A Meta Analysis of Ewallet Adoption Using The UTAUT Model

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359239341
A meta-analysis of eWallet adoption using the UTAUT model
Article in International Journal of Bank Marketing · March 2022

DOI: 10.1108/IJBM-06-2021-0258
CITATIONS READS
8 1,322
3 authors:
William H Bommer Shailesh Rana

California State University, Fresno California State University, Fresno
62 PUBLICATIONS 10,739 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Emil Milevoj
California State University, Fresno
9 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The effect of COVID-19 crisis on exporters and export assistance programs View project
The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Government Assistance Programs on SMEs in the State of California View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Shailesh Rana on 15 March 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-2323.htm
A meta-analysis of eWallet eWallet

adoption
adoption using the UTAUT model meta-analysis
William H. Bommer
Department of Management, California State University Fresno,
Fresno, California, USA
Shailesh Rana Received 22 June 2021
Department of Accountancy, California State University Fresno, Revised 12 November 2021
28 January 2022
Fresno, California, USA, and 28 February 2022
Emil Milevoj Accepted 28 February 2022
Department of Management, California State University Fresno,

Fresno, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to integrate extant research on eWallet adoption to better understand the key
antecedents to eWallet use intention and examine whether the relationships differ across multiple moderators.
Design/methodology/approach – To integrate eWallet adoption findings, the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology (UTAUT) and its extensions were utilized. Meta-analyses estimated the relationships
between eWallet use intention and seven antecedents and the intercorrelations between antecedents. A total of
28 effects were calculated, utilizing 48 studies and 444 individual effect sizes, using 14,802 subjects. Using meta-
analytically derived values, regression and relative weight analysis then determined each antecedent’s relative
utility. Furthermore, moderator analyses examined whether eight theoretically based moderators influenced
the relationships between the antecedents and eWallet use intention.
Findings – Price value, hedonic motivation, facilitating conditions and social influence had the strongest
relationships with the intention to use eWallets, accounting for virtually all the unique variance. The three
weakest antecedents, however, still explained a large percentage of variance. No relationships were
significantly moderated.
Research limitations/implications – Due to the lack of data in primary studies, some UTAUT moderators
could not be analyzed. Also, common method variance may impact the findings because the primary studies
used cross-sectional surveys.
Practical implications – This study provides guidance regarding how companies can increase eWallet
adoption rates, which have lagged in certain countries. These recommendations include specific techniques for
tailoring messages and emphasizing features and benefits.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first integrative meta-analysis
conducted on eWallet use. Combining meta-analysis, regression and relative weight analysis, this study
provides an integration of what is currently known about eWallet use intentions.
Keywords Meta-analysis, Technology adoption, Intention to use, UTAUT2, eWallets,
Relative weights analysis
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Fintech (the term used to describe any technology that delivers financial services through
software, such as online banking, mobile payment apps or even cryptocurrency) has
revolutionized banking around the world and created competition for traditional banks,
where little previously existed. A particularly interesting and relevant form of fintech is the
electronic wallet (eWallet), which is a personal folder that includes customer information
required from service providers for ensuring the security of mobile transactions (Chawla and
Joshi, 2019). The use of eWallets can be an important tool to achieve broader financial International Journal of Bank
Marketing
inclusion around the world. Bhanot et al. (2012) define financial inclusion as the process of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-2323
providing access to financial services for vulnerable groups at an affordable cost and mention DOI 10.1108/IJBM-06-2021-0258
IJBM that financial inclusion has remained very low in developing countries. The World Bank
estimates that about 1.7 billion people in the world currently do not have a bank account
(Demirg€ uç-Kunt et al., 2020). Since the majority of poor residents in emerging countries do not
have a bank account but do possess smartphones, eWallets offer a method for these people to
participate more fully in commerce and benefit by being a part of the global banking system
(Ndassi Teutio et al., 2021).
The benefits of eWallets are manifold. For those who already have banking access,
eWallets offer the advantages of easy cashless transactions, low costs and significant
flexibility. For individuals who do not have banking access, loading cash into an eWallet and
using a mobile device to facilitate payments provides important financial access. The major
benefits of using eWallets include minimizing cash handling risks, as well as fraud reduction,
faster payments and saving effort and time (Shaw and Kesharwani, 2019). These benefits are
shared by both customers and merchants (Chatterjee and Bolar, 2019). As a result, in
developing and emerging countries, the use of mobile payments using eWallets has grown
quickly with countries like Malaysia (e.g. Chan et al., 2020) and India (e.g. Chawla and Joshi,
2019) making significant efforts to increase their use. Individuals or households without bank
accounts or access to banking services are not limited to developing countries. The FDIC
reports that over seven million households in the USA did not have a single member with a
bank account (FDIC, 2019). Further, countries across Europe have widely varying rates of
“banked” households with many Eastern European countries lagging behind much of the rest
of the world (Demirg€ uç-Kunt et al., 2020).
Despite the benefits associated with eWallets, their usage growth rate has not been as high
as anticipated (Teng and Khong, 2021), and the usage has been more country-specific than
would be predicted by the benefits (De Best, 2021). To improve these usage rates, it is
imperative for the industry to understand the contributing factor(s) toward this slower than
the expected growth. The significant academic literature in recent years has addressed the
intention to use eWallets from the perspective of technology adoption, but no empirical
integrative effort has been conducted to distill the findings and to highlight what factors
stand out to explain the intention to use this technology. It is this goal that drives the current
research. The outcome of this endeavor will be useful for the industry to facilitate the
conversion of potential consumers from non-users to users and to hopefully bring more users
into the global economic system and harness the potential benefits it offers.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides the literature
review on eWallets and the theoretical framework for this study. Section 3 presents the
methods describing the data, variables and meta-analytical procedures used. This is followed
by Section 4 which contains the study’s results. Section 5 presents the discussion of the
results including the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, future
research directions and conclusion.
2. Literature review
The origin of the concept that has evolved to be known as eWallets (or digital wallets) can be
traced back to 1997, when Coca-Cola introduced a digital payment system for users to buy
drinks from vending machines using a text message from their smartphones (Scott-Briggs,
2016). Ten years later, a series of startup fintech companies including Braintree, Klarna and
Ayden entered the field to expand on in-app payments (US Payments Forum, 2018). Google
Wallet was the first of the major tech companies to introduce an eWallet in 2011. From that
time to the present, many large tech firms (e.g. Apple, Alibaba, PayPal, Amazon, Samsung,
etc.) have also introduced eWallets.
The demand for eWallets is linked to the public’s desire to engage in mobile payments
and enjoy the benefit of cashless transactions using a digital form of a physical wallet
(Phuong et al., 2020; To and Trinh, 2021). As a result of this demand, mainly in developing eWallet
countries, the overall usage rate of eWallets grew by 7% globally in 2020, and it is estimated adoption
that about half of all sales related to e-commerce will be based on eWallets by 2023 (Snider,
2020). While the usage of eWallets has been growing, the main driver of this growth is the
meta-analysis
eWallet’s ability to assist in easily making payments through mobile devices.
The terms “digital wallets” or “mobile wallets” have also been used interchangeably in lieu
of “eWallets” in literature (cf. Mew and Millan, 2021; Ramli and Hamzah, 2021; Teng and
Khong, 2021; Tun, 2020; U.S. Payments Forum, 2018; Yang et al., 2021). For the purpose of this
study, we focus specifically on eWallet as an encompassing technological concept that
facilitates mobile payments, using an eWallet system, and aim to understand the influence of
specific antecedents on the intention to use eWallets, from the (existing or potential)
customer’s point of view. This definition is in line with Ramli and Hamzah (2021); the authors
define eWallet as “ . . .. a mobile device-based platform that facilitates cashless payments of a
sales transaction –either in proximity or remotely, between consumers and merchants or service
providers.”
While offering all the convenience and added security for customers, eWallets also
provide benefits for merchants (Shin, 2009). From the merchant’s perspective, receiving
payments quickly speeds up their cash conversion cycle, which is particularly important for
the working capital management of small businesses. In addition, consumer behavior data
that can be more easily accumulated in a digital format can also be an important resource for
larger merchants (Mew and Millan, 2021). Understanding what drives the adoption of eWallet
technology has thus become an important question for the industry. In this study, we tackle
this question by exploring the antecedents on the intention to use eWallet, specifically using
the technology adoption lens.
2.1 The UTAUT as a framework for understanding the adoption of technology

Venkatesh et al. (2003) developed the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) by synthesizing previous technology acceptance and use studies and the models
those studies employed. More specifically, the original UTAUT model relied heavily upon the
diffusion of innovation theory, theory of planned behavior, theory of reasoned action and the
technology acceptance model for its theoretical underpinnings, as well as the generation of
the variables included as the antecedents to the behavioral intention to use and the ultimate
usage of technology. These original four antecedents were performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions.
Performance expectancy is the degree to which users believe a technology will benefit
them when engaging in a specific activity. Effort expectancy is the degree to which a user
believes that the technology will be easy to use relative to the amount of effort put forth. Social
influence is the degree to which users believe that relevant referent others believe they should
use the technology. Lastly, facilitating conditions are the degree to which the user believes
that the technology is supported by helpful organizational and technical infrastructure.
These four constructs then influence the behavioral intention to use the technology and the
technology’s subsequent use via both direct and indirect means (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
In 2012, the UTAUT was formally extended and adapted for consumer contexts via the
UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012). A key difference is that UTAUT2 was specifically
developed as a model of predicting consumer adoption of a new technology rather than
employee adoption of a new workplace system. The UTAUT2 adds three new predictor
variables to the existing four of UTAUT. The three new variables in UTAUT2 are hedonic
motivation, price value and habit. Hedonic motivation refers to the enjoyment that a user
derives from using a new technology, whereas price value refers to the functional value users
believe they are deriving from adopting a new technology. Habit refers to the extent of users’
IJBM past experience with a technology or similar technologies and the degree to which they
believe the skills needed to operate the new technology to be habitual or previously learned.
The UTAUT2 model and its variations have been utilized in recent studies related to eWallets
(e.g. Chauhan et al., 2021; Chresentia and Suharto, 2020; Soodan and Rana, 2020). In many
instances, studies examining eWallet usage augment the aforementioned theoretical models,
by adding predictor variables, renaming and clarifying some variables and, in some
instances, using some but not all of the predictor or outcome variables (e.g. Chao, 2019;
Chatterjee and Bolar, 2019; Chresentia and Suharto, 2020). In other words, many studies have
started with a foundational approach and have then extended that approach in some way to
explore some distinct antecedents to the intention to use eWallets.
The predictive records of the UTAUT and UTAUT2 are robust (e.g. Rondan-Catalu~ na
et al., 2015; Tamilmani et al., 2021). They have been applied to a wide array of recently
developed technologies. More specifically, these models have been applied to technologies
including mobile banking (cf., Oliveira et al., 2014), computer security (cf., Khalilzadeh et al.,
2017), e-government (cf., Rodrigues et al., 2016), health information technology (cf.,
Kijsanayotin et al., 2009), electronic document management systems (cf., Ayaz and
Yanartaş, 2020), mobile learning adoption (cf., Chao, 2019), physical activity apps (cf.,
Yang and Koenigstorfer, 2021) and a host of other related technological developments. As a
result, the body of primary studies that have used the UTAUT and UTAUT2 is extensive and
its usage to specifically explore the behavioral intentions to use eWallets is not an exception.
2.2 Moderators of the importance of the UTAUT antecedents

