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

net/publication/358869242

Integration of UTAUT model in Thailand cashless payment system adoption:

the mediating role of perceived risk and trust

Article  in  Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management · February 2022

DOI: 10.1108/JSTPM-07-2020-0102

CITATIONS READS

3 729

2 authors, including:

Kanokkarn Snae Namahoot

Naresuan University
10 PUBLICATIONS   107 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Forecast stock market View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kanokkarn Snae Namahoot on 21 May 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/2053-4620.htm

Integration of
Integration of UTAUT model in UTAUT model
Thailand cashless payment in Thailand

system adoption: the mediating

role of perceived risk and trust
Kanokkarn Snae Namahoot Received 7 July 2020
Revised 28 November 2020
Faculty of Business, Economics and Communications, 21 February 2021
Naresuan University, Thailand, and 2 September 2021
2 November 2021
3 January 2022
Viphasiri Jantasri Accepted 16 January 2022
Faculty of Business Administration, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a model that examines the relationships among the five
dimensions of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) toward the overall behavioral
intentions (BIs); to use cashless payment systems in Thailand, which are practically based on the basic
models and theories of consumer behavior such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA), theory of planned
behavior (TPB) and technology acceptance model (TAM); and to explain the indirect effects between UTAUT
and BIs to use cashless payment systems mediating by perceived risk and trust.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 708 respondents, who have had an experience with a
cashless payment system in Thailand, were selected using a stage sampling method. The data obtained from
the participants were analyzed using a structural equation modelling approach.
Findings – The results of this paper reveal that UTAUT model, perceived risk and trust have all significant
influences on BIs to use a cashless payment system. This suggests that consumers in Thailand adopt to
specific financial technological innovation if they perceive that the risk is low and they can trust the system,
especially if it is associated with a reliable online banking network.
Originality/value – The basic understanding of the UTAUT model that influences BIs to use cashless
payment systems has been the focus of this current paper. This paper empirically examined the overall direct
and indirect influences of UTAUT model and perceived risk, trust and BI to use. This current paper also
expands the UTAUT theory by exploring several dimensions (i.e. performance expectancy, effort expectancy
and social influence). Research findings reveal that effort expectancy can reduce perceived risk and increase
trust in Thailand’s cashless payment systems. This can generate more customer interest and engagement, as
well as provide insights into customers’ intentions in using a cashless payment system.
Keywords Cashless payment system, UTAUT model, Trust, Perceived risk,
Behavioral intentions to use, Structural equation modelling
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the past few years, financial technology has transformed the global financial and
banking industry by providing more convenient banking services in developed markets and
offering new services to underbanked and unbanked people in emerging markets.
Governments in developing countries see financial technology as a medium to achieve Journal of Science and Technology
Policy Management
financial inclusion, particularly among their rural and poor citizens. In developing countries, © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
nearly half of adult citizens, or approximately 54%, have bank accounts, compared to 94% DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-07-2020-0102
JSTPM in countries under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2015).
The advancement of financial technology specifically in banking and payment systems
has introduced a variety of new functionalities in many financial services that include bank
account transfers, peer-to-peer transfers, automatic bill payments and proximity-based
payments at the point of sale. Banks are now using financial technology as a form of
“branchless banking” (Ivatury and Mas, 2008). This branchless banking accordingly helps
in reducing costs of providing services to cash-strapped customers. As a result, banks have
launched a number of services that can be accessed through a variety of delivery channels,
which include the automatic teller machines (ATMs), websites and mobile phones
(Laukkanen and Pasanen, 2007). Recently, the use of a cashless payment system through
mobile devices has gained traction, as it provides not only convenience but also fast and
reliable transfer of financial transactions.
Prior studies on cashless payment systems (Arvidsson, 2014; Hampshire, 2017; Liébana-
Cabanillas et al., 2014a; Sahoo and Pillai, 2017; Yang et al., 2015) have deepened the
understanding of the factors that mainly influence the adoption of cashless payment systems
in both non-Asian countries (Hojjati and Rabi, 2013; Akturan and Tezcan, 2012; Alalwan et al.,
2017) and Asian countries (Lee, 2009; Riquelme and Rios, 2010; Tan and Lau, 2016; Chiu et al.,
2017). These studies recognized that performance expectancy (PE), facilitating conditions
(FCs) and perceived security matter immensely in consumers’ adoption of cashless payment
as well as their motivation, social influence (SI) and degree of innovativeness.
Locally, the economic concept of a cashless society is widely recognized in Thailand.
Cashless payments allow for various types of transactions to occur without using cash such as
payment via credit card in shops or online stores. Cashless payment electronic instruments
include electronic money transfers and payment orders (Humbani and Wiese, 2018). Its
popularity has prompted companies like True Money, Rabbit Line Pay, We Pay and others to
engage in e-commerce that facilitate the use of a cashless payment system. According to the
Bank of Thailand, cashless payment systems were increasingly used in 2020 with the total of
13,400,067 million items that valued at 443,651bn baht. In 2019, usage volumes amounting to
8,984,920 million items worth 408,199bn baht were recorded. Its growth was higher than in
2018 with which the cashless payment system had only been used for 6,084,011 million items
worth 374,971m baht. In 2017, cashless payment systems were used 4,199,867 million items
worth 339,394bn baht. In 2016, the bank announced that cashless methods were applied
3,205,320 million items worth 327,731bn baht (Bank of Thailand, 2021).
But despite this increasing use of cashless payment methods (Arango et al., 2015), some
people still prefer to pay in cash (Van der Cruijsen et al., 2017). This implies that individual
characteristics may play a significant role in determining payment preferences of the
consumers (Madan and Yadav, 2016; Deb and Agrawal, 2017).
This research attempts to investigate problems of cashless payment systems adoption.
Despite the growing popularity of cashless payment methods, many people still prefer to
pay in cash. Thus, this current study aims to identify individual characteristics that
influence the use of cashless payment systems among Thai consumers as well to determine
whether the theory of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) provides
alternative explanation on the behavioral intention (BI) to use a cashless payment system if
integrated within the Thai consumers’ payment behaviors.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses development

This current research used a variety of information systems/information technology (IS/IT)
concepts to better understand how people adopt and use information systems. Technology
acceptance model (TAM) and UTAUT are two of the most used theories in this current Integration of
study, which explain how people adopted technology in case of cashless payment systems UTAUT model
(Chhonker et al., 2018; Slade et al., 2015b).
in Thailand
2.1 Behavioral intention to use
The BI to use is an element to consider when determining the achievement of approval in the
use of technology. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) expressed that BI to use is an assessment of
individual’s interest that stimulates the behavior of adoption, as it forms attitudes that
recognize service contributions, especially when it comes to technological innovations.
Individual’s intentions to use a service are affected mainly by the relationship between
attitude and motivational factors that influence a specific behavior (Davis et al., 1989). In
reference to the literatures reviewed, three theories related to technology acceptance have
emerged to have been widely used to study BI to use, which are the theory of reasoned
action (TRA), theory of planned behavior (TPB) and TAM. These theories take into account
the evolution of technological development, and they are applied differently depending on
the context of a particular study.
The TRA model developed in 1967 by Fishbein and Ajzen (1980, 1975) is a social
psychology theory, which was fundamentally created to study human behavior (Venkatesh
et al., 2003). The TRA model aims to describe the relationship between the behavior and
attitudes in the context of human activity. This means that a person’s decision to perform an
action is influenced by the consequences that the person anticipates as a result of doing the
behavior (Davis et al., 1989). On the other hand, the TPB model was devised by Ajzen in
1985 with the aim to improve the TRA’s predictive ability. Ajzen used the perceived
behavioral control factor to increase people’s awareness of how technology can assist them.
However, the TAM was characterized as a successful assessment model in technology
development and was used to study user acceptance of information technology (Davis,
1986). It consists of two distinct components, which are the perceived usefulness (PU) and
perceived ease-of-use. Rouibah and Hamdy (2009) adapted the concepts of TAM to
investigate key factors, which influence behavioral perceptions of internet technology use,
and discovered that consumer attitudes have evolved into a major factor that significantly
influences internet technology usage behavior.
Thus, in terms of technology acceptance and use, these theories aided in elucidating the
motivations of why and to what extent consumers adopt to technology. They also help in
building models that describe an individual’s perceived behavior when accepting
technology, and it turned out that by and large, attitudes and beliefs influence BI to use,
which could be interpreted as a perception of individual’s future opportunities to behave or
not behave (Ajzen, 2006).

