The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm
TG
13,3/4
276
Received 24 September 2018
Revised 5 April 2019
Accepted 23 October 2019
Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy
Vol. 13 No. 3/4, 2019
pp. 276-305
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-6166
DOI 10.1108/TG-09-2018-0060
Exploring the intention to use
M-payment in India
Role of extrinsic motivation, intrinsic
motivation and perceived
demonetization regulation
Sushil S. Chaurasia
Marketing Area, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies University,
Navi Mumbai, India
Surabhi Verma
Center of Integrative Innovation Management,
Department of Marketing and Management, Odense, Denmark, and
Vibhav Singh
Human Resource Management Area,
Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies University, Navi Mumbai, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to develop a model that explains a user’s attitude toward M-
payments in India, based on the motivational model and awareness about demonetization policy. The study
also investigates the validity and differential predictive power of four different M-payment usage models, by
considering the effect of improved awareness regarding demonetization policy on the core construct of the
motivational model.
Design/methodology/approach – The model was tested with survey data from 362 M-payment
users using partial least squares. Respondents were M-payment users with significant usage
experience.
Findings – This study empirically determined that the motivation model and awareness about
demonetization policy in M-payment usage after demonetization are connected. As hypothesized, the study
found: a positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and intention to use M-payment, positive
relationship between awareness about demonetization policy and behavioral intention to use M-payment,
positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, positive relationship between
awareness about demonetization policy and extrinsic motivation and positive moderation effect of awareness
about demonetization policy on the extrinsic motivation-behavioral intention relationships. The hypothesis
that awareness about demonetization policy would have a moderating effect on intrinsic motivation–
behavioral intention relationship was not supported.
Practical implications – From a practitioner’s perspective, this study underscores the importance of
raising sufficient awareness about the demonetization policy as a determinant of users’ willingness to use M-
payment services. Mandatory regulations by the government and motivation toward M-payment use can be a
good starting point for a cashless economy.
Originality/value – This study makes a needed contribution to the literature by validating the integrated
motivation model, emphasizing the importance of raising awareness about the demonetization policy among
M-payment users. The model may provide a useful foundation for future research in this area.
Keywords Demonetization, Policy impact, M-Payment, M-payment India, Motivation model
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction Intention to
In India, demonetization (stripping a currency unit of its status as legal tender) of INR use M-
(Indian Rupee) 500 and INR 1,000 currency notes was declared on November 8, 2016 (Mohd,
2016). On November 8, 2016, demonetization nullified around 86 per cent of Indian currency
payment in
and created inadequacy of cash in the economy (Balaji and Balaji, 2017). Despite several India
challenges, the demonetization of currencies in 2016 in India was deemed successful
(Kulkarni and Tapas, 2017; Midthanpally, 2017). One of the important reasons for this was
the rise in cashless payment, using instruments such as M-payment, which emerged as an
277
alternative to cash for safe and fast transactions (Pachare, 2016; Midthanpally, 2017). Cash
crunch encouraged people to use M-payment after demonetization. This provided an
opportunity for M-payment service providers to appeal more customers and increase the
usage of cashless transactions (Goriparthi and Tiwari, 2017; Johnson et al., 2018).
The advancement of M-payment differs from one country to another in terms of
penetration and maturity. In developed countries, adoption rates are marginal (Guo and
Bouwman, 2016). Even in some Eastern economies (South Korea and Japan) and developing
countries (India, Kenya and Philippines) few M-payment applications (remittance and
ticketing) are being used (Guo and Bouwman, 2016). Even though the present condition in
developing countries are promising for the growth of M-payment, a number of hurdles still
remain; the most significant one is related to the M-payment platform’s multi-sided market
characteristic (Campbell-Kelly et al., 2014). The low rate of adoption and behavioral
intention to use can be attributed to many factors, such as the supremacy of old-fashioned
banks, bank license regulations, dearth of innovation and strategic capabilities and
availability of other payment alternatives (De Reuver et al., 2015). Also, as the M-payment
platforms are not interoperable, it escalates the efforts and costs of adoption for both
consumers and merchants (De Reuver et al., 2015). In previous studies on information
technology (IT) innovation, Shih et al. (2008) considered government policy as one of the
leading challenges for consumer’s behavioral intention to adopt and use information system
(IS). Hence, such concerns about the dynamic Indian M-payment market led us to identify
the factors that play a vital role in crafting an M-payment platform.
Though there is ample literature on IS implementation and adoption, investigation
behavioral intention to use and assimilation is scarce (Markus and Tanis, 2000). In the IS
literature, studies on M-payment usage focus mainly on behavioral beliefs (e.g. perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness), social influence and personal traits (e.g. personal
innovativeness, social image, subjective norms etc., Venkatesh et al., 2003; Johnson et al.,
2018). The existence and success of M-payment in emerging markets depends on whether
there are a significant number of users. Also, it is important to understand what motivates
consumers to adopt and use M-payment. Extrinsic motivation lays emphasis on behavioral
outcomes; however, intrinsic motivation stresses on the process itself (Leone et al., 2017; Li,
2017). Therefore, it is necessary to combine both the perspectives of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations to examine M-payment user behavior (Verhagen et al., 2012; Leone et al., 2017;
Li, 2017). When users conduct M-payment, they may not only expect to make transactions
but also look forward to a good experience (Vahidalizadehdizaj and Leider, 2018). Moreover,
none of the preceding investigations used a theory-centered lens to appreciate the
significance of important determinants in impacting post-demonetization consumer’s
behavioral intention to use M-payment solutions. Surprisingly, very few studies were found
on the effect of awareness regarding mandatory government policies such as
demonetization policies on behavioral intention to use M-payment, though it is considered as
an important driver of M-payment (Upadhyay and Jahanyan, 2016). Also, limited research is
TG available on behavioral intention to use M-payment solutions in a developing economy such
13,3/4 as India. (Madan and Yadav, 2016).
The current study focused on understanding customer’s behavioral intention to use
rather adoption, the former is more fundamental and significant in terms of determining
users’ overall assessments of the use of a particular IT or IS system (Hong et al., 2008). The
assessment includes the rational evaluation of the utility and emotional/affective reaction to
278 the IS use (Ortiz de Guinea and Markus, 2009). Drawing from the preceding studies on
institutional theory (Zucker 1977, Zucker 1987; Powell and DiMaggio 1991), we introduced a
theoretical construct to extend the existing body of knowledge on how M-payment usage is
influenced by the external institutional force. So, this research study has a threefold
objective:
(1) to examine the application and efficacy of motivation model in relation to the users’
intention to use M-payment;
(2) to improve the explanatory power of motivation model by adding a new construct:
awareness about demonetization policy; and
(3) to understand the direct, exogenous and moderating effect of awareness about
demonetization policy on intention to use M-payment.

The rest of this investigation is structured as follows. An outline of M-payment, motivation

model and institutional theory has been presented in Section 2. The conceptual model and
the research hypotheses are proposed in Section 3. In Section 4, the research methodology is
described. The analysis of empirical findings has been presented in Section 5. Then, a
discussion of the results and implication is presented in Sections 6 and 7. Finally, conclusion
and limitations are presented in Sections 8 and 9, respectively.