After reviewing the eWallet literature and the different versions of the UTAUT, we
determined that three specific categories of moderator variables would be important to
understand whether the relationships reported in the literature were generalizable across the
extant research or whether these relationships depended upon differences associated with the
individual research samples. More specifically, based on their use in the extant literature, and
their ability to be objectively coded, we found that user status, country innovation level and
country cultural differences could all play potentially important roles in explaining the
relationship between the UTAUT antecedents and the intention to use eWallets. Moreover,
these three categories provided a total of eight moderators with country cultural differences
having six specific moderators, with country innovation level and user status having one.
The six culture-specific moderators were based upon the country in which the primary study
collected its sample. The authors then coded each primary study for values on the eight
moderators explored. Appendix provides detailed coding of moderators for each of the
included studies.
2.2.1 The moderating role of user status. To increase the adoption and the success of
eWallets, the growth of their user base is needed. This can be achieved by ensuring that the
current users stay engaged while new users are added. The technology adoption literature
sometimes refers to this as previous experience with the technology, but in other cases, it is
also known as continuous use intention (cf. Daragmeh et al., 2021; Routray et al., 2019). We
determined that the user’s status could significantly impact the relationship between the
antecedents and the intention to use eWallets. More specifically, continuing users should
show a stronger relationship between the antecedents and the intention to use because the
decision to use would be a more familiar one, making it more likely that they would act on
positive conditions associated with individual antecedents.
2.2.2 The moderating role of country innovation level. Even though the adoption of
eWallets has caused a disruption in the banking sector around the globe, there are still certain
conditions that need to be present in a country for eWallets to succeed. The studies in our
sample range from countries with significantly different innovation levels, from Myanmar
(e.g. Tun, 2020) to the USA (e.g. Shin, 2009). Therefore, we decided to assess the country’s eWallet
innovation level as a potential moderator of the relationship between the investigated adoption
antecedents and the intention to use eWallets. For the current meta-analysis, it seems
reasonable that individuals from countries exhibiting higher innovation levels would have
meta-analysis
stronger relationships between the antecedents and intention to use eWallets than would
individuals from countries exhibiting lower innovation levels. The individuals from countries
with higher innovation levels will likely have more tools at their disposal to facilitate their
intention to use eWallets. This reasoning is in line with two recent meta-analysis studies of
mobile banking adoption investigating the innovation level of a country as a moderator (Jadil
et al., 2021; Santini et al., 2019).
2.2.3 The moderating role of national culture. UTAUT studies often urge conducting large-
scale cross-country comparisons as part of their discussion for future research or limitations
of their work (Teo et al., 2015). Therefore, we have included cultural measures to examine the
moderating influence of culture on the relationships between the UTAUT antecedents and
the intention to use eWallets. Scholars have been advocating for the inclusion of cultural
moderators in order to better understand the impact of culture on technology acceptance and
use (Baptista and Oliveira, 2015). To test the influence of national culture on technology
adoption, researchers have generally relied on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (Blut et al.,
2022). These dimensions include power distance, individualism versus collectivism,
masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation versus short-
term orientation and indulgence versus restraint (Hofstede Insights, 2021). Even though some
of the studies referenced above only used some of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, we decided
to use all six dimensions to provide a more comprehensive assessment.
In general, the cultural dimensions can be thought of as making it more or less likely that
individuals will act upon the antecedent conditions. More specifically, in cases where the
antecedents conditions are very favorable, we expect the people from cultures that favor
action or aggression to be more likely to act upon these favorable conditions; and people from
cultures that favor restraint, analysis or the avoidance of risk to be less likely to act upon
these favorable conditions. The same conditions can be considered for adverse antecedent
conditions. When the antecedent conditions are poor (i.e. low facilitating conditions, lower
price value, lower effort expectancy, etc.), we would expect a weaker relationship between the
antecedents and the intention to use eWallets. To test this, all six of Hofstede’s cultural
dimensions were evaluated as potential moderators.
3. Methods
3.1 Literature search and criteria for inclusion
Consistent with best practices, this study follows the meta-analysis guidelines provided by
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
(Liberati et al., 2009). Like most meta-analyses (cf. Cram et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019; Sabherwal
et al., 2006), the current study consisted of four fundamental processes: (a) searching for
relevant individual studies in the extant literature; (b) defining specific inclusion criteria; (c)
coding the identified studies; and (d) meta-analyzing the identified studies to provide
accumulated findings. Each of the three steps is explained in detail below and is also
illustrated in Figure 1.
3.1.1 Literature search. The literature searches for this study were conducted through
June 11, 2021. We began with an examination of the ABI Inform Global, ProQuest and
ProQuest Dissertations databases for empirical publications using the terms “eWallet,”
“electronic wallet,” “mWallet,” “mobile wallet,” “digital wallet” or “wallet.” We then combined
these search terms with the results of a second search using the terms “intention to use,”
“UTAUT” or “UTAUT2.” These databases are frequently used as they are broad and cover
IJBM
Figure 1.
Methodological
activities
most of the primary outlets relevant to eWallet adoption and use studies. Moreover, other
recent meta-analyses (cf. Cram et al., 2019) have used the same databases in their research.
A total of 168 manuscripts were identified through this search with 87.2% being journal eWallet
articles, 12.1% being dissertations or theses and the remaining 0.7% being conference adoption
proceedings.
Past research suggests that journal publications are biased toward higher effect sizes and
meta-analysis
hypothesis-supporting results, but the likelihood for results can be minimized by including a
wider set of primary studies (Rosenthal, 1979; Templier and Pare, 2015). Consequently, we
used Google Scholar which captures a wide variety of conference proceedings, dissertations
and other works from journals (especially journals not from the USA or Europe) that are often
not indexed in the larger electronic databases. The Google Scholar search used the same
content search terms as the search described earlier (i.e. “eWallet” or “mWallet”, etc.) but were
not limited by the second set of search terms. This was to be as inclusive as possible. In
addition to the 168 manuscripts identified in the first step, an initial screen of the Google
Scholar results identified 42 additional manuscripts which appeared to be potentially useable
for our analysis based on a reading of their abstracts. Based on the two searches described
above, we created an initial pool of 210 manuscripts to examine. While no process can
guarantee that every possible primary study was included, we have no reason to believe that
any omissions were systematic or that they would significantly influence the results of our
subsequent analyses.
3.1.2 Inclusion criteria. Articles were included when they met the following criteria. First,
articles needed to be quantitative studies at the user or individual unit of analysis that
considered using eWallets. As a result, conceptual papers, reviews, qualitative studies and
empirical studies focusing on providers rather than users were excluded. In addition,
empirical studies that focused on legal, political or regulatory policies were also excluded
from any further analyses.
Second, and very importantly, manuscripts were required to report data sufficient to
calculate an effect size statistic (i.e. correlation coefficient) for at least one relationship that
would be examined in the subsequent analyses. This excluded many papers that only
included multivariate results (usually from regression models or structural equation models).
Somewhat surprisingly, this criterion excluded manuscripts that were published papers,
dissertations and conference papers, as the reporting of correlations is clearly not required by
many journals, conference reviewers, or examination committees. Further, at least one
independent variable in a study had to fit within the UTAUT2 antecedent categories (see
“Article Coding” section). A small number of studies were eliminated based on this criterion,
which indicates that the independent variables in these studies were not commonly used in
the eWallet use research literature.
As an additional criterion, papers were required to include the intention to use as a
dependent variable. The intention to use included both “new” (or initial use) as well as
ongoing or continuing use (often referred to as loyalty or as repurchase intentions). This
approach is consistent with other meta-analyses using the intention to use as a criterion
measure (e.g. Cram et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). This approach is based on the idea that
intentions are associated with subsequent usage and that these measures are more under the
control of the individual subject compared to ultimate usage behavior.
Consistent with the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021), a detailed diagram
summarizing the identification, screening and ultimate inclusion of the studies can be seen
in Figure 2.
A total of 48 manuscripts with 48 independent samples met the inclusion criteria. Of the 48
samples used for the meta-analyses, 42 samples were from journal articles, 5 from
dissertations or theses and one from a conference proceeding (refer to Appendix for a list of
the included papers). The total population from these 48 samples was 14,802, meaning that
the average sample consisted of about 300 people. The volume of studies is consistent with
numerous past meta-analyses in information systems, marketing and financial journals.
IJBM
Figure 2.
PRISMA article
selection flow diagram
For example, Lee and Xia (2006) included 21 studies; Sharma and Yetton (2003) used 22 eWallet
studies; Cugelman et al. (2011) had 29 studies; Taiwo and Downe (2013) used 37 studies; and adoption
Knoll and Matthes (2017) analyzed 46 studies.
meta-analysis
3.2 Article coding
Each sample was first coded by the first author for the types of correlates, eWallet use
measure, sample characteristics and whether the correlations provided were between latent
or observed variables (i.e. whether or not the relationship would need to be corrected for scale
reliability). After this initial coding was completed, an additional author independently
completed the same coding. The agreement was over 95% and the few cases where coding
differed were resolved through a discussion between the two raters. The sample size of each
empirical study was recorded as the number of observations used to compute the correlation
coefficient.
Due to the theoretical frameworks used in the eWallet literature, we ascertained that using
an inclusive approach would yield the most comprehensive analysis allowing for the most
complete analyses possible. An analysis of the research frameworks employed in the primary
studies suggested that the UTAUT and the subsequently developed UTAUT2 fit the need
best. In most cases, we were able to simply categorize the variables from the primary studies
into one of the distinct antecedent variables included in the UTAUT2 approach. We began by
iteratively placing the independent variables in categories where a common theme existed.
There were two exceptions to this relatively straightforward process. First, the UTAUT
approach does not have an explicit category for security or safety. As a result, we added a
security variable to our list of antecedents. The other issue faced was that a few different
variables from the primary studies were grouped together to fit into the facilitating
conditions variable that is contained in the UTAUT approach. These variables have
generally been identified in the development of the UTAUT approach and include self-
efficacy, perceived behavioral control and some related environmental conditions (i.e.
supportive environmental issues or helpful governmental regulations).
Where uncertainty existed in classifying the measures from the primary studies into the
categories, the authors reviewed the instrument wording used in the studies to clarify if an
antecedent variable could be grouped with other similar variables or if a new category should
be created (e.g. security). Where two independent variables were identified within a paper
that could be grouped into a single category (e.g. self-efficacy and perceived control), both
variables were included, and an average correlation was calculated for use in the analysis.
Using the average correlation follows standard practice to avoid double counting the
relationship within a study (cf. Schmidt, 2015). For our final analyses, we included seven
distinct antecedents. For each category, an average of approximately 25 separate correlations
were analyzed. The list of variables used in our analyses are presented in Table 1.
3.3 Meta-analysis procedures

