to Organizations................................................................................ 11
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................... 11
Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................ 13
Positivistic Research Study ................................................................................... 13
Nature of the Study / Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ............................. 14
Organization of the Remainder of the Study ......................................................... 16
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 18
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 18
Theoretical Frameworks for Mobile and Electronic Commerce Research ........... 18
Variables in User Acceptance of M-commerce..................................................... 27
The Nature of Mobile Commerce.......................................................................... 36
iii
Comparison of Traditional Commerce, E-commerce, and M-commerce ............. 37
Research on Technology Use ................................................................................ 40
M-Commerce Dimensions and Purchase Intentions ............................................. 46
Evaluation and Future Directions .......................................................................... 48
Summary and Conclusion...................................................................................... 49
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 52
Research Design .................................................................................................... 54
Sample .................................................................................................................. 55
Instrumentation / Measures ................................................................................... 56
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 58
Data Analysis......................................................................................................... 59
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 60
Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................... 61
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS................................................................................................... 64
Introduction ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Screening the Data ................................................................................................. 64
Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 64
Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 67
Description of the Sample ..................................................................................... 67
Assumption Testing ............................................................................................... 69
Regression Analysis .............................................................................................. 75
Supplementary Analysis ........................................................................................ 81
Summary of Results and Conclusion .................................................................... 82
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 84
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 86
iv
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 86
Summary of the Results......................................................................................... 87
Discussion of the Results....................................................................................... 89
Implications of the Study Results .......................................................................... 94
Limitations ............................................................................................................. 99
Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................. 100
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 102
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 104
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 118
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Definition of Study Constructs ................................................................ 27
Table 2. Classification of M-Commerce Definitions Based on Literature ............ 37
Table 3. Comparison of Commerce Business Models .......................................... 38
Table 4. Significant Works on M-commerce Research......................................... 47
Table 5. Key Studies on Predictors of Purchase Intentions in M-Commerce ....... 47
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Predictor Variable (N = 165) ........ 65
Table 7. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Results ..................................................... 66
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations for Continuous Variables..................... 67
Table 9. Participant Demographics ....................................................................... 68
Table 10. Participant U.S. Regional Location ....................................................... 69
Table 11. Statistics Tests of Normality ................................................................. 70
Table 12. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics .......................................................... 70
Table 13. Case-Wise Diagnostics for Outliers and Residuals ............................... 71
Table 14. Intercorrelation Between the Independent Variables ............................ 72
Table 15. Tolerance and VIF Multicollinearity Statistics for the

Independent Variables ............................................................................... 72
Table 16. Durbin–Watson Test: Summary for Model ........................................... 75
Table 17. Regression Model Summary for the Effect of the Independent ............ 76
Table 18. Significance Test of the Regression Coefficients.................................. 76
Table 19. The Impact of Trust on Purchase Intentions ......................................... 77
Table 20. Significance Test of the Regression Coefficients for M-commerce

Usage ......................................................................................................... 81
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Pictorial view of UTAUT Model .......................................................... 15
Figure 2. TAM model adapted from “A theoretical extension of the technology

acceptance model....................................................................................... 23
Figure 3. Scatter plot of residuals to test for of homoscedasticity in Purchasing

Intentions ................................................................................................... 73
Figure 4. Frequency of the residuals for purchase intentions (PI) plotted to a

normal curve .............................................................................................. 74
Figure 5. Cumulative Probabilities of the Expected Versus Observed Regression

Residuals plotted to a Linear Relationship ................................................ 75
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing relation between Trust (T) and Purchase Intention
(PI). ............................................................................................................ 77
Figure 7. Scatter plot showing relation between Effort Expectancy (EE) and
Purchase Intention (PI). ............................................................................. 78
Figure 8. Scatter plot showing relation between Risk (R) and Purchase
Intention (PI) ............................................................................................. 79
Figure 9. Scatter plot showing relation between Performance Expectancy (PE)