2.2 Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology

Researchers need a synthesis to unify many technology-adoption models because they are
having difficulty dealing with a large number of technological models. This prompted
Venkatesh et al. (2003) to create a new model called the UTAUT, which unified eight other
major theories and models in the IS/IT adoption research. These are the TRA, TPB, TAM,
motivational model, combined TPB and TAM, diffusion of innovations theory, model of
perceived credibility, utilization and social cognitive theory. Under these eight models, the
theoretical model also includes 32 original variables, and they are divided into four
exogenous groups, which are effort expectancy (EE), PE, SI and FCs, and two endogenous
variables, which are BI to use technology and use behavior.
JSTPM The UTAUT theory became the most universally referred model (Yuen et al., 2010;
Venkatesh et al., 2012; Tarhini et al., 2016) because it accurately explained 70% of the
variance in the adoption behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003). It is a comprehensive model that
can be applied across a wide range of applications and has been demonstrated to be a
reliable instrument in predicting adoption behavior in a number of technology-based
systems (Tarhini et al., 2016).
According to the UTAUT model, SI, PE, EE and FCs all have an impact on customer
adoption. It has been used to investigate customer acceptance of mobile commerce (Min
et al., 2008; Patil et al.,2020), course management software (Liu et al., 2007), customer
adoption of mobile banking services (Zhou et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2009) and cashless payment
systems (Zhou et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2009).
In this current study, UTAUT is used to understand the BI to use of the cashless
payment system in Thailand.
Prior research has found support for a significant relationship between FCs and effort
expectancy or its proxy variable perceived ease of use. For instance, Stefi (2015) found that
FCs are expected to significantly lower software developers’ effort when integrating existing
components. Meanwhile, San-Martín et al. (2013) found FCs as one of the strongest
predictors of ease of use while examining drivers and impediments of mobile shoppers in
Spain. Therefore, this research argues that better resources, technical and institutional
infrastructure can help consumers in better understanding and operating the m-payment
system. Numerous existing studies (Morosan and DeFranco, 2016; Sivathanu, 2019) have
confirmed the significant role of the construct on consumer intention toward technology
adoption within the payment environment. While Morosan and DeFranco (2016) found FCs
to exert a significant impact on consumers’ BIs to use near field communication mobile
payments in hotels in the USA, Sivathanu (2019) found FCs to have a positive influence on
Indian consumer BI toward digital payment systems.
However, some other studies (Baptista and Oliveira, 2015; Slade et al., 2015a) have found
this relationship to be non-significant. The significance of this relationship in the current
study explains the necessity of resources, technical and institutional support to consumers
for developing intention toward m-payment system. From among these factors though, PE,
EE and SI were determined to directly influence BI to use, while FCs were found to have no
direct influence (Oliveira, 2016). Moreover in the study of Venkatesh et al. (2012), the most
powerful factor of consumer adoption was found to be the PE, which is defined as the
person’s awareness that using the system will help improve job performance.

2.3 Perceived risk

Kuisma et al. (2007) investigated customers’ resistance to online banking and its
associations with individual values and concluded that service channel and consumer and
communication processes created both functional and psychological barriers in the eventual
adoption of the online system. This implies that some customers still prefer ATM cash
services over other service channels as they are accustomed to them and are concerned
about internet security, inefficiency and inconvenience.
Several studies have proven that perceived risk plays an important role in doing
business (Assael, 1981; Stone and Gronhaug, 1993; Martins et al., 2014; Marafon et al., 2018).
This means that customers place a high value on security in such a manner that they rather
be safe on their actions or decisions than place risks on their transactions that do not
guarantee safety and protection. Thus, in terms of online banking, banks must take a layered
approach to security before integrating financial technology in their products and services,
such as in the case of money transfers, bill payments and balance checking. Risks can arise
from a variety of factors including the lack of IT knowledge, updating of information, Integration of
individual identity and proclivity for innovation (Martins et al., 2014). Effective risk UTAUT model
management then is vital for the success of cashless payment adoption (Yang et al., 2015).
Perceived risks come in various forms. In the context of cashless payment systems, social
in Thailand
risks may come from the probability of using the cashless payment system that results in the
dissatisfaction among family, friends and colleagues; financial risk is the possibility of losing
money during the time of financial transactions; psychological risk refers to the customers’
awareness of the system capability or incapability; performance risk is the sturdiness of the
system intelligence and quality that it is able to carry out accurate financial activities; privacy
risk is the failure that may occur on the account of fraud and hacking that potentially
compromises the security of the cashless payment system; and time risk is the loss of time and
the inconveniences caused by the delay in collecting payment (Hampshire, 2017).
In this study, perceived risks are taken into account to determine which specific risk may
hinder Thai consumers to eventually adopt the cashless payment system.

2.4 Trust
Trust is a positive expectation in which someone has faith and confidence in the words,
actions and decisions of others (McAllister, 1995). Usually, people trust a credible person
who is intelligent, and consequently, they follow this person’s speech, action or decision-
making behaviors (Robinson, 1996). Trust is also a reflection of self-assurance and loyalty to
someone worth believing in (Marshall, 2000).
Mayer et al. (1999) expressed that there are three elements of trust that impact business:
(1) competence, which pertains to the service provider’s skill, knowledge or ability to
persuade others;
(2) benevolence, which is the willingness to do something good in exchange for their
trust; and
(3) integrity, which identifies the firmness of sincerity and transparency.

The more these elements are perceived by customers, the more they trust the service. In terms
of cashless payment systems, competency could be recognized when the cashless payment
system providers profitably serve the customer’s need. Moreover, the service offered also must
provide the acceptable skill and ability to keep the privacy of customers at bay.
Gefen et al. (2003) and Wu and Chen (2005) stated that trust is a crucial element in the
accomplishment of financial technology. Benamati et al. (2010), Kim et al. (2010) and Mayer
et al. (1999) stressed the three important keys of trust, which are the ability, goodwill and
honesty that are essential in establishing customer confidence and developing subjective
norms among them, as well as in developing trust toward the service provider (Montazemi
and Qahri-Saremi, 2015; Yang et al., 2015).
In this study, trust is considered as a factor that facilitates the eventual adoption of Thai
consumers toward the cashless payment system as long as they place confidence on the
banks that make these financial transactions happen.

3. Development of hypotheses and proposed framework

The conventional UTAUT model was developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003), but it was not
recognized as a straight component of BI because it did not blend in with actual usage
behavior. FCs along with other UTAUT constructs such as PE, EE and SI were used in this
current study as direct determinants of customers’ willingness to accept cashless payment
systems.
JSTPM PE refers to the degree of information system or technology in providing consumers
advantages in its performance (Venkatesh et al., 2012; Alalwan et al., 2017; Baabdullah et al., 2019),
while EE refers to the level of ease involved in the usage of technology. The SI refers to people who
consumers perceive as significant parts of their lives such as their family, friends and colleagues.
In previous literatures, cashless payment systems such as mobile banking and payment
system are expected to reduce perceived risk and increase trust in many financial
transactions. But because of high unreliability and the perception of financial and security
threats, this anticipation is a top concern among users who deal with online payments (Luo
et al., 2010; Zhou, 2011; Hanafizadeh et al., 2014; Patil et al., 2020). Cashless payments
necessitate careful financial information and worry-free security; otherwise, these could be a
barrier to technology adoption (Duane et al., 2014). As a result, perceived risk was
incorporated into the research framework to accurately identify customers’ attitudes toward
cashless payment adoption. Thus, the hypotheses were proposed as follows:

H1a. Performance expectancy has a direct effect on perceived risk toward the use of a
cashless payment system.
H1b. Performance expectancy has a direct effect on trust toward the use of a cashless
payment system.
H2a. Effort expectancy has a direct effect on perceived risk toward the use of a cashless
payment system.
H2b. Effort expectancy has a direct effect on trust toward the use of a cashless payment
system.
H3a. Social influence has a direct effect on perceived risk toward the use of a cashless
payment system.
H3b. Social influence has a direct effect on trust toward the use of a cashless payment
system.
Yang et al. (2015) discovered that BI to use cashless payment was influenced significantly
by perceived risk and trust in China. But because of their differing roles in influencing
consumer trust, perceived risks were divided into two categories: systematic perceived risk
and transactional perceived risk. In China’s current stage of online payment, the majority of
young people, particularly in Shanghai and Macao, have built up trust as a key factor in
recognizing their perceived risks. Perceived risk has a negative relationship with trust, and
it can be divided into two categories: system-dependent risk and trust. The relationship
between transactional risk and trust is negative.
Thus, it is critical for banks to develop strategies to reduce customer risks. The BI to use
cashless payment can be increased when the perceived risk is reduced (Yang et al., 2015 and
Hampshire, 2017). Nonetheless, Yang et al. (2015) pointed out that different levels of risk are
still dependent on specific people. According to Zhou et al. (2010), mutual values between
customers and banks are good indicators of customer’s intention to use internet banking.
Customers would lose trust in the service if they learned about hackers interfering with
banking transactions or the bank system failing because of a virus or other technical issues.
As a result, banks should prepare a secret code for their security systems, and this will help
customers. Therefore, the hypothesis was formed as follows:

H4. Perceived risk has a direct effect on behavioral intention to use a cashless payment
system.
Yang et al. (2015) evaluated the relationship between trust and BIs to use online payment Integration of
and discovered that trust increased the number of adopters, which indicates the positive UTAUT model
relationship between BIs and trust. This means that if banks increase customer confidence
in the security of online payments, then customers’ doubts would likely decrease
in Thailand
(Montazemi and Qahri-Saremi, 2015).
Consequentially, trust becomes a key predictor of customer retention. Trust demonstrates the
willingness of a person to be vulnerable toward the actions of others, as it underscores their
beliefs on others’ perceived benevolence, competence and integrity. Besides, trust is a significant
determinant of consumer attitude toward purchase intention. An essential element of successful
online transactions is the trusting relationship between the organization and its customers (Patil
et al., 2020). Customers’ trust has been proven to positively impact their attitude toward online
shopping if customers build better trust to the internet banking service (Kim and Prabhakar,
2004; Montazemi and Qahri-Saremi, 2015). As a unitary construct, trust has also been seen to
strongly reinforce consumers’ BI to use mobile wallets (Lu et al., 2011; Shin, 2010; Srivastava et al.,
2010). Thus, these studies have uniformly contended that trust is the most important predictor of
technology adoption intentions, which is followed by PU. This means that the higher the level of
trust in an e-payment system, the more favorable the users’ attitude toward its use (Liébana-
Cabanillas et al., 2014b and Lu et al., 2011). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
H5. Trust has a direct effect on behavioral intentions to use a cashless payment system.
No evidence of the mediating effects of perceived risk and trust on UTAUT and BIs to
use cashless payment in Thailand has been found in experimental studies. As a result, the
indirect effect of UTAUT and BI to cashless payment acceptance with perceived risk and
trust as mediating factors (H6ab, H7ab and H8ab) were assessed in this literature. Thus, the
hypotheses were suggested as follows:

H6a. Performance expectancy has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a
cashless payment system mediated by perceived risk.
H6b. Performance expectancy has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a
cashless payment system mediated by trust.
H7a. Effort expectancy has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a
cashless payment system mediated by perceived risk.
H7b. Effort expectancy has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a
cashless payment system mediated by trust.
H8a. Social influence has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a cashless
payment system mediated by perceived risk.
H8b. Social influence has an indirect effect on the behavioral intention to use a cashless
payment system mediated by trust.

4. Construct map
Construct map helps to recognize many factors related to consumer BI and use. Both
intention and use are perceived as powerful dependent variables (DVs) of cashless payment
(Kapoor et al., 2014) as demonstrated in various studies. But recent studies also evaluated
independent variables (IVs) that are linked to technology acceptance, adoption and diffusion
theories. The TPB, TAM and innovation diffusion theory (IDT) are just few examples of
UTAUT. In these studies, the DVs revolved around such topics as PU (Andreev et al., 2012;
Chandrasekhar and Nandagopal, 2016; Kim et al., 2016) for TAM, PE (Alshare and Mousa,
JSTPM 2014; Morosan and DeFranco, 2016; Slade et al., 2015a, 2015b) for UTAUT and relative
advantage (Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012) for IDT, which were investigated as indicators
of personal BI of technology use.
However, in some other studies, the perceived ease of use was the most common antecedent
of BI to use in the context of TAM (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2015; Liu, 2012; Phonthanukitithaworn
et al., 2015; Shin and Lee, 2014), while SI (Alshare and Mousa, 2014; Musa et al., 2015; Qasim and
Abu-Shanab, 2016; Slade et al., 2015a, 2015b) and FCs (Morosan and DeFranco, 2016) were the
two other variables from UTAUT that are also occasionally examined. Apart from these
variables, researchers added many variables into the model such as information security
(Alshare and Mousa, 2014; Di Pietro et al., 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016; Zhong et al., 2013), privacy
concerns (Morosan and DeFranco, 2016), knowledge (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2015), positive
emotions (Wu et al., 2016), self-efficacy (Makki et al., 2016), subjective norms (Liébana-Cabanillas
et al., 2014a), network externalities (Qasim and Abu-Shanab, 2016), adoption readiness (Thakur
and Srivastava, 2014), trust, risk and innovativeness (Phonthanukitithaworn et al., 2015; Qasim
and Abu-Shanab, 2016; Slade et al., 2015a). Hongxia et al. (2011), Tian and Dong (2013), Koenig-
Lewis et al. (2015) and Sivathanu (2019) applied adoption or usage behavior as DVs.
Drawing out from these related studies, cashless payment is an interesting topic to
explore. Researchers apply consumer intention to represent consumers’ actual behavior, and
four major studies have presented evidences that numerous variables could stand as IVs on
technology acceptance. These are risk (Hongxia et al., 2011), BI (Hongxia et al., 2011; Koenig-
Lewis et al., 2015; Sivathanu, 2019; Tian and Dong, 2013), PU (Tian and Dong, 2013), fee/cost
(Tian and Dong, 2013), knowledge (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2015) and innovation resistance
(Sivathanu, 2019). These groups of researchers contended that the said variables play an
important role in individual mobile wallet adoption and usage behavior.
Conceptually, from among these studies, three of them focused on consumer intention to
adopt/use mobile wallet and not counting the real adoption/use. It was only Sivathanu (2019)
who scrutinized both intentions to use and technology acceptance to provide a better
understanding on these behaviors. Nevertheless, these research evidences were accumulated
at different times and places; therefore, the perception of consumers might be affected by
their respective social norms. Dissimilarity in demographic profiles especially in the context
of socio-economic status might affect BI to use as different time periods and regions might
manifest different behaviors, especially when it comes to technology acceptance; thus, it is
also imperative to investigate this phenomenon in Thai society.
Given these evidences, this current study developed a number of hypotheses to test the
factors that influence the BIs to use a cashless payment system in Thailand, and it eventually
came up with the model as shown in Figure 1. The factors included in the model are UTAUT,

Figure 1.
Research model.
perceived risk and trust. Perceived risk and trust were identified as the mediating variables in Integration of
this model. Using a survey questionnaire as a research instrument, the researchers collected UTAUT model
data in Thailand in 2020. In all, 700 usable questionnaires were returned and gathered, which
were subjected to analysis using structure equation modeling (SEM).
in Thailand

5. Research methodology
Quantitative survey method was applied in this current study. As there were many
available corroborated scales from related studies on a cashless payment system,
monitoring of latent constructs could easily be performed (Rana et al., 2013; Slade et al.,
2015b). The two-part survey questionnaires were then distributed where the first section of
the survey asked respondents about their knowledge of cashless payment systems, while
the second section focused on their demographic characteristics.