A separate meta-analysis was performed for each of the seven independent variable
categories listed in Table 1. We used the meta-analytic procedures developed and
recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) to calculate the population correlations
between intentions to use eWallets and the related variables. The meta-analytic technique
developed by Hunter and Schmidt is widely used and is appropriate, given the type of data
reported in the primary literature (Harter et al., 2020). The specific program used was Meta-
Essentials (Suurmond et al., 2017). To provide the most accurate estimates, the weighted
mean correlations and their variances were corrected for both measurement and sampling
error. We did not attempt to correct for restriction of range due to the lack of a known
distribution range and as a result, our reported values are conservative. For each
IJBM Intention to use: The degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans regarding whether to perform a
specified future behavior
Social influence: The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use
the new system. Social influence as a direct determinant of behavioral intention is represented as a subjective
norm
Hedonic motivation: Is the perceived enjoyment, amusement, cheerfulness, or pleasure acquired from the use of
a technology. For this study, a consumer’s attitude toward engaging in the use of an eWallet is also included
Performance expectancy: The degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help him or her
to attain gains in job performance. Perceived usefulness from the technology acceptance model also represents
this concept
Effort expectancy: The degree of ease associated with the use of a system. Perceived ease of use from the
technology acceptance model as well as complexity also capture this same concept
Facilitating conditions: The degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical
infrastructure exists to support the use of the system. This definition captures concepts embodied by the
related concepts of compatibility and perceived behavioral control (from the theory of planned behavior)
Table 1. Price value: The cognitive tradeoff between the perceived benefits of the applications and the monetary cost for
Variables included in using them (Venkatesh et al., 2012, p. 161)
the meta-analysis Perceived security: The degree of belief and trust in a web channel to transmit sensitive information
meta-analytic estimate, multiple values are reported: (1) the number of studies on which the
estimate was based (k); (2) the sample size on which the estimate was based (N); (3) the sample-
size weighted mean corrected correlation (ρ); (4) Hedges and Olkin’s (2014) Q-statistic to
assess heterogeneity, the mean corrected correlation’s standard deviation (SD r); (5) the 90%
confidence interval associated with the mean corrected correlation (ρ); (6) the I2 index and (7)
Rosenthal’s fail-safe N which provides the robustness of the corrected correlation by
reporting the number of studies with a correlation of zero would need to be added to the
analysis before the result was not statistically significant. Of these seven values, three values
(i.e. large Q-values, wide confidence intervals and high I2 values) suggest the presence of
moderators or heterogeneity in the overall corrected correlation.
3.4 Moderator measurement

3.4.1 The moderating role of user status. In this study, we coded the user status to ascertain
whether new or potential users evaluate decision criteria differently from those individuals
who are already eWallet users, since this may have essential implications for eventually
expanding the user base of any eWallet. Accordingly, we examine the impact of user status
based on if the users are new, continuing or a combination of both user types.
3.4.2 The moderating role of country innovation level. We have operationalized the
innovation level of a country using the measure provided by the Global Innovation Index (GII)
(WIPO, 2020). The GII consists of two sub-indices, the Innovation Input Sub-Index and the
Innovation Output Sub-Index. The Innovation Input Sub-Index includes five measures:
institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication and business
sophistication, while the Innovation Output Sub-index is based on the results of innovative
activities within an economy and includes knowledge and technology outputs and creative
outputs (WIPO, 2020). Based on the multitude of measures used to quantify the GII, we can
presume that people residing in countries with higher GII scores are surrounded by favorable
conditions making their engagement and purchase of innovative technologies, like eWallets,
more probable.
3.4.3 The moderating role of national culture. For each of Hofstede’s six cultural dimensions,
we used the country scores provided by Hofstede Insights (Hofstede Insights, 2021). The scores
range from 0 to 100 and represent an extensive database of 76 specific countries.
3.5 Moderator analyses eWallet
To assess the heterogeneity of the overall relationships, we used a combination of Hedges and adoption

Olkin’s Q test and the I2 index consistent with other research (e.g. Jadil et al., 2021; Sumak et al.,
2011). Using this approach, moderators are indicated by a significant Q test and an I2 index of
meta-analysis
more than 75% (cf. Jadil et al., 2021; Santini et al., 2019). If a relationship has high heterogeneity,
this suggests the potential presence of moderators. Once a relationship was identified as having
potential moderators, we then examined eight different potential moderators to assess whether
any or all of them helped to explain this underlying variance. To test whether the moderator was
significant, we used meta-regression consistent with the recommendations of Steel et al. (2021).
The results of these analyses are presented in the next section.
3.6 Regression and relative weight analyses

We augmented this main analysis described above by calculating all the relationships necessary
to perform a regression analysis that could simultaneously estimate the relationships between
the seven included antecedents and the intention to use eWallets. Then, we conducted a meta-
analytic relative weight analysis, using techniques developed by Johnson and his colleagues (e.g.
Johnson, 2000; Johnson and LeBreton, 2004; Tonidandel and LeBreton, 2015), to determine which
of the independent variable categories were most strongly predictive of eWallet usage intention.
We elaborate on these analyses later in the next section.
4. Results
The results associated with each of the seven variables identified in the theoretical review and
their correlations with the intention to use are provided in Table 2.
The effect sizes reported in Table 2 are weighted effect sizes that have been adjusted for
scale reliability and that have been weighted by sample size. Thus, while they are very similar
to correlations in that they are on a 1 to þ1 scale and they do provide a measure of
covariation between two variables, the corrections mean that the effect sizes in meta-analyses
are generally larger than the simple average of correlations reported in primary studies by a
range of about 0.10–0.25 (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Schmidt, 2015).
For each relationship in Table 2, Rosenthal’s (1979) Failsafe-N ratio was estimated. The
results of this analysis calculate how many studies with nonsignificant results would be required
to nullify the mean corrected relationship (i.e. ρ). Failsafe-N’s are common tools to address the
“file drawer problem,” whereby the identification of unpublished studies with nonsignificant
results would impact the accuracy of the meta-analysis findings (McDaniel et al., 2006). When the
Failsafe-N is large relative to the studies examined, it provides additional confidence in the
95% CI 95% CI Fail-

Variable K N ρ SE ρ Q I2 lower Upper safe N
Performance 40 13,066 0.61 0.04 665.21*** 94.14% 0.55 0.66 90,588

expectancy
Effort expectancy 38 11,330 0.58 0.06 1097.83*** 96.63% 0.50 0.65 61,644
Social influence 24 6,089 0.65 0.10 1842.75*** 98.75% 0.51 0.76 31,692
Facilitating 24 8,217 0.64 0.10 1681.26*** 98.63% 0.50 0.74 34,926
conditions
Hedonic 16 5,134 0.63 0.09 372.18*** 95.97% 0.50 0.74 15,626
Table 2.
motivation Meta-analysis results
Price value 8 2,921 0.67 0.14 100.05*** 96.50% 0.44 0.81 4,280 of the antecedents of
Perceived security 26 8,378 0.45 0.08 796.74*** 96.86% 0.32 0.56 19,950 intention to use
Note(s): CI 5 Confidence interval; All ρ’s; *** 5 p < 0.001 eWallets
IJBM conclusions that the relationship is very unlikely to be significantly modified even if a large
number of nonsignificant results were found, but never published.
In terms of the significance of the overall effect sizes, a z-test was conducted to evaluate the
significance of each relationship’s effect size. At p < 0.001, all the variables in Table 2 were
found to have a statistically significant relationship with intention to use. The two tests for
homogeneity conducted for each of the meta-analyses reported in Table 2 were also
significant. More specifically, the calculated-Q is greater than the critical-Q value for all seven
relationships and the I2 index for each of the relationships exceeded 75%. Consequently, the
null hypothesis of homogeneity is rejected, and the variability exceeds what is expected
based on sampling error (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). This indicated that it was appropriate to
test for potential moderators in each of the relationships reported in Table 2.
4.1 Moderator analysis