and Purchase Intention (PI) ....................................................................... 86
Figure 10. Scatter plot showing relation between Social Influence (SI) and
Purchase Intention (PI) .............................................................................. 86
Figure 11. Mean Purchase Intention as a Function of Age of Participants) ......... 82
vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
Electronic and web technologies include a significant economic and social force in
contemporary life and business. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Commerce (2015) reported
electronic commerce (e-commerce) accounted for approximately $340 billion in retail sales (U.S.
Department of Commerce). Commercial activities conducted over computers and mobile
networks empower business processes and add value to consumers by introducing unique
channels for buying and exchanging information. Mobile commerce (m-commerce) is a steadily
growing segment of digital commerce solutions predicted to reach $626 billion in sales by 2018
(ComScore, 2014). As noted by Swilley, Hofacker, and Lamont (2012), firms face increasing
pressure to deploy m-commerce strategies as a source of sustained competitive advantage for
attracting new and preserving existing customers. As a result, knowledge and intellectual capital
pertaining to web and mobile technologies are crucial business assets and a source of competitive
advantage (Lin, Lu, Wang, & Wei, 2011). In this context, business models are linked to
technological innovation (Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013), as such it is important firms
understand how users of m-commerce perceive and utilize m-commerce to develop more
efficient and effective technology interfaces and formulate their strategies.
Within the current body of research on technology acceptance that relates to the context
of a competitive advantage (Mahmood, Gemoets, Hall, López, & Mariadas, 2008), a range of
established attitudes and perceptions related to predictive m-commerce purchase intentions exist.
In several findings, trust and privacy concerns indicated reliable predictors of m-commerce
purchase intentions (Chunxiang, 2014; Lai, Lai, & Jordan, 2009; Nassuora, 2013; Pelet &
Papadopoulou, 2012; Yaseen & Zayed, 2010; Zhou & Lu, 2011a). Other researcher indicated
1
that usefulness (performance expectancy) and ease of use (effort expectancy) predict m-
commerce adoption behaviors (Jaradat, Mamoun, & Rababaa, 2013; Nassuora, 2013; Song, Koo,
& Kim, 2008; Wang & Li, 2012; Wang, Wang, Kang & Sun, 2014; Yaseen & Zayed, 2010;
Zhou & Lu, 2011b). Social influence, or the extent to which someone adopts m-commerce based
on the views of others, also indicated a determinant of m-commerce purchase intentions (Pelet &
Papadopoulou, 2012; Wang & Wang, 2010; Zhou & Lu, 2011a).
Whereas past research expanded knowledge about attitudes and perceptions toward e-
commerce that drive consumer purchase intentions and provide a competitive advantage
(Coursaris & Kim, 2011; Foon & Fah, 2011; Hernández, Jiménez, & Martin, 2010; San-Martín
& Camarero, 2012; Tuch, Roth, Hornbaek, Opwis, & Bargas-Avila, 2012; Vrechopoulos &
Atherinos, 2009; Wang, Wang, & Liu, 2016). Budzanowska-Drzewiecka (2015) maintained the
fundamental behavioral dynamics associated with m-commerce requires further investigation.
From 2007 to 2014, among the published m–commerce studies (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012;
Chunxiang, 2014; Jaradat et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2014; Okazaki & Menendez, 2013; Zhang, Zhu,
& Liu, 2012; Zhou & Lu, 2011b), none included investigation of the relationship between
perceptions of m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social influence, the
facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk, and customer purchase
intentions. The research problem of this study addresses the gap in knowledge on the impact of
users’ perceptions about m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, trust, and perceived
risk of their purchase intentions, which may be applied in business to develop competitive
advantages.
Scholarly evidence suggest that performance and effort expectancies, social influence,
and facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk may be significant factors in predicting m-
2
commerce purchase intentions (Zhang et al., 2012; Zhou & Lu, 2011b). Facilitating conditions,
in the present context, refers to the degree to which an individual believes that a technical
infrastructure exists to support technology use. Facilitating conditions “reflects perceptions of
internal and external constraints on behavior and encompasses self efficacy, resource facilitating
conditions, and technology facilitating conditions” (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003, p.
454). To date, no research has yet integrated these factors into one model to test their relative
influence on m-commerce adoption. The research includes a design to address this gap in the
research literature, thereby potentially identifying important competitive advantages that may be
applied to m-commerce.
Background of the Study
A significant trend in e- and m-commerce research includes the use of behavioral models
to predict user intentions and behaviors. A range of approaches exists in the research literature to
understand the processes associated with adoption of mobile commerce (Chan & Yee-Loong
Chong, 2013; Chong, Chang, & Ooi, 2012). The common aim is for researchers to gain insights
into consumers’ perceptions of m-commerce and their subsequent behavioral intentions as a
method of increasing conversion rates, which is an important metric used to determine the
percentage of users who take a desired action (e.g. sales conversions). Through different
theoretical frameworks, research studies revealed a number of predictors of behavioral intentions
and conversion rates in the m-commerce domain (Okazaki & Mendez, 2013; Min, Ji, & Qu,
2008).
The seminal work of Davis (1989) set the foundation for investigating the impact of
consumer acceptance of technology adoption, while the research of Lederer, Maupin, Sena, and
Zhuang (2000) was among the first to draw a correlation between ease of use and usefulness to
3
predict applications usage of websites. As researchers continued to refine models to measure user
intention and usage online, marketers sought to find ways to influence consumers to embrace
newer developments in the m-commerce domain (Okazaki & Menendez, 2013). Researchers and
scholars developed and discussed different theories and concepts related to e-commerce and m-
commerce (San Martín & Herrero, 2012; Swilley et al., 2012). Some of the most relevant
consumer behavioral theories in the context of m-commerce include those of user acceptance and
usage, namely technology acceptance model (TAM), extended TAM (TAM2), the theory of
reasoned action (TRA), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). These models represent the cornerstone for
subsequent m-commerce research, which has become a significant academic pursuit due to the
exponential growth in web technologies.
Electronic and web technologies are major economic and social forces in contemporary
life and business (Jaradat et al., 2013). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce (2014),
electronic commerce (e-commerce) accounted for approximately $300 billion in 2014 retail
sales. M-commerce is a steadily growing business technology forecasted to reach $626 billion in
sales by 2018 (ComScore, 2014). As a result, knowledge and the related intellectual capital of
mobile technologies are indispensable business assets and a source of competitive advantage
(Lorenzo-Romero, Constantinides & Alarcón-del-Amo, 2013; San Martín, López-Catalán, &
Ramon-Jeronimo, 2012). An increased understanding of the predictors of m-commerce purchase
intentions could be adopted to enhance and progress competitive advantages and growth
opportunities in various business domains (Kim, Ferrin, & Rao, 2008; Zhou, Zhang, &
Zimmermann, 2013).
4
Research on the predictors of m-commerce between 2010 to 2012 established a clear link
between the development of e-commerce and m-commerce capacities to gain an optimum
competitive advantage (Benou, Vassilakis, & Vrechopoulos, 2012; Lee & Mills, 2010; Kuo,
Yen, & Chen, 2011). Recent academic research on the applications of m-commerce from
strategic lenses has been scarce (Chong, 2013), thus producing limited m-commerce strategic
frameworks of reference. The research topic addressed in this study focuses on developing
knowledge that can be applied to m-commerce to enhance competitive advantages by
investigating what drives and facilitates m-commerce purchase intentions among American adult
consumers. The research includes the framework of the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2003), which posits that performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions impact user acceptance of the
technology.
Statement of the Problem
Previous research has established that a range of important factors such as attitudes and
expectations toward e-commerce predict consumer purchase intentions to provide knowledge
about developing a competitive advantage (Foon & Fah, 2011; Hernández et al., 2010; San-
Martín & Camarero, 2012; Vrechopoulos et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2016). Nevertheless, it is still
relatively unclear if the same factors predict m-commerce purchase intentions; in short, there is
less knowledge about how the fundamental behavioral dynamics associated with m-commerce
translate into competitive advantages (Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, 2015). Research on the
predictors of purchase intentions related to m–commerce exist (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012;
Chunxiang, 2014; Jaradat et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2014; Okazaki & Mendez, 2013); however,
there is no study in the literature that has investigated the relationship between m-commerce
5
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, the facilitating conditions of m-commerce
trust and perceived risk, and customer purchase intentions. The research problem of this study is
to address the gap in knowledge on the impact of users’ perceptions of m-commerce
performance and effort expectancies, trust and perceived risk of their purchase intentions, which
may be applied in business to develop competitive advantages.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to address a gap in the research literature on m-commerce
adoption by investigating the extent to which performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, and facilitating conditions predict m-commerce purchase intentions within the context
of competitive advantage. The central research questions and subquestion of this study focus on
building an understanding as to what extent perceptions of m-commerce performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived
risk can predict customer purchase intentions. The study used a quantitative, non-experimental
predictive design, in which adult American users of m-commerce were asked to complete a
questionnaire to measure their perceptions of performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, the facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk, and their m-
commerce purchase intentions. Results from the study are intended to provide knowledge for
firms seeking to gain a competitive advantage through m-commerce business models.
Rationale
Prior information technology (IT) acceptance research supported the UTAUT model
(Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012; Foon & Fah, 2011; Im, Hong, & Kang, 2011; Jaradat et al., 2013),
yet limited research exists which clarifies the facilitating conditions that may impact user
acceptance of m-commerce. The goal of this study was to generate insight as to how the specific
6
facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk, as well as expectancies and social
influence, relate to customer purchase intentions and translate into potential competitive
advantages. Baden-Fuller and Haefliger (2013) maintained expanding awareness of these
relationships indicated an essential avenue for developing competitive advantages in business
management and technology, as m-commerce a critical business tool and investment opportunity
(Benou et al., 2012; Giovannini, Ferreira, da Silva, & Ferreira, 2015).
Research Questions
In the context of competitive advantage, the research problem and topic of this study
address the lack of knowledge on the influence of users’ perceptions of m-commerce
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and facilitating conditions on their
purchase intentions. The variables in this study were measured by m-commerce user responses to
validated and reliable subscales used in a comparable study by Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-
Trujillo (2014). The main research question for this study is
Main: To what extent do performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the
facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-commerce
purchase intentions with regard to competitive advantage?
The subquestions for this study are
SubQ1: To what extent does performance expectancy predict m-commerce purchase
intentions with regard to competitive advantage?
SubQ2: To what extent does effort expectancy predict m-commerce purchase intentions
with regard to competitive advantage?
SubQ3: To what extent does social influence predict m-commerce purchase intentions
7
SubQ4: To what extent does the facilitating condition of trust in the use of m-commerce
predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to competitive advantage?
SubQ5: To what extent does the facilitating condition of perceived risk in the use of m-
commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to competitive advantage?
Hypotheses
The hypotheses for the stated research questions are as follows:
Omnibus Hypothesis
H00: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of
trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce do not predict m-commerce purchase
intentions at a statistically significant level with regard to competitive advantage.
HA0: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of
trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase
Sub-Hypotheses
H01: Performance expectancy in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase
intentions at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage.
HA1: Performance expectancy in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase
H02: Effort expectancy in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase
HA2: Effort expectancy in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a
statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage.
8
H03: Social influence does not predict m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
significant level regarding competitive advantage
HA3: Social influence predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically significant level
with regard to competitive advantage.
H04: Trust in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase intentions at a
HA4: Trust in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
H05: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase intentions
at a statistically significant level with regard to competitive advantage.
HA5: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a
Significance and Contributions
The study is significant for its capacity to refine and confirm the existing theoretical
framework provided by the UTAUT model regarding competitive advantage in m-commerce.
The model proposes four primary factors that influence acceptance of technology; performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. Whereas the first
three elements are well-defined passive and operationalized in research, the facilitating
conditions appear to lack conceptual clarity and precision (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014; Oliveira, Faria, Thomas, & Popovič, 2014). Facilitating conditions include
definition in the UTAUT framework as factors that promote or remove barriers to the use of
technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The definition of facilitating conditions allows for a wide
range of possibilities, yet provides few clues as to which facilitating conditions are more or less
9
meaningful predictors of user acceptance of technology. Existing literature confirmed facilitating
conditions (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012), justified (Alkhunaizan & Love,
2012; Im et al., 2011), or omitted from the UTAUT model (Casey & Wilson-Evered, 2012; Pope,
2014; Wang & Wang, 2011). As such, facilitating conditions have little impact on technology
acceptance (Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014; Foon & Fah, 2011; Jaradat et al.,
2013; Oliveira et al., 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Significance to Body of Research
The study addresses the two facilitating conditions that have figured highly in the
research: m-commerce perceived risk and trust issues (Cyr, Head, & Ivanov, 2006; Giovannini et
al., 2015; Oliveira et al., 2014). Consistent with the UTAUT conception of facilitating
conditions, perceived risk and trust issues reflect the means to promote and remove a barrier
(Venkatesh et al., 2012). The research in this study has the potential to refine UTUAT by giving
a clearer picture of the facilitating conditions of m-commerce perceived risk and trust issues. The
research also may confirm further the predictive value of performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, and social influence on m-commerce purchase intentions in the context of a
competitive advantage.
Altogether, the study should refine the definition and UTAUT conception of facilitating
conditions by incorporating perceived risk and trust issues into the research focus (Venkatesh et
al., 2012). The research will also contribute to the knowledge-base regarding direct and indirect
relationships between facilitating conditions and other UTUAT constructs (performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence). Similarly, the impact on predicting m-
commerce purchase intentions (Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014; Foon & Fah,
2011; Jaradat et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012) may be adopted to
10
enhance growth opportunities in various business domains. Finally, the implications for the
generalizability of UTAUT specifically to the domain of m-commerce regarding competitive
advantage are addressed in the study.
Significance to Organizations
Technology competence expands beyond the realm of tangible assets. Organizations must
invariably seek growth through innovation and redefine their strategies in a digital world
(Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013). As firms vie for a share of the uptake in
digital commerce, knowledge and intellectual capital pertaining to web and mobile technologies
is a crucial business asset and source of competitive advantage (Lin et al., 2011). In this context,
the findings from the study may contribute practical implications and knowledge that can be
applied in business technologies to design and develop more efficient and effective user
interfaces and improve user experiences of m-commerce in the context of developing a
Definition of Terms
In the context of this study, the following terms will apply:
Competitive advantage. The way in which an organization implements a business
strategy that results in cost leadership, product differentiation, or product focus (Porter, 1980).
E-Commerce. Business activities conducted through an electronic medium. The two
main attributes of e-commerce are aggregator of information and as a potential apparatus for the
replacement of many business transactions once performed within the confines of enterprise
(Terzi, 2011).
Effort expectancy. The extent to which people believe using m-commerce would be free
from effort and not difficult to use (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
11
M-commerce. Business transactions conducted by wireless telecommunication networks
(Zhang et al., 2012).
Performance expectancy. The extent to which people believe m-commerce will help
perform a task better (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Purchase intentions. The strength of person’s intention to make a purchase with m-
commerce in the future or again (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Risk. The risk perceived with using m-commerce including fraud and product quality
(Zhang et al., 2012).
Social influence. The strength with which important others have influenced a person to
adopt or use an m-commerce system (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Technology acceptance model (TAM). A valid and reliable measure that predicts the
acceptance or adoption of information systems (Davis, 1989).
Trust. The strength of a person’s belief that using m-commerce is secure and poses no
privacy threats (Zhang et al., 2012).
Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). A consolidated a range
of theoretically and empirically relevant constructs that explain user acceptance of information
technology (UTAUT), developed by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003). The UTAUT
model includes four main constructs to predict behavioral intentions and user behaviors:
performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. To a
certain degree, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy relates to the TAM constructs of
perceived usefulness and ease of use. Venkatesh et al. (2003) explained the role of social
influence as the extent to which a person believes how important others think he or she should
12
adopt an IT system while facilitating conditions are conceptualized as factors to promote, or
remove barriers to, the use of technology.
Assumptions and Limitations
The study proposes several of assumptions. The first assumption included that UTAUT
provides a valid framework to investigate predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions. Next,
that the tools and measures employed to capture the operational definitions of the main
constructs of this study (effort and performance expectancy, social influence, the facilitating
conditions of m-commerce risk and trust, and purchase intentions) are valid and reliable. In both
cases, the conceptual framework and measures of the study assume a body of contemporary and
valid research on m-commerce. The final assumption includes that survey participants delivered
honest and accurate answers about their perceptions of m-commerce given the privacy and
confidentiality of their responses would be insured.
Positivistic Research Study
The assumptions of this study reflect those put forth by Venkatesh et al. (2012) in their
article, Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), examining consumer acceptance and use of
information technology. Venkatesh et al. (2012) made the following assumptions:
Ontological assumption. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology can
be observed and measured. One defined reality for these constructs and if measured, will be
readily visible to all who observe it.
Epistemological assumption. The acquisition of knowledge of consumer acceptance and
use of information technology is an objective process, one that can be measured, and that
measured and objective report is significant and useful knowledge.
13
Axiological assumption. The measurements for consumer acceptance and information
technology will objectively inform the theory of acceptance and use of technology, which is
valuable to understand.
Methodological assumption. Quantitative design—a new survey instrument was
adapted from the UTAUT—a four input construct model of performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions which influence behavioral intentions of
use (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Limitations
Some weaknesses to the research in this study exist. Because of the method of participant
recruitment, participants to the SurveyMonkey panel may not consist of a representative sample
of North American m-commerce users (Evans & Mathur, 2005). To compensate for any disparity
a reasonable sample size was estimated, which broadly represented the North American
population in terms of gender, age, education, ethnicity, and income. More generally, the
correlative nature of the research does not produce information about definitive cause-effect
relationships between m-commerce perceptions and purchase intentions to be concluded from
the findings. Additionally, Wright (2005) argued, self-selection bias is another significant
limitation of online survey research. Despite the limitations of the study format, the correlational
method provided several practical benefits, including exploring a range of concepts
simultaneously. The online questionnaire format provided a relatively valid and efficient means
of data collection.
Nature of the Study / Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
The primary theoretical basis for the study is the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al., 2012). The UTAUT model consolidates a range of
14
theoretically and empirically relevant constructs to explain user acceptance of information
technology as it pertains to a competitive advantage. The framework provided by the model and
depicted in Figure 1 supports four main constructs to predict purchase intentions: performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions.
Figure 1. Illustration of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology research
model, showing the relationship between performance and effort expectancy, social influence
and facilitating conditions with purchase intentions and the moderating influence of gender, age
and experience. The model is adapted from “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology: Toward a Unified View,” by V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D.
Davis, 2003, MIS Quarterly, 27(3), p. 447
Whereas performance expectancy is a concept defined and measured by user beliefs that
technology will help them perform a task better (Venkatesh et al., 2012), effort expectancy is the
belief that using a system will be free from effort and difficulty (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Social
influence is the extent to which a person believes their adoption of an information technology
(IT) system is significant to others. Correspondingly, facilitating conditions are factors to
promote or remove barriers to the use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Venkatesh (2012)
15
maintained, gender, age, and experience with technology moderate the relationship between
performance and effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and m-commerce
purchase intentions.
In various studies the UTAUT model has proved its capacity to predict a variety of m-
commerce purchase intentions and behaviors related to the development of a competitive
advantage (Foon & Fah, 2011; Im et al., 2011; Jaradat et al., 2013). In a test of UTAUT with 399
participants, Venkatesh et al. (2012) found the model explained 70% of the variance in user
intentions to adopt new technology. Another study by Wang and Wang (2010) demonstrated that
UTAUT predicted 65% of behavioral intentions to use mobile internet (m-internet) among a
sample of Taiwanese participants. Other studies have shown UTAUT to predict approximately
62% of intentions to adopt mobile banking (Oliveira et al., 2014; Zhou, Lu, & Wang, 2010), 60%
of m-commerce purchases of airplane flights (Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014),
and 61% of behavioral intention to use business IT (Pope, 2014). Given its significant predictive
capacity, the UTAUT model provides a suitable theoretical basis to address the research
questions of this study and further knowledge of competitive advantages in m-commerce.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This study includes organization into in five chapters. The study first introduced issues
related to the topic of this study. Second the study’s background, problem statement, and
purpose of the study. The third discussions will incorporate the rationale for embarking on the
study, the research questions, research hypothesis, and significance of the study. The final
section chapter covered definitions of terms, assumptions, limitations as well as the nature and
the theoretical and conceptual framework of this study.
16
A literature review and evaluation of significant m-commerce theories with a particular
focus on UTAUT and TAM conceptual frameworks to explain and predict m-commerce
purchase intentions will be presented in Chapter 2. The literature review will also include an
evaluation of previous research findings regarding relevant factors that predict customer
purchase intentions. In Chapter 3, the methodological approach taken to address the research
questions is undertaken. The chapter includes the conceptual model, hypotheses, research design,
sampling method, participants, the validity and reliability of survey measures and tools, and
research procedures. A further methodology will include mechanisms to ensure the study meets
research ethics requirements and standards to assure the privacy and rights of participants.
Chapter 4 provides a statistical analysis of the data collected. Chapter 5 concentrates on a
discussion of the findings as they relate to the hypotheses, and their theoretical and practical
implications in the context of future research and competitive advantage. There is also a
discussion regarding limitations of the study and recommendations for future research found in
this chapter.
17
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
In this chapter, a literature review related to the research question and focus of this study
is discussed. Next, the chapter includes the exposition of the literature, which covers the m-
commerce theories relevant to the research question are reviewed, evaluated, and an outline and
definition of the focus variables of this study are described. The study supported the use of the
UTAUT model as the framework for exploring the relationship between m-commerce
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, facilitating conditions, and m-commerce
customer purchase intentions. In the next sections of the chapter, the nature of m-commerce, and
comparison of traditional commerce, electronic commerce, and m-commerce are examined.
Finally, the chapter includes an evaluation of research findings on factors that predict customer
m-commerce purchase intentions and concludes with an overall perspective on the state of
research on m-commerce purchase intentions to substantiate the focus of this study.
Theoretical Frameworks for Mobile and Electronic Commerce Research
The advent and growth of information technology (IT) drastically altered the way
companies interact with customers. However, scholars have long acknowledged the barriers of
adoption that is present in m-commerce (Chan et al., 2013; Chong et al., 2012). San Martín and
Herrero (2012) posited, e-commerce became a significant field of interest, bringing new ways of
interaction between retailers and customers. In particular, business leader and technology
managers are under increased pressure to proactively implement cross-channel sale synergies to
adapt to change brought about by wireless technologies. Al-Debei and Al-Lozi (2014) noted, the
convergence of IT and mobile communication technology gave rise to the field of mobile
commerce (m-commerce). M-commerce provides increased flexibility, mobility, and ubiquitous
18
access to information, as business transactions can be carried out from mobile phones or personal
digital assistants.
Given the social and monetary impact of m-commerce, scholars proposed a number of
models to study how individuals interact and react to mobile commerce (Ivanochko, Masiuk, &
Gregus, 2015; Mehmood, 2015). Many of the business models are modifications of user
acceptance theories initially intended for studying user acceptability in e-commerce. The most
common theories are the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), innovation
technology, organization and environment (TOE) framework (Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990),
innovation diffusion theory (IDT) (Rogers, 1995), task technology fit (TTF) model (Goodhue &
Thompson, 1995), and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). Though efforts include the ability to understand m-commerce user behavior using
tools designed for e-commerce, research focusing on m-commerce received little attention
(Püschel, Mazzon, & Hernandez, 2010). Some studies combining existing models include
applications to the field of mobile usage (Njenga & Ndlovu, 2015) and mobile commerce in
general (Riquelme & Rios, 2010). M-commerce is a relatively new field (Kourouthanassis &
Giaglis, 2012), as limited understanding of customer behaviors can play a decisive role in the
success or failure of m-commerce ventures (Coursaris & Kim, 2011), thereby warranting
additional research toward framework development.
Researchers have offered several approaches to explaining the processes associated with
adoption of mobile commerce (Chan et al., 2013; Chong et al., 2012). The common aim is for
researchers to gain insight into consumers’ adoption of m-commerce (Nassuora, 2013; Püschel et
al., 2010) and subsequent purchase intentions as a method of increasing conversion rates
(Verhagen & van Dolen, 2009; Wang & Li, 2012), which are a chief metric used to determine
19
the percentage of users who make a preferred action (e.g., sales conversions), thus providing a
competitive advantage. Through different theoretical frameworks, several research studies
revealed a number of predictors of purchase intentions and conversion rates in the m-commerce
domain (Okazaki & Menendez, 2013; Min et al., 2008).
One of the earliest theoretical works on technology adoption was by Davis (1989), who
showed that ease of use and usefulness were relevant predictors of user’s intention to accept and
adopt new technology. Since then, researchers developed and utilized different theories and
concepts to predict the uptake of e-commerce and m-commerce technologies (San Martín &
Herrero, 2012; Swilley et al., 2012). Some of the most broadly employed theories in the context
of m-commerce are presented in subsequent sections including the theories of reasoned action
(TRA) and of planned behavior (TPB), the technology acceptance model (TAM), and the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). These theories are the foundation upon
which technology acceptance is explained and predicted (Okazaki & Menendez, 2013).
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Planned Behavior (TPB)
The TRA proposes that attitudinal and normative influences are central to the prediction
of behavior intentions and behavior (Ajzen, 2011; Min et al., 2008). According to this theory,
prediction of individual behavior can be made to some degree by recognizing a user's behavioral
intentions, or commitment to behave in a particular manner. Southey (2011) maintained the TRA
model offers potential benefits to predict the intention of individuals to perform specific
behaviors based on their attitudes and normative beliefs. Similarly, Min et al. (2008) claimed the
viewpoint of the person, and the subjective norm regarding the questioned behavior collectively
determines the behavioral intention.
20
In the TRA model, attitudes refer to the evaluation of a particular course of action or the
subjective probability that a certain conduct will result in a precise result or consequence,
whereas subjective norms refer to the perceptions significant to others have towards performing
a target behavior (Min et al., 2008). The TRA model includes identification of two potentially
vital facets of behavioral intentions towards m-commerce: attitudes and norms incorporated into
subsequent models of m-commerce behavior. Albeit, scholars acknowledged that despite best
intentions, an individual may not have full control over their behaviors from a lack of confidence
or influence over the behavior (Pavlou, 2003). As such, the construct of perceived behavior
control was added to the TRA model, resulting in the development of the TPB.
The TPB (Ajzen, 1985) incorporates the dimension of behavior control to account for
scenarios in which individuals lack substantial influence over a certain behavior. Thus, TPB
explains how the behavior of a person can be defined by their behavioral intention, influenced by
perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and attitudes. Conversely, attitude refers to the
overall evaluation of performing a behavior. Also, subjective norms include definition as the
perception an individual has about the opinions of others. Min et al. (2008) maintained,
perceived behavioral control includes concern with the perceptions of a person as to the
availability of resources or opportunities needed to perform a behavior.
Research TRA/TPB. In one technology adoption investigation of the TPB model,
Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) tested the model’s efficacy when predicting consumers’ inclination
toward using e-commerce. Participants (N = 312) completed questionnaire measures of the
attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral control, intentions, and behaviors toward purchasing from
an online store. Pavlou and Fygenson findings showed that TPB variables together were
significant predictors, accounting for 56% of the variance in behavior. Despite the predictive
21
capacity of TPB, the model lacks specificity regarding m-commerce. TRA and TPB were
intended to be applied to health behaviors, yet employed to investigate other topics (Sheppard,
Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). As a consequence, the trend for contemporary researchers
develops alternative models that address more specific variables that account for e-commerce
behaviors.
Evaluation TRA/TPB. The TRA/TPB model was one of the earliest research
frameworks to be deployed for conceptualizing the potential predictors of technology
acceptance. Additional variables have been added to the model to extend its predictive capacity
(Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006) such that the model has been extended to fit the phenomenon of
technology acceptance. At the same time, the capacity of the TRA/TPB model to predict
technology acceptance is moderate at best. Whereas TRA/TPB provides a significant model of
the predictors of behavioral choices in general, its application to technology acceptance is
questionable. More recent modeling has addressed these issues with a focus on the idiosyncrasies
of technology acceptance.
Technology Acceptance Model
Davis (1989) developed the user acceptance of IT model or Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM), which conceptualized one of the earliest and more influential approaches to the
distinct questions of technology use. Reflecting upon the initial stage of IT development, the
focus of the research was on users’ acceptance of e-mail. Davis proposed that the users’
perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) of systems are causal linkages
between intention to use and the behavior towards using a new information system, as shown in
Figure 2. Perceived usefulness is a concept defined and measured by users’ beliefs that
22
technology will help them perform their job better, whereas perceived ease of use was defined as
the belief using a system would be free from effort and not arduous to use.
Figure 2. Illustration of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) showing the relationship
between perceived usefulness, ease of use and intentions to use with usage behavior. The model
is adapted from “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
Longitudinal Field Studies,” by V. Venkatesh and F.D. Davis, 2000, Management Science,
46(2), pp.186-204
TAM research. In Study 1 of Davis’s (1989) research program, participants were 112
Canadian employees asked to self-report on the perceived usefulness, ease of use, and current
usage of e-mail technology via responses to a range of questions measured on a Likert-type
scale. Evidence from factor and reliability analysis, as well as, tests of discriminant and
convergent validity strongly supported two relatively independent 6-item scales to measure
perceived usefulness and ease of use, respectively. More importantly, the research by Davis in
Study 1 and the follow-up Study 2 tested the effect of perceived usefulness and ease of use on
actual usage of e-mail via regression analysis.
In both studies conducted by Davis (1989), perceived usefulness significantly predicted
participant’s usage of e-mail, after controlling for ease of use. In contrast, the effect of perceived
ease of use was not significant after controlling for usefulness, even though ease of use included
independent correlations with usage. These findings supported the idea that ease of use affects
usage indirectly through usefulness. Moreover, regression analysis revealed that the full model
23
explained approximately 40% of the variance in usage. The use of self-report measures,
correlational designs, and regression and statistical modeling is a fundamental approach to
research in a wide range of studies (Bhatti, 2007; Chen & Chang, 2013). Such tactics are used to
quantify the adoption of IT beyond e-mail applications into the e-commerce and m-commerce
domains (Schierz, Schike, & Wirtz, 2010; Vrechopoulos et al., 2009).
Wang, Lin, and Luarn (2006) integrated the TAM model with TPB to investigate
consumer intentions to use mobile banking. Taiwanese participants (N = 258) completed a
survey to measure the effects of self-efficacy, perceived financial resources, perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived credibility on behavioral intention to use
internet banking. These factors explained 69% of the variance in behavioral intention, with
perceived usefulness illuminating the largest amount of variance, yet the authors suggested social
norms should also be measured as an important factor in e-commerce. An extended version of
TAM (TAM 2) by Venkatesh and Davis (2000) added organizational and social factors like
impression and subjective norms to the original model.
Evaluation of TAM. Overall, the TAM models include extensive testing and
applications across many dimensions of m-commerce and managed to stand out as useful
theoretical models for examining m-commerce adoption by consumers (Min et al., 2008; Wu &
Wang, 2005). Adapted TAM models predicted 46% of m-commerce user intentions (Song et al.,
2008), 57% of intentions to adopt m-services with the addition of social influence into a
structural model (Yang, Lu, Gupta, Cao, & Zhang, 2012), 55% of user’s m-commerce adoption
intentions (Chunxiang, 2014), and 69% of the variance in behavioral intention with regard to
mobile banking (m-banking) by augmenting TAM with measures of perceived credibility and
self-efficacy (Wang et al., 2006). As such, the variables identified in TAM postulate a suitable
24
understanding of the predictors of m-commerce usage and may be applied to enhance and
increase growth opportunities in various business domains. Nevertheless, a recent model of
technology acceptance successfully integrated TAM, TPB, and other user acceptance models to
provide improved reliability and a more complete basis to comprehend user acceptance and
behaviors towards m-commerce.
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
In a crucial contribution to the research on Internet commerce, Venkatesh et al. (2003)
synthesized TAM and several other models of user acceptance including TRA, TAM, and TPB
to yield the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Zhou and Lu (2011)
maintained UTAUT’s theoretical underpinning also reflecting aspects of the motivational model
(MM), the model combining the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior
(C-TAM-TPB), the model of personal computer utilization (MPCU), innovation diffusion theory
(IDT), and social cognitive theory (SCT). Venkatesh et al. proposed that the behavioral
intentions of users are determined by social influence, performance expectancy, facilitating
conditions, and effort expectancy. Whereas performance expectancy and effort expectancy relate
to the TAM constructs of perceived usefulness and ease of use, social influence is defined as the
extent to which a person believes how important others think he or she should adopt an IT
system, and facilitating conditions are conceptualized as factors to promote or remove barriers to
the use of technology.
Research on UTAUT. In the domain of m-commerce, the UTAUT model found support
and successful application in several studies (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012; Jaradat et al., 2013;
Lai et al., 2009). UTAUT included use to study user acceptance of technology in a range of
varied cultural contexts, including Finland (Bouwman, Carlsson, Molina-Castillo, & Walden,
25
2007) and China (Park, Yang, & Lehto, 2007). Wang and Wang (2010) conducted an
investigation of the determinants of mobile Internet usage intention by employing UTAUT with
the additional constructs of playfulness, value, and palm-sized self-efficacy; (N= 343) Taiwanese
survey participants. The results revealed strong support for UTAUT with 65% of the variance in
usage intention explained; apart from playfulness, all the variables had a moderately significant
effect on mobile use intentions. In using empirical data to extend and modify the UTAUT, the
findings provided an understanding of the perceptions of potential adopters.
Evaluation of UTAUT. The UTAUT model includes testing in a set of studies, which
provided preliminary evidence of its strong capacity to predict a variety of m-commerce
purchase intentions and behaviors (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012; Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014; Foon & Fah, 2011; Im et al., 2011; Jaradat et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2014;
Pope, 2014; Zhou, Lu, & Wang, 2010). Min et al. (2008) proclaimed the UTAUT model was the
most comprehensive among the IT adoption models. According to Lai et al., (2009), extensive
test concluded the UTAUT model is the most definitive model in most scenarios as it is able to
synthesize the significant predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions and offers guidance into
future research about technology adoption. A review of the trends in scholarly research on
information systems acceptance and usage suggests that UTAUT emerged as one of the most
influential models to explain and predict technology acceptance and use (Alkhunaizan & Love,
2012; Foon & Fah, 2011; Im et al., 2011; Jaradat et al., 2013).
The variables of this study are based on the UTAUT framework, wherein facilitating
conditions encompass trust and risk associated with m-commerce because of their relevance to
m-commerce purchase intentions (Aboelmaged & Gebba, 2013). There is a need to understand
m-commerce adoption through examining factors that influence user’s intention. Such
26
knowledge may guide strategic planning and inform decision making that relates to the context
of a competitive advantage (Coursaris & Kim, 2011; Kuo et al., 2011). Table 1 indicates the
definition of each variable concerning m-commerce based on a careful examination of the
literature.
Table 1. Definition of Study Constructs
Construct Definition Literature