2. Conceptual background
2.1. M-payment
M-payment refers to the business or individual activities that use digital devices with mobile
internet, to perform economic transactions (Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2018; Johnson, 2018).
M-payment eliminates or reduces the need of cash (Pham and Ho, 2015; Iman, 2018), offers
convenience and speed (Teo et al., 2015) and provides secure transfer of information (Schierz
et al., 2010). Unlike the spatial and temporal constraints in both offline and online payments
(Zhou, 2013), M-payment enables users to complete their payments in a faster, safer and
more convenient manner, anywhere and anytime (Zhou, 2013; Liébana-Cabanillas et al.,
2018; Johnson et al., 2018). As the usage of smartphone and mobile internet increased, M-
payment grew rapidly. The benefits of M-payment include convenience (Johnson et al.,
2018), location-independence and quickness of transaction (Constantiou et al., 2006; Mallat
et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2018), person-to-person money transfer and ticketing and loyalty
programs (Mallat et al., 2009). All these benefits of M-payment make it the next step of
electronic payment services evolution, ensuring tremendous potential to grow (Ahuja, 2018).
The M-payment market in developing economies is an outcome of rapid changes in
technology, regulation and conditions (eMarketer, 2018). Swift penetration of smartphones
can be considered as an indicator of consumer’s behavioral intention to use M-payment
service (Johnson et al., 2018). However, many smartphone consumers opt not to exploit most
of the devices’ capabilities (application). For example, not more than 25 per cent of adult
smartphone users, do not download any mobile applications (Schierz et al., 2010; Slade et al.,
2013). Hence, the predicted fast progression in M-payment services is yet to be realized. So,
usage intentions might not be a determining factor for M-payment service adoption Intention to
(Kristoffersen et al., 2008). use M-
payment in
2.2. Motivational model
Preceding research attempts in the field of consumer’s behavioral intention to use M-
India
payment, were grounded on established adoption models such as the theory of reasoned
action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1973), the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 279
(UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and technology acceptance model (Davis et al., 1992).
Many previous investigations had inspected an array of M-payment service behavioral
factors such as perceived usefulness (Chen, 2008), perceived ease of use (Chen, 2008), social
influence (Hung et al., 2011), compatibility (Lu et al., 2011; Schierz et al., 2010), trust (Lu et al.,
2011), use context (Mallat et al., 2009), risk (Chen, 2008) and cost (Lu et al., 2011). Combining
the model of UTAUT and diffusion of innovation theory had confirmed that the magnitude
to which M-payments gives an edge in carrying out payment-related tasks is significant in
performance expectancy but the same is not significant in illuminating the behavioral
intention for using of M-payment technologies (Oliveira et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the
constructs that assured the advancement of M-payment use somehow ended up
unsuccessful in materializing the same (Dahlberg et al., 2008). This indicates that our
theoretical understanding of determinants that rule consumer’s behavioral intention to use
M-payment service under such conditions is inadequate, as any such platform can be
deliberated to be hedonic and more complex systems (Ayeh et al., 2013) and both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation might be significant bases of use (Park and Nicolau, 2015).
Several researchers have used the motivational model to predict behavior and to
investigate new technology usage and acceptance in different contexts (Davis et al., 1992;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). Motivation is considered as a key determinant of IS usage behavior
because they endure predispositions that direct and incites behavior toward certain goals
(Engel et al., 1995). According to Verhagen et al. (2012), the behavior is motivated both
intrinsically and extrinsically. Therefore, both intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation
have been included as a core construct in the motivational model. In IS research, intrinsic
and extrinsic motivations are seen as strong predictors of system usage (Venkatesh, 1999;
Wakefield and Whitten, 2006). Intrinsic motivation is the perception of performing an
activity by users for pleasure and satisfaction (Vallerand and Blssonnette, 1992; Chiu and Li,
2015; Van Yperen et al., 2016; Ifinedo, 2017). According to Deci and Ryan (1985), intrinsically
motivated behavior is volitional and self-determined and involves individuals engaging in
certain activities that they find new, interesting and optimally challenging (Deci and Ryan,
1985). Intrinsic motivation stems its worth from the appreciation of the activity. It is
contrary to extrinsic motivation that derives its value from instrumental outcome (Deci and
Ryan, 2000; Chiu and Li, 2015; Van Yperen et al., 2016; Ifinedo, 2017).
Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is the perception of performing an activity by
users with the purpose of realizing specific goals or rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Koo et al.,
2015). Extrinsic motivation affects a broad range of behaviors of users where the objectives
of action are to obtain a separable outcome (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Also, extrinsic motivation
is derived from the outcome of the activity rather than from the activity itself (Davis et al.,
1992). According to Grouzet et al. (2004), extrinsic motivation can either be autonomous or
controlled in nature. Autonomous extrinsic motivation denotes an external regulation or,
which a user determines to be personally valuable or endorsing (Grouzet et al., 2004;
Verhagen et al., 2012). In contrast, controlled extrinsically motivated behavior is related to
activities that are mainly conducted because of internal pressure (e.g. guilt, pride and ego) or
TG external obligation (e.g. reward and punishment) (Vallerand and Blssonnette, 1992; Deci
13,3/4 et al., 1999).

2.3. Institutional theory: the demonetization policy

Institutional theory is extensively used in the management and social science literature
(Mizruchi and Fein 1999). Also, researchers have lately begun to be deployed in IS research
280 (Liang et al., 2007). The three isomorphic pressures (normative, mimetic and coercive)
analytically illustrate three distinct processes of institutionalization (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). Arguments on institutional coercive pressures stem essentially from the resource
dependence perspective (DiMaggio 1988) and is backed by significant empirical support in
the institutional literature (Palmer et al., 1993). Coercive isomorphism is distinct from
Mimetic isomorphism, where organizations imitate other organizations with positive
expectations; in the case of normative isomorphism, networks influence or professional
standards change (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Coercive pressure can be defined as
informal or formal pressure used on one dependent institution by another institution
(DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Institutional coercive pressures can also be from government
policies and regulations, industry associations and networks, or can emerge from
competitive necessity within a market segment or industry (Gular et al., 2002). Mandatory
government policies such as demonetization can either encourage or discourage the
consumer’s behavioral intention to adopt innovation (such as M-payment service)
(Sivathanu, 2019). Thus, establishments, as regarded by an institutionalized dependency
pattern, can unveil related structural characteristics such as organizational models, program
and formal policies (Teo et al., 2003).
There are rare evidences on short-term impact of transition into cashless economies (Zhu
et al., 2018). Most of the empirical investigation is targeted at understanding high-scaled
impact of macroeconomic shocks on livelihoods (Krishnan and Siegel, 2017). However, some
researchers argued that government mandate policy can speed up the rate of RFID adoption
(Liu et al., 2015; Fakhr, 2016). Government is treated as an important environmental actor for
consumer’s behavioral intention to adopt and use technology (Lin and Ho 2009).
Government policies such as demonetization can play an important role through
information provision, facilitating research and development, building and enhancing the
infrastructure (Dasgupta, 2016; Balaji et al., 2017), providing incentives (Dasgupta, 2016),
tax breaks and providing counseling services etc. Supports may also come from technology
providers (Bhuvana and Vasantha, 2017). Government policies such as demonetization have
given a boost to innovations such as digital payments and encouraged people to use M-
payment services to overcome the cash crisis (Bhuvana and Vasantha, 2017). This provides
an opportunity for M-payment service providers to push customers toward cashless
transactions (Madan and Yadav, 2016; Bhuvana and Vasantha, 2017). An important issue
about public awareness regarding demonetization policy in M-payment usage intention is,
thus, whether it directly affects intrinsic/extrinsic motivation or usage intention (as an
antecedent) or whether it moderates the effects of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation or usage
intention (as a moderator).

3. Research model and hypothesis

According to Davis et al. (1992), intrinsic motivation would have a significant direct effect on
intentions to use an innovation. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated toward the use
of technology will continuously indulge self in using the technology for explicit results
connected with its use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). For such users, the difficulties associated
with the usage of the new technology may tend to be low as they enjoy the process and
using the new technology is more effortless for them, in comparison with users with less Intention to
intrinsic motivation (Fagan et al., 2008). More specifically, users with higher levels of use M-
intrinsic motivation have more willingness to continue the usage of technology. Thus, the
payment in
following hypothesis is proposed:
India
H1a. Intrinsic motivation will positively affect behavioral intention to use M-payment.
Intrinsic motivation leads a causal path to extrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated 281
behaviors are the prototype of self-determination (Deci et al., 1999). As per previous research
studies, intrinsic motivation can have several beneficial effects on users’ behavioral
intention (Molina-Castillo et al., 2016). For instance, if an individual enjoys his/her work, she
is capable of achieving industrious and creative results (Starbuck and Webster, 1991;
Amabile and Kramer, 2007; Wang et al., 2013). Intrinsic motivation is associated with the
deliberation and thoroughness of cognitive processing (Penz and Sinkovics, 2013). It
increases self-reflection and thoughtfulness (Caniëls et al., 2015). Therefore, it leads to
enhanced perceptions of extrinsic motivation. Furthermore, Venkatesh et al. (2002) and
Fagan et al. (2008) found a positive impact of intrinsic motivation on extrinsic motivation.
More time spent on using M-payment after demonetization is, therefore, likely to be related
to high extrinsic motivation. Given this conceptual linkage between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, it is postulated that:

H1b. Intrinsic motivation will positively affect extrinsic motivation.