A total of 56 (7 variables 3 8 potential moderators) moderator tests were conducted to
examine the relationships between intention to use eWallets and the antecedents included in
our study. To test for moderation, we used meta-regression consistent with the
recommendations of Steel et al. (2021). It should be pointed out, however, that due to the
relatively low number of studies in the analyses, separate meta-regressions were run for each
moderator rather than simultaneously examining the eight moderators, as this would have
violated sample size requirements (cf. Baldwin and Shadish, 2011). These results are
presented in Table 3.
4.2 Regression model

While the effect sizes shown in Tables 2 and 3 offer important indicators about the
relationship between a series of antecedent variables and intention to use eWallets, these
simple corrected correlations do not provide for a simultaneous analysis of these factors
capable of controlling the effects of the other antecedents. To overcome this important
shortcoming, we needed a full correlation matrix. To complete this matrix, we started with the
correlations from Table 2 and then conducted the 21 meta-analyses that were needed to
construct the full correlation matrix. In conducting these 21 additional meta-analyses, we
followed the same analytic procedures as were used for the original results reported in
Table 2. The results showing these additionally required meta-analyses are shown in Table 4.
The correlation matrix values in Table 4 showed that there were no empty cells. This means
that at least one correlation existed for every relationship we analyzed and that we did not need
to estimate any relationships from outside of the existing analyses as is often done in studies
using similar methods where a large number of variables and their intercorrelations are being
examined (Cram et al., 2019; Viswesvaran and Ones, 1995). To estimate a sample size for our
correlation matrix, we calculated the harmonic mean consistent with the recommendation of
Viswesvaran and Ones (1995). The harmonic mean of the 28 sample sizes (N’s) was 2,879.
Using the correlation matrix containing the values from Tables 2 and 4, we conducted a
regression model. This regression model examined the simultaneous relationships between
the seven antecedent variables and intention to use eWallets. The results of this regression
analysis are reported in Table 5.
4.3 Relative weight analysis

The results in Table 2 are each variable’s corrected correlation with the intention to use
eWallets. Table 5, on the other hand, provides the standardized regression weights for the
simultaneous examination of the seven antecedents. It should be pointed out, however, that
each of these analyses only provide the relationships of specific variables and are unable to
Variable Moderator b SE B R2
eWallet
adoption
Performance Use type 1.45 1.33 0.04 0.002
Expectancy Innovation 1.21 0.12 0.39*** 0.156
meta-analysis
Masculinity 0.42 0.07 0.23*** 0.052
Power distance 0.25 0.05 0.19*** 0.036
Uncertainty avoidance 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.003
Individualism 0.29 0.04 0.27*** 0.072
Long term orientation 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.003
Indulgence 0.13 0.07 0.08* 0.006
Effort expectancy Use type 0.68 1.40 0.01 0.000
Innovation 1.48 0.12 0.37*** 0.136
Masculinity 1.05 0.07 0.45*** 0.199
Power distance 0.40 0.05 0.24*** 0.057
Uncertainty avoidance 0.29 0.07 0.14*** 0.019
Individualism 0.61 0.04 0.42*** 0.175
Long term orientation 0.51 0.08 0.18*** 0.033
Indulgence 0.39 0.07 0.16*** 0.026
Social influence Use type 0.15 2.09 0.00 0.000
Innovation 0.67 0.14 0.13*** 0.016
Masculinity 1.04 0.18 0.15*** 0.002
Power distance 1.01 0.07 0.34*** 0.118
Individualism 0.66 0.05 0.25*** 0.062
Long term orientation 0.75 0.10 0.18*** 0.033
Indulgence 1.16 0.09 0.28*** 0.081
Facilitating conditions Use type 6.09 1.81 0.18*** 0.034
Innovation 1.38 0.14 0.54*** 0.295
Masculinity 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.000
Power distance 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.001
Individualism 0.57 0.05 0.29*** 0.086
Long-term orientation 0.29 0.13 0.05* 0.003
Indulgence 0.66 0.08 0.20*** 0.039
Hedonic motivation Use type 1.38 2.08 0.03 0.001
Innovation 1.09 0.19 0.29*** 0.087
Masculinity 0.26 0.08 0.16*** 0.026
Power distance 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.000
Uncertainty avoidance 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.001
Individualism 0.23 0.06 0.21*** 0.045
Indulgence 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.008
Price value Use type 20.82 3.72 0.40*** 0.157
Innovation 1.74 0.19 0.65*** 0.423
Masculinity 1.17 0.14 0.61*** 0.374
Power distance 0.28 0.18 0.11 0.013
Uncertainty avoidance 1.46 0.63 0.17* 0.029
Individualism 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.000
Indulgence 0.16 0.14 0.09 0.007
Perceived security Use type 3.58 1.64 0.08* 0.006
Innovation 0.25 0.18 0.05 0.003
Masculinity 0.49 0.08 0.22*** 0.047
Power distance 0.28 0.06 0.18*** 0.032
Individualism 0.22 0.05 0.16*** 0.026
Long-term orientation 0.53 0.10 0.20*** 0.039
Indulgence 0.23 0.08 0.10** 0.011 Table 3.
Note(s): *** 5 p < 0.001, ** 5 p < 0.01, * 5 p < 0.05. Use type measured as 0 for new users, 1 for new and ongoing Meta regression results
users and 2 for ongoing users for moderator analyses
IJBM 95% CI 95% CI Fail- safe
Variable K N ρ SE ρ Q I2 lower upper N
Performance
expectancy
Effort 32 9,883 0.66 0.06 1195.77*** 97.41% 0.58 0.73 66,986
expectancy
Social influence 18 4,638 0.47 0.08 524,63*** 96.76% 0.33 0.59 7,663
Facilitating 20 7,512 0.56 0.07 467.22*** 95.93% 0.44 0.65 19,793
conditions
Hedonic 14 4,870 0.58 0.10 389.28*** 96.66% 0.42 0.71 10,417
motivation
Price Value 5 2,289 0.59 0.22 175,81*** 97.72% 0.07 0.88 1,504
Perceived 20 6,778 0.41 0.05 298.11*** 93.63% 0.31 0.50 9,279
security
Effort expectancy
Social influence 17 4,356 0.47 0.07 278.10*** 94.25% 0.35 0.57 6,677
Facilitating 19 5,907 0.55 0.06 253.10*** 92.89% 0.47 0.63 13,544
conditions
Hedonic 13 4,687 0.50 0.09 307.81*** 96.10% 0.34 0.62 5,671
motivation
Price value 5 1,285 0.64 0.25 242.88*** 98.35% 0.03 0.90 1,165
Perceived 20 6,423 0.39 0.06 255.68*** 92.57% 0.28 0.49 7,584
security
Social influence
Facilitating 16 3,938 0.52 0.09 597.15*** 97.49% 0.36 0.65 7,616
conditions
Hedonic 8 1,868 0.44 0.13 178.48*** 96.08% 0.18 0.65 1,194
motivation
Price value 5 1,165 0.51 0.24 264.75 ***
98.49% 0.12 0.85 639
Perceived 11 2,773 0.32 0.09 208.18*** 95.20% 0.13 0.48 1,294
security
Facilitating
conditions
Hedonic 10 3,926 0.45 0.09 235.23*** 96.17% 0.27 0.60 3,311
motivation
Price value 4 1,971 0.37 0.19 101.19 ***
97.04% 0.21 0.75 378
Perceived 14 5,030 0.23 0.09 518.31*** 97.49% 0.03 0.41 1,657
security
Hedonic
motivation
Price value 2 512 0.29 0.23 27.09*** 96.31% 0.99 0.99 35
Perceived 9 3,686 0.34 0.10 227.06*** 96.48% 0.13 0.53 1,857
security
Table 4. Price value

Intercorrelations Perceived 6 1,567 0.52 0.25 341.12*** 98.53% 0.09 84 895
between the security
antecedents Note(s): *** p < 0.001
provide for the relative importance of each variable (cf. Cram et al., 2019; Johnson and
LeBreton, 2004). To address the relative contribution issue, we conducted relative weight
analysis which is much more robust in providing for relative contributions by explicitly
factoring in the correlations between the multiple antecedents in our models. Accounting for
these intercorrelations is vital for the intention to use eWallets literature because as is typical eWallet
with studies employing models based on any of the technology adoption models, there are adoption
relatively large correlations among the antecedent variables (Table 4). Relative weight
analysis addresses this condition as it provides estimates of the unique variance explained by
meta-analysis
each variable after accounting for the relationships between the variables (Johnson, 2000). To
compute the relative importance of each of our antecedents, we used Tonidandel and
LeBreton’s (2015) RWA-Web program.
To thoroughly explore the relative importance of the study’s variables, we conducted a
relative weight analysis. Relative weights represent the percentage of variance in the criterion
that is uniquely associated with each variable included in the model. The results of this
analysis are presented in Table 6 and are discussed in the following section.
5. Discussion
This research sought to better understand the antecedents to eWallet usage by conducting a
review of multiple technology acceptance approaches and then meta-analyzing 48 studies
that contained 444 distinct relationships of interest. These results were calculated using meta-
analysis, regression and relative weight analysis. In addition, we also explored whether there
were meaningful moderator effects of these relationships by identifying and using meta-
regression to evaluate a series of theoretically grounded moderators. We will now discuss
these results and their implications in the context of increasing participation in the global
economy through the adoption of eWallet technology.
5.1 Direct and moderating effects

The results associated with our analyses tell an “unfolding” story that allows for a depth of
understanding that simple main effects meta-analyses cannot provide. More specifically, a
series of interlocking analyses conducted allow for an overall analysis, along with an analysis
Antecedent Beta weights
Price value 0.458

Hedonic motivation 0.367
Facilitating conditions 0.310
Social influence 0.167
Effort expectancy 0.119 Table 5.
Performance expectancy 0.061 Regression results
Perceived security 0.033 predicting intention to
R2 0.753 use eWallets
Antecedent Raw relative weight Relative weight as a % of R2
Price value 0.1639 21.73