Performance Expectations that technology will help perform a Venkatesh et al.,
Expectancy task better. (2012)
Effort Expectancy Expectation that using a system would be free Venkatesh et al.,
from effort and not difficult to use. (2012)
Social Influence The degree to which important others have been Venkatesh et al.,
an influence on m-commerce use. (2012)
Trust The extent an individual believes that using Zhang et al.,

technology is secure and has no privacy threats. (2012)
Perceived Risk The risk perceived with using m-commerce Zhang et al.,
including fraud and product quality. (2012)
Purchase Intentions The strength of a person’s intention to use the Venkatesh et al.,
technology in the future or again. (2012)
Variables in User Acceptance of M-commerce
Venkatesh et al. (2003) asserted few key variables used to study user acceptability in the
context of m-commerce, which varies according to the theoretical framework. For example,
UTAUT uses effort expectancy, performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, and social
influence as parameters for studying user acceptance, while TTF uses task characteristics,
technology characteristics, task technology fit, and use to characterize user acceptability
(Oliveira et al., 2014). Researchers often classify m-commerce as a subset of e-commerce (Gupta
27
& Vyas, 2014; Hu, Lu, & Tzeng, 2015). However, m-commerce has significantly different
characteristics when compared to e-commerce. Privacy and security issues and concerns are
higher in m-commerce, as wireless data transfer over public networks increases the risk of data
theft or fraud (Benou et al., 2012).
Similarly, since m-commerce is still in a formative stage, limited availability of
appropriate models exist (Chan et al., 2013). Therefore to study and define the variables aiding
user acceptance in the unique context of m-commerce is necessary (Al-Debei & Al-Lozi, 2014).
Based on the UTAUT model and the nature of m-commerce, the variables of effort expectancy,
performance expectancy, social influence, trust, perceived risk, and purchase intention were
selected for this study. In this section, each of these variables was analyzed, defined, and
justified for modeling user acceptance in m-commerce applications.
Effort Expectancy
Effort expectancy measures the degree of effort the user perceives in using a particular
technology and has been studied in detail in the context of e-commerce by Davis (1989). The
construct of effort expectancy is explored in a wide number of applications like the Intranet
(Chiu & Wang, 2008), e-banking (Oliveira et al., 2014), wireless Internet (Tsai & LaRose,
2015), and in the domain of m-commerce (Lin et al., 2011); Kim & Garrison, 2009). In many
existing models using constructs such as self-efficacy, perceived ease of use (TAM), ease of use
(IDT), and complexity (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014), effort expectancy can be found (Lin et al.,
2011). Additionally, effort expectancy is related to individual difference variables like gender,
age, and experience of the user. However, Yu (2012) noted effort expectancy effects on gender,
age, and experience of the user has a higher significance if the user is older with less technology
experience.
28
The effect of effort expectancy in determining user behavior regarding technology is the
focus of various studies. Multiple definitions of effort expectancy can be found in the literature.
Davis (1989) defined effort expectancy as perceived ease of use and the degree to which a person
believes that using a system would be effort-free, whereas Thompson, Higgins, and Howell,
(1991) termed this concept as complexity or the degree to which a system includes the
perception of difficulty in understanding and use. Moore and Benbasat (1991) defined effort
expectancy as ease of use: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to
use. Venkatesh et al. (2003) defined effort expectancy specifically for mobile systems as the
extent of ease linked with system utilization. While the definitions vary, lower effort expectancy
contributes to more extensive utilization of technology (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014; Oliveira et
al., 2014; Tsai & LaRose, 2015). Integrating the literature, effort expectancy for m-commerce
can be defined as: the degree of effort the user perceives in the utilization of mobile technology
for the purpose of commercial transactions.
Performance Expectancy
Performance Expectancy measures the positive effect of using a system on the user’s job
performance. Venkatesh et al. (2003) defined as a combination of constructs from different
models. Performance expectancy, along with perceived ease of use is the two key parameters
determining technology adaptation. Performance expectancy correlates strongly with purchase
intention (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992). However, it has been theorized that this
relationship is moderated by factors such as the age of user population and gender. For example,
men, being more task oriented, would place higher weight on performance expectancy (Cyr et
al., 2006).
29
Davis et al. (1989) defined performance expectancy as perceived ease of use or the
degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his/her job
performance. Davis et al. (1992) used another aspect of performance expectancy as Extrinsic
Motivation: the perception that the use of a technology in an activity can aid in achieving goals
other than the activity itself, such as increased pay, improved job performance etc. Thompson et
al. (1991) defined performance expectancy as Job fit: the ability of a system to improve the
user’s job performance, while Moore and Benbasat (1991) termed it as Relative Advantage: the
degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor. Tseng and Kuo
(2014) defined a similar concept Outcome Expectancy, which is a combination of performance
expectancy and personal expectancy. Though a specific definition of personal expectancy is not
provided, performance expectancy for Tseng and Kuo is the perception that using a system
would improve on job effectiveness and quality of output while reducing time spent on routine
tasks. In the context of m-commerce, performance expectancy can be defined as the degree to
which the use of m-commerce is perceived to improve job performance in terms of improved
effectiveness, quality of output, time use etc.
Social Influence
Societal conditions often play a significant role in determining users' perception and
approach to technology. Social influence figures prominently in most studies pertaining to
technology use behavior (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014; Chong et al., 2012; Foon & Fah, 2011).
Social influence is a composite of factors such as peer influence and self and social image, and
can be broadly divided into two categories; social norms and critical mass (Wang et al., 2014).
Social norms include informal influences and normative influences. Informal influence involves
the user accepting information from peers as evidence about reality and forming an opinion on
30
its basis (Bapna, & Umyarov, 2015). Normative influences account for instances where the user
decides to conform to avoid a negative perception in the social setting (Safeena, Hundewale, &
Kamani, 2011). Critical mass occurs when a technology reaches significant market of
penetration, its perceived value in society increases, thereby attracting more users, and
accelerating adoption. Safeena et al. maintained social influence has a direct positive effect on
user attitude towards m-commerce, as user perceived advanced technology would improve their
image, status, and performance in the society.
As the effect of social influence on customer behavior is an important explanatory factor,
however researchers have different definitions. Ajzen (1985) studied social influence as
subjective norms in the TRA / TPB model where social influence is defined as the user's
perception that people important to him think he should, or should not, perform a certain
behavior. Thompson et al. (1991) defined social influence as social factors an individual's
internalization of reference group's subjective culture, and specific interpersonal agreements
between the user and members of the group. Similarly, Weerakkody, El-Haddadeh, Al-Sobhi,
and Shareef (2013) explained social influence as the degree to which a person's social status is
enhanced from the use of a technology or innovation. The UTAUT model includes the definition
of social influence as the extent to which consumers perceive that important others (e.g., family
and friends) believe they should use a particular technology. In the context of m-commerce,
social influence can be defined as the extent to which the user perceives that the important
members in his social circle support the use of an m-commerce technology.
Trust
Various definitions of trust have been put forward in the literature, such as Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, (1998), who defined trust as a psychological state comprising the
31
intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of
another. Yang et al. (2015) defined trust as: a set of specific beliefs dealing primarily with the
integrity benevolence, competence and predictability of a particular vendor. Joubert and Van
Belle (2013) later extended the same definition to m-commerce where trust is a relatively more
important predictor of purchasing because direct interaction between a client and seller are
infrequent and has been shown to have a direct positive effect on user behavior (Chen & Chang,
2013). Based on relevant literature, trust in m-commerce can be defined as: a customer's belief in
the security and reliability of the m-commerce platform and in the seller's ability and motivation
to provide quality product and service.
According to Pavlou (2003), when customers trust a system, interaction will occur on
most occasions, and therefore the buyer-seller transactions are more likely to increase, as trust
gives customers high expectations of system reliability. The study by Pavlou confirmed the TAM
variables PEOU and PU as fundamental factors in e-commerce acceptance, while other factors
include trust and perceived risk. A similar study conducted by San Martín and Herrero (2012)
finds established technology risk as negative determinant to online purchasing intention, and
may have a negative influence on attitude towards the website use. Pavlou’s and San Martín &
Herrero’s research is consistent with recent studies on e-commerce, as the findings imply the
direct antecedents of intention to transact to be perceived risk and trust.
McKnight and Chervany (2001) characterized trust as three-dimensional, consisting of
disposition to trust, structural assurance, and trust belief. Disposition of trust is a personality trait,
which varies based on user and is the tendency of a person to trust in general. Structural
assurance deals with a person's perceived trust in the environment, and trust belief assumes that
the trustworthiness of the vendor consists of beliefs about their integrity, benevolence, and
32
competence (Yang, Pang, Liu, Yen, & Tarn, 2015). Trust can also be classified as trusting beliefs
(Yang et al., 2015) and trusting intentions (Chen & Chang, 2013), which make a user
comfortable in the information provided by the vendor, leading to a purchase.
Trust can also act as an indirect antecedent of transaction intentions through perceived
ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived risk. A recent study by Alkhunaizan and Love
(2012) employing UTAUT demonstrates consistency with previous findings, which identified
trust as an essential variable of enhancing customer satisfaction and consumer loyalty in m-
commerce. Chunxiang (2014) maintained, increased customer trust can increase users perception
of value and perceived cost. According to Min et al. (2008) trust emerged as a main determinant
of user acceptance as m-commerce businesses that earned that trust associates with success.
Additionally, within the context of competitive advantage Hu et al. (2015) posit, companies can
improve their m-commerce adoptions enhancing consumer trust via integrity. Developing this
perspective would suggest that future m-commerce studies should incorporate the trust variable
in their research.
Perceived Risk
Perceived risk is positively related to trust, as research has confirmed that perception of
risk influences trust, and eventually the willingness to engage in a transaction (Joubert & Van
Belle, 2013). Trust is often viewed as a mirror image of perceived risk, and risk is often viewed
in relation to cost of outcomes. Perceived risk correlates to a person's trust beliefs, environmental
uncertainty, and potential loss. Because of the complex nature of perceived risk, many
researchers ignored the role perceived risk plays in user behavior (Lin et al., 2014). Despite the
large number of transactions and complicated safety mechanisms, consumers still experience
33
anxiety, while taking part in online transactions (Hille, Walsh, & Cleveland, 2015; Yang, Chye,
Fern, & Kang, 2015).
A central ethical issue for Internet commerce is the emphasis of research regarding the
risk associated with online transactions. Pavlou (2003) explored consumer uncertainty around
online transactions claiming a key risk concern is monetary loss from transactions, which links to
consumers’ vulnerability to distort or fail to complete information in the context of online
platforms. The second risk identified by Pavlou is the loss of privacy linked to the provision of
personal data to online retailers. According to Sreenivasan and Noor (2010), loss of privacy
issues with online transactions have been exacerbated that marketers obtain consumers’ personal
information using online forms. Lin et al., (2011) argued the open nature of Internet transaction
highlight risk and trust as significant elements of e-commerce and related research.
Palka, Pousttchi, and Wiedemann (2007) argued perceived risk can be defined as: a
function of perceived trustworthiness, perceived confidentiality, and perceived security. Pavlou
(2003) further defined trust as the user's subjective expectation of suffering a loss in pursuit of a
desired outcome. In addition to the perception of risk associated with fraud and product quality
in the m-commerce platform, perceived risk should also include the risks associated with data
from immature technology and product performance (Truong, Klink, Fort-Rioche, & Athaide,
2014). In this context, perceived risk can be defined as a user's expectation of loss in terms of
product quality, data security or information theft, while engaging in an m-commerce
transaction.
Purchase Intentions
Purchase intention is a measure of a user's plan to purchase a product or service in the
near future. Purchase intention is influenced by a number of factors ranging from the usefulness
34
of the product, ease of access, and enjoyment associated with shopping (Yu, 2012). Within e-
commerce, purchase intention is likely to be influenced by website layout and online store
imagery (Dedeke, 2016; Verhagen & van Dolen, 2009). It has also been found that an appealing
and enjoyable website often mitigates the effects of poor content, quality, and usability (Nilashi,
Ibrahim, Mirabi, Ebrahimi, & Zare, 2015). In m-commerce, purchase intentions is influenced by
the selling platform's compatibility with mobile technology and the user's skill and familiarity
with mobile technology (Maity & Dass, 2014). Purchase intention is regarded the most
significant characteristic in the study of digital commerce user behavior (Dedeke, 2016; Escobar-
Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014; Kuo & Wu, 2012), as such understanding of purchase
intention will give sellers comprehensive insights regarding customer behavior.
Researchers have offered several definitions of purchase intentions regarding m-
commerce. Kuo and Wu (2012) defined purchase intentions as an individual`s readiness and
willingness to purchase a certain product or service. In the context of m-commerce, purchase
intention can be defined as the willingness of an individual to acquire a product or service over a
mobile platform. Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014 approaches the definition of
purchase intentions from the lenses of innovativeness, whereas purchase intention is described as
the willingness of an individual to try out any new IT. Wang & Li, (2012) argued purchase
intention is defined as consumers propensity to purchase a good, product or services is
predicated on brand equity, then share their experiences with others. In the context of m-
commerce, purchase intention can be defined as the willingness of an individual to acquire a
product or service over a mobile platform.
35
The Nature of Mobile Commerce
To examine the nature of m-commerce, several fundamental differences between
traditional commerce, m-commerce and Internet-based e-commerce are discussed. Based on this
extension of traditional commerce, e-commerce models, new definitions of transactions and
business models are explored and classified as they relate to m-commerce. Scholarly articles
abound with m-commerce definitions, however literature analyses of m-commerce research are
scant (Kourouthanassis & Giaglis, 2012). Since 2014, published studies (Gupta & Vyas, 2014;
Hu et al., 2015; Turban, King, Lee, Liang, & Turban 2015), include m–commerce classification
as a subset or an extension to the concepts of e-commerce. Other researchers argued
characteristics of electronic e-commerce could be generally applied to m-commerce (Maity &
Dass, 2014; Lin et al., 2011), as barriers typically associated with the adoption of new
technology such as trust have both direct and indirect influences on usage behavior. Several
researchers suggested that m-commerce should be broadly defined as any form of business
transaction or activity of value that occurs on or through a mobile network (Kumar, Rishi, &
Kumar, 2013; Sharma, Kansal, & Tomar, 2015; Yang, Chye, Fern, & Kang, 2015). Following
this taxonomy, the next generation of m–commerce definitions may be classified on their
ecosystem (e.g., mobile phones, tablet, operating system, and apps) as effective business models
for emerging m-commerce services (Mehmood, 2015; Ivanochko et al., 2015; Mahajan &
Agarwal, 2015).
Congruent with the aforementioned examples, the definition and classification of m-
commerce is complicated and continues to evolve (Omonedo & Bocij, 2014). Consequently,
some authors formulated definitions, constructed as a combination of classifications mentioned
above. These new and refined definitions of m-commerce combine the concepts of transaction,
36
ecosystem, and m-commerce. For a clear overview, the various definitions of m-commerce and
their respective authors are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2. Classification of M-Commerce Definitions Based on Literature
Classification Definition Literature
Subset form of e- M-commerce is a Gupta & Vyas, 2014;

commerce subset e-commerce; Hu, Lu, & Tzeng,
therefore, all the (2014);Turban, King,
aspects involved can Lee, Liang, & Turban,
be extended and (2015)
applied to m-
commerce
Transactions M-commerce is any Kumar, Rishi, &
form of business Kumar, (2013),
transaction or activity Sharma, Kansal, &
of value that occurs on Tomar, (2015), Yang,
through a mobile Chye, Fern, & Kang,
network (2015)
Business Model M-commerce is Mehmood, (2015);

Ecosystem defined in part by the Ivanochko, Masiuk, &
ecosystem (e.g., Gregus, (2015);
marketplace, App- Mahajan & Agarwal,
based services) (2015)
Comparison of Traditional Commerce, E-commerce, and M-commerce
The rapid growth of m-commerce created unique business models for mobile operators,
retail organization, and consumers (Chong, 2013; Khan, Talib, & Faisal, 2015). As firms
formulated their business model correlation with technology (Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013),
the lack of framework for identifying opportunities resulted in strategic inefficiencies (Girotra &
Netessine, 2014). As such, firms seeking a competitive advantage in digital commerce have
adapted traditional commerce and e-commerce strategies to m-commerce-based business models.
Zott and Amit (2013) explored the difference among traditional commerce, e-commerce and m-
37
commerce from the lenses of business model content, structure, and governance, as shown in
Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of Commerce Business Models
Traditional Commerce E-commerce M-commerce

Business Tangible product Tangible product, Tangible product,
Model digital product, digital product,
Content information service, information service,
revenue sharing, revenue sharing,
advertising & advertising,
marketing marketing, and
improved efficiency
Business Traditional Internet platform (e.g., Mobile internet

Model information medium Internet); Internet platform (Web
Structure (cable television, transaction portal of cell
radio, newspapers, Digital payments phones, information
magazines and and on-the-spot kiosk)
books) payment
Traditional Data storage, cloud Mobile transaction