Recent research studies suggest that extrinsic motivation is also as important as intrinsic
motivation to influence behavior (Deci et al., 1999). External motivation such as
communication of interpersonal influence and rewards is an important factor that
determines a user’s behaviors (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Extrinsic motivation affects a broad
range of behaviors where the action’s objectives broaden beyond those inherent in the
activity itself (Vallerand and Blssonnette 1992). According to Davis et al. (1992), extrinsic
motivation provided by stimulus-response cues should have a heavier weightage in
predicting intention to use than intrinsic motivators. In a technology-mediated environment,
the presence of extrinsic motivators might prevent users from participating in computer-
based tasks that are intrinsically challenging and enjoyable (Newby and Alter, 1989). Thus,
the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1c. Extrinsic motivation will positively affect behavioral intention to use M-payment.
Several social science-based studies have discussed the importance of raising public and
individual awareness (Snell et al., 1991; Tillman, 2002). Awareness is one of the central
construct of consciousness raising (Bickford and Reynolds, 2002; Tillman, 2002; Greene and
Kamimura, 2003). Social awareness is positively associated to an individual’s cognitive
attitude and development (Tsui, 2000). Following Dinev and Hart (2005), this study defined
awareness about demonetization policy as one’s raised consciousness on demonetization
policies proposed by the government and strategies to deal with them. Therefore, before
forming a negative or positive belief about demonetization policies, one must first be aware
of the consequences of the policies. Preceding investigations in IS research were carried out
in contexts such as EDI adoption (Teo et al., 2003), website adoption (Flanagin 2000), IT
budget-related assessments (Hu and Quan 2006) and IT product choice (Tingling and Parent
2002). Coercive isomorphic institutional pressure was investigated with respect to
information security policies and practices (Hu et al., 2006).
TG While demonetization did not attain its indicated goal (Ghosh et al., 2017; Reddy, 2017),
13,3/4 the government claimed that the move would lessen the need of cash-based transactions in
favor of digital transactions (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2018). Mehta et al. (2016) stated
that heightened awareness with respect to the demonetization policy in India will drive the
increased usage of cashless transactions. Several empirical studies show that government
demonetization policy may influence the usage of cashless transactions such as online
282 banking, e-commerce and mobile banking. Kumar and Pasha (2017) concluded that success
of demonetization will help shape a corruption-free society and aid economic development.
Demonetization of currency has the ability to create a cashless economy by the stimulating
online transactions. M-payment is a key player in the world of cashless transactions and has
the advantages of a high degree of mobility, transparency and flexibility (Zhou, 2013), which
allows users to meet their transactional needs (Yang et al., 2015). M-payment has an
important role in the success of demonetization in an emerging economy such as India.
Kumar and Pasha (2017) showcase that the Government of India is proactive in supporting
cashless transactions by promoting innovations and technologies such as mobile payment
services.
The institutional measures of demonetization stretch from pure coercive (imposing cash
withdrawal limits from ATMs and cash counters, intentionally not inducing enough legal
tender into the system) and threatening (announcing the audit by tax authorities for cash
transactions beyond a certain limit) to comforting (reducing/eliminating digital transactions
charges for any commerce with public organizations) and incentivizing (proposing
discounts and tax benefits for specific transactions, sporadic “lucky draw” prizes for
individuals making cashless transactions) (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2018). All such
initiatives led to a substantial volume terms card usage surge between November 2016 and
January 2017 (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2018). Specific to intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, enhanced awareness about demonetization can build an enriched state of
usefulness among users (Madan and Yadav, 2016). This indicates that awareness about
demonetization policy motivates users extrinsically and intrinsically. Thus, the following
hypotheses are proposed:

H2a. Awareness about demonetization policy will positively affect behavioral intention
to use M-payment.
H2b. Awareness about demonetization policy will positively affect intrinsic motivation.
H2c. Awareness about demonetization policy will positively affect extrinsic motivation.
Bhuvana and Vasantha (2017) discussed the relevance of demonetization on the cashless
payment system. Raised awareness regarding demonetization policy is an individual’s
favorable or unfavorable evaluation on the facilitation, adequacy and clarity of
demonetization policy measures. These evaluations may act more than just a conjecturer of
an individual’s behavior. Awareness about demonetization policy may also moderate the
influence of other factors on behavior. However, despite an increase in M-payment service
usage, there is no surety that the positive trend will continue and will represent a major shift
in consumer attitude toward such technologies (Anderson, 2014). Though there may
possibly be long-run benefits, the short-run impression of demonetization is unfavorable for
the income-constrained section of society (Zhu et al., 2018).
Policy measure serves as a motivational device (Wan and Shen, 2013). Strong perceived
motivation leads to enhanced intention to perform certain behavior. Understanding whether
public awareness regarding demonetization policy is a moderating variable or an antecedent
is obviously important. Demonetization policy was mostly considered as a direct antecedent
of attitude or behavioral intention (Dinev and Hu, 2007). However, when public awareness Intention to
about demonetization policy is modeled as an antecedent of motivations, it is assumed that use M-
motivational factors and awareness about demonetization policy are related, whereas they
are independent of one another. Therefore, this study expected that public awareness about
payment in
demonetization policy would modify the effects of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic India
motivation on usage intention. The relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
on usage intention would be attenuated as users’ have a higher awareness regarding
demonetization policy. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: 283
H3a. Awareness about demonetization policy will have a positive moderating effect on
the relationship between intrinsic motivation and M-payment usage intention.
H3b. Awareness about demonetization policy will have a positive moderating effect on
the relationship between extrinsic motivation and M-payment usage intention.

4. Methodology
4.1 Questionnaire development
The items in the questionnaire were grounded on the review of past and existing literature
pertinent to the research model. The items of awareness about demonetization policy were
developed for the first time. The wordings of other items were adapted from the literature
and reworded and modified to appropriate the context of M-payment services. The
investigation was anchored on a five-point Likert scale, measurement ranging from “5
(strongly agree)” to “1 (strongly disagree)”. To avoid semantic problems, a pre-test study
was also implemented with five M-payment experts. Clarity of few statements,
completeness of content and structure and length of the questionnaire were modified based
on the received input. The questionnaire was then pilot-tested from 52 M-payment frequent
users. Questions were re-worded again based on the pre-test. The results were found to have
acceptable reliability indices and item analysis, in the pilot test as well as the subsequent
main study. Therefore, the face and internal validity of the survey instrument was
established. The final items used in the survey instrument and their sources are mentioned
in Table I. The multiple stages of questionnaire development assisted in the establishment
of an apt level of content and internal validity. Finally, the questionnaire was consisted of
two sub-sections. Respondents’ demographic characteristics in the first sub-section and the
main constructs of the research model (with 16 questions), in the second sub-section.
Items for measuring intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation were modified using
scales derived from the original motivational model study by Venkatesh et al. (2002), Caniëls
et al. (2015), Molina-Castillo et al. (2016) and Fagan et al. (2008) because of suitability in the
context of this study. The new constructs’ indicator for awareness about demonetization
policy was based on the current demonetization policy measures in India (Bhuvana and
Vasantha, 2017) (Table I). Finally, measurements for behavioral intention to use M-payment
were taken from Fagan et al. (2008) and Venkatesh et al. (2002). (Figures 1-4)

4.2 Data collection and sample size

We collected the data for this study via a survey administered in India. Current smartphone
penetration in India is around 26 per cent of the population but around 5,000 million
customers are expected to be empowered with smartphone by 2022 (eMarketer, 2018). As
the economy grows and becomes more connected, app usage with payment capabilities will
continue to rise (eMarketer, 2018). Therefore, this research study used a survey of Indian
frequent M-payment users to gather data for hypotheses testing and also to address the
TG Construct Items Measures Authors
13,3/4
Intrinsic motivation IM1 It is easy to become skilful at using mobile Venkatesh et al.
(IM) payment services (2002), Caniëls
et al. (2015)
IM2 I could easily learn usage of mobile payment
services
284 IM3 The mobile payment services apps are clear and
understandable
IM4 I found it easy to perform the steps required to
use mobile payment services
Extrinsic motivation EM1 I found mobile payment services are useful Molina-Castillo
(EM) mode of payment et al. (2016); Fagan
et al. (2008)
EM2 I discovered that handling payments through
mobile payment services is easy
EM3 I believe mobile payment services allow faster
payment transaction (e.g., debit, credit)
EM4 I believe that mobile payment services provides
me flexibility to use it any time
EM5 I believe that mobile payment services provides
me flexibility to use it any place
Behavioural intention BI1 I would continue to use mobile payment services Fagan et al. (2008);
to use M-payment after for low value transactions frequently in future Venkatesh et al.
demonetization (BI) (2002)
BI2 For high value purposes I would use mobile
payment services as per requirement in future
BI3 I intend to use mobile payment services when
the opportunity arises
Awareness of ADP1 I experienced shortage of currency due to New measures
demonetization policy restricted use of 500 and 1000 INR notes by the
(ADP) Government of India from 9th November 2016
ADP2 I assumed that there would be a shortage of new
currency notes just after demonetization
ADP3 I thought that getting new currency notes would
be difficult just after demonetization
Table I. ADP4 I was uncertain about the subsequent
Measurement scales government regulatory steps on currency notes
and items just after demonetization

research objectives. Before conducting the survey, the sample size was considered. The
sample size for social science research should be more than 15 times the number of
predictors (Stevens, 2012). With four predictors in the proposed research model, a sample
size larger than 60 was targeted. Another consideration was the usage of partial least
squares structure equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypotheses, for which a sample
size of at least 200 is mandatory (Hoelter, 1983). Thus, the minimum sample size was set at
200. Consumer responses were collected over the internet (Web-based survey) through
Google Docs. Google Docs have been used by several other researchers for online surveys
for investigating user behavior (Verma, 2017).
This exploratory research study surveyed the users of mobile payment services in
Mumbai. Mumbai is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra, also considered as
the commercial, financial and entertainment capital of India. The respondents were
experienced and regular users of M-payment services. Moreover, because our research
 Intention to
use M-
payment in
India

285

Figure 1.
Original model

Figure 2.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as antecedents of
behavioral intention
in Motivational
Model

targets are individual’s usage intentions of M-payment services, we specifically asked our
respondents to reply based on their experience of using the specific M-payment service that
they used the most frequently, rather than based on their overall perception regarding the
M-payment service providers, which may offer multiple services in the market (Wang et al.,
2019). In the beginning of the survey, responders were given a list of M-payment vendors
and were asked to check all the services that they were using. Individuals who did not select
any vendor were eliminated from this survey. Before data collection, we ensured the
familiarity of respondents’ with the context (demonetization) of our study. Because of
demonetization, every individual was affected to some extent (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh,
2018). As all the respondents intercepted also answered “yes” (on their familiarity with
demonetization), they were considered qualified for the data collection process.
TG
13,3/4