Hedonic motivation 0.1482 19.65
Facilitating conditions 0.1384 18.35
Social influence 0.1256 16.64
Table 6.
Performance expectancy 0.0693 9.18 Relative weight
Effort expectancy 0.0594 7.88 analysis for
Perceived security 0.0496 6.58 antecedents of
R2 0.755 intention to use
Note(s): Raw relative weights add up to R2 and raw weights as a % of R2 add up to 100% eWallets
IJBM for relative contributions. Further, they also allow for a thorough analysis of tradeoffs
between explaining variance in users’ intention to use eWallets and a parsimonious approach
to efficiently examine smaller models that may be easier to implement, while still providing
significant explanatory power. This combination of results can provide useful levers into
helping increase the percentage of people participating in, and benefitting from, the global
economic system.
The initial assessment of the antecedents’ relationships to intention to use eWallets
suggested that the effect sizes associated with each of the antecedents were similar to each
other. More specifically, a simple average of the seven effect sizes was approximately 0.60 and
ranged from 0.45 to 0.67. Thus, the simple meta-analyses conducted between the identified
antecedents and intention to use eWallets supported that the magnitude of these
relationships was strong and relatively consistent, suggesting that all the antecedents
included in this analysis can be considered to be very important.
The next step of our analysis explored whether the relationships between the antecedents
and the intention to use eWallets was significantly influenced by the included moderators.
The result of this analysis found evidence for moderation in a large number of cases (41 of 56),
although many of these effects were relatively weak. When considered in terms of their
explanatory power, in only 3 of 56 cases did the moderating variable explain more than 20%
of the variation in the observed relationships. Maybe even more importantly, the average
variance explained by the moderators was less than 6% (0.057). Thus, while there are a few
moderating effects that may warrant some following up, at this time, it does not appear that
any of the moderating effects are of magnitudes that would alter practice significantly. It is
also important to point out that in all cases, the “form” of the moderators were the same
meaning that relationships that were positive remained positive in all cases and that practical
actions taken would not differ due to the presence or absence of any of the moderating
effects found.
The overall lack of moderating effects found may be viewed as a “disappointment.” We
believe, however, that this conclusion misses the mark. The overall lack of meaningful
moderating effects suggests that the drivers of eWallet use are more or less universal in their
relationships across different cultures and ultimately across different countries. This is a very
good news for increasing the number of people using eWallets, thereby participating in
banking services. It suggests that what has worked in one location will generally work in
others. This allows for a more straightforward, less nuanced approach to interpreting our
main effects results.
While the main effects reported in Table 2 suggested broadly similar effect sizes, a series
of follow-up analyses, however, portrayed a different picture. First, a regression analysis
(Table 5) found that the regression coefficients varied substantially, but that the overall
model was quite powerful in its ability to explain users’ intention to use eWallets. At an
overall level, the model explained about 75% of the variance in intention to use eWallets. The
regression coefficients support the conclusion that price value, hedonic motivation and
facilitating conditions are the antecedents with the strongest relationships to intention to use
and that effort expectancy, social influence, performance expectancy and perceived security
have relatively modest associations and in two cases (performance expectancy and effort
expectancy), the effects are negative. Caution, however, is needed in interpreting the finding
that performance expectancy and effort expectancy are negatively related to intention to use
eWallets from the regression model. The seven antecedents all show significant covariation
with one another, and collinearity is likely playing a significant role in these regression
findings. The relative weight results shown in Table 6 reinforce the conclusion that price
value, hedonic motivation, facilitating conditions and, to a slightly less degree, social
influence are the primary antecedents of importance when it comes to understanding the
intention to use eWallets, and that performance expectancy, effort expectancy and perceived eWallet
security play a significantly reduced role in doing so. adoption
To further test this conclusion, we conducted additional regression tests to determine the
variance explained by the stronger and weaker antecedents described in the last paragraph.
meta-analysis
The results of these analyses showed that a model with price value, hedonic motivation,
facilitating conditions and social influence explained 74.4% of the variance in intention to use
eWallets (while the full model with all seven antecedents explained 75.3% of the variance). To
further this line of inquiry, we then examined the three “weakest” predictors (i.e. performance
expectancy, effort expectancy and perceived security) and found that three antecedents still
explained a relatively robust 46.1% of the variance in intention to use eWallets. Thus, while
the strongest antecedents are clearly superior to the weakest antecedents examined, all of
them contribute, and it is clear that robust models can be built using a very low (i.e. three)
number of predictors. In fact, a very simple model that only includes hedonic motivation and
price value is still able to explain 65.6% of the variance in intentions and even a model only
including price value and facilitating conditions still explains 62.7% of the variance in the
intent to use eWallets.
These empirical results bring us back to our primary focus. More specifically, we set out to
understand the strength of different factors associated with the intention to use eWallets and
distill the factors that stand out to explain the adoption to use eWallets. Further, we set out to
then use this information to facilitate the conversion from non-users to users and to provide
information that can assist in bringing more users into the global economic system and
harnessing the potential benefits it offers. Our results found that price value, hedonic motivation,
facilitating conditions and social influence are the most effective keys to understanding a user’s
intention to utilize an eWallet and that these factors remain extremely relevant given the
different moderating conditions included in our models. These findings provide significant
integration for a subject (i.e. eWallet usage) that has been largely fragmented until now.
5.2 Theoretical contributions

An extremely important theoretical contribution relates to the implications of our study for
the UTAUT framework as a tool to understand technology adoption that can potentially
bring more people into the global economy by providing access to banking services through
the use of eWallets. From a theoretical perspective, the antecedents to the intention to use
technology have largely been treated as orthogonal constructs. In other words, each
antecedent has largely been viewed as a distinctly relevant factor needed to fully understand
the technology adoption process. Further, the pattern among numerous researchers (e.g.
Chakraborty and Mitra, 2018; Chrestina and Suhoarto, 2020; Kumar et al., 2018; Phuong et al.,
2020; Shin, 2009) has been to add new antecedents which further explain the adoption process
beyond the antecedents identified in the UTAUT framework. From a theoretical perspective,
however, researchers should be careful in their selection of additional antecedents and focus
on antecedents that have a minimal relationship to the existing predictors. Moreover, there
may be theoretical reasons to reduce the size of the UTAUT framework rather than to pursue
ongoing attempts to enlarge it.
In other words, to enhance the understanding of what drives eWallet adoption,
researchers need to focus on issues that do not overlap much with the existing model
components. For example, Phuong et al. (2020) did not utilize the entire UTAUT2 model but
added both payment security and user’s trust as antecedents and concluded that they were
important for the intention to use eWallets. An examination of the correlations, however,
suggests that adding both security and user trust to the model took the overall variance
explained from 72.3% to 74.1% (i.e. explain an additional 1.8% of the variance in the intention
to use eWallets). It should be pointed out that Phuong et al. (2020) did not do anything
IJBM “incorrect,” but this analysis represents the issue involved with adding variables that are
already covary with concepts included in the UTAUT framework.
Further, additional antecedents (trust is an example) do not tend to provide the theoretical
direction that most of the other examined antecedents provide. More specifically, arguing
that trust is an important antecedent of the intention to use does not provide researchers or
practitioners with how to develop this trust. As such, issues like trust are more consistent
with adding other mediating variables or outcomes with relatively little theoretical distance
from the intention to use. A similar argument can be presented against the inclusion of
hedonic motivation in the UTAUT model or the use of habit (which has been added to the
UTAUT2, but which has not been examined frequently enough to include in our analyses). To
further make this point, we examined a regression model using the same technique as that
presented in Table 5 but removed hedonic motivation as an antecedent. Even without hedonic
motivation as an antecedent, the other antecedents still explain 67.9% of the variance (versus
75.3%) in the intention to use eWallets. Thus, the model is still extremely robust even without
the inclusion of hedonic motivation.
In other words, modeling a user’s trust, the degree to which they enjoy the technology, or
the degree to which the behavior is already a habit may not provide much instruction in how
to get non-users converted to users or to increase financial inclusion because these measures
assume a high degree of previous use. This is not to suggest that these measures are
irrelevant, but that they may not be as useful to theorists or practitioners when it comes to
converting non-users into users.
As a result of the problem discussed above, theorists should seek out predictors of use that
are not highly correlated with the other antecedents already included in the UTAUT
approach or that may be considered correlates of eWallet use rather than antecedents to use.
This is admittedly a difficult task, but one that will prove to be more beneficial in the attempt
to explain the intention to use a technology in general or eWallets specifically. In general,
however, the current results illustrate that we already know a great deal about the factors
that are associated with people wanting to use eWallets and to subsequently drive
involvement in the global economy. We see the most significant problems as being practical
ones, not theoretical ones in this instance.
5.3 Practical implications