transactions. and social media (mobile terminal
Physical exchange of payment); Mobile
currency internet payment
and location based
payment
Business model Manual management. E-commerce platform M-commerce
Governance ecosystem
Business Model Perspective
The study of business models is an expansive topic covering numerous aspects from all
industries (DaSilva & Trkman, 2014). However, Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) provided a
general perspective of the business model concept and defined business models as a firm’s
underlying core logic and strategic choices used for creating and capturing value. From the
business model perspective, Zott and Amit (2013) posited that enterprises include concern with
38
the production and delivery of tangible products, while e-commerce and m-commerce models
supply information service with actual products or pure information service. Such change of
product content can improve the allure of products for customers and meet their demands for
information service.
Business Model Structure
The m-commerce model facilitates a business structure in which consumers obtained
information or purchased products without the disadvantage of fixed location constraints
typically associated with e-commerce (Bang, Le, Han, Hwang, & Ahn, 2013). The nature of
wireless communication enables customers to achieve instant satisfaction of obtaining
information or making purchases (Drossos, Giaglis, Vlachos, Zamani, & Lekakos, 2013), and
may thereby influence consumer’s purchasing intentions. Researchers suggest the attributes of
trust, attitude and mobile service are significant factors for m-commerce adoption (Oliveira et al.,
2014; Thakur & Srivastava, 2014; Wang & Li, 2012). Organizations could use of these
identified factors to enhance the firm’s mobile commerce adoption and increase their
competitiveness, which may lead to a competitive advantage.
Business Model Governance
Zott and Amit (2013) also suggested that content, structure, and governance described the
architecture of a business model. Traditional business models included concern with the
monetization products through the prices charged to customer (Mehmood, 2015); however,
Ivanochko et al., 2015 argued m-commerce provided new ways to monetize product offerings by
providing a way for customers to obtain revenue from sponsors (e.g., advertisers). Business
model governance under the m-commerce business model enables enterprises to instantly
39
manage customers’ information and transaction process of products, subsequently producing a
sustainable competitive advantage (Wu, Chen, & Guo, 2008).
Research on Technology Use
Research on the influence of multiple perceptual predictors of purchase intentions and
conversion rates in the m-commerce domain employed several methodological approaches. Most
research surveyed users of m-commerce with quantitative methods such as validated
questionnaires and surveys to determine their perceptions of m-commerce (Budzanowska-
Drzewiecka, 2015; Cyr et al., 2006; Bhatti, 2007; Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). Perceptions included such factors as performance and effort
expectancies, usefulness, ease of use, social and normative influence, aesthetic preferences, and
facilitating conditions to determine their influence on m-commerce intentions and behaviors. In a
range of studies, researchers applied correlational, regression, and path modeling designs to test
the power of perceptions to predict m-commerce purchase intentions and uptake (Alkhunaizan &
Love, 2012; Joubert & Van Belle, 2013; Nilashi et al., 2015). As shown in Appendix A, research
has demonstrated a range of factors associated with m-commerce purchase intentions including
accessibility, intrinsic motivation, risk, usefulness and trust.
The utility of the modeling research approach allowed researchers since Davis (1989) to
develop sophisticated models incorporating a wider range of theoretically relevant factors to
predict intentions and usage of information technology. Pavlou (2003) synthesized the literature
on TRA and TAM with the important ethical issues of risk and trust in the field of e-commerce.
Another set of studies investigated the relationship between website design aesthetics, usability,
and purchase intentions (Coursaris & Kim, 2011; Tuch et al., 2012). Cyr et al. (2006) extended
TAM to discover how visual design aesthetics affect ease of use, enjoyment, and perceived
40
usefulness, and subsequently the behavioral intentions of users. Cyr et al. suggested that TAM
can incorporate both utilitarian and hedonic factors of aesthetic perceptions. Hedonic factors
resonate with the pleasure, enjoyment, and fun experienced by consumers when they utilize an
information system. Cyr et al. identified a lack of understanding of the influence of design
elements on the experience of mobile users, which affected consumers’ loyalty towards utilizing
the service. The researchers predicted that consumer loyalty in mobile commerce links to the
enjoyment and usefulness of the products from that business.
Apart from security issues and aesthetics, research exposed a range of other factors
appended to user acceptance models. Wu and Wang (2005) sighted compatibility as a significant
determining factor of the intention to use a technology. Perdesen (2005) extended TAM by
incorporating behavioral control and subjective norms to yield a decomposed theory of planned
behavior, which proved useful in explaining the behaviors of early adopters of m-commerce.
Contrasting research by Zhou, Lu, and Wang (2011) further identified personality traits as an
important factor in user adoption to m-commerce. The researchers argued that mobile service
providers should consider the need to conduct their market segmentation based on the
personality traits of users as this approach would account for the individual character of users to
better tailor their products and services.
The findings of other empirical studies also supported the suitability of an extended TAM
framework of user acceptance in analyzing the adoption of mobile payment (m-payments). The
research by Zmijewska and Lawrence (2005) and colleagues Zmijewska, Lawrence, and Steele,
(2004) confirmed that the success of m-payments depends on the features of technology that
influence the decision of potential users and other success determinants associated with the
technological infrastructure. Swilley and Goldsmith (2007) found a range of constructs
41
predictive of consumer involvement with m-commerce using a modified version of TAM.
Findings from the empirical study of Yaseen and Zayed (2010) revealed the critical determinants
to the adoption of m-commerce in the Jordanian marketplace involve variables within technology
adoption/acceptance models.
One can find other variables to explain m-commerce attitudes, intentions, and behaviors
from the perspective of UTAUT. Wu, & Wang, (2005) maintained cognitive and affective
factors are important variables that prevent people from trusting online services. In one
investigation of the Jordanian market, Jaradat et al., (2013) revealed the prediction of m-
commerce adoption can be derived from behavioral intentions that are predicted by social
influence, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy; however, social influence was found
to be the most significant predictor. In contrast, Zhou and Lu (2011a) found that personality
traits such as openness to new experiences, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion
significantly affect trust within the e-commerce or m-commerce context, but agreeableness and
neuroticism are the only significant factors affecting perceived usefulness.
Cost
Alkhunaizan and Love (2012) identified cost as a significant predictor of usage intention
in consumers when making decisions regarding purchasing through the m-commerce platforms.
Anil, Ting, Moe, and Jonathan (2003) suggested the failure of individuals in Singapore and
Australia to embrace Internet banking has been mostly attributed to cost. Zmijewska and
Lawrence (2005) argued that the adoption of mobile payments is impeded by associated costs.
Following this logic, online retailers should consider pricing as one of the most significant
elements in their marketing mix, which can be leveraged as a source of competitive advantage.
42
A study conducted by Chunxiang (2014) combined variables from different models
(TRA, TPB & TAM) to test their effect on perceived value of m-commerce and adoption
intention. The findings with Chinese participants revealed that adoption intentions was
significantly predicted by perceived value which in turn was predicted by free connection,
usefulness, and enjoyment. Perceived cost, technicality and trust also have a direct effect on
perceived value. The total model explained 55.3% of user’s adoption intentions.
Performance and Effort
Sanakulov and Karjaluoto (2015) confirmed performance expectancy (PE) of UTAUT
would explain the behavior of consumers from an m-commerce perspective. Other empirical
studies offered further support for this finding, such that performance expectancy predicts the
perceived advantages associated with the adoption of m-commerce (Khalifa & Shen, 2008; Kim,
Choi, & Han, 2009; Chan et al., 2012). Alkhunaizan and Love (2012) asserted effort expectancy
(EE) is a similar concept to TAM’s perceived ease of use factor, and social influence reflects the
subjective norm factor of TBP and TRA. Fan, Saliba, Kendall, and Newmarch (2005) clarified
that social influence can be divided into mass media and interpersonal influence, where the latter
is derived from social networks via peers, superiors, and friends, while the former includes
television, newspapers, Internet, radio, magazines, and other media.
According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), the presence of technical and organizational
frameworks for the purpose of supporting system utilization is an important factor in m-
commerce. Under the UTAUT model, frameworks such as facilitating conditions embody
compatibility, whereas perceived behavioral control reflects similar concepts from the TPB,
TAM, MPCU, and IDT models (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012). The research study by
Alkhunaizan and Love recognized that studies about technological implementations viewed
43
behavioral intention as a predictive factor of technological adoption. The behavioral intention of
a user towards using a system also refers to the function of attitude and usefulness.
While analyzing influences on consumers’ intention to use mobile payment, scholars
derived valuable alternative perspectives from their empirical studies. Alkhunaizan and Love’s
(2012) research revealed a strong correlation exists between perceived trustworthiness of mobile
payment service providers and perceived confidentiality of payment details. The findings also
suggested that users who find mobile payments easy to use consider it more useful. Okazaki and
Mendez (2013) explored gender differences in the use of m-commerce. The research suggested
that ease of use and extrinsic attributes of a mobile device significant predictors of m-commerce
usage for males than females. Sreenivasan and Noor (2010) analyzed trust and privacy issues
connected to the use and acceptance of m-commerce in the Malaysian market, finding that these
factors enrich usage behavior and support the UTAUT model of m-commerce acceptance.
Longitudinal and Qualitative Findings
In one of the very few longitudinal studies m-commerce research, Lin et al., (2011)
investigated consumer trust development in mobile banking. Based on extended valence theory,
self-perception theory, and the information systems expectation confirmation theory, pre-use
trust in mobile banking was presumed to predict perceived risk and benefit, which were
anticipated to impact usage. Lin, Wang, Wang, & Lu, (2014) suggested, the extended valence
theory suggests that consumers are motivated to minimize such risks by avoiding behaviors
where such risks are considered high. Usage was then expected to influence perceived usefulness
and confirmation, which together would predict satisfaction and post-use trust.
Customers of a Chinese bank (N = 332) completed a questionnaire prior to use of m-
banking and again after 2 months post-use with the data analysis showing 57% of the variance in
44
post-use of m-banking was predicted by the combination of pre-trust in m-banking and
satisfaction during the 2-month usage phase. In other words, trust leads to m-banking usage,
which then affects satisfaction and enhanced trust, ultimately causing increased usage (Foon &
Fah, 2011; Püschel et al., 2010). Although this research provides one of the only longitudinal
studies of m-commerce perceptions and usage, it was limited to a focus on the impact of trust on
usage. The model of pre-trust, usage, satisfaction, and post-use trust was rather circular, and
there may have been external variables that produced such results, which is a general weakness
of longitudinal designs.
As with longitudinal research of m-commerce usage and behaviors, there have been few
qualitative studies in this domain. Pelet and Papadopoulou (2012) conducted a qualitative study
by interviewing 21 students to gauge their perceptions of using mobile phones for commerce and
Social Network Systems (SNS). Only two participants indicated they used their phone for
shopping on m-commerce sites, with the majority using phones for SNS. The findings showed a
range of issues moderated their potential use of m-commerce, including trust, security, and
reputation from others. Considering the main variables of the TAM model, participants identified
ease of use and usefulness as facilitating factors of m-commerce and SNS adoption. The
interview findings also revealed aesthetics and professional designs of m-commerce and SNS to
be significant factors in their usage (Pelet & Papadopoulou, 2012).
Zmijewska and Lawrence (2005) conducted a qualitative study of m-commerce exploring
barriers to the success of mobile payment services to identify the most critical issues to the slow
uptake of m-commerce. Experts in m-commerce projects (N = 46) were asked via a web-based
qualitative questionnaire to identify the barriers to the success of mobile payments and the most
critical issues to the uptake of m-commerce. Two raters who discussed and resolved any
45
differences in their coding independently coded participant’s responses. The findings revealed a
number of perceived barriers to m-commerce including security / trust, ease of use, usefulness,
cost, and a series of infrastructure factors such as cooperation between services and regulatory
barriers to m-commerce adoption. Again, these findings may confirm impediment factors to m-
commerce that are consistent with models such as TAM or UTAUT.
Zhang et al. (2012) conducted a meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the
moderating effect of culture. A total of 58 studies were included with a sample size of 19,334
participants; 35 studies were classified as being from an Eastern and 23 as a Western
background. The set of studies included variables from the technology acceptance model (TAM),
which include actual use, behavioral intention, attitude towards using, perceived use, and
perceived ease of use. Other variables were from the theory of planned behavior (TPB)
(subjective norm and perceived behavior control), from the innovation diffusion theory
(innovativeness and compatibility), and from a review of other tested constructs in the literature
(perceived cost, perceived risk, trust, perceived enjoyment). Findings showed that the extended
TAM model provides a good predictor of behavioral intentions and actual use of mobile
commerce.
M-Commerce Dimensions and Purchase Intentions
Although research reviewed in this chapter has broadly drawn from findings on
technology use more generally, there are a range of significant studies on m-commerce
dimensions specifically that are summarized in Table 4. The results of these are presented based
on a scheme that consists of 3 distinct dimensions: classification of m-commerce theory and
research, competitive factors that drive growth, and m-Commerce revenue models.
46
Table 4. Significant Works on M-Commerce Research
Dimensions Author
Classified m-commerce literature into five dimensions: Ngai & Gunasekaran,
mobile commerce theory and research; wireless network (2007)
infrastructure; and mobile cases and applications.
Developed a map of m-commerce research based on an Fouskas et al., (2005)
analysis of published sources and empirical work. The map
classifies m-commerce research into three dimensions,
namely technology (infrastructure and devices), service
(applications, content, payments), and value (business
models).
Found competitive factors (traditional payment services and Dahlberg, Mallat,
barriers to entry), new e-payment services substitutes, and Ondrus, & Zmijewska,
mobile payment service providers drive the development of (2008)
mobile payment services markets and determine market
structures.
Conceptualizing m-business is a key research activity that Wang & Li, (2012)
needs execution.
First attempted to explain factors influencing the adoption of Coursaris & Hassanein,
M-commerce, m-Commerce business applications, m- (2002)
Commerce value network, and m-Commerce revenue
models.
It is important to note the key studies that relate m-commerce to purchase intentions
given the focus of this study. As shown in Table 5, there is a pattern of main predictors of
purchase intentions to include ease of use, usefulness, and the attributes of the vendor and
customer. As such, investigations of m-commerce purchase intentions from the perspective of
UTAUT would help clarify the relative importance of potential predictors of m-commerce
47
Table 5. Key Studies on Predictors of Purchase Intentions in M-Commerce
Predictors of Purchase Intentions Author
Ability, integrity, and benevolence of the vendors when handling Lin & Wang, (2006)
the consumer’s transaction.
Ease of use, usefulness, and aesthetics when being involved in the Okazaki & Mendez,
interactive systems. (2013)
Higher rewards (monetary values in terms of compensation) are Xu, Luo, Carroll, &
attributed to activities with higher risks (firm's uncertainties). Rosson, (2011)
Physical and socio-psychological attributes and beliefs affect Shao Yeh & Li, (2009)
customers’ perceptions of the brand and the meaning they attribute
to it.
Defined three key attributes that describe a successful service: Pagani, (2004)
perceived usefulness, ease of use and cost-effectiveness.
Argued modeling the perceived value of a product solely on price is Kim, Chan, & Gupta
an important but insufficient conceptualization because most of the (2007)
time customers consider attributes other than price, such as
perceived quality of the product.
Design characteristics of interactive systems, users perceptions Tractinsky, (1997)
and evaluation of various attributes of the system (e.g., ease of use,
usefulness), including its aesthetics.
Evaluation and Future Directions
Although ample support exists for the UTAUT model in explaining the factors associated
with technology acceptance (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012; Foon & Fah, 2011; Im et al., 2011;
Jaradat et al., 2013), there is diminutive research on its application to the area of m-commerce.
On the surface, the main variables of UTAUT would appear to relate to m-commerce adoption,
especially social influence and facilitating conditions. Mobile phones have become an important
aspect of social communication and one would predict that social influence has an impact on
mobile use and the use of related applications such as m-commerce (Attuquayefio & Addo,
48
2014). Understanding the facilitating conditions to promote or remove barriers to the use of m-
commerce would appear to be an important research direction.
The uncertainty created by the open nature of Internet transactions made risk and trust
important elements of m-commerce and related research (Lin et al., 2011). Chong et al. (2012)
maintained, issues of trust and risk relate to user intentions and behaviors to the adoption of m-
commerce are worthy of further investigation. As Pavlou (2003) found, consumer uncertainty of
online transactions and the risk of monetary loss from transactions, as well as the risk of loss of
privacy linked to the provision of personal data to online retailers are significant factors to the
usage behaviors. Within the UTAUT framework, risk and trust factors appear to be facilitating
conditions that can either promote or impede m-commerce use. Investigation of such a
possibility would be a worthwhile research direction to develop the UTAUT model further and
contribute to knowledge about the ethical issues associated with m-commerce.
Summary and Conclusion
The influence of multiple perceptual predictors of purchase and behavioral intentions and
conversion rates in the m-commerce domain are discussed from various viewpoints, however are
additional research topics worth exploring. The significant theoretical frameworks and main
concepts that guided research on electronic and mobile commerce warrant further investigation
and refinement. The main theoretical frameworks discussed in this study guiding Internet
commerce research include the technology acceptance model (TAM), the theory of reasoned
action (TRA), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology (UTAUT).
Some scholars suggested that the TRA model offers potential benefits to predict the
intention of individuals performing a certain behavior based on their attitudes and beliefs. TRA
49
led to the further refinement of TPB and more specific technology adoption models like TAM
and UTAUT. Behavior of an individual can be explained through his or her behavioral intention,
which is influenced by perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and attitude. In contrast,
the TAM model proposes that a user favors or does not favor a certain information system as a
result of the impact created by the ease of use and the usefulness of the system on the attitude of
a user towards using the system. The UTAUT model included the argument that the behavioral
intentions of users include determination by social influence, performance expectancy,
facilitating conditions, and effort expectancy.
Past research offered empirical support to the identified models of technology adoption
and has revealed that UTAUT provides a comprehensive framework for predicting user
intentions and behavior. Still, little research exists regarding the application of UTUAT to m-
commerce and how facilitating conditions such the ethical issues of risk and trust may moderate
m-commerce intentions and behavior. Continued examination of the specific antecedents of the
UTAUT predictors of m-commerce intentions and behavior associated with m-commerce risk
and trust within the mobile domain is likely to lead to further improvements in the performance
of m-commerce and provide suitable competitive advantages for associated businesses.
The purpose of the research in this study is to address these gaps in the research literature
on m-commerce adoption by investigating the extent to which performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, and facilitating conditions predict m-commerce purchase
intentions within the context of competitive advantage. The main research question and
subquestions of this study focus on building an understanding as to what extent perceptions of
m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating
conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived risk predict customer purchase intentions. Results
50
from the study are intended to provide knowledge that may be applied to m-commerce
companies seeking a competitive advantage, as well as guide future research.
In this chapter, a detailed review of the literature pertinent to this study was conducted.
The nature of m-commerce, comparison of commerce models and theoretical framework for m-
commerce and e-commerce research was reviewed before a review of the UTAUT model was
conducted. Additional frameworks discussed in this study guiding Internet commerce research
include the technology acceptance model (TAM), the theory of reasoned action (TRA), and the
theory of planned behavior. From various viewpoints the influence of multiple perceptual
predictors of purchase and behavioral intentions and conversion rates in the m-commerce domain
were discussed. Lastly, the problem of the study was restated in order to properly explain this
study’s area of contribution to the body of knowledge.
51
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter focuses on the research methodology of this study. Within the context of
competitive advantage, the purpose of this study is to address the lack of knowledge on the
influence of users’ perceptions of m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, and facilitating conditions on their purchase intentions. A quantitative, non-
experimental survey approach was used to test the hypothesis for this study. The research
questions with their respective null and alternative hypotheses of this study were
Main RQ: To what extent do performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and
the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce
predict m-commerce purchase intentions regarding competitive advantage?
H00: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions
of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce do not predict m-commerce
purchase intentions at a statistically significant level regarding competitive
advantage.
HA0: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating
conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-
commerce purchase intentions at a statistically significant level regarding
intentions regarding competitive advantage?
H01: Performance expectancy in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce
advantage.
52
SubQ2: To what extent does effort expectancy predict m-commerce purchase intentions
regarding competitive advantage?
HA2: Effort expectancy in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase
regarding competitive advantage?
HA3: Social influence predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
SubQ4: To what extent does the facilitating condition of trust in the use of m-commerce
predict m-commerce purchase intentions regarding competitive advantage?
H04: Trust in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase intentions
at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage.
HA4: Trust in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a
SubQ5: To what extent does the facilitating condition of perceived risk in the use of m-
commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions regarding competitive
advantage?
53
H05: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase
HA5: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions
at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage.
The methodology adopted to address the research questions and test the hypotheses of
this study is addressed in this chapter. The research design, the sample selection methods, the
materials and instruments used in the study, and the data collection and analysis methods are also
presented in this chapter. Finally the methods employed to address ethics and research validity
issues are reviewed in this chapter.
Research Design
The research design for this study employed a quantitative, predictive study design using
survey methods. This design is based on similar UTAUT studies (Venkatesh et al., 2012) to
enable a test of the predictive capacity of performance and effort expectancies, social influence,
and facilitating conditions on m-commerce performance expectancies. Adult participants were
invited to participate in an online survey to measure their m-commerce performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, facilitating conditions (trust and perceived risk), and m-commerce
purchase intentions. As noted by Wright (2005) advantages of online surveys include: (a) access
to unique populations, (b) reduction in time, (c) relatively valid, (d) cost efficient, and (e) means
of data collection.
Data analysis entailed the use of the ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression model
to test the predictive capacity of mobile-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, facilitating conditions (trust and perceived risk) and m-commerce purchase intentions
in the context of a competitive advantage. The OLS regression method was selected because of
54
use in previous m-commerce research to explain the variance in m-commerce purchase
intentions that reflect certain competitive advantages (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo,
2014; Schenkman & Jonsson, 2000; Schierz et al., 2010; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
The research approach and methodology adopted in this study are based on the positivist
paradigm, which makes the ontological assumption that observations of the real world are the
most reliable basis for generating knowledge (Erlingsson & Brysiewicz, 2013). However,
ontological assumption accepts that unobserved hypothetical, or theoretical constructs can play
useful roles in scientific theories (Antonenko, 2015). Based on the positivist perspective, this
study adopts the scientific method to test empirical questions, conduct systematic observation via
valid and reliable methodologies, gather data and submit to quantitative analysis, and integrate
the information to form an interpretation of the findings regarding the research questions and
hypotheses (Tsang, 2014). In the case of the study, assumptions included that the methodology
will adequately test the impact of the predictor variables (performance and effort expectancies,
social influence, and facilitating conditions) on the outcome variable of m-commerce purchase
intentions.
Sample
The target population of interest for the study included adults at various stages of
adopting m-commerce use and other new consumer technologies. The focus was on North
American consumers within an already well-developed base of IT users (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2015). The following characteristics describe the sample frame and inclusion
criteria:
● Demographics: Although the study research problem and research question do not
directly focus on the impact of demographic variables on m-commerce purchase
55
intentions, a range of demographic data was collected to ensure the sample is gender
balanced and represents a broad range of age groups, and income levels.
● Inclusion criteria: Participants were 21 years of age and over.
● Exclusion criteria: Anyone who is under 21 years of age was not permitted to
participate in the study because of their inability to give independent consent.
As a facet of the study’s quantitative approach, the study used predictive design and
random sampling to recruit participants through the utilization of the SurveyMonkey Audience
Panel (SurveyMonkey, 2015). Random sampling was employed as probability sampling is
appropriate for quantitative survey research such that each person in the study population has an
equal chance of being recruited into the sample (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). SurveyMonkey
distributed invitations to the population of potential participants via its SurveyMonkey Audience
Panel, which has over 30 million members demographically representative of the United States
(SurveyMonkey, 2015). An a-priori power analysis was conducted to determine an appropriate
sample size using the G*Power 3.1.2 software, which covers a broad range of study designs and
reflects the research design parameters put forward by Cohen (1988). OLS linear regression
analysis was used for investigating the relationship between the independent variables and the
dependent variables. G*Power analysis showed that a sample size of 146 participants provides a
power of 0.95 with a medium effect size of .15. The final sample consisted of 165 participants,
including 98 women and 67 men who came from a wide range of age groups, income levels and
U.S. regions (a full description of the participants is provided in the results section).
Instrumentation / Measures
The data collection instrument subscales for this study were adapted from Escobar-
Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo (2014) to test the application of the UTAUT to purchase
56
intentions. Six validated subscales from this instrument were used to measure the constructs of
this study; the other subscales of this instrument were not employed in this study, as they were
outside the scope of the research problem. The details of each subscale are described below:
1. Performance expectancy: measured by The Performance Expectancy Subscale
(Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014), a 4-item measure of the strength
people believes m-commerce will help them perform a task better. Responses to each
item were measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 – Strongly disagree to 7 –
Strongly agree.
2. Effort expectancy: measured by The Effort Expectancy Subscale (Escobar-Rodriguez
& Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014), a 4-item measure of the belief that using m-commerce is
free from effort and easy to use. Responses to each item were measured by a 7-point
Likert-type scale from 1 – Strongly disagree to 7 – Strongly agree.
3. Social influence: measured by The Social Influence Subscale (Escobar-Rodriguez &
Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014), a 3-item measure of the strength with which important
others have influenced a person to adopt or use an m-commerce system. Responses to
questions were measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 – Strongly disagree to
7 – Strongly agree.
4. Trust: the strength of a person’s belief that using m-commerce is secure and has no
privacy threats was measured by a 3-item m-Commerce Trust Subscale (Escobar-
Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Responses to questions were measured by a 7-
point Likert-type scale from 1 – Strongly disagree to 7 – Strongly agree.
5. Perceived risk: the risk perceived with using m-commerce including fraud and
product quality, was measured with a 3-item m-Commerce Perceived Risk Subscale
57
(Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Responses to questions were
measured by a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 – Strongly disagree to 7 – Strongly
agree.
6. Purchase intentions: measured by 3-item Purchase Intentions Subscale, which
measures the strength of a person’s intentions to purchase with m-commerce in the
future (Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Responses to questions were
rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 - Strongly disagree to 7 – Strongly agree.
Although outside of the central focus of this study, demographic information was also
collected from participants and will include questions about their age bracket, gender, income
bracket, U.S. regional location, and level of m-commerce usage answered as Infrequent,
Occasional, Frequent, or Very Frequent.
Data Collection
Data collection commenced when an invitation to undertake the study was sent to
members of the SurveyMonkey Audience Panel. Participants were self-selected. The use of the
online site ensured via an initial screening process that participants could only proceed with the
study if they met the selection criteria of being a North American adult, 21 years of age or older.
If potential participants met the selection criteria and wanted to complete the study, they were
directed to an online informed consent letter to read and complete before participation in the
study. If participants did not meet the selection criteria, they were informed as such, thanked for
their interest, and were not permitted to participate in the study. Once participants completed the
informed consent form, they were directed to an online site for administration of the research
questionnaire via SurveyMonkey (2015). Sampling was completed when the desired number of
participants fully completed the questionnaire.
58
The de-identified data is stored in a password-protected computer file, located on the
principal researcher’s computer. Data will be kept for a minimum of 7 years, at which time the
data will be destroyed based on The National Institute of Standards and Technology guidance on
data sanitation, in accordance with best practices for clearing, purging, and destroying research
data. The online survey and data are secured on SurveyMonkey (2015) via a password, protected
from anyone other than the researcher accessing the information.
Data Analysis
Data was prepared for analysis by first examining each case for a range of potential
participant response biases (Peer & Gamliel, 2011), such as an acquiescence bias or extreme
responding wherein a participant has completed all the survey items with the same response.
From the raw data, a mean score was computed for each scale and each scale was examined
included examination for skewness or kurtosis to ensure they meet the assumption of normality,
required to perform inferential statistics (Fink, 2009). Factor analysis was also conducted with
the items from each subscale to determine their validity and the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test
was run to assess the internal consistency of each subscale for the study sample (Thurber et al.,
2014).
Data analysis to test the hypotheses entailed OLS linear regression analysis to determine
the extent to which performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and facilitating
conditions (trust and perceived risk) predicted m-commerce purchase intentions. The OLS
regression method was selected (Chan & Oksanen, 1987) because of use in previous m-
commerce research to explain the variance in m-commerce purchase intentions that reflect
certain competitive advantages (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014; Schierz et al.,
2010; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
59
Validity and Reliability
Overall, the survey questionnaire employed for data collection indicated significant
construct validity and test reliability. This outcome is evidenced by the research of Escobar-
Rodrigues and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014), who reported tests of the validity and reliability of the
questionnaire with a sample of 1,096 adult users of Internet commerce. The validity of reliability
for each subscale indicated following findings:
1. The 4-item Performance Expectancy Subscale produces an interval scale that
indicated a reliability coefficient of α > .89 and factor loadings of each item between
.88 and .92. Low to moderate inter-correlations between the subscales of the full
instrument showed that performance expectancy was a distinct measure indicative of
high levels of discriminant validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
2. The 4-item Effort Expectancy Subscale produces an interval scale with a reliability
coefficient of α > .89 and factor loadings of each item between .84 and .92. Low to
moderate inter-correlations between the subscales of the full instrument showed that
effort expectancy was a distinct measure indicative of high levels of discriminant
validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
3. The 3-item Social Influence Subscale produces an interval scale indicated a reliability
coefficient of α > .94 and factor loadings of each item between .94 and .96. Low to
moderate inter-correlations between the subscales of the full instrument showed that
social influence was a distinct measure indicative of high levels of discriminant
validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
4. The m-Commerce Trust Subscale measures the strength of a person’s belief that using
m-commerce is secure and has no privacy threats. The 3-item scale produced an
60
interval scale which has a reliability coefficient of α > .92 and factor loadings of each
item between .84 and .88. Low to moderate inter-correlations between the subscales
of the full instrument showed that trust was a distinct measure indicative of high
levels of discriminant validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
5. The m-Commerce Perceived Risk Subscale measures the perceived risk with using
m-commerce including fraud and product quality. The 3-item scale produced an
interval scale which has shown a reliability coefficient of α > .92 and factor loadings
of each item between .89 and .92. Low to moderate inter-correlations between the
subscales of the full instrument showed that perceived risk was a distinct measure
indicative of high levels of discriminant validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014).
6. The Purchase Intentions Subscale measures the strength of a person’s intentions to
use the technology in the future. The 3 item scale produces an interval scale which
has shown a reliability coefficient of α > .96 and factor loadings of each item between
.93 and .95. Low to moderate inter-correlations between the subscales of the full
instrument showed that purchase intentions were a distinct measure indicative of high
levels of discriminant validity (Escobar-Rodrigues & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
Ethical Considerations
There are some ethical issues to consider in research with human participants (Sales &
Folkman, 2000). These include the method for recruiting participants, the ability to consent,
anonymity and confidentiality issues with participation, and the potential harm participants may
experience as a result of participation. Ethical considerations in the study were based on the
61
Belmont Report (1979) principles and study procedures, ensuring the following issues were
addressed with concerning the research with human participants via an informed consent letter:
● Participant ability to consent to undertake the study.
● Participants were recruited if they were 21 years of age or over, with the ability to
consent to undertake the study.
● Respect for persons and equitable treatment.
● Participants were given information about the study before they commenced to ensure
their consent was informed.
● To protect anonymity, there was no request for personal information from the
participants. Individual participant data was only utilized by the researcher for the
purposes of this study and will not be distributed to any other person or organization.
● An assessment of the risks and benefits of the study indicated that participation will
not cause any undue harm, as the study was relatively innocuous and did not elicit
any emotionally unpleasant responses from participants. The benefit of generating
more knowledge about m-commerce purchase intentions outweighed any potential
risks of the study.
● Prior to commencement of the study, the research was vetted by the institutional
review board (IRB) to insure it met the ethical standards for research at Capella
University (2016).
Overall, meeting the challenge of addressing these issues was addressed by ensuring
participants received relevant information about the research before consenting and undertaking
the research (Frels, & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). The informed consent process insured participants
were informed about the purpose of the research, the expected duration and procedures, their
62
right to decline to participate or to withdraw from the research once started, as well as the
anticipated consequences of doing so. Participants were also informed about potential risks,
discomfort or adverse effects of the research, although none were expected given the innocuous
nature of the research materials. Participants were also informed of any prospective research
benefits, and if there are any limits to confidentiality, such as data coding, disposal, sharing, and
archiving. The research methods insured participants’ privacy was respected and their responses
were confidential as their responses were de-identified and were only used for the purposes of
the research.
63
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Chapter 4 includes an analysis of the findings from the survey as they relate to the
research questions and hypotheses of this study are presented. Procedural details relating to
screening of the data, testing the validity, and reliability of the scales and measures, descriptive
statistics, and the characteristics of the sample of participants who completed the survey
instrument are included in this chapter. Next the results from various tests of assumptions to
substantiate regression analysis and presents the details of regression analysis as they relate to
the research hypotheses are outlined. Overall, the results provide a unique set of findings that
generally supports the research hypotheses of this study.
Screening the Data
As noted by Field (2009) incomplete survey questionnaires present potential
complications during data analysis and may compromise the validity and reliability of survey. As
such, data screening was conducted to identify and address any potential missing data issues. The
target population for this study included 177 people who consented to complete the survey;
however only 172 completed the surveys. These cases included screening for any anomalous
data, wherein two participants had only partially completed the survey and five participant
responses reflected cases of a response bias demonstrating extreme responding across all items.
After these seven cases were removed from the data set, the final sample included 165 valid
responses to the survey.
Validity and Reliability
The first step towards establishing validity and reliability of the survey data was to
conduct a principal components analysis (PCA) to establish the multidimensionality of scale
items relating to the five predictor variables: Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social
64
Influence, Risk, and Trust. The study used a direct oblimin rotation as there was an expectation
that the variables would be moderately correlated (Reio & Shuck, 2014). For ease of
interpretation, factor loading below .5 were suppressed in the factor analysis output. Factor
analysis confirmed the expected factor structure of the items (Thurber et al., 2014), as each item
loaded on its respective dimension and there were no significant cross loadings of items on
alternative factors (see Table 6). The rotated solution supported a five factor structure that
explained 77.9% of the variance in item responses. Effort expectancy (factor 1) explained 43.86
of the total variance, Risk (factor 2) explained 13.0%, Performance Expectancy (factor 3)
explained 8.87% of the variance, Social Influence (factor 4) explained 7.35%, and Trust (factor
5) explained 4.78% of the variance in item responses. The factor intercorrelations were low to
moderate and further support the construct validity of the scales used to measure the predictor
variables.
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Predictor Variable (N = 165)