286

Figure 3.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as an antecedents of
intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in
Motivational Model

Figure 4.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as a moderator in
Motivational Model

As the population size was unknown, convenience sampling method was used for this
investigation (San Martín and Herrero, 2012). Moreover, to match the target population
structure in both gender and age, the study was supplemented with quota-sampling method
(San Martín and Herrero, 2012).
A total of 3,500 e-mails were sent to the respondents, out of which 441 reactions were
received, which yielded a response rate of 12.6 per cent. All responses were scrutinized and
responses with too many missing values were eliminated. Finally, 362 usable responses
were obtained, which fulfilled the requirement of sample size for this study. Amongst them,
44.9 per cent were female and 55.1 per cent were male. As shown in Table II, the majority of
Demographic Category Frequency (%)
Intention to
use M-
Gender Male 200 55.1 payment in
Female 162 44.9
Age <20 41 11.3 India
20-29 145 40.1
30-39 124 34.2
40-49 18 5.4 287
>50 34 9.0
Education High School 39 10.8
Graduate 85 23.4
Table II.
Post-graduate 210 58.2
Others 28 7.6 Demographic
Annual Income <700000 INR 91 25.2 characteristics of
700000-1500000 INR 146 40.2 respondents
>1500000 INR 125 74.8 (N = 362)

respondents were between 20 and 39 years old (75 per cent). More than two third (80 per
cent) held at least a bachelor’s degree and their mean annual income was above INR 700,000.

4.3 Statistical analysis

The PLS-SEM method was used in this study to test the research model through Smart-PLS
version 2.0 software (Ringle et al., 2005). The resampling method with 362 responses and
individual sign changes was engaged to obtain inferential statistics (Hair et al., 2011). The
PLS-SEM method places minimal demands on the sample size and the distributions of
the residuals (Gefen, 2000; Ooi and Tan, 2016; Verma, 2017). PLS-SEM can overcome the
limitation of covariance-based SEM for analyzing the measurement model by improving the
goodness of model fit for small sample size (Ringle et al., 2005). Thus, PLS is one of the best
statistical tools for analyzing small sample sizes. Also, PLS is superior to other techniques
because it does not require multivariate normal distribution (Ooi and Tan, 2016). This was
supported by Wan et al. (2014) and Verma (2017). First, the measurement model was tested
in PLS, followed by the testing of the structural model (Venkatesh et al., 2012).
4.3.1. Testing for the multi-collinearity and common method bias. The multi-collinearity
issue will arise if the coefficients between the independent variables are too high (Hew et al.,
2015). Also, all VIF values should be less than 10 and tolerance values should be greater
than 0.10 (Kline, 2015), as depicted in Table III. The correlation coefficients between

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized Collinearity
coefficients coefficients statistics
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 0.404 0.333 1.212 0.227

EM 0.302 0.098 0.262 3.088 0.002 0.434 2.302
IM 0.097 0.097 0.074 0.999 0.319 0.561 1.782
ADP 0.440 0.091 0.386 4.839 0.000 0.490 2.039
Table III.
Notes: aDependent variable; BI. EM = Extrinsic motivation; IM = Intrinsic motivation; ADP = Awareness Testing for Multi-
of demonetization policy; BI = Behavioural intention to use M-payment after demonetization collinearity
TG variables should be less than 0.90 (Field, 2009). It is apparent from Table IV that all
13,3/4 correlation coefficients between variables of this study are less than 0.9. Based on these two
assumptions (i.e. VIF and tolerance value and correlation coefficients), one can conclude that
in this study, multi-collinearity problem does not exist. Furthermore, Harman’s single factor
test was conducted to measure the common method bias problem. The result of Harman’s
single factor reported that the single factor is 38.65 per cent, which is less than 50 per cent.
288 Hence, it may also be concluded that the common method bias issue does not exist in this
study. Also, as the ratio of the average substantive variance (0.743) to the average method
variance (0.005) is relatively small at 148:1 (Appendix 1), both the tests suggest that common
method bias problem does not exist in this study.
4.3.2. Non-response bias. Amstrong and Overton (1977) and Teo et al. (2015)
recommended the chi-square test of dependence on the demographic variables, to ascertain
the difference between the early and late respondents. The result of chi-square test revealed
that no significant difference exist between early and late respondents. The t-test was also
carried out to test the differences across all the research constructs (Ranganathan et al., 2011;
Teo et al., 2015). The results of T-test confirmed that there was no significant difference.
Hence, non-response bias was found not to impact the accuracy of the present study.

4.4. Results
4.4.1. Testing of measurement model. Convergent analysis and discriminant analysis tests
were conducted to examine the measurement model. Convergent validity measures the
extent to which two or more items measuring the same variables agree (Thong, 2001). Based
on the following criteria, convergent validity was assessed for the measurement model:

Factor loading for all items should be above 0.60 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Composite reliability (CR)/Dijkstra–Henseler’s rho CR (rhoA) for all constructs
should be more than 0.80 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

The average variance extracted (AVE) values should be more than 0.50 (Kline, 2015).

As listed in Table V, CR for BI = 0.8221, IM = 0.8724, EM = 0.8779 and ADP = 0.9219, which
were well above 0.80, as recommended by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). The factor loadings for all
items were well above 0.60 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) and the Cronbach’s alpha values for
all constructs were reported to be greater than 0.60 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) (Table V).
Finally, the AVE values for all constructs (i.e. BI = 0. 742; IM = 0.7551; EM= 0.8307; and
ADP = 0.8205) were greater than 0.50 (Kline, 2015). Thus, convergent validity was achieved.
Discriminant validity measures the extent to which items differentiate between variables
(Thong, 2001, p. 152). According to Deng et al. (2014, p. 218), discriminant validity can be
measured by comparing the level of correlation between the two constructs and the square root

ADP BI EM IM

ADP 0.8205
BI 0.5148 0.742
EM 0.3041 0.497 0.8307
IM 0.2807 0.3679 0.4478 0.7551
Table IV. Notes: EM = Extrinsic motivation; IM = Intrinsic motivation; ADP = Awareness of demonetization policy;
Discriminant BI = Behavioral intention to use M-payment after demonetization; Diagonal elements (italic) are the square
Validity Test root of the AVE for each construct. Off-diagonal factors demonstrate the inter-correlations
Constructs Items Loadings Mean SD AVE Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability rhoA
Intention to
use M-
BI BI1 0.8669 3.892 0.897 0.742 0.8679 0.8221 0.902 payment in
BI2 0.8747
BI3 0.8587 India
IM IM1 0.9344 3.583 0.991 0.7551 0.8050 0.8724 0.886
IM2 0.8041
IM3 0.8164 289
IM4 0.8215
EM EM1 0.9308 3.662 0.859 0.8307 0.8266 0.8779 0.926
EM2 0.8052
EM3 0.8946
EM4 0.7697
Table V.
EM5 0.8377
ADP ADP1 0.8669 3.921 0.826 0.8205 0.8865 0.9219 0.836 Factor loadings,
ADP2 0.8747 average variance
ADP3 0.9141 extracted and
ADP4 0.7985 composite reliability

of AVEs. As depicted in Table IV, discriminant validity has been established because the square
root of AVEs exceeded their corresponding inter-correlations (Leong et al., 2011; Verma, 2017).

5. Findings
The structural model of this study was evaluated by examining the structural paths, t-
statistics and variance explained (i.e. R2 value) (Hair et al., 2011). Path significances were
identified by running the research model using a bootstrap resampling routine with 362
cases and 500 resamples. Bootstrap resampling is a non-parametric method to assess the
significance level of partial least squares estimates (Caniëls et al., 2015). In this method, sub-
samples are generated by randomly choosing a case from the data sets (Kleijnena et al.,
2007). Furthermore, hypothesis tests were also carried out to test the proposed research
model. Hair et al. (2011) proposed that R2 values of 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 in the structural model
of PLS can be interpreted as weak, moderate and substantial, respectively. Table VI
summarizes the results of different models.

Model 1: Original motivational model (Figure A1)

The original MM model accounted for 36.8 per cent of variance in intentions toward M-
payment usage (Figure A1). Extrinsic motivation ( b = 0.507, p < 0.01) had a positive
relationship with behavioral intentions to use M-payment. This finding is in line with the
study of Verhagen et al. (2012). In several previous studies regarding social behavior in
which motivation model was used, intrinsic motivation was found to have a significant
positive relation with extrinsic motivation. In line with these studies, the extrinsic
motivation was affected by intrinsic motivations ( b = 0.648, p < 0.01). Path from intrinsic
motivation ( b = 0.140, p > 0.1) to intention to use M-payment was found to have an
insignificant effect. The explanation of motivation model came mostly from extrinsic
motivation, with an effect size of 0.507 (p < 0.01). However, intrinsic motivation influences
the intention to use M-payment indirectly through extrinsic motivation, which is consistent
with the work of Venkatesh et al. (2002). While intrinsic motivation may initially impact
usage intention (Yoo et al., 2012), this influence gradually tends to wear off as M-payment
users become acquainted with the technology.
 TG

290

Models
13,3/4

Table VI.
Testing results of
Model 1 Original Model 2 ADP as Model 3 ADP as Model 4 ADP as
motivational model antecedent of BI antecedent of IM and EM moderating variable
Constructs b t-value Sig. b t-value Sig. b t-value Sig. b t-value Sig.