5.1 Population, sampling and data collection

The sample size used in this study was calculated using the formula developed by WG
Cochran (1953). Thus, the minimum sample size for this study was 385. Therefore, 708
sample size was adequate. The online surveys were conducted by Thailand consumers who
had used online banking transaction, non-cash transaction and other online transactions for
purchasing products and services. All respondents should have sufficient experience using
non-cash or online-related financial transaction. Consequently, they were qualified for final
consideration (Mclean et al., 2018a, 2018b).
A snowball sampling technique was applied in which respondents were continuously
selected through friends or acquaintances (Couto et al., 2013). Additionally, researchers
made the use of convenient sampling technique to accumulate answers from respondents in
their social network platforms (Saunders et al., 2007). If the survey only focused on student
respondents, then research findings would not be a representative of the population
(Bhattacherjee, 2012).
Despite the fact that this study is vulnerable to common method bias (CMB), which is
inherent in self-administered surveys (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the researchers used Harman’s
single-factor test, which was the most reliable method for detecting CMB (Malhotra and
Birks, 2006). In Harman’s single factor analysis, the cumulative variance extracted value of
35.08% was well below the threshold of 50%, indicating the absence of CMB.

5.2 Variable measurement and validation of measures

This section consisted of measurement items, which were selected through literature review
of the studies with similar constructs as the current study. Latent constructs were indirectly
measured through the measurement items by deploying a survey that comprised a five-
point Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree.”
The researchers measured the validation of the questionnaire by using two steps. At the
beginning, researchers applied professional test and pilot test to detect problems before data
collection. The questionnaire was subjected to a thorough evaluation from IT experts in
banks as well as relevant lecturers from Thai universities. A pre-test was then conducted to
validate the instrument where 30 people took part in the test. Using the SPSS version 20, the
responses of these 30 users were analyzed to assess the reliability of the measurements. The
reliability test conducted on the 44-item questionnaire yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.893,
which was essentially higher than the recommended minimum value of 0.7. Thus, it could be
concluded that the survey questionnaire contained a high level of instrument reliability
(Hair et al., 2010).
JSTPM 6. Data analysis and results
Frequency and descriptive analyses focusing on average, percentage, variance and testing
normality of distribution were used to assess one-dimensionality. Confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA), convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE), discriminant
validity and SEM were used to test the hypotheses using the AMOS version 21. SEM was a
confirmatory method that allowed for a thorough examination and modification of
theoretical models (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988).

6.1 Descriptive statistics

The online survey yielded a total of 829 usable responses for this study. Following
preliminary analysis, 121 responses with z-scores greater than (
3, 3) were removed from
further analysis to ensure that there were no outliers, resulting in a final test sample of 708
survey responses.
The demographic profiles of the 708 respondents were analyzed using frequency. The
majority of the respondents were females (61%) aged between 31 and 35 years (40.00%),
who hold an undergraduate degree (55.30%), worked as government servants (30.50%) and
earn monthly income higher than 30,000 Baht (49.70%). About 40.60% of the respondents
had one to three years’ experience in using a cashless payment system.

6.2 Assessment of univariate normality

The three-stage approach of measurement model could be described as follows. In the first
stage, all items of the model had the values of skewedness less than 2 (62.0) and a value of
kurtosis less than 7 (67.0), which met the assumption for normality (Curran et al., 1996).
After that, the internal consistency of the scales and the reliability of the constructs were
measured using Cronbach’s alpha. All the values of Cronbach’s alpha should be above 0.70,
which was the common threshold value recommended (Hair et al., 2010). As a result of these
refinements and the reliability test conducted on 51 items presented in the questionnaire, the
Cronbach’s alpha was 0.828 (UTAUT), 0.701 (PE), 0.839 (EE), 0.804 (SI), 0.926 (Perceived
Risk), 0.903 (TRUST) and 0.884 (BI). However, the observed variable of PE in UTAUT and
social risk in perceived risk Cronbach’s alpha was less than 0.7; thus, items PE3, OR1, OR2
and OR3 were omitted from the analysis model. The overall results are displayed in Table 1.
The reliability of individual items was investigated using standardized regression
weights. The standardized regression weight values in a measurement model were initially
investigated, and items with standardized factor loadings less than 0.6 were removed (Hair
et al., 2010). From our analysis, the loading values of three items were below 0.60 and were
subsequently dropped at this stage: PE1 = 0.201 and PE2 = 0.325 in the first order.
Furthermore, the composite reliability (CR) and the AVE were calculated using completely
standardized solutions in the CFA results (Hult et al., 2004).
As the researchers analyzed first order and second order of every latent variable
including PE, EE, SI, perceived risk and trust, the goodness-of-fit indices of PE were found
that factor loadings of PE1 (0.201), PE2 (0.325) and PE4 (0.580) were lower than the
standard. Therefore, the researchers adjusted the model by cutting-off. Meanwhile, the CR
values demonstrated internal consistency of the latent constructs with values above the
threshold of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2010)

6.3 Convergent validity

To measure the convergent validity in this study, the following values and conditions were
used: factor loadings, CR and AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Construct Cronbach’s alpha Factor loading
Integration of
UTAUT model
UTAUT 0.828 in Thailand
Performance expectancy 0.701
PE1 0.201
PE2 0.325
PE4 0.580
Effort expectancy 0.839
EE5 0.693
EE6 0.777
EE7 0.714
EE8 0.796
Social influence 0.804
SI9 0.622
SI10 0.832
SI11 0.725
SI12 0.674
Perceived risk 0.926
Financial risk 0.853
FR4 0.648
FR5 0.944
FR6 0.854
Psychological risk 0.870
CR7 0.850
CR8 0.860
CR9 0.791
Performance risk 0.818
SR10 0.715
SR11 0.780
SP12 0.641
SP13 0.791
Privacy risk 0.844
VR14 0.778
VR15 0.821
VR16 0.809
Time risk 0.855
TR17 0.906
TR18 0.768
TR19 0.875
TR20 0.755
Trust 0.903
Competence 0.825
TC1 0.786
TC2 0.860
TC3 0.837
Benevolence 0.866
TB4 0.822
TB5 0.795
TB6 0.725
Integrity 0.722
TI7 0.602
TI8 0.695
TI9 0.778
Behavioral intentions to use 0.884 Table 1.
BI1 0.894 Results for construct
BI2 0.901 reliability and factor
BI3 0.747 loading
JSTPM The results of the analysis from our study are illustrated in Table 2. The standardized factor
loadings were indicative of the degree of association between 0.62 and 0.94 (above the value
of 0.6) (Suh and Han, 2003). CR measures the degree to which items were free from random
error between 0.75 and 0.94 (above the value of 0.7) (Hair et al., 2010). AVE measures the
variation explained by the latent variable to the random measurement error between 0.58
and 0.84 (above the value of 0.5) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); consequently, the convergent
validity was satisfactory.

6.4 Discriminant validity

The discriminant validity of the constructs was calculated using the square root of AVE and
comparing it with the correlation between the variables and all other variables (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
The results of the standardized loadings and validity (Table 2) showed that the square
root of the AVE values was well above the correlation values, indicating a good
discriminant validity.

6.5 Assessment of the measurement model

The CFA was evaluated in the second stage using a total of 44 items. The goodness-of-fit of
the measurement model was determined by how well it reproduced the observed covariance
matrix among the indicator items. The model fit was assessed by reviewing a set of indices,
and it was divided into the following four categories (Hair et al., 2010). In this case, Chi
square ( x 2) provided significance for hypothesis testing, while for the others, they only
suggested “rules-of-thumb” to assess goodness-of-fit. The measurement model fits the data
satisfactorily ( x 2 = 1721.08, df = 675, p-value > 0.05, RMSEA = 0.058, RMR = 0.044,
CFI = 0.908, IFI = 0.907, TLI = 0.899, AGFI = 0.820 and PNFI = 0.740), which are presented
in Table 3 and Figure 3.