Factor Loadings
Effort Performance Social
Items Risk Trust
Expectancy Expectancy Influence
EE1 .92
EE2 .93
EE3 .93
EE4 .62
R1 .78
R2 .86
R3 .84
PE1 .66
PE2 .50
PE3 .67
PE4 .60
SI1 .80
SI2 .58
SI3 .79
65
Table 6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Predictor Variable (N = 165)(continued)
Factor Loadings
Items Risk Trust
Expectancy Expectancy Influence
T1 .75
T2 .63
T3 .80
Intercorrelations of dimensions
Dimension
Risk .08
Performance Expectancy -.32 -.10
Social Influence .36 .01 -.23
Trust .53 -.08 -.26 .23 1.00
Reliability analysis was then conducted by calculating the internal consistency of the
questionnaire items in terms of the respective dimensions. Table 7 indicated that Cronbach's
Alpha values were mostly good to very good (Cronbach & Shavelson, 2004) and there was clear
overall evidence of internal consistency in all the measures.
Table 7. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Results

α α
Comparison
Scale Present study No. of items
study1
Performance Expectancy .91 4 .91
Effort Expectancy .92 4 .92
Social Influence .74 3 .94
Trust .74 3 .88

Risk .77 3 .88
Purchase Intention .87 3 .91
Note. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Results compared to Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014).
66
Descriptive Statistics
A mean score of endorsement of items with respect to each measure was calculated and
the findings are shown in Table 8. These data showed that participants were quite high on risk
showing safety and security concerns for conducting m-commerce. Similarly, participants were
high on effort expectancy believing that m-commerce is easy to use and free from hassles.
Conversely, people were relatively low on social influence or the extent other people influence
them in their m-commerce activity, and they only showed moderate purchase intentions and,
similarly, were occasional users of m-commerce.
Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations for Continuous Variables

Variable M SD
Trust 4.54 1.24
Effort Expectancy 4.91 1.32
Risk 4.97 1.25
Performance Expectancy 4.64 1.39
Purchase Intention 4.18 1.48
Social Influence 3.73 1.29
M-Commerce Usage 2.00 0.89
1
Note. N = 165; n= 37
Description of the Sample
In terms of the sample for this study, the following table (Table 9) illustrated the frequency
distribution of sex, age, income, and device type used to complete the survey. Even though there
were more female participants by a factor of 1.5, there were equally distributed percentage of
participants from almost all the age groups with 45-59 year olds being the most frequent age
group of participants. The spread of total household income was varied. Most participants
(almost 40%) reported income between $25k and 100K per year, with the remainder of
67
participants evenly spread among lower and higher income categories. Most participants (66.5%)
completed the survey via a desktop or laptop PC device.
Table 9. Participant Demographics

n Percent
Gender
Male 67 39.4%
Female 98 57.6%
Age (in years)
< 21 0 0.0%
21–29 38 22.4%
30–44 44 25.9%
45-59 59 34.7%
> 60 24 14.1%
Money earned last year
$0 to $9,999 9 5.3%
$10,000 to $24,999 14 8.2%
$25,000 to $49,999 30 17.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 19 11.2%
$75,000 to $99,999 15 8.8%
$100,000 to $124,999 25 14.7%
$125,000 to $149,999 6 3.5%
$150,000 to $174,999 6 3.5%
$175,000 to $199,999 4 2.4%
$200,000 and up 15 8.8%
Prefer not to answer 22 12.9%
Device Types
IOS 19 11.2%
Android Phone/Tablet 21 12.4%
Windows/ Desktop 113 66.5%
MacOS Desktop 11 6.5%
Other 1 0.6%
Note. N = 165.
Analysis of participant location shown in Table 10 demonstrates a relatively even spread
of participants across U.S regional location. Nevertheless, there were very few participants from
New England, West North Central, and East South Central.
68
Table 10. Participant U.S. Regional Location
U.S. region n Percent
New England 10 5.9%
Middle Atlantic 20 11.8%
East North Central 29 17.1%
West North Central 5 2.9%
South Atlantic 33 19.4%
East South Central 5 2.9%
West South Central 16 9.4%
Mountain 16 9.4%
Pacific 31 18.2%
Note. N = 165.
Assumption Testing
A range of assumptions about correlational data is required to be met to conduct valid
inferential statistics and regression analysis (Venkatesh et al., 2012). These included assumptions
that the variables are normally distributed, that there are no issues with multicollinearity where
the independent variables are correlated, and the assumption that the error terms are independent.
Normality
To check the assumption of normality of the independent variables, the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (K-S) and Shapiro-Wilk tests were conducted with the results shown in Table 11.
Although the test statistics were statistically significant for all the independent variables
indicating a potential issue with normality, multiple regression analysis would be robust to
violation of this assumption (Mason & Perreault, 1991).
69
Table 11. Statistics Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Trust .100 165 .000 .976 165 .005
Effort Expectancy .122 165 .000 .964 165 .000
Risk .091 165 .002 .968 165 .001
Performance Expectancy .111 165 .000 .966 165 .000
Social Influence .116 165 .000 .980 165 .019
Note. Lilliefors Significance Correction
A further test of the assumption of normality was conducted by an examination of the
potential skewness and kurtosis of the variables, displayed in Table 12 The assumption of
normality was analyzed by dividing the skewness and kurtosis statistics for each variable by their
standard errors to determine if the values fell below the criterion of Z = 3.29, p < .001
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Analysis showed no value was higher than 3.29 and the skewness
and kurtosis statistics fell between -1.0 to 1.0 to indicate no significant violation of the
assumption of normality. Despite the results from K-S and Shapiro-Wilk test, the variables did
not show significant skewness or kurtosis supporting the assumption of normality among the
variables.
Table 12. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics

Statistic Std. Error
Trust Mean 4.54 .097
Skewness -0.42 .189
Kurtosis -.241 .376
Effort Expectancy Mean 4.91 .103

Skewness -0.53 .189
Kurtosis -0.11 .376
70
Table 12. Skewness and Kurtosis Statistics (continued)
Statistic Std. Error
Risk Mean 4.97 .098
Skewness -0.31 .189
Kurtosis -0.18 .376
Performance Expectancy Mean 4.64 .108

Skewness -0.52 .189
Social Influence Mean 3.73 .101

Skewness -0.14 .189
Kurtosis -0.40 .376
The potential for outliers was investigated through examination of standardized residual
limit with respect to the relationship of the independent variables to the dependent variable,
purchase intentions. The standardized residual limit was set to ±3 standard deviations with Table
13 showing two cases (156 and 160) could be probable outliers for purchase intentions.
However, the cases have been retained in the analysis as their scores were within acceptable
limits and removing their influence would account for little change to analysis.
Table 13. Case-Wise Diagnostics for Outliers and Residuals

Case Number Std. Residual PI Predicted Value Residual
156 3.414 3 0.59 2.411
160 -3.211 1 3.27 -2.268
Note. PI = Purchase Intentions
Multicollinearity
Analysis was conducted to determine if there was multicollinearity between the predictor
independent variables wherein there is a strong correlation between two or more variables. Table
14 indicated the correlation between the five independent variables. From this table, the
independent variable risk had no significant correlation with any other of independent variables,
71
whereas the remaining variables were moderately correlated included a moderate correlation.
Based on this analysis, there is little issue with multicollinearity.
Table 14. Intercorrelation Between the Independent Variables

Trust Expectancy Risk Expectancy Influence
Trust 1.0
Effort Expectancy .64** 1.0
Risk -.10 .08 1.0
Performance Expectancy .64** .70** .12 1.0
** **
Social Influence .41 .49 .03 .62** 1.0
Multicollinearity was also investigated by calculating the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
with respect to the relationship between each independent variable and the dependent variable,
purchase intentions. According to Table 15, the VIF value for all the variables is less than 3 and
the tolerance values are higher than .3, where Tolerance = 1/VIF. These set of findings thus
confirm that there are no issues of multicollinearity among the independent variables (O’Brien,
2007).
Table 15. Tolerance and VIF Multicollinearity Statistics for the Independent Variables
Variable Tolerance VIF
Trust .482 2.074

Effort Expectancy .443 2.255
Risk .921 1.086
Performance Expectancy .352 2.837
Social Influence .605 1.653
Note. VIF = Variance Inflation Factor; DV = PI (Purchase Intentions)
72
Independence of Error
The independence of error among the independent variables and purchasing intention was
tested via the Durbin-Watson test. From the model summary shown in Table 16, the Durbin
Watson value of 1.987 is within the recommended limit (1.5-2.5). Thus, there were no serial
autocorrelation among the variables and the assumption of independence of error has been met.
Table 16. Durbin–Watson Test: Summary for Model

Adjusted R Std. Error of the Durbin-
Model R R Square
Square Estimate Watson
1 .883a .779 .772 .706 1.987
Note. a. Predictors: (Constant), SI, R, T, EE, & PE, b. Dependent Variable: PI
Homoscedasticity and Normal Distribution of Error
The assumption of homoscedasticity is that there is homogeneity of variance in the
residuals or error terms of the dependent variable. According to Figure 3, the residuals are
distributed evenly indicative of homogeneity of variance meeting the homoscedasticity
assumption for regression analysis.
Figure 3: Scatter plot of residuals to test for of homoscedasticity in Purchasing Intentions (PI).
73
Importantly, frequency analysis also showed the residuals included normal distribution.
As shown in Figure 4, a histogram plot indicated the residuals for the dependent variable
purchase intentions included normal distribution.
Figure 4. Frequency of the residuals for purchase intentions (PI) plotted to a normal curve.
A further standard check on normality was conducted by plotting the relationship
between the expected and observed cumulative probabilities of standardized residuals. Figure 5
demonstrates the required linear relationship to support the assumption of normality in the
regression residuals of the dependent measure, purchasing intentions.
74
Figure 5. Cumulative probabilities of the expected versus observed regression residuals plotted
to a linear relationship.
Regression Analysis
Having met the recommended assumptions, regression analysis was conducted to test H00
that performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust
and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce do not predict m-commerce purchase intentions at
a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. Regression analysis showed that
the independent variables explained a significant level of variance in purchase intentions. As
shown in Table 16, the independent variables explained a significant amount of variance in
purchase intentions, F(5, 164) = 112.02, p < .001.
Table 16. Analysis of Variance: Sum of Squares and Degree of Freedom