IM ! BI 0.140 1.315 n.s. 0.060 0.518 n.s. 0.060 1.109 n.s. 0.088 0.770 n.s.
IM ! EM 0.648 10.734 *** 0.648 10.776 *** 0.358 3.764 *** 0.648 10.928 ***
EM ! BI 0.507 5.405 *** 0.297 2.230 ** 0.301 2.469 ** 0.292 2.301 **
ADP ! BI 0.371 2.991 *** 0.367 3.228 *** 0.320 2.729 ***
ADP ! IM 0.581 8.729 ***
ADP ! EM 0.497 5.664 ***
IM  ADP 0.082 0.643 n.s.
EM  ADP 0.247 2.153 **
R2 0.368 0.433 0.434 0.549
*p < 0.1 1.652
**p < 0.05 1.971
***p < 0.01 2.599
Model 2: ADP was modeled as an antecedent of BI (Figure A2) Intention to
Model 2 accounted for 43.3 per cent of variance in intentions toward M-payment usage use M-
(Figure A2). In the evaluation of Model 2, extrinsic motivation ( b = 0.297, p < 0.05) and
awareness about demonetization policy ( b = 0.371, p < 0.01) were identified as the
payment in
predictors of intention to use M-payment (Figure 3). In Model 2, awareness about India
demonetization policy was identified as the most important determinant of the intention,
followed by extrinsic motivation.
291
Model 3: ADP was modeled as an antecedent of IM and EM (Figure A3)
PLS analysis of Model 3 (Figure A3) explained 33.7 per cent of the variance in intrinsic
motivation, 58.1 per cent in extrinsic motivation and 43.4 per cent in intention. The ability of
Model 3 to explain M-payment use intention was slightly higher than Model 2. When
investigating the individual path in Model 3, it was found that extrinsic motivation had a
significant effect on intention ( b = 0.301, p < 0.05). In turn, awareness about demonetization
policy successfully predicted extrinsic motivation ( b = 0.497, p < 0.01), intrinsic motivation
( b = 0.581, p < 0.01) and intention ( b = 0.367, p < 0.01). Intrinsic motivation had an
insignificant effect on intention ( b = 0.060, p > 0.1), though its effect on extrinsic motivation
was significant ( b = 0.358, p < 0.01).

Model 4: ADP was modeled as a moderating variable (Figure A4)

Model 4 accounted for 54.9 per cent of variance in behavioral intention to use M-payment
after the moderator of the awareness about demonetization policy was included (Figure A4).
The significant moderating path, EM  ADP to BI indicated strong beta values of 0.247.
The results showed that H3b was supported (but not H3a). Awareness about
demonetization policy had a positive moderating effect on the link between extrinsic
motivation and intention to use M-payment, with a path coefficient of 0.247 and t-values of
2.153. This implied that the effect of extrinsic motivation on intention to use M-payment
would increase with any increase in awareness about demonetization policy. However, the
moderation effect of awareness about demonetization policy on intrinsic motivation and
intention was insignificant.

Overall model fit
In this research study, goodness of fit (GoF), standardized root mean square residual
(SRMSR), RMS theta and normed fit index (NFI) were measured to consider the overall fit of
the research model (Table VII). According to Hu and Bentler (1999); GoF <=1, SRMR <
0.08; NFI > 0.90 and RMS Theta < 0.12 indicate a well-fitted model. From Table VII,
extended model with awareness of demonetization policy appeared to fit relatively better
than the original maturity model, in terms of GoF, SRMSR, RMS Theta and NFI (Table VII).

Model Fit Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

2
R BI 0.368 0.433 0.434 0.549
EM 0.420 0.420 0.581 0.420
IM 0.337
GoF 0.582 0.606 0.623 0.646
SRMSR 0.721 0.065 0.049 0.032 Table VII.
RMS Theta 0.118 0.109 0.101 0.092 Model fit of the four
NFI 0.898 0.997 1.068 1.452 models
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
TG GoF ¼ AVE * R2 (1)
13,3/4
6. Discussion
This study used a well-established (the Motivation Model) to investigate M-payment user
behavioral intention concerning usage of M-payment services after the demonetization of
292 currency by the Indian Government. The PLS-SEM results demonstrated that intrinsic
motivation and extrinsic motivation (in the original Motivation Model) (Model 1) could
predict nearly 36.8 per cent variance of the intention, while intrinsic motivation was not a
significant predictor of intention. This finding is not consistent with the work of Caniëls
et al. (2015) and demonstrates the possible deficiency of predictive power. The extended
Motivation Model with awareness about demonetization policy as direct antecedent (Model
2) successfully explained, a total 43.3 per cent of variation in the usage intention. Awareness
about demonetization policy as an exogenous variable of the Motivation Model (Model 3)
explains a total of 43.4 per cent of variation only. Awareness about demonetization policy as
a moderator of Motivation Model explains a total 54.9 per cent of variation in the usage
intention. The outcomes also suggested that, the extended Motivation Model is an effective
model to address the research question and newly added constructs (demonetization)
advances the explanatory power of the original Motivation Model. The addition of
awareness about demonetization could produce a model of better fit than the original
Motivation Model. More specifically, the Motivation Model was organized in such a manner
that an affirmative change in awareness regarding demonetization policy could positively
propel consumers toward a specific behavior. Therefore, it is reasonable to integrate the
variable of awareness into the Motivation Model to obtain a better prediction effect. Thus, a
revised extended Motivation Model including awareness about demonetization policy
construct was formed.
Awareness about demonetization policy exerted a significant effect on intention to use
M-payment directly as well as indirectly through extrinsic motivation. An important
contribution is the placement of awareness about demonetization policy in the nomological
network of Motivation Model to predict the intention to use M-payment. The result also
indicated that awareness about demonetization policy moderated the extrinsic motivation
but failed to moderate the intrinsic motivation. The promising justification can be, if a
regime implements the demonetization policy to encourage corruption-free economy by
limiting the usage of traditional currency transactions and facilitating usage intention of
online transactions such as M-payment, the awareness and extrinsic motivation of the
positive consequences of M-payment usage would become more apparent and significant.
Moreover, from the government perspective too, such digital transactions were presented as
a panacea to all problems, at once ending poverty, fighting corruption, ensuring sustainable
development and modernizing the society (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh, 2018).
Even though intrinsic motivation had no direct impact, it can serve as an important
catalyst for extrinsic motivation, which is a significant determinant of intention to use M-
payment. Within the baseline integrated model of M-payment use in this study, it is
stimulating to note that extrinsic motivation had a positive impact on intention to use M-
payment whereas intrinsic motivation exercised a noteworthy indirect effect on behavioral
intention. Knowing the indirect effects of intrinsic motivation, M-payment usage initiative
must emphasis on mediations aimed to rise perceptions that M-payment is enjoyable and
easy to use. Extrinsic motivation was found to have a significant influence on the intention
to use M-payment services among users in India after demonetization. This study found that
users’ extrinsic motivation had a significant impact on the usage of M-payment, a finding
supported by the prior literature (Madan and Yadav, 2016; Shiau and Chau, 2016). Intrinsic Intention to
motivation is a stronger predictor of extrinsic motivation in the traditional Motivation use M-
Model because using mobile payment services for transactions is largely individual
behavior (especially during the demonetization period). Supported by Venkatesh et al. (2002)
payment in
and Hung et al. (2012) on intentions and diverging from the conclusions of Caniëls et al. India
(2015), this study found that intrinsic motivation was not a significant predictor of intention
to use M-payment. To increase user’s intention to use M-payment, it is imperative to have an
understanding of the user’s perception toward usefulness toward M-payment usage. 293
Therefore, after demonetization, the motivation of Indians toward M-payment should be
considered. Also, demonetization policy was fully mediated by intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation. This suggests that awareness about demonetization policy plays a
crucial role in modeling user motivations, which in line, forms the basis for intention to use
M-payment. Therefore, managerial interventions aimed at awareness about demonetization
policy might be an impactful strategy for encouraging extensive usage of M-payment
services after demonetization.