6.6 Structural model and hypotheses testing

In the final stage, the squared multiple correlation (R2) value for the relationship between the
three variables and BIs to use the cashless payment system was 0.455, thereby suggesting a
45.50% variance in BIs to use by the combination of all hypotheses H1a ( b =
0.150,
p # 0.108), H1b ( b = 0.287, p # 0.060), H2a ( b =
0.314, p # 0.00), H2b ( b = 0.492,
p # 0.00), H3a ( b = 0.219, p # 0.00), H3b ( b = 0.328, p # 0.00), H4 ( b =
0.242, p # 0.00)
and H5 ( b = 0.604, p # 0.00). The overall results as summarized in Table 4 and Figure 2
indicate that all hypotheses were fully supported.
Regarding the indirect effect, H7a, H7b, H8a and H8b were associated with equally
strong unique latent variables and a bootstrapped sampling distribution of the difference in
v s estimates (Dv s) was estimated via 2,000 parametric bootstrapped replications. In Amos
21 (Arbuckle, 2012), such a test could be performed by creating a user-defined estimate. The

Discriminant validity
Model and construct CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5

Behavioral intentions to use 0.887 0.724 0.851

Table 2. Social influence 0.808 0.515 0.449 0.718
Results of convergent Perceived risk 0.876 0.595 0.308 0.121 0.771
validity and Effort expectancy 0.841 0.570 0.597 0.645 0.222 0.755
discriminant validity Trust 0.941 0.843 0.627 0.640
0.145 0.561 0.918
Effects Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect
Integration of
UTAUT model
PE !PCR
0.105 –
0.105 in Thailand
PE !TRUST 0.787 – 0.787
EE !PCR
0.314 –
0.314
EE !TRUST 0.492 – 0.492
SI !PCR
0.219 – 0.219
SI !TRUST 0.328 – 0.328
PCR !BI
0.242 –
0.242
TRUST !BI 0.604 – 0.604
EE !PCR !BI –
0.106
0.106
EE !TRUST !BI – 0.414 0.414 Table 3.
SI !PCR!BI –
0.068
0.068 Results of research
SI !TRUST !BI – 0.256 0.256 hypotheses testing

Hypothesis Result Standardized estimate

H1a. Performance expectancy has a direct effect on Not supported
0.150

perceived risk of behavioral intention to use a cashless
payment system
H1b. Performance expectancy has a direct effect on trust of Not supported 0.787
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
H2a. Effort expectancy has a direct effect on perceived risk Supported
0.314***
of behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
H2b. Effort expectancy has a direct effect on trust of Supported 0.492***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
H3a. Social influence has a direct effect on perceived risk of Supported
0.219***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
H3b. Social influence has a direct effect on trust of Supported 0.328***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
H4. Perceived risk has a direct effect on behavioral Supported
0.242***
intention to use a cashless payment system
H5. Trust has a direct effect on behavioral intention to use Supported 0.604***
a cashless payment system
H6a. Performance expectancy has an indirect effect on the Not supported 0.050
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
mediating by perceived risk
H6b. Performance expectancy has an indirect effect on the Not supported 0.104
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
mediating by trust
H7a. Effort expectancy has an indirect effect on the Supported
0.106***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
mediating by perceived risk
H7b. Effort expectancy has an indirect effect on the Supported 0.414***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
mediating by trust
H8a. Social influence has an indirect effect on the Supported
0.068***
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system
mediating by perceived risk Table 4.
H8b. Social influence has an indirect effect on the Supported 0.256*** Summary of the
behavioral intention to use a cashless payment system effects and research
mediating by trust hypotheses testing
JSTPM

Figure 2.
Final analysis of
structural model

results supported H7a, H8a, H7b and H8b, in which perceived risk and trust worked as
mediators of UTAUT and BI. We found that the indirect effect of EE, SI through trust and
BI ( b = 0.414, 0.256; p # 0.000) were greater than the indirect effect of EE, SI through
perceived risk and BI ( b =
0.106,
0.068; p # 0.000). However, the indirect effect of PE
through perceived risk, trust and BI (H6a and H6b) was not supported.
It was also worth noting that UTAUT had the strongest influence on trust and perceived
risk, explaining about 35% and 14.60% of the variance on the construct. Likewise, all
significant relationships on UTAUT and perceived risk and trust on BIs explained about
44.80% of the variance.

7. Discussion and implications

This current research highlighted the significant roles of perceived risk and trust as
mediators in the integration of the UTAUT model in the adoption of cashless payment
systems in Thailand. The results of this study show that the possibility with higher-order
UTAUT dimensions can reduce perceived risk and build trust for eventual adoption of the
cashless payment in Thailand. These can be ranked according to “effort expectancy” and
“social influence.” The EE dimension is the most valuable factor to reduce perceived risk
and build trust for cashless payment systems with most significant EE ! PCR (
0.314***)
and EE ! Trust (0.492***) path value (as shown in Figure 3). This means that the cashless
payment system is ought to have a comprehensive design and process. However, the current
research findings demonstrate that EE is equally important for existing users of a
relatively new and cutting-edge technology such as cashless payment applications. This is
because it keeps users interested and engaged via an easy-to-use interface. According to
Gupta et al. (2019), users who are less skilled or do not have the resources to use payments or
banks services are less likely to adopt these services even though they find them beneficial.
SI is the second most important dimension in Thailand with a significant SI ! PCR
(
0.219***) and SI ! Trust (0.328***) factor loading, as it was also gleaned in the study of
Tarhini et al. (2016). Therefore, it is implied that customers pay attention to and recognize
 Integration of
UTAUT model
in Thailand

Figure 3.
Results of analysis of
structural model

information from advertisements. In India, the opinions of people in their social circles
mattered so much in terms of adopting a technological innovation (Riffai et al., 2012). This
means that what others suggest are accordingly considered as one’s personal decision.
Perceived risk has a significant negative effect on the BI to use the cashless payment
system in Thailand with PCR ! BI (
0.242***) path value (as shown in Figure 3). This
means that customers will be more likely to use cashless payment systems if they believe
the risk is decreased. Despite the significant positive effects of the above-mentioned
antecedents such as UTAUT and trust on BI, perceived risk emerged as the significant and
only negative predictor of Thai consumers’ intention to use cashless payment systems. Studies
in information systems supported this finding as Hampshire (2017) argued that individuals
with a high level of perceived risk would have negative BIs toward using payment systems.
However, this concern can be overcome when clear consumer benefits are identified. This
means that if banks support cashless payment systems, then the level of perceived risk will be
reduced, and the degree of BI to use cashless payment systems will increase.
Trust has a significant positive impact on BIs to use cashless payment systems in
Thailand with TR ! BI (0.604***) path value (as shown in Figure 3). Customers are more
likely to use services if they have confidence and trust in them (Montazemi and Qahri-
Saremi, 2015). From the empirical evidence in Thailand, we found three significant
components of trust comprising of benevolence, competence and integrity (Mayer et al.,
1999). For example, customers trust the online platform system if it protects their interests,
prompts to guide them through the internet banking system while at the same time ensuring
accountability and accuracy in online financial transactions. Moreover, people tend to
develop trust to the online platform system because of its good reputation in providing all
financial information while maintaining confidentiality.
JSTPM Even though PE has no significant effect on perceived risk and trust the BI to use the
cashless payment system. This finding is very different from the study of Patil et al. (2020).
They discovered the role of PE emerged as a significant predictor of Indian consumers
attitude toward mobile payment. The results of this research confirm that utilitarian
assistance of m-payment is an important aspect in shaping consumers’ positive attitude
to adopt. Because Thai consumers realize advantages of the cashless payment system to
accomplish all kind of transactions, it has no impact on trust and reduce perceived risk. This
study contributes to the very limited literature on consumers’ adoption of cashless payment
systems in Thailand. Policymakers or financial service operators should be aware of the
essential role of consumers’ PE. They must develop efficient ways to maximize revenue in
the financial service sector. Especially consumers who are involved in any financial
transaction, consumers’ PE can influence the adoption of cashless payments. Consumer
adoption of mobile payments is helpful to save time, improve work performance, increase
productivity and conduct tasks more efficiently and quickly (Patil et al., 2020).