Our findings have important implications for eWallet users and providers, and ultimately for
increasing the number of people who participate in the global banking system. For current or
prospective users, they can provide some guidance as to what other users generally look for
in their decision to use (or not use) an eWallet. For providers, it should offer important
insights into the relative importance of design features and determine whether they should
prioritize their efforts to make an eWallet easier to use or whether the primary focus should be
to market the security or utility. There are also practical implications for policy makers who
are looking to increase the number of people in their countries with access to the global
banking system.
From a practical perspective, however, the most intriguing aspect of our findings may be
that parsimony may not give up that much explanatory power, suggesting that the tradeoff
between focusing on a few relevant issues and trying to attend to every issue equally, likely
favors parsimony when attempting to drive eWallet usage. For providers, our findings
suggest that focusing on a few variables that can be more readily controlled (or maybe
controlled in a more cost-effective manner) could be a better strategy than trying to focus on
all seven of the issues examined in this research, even though an argument can be made that
each of them are important in their own respect.
If a few drivers explain the lion’s share of variance in intention to use, providers or policy
makers may be able to design a strategy whereby they simultaneously identify a few
antecedents and aggressively manage those drivers. For example, a company may wish to eWallet
emphasize the price value of their eWallets in marketing materials, while simultaneously adoption
developing strategies that emphasize the “fun factor” as well as the social aspect of growing
adoptions. This is in line with Teng and Khong (2021) who suggest that successful measures for
meta-analysis
eWallet business models should include elements of value for users, such as cash back and
reward points. Similarly, Tam and Hanh (2018) highlight the price value concept by
recommending that companies will be able to gain more trust and satisfaction from customers
by providing a high quality of services with “reasonable” costs. More specifically, a bank with a
new eWallet platform can emphasize the reduced costs associated with eWallets compared to
other products (e.g. debit cards), while simultaneously emphasizing the increased security of the
eWallet. Another company may enjoy significant success emphasizing the social aspects, the
support of the product and the benefits that are available to those who utilize eWallets. A specific
example would be adding a social component to the eWallet application, much in the way that
Venmo has done. A few eWallet providers have also effectively entered this important space of
social influence, including Alipay and M-Pesa, utilizing the platform to increase active users
(Acker and Murthy, 2020). By creating a social platform that shows eWallet usage and allows
comments from friends and otherwise connected individuals, the eWallet platform may be able
to leverage the social and the “fun” aspects, while providing a strong behavioral cue to others
that “everyone is using eWallets.”
On the other hand, policy makers may want to focus on facilitating conditions and
perceived utility by building a supportive environment for eWallets to flourish. This can be
accomplished by implementing regulations that encourage or more easily allow eWallet
usage, while simultaneously making sure these regulations provide broad enough support
that users see the wide range of options available to them. In this context, Tam and Hanh
(2018) provide a list of recommendations for government entities, such as improving the
Internet connectivity, developing financial literacy campaigns, utilizing social media to reach
people with relevant information on eWallets and educating them. These actions in turn will
help build the user’s sense of the usefulness of eWallets in that country. The results of our
study suggest that all these paths would be fruitful ones and ultimately lead to a broader
financial inclusion in the world.
By reducing the number of factors that are being leveraged, we also believe that the messages
may be easier to tailor to specific audiences. For instance, if a company is focusing on enhancing
effort expectancy, it can further customize this message for different audiences. Thus, the “it is
easy to use” message can be positioned in a very different form for more technologically
advanced potential clients than those with minimal technological experience or interest.
5.4 Limitations and future research directions