7. Implications
7.1 Theoretical implication
Very few research studies have examined individuals’ motivations with regard to
continuance usage of mobile payments (Oliveira et al., 2016). Moreover, as a new innovation,
mobile payment has not received wide acceptance among users in emerging economies (Guo
and Bouwman, 2016; Kumar and Pasha, 2017). This study offers a fairly unique viewpoint
as it examined the users’ intention for continuance usage of mobile payment services in a
developing country (India), closely following the demonetization regulation. An important
issue about public awareness regarding demonetization policy in M-payment usage
intention was whether public awareness about demonetization policy directly affects
intrinsic/extrinsic motivation or usage intention (as an antecedent) or whether it moderates
the effects of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation or usage intention (as a moderator). However,
given the well-documented inadequacy of other models in illuminating the behavioral
intention for using M-payment technologies (Oliveira et al., 2016), the proposed model
combined both perspectives of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to examine M-payment
user behavior (Davis et al., 1992; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Verhagen et al., 2012; Leone et al.,
2017; Li, 2017). Also, by using the lens of institutional theory (Zucker 1977; Zucker 1987;
Powell and DiMaggio 1991), the study introduced a theoretical construct (demonetization
policy) to extend the existing body of knowledge on how M-payment usage is influenced by
the external institutional force. Awareness about demonetization policy as a moderator of
Motivation Model explained a total 54.9 per cent of variation in the usage intention. The
outcomes also advocated that the extended Motivation Model is an effective model and
newly added constructs (awareness about demonetization policy), improves the explanatory
power of the original Motivation Model.

7.2 Managerial implication

From a practical perspective, this research study provides justification for using awareness
of mandatory demonetization policy by the government to encourage users’ to use M-
payment for transactions. In line with findings of other studies (Dinev and Hu, 2007; Madan
and Yadav, 2016) in research fields such as protective IT and mobile payment, the
awareness about demonetization policy and extrinsic motivation were determinants (main
predictor) of their willingness to use M-payment services. Mandatory regulations by
government and motivation toward M-payment use are good starting points for a cashless
TG economy. The authors believed that in India, the success of demonetization policies and
13,3/4 regulations will be limited unless the service providers and the government help individuals
form a more positive attitude toward cashless transactions through M-payment.
From the business perspective of M-payments, NFC is the most common and widespread
technology. The triumph of such technologies must be supported by substantial efforts from
services and companies (such as Android Pay, Apple Pay and Samsung Pay), who are
294 aggressive on such technologies. This investigation also suggests that corporations must
emphasize upon developing M-payment services and tools exceeding the perceived
usefulness of traditional payment systems (cash and credit cards) currently prevailing in the
markets. The usage of M-payment systems is not just dependent on its extrinsic
motivational factors; intrinsic factors are also important determinants as they trigger
consumers to choose them over other conventional payment solutions. We recommend
promotional campaigns to show the advantages resulting from M-payment use. Campaigns
must convey the significance of using M-payment as a means to attaining better flexibility
and ease of operations, especially for the young and innovative population of India. M-
payments can be marketed as a part of a modern consumer’s lifestyle rather than an
innovative product. Clearly, promotional campaigns must put emphasis on the usefulness
and benefits of M-payments, such as more secure and easy transactions, improved
performance and faster shopping. Such internal and external motivations may capture the
consumers’ attention, enhancing the likelihood for M-payment adoption and its subsequent
usage. Also, online and offline guides and brochures, with a comprehensive outline of
monetary and non-monetary paybacks from adopting such payment systems must be made
available. Promotional campaigns can also stress on the importance of mobility/flexibility.
Opinions shared by relatives and friends (over social media and other contemporary
communication channels) can also form part of a powerful strategy to stimulate awareness
and usage of M-payment services. This is so because our association with money is
extremely personal. Also, mode of payment is a habitual issue, which can change only
gradually (Oxford Economics; NTT Data; Igenico epayments; and Charney Research, 2017).

8. Conclusions
The study investigated the validity and differential predictive power of four different M-
payment usage models, by considering the effect of awareness about demonetization policy
on the core construct of the motivational model. The aim of this study was threefold. First, it
was to examine the use and efficacy of the Motivation Model in terms of the intention to use
M-payment after demonetization in India. Second, the study aimed to improve the
explanatory power of the Motivation Model by adding the factor of awareness about
demonetization policy. Finally, this study attempted to explain the moderating effect of
awareness about demonetization policy on intention to use M-payment in India. Thus, three
major findings ensued from the study. First, it was established that the Motivation Model is
an effective framework for predicting intentions to use M-payment. Second, the usefulness
of incorporating measures that capture the factor awareness about demonetization policy
into the framework of the Motivation Model was emphasized. All three constructs seem to
be useful in terms of understanding and predicting the users’ intentions to use M-payment
after demonetization in India. Third, the findings of this study revealed that after
demonetization in India, the role of motivation and awareness acquire immense importance
in terms of predicting intention to use M-payment among Indian users. While several
previous researchers have extended the Motivation Model with additional constructs for
usage behavior, this research contributes the existing literature by incorporating awareness
about demonetization policy into the empirical research model. The enhanced model would
help policymakers better understand the factors affecting intention to use M-payment post Intention to
the demonetization event. use M-
payment in
9. Limitations and future research
Since this study is carried out in India, the results might not be applicable to other countries.
India
It is recommended that future studies should focus on understanding the impact of
mandatory government policies on consumer’s behavioral intention in the context of other
nations. Furthermore, a comparative study is required to compare the results yielded in
295
different nations. Also, as this is a cross-sectional study, future research can aim at using a
longitudinal method to observe the change of consumers’ behavior because of mandatory
government policies over time. Since this research study only focused on a narrow group of
respondents, a wider group of respondents is also encouraged in future. Finally, in this
research study, the demonetization policy measures are considered as a single construct, i.e.
awareness about demonetization policy. In future, further investigation is required to
understand the impact of different aspects of demonetization on continuance usage intention
of mobile payment services.