7.1 The role of perceived risk and trust as mediating variables

The significant finding of “effort expectancy” and “social influence” in this study is that the
mediating effect of trust on BIs to use cashless payment systems ( b = 0.414 and 0.256, p #
0.00) is greater than the mediating effect of perceived risk ( b =
0.106 and 0.068, p # 0.00)
(as shown in Table 4). When considering only the factors that indirectly influence the
UTAUT and BIs, trust acquired the highest value in this model. This implies that as more
users gain trust and believe that there are fewer risks associated with using cashless
payment systems, they will be more willing to use them.
To build trust and reduce risk to the consumers, banks should strategically develop a
system that focuses on the adoption of the cashless payment systems while incorporating
the three aspects of trust – benevolence, competence and integrity. For instance, banks
should create a system that can provide recommendations or assistance in making better
decisions so that clients can take advantage of the service benefits. Banks should also
provide users with 24-h technical support in case of difficulties that arise from using the
system. As a result, the clients will have a sense of security when using the system provided
by the banks.
Even though the variables of perceived risks have minimal mediating influence
compared to trust, it still has the potential to increase the use of the cashless payment
system. Users pay attention to all five aspects of risks such as the psychological risk,
performance risk, time risk, privacy risk and financial risk. Therefore, banks should have a
reliable system that does not fail during transactions and has robust service capabilities.
This would eliminate users’ concerns about data security and financial losses.

7.2 Theoretical implications

Building on the extant literature to examine the predictors of BI to use the cashless payment
system in Thailand and its influence on consumer behavior, the researchers expanded the
prevailing models of technological acceptance (i.e. TAM and UTAUT) by incorporating
some constructs based on the users, that is, perceived risk and trust, which have not been
fully explored in earlier studies on the topic. Furthermore, in UTAUT2 as the extension to
the original UTAUT model, Venkatesh et al. (2012) added two new constructs which were
geared to better understand consumers’ acceptance of technology, namely, hedonic
motivation, price value and habit. Still, they failed to address the critical user privacy issues.
Several different studies in the past have attempted to partially address the issue by
incorporating trust and risk (Phonthanukitithaworn et al., 2015; Qasim and Abu-Shanab,
2016; Slade et al., 2015a) to better predict BI to use, but they have never explored the Integration of
relationships between these constructs simultaneously. UTAUT model
In their study of the cashless payment system in Thailand, Boateng et al. (2016) did use
TAM to examine the adoption of online banking. Still, the scope was relatively limited, and
in Thailand
the theoretical framework did neither address nor incorporate TAM or UTAUT as the most
prevailing and tested models for technology acceptance. This is a notable gap in the current
body of knowledge, especially in the context of the cashless payment system, as the nature
of online transactions constantly raises all user privacy issues (Lee and Chung, 2011).
Additionally, being in its early stages of implementation in Thailand, building customer’s
trust by ensuring reducing risks associated with the cashless payment system is crucial in
securing a sustainable prospect for the platform. By suggesting an extended UTAUT
framework through the addition of the two constructs, the present study also facilitates a
better understanding of the practical effects of user privacy issues on BI to use.
This then reaffirms the role of perceived risk and trust in understanding individual
technology and adapting a meta-UTAUT model. The inclusion of perceived risk and trust in
the proposed research model is consistent with the TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and the decomposed TPB (Taylor and Todd, 1995). Several studies
used perceived risk and trust as mediating variables between PE, EE and SI in the UTAUT
model (Alshare and Lane, 2011; Rana et al., 2017; Šumak et al., 2010).

7.3 Practical implications

The study found that the UTAUT has the potential to influence trust and reduce the
perceived risk among the users. The results of this current research may have an impact on
society’s adoption of technological advantages in their daily lives. This may also encourage
users to recognize the benefits of using the services, which may influence their intentions to
use the cashless payment system. This study suggests that banks should tailor their
cashless payment systems to suit the needs of their clienteles. Subsequently, banks should
also consider the following points:
First, the system for making cashless payments should be simple and easy to use, as
users are more likely to trust a system if they understand how it works. Consumers with a
traditional mindset who only have recently begun to use the mobile payment system should
be given special consideration, as the unfamiliarity of the interface design and the lack of
self-efficacy are the main reasons for their apprehension to use such a system (Czaja et al.,
2006). Moreover, payment system retailers and service providers should also use their social
media platforms to encourage innovative Thai consumers to use cashless payment systems
(Slade et al., 2015b). To increase the use of mobile applications, service providers should also
improve on social media use to promote interpersonal word-of-mouth communications
(Slade et al., 2015b).
Second, as trust has such a strong impact on BIs to use, companies engaged in the
business of a cashless payment system and e-commerce should work to increase and foster
trust. They must provide transparent communication and privacy policies to their
customers. Visual displays of security and quality certifications will help clients in their
decision-making process (Giovannini et al., 2015). They should place a greater emphasis on
trust in all activities involving cashless payments. NFC and proximity m-payments will
further help reduce consumer perceptions of risk.
Banks should also publicly and fairly support the Consumer Protection Act with the
emphasis on the development of a fraud management system. The system should be able to
detect any fraudulent transactions by comparing payment information to Visa Fraud
Blocking’s database and through ID Morphing Detection. As the fraud occurs, it can
JSTPM immediately alert clients. Accordingly, merchants can choose whether or not to accept
payments from high-risk countries. Checking ID Morphing Detection will keep merchants
away from frauds. Banks should develop recognition information from advertising media,
and information should also be clearly published on the use of the cashless payment system.
By presenting the benefits of usage, customers will gain a better understanding of its use.
Furthermore, banks have to create measurements to protect the security system in the case
of money loss or data theft. The protective measurements should be promptly checked and
help banks to detect if an error occurs from the automatic refund system. It should be the
simplest and quickest channel. In addition, banks should promote a policy for financial theft
prevention methods and support basic technology for combating corruption. Consequently,
users will feel more secured when they use the service.

8. Conclusion
This current study examined the integration of the UTAUT model in the analysis of
different adoption behaviors in cashless payment usage. Based on the findings, UTAUT has
a direct and indirect influence on BIs to use the cashless payment system mediated by
perceived risk and trust. Additionally, at 0.001 level of significance, perceived risk and trust
have direct impact on BI to use a cashless payment system. In summary, the results reveal
that UTAUT model, perceived risk and trust are all significant influences on the BI to use
the cashless payment system.