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 279.449 5 55.890 112.023 .000b
Residual 79.328 159 .499
Total 358.777 164
Note. Dependent Variable = PI; Predictors = SI, R, T, EE, & PE
75
In terms of the strength of the model, Table 17 indicated that the model explained a very
high 77.9% and significant amount of variance in purchase intentions. Thus, H00 is rejected in
favor of HA0 that performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating
conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase
Table 17. Regression Model Summary for the Effect of the Independent Variables on Purchase
Intentions
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
1 .883a .779 .772
Note. a Predictors: Social Influence, Risk, Trust, Effort Expectancy, and Performance Expectancy
The impact of each independent variable was determined by an examination of the
significance of the regression beta weights. Table 18 indicated that effort expectancy (p = 0.003),
performance expectancy (p < 0.001) and social influence (p < 0.001) demonstrated a significant
positive relationship with purchase intentions. Thus, ease of effort, expectations that m-
commerce will help perform a task better and the influence of others has a positive impact on
higher purchase intentions. Whereas trust has a somewhat weaker positive relationship with
purchasing intentions that approached significance, risk was not significantly related to purchase
intention.
Table 18. Significance Test of the Regression Coefficients

B SE Standardized B t Sig.
(Intercept) -.619 .330 -1.879 .062
Trust .116 .064 .097 1.808 .072
Effort Expectancy .190 .063 .169 3.024 .003
Risk -.046 .046 -.039 -1.004 .317
Performance
.546 .067 .514 8.185 .000
Expectancy
Social Influence .278 .055 .243 5.074 .000
Note. Dependent Variable: Purchase Intentions
76
Follow up regression analysis was then conducted to test the independent influence of
trust on purchase intentions. As shown in Table 19, trust on its own explained a significant
40.9% of the variance in purchase intentions, F(1, 164) = 112.995, p < .001. Thus, trust does
impact on purchase intentions independent of the other predictor variables.
Table 19. The Impact of Trust on Purchase Intentions

(Intercept) .720 .337 2.133 .034
Trust .763 .072 .640 10.630 .000
Note. Dependent Variable = Purchase Intentions (PI); F(164) = 112.995, R2 = .409 .p = .0001
A further set of analyses was conducted on the relationship between each independent
variable and purchase intentions via partial regression scatterplots. The first plot in Figure 6
shows a weak positive relationship between trust and purchase intentions, such that more trust in
m-commerce is related to higher purchase intentions.
Figure 6. Scatter plot showing relation between Trust (T) and Purchase Intention (PI).
77
The relationship between effort expectancy and purchase intentions is shown in Figure 7.
The scatterplot shows a positive relationship, wherein ease of effort was significantly related to
Figure 7. Scatter plot showing relation between Effort Expectancy (EE) and Purchase Intention
(PI).
In contrast to other results, risk showed a weak negative relationship with purchase
intentions, albeit non-significant. The scatterplot in Figure 8 indicated that higher perceptions of
m-commerce risk were associated with lower purchase intentions.
78
Figure 8. Scatter plot showing relation between Risk (R) and Purchase Intention (PI).
The clearest predictor of purchase intentions was performance expectancy. As shown in
Figure 9, performance expectancy was strongly related strongly relates to purchase intentions
such that higher expectations that m-commerce will help achieve tasks was related to higher
79
Figure 9. Scatter plot showing relation between Performance Expectancy (PE) and Purchase
Intention (PI).
The relationship between social influence and purchase intentions is shown in Figure 10;
as can be seen from the scatterplot, there was a significant relationship showing that higher social
influence positively related to higher purchase intentions.
Figure 10. Scatter plot showing relation between Social Influence (SI) and Purchase Intention
(PI).
80
Supplementary Analysis
Supplementary regression analysis was conducted on the effect of the independent
variables on m-commerce usage. Although the analysis related to a reduced data set (N = 36), the
findings showed that the independent variables overall explained a significant amount of
variance in m-commerce usage with an R2 = .422, F(1, 36) = 4.528, p = .003. However, as shown
in Table 20, the only independent variable that appeared to be related to m-commerce usage was
risk such that higher risk was associated with lower m-commerce usage, although the beta
coefficient was only approaching significance. Analysis also indicated purchase intentions and
m-commerce usage included high correlations (r = .637, p < .001).
Table 20. Significance Test of the Regression Coefficients for M-Commerce Usage
(Intercept) .728 .616 1.182 .246
Trust .159 .145 .227 1.085 .286
Effort Expectancy .052 .134 .089 0.390 .699
Risk -.202 .109 -.332 -1.849 .074
Performance Expectancy .341 .199 .581 1.713 .097
Social Influence -.095 .135 -.161 -0.701 .487
Note. Dependent Variable = M-commerce Usage
Supplementary analysis was also conducted on the relationship between demographic
factors and purchase intentions. Analysis via independent t-test showed purchase intentions did
not significantly differ between men (M = 4.095) and women (M = 4.238), t(163) = 0.622, p =
.542. Moreover, one-way Analysis of Variance showed purchase intentions did not differ
between income categories (F = 1.591, p = .124) or regional location of respondents (F = 0.451,
p = .889). In contrast, there was some indication of a difference in purchase intentions as a
function of age, F(3, 164) = 2.477, p = .063. As shown in Figure 11, older participants (60+
81
years) reported much lower m-commerce purchase intentions than other age groups, especially
those 21-30 years of age. Finally, a one-way ANOVA showed purchase intentions differed as a
function of device type, F(1, 164) = 2.848, p = .026. Participants who used an IOS/phone device
showed higher purchase intentions (M = 5.09) than those who used an Android phone (M =
4.16), a Windows desktop/laptop (M = 4.11) or an Apple desktop/laptop (M = 3.36).
Figure 11. Mean purchase intention as a function of age of participants
Summary of Results and Conclusion
Overall, the results provide a valid representation of the factors that are associated with
m-commerce purchase intentions. A good size sample of respondents completed the survey
questionnaire and they broadly reflected the demographic characteristics of the North American
population in terms of age, sex, income and regional location. The scales to measure the
independent and dependent variable showed adequate validity and reliability and met the
assumptions for regression analysis. Regression analysis showed significant support for the
hypotheses of this study and the following decisions were made pertaining to the null and
alternate omnibus and sub-hypotheses.
82
Omnibus Hypothesis
H00: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions
of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce do not predict m-commerce
advantage. The null hypothesis was rejected.
HA0: Performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating
conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-
commerce purchase intentions at a statistically significant level regarding
competitive advantage. The alternate hypothesis was not rejected.
Sub-Hypotheses
H01: Performance expectancy in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce
advantage. The null hypothesis was rejected.
intentions at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. The
alternate hypothesis was not rejected.
null hypothesis was rejected.
HA2: Effort expectancy in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase
alternate hypothesis was not rejected.
83
significant level regarding competitive advantage. The null hypothesis was rejected.
HA3: Social influence predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
significant level regarding competitive advantage. The alternate hypothesis was
rejected.
H04: Trust in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase intentions
at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. The null
hypothesis was rejected.
HA4: Trust in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions at a
statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. The alternate
hypothesis was not rejected.
H05: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce does not predict m-commerce purchase
null hypothesis was not rejected.
HA5: Perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions
at a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. The alternate
hypothesis was rejected.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of this study provide evidence to answer the main research
question of this study: to what extent do performance and effort expectancies, social influence,
and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-
commerce purchase intentions with regard to competitive advantage? The findings supported the
idea that performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of
84
trust strongly predict m-commerce purchase intentions. In contrast, risk was unrelated to
purchase intentions. The research, theoretical, and practical implication of these findings for
knowledge on m-commerce competitive advantage are discussed in the following and final
chapter of this study.
85
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter includes a summary of the results of the current research presented in
Chapter 4 and a comparison to the literature presented in Chapter 2. This chapter will also
discuss the answers to the following research questions:
Main Research Question
Main RQ: To what extent do performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and
the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-
commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to
competitive advantage?
Research Subquestions
SubQ2: To what extent does effort expectancy predict m-commerce purchase
SubQ4: To what extent does the facilitating condition of trust in the use of m-
commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to
SubQ5: To what extent does the facilitating condition of perceived risk in the use of
m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to
86
This chapter presents the results relating to these questions; their implications include
discussion from a research, theoretical, and practical perspective. The limitations of the research
as identified in Chapter 1 also include consideration in this chapter, as well as directions for
future research.
Summary of the Results
Strong consumer demands and the increasing variety of goods and services available
online characterized the growth in electronic and web business technologies as consumers
globally continue to discover the convenience and practicality of conducting online transactions
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2015). Mobile commerce is a rapidly growing segment of the
electronic business markets projected to reach $626 billion in sales by 2018 (ComScore, 2014).
Businesses face the challenge of deploying m-commerce strategies to develop a competitive
advantage over rivals, increase sales, retain their existing customer base and attract new
customers (Swilley et al., 2012). Knowledge and intellectual capital pertaining to web and
mobile technologies are crucial business assets and a source of competitive advantage (Lin et al.,
2011). Therefore, it is important that firms investigate consumers’ perception and engagement of
m-commerce to develop more efficient and effective technology interface between the company
and its customers (Baden-Fuller & Haefliger, 2013).
Research regarding technology interfaces indicated a range of central factors that
facilitate e-commerce technology acceptance to provide knowledge about developing a
competitive advantage (Foon & Fah, 2011; Hernández et al., 2010; San-Martín & Camarero,
2012; Vrechopoulos et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2016). Yet, knowledge about which factors predict
m-commerce purchase intentions is comparatively underdeveloped; it is not entirely clear how
the fundamental user perceptions associated with m-commerce translate into competitive
87
advantages (Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, 2015). Although research on the predictors of m-
commerce purchase intentions exists (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2013; Chunxiang, 2014; Jaradat et
al., 2013; Lin et al., 2014; Okazaki & Menendez, 2013), there is no study in the literature
including investigation of the specific relationship between m-commerce performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, facilitating conditions, and m-commerce customer purchase
intentions.
The relationship between m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, facilitating conditions, and m-commerce customer purchase intentions is the central
focus of the UTAUT theoretical framework (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2013; Foon & Fah, 2011; Im
et al., 2011; Jaradat et al., 2013). However, limited research exists which clarifies the facilitating
conditions that may impact user acceptance of m-commerce. The goal of this study was to
generate insight as to how the specific facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust and perceived
risk, as well as expectancies and social influence, related to customer purchase intentions that
translate into potential competitive advantages. Expanding awareness of these relationships
provides an essential avenue for developing competitive advantages in business management and
technology, as m-commerce represents a critical business tool and investment opportunity
(Benou et al., 2012; Giovannini et al., 2015).
The research problem of this study focused on the gap in knowledge regarding the impact
of users’ perceptions of m-commerce performance and effort expectancies, social influence,
trust, and perceived risk of their purchase intentions, which may be applied in business to
develop competitive advantages. The study included a sample of North American adult m-
commerce users asked to complete a survey questionnaire to measure their m-commerce
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, trust, and perceived risk of m-commerce
88
and their m-commerce purchase intentions. The results of the study are significant for their
capacity to contribute to the refinement and confirmation of the existing theoretical framework
provided by the UTAUT model regarding competitive advantage in m-commerce and for
contributing knowledge on the conditions that facilitate (or impede) users’ m-commerce
The findings from this study supported the hypotheses, while substantially addressing
the research questions. In support of the main research question, findings indicated that
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and
perceived risk in the use of m-commerce together predicted m-commerce purchase intentions at
a statistically significant level regarding competitive advantage. The strongest significant
predictors of m-commerce intentions were performance expectancy and social influence,
whereas effort expectancy and trust were significant albeit weaker predictors of m-commerce
purchase intentions. The next section includes discussion with respect to their relationship to
previous research on m-commerce purchase intentions in the context of a competitive advantage.
Discussion of the Results
Main Research Question
The main focus of this study was to explore the extent to which performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the
use of m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions regarding competitive advantage.
Regression analysis indicated that, together, performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the use of m-commerce
explained a significant amount of variance in m-commerce purchase intentions. Indeed, a very
high 77.9% of the variance in purchase intentions was explained by the UTAUT variables, which
89
compares favorably to other UTAUT research findings. For example, Venkatesh et al. (2012)
found the UTAUT model explained 70% of the variance in user intentions to adopt new
technology, Wang and Wang (2010) showed that UTAUT predicted 65% of behavioral
intentions to use m-internet, and Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014) reported that
the UTAUT model explained 60% of m-commerce purchases of airplane flights. Consequently,
the findings relating to the main research question and supporting the main hypothesis of this
study were significant when compared to previous research.
Subquestion R1
The first subquestion focused on the extent performance expectancy predicts m-
commerce purchase intentions. The results from regression analysis indicated that performance
expectancy was the strongest individual predictor of purchase intentions with linear regression
data showing performance expectancy explained 29.6% in purchase intentions at a significant
level. Other research indicated performance expectancy to be a comparatively strong predictor in
the UTAUT model. For example, Alkhunaizan and Love (2012) found performance expectancy
to be the strongest UTAUT predictor of intentions to use m-commerce. Similarly, structural
equation modeling by Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014) showed performance
expectancy as the strongest predictor of behavioral intentions to use m-commerce for purchase of
airplane tickets.
The findings from this and other studies indicated that performance expectancy is a
strong predictor of m-commerce purchase intentions, consistent with the conceptual strength of
the performance expectancy construct. Performance expectancy includes the definition as the
extent to which people believe m-commerce will help perform a task better (Venkatesh et al.,
2012), conceptually related to the TAM construct of perceived usefulness. In the context of this
90
study, performance expectancy is about m-commerce improving the performance of purchasing
tasks, which would appear to be the main competitive advantage of m-commerce. As such, the
capacity for m-commerce to help users perform purchasing tasks better than other electronic or
physical means would appear to be a comparatively strong selling point.
Subquestion R2
The second subquestion investigated to what extent effort expectancy predicts m-
commerce purchase intentions regarding competitive advantage. The results from analysis
indicated that effort expectancy was an individual, but weak predictor of purchase intentions
with linear regression data showing effort expectancy explained 5.0% in purchase intentions at a
significant level. Other studies found similar results indicating effort expectancy to be a
significant, albeit weak predictor of m-commerce purchase intentions (Alkhunaizan & Love,
2012; Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
Effort expectancy is the extent to which people believe using m-commerce would be free
from effort and not difficult to use (Venkatesh et al., 2012), conceptually related to the TAM
concept of ease of use. The relatively low importance of effort expectancy to explaining m-
commerce purchase intentions appears to relate to findings by Davis (1989) that the effect of
perceived ease of use was not significant after controlling for the variable usefulness. Although
effort expectancy or ease of use related to purchase intentions in the current study, its impact as a
competitive advantage appears to be minimal, somewhat tied to the effect of performance
expectancy on purchase intentions.
Subquestion R3
The third subquestion investigated to what extent effort social influence predicts m-
commerce purchase intentions with regard to competitive advantage. The results from analysis
91
indicated that social influence was a moderately effective individual predictor of purchase
intentions with linear regression data showing social influence explained 13.9% in purchase
intentions at a significant level. Previous research also indicated social influence to be an
important determinant of Internet and m-commerce usage intentions. For example, Foon and Fah
(2011) found social influence to be among the strongest predictors of Internet banking adoption,
whereas, Lu et al. (2005) reported that social influence had a direct positive impact on intention
to adopt WMIT. In contrast, Alkhunaizan and Love (2012) found that social influence had little
impact on behavior intention to use m-commerce and Escobar-Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo
(2014) reported a weak relationship, but significant relationship between social influence and
intentions to use m-commerce for airline ticket purchases.
Social influence includes definition as the extent to which a person believes how
important others think he or she should adopt an IT system (Venkatesh et al., 2012), conceptually
related to normative influence in the TRA / TPB models of decision-making behavior. According
to Safeena et al. (2011), social influence has a direct positive effect on user attitude towards m-
commerce, as users perceive advanced technology would improve their image, status, and
performance in the society. Despite some equivocal findings in the literature, social influence
was found in the results of this study to exert some influence over m-commerce user intentions.
As such, facilitating the impact of social influence on m-commerce adoption and use in the
purchasing process would appear to provide a potential point of competitive advantage.
Subquestion R4
The fourth subquestion investigated to what extent effort does the facilitating condition of
trust in the use of m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to
competitive advantage. Although the influence of trust on m-commerce purchase intentions was
92
not significant in multiple regression analysis, trust in the use of m-commerce nonetheless
independently predicted m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically significant level.
Similarly, Rodriguez and Carvajal-Trujillo (2014) found trust in information quality, security,
and privacy significantly predicted behavioral intentions to use m-commerce for airline tickets.
Lin et al. (2014) also found pre-use trust predicts m-banking usage which then affects
satisfaction and enhanced trust, ultimately causing increased usage. In contrast, Alkhunaizan and
Love (2012) found trust did not predict m-commerce acceptance when part of a multiple
regression that included other UTAUT predictors.
The concept of trust reflects the strength of a person’s belief that using m-commerce is
secure and poses no privacy threats (Zhang et al., 2012). The findings of this study indicated that
trust in m-commerce is an important independent factor to m-commerce purchase intentions, but
loses its significance when considered amongst other variables, such as effort expectancy.
Indeed, trust and effort expectancy were significantly correlated, suggesting that effort
expectancy accounts somewhat for trust in predicting m-commerce purchase intentions.
Conceptually, trust in commerce and effort expectancy or ease of use may be related that both
reflect the fact that users prefer systems that are hassle free in terms of trust and ease of use.
Nonetheless, the findings support the view that trust in m-commerce is a competitive advantage
that facilitates m-commerce purchase intentions to a certain degree.
Subquestion R5
The final subquestion investigated to what extent the facilitating condition of perceived
risk in the use of m-commerce predicts m-commerce purchase intentions with regard to
competitive advantage. The results from regression analysis indicated that the facilitating
condition of risk did not predict m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically significant
93
level regarding competitive advantage. Moreover, risk was independently uncorrelated with m-
commerce purchase intentions, although risk was in the expected negative direction, wherein
higher risk related to lower purchase intentions.
Risk includes definition as the risk perceived with using m-commerce including fraud
and product quality (Zhang et al., 2012). Previous research found some relationship between risk
and acceptance of e-commerce (Lin et al., 2014; Pavlou, 2003). For example, Pavlou (2003)
added risk to the TAM model and reported risk to explain a significant amount of variance in
acceptance of e-commerce. However, other research by Joubert and Van Belle (2013) found risk
had no impact on mobile commerce adoption per se. The current study was one of the first to
incorporate risk as one of the UTAUT facilitating conditions of m-commerce purchasing
intentions. Risk had little bearing on m-commerce purchase intentions in this study, suggesting
that m-commerce is a domain in which risk is not a major issue and does not readily reflect a
Implications of the Study Results
The results from this study raise several theoretical and practical implications. From a
theoretical viewpoint, several models and conceptual frameworks provide the potential to
develop knowledge and understanding of m-commerce purchasing intentions. The TRA/TRP
framework has some applicability to m-commerce, wherein perceived behavioral control,
subjective norms, and attitudes are proposed to be the central determinants of behavior (Ajzen,
2011). Nevertheless, the TRA/TPB model lacks specificity regarding m-commerce and the
model is only a moderate predictor of e-commerce purchase intentions (Pavlou & Fygenson,
2006). In contrast, the TAM model of technology acceptance includes increased applicability to
m-commerce, positing that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are the main
94
predictors of technology acceptance (Davis, 1989). Consistent with the focus of TAM, the model
is a significant predictor of technology acceptance. Empirical findings confirmed that TAM
predicts an average of 50% in m-commerce user intentions (Chunxiang, 2014; Song et al., 2008).
Nonetheless, the predictive capacity of TAM includes enhancements with additional independent
variables, such as social influence (Lu et al, 2005) and perceived credibility and self-efficacy
(Wang et al., 2007).
Theoretical work synthesized TRA / TPB and TAM to account for a range of consistent
predictors of technology intentions, acceptance, and behavior. The UTUAT model of technology
acceptance proposed that performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and facilitating
conditions are the focal predictors of technology acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2012). In a range
of studies, UTAUT indicated a superior predictor of technology acceptance across a various
domains explaining between 61% (Pope, 2014) and 70% (Venkatesh et al., 2012) of technology
acceptance across a range of domains, such as adoption of new technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2012), behavioral intentions to use m-internet (Wang & Wang, 2010), adoption of mobile
banking (Oliveira et al., 2014), and m-commerce purchases of airplane flights (Escobar-
Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Given its strong predictive capacity and conceptual
specificity, the UTAUT model provided a suitable theoretical basis to investigate the predictors
of m-commerce purchase intentions in this study.
The predictive capacity of UTAUT in this study, clearly indicated performance and effort
expectancies; social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in the
use of m-commerce explained 77.9% of variance in m-commerce purchase intentions. Analysis
also showed that the strongest significant predictors of m-commerce intentions were
performance expectancy and social influence, whereas effort expectancy and trust were
95
significant albeit weaker predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions. In contrast, perceived
risk was not a significant predictor of m-commerce purchase intentions. Altogether, the results of
the study confirmed the relevance and predictive capacity of UTUAT regarding m-commerce
intentions.
The results of the study also provided some clarification to the UTAUT concept of
facilitating conditions. Facilitating conditions as defined in the UTAUT framework included
factors that promote or remove barriers to the use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2012). As
such, the definition of facilitating conditions allows for a wide range of possibilities, yet provides
few clues as to which facilitating conditions are more or less meaningful predictors of user
acceptance of technology. Based on previous research (Lin et al., 2014; Pavlou, 2003; Escobar-
Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014), the specific facilitating conditions of m-commerce trust
and perceived risk relates to m-commerce customer purchase intentions with trust and risk
reflecting factors that promote or remove barriers respectively, consistent with the definition of
facilitating conditions.
The findings from regression analysis showed that m-commerce trust was a significant
predictor of purchase intentions, however, perceived risk did not relate to m-commerce purchase
intentions. Similarly, previous research generally found users’ trust in a system to be a consistent
predictor of m-commerce purchasing intentions (Lin et al, 2014; Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014), whereas the relationship between perceived risk and purchase intentions is
equivocal in the research literature (Joubert & Van Belle, 2013; Pavlou, 2003). Together,
previous findings and those from the current study suggested that facilitating conditions that
promote m-commerce purchase intentions, such as trust, are perhaps more important than factors
that can operate as barriers to m-commerce, that include perceived risk.
96
Consistent with approach / avoidance goal theory (Elliot, 2006), the facilitating condition
of m-commerce trust reflects a goal approach orientation and an intrinsic motivation associated
with a desired outcome, such as satisfaction with a purchase of product or service. In terms of the
current findings, m-commerce purchase intentions do not relate to the avoidance goal of reducing
m-commerce risks. Moreover, the notion of facilitating conditions in the UTUAT framework
may be strongly defined by factors that reflect an approach goal orientation and intrinsic m-
commerce motivations rather than including those oriented towards removing barriers to m-
commerce or focus on avoidance oriented goals associated with m-commerce. Indeed previous
research found that intrinsic motivations such as website aesthetics and pleasure-seeking motives
associate with technology acceptance and use (Cyr et al., 2006, Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014), whereas barriers such as cost are weak predictors of usage intentions
(Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012). Future research might seek to investigate the approach and
avoidance goals and motivations behind m-commerce purchase intentions to provide further
clarification of the facilitating conditions construct within the UTAUT theoretical framework.
In addition to the theoretical implications of the findings, the results of the study raise
certain practical implications in terms of their relationship to competitive advantages. A
competitive advantage includes definition as the way in which an organization implements a
business strategy that results in cost leadership, product differentiation, or product focus (Porter,
1980). The findings of this study showed that performance expectancy was the strongest
predictor of m-commerce purchase intentions. From a practical perspective, this finding implies
that businesses relying on m-commerce transactions may gain a competitive advantage by
developing the utilitarian or practical aspects of their m-commerce services.
97
The findings also showed social influence to be a comparatively strong predictor of m-
commerce purchase intentions. Social influence reflects the strength with which important others
have influenced a person to adopt or use an m-commerce system (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The
implication from the findings is that providers of m-commerce services may gain a competitive
advantage by communicating to existing and potential customers what other people are doing
when it comes to making their purchases. Social influence may be employed as a bridge between
m-commerce purchases intentions and other online applications, such as social media, for online
services to develop a competitive advantage.
To a lesser degree, the results showed that effort expectancy and m-commerce trust
positively associate with m-commerce purchase intentions. From a practical perspective, the
findings imply that providers of m-commerce may gain a competitive advantage to the extent
that their systems are free from effort and not difficult to use (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Moreover,
the design of m-commerce service delivery should demonstrate and promote trust between users
and technology to facilitate a competitive advantage with information such as third-party security
verifications (Casey & Wilson-Evered, 2012). Finally, the results from the study imply that
perceptions of m-commerce risk do not predict purchase intentions. These findings imply that
assurances to customers that a system is free from risk do not necessarily provide a competitive
advantage to m-commerce businesses. Nonetheless, that minimizing m-commerce risks is a pre-
condition or basic requirement to developing trust in m-commerce and facilitating purchase
intentions and behaviors (Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014).
In summary, the findings of the study provide a range of theoretical and practical
implications that may be applied to developing m-commerce knowledge and competitive
advantages. The UTAUT framework was a significant predictor of m-commerce purchase
98
intentions and a relevant model for investigating competitive advantages in m-commerce. The
findings also provided some clarification of the facilitating conditions concept in UTAUT and
suggested that factors that promote the use of m-commerce are more important to purchase
intentions than potential barriers. From a practical perspective, the findings suggested that m-
commerce providers can gain competitive advantages by improving the performance aspect of
m-commerce sites and employing social influence to facilitate m-commerce usage. A system that
performs well consistent with what other people do provides competitive advantages to the
business of m-commerce.
Limitations
Despite the theoretical and pragmatic implications of the results of this study, several
methodological limitations to the study design and execution that impact on the generalizability
of the findings. In terms of the sample of participants, the number of participants to the survey
questionnaire limits the findings. Moreover, participants to the SurveyMonkey panel may not be
a representative sample of North American m-commerce users (Evans & Mathur, 2005).
Additionally, self-selection bias is another potential limitation of online survey research (Wright,
2005). Despite these issues, the study used a reasonable sample size for the study, which broadly
represented the North American population in terms of gender, age, geographic location, and
income.
A further limitation of the findings is that the correlational nature of the research design
does not produce information about definitive cause-effect relationships between m-commerce
perceptions and purchase intentions. Indeed, correlational research is quite common in
technology acceptance research and is a general limitation of the research field (Venkatesh et al.,
2012), where there is a need for more experimental and longitudinal research designs (Casey &
99
Wilson-Evered, 2012). Nevertheless, the correlational method provided several practical and
pragmatic benefits in this study, including the capacity to investigate a range of concepts related
to m-commerce purchase intentions simultaneously. As shown by the high reliabilities of the
measures of m-commerce perceptions and purchase intentions, the online questionnaire format
provided a relatively valid and efficient means of data collection.
The findings of this study include limitations that participants were asked to rate their
perceptions of m-commerce in a general way, rather than by referring to a specific m-commerce
experience. Furthermore, asking participants to rate their m-commerce purchase intentions does
not provide information about their actual m-commerce usage and behaviors. Nevertheless,
similar research does show that purchase intentions are a good predictor of usage behavior
(Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014). Recommendations include that when making
inferences about how m-commerce purchase intentions may translate to actual purchase
behavior. Similarly, inferences about how general perceptions of m-commerce relate to specific
m-commerce domains should be made with an appropriate level of qualification.
Recommendations for Further Research
The findings of the study provide several directions for future research endeavors.
Although a reasonable volume exists of m-commerce research in the literature, knowledge of the
predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions is in its relative infancy (Oliveira et al., 2014).
The findings suggest that future research may benefit from deploying the UTAUT framework,
seemingly providing a foundation for developing knowledge about the factors that predict m-
commerce purchase intentions. To improve the generalizability of the UTUAT framework,
further research to extend upon the findings of this study would investigate m-commerce
purchase intentions with a more varied set of participants from different backgrounds and
100
culture. Extending the findings beyond the North American population would be a worthy
research pursuit as m-commerce appears to be a global business opportunity.
Whereas the findings from this research provide some clarification to the facilitating
conditions construct in the UTAUT framework, further research is needed in this direction. The
findings suggested that the notion of facilitating conditions may be strongly defined by factors
that reflect an approach goal orientation (Elliot, 2006), as well as an intrinsic m-commerce
motivations, rather than including those oriented towards removing barriers to m-commerce or
focus on avoidance oriented goals associated with m-commerce. Future research might include
investigation of the motives behind m-commerce purchase intentions to further clarify the nature
of m-commerce facilitating conditions. From the nature of the findings of this study,
expectations include that that achievement goals and intrinsic motivations such as website
aesthetics and pleasure-seeking motives (Cyr et al., 2006; Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-
Trujillo, 2014) are stronger predictors of technology acceptance and use than barriers to usage
intentions, such as cost (Alkhunaizan & Love, 2012). Moreover, research to clarify the role of
approach and avoidance goals and motivations behind m-commerce purchase intentions include
relevancy to the development of a competitive advantage in the business of m-commerce.
Similar to most research methods in the technology acceptance empirical literature
(Escobar-Rodriguez & Carvajal-Trujillo, 2014), this study employed a correlational design to
test the effects of m-commerce perceptions and attitudes on subsequent purchase intentions.
Indeed, there are very few research studies with use in experimental or longitudinal
investigations of m-commerce purchase intentions and none investigated cause-effect
relationships from the UTAUT perspective (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Although the findings from
correlational designs provide certain methodological benefits, they lack the capacity to show
101
causal relationships. Future experimental research that manipulates performance and effort
expectancies, social influence, and facilitating conditions to determine their independent effects
on m-commerce purchase intentions would be worthwhile. Future research might also log usage
of m-commerce for an extended period to see how performance and effort expectancies, social
influence, and facilitating conditions may change over time. As m-commerce continues to grow
and develop in the market place, knowledge developed from longitudinal research about how
people relate to m-commerce over time may provide a significant competitive advantage.
Conclusion
The aim of this research was to contribute to knowledge about the predictors of m-
commerce purchase intentions in the context of a competitive advantage. M-commerce is
becoming an important domain for conducting purchasing transactions (ComScore, 2014), yet
knowledge about how businesses gain a competitive advantage as providers of m-commerce
services is limited. Drawing on the UTUAT technology acceptance framework (Venkatesh et al.,
2003; 2012), the research conducted in this study investigated the question of what extent do
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and
perceived risk in the use of m-commerce predict m-commerce purchase intentions regarding
The study used a correlational design to address this research question wherein m-
commerce users completed a survey questionnaire to measure their perceptions of m-commerce
performance and effort expectancies, social influence, and facilitating conditions, as well as their
m-commerce purchase intentions. The findings from the survey showed that performance and
effort expectancies, social influence, and the facilitating conditions of trust and perceived risk in
the use of m-commerce together predicted m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically
102
significant level regarding competitive advantage. Moreover, findings indicated that performance
expectancy and social influence are the strongest predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions.
In conclusion, the findings of the research provide support to the efficacy of the UTAUT
framework for developing knowledge about the predictors of m-commerce purchase intentions.
The results also provided further clarification of the facilitating conditions of m-commerce
purchases suggesting that implicit motivations and approach-oriented goals might be
significantly associated with m-commerce purchase intentions. Despite some limitations of the
findings, the results provide solid knowledge and implications about the predictors of m-
commerce intentions and how they may translate into competitive advantages for m-commerce
providers. Future research can be conducted to further develop knowledge about the extent of the
relationship between m-commerce performance expectancies, social influence, implicit
motivations, and purchase intentions. Developing knowledge on m-commerce purchase
intentions has the potential to provide leverage to businesses seeking to gain a competitive
advantage through their m-commerce purchasing domains.
103
REFERENCES
Aboelmaged, M., & Gebba, T. (2013). Mobile banking adoption: An examination of technology
acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Business
Research and Development (IJBRD), 2(1). Retrieved from
https://www.sciencetarget.com/journal/
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology &
Health, 26(9), 1113-1127 15p. doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.613995
Al-Debei, M. M., & Al-Lozi, E. (2014). Explaining and predicting the adoption intention of
mobile data services: A value-based approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 326-
338. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.011
Alkhunaizan, A., & Love, S. (2012). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of
the revised UTAUT model. International Journal of Management and Marketing
Academy, 2(1), 82-99. Retrieved from http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/
Anil, S., Ting, L. T., Moe, L. H., & Jonathan, G. P. G. (2003). Overcoming barriers to the
successful adoption of mobile commerce in Singapore. International Journal of Mobile
Communications, 1(1-2), 194-231. doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2003.002466
Antoneko, P. (2015). The instrumental value of conceptual framework in educational technology