Most of the limitations in this study relate to the nature of the current existing empirical
literature. The first limitation pertains to the availability of studies included in the analysis.
Although the authors conducted an extensive search, there is always a possibility that some
of the relevant studies might have been missed and not included. Since eWallet research is in
its infancy, there could be studies that have not been published yet or studies that have been
conducted but not advanced for publication due to potentially unfavorable results (“file
drawer problem”). The second limitation has to do with the need for correlational data, which
omitted studies that only reported regression or path coefficients; this was relatively common
in the literature. While it is always a best practice for empirical studies to report a full
correlation matrix, this practice is not being followed by many of the journals that publish
research on eWallet usage. Third, all the studies used survey data and likely report inflated
correlations due to common method variance. There is no reason to believe that this inflation
would be differential in nature and impact the relative weight analysis presented in this
IJBM research. This inflation, however, could be an issue with the absolute magnitude of
correlations and standardized regression coefficients from models we conducted and future
research should certainly go beyond a single survey, the same point in time, collection of the
predictor and criterion measures (Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Another limitation is the ability to test moderators from the original theoretical models.
We examined eight relevant moderators. However, due to limitations of our sample, other
moderators that could have been analyzed to provide additional insights on the
environmental and situational factors impacting the intention to use eWallets were not
available. For example, the full UTAUT model includes gender, age, experience and
voluntariness of use as moderators of the relationships between the antecedents and the
intention to use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). None of these moderators, however, could be tested in
our analyses because they were generally not included in the primary studies.
From a theoretical and a practical perspective, future researchers should further explore
the tradeoff between comprehensiveness and parsimony in the eWallet research in specific,
and in the adoption of technology literature in general. In other words, there seems to be a
tendency to continually add variables to help technology adoption models become more
accurate. For instance, UTAUT, UTAUT2 and the numerous modifications to these models
being tested by researchers are much larger (i.e. contain many more variables) than the early
approaches put forth by the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.
Future research may wish to explore the tradeoff between accuracy and usefulness in these
approaches to see if a “happy” median exists between these two important issues. Based on
our findings that just two or three measures can offer significant explanatory power, we
believe that there are superior positions for this tradeoff that are different from the current
trend of “bigger is better.”
A final area for future research is to follow up on the “newness” of eWallets. In other
words, users of eWallets in all countries can be thought of as “innovators” or “early adopters”
in the innovation life cycle (Rogers, 2010). This suggests that as time passes, different
categories of users will need to be attracted to using eWallets. So, the results we report may
only be relevant for users at these early stages of the diffusion of this new technology, and
users in the future (who would be considered the “early majority,” “late majority” and
“laggards”) may require different incentives or have different relative strengths between the
UTAUT antecedents and their intentions to use eWallets. This is a question, however, that
only additional time and research can answer.
5.5 Conclusion
The combination of a comprehensive meta-analysis, a regression model, a search for
moderators of these relationships between the UTAUT antecedents and the intention to use,
and a relative weight analysis provided a comprehensive picture of the current state of the
factors leading to the intention to use eWallets. The results of this approach show that
relatively few variables explain a large portion of whether potential users will use eWallets or
not. Further, the data found that the results are robust across multiple situations and
countries, meaning that the results from one location can be mostly generalized to other
locations and that extremely nuanced approaches based on geography are not required.
Overall, our findings can serve as guidance for those seeking to drive eWallet demand,
better understand the decision to use eWallets or refine theoretical models to assist in future
empirical research. Importantly, the current research also provides significant, parsimonious
guidance for institutions and policy makers trying to enhance participation in the global
banking system in parts of the world where formal banking utilization is low. We believe that
the findings of this research can help to “move the needle” when it comes to increasing
eWallet adoption rates and simultaneously contribute toward achieving the overarching goal
of higher financial inclusion across the globe.
References eWallet
An asterisk denotes a study that was used in the meta-analyses*. adoption
* Abdullah, N., Redzuan, F. and Daud, N.A. (2020), “E-wallet: factors influencing user acceptance meta-analysis
towards cashless society in Malaysia among public universities”, Indonesian Journal of
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 67-74.
Acker, A. and Murthy, D. (2020), “What is Venmo? A descriptive analysis of social features in the
mobile payment platform”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 52, p. 101429.
* Aisyah, M. and Eszi, I.M. (2020), “Determinants of intention to use e-wallet using TRAM model”,
Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 167-178.
* Aji, H.M., Berakon, I. and Husin, M.M. (2020), “COVID-19 and e-wallet usage intention: a multigroup
analysis between Indonesia and Malaysia”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
p. 1804181.
* Alwi, S., Mohd Salleh, M.N., Kamarudin, H.S., Alpandi, R.M., Razak, A. and Ekhmar, S. (2019), “The
E-wallet usage as an acceptance indicator on financial technology in Malaysia”, Religacion,
Vol. 4, pp. 45-52.
* Amalia, S.N.A. (2018), “Faktor-Faktor Yang mempengaruhi minat individu terhadap financial
technology (fintech) syariah (paytren) sebagai salah satu alat transaksi pembayaran
(pendekatan technology acceptance model (TAM)) dan theory of planned behavior (TPB)”,
Iqtishaduna, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-79.
* Amin, M.K., Azhar, A., Amin, A. and Akter, A. (2015), “Applying the technology acceptance model
in examining Bangladeshi consumers’ behavioral intention to use mobile wallet: PLS-SEM
approach”, in 2015 18th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology
(ICCIT), IEEE, pp. 93-98.
Ayaz, A. and Yanartaş, M. (2020), “An analysis on the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology theory (UTAUT): acceptance of electronic document management system (EDMS)”,
Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 2, p. 100032.
Baldwin, S.A. and Shadish, W.R. (2011), “A primer on meta-analysis in clinical psychology”, Journal of
Experimental Psychopathology, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 294-317.
Baptista, G. and Oliveira, T. (2015), “Understanding mobile banking: the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology combined with cultural moderators”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 50, pp. 418-430.
Bhanot, D., Bapat, V. and Bera, S. (2012), “Studying financial inclusion in north-east India”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 465-484.
Blut, M., Chong, A., Tsiga, Z. and Venkatesh, V. (2022), “Meta-analysis of the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): challenging its validity and charting a research
agenda in the red ocean”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 13-95.
* Chakraborty, S. and Mitra, D. (2018), “A study on consumers adoption intention for digital wallets in
India”, International Journal on Customer Relations, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 38-57.
* Chan, K.L., Leong, C.M. and Yiong, B.L.C. (2020), “Sharing economy through e-wallet: understanding
the determinants of user intention in Malaysia”, Journal of Marketing Advances and Practices,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Chao, C.M. (2019), “Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: an application
and extension of the UTAUT model”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 10, p. 1652.
* Charisma, J.A. (2020), “Analisis minat dan perilaku pengguna e-Wallet: Perluasan UTAUT 2 dengan
budaya sebagai moderasi: Studi pada Mahasiswa di Kota Malang”, Unpublished dissertation,
Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim, Indonesia.
* Chatterjee, D. and Bolar, K. (2019), “Determinants of mobile wallet intentions to use: the mental cost
perspective”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 859-869.
IJBM Chauhan, V., Yadav, R. and Choudhary, V. (2021), “Adoption of electronic banking services in India:
an extension of UTAUT2 model”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Chawla, D. and Joshi, H. (2019), “Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India–An
empirical study”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 1590-1618.
Chresentia, S. and Suharto, Y. (2020), “Assessing consumer adoption model on e-wallet: an extended
UTAUT2 approach”, International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research,
Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 232-244.
* Chua, C.S., Lim, W.X., Ng, S.X. and Wong, W.J. (2020), “Exploring the moderating effect of
government support on actual adoption of e-wallet among mobile phone users in Malaysia”,
Unpublished thesis, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.
Cram, W.A., D’Arcy, J. and Proudfoot, J.G. (2019), “Seeing the forest and the trees: a meta-analysis of
the antecedents to information security policy compliance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 525-554.
Cugelman, B., Thelwall, M. and Dawes, P. (2011), “Online interventions for social marketing health
behavior change campaigns: a meta-analysis of psychological architectures and adherence
factors”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. e17.
* Daragmeh, A., Sagi, J. and Zeman, Z. (2021), “Continuous intention to use e-wallet in the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic: integrating the health belief model (HBM) and technology continuous
theory (TCT)”, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 7 No. 2,
p. 132.
De Best, R. (2021), “Mobile payments worldwide – statics and facts”, available at: https://www.statista.
com/topics/4872/mobile-payments-worldwide/ (accessed 17 November 2021).
Deka, P.K. (2020), “Intention to use mobile wallet by youths in northeast India”, Journal of
Management in Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
uç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S. and Hess, J. (2020), “The Global Findex Database
Demirg€
2017: measuring financial inclusion and opportunities to expand access to and use of financial
services”, The World Bank Economic Review, Vol. 34, Supplement_1, pp. S2-S8.
* Eappen, N.J. (2019), “Mobile wallet adoption in India: impact of trust and information sharing”,
South Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 32-49.
FDIC (2019), How America Banks: Household Use of Banking and Financial Services: 2019, FDIC
Survey, Washington, DC.
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Agrawal, S., Plowman, S.K. and Blue, A.T. (2020), “Increased business value
for positive job attitudes during economic recessions: a meta-analysis and SEM analysis”,
Human Performance, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 307-330.
Hedges, L.V. and Olkin, I. (2014), Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Orlando.
Hofstede Insights (2021), “National culture”, available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/
national-culture/ (accessed 4 September 2021).
Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (2004), Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research
Findings, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
* Indah, M. and Agustin, H. (2019), “Penerapan model UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology) untuk memahami niat dan perilaku aktual pengguna Go-Pay di Kota
Padang”, Jurnal Eksplorasi Akuntansi, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1949-1967.
Jadil, Y., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “A meta-analysis of the UTAUT model in the mobile
banking literature: the moderating role of sample size and culture”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 132, pp. 354-372.
* Jian, K.L.M., Moorthy, S., How, T.T. and Yi, Y.Y. (2020), “Predicting working adults’ intention to use
e-wallet in Malaysia: a perspective of behavioural belief”, Unpublished thesis, University Tunky
Abdul Rahman, Malaysia.
Johnson, J.W. (2000), “A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in eWallet
multiple regression”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
adoption
Johnson, J.W. and LeBreton, J.M. (2004), “History and use of relative importance indices in
organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 238-257.
meta-analysis
* Karim, M.W., Haque, A., Ulfy, M.A., Hossain, M.A. and Anis, M.Z. (2020), “Factors influencing the
use of E-wallet as a payment method among Malaysian young adults”, Journal of International
Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-12.
* Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Bodhi, R., Singh, T. and Almotairi, M. (2020), “Why do people use and recommend
m-wallets?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 56, p. 102091.
Khalilzadeh, J., Ozturk, A.B. and Bilgihan, A. (2017), “Security-related factors in extended UTAUT
model for NFC based mobile payment in the restaurant industry”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 70, pp. 460-474.
Kijsanayotin, B., Pannarunothai, S. and Speedie, S.M. (2009), “Factors influencing health information
technology adoption in Thailand’s community health centers: applying the UTAUT model”,
International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 404-416.
Knoll, J. and Matthes, J. (2017), “The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 55-75.
Kumar, A., Adlakaha, A. and Mukherjee, K. (2018), “The effect of perceived security and grievance
redressal on continuance intention to use M-wallets in a developing country”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1170-1189.
Laywilla, E., Singh, J.S.K. and Fah, B.C.Y. (2020), “Drivers of intention to adopt mobile wallet: a
quantitative study among females in Jakarta”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 11, pp. 804-820.
Lee, G. and Xia, W. (2006), “Organizational size and IT innovation adoption: a meta-analysis”,
Information and Management, Vol. 43 No. 8, pp. 975-985.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P. and Moher, D. (2009),
“The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that
evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration”, Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. e1-e34.
Lim, K.B., Yeo, S.F. and Tan, C.C. (2020), “Understanding user’ switching intention on mobile wallet”,
Journal of Information System and Technology Management, Vol. 5 No. 19, pp. 14-24.
Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001), Practical Meta-Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Liu, Z., Ben, S. and Zhang, R. (2019), “Factors affecting consumers’ mobile payment behavior: a meta-
analysis”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 575-601.
Mahwadha, W.I. (2019), “Behavioral intention of young consumers towards E-Wallet adoption: an
empirical study among Indonesian users”, Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic
Sciences, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 79-93.
Maks€
ud€unov, A. and Baktybekova, B. (2021), “Mobile wallet adoption among university students: the
case of KTMU”, Sivas Cumhuriyet University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 179-195.
McDaniel, M.A., Rothstein, H.R. and Whetzel, D.L. (2006), “Publication bias: a case study of four test
vendors”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 927-953.
Mew, J. and Millan, E. (2021), “Mobile wallets: key drivers and deterrents of consumers’ intention to
adopt”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 182-210.
Ming, K.L.Y., Jais, M., Wen, C.C. and Zaidi, N.S. (2020), “Factor affecting adoption of E-Wallet in
Sarawak”, International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management
Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 244-256.
IJBM * Mombeuil, C. (2020), “An exploratory investigation of factors affecting and best predicting the
renewed adoption of mobile wallets”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 55,
102127.
* Nag, A.K. and Gilitwala, B. (2019), “E-Wallet-factors affecting its intention to use”, International
Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 3411-3415.
Ndassi Teutio, A.O., Kala Kamdjoug, J.R. and Gueyie, J.P. (2021), “Mobile money, bank deposit and perceived
financial inclusion in Cameroon”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.
1080/08276331.2021.1953908 (in press).
* Neoh, M.Y., Riri Andri Ani, M.T., Tan, S.L., Tean, S.Y. and Wong, P.W. (2019), “The next
wave: popularity of E-Wallet?”, Unpublished thesis, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,
Malaysia.
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M.A. and Popovic, A. (2014), “Extending the understanding of mobile
banking adoption: when UTAUT meets TTF and ITM”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 689-703.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D. and Moher, D.
(2021), “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews”,
BMJ, Vol. 372, n71, available at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71.
* Permana, G.P.L. and Dewi, L.P.K. (2019), “Aanlisis penerimaan dan penggunaan aplikasi ovo
dengan menggunakan unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) di kota
denpasar”, Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 186-203.
* Pertiwi, D., Suprapto, W. and Pratama, E. (2020), “Perceived usage of E-wallet among the Y
generation in Surabaya based on technology acceptance model”, Jurnal Teknik Industri, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 17-24.
* Phuong, N.N.D., Luan, L.T., Dong, V.V. and Khan, N.L.N. (2020), “Examining customers’ continuance
intentions towards e-wallet Usage: the emergence of mobile payment acceptance in Vietnam”,
The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, Vol. 7 No. 9, pp. 505-516.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
* Prabhakaran, S., Vasantha, S. and Sarika, P. (2020), “Effect of social influence on intention to use
mobile wallet with the mediating effect of promotional benefits”, Journal of Xi’an University
Architecture and Technology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 3003-3019.
Ramli, F.A.A. and Hamzah, M.I. (2021), “Mobile payment and e-wallet adoption in emerging
economies: a systematic literature review”, Journal of Emerging Economies and Islamic
Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-39.
* Revathy, C. and Balaji, P. (2020), “Determinants of behavioural intention on e-wallet usage: an
empirical examination in amid of Covid-19 lockdown period”, International Journal of
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 92-104.
Rodrigues, G., Sarabdeen, J. and Balasubramanian, S. (2016), “Factors that influence consumer
adoption of e-government services in the UAE: a UTAUT model perspective”, Journal of
Internet Commerce, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 18-39.
Rogers, E.M. (2010), Diffusion of Innovations, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Rondan-Catalu~na, F.J., Arenas-Gaitan, J. and Ramırez-Correa, P.E. (2015), “A comparison of the
different versions of popular technology acceptance models: a non-linear perspective”,
Kybernetes, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 788-805.
Rosenthal, R. (1979), “The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results”, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 638-641.
* Routray, S., Khurana, R., Payal, R. and Gupta, R. (2019), “A move towards cashless economy: a case
of continuous usage of mobile wallets in India”, Theoretical Economics Letters, Vol. 9,
pp. 1152-1166.
Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A. and Chowa, C. (2006), “Information system success: individual and eWallet
organizational determinants”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1849-1864.
adoption
Santini, F.D.O., Ladeira, W.J., Sampaio, C.H., Perin, M.G. and Dolci, P.C. (2019), “A meta-analytical
study of technological acceptance in banking contexts”, International Journal of Bank
meta-analysis
Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 755-774.
Schmidt, F.L. (2015), “History and development of the Schmidt-Hunter meta-analysis methods”,
Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 232-239.
Scott-Briggs, A. (2016), “What is a mobile wallet, origin and history in financial technology?”,
available at: https://techbullion.com/mobile-wallet-origin-history-financial-technology/ (accessed
12 September 2021).
* Sentanu, W., Sagala, S.A., Marjuki, D. and Gunadi, W. (2020), “Analysis of the effects of benefit and
risk factors on the use of e-wallet”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering
and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 721-737.
Sharma, R. and Yetton, P. (2003), “The contingent effects of management support and task
interdependence on successful information systems implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 4, pp. 533-556.
* Shaw, N. (2014), “The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of the mobile wallet”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 449-459.
* Shaw, B. and Kesharwani, A. (2019), “Moderating effect of smartphone addiction on mobile wallet
payment adoption”, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 291-309.
* Shin, D.H. (2009), “Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1343-1354.
* Singh, N., Sinha, N. and Liebana-Cabanillas, F.J. (2020), “Determining factors in the adoption and
recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: analysis of the effect of innovativeness,
stress to use and social influence”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 50,
pp. 191-205.
Snider, K. (2020), “Digital wallets to represent half of global eCommerce sales by 2023, according to
5th annual Worldpay global payments report”, available at: https://www.fisglobal.com/en/
about-us/media-room/press-release/2020/digital-wallets-to-represent-half-of-global-ecommerce-
sales-by-2023 (accessed 23 June 2021).
Soodan, V. and Rana, A. (2020), “Modeling customers’ intention to use e-wallet in a developing nation:
extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy and savings”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organizations (JECO), Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 89-114.
Steel, P., Beugelsdijk, S. and Aguinis, H. (2021), “The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis:
recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 23-34.