9. Limitations and future research directions

Future research should consider adopting the model used in this current study to see if the
findings can be applied to non-users or dormant cashless payment system users.
Additionally, further research should be carried out to identify factors that may affect non-
users of cashless payment systems and to compare among users from different social strata.
Despite its theoretical and practical implications, this study is subject to reasonable
limitations and shortcomings. First, this research used a non-probability-based convenient
sampling method to collect the data from few cities and via personally visiting places, which
mainly included universities. This approach is not uncommon and has been extensively
used in previous studies on the adoption of various technologies. Respondents in the sample
were supposed to be able to access to smartphones and had dealt with mobile payments.
Although the method of non-probability sampling had no significant impact on the results
of this study, future investigations should use probability sampling to establish
generalizability with non-probability sampling. Second, the respondents for this research
were Thais and mostly computer and internet literate; hence, the results may differ from
those with varying demographics. The questionnaire was in Thailand language only. In
future, data can be collected by a method, which allows people from different languages and
education levels to participate. Third, only cashless payment system adopters in Thailand
were interviewed for this study. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on non-
adopters and analyze the findings using the model proposed in this current study. Fourth,
this current study was limited to a quantitative data, and an in-depth approach was not
applied because of time and resources constraints. A mixed method approach, on the other
hand, can provide insightful information and may be used in future research for further
understanding. Finally, this study used a self-reported usage scale to assess user behavior.
Future investigations should focus on collecting and analyzing actual usage data.
References Integration of
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision UTAUT model
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
in Thailand
Ajzen, I. (2006), “Constructing a TpB questionnaire: conceptual and methodological considerations”,
available at: www.people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf (accessed 27 June 2011)
Akturan, U. and Tezcan, N. (2012), “Mobile banking adoption of the youth market: perceptions and
intentions”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 444-459.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Rana, N.P. (2017), “Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking
by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 99-110.
Alshare, K.A. and Lane, P.L. (2011), “Predicting student-perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction
in ERP courses: an empirical investigation”, Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, Vol. 28 No. 34, pp. 571-584.
Alshare, K. and Mousa, A. (2014), “The moderating effect of espoused cultural dimensions on
consumer’s intention to use mobile payment devices”, Proceedings of the 35th International
Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1- 15.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Andreev, A.A., Morozova, E., Fedorov, G., Schirrmeister, L., Bobrov, A.A., Kienast, F. and Schwamborn,
G. (2012), “Vegetation history of Central Chukotka deduced from permafrost paleoenvironmental
records of the el’gygytgyn impact crater”, Climate of the Past, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1287-1300.
Arango, C.A., Huynh, K.P. and Sabetti, L. (2015), “Consumer payment choice: merchant card acceptance
versus pricing incentives”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 55 No. 1.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2012), “IBM SPSS amos 21”, User’s Guide, IBM Corporation. Armonk.
Arvidsson, N. (2014), “Consumer attitudes on mobile payment services – results from a proof of concept
test”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 150-170.
Assael, H. (1981), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, Kent, New York, NY.
Baabdullah, A.M., Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Kizgin, H. and Patil, P. (2019), “Consumer use of mobile banking
(M-Banking) in Saudi Arabia: towards an integrated model”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 38-52. available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.002
Bank of Thailand (2021), “Cashless payment systems”, available at: www.bot.or.th/English/
PaymentSystems/Publication/PSResearchPaper/WorkingPaper/2021_Occasional_Paper_
Payment_Diary_final_ENG.pdf
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 No. 1, pp. 418-430.
Benamati, J., Fuller, M.A., Serva, M.A. and Baroudi, J. (2010), “Clarifying the integration of trust and
TAM in E-Commerce environments: implications for systems design and management”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 380-393.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012), Social Science Research, Open University Press, USF Tampa Bay pp.103 - 111.
Boateng, R., Boateng, S.L., Awuah, R.B., Ansong, E. and Anderson, A.B., (2016), “Videos in learning in
higher education: assessing perceptions and attitudes of students at the university of Ghana”,
Smart Learning Environments, Vol. 33 No. 1.
Chandrasekhar, U. and Nandagopal, R. (2016), “Mobile payment usage intent in an Indian context: an
exploratory study”, Asian Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 542-552.
Chhonker, M.S., Verma, D., Kar, A.K. and Grover, P. (2018), “m-commerce technology adoption:
thematic and citation analysis of scholarly research during (2008-2017)”, The Bottom Line,
Vol. 31 No. 3/4, pp. 208-233.
JSTPM Chiu, J.L., Bool, N.C. and Chiu, C.L. (2017), “Challenges and factors influencing initial trust and
behavioral intention to use mobile banking services in the Philippines”, Asia Pacific Journal of
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 246-278, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/
APJIE-08-2017-029
Cochran, W.G. (1953), Sampling Techniques, Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Couto, B., Manes, F., Montañés, P., Matallana, D., Reyes, P. and Velasquez, M. (2013), “Structural
neuroimaging of social cognition in progressive non-fluent aphasia and behavioral variant of
frontotemporal dementia”, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, Vol. 7, p. 467, doi: 10.3389/
fnhum.2013.00467.
Curran, P.J., West, S.G. and Finch, G.F. (1996), “The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and
specification error in confirmatory factor analysis”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 16-29.
Czaja, S.J., Charnesss, N., Fisk, A.D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S.N., Rogers, W.A. and Sharit, J. (2006), “Factors
predicting the use of technology: findings from the center for research and education on aging
and technology enhancement (CREATE”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 333-352),
available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
Davis, F.D. (1986), “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information
systems: theory and results”, Ph.D. dissertation in MIT Sloan School of Management,
Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer-technology – a
comparison of 2 theoretical-models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Deb, M. and Agrawal, A. (2017), “Factors impacting the adoption of m-banking: understanding brand
India’s potential for financial inclusion”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 22-40, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2015-0191
Demirguc-Kunt, A., Leora, K. and Dorothe, S. (2015), “The global findex database 2014: measuring
financial inclusion around the world”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 7255.
Di Pietro, L., Mugion, R.G., Mattia, G., Renzi, M.F., (2015), and., and Toni, M. “The integrated model on
mobile payment acceptance (IMMPA): an empirical application to public transport”,
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 463-479.
Duane, A., O’Reilly, P. and Andreev, P. (2014), “Realising m-payments: modelling consumers’
willingness to M-pay using smart phones”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 318-334.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Believe, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Westlym Reading, MA.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Giovannini, A., Aubry, A., Panetto, H., El Haouzi, H., Pierrel, L. and Dassisti, M. (2015), “Anti-logicist
framework for design-knowledge representation”, Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 144-157, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2015.03.013
Gu, J.C., Lee, S.C. and Suh, Y.H. (2009), “Determinants of behavioural intention to mobile banking”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 11605-11616.
Gupta, K.P., Manrai, R. and Goel, U. (2019), “Factors influencing adoption of payments banks by Indian
customers: extending UTAUT with perceived credibility”, Journal of Asia Business Studies,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 173-195, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-2017-0111
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Integration of
Perspectives, 7th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
UTAUT model
Hampshire, C., (2017), “A mixed methods empirical exploration of UK consumer perceptions of trust,
risk and usefulness of mobile payments”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3,
in Thailand
Vol. 3. available at: doi: 10.1108/IJBM-08-2016-0105.
Hanafizadeh, P., Behboudi, M., Koshksaray, A.A. and Tabar, M.J.S. (2014), “Mobile-banking adoption
by Iranian bank clients”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 62-78.
Hojjati, N.S. and Rabi, R.A. (2013), “Effects of Iranian online behavior on the acceptance of internet
banking”, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 123-139, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1108/15587891311319422
Hongxia, P., Xianhao, X.U. and Weidan, L.I.U. (2011), “Drivers and barriers in the acceptance of mobile
payment in China”, International Conference on E-business and E-government (ICEE). IEEE.
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on
business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 429-438.
Humbani, M. and Wiese, M. (2018), “A cashless society for all: determining consumers’ readiness to
adopt mobile payment services”, Journal of African Business, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 409-429.
Ivatury, G. and Mas, I. (2008), The Early Experience with Branchless Banking, CGAP, Washington, DC.
Kapoor, J.R., Dlabay, A. and Hughes, R.J. (2014), Personal Finance, Mc Graw Hill Companies, New Delhi.
Kim, K.K. and Prabhakar, B. (2004), “Initial trust and the adoption of B2C e-commerce: the case of
internet banking”, ACM SIGMIS Database: The Database for Advances in Information Systems,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 50-64.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010), “An empirical examination of factors influencing the
intention to use mobile payment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 310-322.
Kim, Y., Park, Y.J. and Choi, J. (2016), “The adoption of mobile payment services for “fintech”,
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1058-1061.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Marquet, M., Palmer, A. and Zhao, A.L. (2015), “Enjoyment and social influence:
predicting mobile payment adoption”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 537-554.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2015.1043278
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T. and Hiltunen, M. (2007), “Mapping the reasons for resistance to internet
banking: a eans-end approach”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 75-85.
Laukkanen, T. and Pasanen, M. (2007), “Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: how they differ
from other online users?”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 86-94.
Liu, J., Xiao, Y., Li, S., Liang, W. and Chen, C. L. P. (2012), “Cyber security and privacy issues in smart
grids”, IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 981-997.
Lee, M.C. (2009), “Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and TPB
with perceived risk and perceived benefit”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 130-141.
Lee, K.C. and Chung, N. (2011), “Exploring antecedents of behavior intention to use internet banking in
Korea”, International Journal of E-Adoption, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 30-47.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sanchez-Fernandez, J. and Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014a), “Antecedents of the