research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 53-71.
doi:10.1007/s11423-014-9363-4.
Attuquayefio, S. N., & Addo, H. (2014). Using the UTAUT model to analyze students' ICT
adoption. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and
Communication Technology, 10(3), 75. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu
Baden-Fuller, C., & Haefliger, S. (2013). Business models and technological innovation. Long
Range Planning, 46, 419-426. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.023
Bang, Y., Lee, D. J., Han, K., Hwang, M., & Ahn, J. H. (2013). Channel capabilities, product
characteristics, and the impacts of mobile channel introduction. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 30(2), 101-126. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222300204
Bapna, R., & Umyarov, A. (2015). Do your online friends make you pay?: A randomized field
experiment on peer influence in online social networks. Management Science, 61, 1902-
1920. doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2081
104
Benou, P., Vassilakis, C., & Vrechopoulos, A. (2012). Context management for m-commerce
applications: determinants, methodology and the role of marketing. Information
Technology and Management, 13(2), 91-111. doi:10.1007/s10799-012-0120-2
Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O. A., Pavlou, P. A., & Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital business
strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quarterly, 37, 471-482.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2004.11.003
Bhatti, T. (2007). Exploring factors influencing the adoption of mobile commerce. Journal of
Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 1-13. doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2004.11.003
Bouwman, H., Carlsson, C., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & Walden, P. (2007). Barriers and drivers in
the adoption of current and future mobile services in Finland. Telematics and Informatics,
24(2), 145-160. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2006.08.001
Budzanowska-Drzewiecka, M. (2015). Individual determinants of propensity to make purchases

as part of e-commerce and m-commerce in Polish young consumers. Jagiellonian
Journal of Management, (1), 7-21. doi:10.4467/2450114XJJM.15.001.3808
Casey, T., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2012). Predicting uptake of technology innovations in online
family dispute resolution services: An application and extension of the UTAUT.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2034-2045. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.022
Chan, F. T., & Yee-Loong Chong, A. (2013). Analysis of the determinants of consumers' m-
commerce usage activities. Online Information Review, 37, 443-461. doi:10.1108/OIR-
01-2012-0012
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Towards green trust: The influences of green perceived
quality, green perceived risk, and green satisfaction. Management Decision, 51(1), 63-82.
doi:10.1108/00251741311291319
Chiu, C. M., & Wang, E. T. (2008). Understanding web-based learning continuance intention:
The role of subjective task value. Information & Management, 45(3), 194-201.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.02.003
Chong, A. Y. L. (2013). Predicting m-commerce adoption determinants: A neural network

approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 523-530.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.068
Chong, A. Y., Chang, F. T. S., & Ooi, K. B. (2012). Predicting consumer decisions to adopt
mobile commerce: Cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia.
Decision Support Systems, 53, 34-43. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.12.001
Chunxiang, L. (2014). Study of mobile commerce customer based on value adoption. Journal of
Applied Science, 14, 901-909. doi:10.3923/jas.2014.901.909
105
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
ComScore. (2014). ComScore releases inaugural report: The 2014 mobile year in review.
Retrieved from http://www.comscore.com
Coursaris, C., & Hassanein, K. (2002). Understanding m-commerce: A consumer-centric model.

Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 247-272. Retrieved from
http://thuvien.due.udn.vn:8080/
Coursaris, C. K., & Kim, D. J. (2011). A meta-analytical review of empirical mobile usability
studies. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(3), 117-171. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org
Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and
successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
doi:10.1177/0013164404266386
Cyr, D., Head, M., & Ivanov, A. (2006). Design aesthetics leading to m-loyalty in mobile
commerce. Information & Management, 43, 950-963. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.08.009
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J., & Zmijewska, A. (2008). Past, present and future of mobile
payments research: A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 7(2), 165-181. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.001
DaSilva, C. M., & Trkman, P. (2014). Business model: What it is and what it is not. Long Range
Planning, 47, 379-389. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.004
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319-340. doi:10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1111-1132.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Dedeke, A. N. (2016). Travel web-site design: Information task-fit, service quality and purchase
intention. Tourism Management, 54, 541-554. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.001
Drossos, D. A., Giaglis, G. M., Vlachos, P. A., Zamani, E. D., & Lekakos, G. (2013). Consumer
responses to SMS advertising: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 18(1), 105-136. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415180104
Elliot, A. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and

Emotion, 30(2), 111–116. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7
106
Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2013). Orientation among multiple truths: An introduction to
qualitative research. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 3(2), 92-99.
doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2012.04.005
Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Carvajal-Trujillo, E. (2014). Online purchasing tickets for low cost
carriers: An application of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) model. Tourism Management, 43, 70-88. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.01.017
Evans, J. R., & Mathur, A. (2005). The value of online surveys. Internet Research, 15(2), 195-
219. doi:10.1108/10662240510590360
Fan, Y., Saliba, A., Kendall, E. A., & Newmarch, J. (2005, July). Speech interface: An enhancer
to the acceptance of m-commerce applications. In international conference on mobile
business. Symposium conducted at the meeting of IEE Xplore, Washington, DC.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fink, E. L. (2009). The FAQs on data transformation. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 379-
397. doi:10.1080/03637750903310352
Foon, Y. S., & Fah, B. C. Y. (2011). Internet banking adoption in Kuala Lumpur: An application
of UTAUT model. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(4), 161-167.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n4p161
Fouskas, K. G., Giaglis, G. M., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Karnouskos, S., Pitsillides, A., &
Stylianou, M. (2005). A roadmap for research in mobile business. International Journal
of Mobile Communications, 3, 350-373. doi:10.1504/IJMC.2005.007023
Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with