References
Ahuja, R. (2018), “Mobile payments for conducting M-Commerce”, In I. Management Association (Ed.),
Mobile Commerce: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, IGI Global, Hershey, PA,
pp. 450-467, doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2599-8.ch024.
Amstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1973), “Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific
behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 41-57.
Amabile, T.M. and Kramer, S.J. (2007), “Inner work life: understanding the subtext of business”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 72-83.
Anderson, G. (2014), “Retail experts see hurdles to apple pay adoption”, available at: www.forbes.com/sites/
retailwire/2014/09/11/retail-experts-see-hurdles-to-apple-pay-adoption/ (accessed 16 January 2019).
Ayeh, J.K., Au, N. and Law, R. (2013), “Do we believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining credibility
perceptions and online travelers’ attitude toward using user-generated content”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 437-452.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Balaji, K.C. and Balaji, K. (2017), “A study on demonetization and its impact on cashless transactions”,
International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Development, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 58-64.
Balaji, S., Khan, H., Janga Reddy, M. and Gurunadha Babu, M. (2017), “Authentication frameworks for
enhancing security in biometric systems”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 1073-1080.
Bhuvana, M. and Vasantha, S. (2017), “Mediating effect of demonetization of currency notes towards
adopting cashless payment system”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 699-707.
Bickford, D.M. and Reynolds, N. (2002), “Activism and service-learning: reframing volunteerism as acts
of dissent”, Pedagogy, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 229-252. from Project MUSE database, (accessed 3 August
2018).
Campbell-Kelly, M., Garcia-Swartz, D., Lam, R. and Yang, Y. (2014), “Economic and business
perspectives on smartphones as multi-sided platforms”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39
No. 8, pp. 717-734.
TG Caniëls, M.C., Lenaerts, H.K. and Gelderman, C.J. (2015), “Explaining the internet usage of SMEs: the
impact of market orientation, behavioural norms, motivation and technology acceptance”,
13,3/4 Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 358-377.
Chandrasekhar, C.P. and Ghosh, J. (2018), “The financialization of finance? Demonetization and the
dubious push to cashlessness in India”, Development and Change, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 420-436.
Chen, L. (2008), “A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 32-52.
296
Chiu, P.H.P. and Li, R.K.Y. (2015), “Enhancing student motivation using lecturetools: a cloud-based
teaching and learning platform”, Knowledge Management and E-Learning, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 250-264.
Constantiou, I.D., Damsgaard, J. and Knutsen, L. (2006), “Exploring perceptions and use of mobile
services: user differences in an advancing market”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J. and Zmijewska, A. (2008), “Past, present and future of mobile
payments research: a literature review”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 165-181.
Dasgupta, D. (2016), “Theoretical analysis of demonetisation”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 51
No. 51, pp. 67-71.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14, pp. 1111-1132.
De Reuver, M., Verschuur, E., Nikayin, F., Cerpa, N. and Bouwman, H. (2015), “Collective action for
mobile payment platforms: a case study on collaboration issues between banks and telecom
operators”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 2015, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 331-344, doi:
10.1016/j.elerap.2014.08.004.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999), “A Meta-analytic review of experiments examining the
effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 6,
pp. 627-668.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior,
Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The” what” and” why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-
determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-268.
Deng, Z., Mo, X. and Liu, S. (2014), “Comparison of the Middle-aged and older users’ adoption of
mobile health services in China”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 83 No. 3,
pp. 210-224.
DiMaggio, P.J. (1988), “Interest and agency in institutional theory”, in Institutional Patterns and
Organizations, Zucker, L. G. (Ed.),Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 147-160.
Dinev, T. and Hart, P. (2005), “Internet privacy concerns and social awareness as determinants of
intention to transact”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 7-29.
Dinev, T. and Hu, Q. (2007), “The centrality of awareness in the formation of user behavioral intention
toward protective information technologies”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 386-408.
eMarketer (2018), “More than a quarter of india’s population will be smartphone users this year”,
available at: www.emarketer.com/content/morethan-a-quarter-of-india-s-population-will-be-
smartphone-users-this-year, (accssed 3 Feburary 2019).
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Dryder, New York,
NY.
Fagan, M.H., Neill, S. and Wooldridge, B.R. (2008), “Exploring the intention to use computers: an Intention to
empirical investigation of the role of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and perceived
ease of use”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 31-37.
use M-
Fakhr, A. (2016), “Security, privacy and ethical barriers in adoption of RFID in healthcare sector
payment in
(Iranian hospitals)”, Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1811-1821. India
Field, A. (2009), Discovering Statistics Using, OKS Print. LA, SAGE Publications, (i.e. Thousand Oaks,
Calif).
Flanagin, A.J. (2000), “Social pressures on organizational website adoption”, Human Communication
297
Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 618-646.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gefen, D. (2000), “E-Commerce: the role of familiarity and trust”, Omega, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725-737.
Ghosh, J., Chandrasekhar, C.P., and Patnaik, P. (2017), Demonetisation Decoded: A Critique of India’s
Currency Experiment, Routledge/Taylor and Francis, London.
Goriparthi, R.K. and Tiwari, P. (2017), “Demonetization in India an era for digital payments”, Splint
International Journal of Professionals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 40-14.
Greene, S.R. and Kamimura, M. (2003), “Ties that bind: enhanced social awareness development
through interactions with diverse peers”, In Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education, pp. 213-228.
Grouzet, F.M.E., Vallerand, R.J., Thill, E.E. and Provencher, P.J. (2004), “From environmental factors to
outcomes: a test of an integrated motivational sequence”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 331-346.
Gular, I., Guillen, M.F. and MacPherson, J.M. (2002), “Global competition, institutions, and the diffusion
of organizational practices: the international spread of ISO 9000 quality certificates”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 207-232.
Guo, J. and Bouwman, H. (2016), “An analytical framework for an m-payment ecosystem: a merchants
perspective”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 40 Nos 2/3, pp. 147-167.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Hew, J.-., Lee, V.-., Ooi, K.-. and Wei, J. (2015), “What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an empirical
analysis”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 7, pp. 1269-1291.
Hoelter, J.W. (1983), “The analysis of covariance structures: goodness-of-fit indices”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 325-344.
Hong, S., Kim, J. and Lee, H. (2008), “Antecedents of use-continuance in information systems: toward an
integrative view”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 61-73.
Hu, L.-T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hung, S., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. and Lin, W. (2011), “The influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
on individuals knowledge sharing behavior”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
Vol. 69 No. 6, pp. 415-427.
Hung, M., Yang, S. and Hsieh, T. (2012), “An examination of the determinants of mobile shopping
continuance”, International Journal of Electronic Business Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
Hu, Q. and Quan, J. (2006), “The institutionalization of IT budgeting: evidence from the financial
sector”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 84-97.
Hu, Q., Hart, P. and Cooke, D. (2006), “The role of external influences on organizational information
security practices: an institutional perspective”, paper presented at the 39th HI International
Conference on Systems Science, Kauai, HI.
TG Ifinedo, P. (2017), “Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning: perspectives
from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive frameworks”, Computers in
13,3/4 Human Behavior, Vol. 72, pp. 189-199.
Iman, N. (2018), “Is mobile payment still relevant in the fintech era?”, Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, Vol. 30, pp. 72-82.
Johnson, V.L., Kiser, A., Washington, R. and Torres, R. (2018), “Limitations to the rapid adoption of M-
payment services: understanding the impact of privacy risk on M-Payment services”, Computers
298 in Human Behavior, Vol. 79, pp. 111-122.
Kleijnena, M., Ruyterb, K. and Wetzelsb, M. (2007), “An assessment of value creation in mobile service
delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Kline, R.B. (2015), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford publications,
London, New York, NY.
Koo, C., Chung, N. and Nam, K. (2015), “Assessing the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators on
smart green IT device use: reference group perspectives”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 64-79.
Krishnan, D. and Siegel, S. (2017), “Survey of the effects of demonetisation on 28 slum neighbourhoods
in mumbai”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 1-21.
Kristoffersen, S., Synstad, A. and Sorli, K. (2008), “Users’ perception of mobile payment”, Knowledge
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 122-143.
Kulkarni, K.G. and Tapas, P. (2017), “Demonetization comparatistics: India and others”, SCMS Journal
of Indian Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 05-13.
Kumar, P.K. and Pasha, M.A. (2017), “A study to propose a model for consumers’ attitude towards
online banking after recent demonetization in India”, Saudi Journal of Business and
Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 01, pp. 01-03.
Leone, C., Lim, J.S.L., Stern, A., Charles, J., Black, S. and Baecker, R. (2017), “Communication technology
adoption among older adult veterans: the interplay of social and cognitive factors”, Aging and
Mental Health, Vol. 22 No. 12, pp. 1666-1677.
Leong, L., Ooi, K., Chong, A.Y. and Lin, B. (2011), “Influence of individual characteristics, perceived
usefulness and ease of use on mobile entertainment adoption”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 359-382.
Li, Y. (2017), “Individuals’ motivations to adopt smart technologies for Tourism - Discrepancy between
initial and post adoption”, Streitz N., Markopoulos P. (Eds), Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive
Interactions, DAPI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Cham, Vol 10291.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 59-87.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinkovic, V., Ramos de Luna, I. and Kalinic, Z. (2018), “Predicting the
determinants of mobile payment acceptance: a hybrid SEM-neural network approach”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 117-130.
Lin, C.Y. and Ho, Y.H. (2009), “An empirical study on the adoption of RFID technology for logistics
service providers in China”, International Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
Liu, Y., Yang, Y., Wei, J. and Wang, X. (2015), “An examination on RFID innovation diffusions in
chinese public intelligent transportation services”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 549-566.
Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P.Y.K. and Cao, Y. (2011), “Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 393-403.
Madan, K. and Yadav, R. (2016), “Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: a developing country
perspective”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V.K. and Öörni, A. (2009), “The impact of use context on mobile Intention to
services acceptance: the case of mobile ticketing”, Information and Management, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 190-195. use M-
Markus, M.L. and Tanis, C. (2000), “The enterprise system experience-from adoption to success”, Zmud, payment in
R.W., (Ed.), Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past, India
Cincinnati, Chapter 10, Pinnaflex Educational Resources Inc., pp. 173-207.
Mehta, S., Patel, K. and Mehta, K. (2016), “Demonetisation: shifting gears from physical cash to digital
cash (no. 2016-12-14)”, Working papers 2016-12-14, Voice of Research, available at: https://ideas. 299
repec.org/p/vor/issues/2016-12-14.html (accessed 1 August 2018).
Midthanpally, R.S. (2017), “Demonetisation and remonetisation in India: state-induced chaos or
responsible governance?”, South Asia Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 213-227.
Mizruchi, M. and Fein, L. (1999), “The social construction of organiza- tional knowledge: a study of the
uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 653-683.
Mohd, M.S. (2016), “Demonetization of currency notes: significance and challenges”, International
Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 60-64.
Molina-Castillo, F.-., Rodriguez-Guirao, A., Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Bouwman, H. (2016), “Analysis of
mobile pre-payment (pay in advance) and post-payment (pay later) services”, International
Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 499-517.
Newby, T.J. and Alter, P.A. (1989), “Task motivation: learner selection of intrinsic versus extrinsic
orientations”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 77-89.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I. (1994), Psychometric Theory 3rd ed, 1994 McGraw-Hill. New York, NY.
Oliveira, T., Baptista, G. and Thomas, M.A. (2016), “Mobile-Payment: understanding the determinants
of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 404-414.
Ooi, K. and Tan, G.W. (2016), “Mobile technology acceptance model: an investigation using mobile
users to explore smartphone credit card”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 59, pp. 33-46.
Ortiz de Guinea, A. and Markus, M.L. (2009), “Why break the habit of a lifetime? Rethinking the roles of
intention, habit, and emotion in continuing information technology use”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33
No. 3, pp. 433-444.
Oxford Economics; NTT Data; Igenico epayments; and Charney Research (2017), The future of money:
how digital payments are changing global commerce. available at: https://d1iydh3qrygeij.
cloudfront.net/Media/Default/landing-pages/recent-releases/2017/Future_of_Money_Report_V12%20
FINAL%20WEB.pdf, (accessed 17 October 2017).
Pachare, S.M. (2016), “Demonetization: unpacking the digital wallets”, We’ken- International Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 180-183.
Palmer, D.A., Jennings, P.D. and Zhou, X.G. (1993), “Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large
US corporations: institutional, political, and economic accounts”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 100-131.
Park, S. and Nicolau, J.L. (2015), “Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews”, Annals of Tourism
Research, Vol. 50, pp. 67-83.
Penz, E. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2013), “Triangulating consumers’ perceptions of payment systems by
using social representations theory: a multi-method approach”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 293-306.
Pham, T.T.T. and Ho, J.C. (2015), “The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and
attractiveness of alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 43, pp. 159-172.
Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (1991), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-38.
TG Ranganathan, C., Teo, T.S.H. and Dhaliwal, J. (2011), “Web-enabled supply chain management: key
antecedents and performance impacts”, International Journal of Information Management,
13,3/4 Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 533-545.
Reddy, C.R. (2017), BlackMoney and Demonetisation, Orient Blackswan Publishers, Hyderabad.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, S. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta, Hamburg.
San Martín, H. and Herrero, Á. (2012), “Influence of the user’s psychological factors on the online
300 purchase intention in rural tourism: integrating innovativeness to the UTAUT framework”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 341-350.
Schierz, P.G., Schilke, O. and Wirtz, B.W. (2010), “Understanding consumer acceptance of mobile
payment services: an empirical analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 209-216.
Shiau, W.-. and Chau, P.Y.K. (2016), “Understanding behavioral intention to use a cloud computing
classroom: a multiple model comparison approach”, Information and Management, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 355-365.
Shih, D., Chiu, Y., Chang, S. and Yen, D.C. (2008), “An empirical study of factors affecting RFID’s
adoption in Taiwan”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 58-80.
Sivathanu, B. (2019), “Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in India: an
empirical study”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 143-171.
Slade, E.L., Williams, M. and Dwivedi, Y. (2013), “Mobile payment adoption: classification and review
of existant literature”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Snell, W.E., Jr, Fisher, T.D. and Miller, R.S. (1991), “Development of the sexual awareness questionnaire:
components, reliability, and validity”, Annals of Sex Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-92.
Starbuck, W.H. and Webster, J. (1991), “When is play productive?”, Accounting, Management and
Information Technologies, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-90.
Stevens, J.P. (2012), Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Routledge.
Tenenhaus, M., Amato, S. and Esposito Vinzi, V. (2004), “A global goodness-of-fit index for PLS structural
equation modelling”, in Proceedings of the XLII SIS Scientific Meeting, Vol. 1, pp. 739-742.
Teo, A.-., Tan, G.W., Ooi, K.-. and Lin, B. (2015), “Why consumers adopt mobile payment? A partial
least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach”, International Journal of
Mobile Communications, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 478-497.
Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K. and Benbasat, I. (2003), “Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages:
an institutional perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 19-49.
Thong, J.Y.L. (2001), “Resource constraints and information systems implementation in singaporean
small businesses”, Omega, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 143-156.
Tillman, B. (2002), “Internet privacy legislation emerges: new legislation could bring US privacy
protection laws into step with those of the european union. (legislative and regulatory update)”,
Information Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 14-18.
Tingling, P. and Parent, M. (2002), “Mimetic isomorphism and technology evaluation: does imitation
transcend judgment?”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 113-143.
Tsui, L. (2000), “Effects of campus culture on students’ critical thinking”, The Review of Higher
Education, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 421-441.
Upadhyay, P. and Jahanyan, S. (2016), “Analyzing user perspective on the factors affecting use intention
of mobile based transfer payment”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 38-56.
Vahidalizadehdizaj, M. and Leider, A. (2018), “Mobile payment protocol 3D (MPP 3D) by using cloud
messaging”, Latifi S. (Eds), Information Technology – New Generations. Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing, Vol 558, Springer, Cham.
Vallerand, R.J. and Blssonnette, R. (1992), “Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of Intention to
behavior: a prospective study”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 599-620.
use M-
Van Yperen, N.W., Wörtler, B. and De Jonge, K.M.M. (2016), “Workers’ intrinsic work motivation when
job demands are high: the role of need for autonomy and perceived opportunity for blended
payment in
working”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 60, pp. 179-184. India
Venkatesh, V. (1999), “Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic
motivation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 239-260.
301
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C. and Morris, M.G. (2002), “User acceptance enablers in individual decision
making about technology: towards an integrated model”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 297-316.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
Verhagen, T., Feldberg, F., van den Hooff, B., Meents, S. and Merikivi, J. (2012), “Understanding users’
motivations to engage in virtual worlds: a multipurpose model and empirical testing”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 484-495.
Verma, S. (2017), “The adoption of big data services by manufacturing firms: an empirical
investigation in India”, Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 39-68.
Wakefield, R.L. and Whitten, D. (2006), “Mobile computing: a user study on hedonic/utilitarian mobile
device usage”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 292-300.
Wang, T., Oh, L.-., Wang, K. and Yuan, Y. (2013), “User adoption and purchasing intention after free
trial: an empirical study of mobile newspapers”, Information Systems and e-Business
Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 189-210.
Wang, W.T., Ou, W.M. and Chen, W.Y. (2019), “The impact of inertia and user satisfaction on the
continuance intentions to use mobile communication applications: a mobile service
quality perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 44,
pp. 178-193.
Wan, C. and Shen, G.Q. (2013), “Perceived policy effectiveness and recycling behaviour: the missing
link”, Waste Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 783-784.
Wan, C., Shen, G.Q. and Yu, A. (2014), “The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on
recycling intention”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 55-60.
Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H. and Yu, B. (2015), “Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment
acceptance”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 253-269.
Yoo, S.J., Han, S.-. and Huang, W. (2012), “The roles of intrinsic motivators and extrinsic motivators in
promoting e-learning in the workplace: a case from South Korea”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 942-950.
Zhou, T. (2013), “An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1085-1091.
Zhu, H., Gupta, A., Majumder, B. and Steinbach, S. (2018), “Short-term effects of india’s demonetization
on the rural poor”, Economics Letters, Vol. 170, pp. 117-121.
Zucker, L.G. (1977), “The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 726-743.
Zucker, L.G. (1987), “Institutional theory of organization”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 443-464.
TG Further reading
13,3/4 Davis, F. (1993), “User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions
and behavioral impacts”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 475-487.
Gattiker, T.F. and Goodhue, D.L. (2005), “What happens after ERP implementation: understanding the
impact of interdependence and differentiation on Plant-Level outcomes”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 559-585.
302
Markus, M.L. (1987), “Toward a “critical mass” theory of interactive media: universal access,
interdependence and diffusion”, Communication Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 491-511.
Appendix Intention to
use M-
payment in
India