adoption of the new mobile payment systems: the moderating effect of age”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 464-478.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sanchez-Fernandez, J. and Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014b), “Role of gender on acceptance
of mobile payment”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 220-240.
Liu, X., Magjuka, R., Bonk, C. and Lee, S. (2007), “Does sense of community matter? An examination of
participants’ perceptions on building learning communities in online courses”, The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 9-24.
JSTPM Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P.Y.K. and Cao, Y. (2011), “Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 393-403.
Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J. and Shim, J. (2010), “Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faced risk in
initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of mobile banking services”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 222-234.
McAllister, D.J. (1995), “Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation
in organizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 24-59, available at: https://
doi.org/10.2307/256727
Mclean, G., Al-Nabhani, K. and Wilson, A. (2018a), “Developing a mobile applications customer
experience model (MACE) – Implications for retailers”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 85
No. 1, pp. 325-336.
McLean, J., Lonsdale, A., Hammersley, L., O’Gorman, E. and Miller, F. (2018b), “Shadow waters:
Making Australian water cultures visible”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 615-629.
Madan, K. and Yadav, R. (2016), “Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: a developing country
perspective”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 227-244, available at: https://
doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2015-0112
Makki, A.M., Ozturk, A.B. and Singh, D. (2016), “Role of risk, self-efficacy, and innovativeness on
behavioral intentions for mobile payment systems in the restaurant industry”, Journal of
Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 454-473.
Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D. (2006), “Marketing Research: An Applied Approach”, 3rd Edition, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Marshall, S.H. (2000), “Charles Schwab shells out for U.S. Trust”, available at: https://observer.com/
2000/01/charles-schwab-shells-out-for-us-trust/
Marafon, D.L., Basso, K., Espartel, L.B., de Barcellos, M.D. and Rech, E. (2018), “Perceived risk and
intention to use internet banking: the effects of self-confidence and risk acceptance”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 277-289.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T. and Popovic, A. (2014), “Understanding the internet banking adoption: a
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P. and Caruso, D.R. (1999), “Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for
an intelligence”, Intelligence, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 267-298.
Min, Q., Ji, S. and Qu, G. (2008), “Mobile commerce user acceptance study in China: a revised UTAUT
model”, Tsinghua Science & Technology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-264.
Mishra, A.K. (1996), “Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust”, in Kramer, M. R. and
Tyler R. T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 261-287.
Montazemi, A. and Qahri-Saremi, R. (2015), “Factors affecting adoption of online banking: a Meta-analytic
structural equation modeling study”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 210-226.
Morosan, C. and DeFranco, A. (2016), “It’s about time: revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’
intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Musa, A., Khan, H.U. and AlShare, K.A. (2015), “Factors influence consumers’ adoption of mobile
payment devices in Qatar”, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 13 No. 6,
pp. 670-689.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Baptista, G. (2016), “Mobile payment: understanding the determinants of
customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 61, pp. 404-414.
Patil, P., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N.P. and Raghavan, V. (2020), “Understanding consumer adoption of Integration of
mobile payment in India: extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety,
trust, and grievance redressal”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 54,
UTAUT model
pp. 102-144. in Thailand
Phonthanukitithaworn, C., Sellitto, C. and Fong, M.W.L. (2015), “An investigation of mobile payment an
examination of behavioral intention to use contactless mobile payment(m-payment) services in
Thailand”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-54.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Qasim, H. and Abu-Shanab, E. (2016), “Drivers of mobile payment acceptance: the impact of network
externalities”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1021-1034.
Rana, A., Madan, S. and Bengtsson, L. (2013), “Performance evaluation of regional climate models
(RCMs) in determining precipitation characteristics for Goteborg”, Hydrology Research, Vol. 45
No. 4-5, pp. 703-714, available at: https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2013.160
Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Lal, B., Williams, M.D. and Clement, M. (2017), “Citizens’ adoption of an
electronic government system: towards a unified view”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 549-568.
Riffai, M.M.M.A., Grant, K. and Edgar, D. (2012), “Big TAM in Oman: exploring the promise of on- line
banking, its adoption by customers and the challenges of banking in Oman”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 239-250.
Riquelme, H.E. and Rios, R.E. (2010), “The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of mobile
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 328-341.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 574-599.
Rouibah, K. and Hamdy, H. (2009), “Factors affecting information communication technologies usage
and satisfaction: perspective from instant messaging in Kuwait”, Journal of Global Information
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2.
Sahoo, D. and Pillai, S. (2017), “Role of mobile banking servicescape on customer attitude and
engagement: an empirical investigation in India”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1113-1130.
San-Martín, S., Lopez-Catalan, B. and Ramon-Jeronimo, M.A. (2013), “Mobile shoppers: types, drivers,
and impediments”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 350-371.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4th Edition,
Financial Times Prentice Hall, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.
Shin, D. (2010), “Modeling the interaction of users and mobile payment system: conceptual framework”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 917-940.
Shin, S. and Lee, W.J. (2014), “The effects of technology readiness and technology acceptance on NFC
mobile payment services in Korea”, Journal of Applied Business Research (Jabr), Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 1615-1626.
Sivathanu, B. (2019), “Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in India: an
empirical study”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 143-171.
Slade, E.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Piercy, N.C. and Williams, M.D. (2015b), “Modeling consumers’ adoption
intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extending UTAUT with
innovativeness, risk, and trust”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 860-873.
Slade, E., Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y. and Piercy, N. (2015a), “Exploring consumer adoption of proximity
mobile payments”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
JSTPM Srivastava, C., Chandra, S. and Theng, Y.-L. (2010), “Evaluating the role of trust in consumer adoption
of mobile payment systems: an empirical analysis”, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 29.
Stone, R.N. and Gronhaug, K. (1993), “Perceived risk: further considerations for the marketing
discipline”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2003), “The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the
acceptance of electronic commerce”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 135-161.
Šumak, B., Polancic, G. and Hericko, M. (2010), “An empirical study of virtual learning environment
adoption using UTAUT”, in Gadomski, A.M. Krämer, B. Lester, C.Y. and Popescu M. (Eds),
Second international conference on mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning, IEEE. pp. 17-22. https://
doi.org/10.1109/elml.2010.11
Tan, E. and Lau, J.L. (2016), “Behavioural intention to adopt mobile banking among the millennial
generation”, Young Consumers, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 18-31, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-
07-2015-00537
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M. and Serrano, A. (2016), “Extending the UTAUT model to understand
the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: a structural equation
modeling approach”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 830-849.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing
models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-176.
Thakur, R. and Srivastava, M. (2014), “Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and
usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India”, Internet
Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 369-392.
Tian, Y. and Dong, H. (2013), “An analysis of key factors affecting user acceptance of mobile payment”,
Informatics and Applications (ICIA), 2013 Second International Conference on IEEE.
pp. 240-246.
Van der Cruijsen, R., Peters, S. and Crone, E.A. (2017), “Neural correlates of evaluating self and close-
other in physical, academic and prosocialdomains”, Brain and Cognition, Vol. 118, pp. 45-53.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. and Davis, G.B. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: toward a
unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. 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.
Wu, I.L. and Chen, E.L. (2005), “An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption
of on-line tax: an empirical study”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 62
No. 6, pp. 784-808.
Wu, J., Liu, L. and Huang, L. (2016), “Exploring user acceptance of an innovative mobile payment
service in an emerging market: the moderating effect of the diffusion stages of WeChat
payments in China”, Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Chiayi,
p. 238.
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y. and Zhang, R. (2012), “Mobile payment services adoption across
time: an empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and personal trait”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D.C. and Tarn, J.M. (2015), “Computers in human behavior exploring
consumer perceived risk and trust for online payments: an empirical study in China’s younger
generation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 50, pp. 9-24.
Yuen, Y.Y., Yeow, P., Lim, N. and Saylani, N. (2010), “Internet banking adoption: comparing
developed and developing countries”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 51
No. 1, pp. 52-61.
Zhong, J., Dhir, A., Nieminen, M., Hämäläinen, M. and Laine, J. (2013), “Exploring consumer adoption of Integration of
mobile payments in China”, Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of
Converging Media, pp. 318-332. UTAUT model
Zhou, T. (2011), “An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking”, Internet Research, in Thailand
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 527-540.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y. and Wang, B. (2010), “Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user
adoption”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 760-767.

Further reading
Loureiro, S.M.C. and Sarmento, E.M. (2018), “Enhancing brand equity through emotions and
experience: the banking sector”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 868-883.
Phonthanukitithaworn, C., Sellitto, C. and Fong, M. (1970), “User intentions to adopt mobile payment
services: a study of early adopters in Thailand”, The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-29.
Stefik, M., Guldin, S., Vignolini, S., Wiesnerd, C. and Steiner, U. (2015), “Block copolymer self- assembly
for nanophotonics”, Chemical Society Reviews, Vol. 44 No. 15, pp. 4975-5748.
Whitney, J.O. (1996), The economics of trust: Liberting profits and restoring coorperate validity:
McGraw – Hill. New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Kanokkarn Snae Namahoot can be contacted at: Kanokkarnn@nu.ac.th

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