qualitative interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 91(2), 184-194. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00085.x
Giovannini, C. J., Ferreira, J. B., Silva, J. F. D., & Ferreira, D. B. (2015). The effects of trust
transference, mobile attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust. Brazilian Administration
Review, 12(1), 88-108. doi: 10.1590/1807-7692bar2015140052
Girotra, K., & Netessine, S. (2014). Four paths to business model innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 92(7), 96-103.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance.
MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213-236. doi:10.2307/249689
Gupta, S., & Vyas, M. A. (2014). Benefits and drawbacks of m-commerce in India: A review.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication
Engineering, 3(4), 6327-6329[RB2] Retrieved from http://www.ijarcce.com/
107
Hernández, B., Jimenez, J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Customer behavior in electronic commerce:
The moderating effect of e-purchasing experience. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-,
964-971. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.019
Hille, P., Walsh, G., & Cleveland, M. (2015). Consumer fear of online identity theft: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 30, 1-19.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.10.001
Hu, S. K., Lu, M. T., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Improving mobile commerce adoption using a new
hybrid fuzzy MADM model. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 17, 399-413.
doi:10.1007/s40815-015-0054-z
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. S. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption:
Testing the UTAUT model. Information & Management, 48(1), 1-8.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001
Ivanochko, I., Masiuk, V., & Gregus, M. (April, 2015). Conceptualizing mBusiness. In Wireless
Telecommunications Symposium, 2015 Wireless Telecommunications Symposium (WTS).
Symposium conducted at the meeting of IEEE. New York, NY.
doi:10.1109/WTS.2015.7117281
Jaradat, M. I. R. M., Mamoun, S., & Rababaa, A. (2013). Assessing key factors that influence on
the acceptance of mobile commerce based on modified UTAUT. International Journal of
Business and Management, 8(23), 102-112. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v8n23p102
Joubert, J., & Van Belle, J. (2013). The role of trust and risk in mobile commerce adoption
within South Africa. International Journal of Business, Humanities, and Technology,
3(2), 27-38. Retrieved from http://www.ijbhtnet.com/
Khalifa, M., & Shen, K. N. (2008). Explaining the adoption of transactional B2C mobile
commerce. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 21(2), 110-124.
doi:10.1108/17410390810851372
Khan, H., Talib, F., & Faisal, M. N. (2015). An analysis of the barriers to the proliferation of m-
commerce in Qatar: A relationship modeling approach. Journal of Systems and
Information Technology, 17(1), 54-81. doi:10.1108/JSIT-12-2014-0073
Kim, B., Choi, M., & Han, I. (2009). User behaviors toward mobile data services: The role of
perceived fee and prior experience. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8528–8536.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.063
Kim, D. J., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic
commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support
Systems, 44, 544-564. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001
108
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model
in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision
Support Systems, 44, 544-564. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001
Kim, H., Chan, H. C., & Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An
empirical investigation. Mobile Commerce: Strategies, Technologies, and Applications,
43(1), 111–126. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009
Kim, S., & Garrison, G. (2009). Investigating mobile wireless technology adoption: An
extension of the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Frontiers, 11, 323-
333. doi:10.1007/s10796-008-9073-8
Kourouthanassis, P. E., & Giaglis, G. M. (2012). Introduction to the special issue mobile
commerce: The past, present, and future of mobile commerce research. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(4), 5-18. doi:10.2753/JEC1086-4415160401
Kumar, R., Rishi, R., & Kumar, M. (2013). Impact of mobile commerce and its application with
security in Indian context. International Journal of Recent Trends in Mathematics &
Computing, 1(1).
Kuo, Y. F., & Wu, C. M. (2012). Satisfaction and post-purchase intentions with service recovery
of online shopping websites: Perspectives on perceived justice and emotions.
International Journal of Information Management, 32(2), 127-138.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.09.001
Kuo, Y. F., Yen, S. T., & Chen, L. H. (2011). Online auction service failures in Taiwan:
Typologies and recovery strategies. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
10(2), 183-193. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.09.003
Lai, D. C. F., Lai, I. K. W., & Jordan, E. (2009). An extended UTAUT model for the study of
negative user adoption behaviours of mobile commerce. Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Electronic Business.
Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sena, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance
model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269-282.
doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(00)00076-2
Lee, J. K., & Mills, J. E. (2010). Exploring tourist satisfaction with mobile experience
technology. International Management Review, 6(1), 91-101. Retrieved from
http://www.usimr.org
Lin, J., Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Wei, K. K. (2011). The role of inter-channel trust transfer in
establishing mobile commerce trust. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
10, 615-625. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2011.07.008
109
Lin, J., Wang, B., Wang, N., & Lu, Y. (2014). Understanding the evolution of consumer trust in
mobile commerce: A longitudinal study. Information Technology and Management,
15(1), 37-49. doi:10.1007/s10799-013-0172-y
Lorenzo-Romero, C., Constantinides, E., & Alarcón-del-Amo, M. D. C. (2013). Web aesthetics

effects on user decisions: Impact of exposure length on website quality perceptions and
buying intentions. Journal of Internet Commerce, 12(1), 76-105.
doi:10.1080/15332861.2013.763695
Mahajan, P., & Agarwal, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of e-commerce in the digital age:
Challenges and opportunities for commerce education. IUP Journal of Information
Technology, 11(4), 46. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/
Mahmood, M. A., Gemoets, L., Hall, L. L., López, F. J., & Mariadas, R. (2008). Measuring e-
commerce technology enabled business value: An exploratory research. International
Journal of E-Business Research, 4(2), 48. Retrieved from http://www.igi-global.com/
Maity, M., & Dass, M. (2014). Consumer decision-making across modern and traditional
channels: E-commerce, m-commerce, in-store. Decision Support Systems, 61, 34-46.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2014.01.008
Mason, C. H., & Perreault Jr, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple
regression analysis. Journal of marketing research, 28(3) 268-280. doi:10.2307/3172863
McKnight, H.M., & Chervany, N.L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce customer
relationships: an interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35-59. doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044235
Min, Q., Ji, S., & Qu, G. (2008). Mobile commerce user acceptance study in China: A revised
UTAUT model. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 257-264. doi:10.1016/S1007-
0214(08)70042-7
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
192-222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192
Nassuora, A. B. (2013). Understanding factors affecting the adoption of m-commerce by

consumers. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13, 913-918. doi:10.3923/jas.2013.913.918
Ngai, E. W., & Gunasekaran, A. (2007). A review for mobile commerce research and
applications. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 3-15. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.003
Nilashi, M., Ibrahim, O., Mirabi, V. R., Ebrahimi, L., & Zare, M. (2015). The role of security,
design and content factors on customer trust in mobile commerce. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 26, 57-69. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.05.002
110
Njenga, K., & Ndlovu, S. (2015, November). Mobile banking and information security risks:
Demand-side predilections of South African lead-users. 2015 Second International
Conference on Information Security and Cyber Forensics (InfoSec), 86-92.
doi:10.1109/InfoSec.2015.7435511
O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality
& Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Okazaki, S., & Mendez, F. (2013). Exploring convenience in mobile commerce: Moderating
effects of gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1234-1242.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.019
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending the understanding of
mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of
Information Management, 34, 689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004
Omonedo, P., & Bocij, P. (2014). E-commerce versus m-Commerce: Where is the dividing line?
World academy of science, engineering and technology, International Journal of Social,
Behavioral, Educational. Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 8, 3488-3493.
Retrieved from scholar.waset.org
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers. New York, NY: Wiley.
Pagani, M. (2004). Determinants of adoption of third generation mobile multimedia services.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 46-59. doi:10.1002/dir.20011
Palka, W., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2009). Mobile word-of-mouth:A grounded
theory of mobile viral marketing. Journal of Information Technology, 24(2), 172-185.
doi:10.1057/jit.2008.37
Park, J., Yang, S., & Lehto, X. (2007). Adoption of mobile technologies for Chinese consumers.
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(3), 196. Retrieved from
http://www.jecr.org/
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk
with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
7(3), 101-134. doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 115-143.
Pedersen, P. E. (2005). Adoption of mobile Internet services: An exploratory study of mobile

commerce early adopters. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce, 15(3), 203-222. doi:10.1207/s15327744joce1503_2
111
Peer, E., & Gamliel, E. (2011). Too reliable to be true? Response bias as a potential source of
inflation in paper-and-pencil questionnaire reliability. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 16(9), 1-8. Retrived from https://www.editlib.org/
Pelet, J., & Papadopoulou, P. (2012). The effect of colors of e-commerce websites on consumer
mood, memorization and buying intention. European Journal of Information Systems, 21,
438-467. doi:10.1057/ejis.2012.17
Pope, A. D. (2014). Business intelligence: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.
3616064)
Porter, M. (1980). How competitive forces shape strategy. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 34-50.
Püschel, J., Mazzon, A. J. M., & Hernandez, M. C. J. (2010). Mobile banking: Proposition of an
integrated adoption intention framework. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28,
389-409. doi:10.1108/02652321011064908
Reio, T. G., & Shuck, B. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis implications for theory, research,
and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
doi:10.1177/1523422314559804
Riquelme, H. E., & Rios, R. E. (2010). The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of
mobile banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28, 328-341.
doi:10.1108/02652321011064872
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A
cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
doi:10.5465/AMR.1998.926617
Safeena, R., Hundewale, N., & Kamani, A. (2011). Customer's adoption of mobile-commerce: A
study on emerging economy. International Journal of E-education, E-business, E-
management, and E-learning, 1(3), 228. doi:10.7763/IJEEEE.2011.V1.36
San Martín, H., & Herrero, A. (2012). Effects of the risk sources and user involvement on e-
commerce adoption: Application to tourist services. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 841-
855. doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.666758
San Martín, S., López-Catalán, B., & Ramon-Jeronimo, M. A. (2012). Factors determining firms'
perceived performance of mobile commerce. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
112, 946-963. doi:10.1108/02635571211238536
112
San-Martín, S., & Camarero, C. (2012). A cross-national study on online consumer perceptions,
trust, and loyalty. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce,
22(1), 64-86. doi:10.1080/10919392.2012.642763
Sanakulov, N., & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). Consumer adoption of mobile technologies: A literature
review. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 13(3), 244-275.
doi:10.1504/IJMC.2015.069120
Schenkman, B. N., & Jönsson, F. U. (2000). Aesthetics and preferences of web pages. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 19(5), 367-377. doi:10.1080/014492900750000063
Schierz, P. G., Schilke, O., & Wirtz, B. W. (2010). Understanding consumer acceptance of
mobile payment services: An empirical analysis. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 9(3), 209-216. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.07.005
Shao Yeh, Y., & Li, Y. M. (2009). Building trust in m-commerce: Contributions from quality
and satisfaction. Online Information Review, 33, 1066-1086.
doi:10.1108/14684520911011016
Sharma, A., Kansal, V., & Tomar, R. P. S. (2015). Location based services in m-commerce:
Customer trust and transaction security issues. International Journal of Computer
Science and Security (IJCSS), 9(2), 11-21. Retrieved from http://www.cscjournals.org/
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-
analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343. doi:10.1086/209170
Song, J., Koo, C., & Kim, Y. (2008). Investigating antecedents of behavioral intentions in mobile
commerce. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(1), 13-34. doi:10.1300/J179v06n01_02
Southey, G. (2011). The theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour applied to business
decisions: A selective annotated bibliography. Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends,
9(1), 43-50. Retrieved from http://jnbit.org/
Sreenivasan, J., & Noor, M. N. M. (2010). A conceptual framework on mobile commerce

acceptance and usage among Malaysian consumers: The influence of location, privacy,
trust, and purchasing power. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and
Applications, 7, 661-670. Retrieved from http://wseas.org/
Swilley, E., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2007). The role of involvement and experience with electronic
commerce in shaping attitudes and intentions toward mobile commerce. International
Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing, 1, 370-384.
doi:10.1504/IJEMR.2007.014850
Swilley, E., Hofacker, C. F., & Lamont, B. T. (2012). The evolution from e-commerce to m-
commerce: pressures, firm capabilities, and competitive advantage in strategic decision-
113
making. International Journal of E-Business Research (IJEBR), 8(1), 1-16.
doi:10.4018/jebr.2012010101
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. doi:10.1177/2345678906292430
Terzi, N. (2011). The impact of e-commerce on international trade and employment. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 745-753. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.010
Thakur, R., & Srivastava, M. (2014). Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived
risk and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India.
Internet Research, 24, 369-392. doi:10.1108/IntR-12-2012-0244
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a
conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 125-143. doi:10.2307/249443
Thurber, S., Kishi, Y., Trzepacz, P. T., Franco, J. G., Meagher, D. J., Lee, Y., ... & Chen, C. H.
(2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the delirium rating scale revised-98 (DRS-r98).
The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 27(2), e122-e127.
doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.13110345
Tornatzky, L., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technology innovation. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Tractinsky, N. (1997). Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and
methodological issues. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors
in computing systems, 115-122.
Truong, Y., Klink, R. R., Fort-Rioche, L., & Athaide, G. A. (2014). Consumer response to
product form in technology-based industries. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 31, 867-876.doi:10.1111/jpim.12128
Tsai, H. Y. S., & LaRose, R. (2015). Broadband internet adoption and utilization in the inner
city: A comparison of competing theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 344-355.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.022
Tseng, F. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the
teachers' online professional community of practice. Computers & Education, 72, 37-47.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005
Tuch, A. N., Roth, S. P., HornbæK, K., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). Is beautiful
really usable?: Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect
in HCI. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1596-1607. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.024
114
Turban, E., Lee, J. K., King, D., Liang, T. P., & Turban, D. (2009). Electronic commerce 2010.
New York, NY: Prentice Hall Press.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2015). Quarterly retail e-commerce sales. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2009). Online purchase intentions: A multi-channel store image
perspective. Information & Management, 46(2), 77–82. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.12.001
Vrechopoulos, A., & Atherinos, E. (2009). Web banking layout effects on consumer behavioral
intentions. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27, 524-546.
doi:10.1108/02652320911002340
Wang, H. Y., & Wang, S. H. (2010). User acceptance of mobile internet based on the unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology: Investigating the determinants and gender
differences. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 38, 415-426.
Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/
Wang, M., Wang, T., Kang, M., & Sun, S. (2014). Understanding perceived platform trust and
institutional risk in peer-to-peer lending platforms from cognition-based and affect-based
perspectives. (2014). PACIS 2014 Proceedings. Paper 208
Wang, W. T., & Li, H. M. (2012). Factors influencing mobile services adoption: a brand-equity
perspective. Internet Research, 22(2), 142-179. doi:/10.1108/10662241211214548
Wang, W. T., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, E. R. (2016). The stickiness intention of group-buying
websites: The integration of the commitment–trust theory and e-commerce success
model. Information & Management. 53(5) 625-642 doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.01.006
Wang, Y., Lin, H., & Luarn, P. (2006). Predicting consumer intention to use mobile service.
Information Systems Journal, 16(2), 157-179. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00213.x
Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Shareef, M. A. (2013).
Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: An
115
empirical investigation. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 716–725.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.001
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of

online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), 00-00.
doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x
Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42, 719-729.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.07.001
Xu, H., Luo, L. R., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2011). The personalization privacy paradox:
An exploratory study of decision-making process for location-aware marketing. Decision
Support Systems, 51(1), 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.017
Yang, K. C. C., Chye, G. N. S., Fern, J. C. S., & Kang, Y. (2015). Understanding the adoption of
mobile commerce in Singapore with the technology acceptance model (TAM). Assessing
the Different Roles of Marketing Theory and Practice in the Jaws of Economic
Uncertainty, 211-215. Coral Gables, FL: Springer International Publishing.
Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D. C., & Tarn, J. M. (2015). Exploring consumer perceived risk
and trust for online payments: An empirical study in China’s younger generation.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 9-24. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.058
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., & Zhang, R. (2012). Mobile payment services adoption
across time: An empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and
personal traits. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 129-142.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.019
Yaseen, S. G., & Zayed, S. (2010, June). Exploring determinants in deploying mobile commerce
technology: Amman stock exchange. In Information Society (i-Society), 2010
International Conference on (pp. 612-620). Docklands, London: IEEE Xplore
Yu, C. S. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence
from the UTAUT model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 104.
Retrieved from http://www.jecr.org/
Zhang, L., Zhu, J., & Liu, Q. (2012). A meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the
moderating effect of culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1902-1911.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.008
Zhou T., & Lu, Y. (2011a). Examining mobile instant messaging user loyalty from the
perspectives of network externalities and flow experience. Travel and Tourism:
Empowering and Changing the Role of Travelers, 27, 883-889.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.013
116
Zhou, T., & Lu, Y. (2011b). The effects of personality traits on user acceptance of mobile
commerce. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27, 545-561.
doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.555298
Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking
user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 760-767.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.013
Zhou, L., Zhang, P., & Zimmermann, H. D. (2013). Social commerce research: An integrated
view. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(2), 61-68.
doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.02.003
Zmijewska, A., & Lawrence, E. (2005). Reshaping the framework for analyzing success of
mobile payment solutions. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on E-
Commerce, 203-210.
Zmijewska, A., Lawrence, E., & Steele, R. (2004, October). Towards understanding of factors
influencing user acceptance of mobile payment systems. In ICWI (pp. 270-277).
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2013). The business model: A theoretically anchored robust construct for
strategic analysis. Strategic Organization, 11, 403-411. doi:10.1177/1476127013510466
117
APPENDIX
Research findings of factors associated with m-commerce purchase intentions

Author Factor Findings
Accessibility
Lu, H. P., & Yu-Jen Su, The results demonstrate that anxiety,
P., (2009) which is an effective barrier against
using innovative systems, is a key
negative predictor of a customer’s
intentions to use mobile phones.
Sivunen & Valo, (2006) People’s acceptance of different

communication technologies depends
on the available tools and their
dispersion in the marketplace.
Intrinsic Motivation
Compatibility
Davis et al., (1992) Both extrinsic and intrinsic factors
affect the motivation to use
information technology systems.
Venkatesh & Davis, The authors present a theoretical

(2000) extension of Davis’s technology
acceptance model (TAM) and
contributed toward foundational user
adoption behavior.
Venkatesh, Morris, Performance expectancy, effort

Davis, & Davis, (2003) expectancy, social influence, and
facilitating conditions impact user
acceptance of technology.
Risk
Joubert & Van Belle, Consumers demonstrate a lack of
(2013) enthusiasm, possibly due to a lack
trust.
Nilashi, Ibrahim, Gaining customer trust in mobile

Mirabi, Ebrahimi, & commerce is a particularly daunting
Zare, (2015) task and plays a major influence on a
customer's decision-making behavior.
A trusted website can provide mobile
commerce with powerful competitive
advantages.
118
Research findings of factors associated with m-commerce purchase intentions (continued)
Author Factor Findings
Usefulness
Cyr et al., (2006) Enhancing the design elements of a
mobile device would improve user’s
impression and their perceived
usefulness.
Lu et al., (2005) Intention to adopt wireless services via

mobile technology is mostly
determined by perceived usefulness
and ease of use.
Trust
Alkhunaizan & Love, Trust is an essential variable of
(2012) enhancing customer satisfaction and
consumer loyalty in m-commerce.
Joubert, J., & Van Trust has emerged as a fundamental

Belle, J. (2013) factor for user acceptance as m-
commerce businesses that have earned
that trust are associated with success.
Pavlou, (2003) Synthesized the literature on TRA and

TAM with the important ethical issues
of risk and trust in the field of e-
commerce
Schmidt-Belz, (2003) Lack of trust has been found to be a

significant factor influencing the
uptake of mobile commerce services.
119

Microsoft Word - RB-Dissertation-081516

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Microsoft Word - RB-Dissertation-081516

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOBILE COMMERCE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE: A QUANTITATIVE STUDY

OF VARIABLES THAT PREDICT M-COMMERCE PURCHASE INTENTIONS

MARC MUCHNICK, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

GAIL FERREIRA PhD, Committee Member

JOHN HERR PhD, Committee Member

Barbara Butts Williams, PhD, Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All rights reserved.

provide a competitive advantage, the fundamental behavioral dynamics associated with m-

m-commerce to measure their perceptions of performance and effort expectancies, social

use of m-commerce together predicted m-commerce purchase intentions at a statistically

significant level regarding competitive advantage.

encouragement throughout this process.

most gracious thanks.

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures........................................................................................................ vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

Introduction to the Problem ..................................................................................... 1

Background of the Study ......................................................................................... 3

Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 5

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................ 6

Research Questions ................................................................................................. 7

Significance and Contributions ............................................................................... 9

Significance to Body of Research ......................................................................... 10

Definition of Terms ............................................................................................... 11

Assumptions and Limitations ................................................................................ 13

Positivistic Research Study ................................................................................... 13

Nature of the Study / Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ............................. 14

Organization of the Remainder of the Study ......................................................... 16

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 18

Theoretical Frameworks for Mobile and Electronic Commerce Research ........... 18

Variables in User Acceptance of M-commerce..................................................... 27

The Nature of Mobile Commerce.......................................................................... 36

Research on Technology Use ................................................................................ 40

M-Commerce Dimensions and Purchase Intentions ............................................. 46

Evaluation and Future Directions .......................................................................... 48

Summary and Conclusion...................................................................................... 49

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 52

Research Design .................................................................................................... 54

Instrumentation / Measures ................................................................................... 56

Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 58

Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 60

Ethical Considerations ........................................................................................... 61

Introduction ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Screening the Data ................................................................................................. 64

Validity and Reliability ......................................................................................... 64

Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 67

Description of the Sample ..................................................................................... 67

Assumption Testing ............................................................................................... 69

Regression Analysis .............................................................................................. 75

Supplementary Analysis ........................................................................................ 81

Summary of Results and Conclusion .................................................................... 82

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ................... 86

Summary of the Results......................................................................................... 87

Discussion of the Results....................................................................................... 89

Implications of the Study Results .......................................................................... 94

Recommendations for Further Research ............................................................. 100

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 102

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 104

APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................... 118