Sumak, B., Hericko, M. and Pusnik, M. (2011), “A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance:
the role of user types and e-learning technology types”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 2067-2077.
Suurmond, R., van Rhee, H. and Hak, T. (2017), “Introduction, comparison and validation of Meta-
Essentials: a free and simple tool for meta-analysis”, Research Synthesis Methods, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 537-553.
* Syawani, M.A.B.M., Fauzi, M.A.Z.B., Azhar, M.H.B.M. and Mohamad, M.S.B. (2020), “The factors
that effect intention to use e-wallet among students in polytechnic Shah Alam”, Unpublished
thesis, Politeknik Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah, Malaysia.
Taiwo, A.A. and Downe, A.G. (2013), “The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT):
a meta-analytic review of empirical findings”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Tam, L.T. and Hanh, L.N. (2018), “FinTech for promoting financial inclusion in Vietnam: fact findings
and policy implications”, Business and Social Sciences Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 12-20.
IJBM Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P., Wamba, S.F. and Dwivedi, R. (2021), “The extended Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): a systematic literature review and theory
evaluation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 57, p. 102269.
* Tan, O.K., Abdul Aziz, F., Ong, C.H., Goh, C.F., Lim, K.Y., Saadon, M.S.I. and Choi, S.L. (2020),
“EWallet Acceptance among undergraduates in Malaysia”, Test Engineering and Management,
Vol. 83, pp. 12990-12998.
Templier, M. and Pare, G. (2015), “A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 112-137.
Teng, S. and Khong, K.W. (2021), “Examining actual consumer usage of E-wallet: a case study of big
data analytics”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 121, p. 106778.
Teo, A.C., Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Hew, T.S. and Yew, K.T. (2015), “The effects of convenience and
speed in m-payment”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 311-331.
* Teoh Teng Tenk, M., Yew, H.C. and Heang, L.T. (2020), “E-wallet Adoption: a case in Malaysia”,
International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management Studies, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 216-233.
* To, A.T. and Trinh, T.H.M. (2021), “Understanding behavioral intention to use mobile wallets in
Vietnam: extending the TAM model with trust and enjoyment”, Cogent Business and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, p. 1891661.
Tonidandel, S. and LeBreton, J.M. (2015), “RWA Web: a free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-
friendly tool for relative weight analyses”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 207-216.
* Trivedi, J. (2016), “Factors determining the acceptance of e wallets”, International Journal of Applied
Marketing and Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 42-53.
* Tun, P.M. (2020), “An investigation of factors influencing intention to use mobile wallets of mobile
financial services providers in Myanmar”, The Asian Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 129-144.
U.S. Payments Forum (2018), “Mobile and digital wallets: U.S. landscape and strategic considerations
for merchants and financial institutions”, available at: https://www.uspaymentsforum.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/Mobile-Digital-Wallets-WP-FINAL-January-2018.pdf (accessed 22
June 2021).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y. and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (1995), “Theory testing: combining psychometric meta-analysis and
structural equations modeling”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 865-885.
* Watcharadamrongkun, A., Apirungruengsakul, N. and Pooripakdee, S. (2018), “Analyzing the
relationship of factors towards adoption of mobile wallet”, Research Journal of Social Sciences,
Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 17-22.
WIPO (2020), “Global innovation index 2020”, available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/
details.jsp?id54514&plang5EN (accessed 8 January 2022).
Yang, Y. and Koenigstorfer, J. (2021), “Determinants of fitness app usage and moderating impacts of
education, motivation, and gamification-related app features on physical activity intentions:
cross-sectional survey study”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 7, p. e26063.
* Yang, M., Mamun, A.A., Mohiuddin, M., Nawi, N.C. and Zainol, N.R. (2021), “Cashless transactions: a
study on intention and adoption of e-Wallets”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, p. 831.
Country/ Usage Innovative- Power Uncertainty Long-term
Authors Region N type ness distance Individualism Masculinity avoidance orientation Indulgence
Abdullah et al. (2020) Malaysia 400 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57

Appendix
Aisyah and Eszi (2020) Indonesia 127 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Aji et al. (2020) Indonesia and 466 Both 26.49/42.42 78/100 14/26 46/50 48/36 62/41 38/57
Malaysia
Alwi et al. (2019) Malaysia 150 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Amalia (2018) Indonesia 199 Both 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Amin et al. (2015) Bangladesh 104 Both 20.39 80 20 55 60 47 20
Chakraborty and Mitra India 80 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
(2018)
Chan et al. (2020) Malaysia 233 New 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Charisma (2020) Malaysia 230 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Chatterjee and Bolar (2019) India 204 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Chawla and Joshi (2019) India 744 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Chua et al. (2020) Malaysia 434 New 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Daragmeh et al. (2021) Hungary 1,080 Ongoing 41.53 46 80 88 82 58 31
Deka (2020) India 119 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Eappen (2019) India 221 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Indah and Agustin (2019) Indonesia 150 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Jian et al. (2020) Malaysia 307 New 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Karim et al. (2020) Malaysia 330 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Kaur et al. (2020) India 1,256 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Kumar et al. (2018) India 250 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Laywilla et al. (2020) Indonesia 183 Both 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Lim et al. (2020) Malaysia 200 Ongoing 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Mahwadha (2019) Indonesia 183 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Maks€ ud€unov and Kyrgyzstan 338 New 24.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Baktybekova (2021)
Mew and Millan (2021) United 282 Both 59.78 35 89 66 35 51 69
Kingdom
Ming et al. (2020) Malaysia 450 Ongoing 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Mombeuil (2020) African 252 Ongoing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
students in
China
Nag and Gilitwala (2019) Thailand 384 Ongoing 36.68 64 20 34 64 32 45
Neoh et al. (2019) Malaysia 299 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
(continued )
meta-analysis
adoption
eWallet
Moderator coding for
meta-analysis
studies included in the
Table A1.
IJBM
Table A1.
Country/ Usage Innovative- Power Uncertainty Long-term
Authors Region N type ness distance Individualism Masculinity avoidance orientation Indulgence
Permana and Dewi (2019) Indonesia 125 Both 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38

Pertiwi et al. (2020) Indonesia 186 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Phuong et al. (2020) Vietnam 253 Ongoing 37.12 70 20 40 30 57 35
Prabhakaran et al. (2020) India 250 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Revathy and Balaji (2020) China 318 Ongoing 53.28 80 20 66 30 87 24
Routray et al. (2019) India 200 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Sentanu et al. (2020) Indonesia 203 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
Shaw and Kesharwani India 512 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
(2019)
Shaw (2014) Canada 284 Both 52.26 39 80 52 48 36 68
Shin (2009) United States 296 Both 60.56 40 91 62 46 26 68
Singh et al. (2020) India 206 Both 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Syawani et al. (2020) Malaysia 357 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Tan et al. (2020) Malaysia 64 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
Teoh Teng Tenk et al. Malaysia 210 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57
(2020)
To and Trinh (2021) Vietnam 332 Both 37.12 70 20 40 30 57 35
Trivedi (2016) India 336 Ongoing 35.59 77 48 56 40 51 26
Tun (2020) Myanmar 214 New 35.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Watcharadamrongkun Thailand 300 Both 36.68 64 20 34 64 32 45
et al. (2018)
Yang et al. (2021) Indonesia 501 Ongoing 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38
About the authors eWallet
William H. Bommer is currently a professor of organizational behavior and leadership at California State
University, Fresno. He holds a PhD in Organizational Behavior from Indiana University and a master’s adoption
degree in Organizational Development from Bowling Green State University. He has published over 60 meta-analysis
research articles and 3 books. His research has been published in a number of leading academic journals
including Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organization Science, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal
of Business Ethics, Leadership Quarterly, and the Journal of Management. William H. Bommer is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: wbommer@csufresno.edu
Shailesh Rana is currently a Faculty in the Department of Accounting teaching both undergraduate
and graduate courses and also serves as the Director of the University Business Center, at California
State University, Fresno. He holds a DBA in Finance from Grenoble Ecole de Management, and an MBA
from California State University, Fresno. His research has been published in a number of leading
academic journals including Applied Economics and International Journal of Economics and Financial
Issues.
Emil Milevoj is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Management at California State
University, Fresno, and also serves as the Director of the Lyles Center for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship. He earned his Doctor of Business Administration from Henley Business School,
University of Reading, UK, in International Business. Dr Milevoj also earned an MBA from California
State University, Fresno. He has received numerous grants and contracts from the U.S. Department of
Education, Small Business Administration, Office of Traffic Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.
Department of Commerce and numerous other organizations and foundations. His research interests
include innovation, global leadership, gender, international and social entrepreneurship. His research
has been published in the Journal of Small Business Strategy, Journal of International Education in
Business, and Research in Human Resource 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
View publication stats

A Meta Analysis of Ewallet Adoption Using The UTAUT Model

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

A Meta Analysis of Ewallet Adoption Using The UTAUT Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A meta-analysis of eWallet adoption using the UTAUT model

Article in International Journal of Bank Marketing · March 2022

William H Bommer Shailesh Rana

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A meta-analysis of eWallet eWallet

Department of Management, California State University Fresno,

2.1 The UTAUT as a framework for understanding the adoption of technology

2.2 Moderators of the importance of the UTAUT antecedents

3.3 Meta-analysis procedures

3.4 Moderator measurement

3.6 Regression and relative weight analyses

95% CI 95% CI Fail-

Performance 40 13,066 0.61 0.04 665.21*** 94.14% 0.55 0.66 90,588

4.1 Moderator analysis

4.2 Regression model

4.3 Relative weight analysis

Table 4. Price value

5.1 Direct and moderating effects

Antecedent Beta weights

Price value 0.458

Antecedent Raw relative weight Relative weight as a % of R2

Price value 0.1639 21.73

5.2 Theoretical contributions

5.3 Practical implications

5.4 Limitations and future research directions

Abdullah et al. (2020) Malaysia 400 Both 42.42 100 26 50 36 41 57

Moderator coding for

Permana and Dewi (2019) Indonesia 125 Both 26.49 78 14 46 48 62 38

View publication stats

You might also like