303

Figure A1.
Original model

Figure A2.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as antecedents of
behavioral intention
in Motivational
Model
TG
13,3/4

304

Figure A3.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as an antecedents of
intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in
Motivational Model

Figure A4.
Awareness of
demonetization policy
as a moderator in
Motivational Model
 Substantive factor Substantive Method factor Method
Intention to
Constructs Indicators loading (Ra) variance (Ra2) loading (Rb) variance (Rb2) use M-
payment in
BI BI1 0.914*** 0.829 0.013 NS 0.001
BI2 0.885*** 0.799 0.0511 NS 0.001 India
BI3 0.821*** 0.643 0.0048 NS 0.000
IM IOT1 0.812*** 0.713 0.015 NS 0.001
IOT2 0.888*** 0.792 0.028 NS 0.000 305
IOT3 0.912*** 0.822 0.065* 0.000
IOT4 0.831*** 0.782 0.041 NS 0.002
ADP ISC1 0.887*** 0.789 0.025 NS 0.003
ISC2 0.921*** 0.852 0.014 NS 0.002
ISC3 0.846*** 0.697 0.043 NS 0.011
ISC4 0.811*** 0.656 0.057 NS 0.001
EM PB1 0.841*** 0.714 0.024 NS 0.004
PB2 0.829*** 0.698 0.024 NS 0.046
PB3 0.861*** 0.759 0.018 NS 0.001
PB4 0.742*** 0.561 0.068* 0.002
PB5 0.891*** 0.787 0.209** 0.000
Table AI.
Average 0.856 0.743 0.015 0.005 An alternative test
for common method
Notes: ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, (*) p < 0.10, NS insignificant bias

About the authors

Dr Sushil S. Chaurasia is an Assistant Professor in Marketing Area at NMIMS, Navi Mumbai, India.
He has a Master’s degree and a PhD from the University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India. He received
the Outstanding Paper award at the 2018 Emerald Literati Awards (25th) for research excellence. His
work has been published in reputed listed journals (International journal of Education Management,
Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing and Industrial and Commercial Training) and
cases are published in Emerald Emerging Markets Case. Sushil S. Chaurasia is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: chaurasia.sushil@gmail.com
Surabhi Verma is an Assistant Professor in Management of Information System at Narsee Monjee
Institute of Management Studies University (NMIMS), Navi Mumbai, India. She is a senior FPM at
NITIE, Mumbai. She received an M. Tech from IIT (ISM), Dhanbad, India. Her work has been
published in reputed listed journals and conferences, including, Academy of Management,
Information Processing and Management, Information Resources Management Journal, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Strategic Direction, International Journal of Business Analytics
and Emerging Economy Studies.
An ICSSR fellow, Dr Vibhav Singh is working as an Assistant Professor of Management of
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management at NMIMS, Navi Mumbai, India. She
completed her doctorate from TISS, Mumbai. She has taught at reputed institutions like IIM Trichy
and IMT Ghaziabad. Her work has been published in reputed listed journals and presented her
research work in coveted conferences like Academy of Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com