Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/teler

Investigating U.S. consumers’ mobile pay through UTAUT2 and

generational cohort theory: An analysis of mobile pay in pandemic times
Briana M. Martinez a,∗, Laura E. McAndrews b
a
Baylor University, Department of Human Sciences and Design, One Bear Place #97346, Waco, TX 76798, United States
b
University of Georgia, Department of Textile, Merchandising and Interiors, 305 Sanford Dr., Athens, GA 30602, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This study investigates the differences in usage intentions and actual use behavior for m-pay pre-covid (2019)
M-payment and during the Covid pandemic (2021). Furthermore, it examines the generational differences in m-pay behavior
Mobile commerce during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study extended the theoretical model of UTAUT2 with risk and generational
UTAUT2
cohorts (baby boomers, gen x, and millennials). Data was collected from 2,324 U.S. participants, and the pro-
posed model was analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results show a significant difference in m-pay
behavior pre-covid versus the Covid pandemic. Additionally, the cohorts’ behavioral intention and use behavior
toward m-pay differed, with baby boomers and millennials sharing similar behavior compared to generation X.
This study highlights the pandemic’s impact on shifting m-payment behaviors and the need to target m-payments
payment behavior by generation.

Introduction erations, thus serving as a helpful segmentation approach to aid behav-

The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most pressing crises in the
modern world, with global and economic ramifications still felt [1]. Be-
cause of the high virus transmission, countries worldwide were severely
locked down. These lockdowns resulted in numerous restrictions for
businesses and citizens, such as social distancing, mask requirements,
limitation of product quantity purchase, and restrictions on traditional
shopping behaviors. Thus, consumers quickly turned to technology to
ease their fear and discomfort of the unknown. As a result of the pan-
demic and presiding lockdowns, multiple consumer behavior changes
began to occur as people had to adapt to a new way of life [2], and for
many, this resulted in the usage of m-payments.
Mobile payments, or m-pay, is the use of a mobile device to initiate,
approve, and verify commercial transactions [3]. Valued at 465.1 bil-
lion dollars [4] and with a 49% growth projection by 2023, the United
States (U.S.) m-payments market still falls behind China and other Asian
countries [4]. While growth has been rapid and steady for mobile retail
commerce, the U.S.’s usage of m-payments is fledgling, with a growth
rate much slower than anticipated [5]. Regardless of the increasing pop-
ulation of smartphone users, U.S. consumers are not adopting m-pay at
the rate initially believed.
A generational cohort segmentation approach is valuable to further
understanding U.S. consumers and their m-pay behavior. Generational
cohorts are homogenous within a generation but different across gen-
ioral understanding. According to Eger et al. [2], Majanen et al. [6],
and Chaney et al. [7], generational cohorts share similar life experi-
ences shaping their attitudes, preference, and habits and are vital to ex-
amine the change in consumer needs and behaviors. In particular, this
research compares three significant cohorts: baby boomers, generation
x, and generation Y (millennials).
With the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, retailers and consumers
alike sought digital solutions in every industry, including payment.
Therefore, retailers need to understand behavioral changes occurring
for U.S. consumers and their intentions toward m-payment due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, to what extent did U.S consumers’ usage in-
tention and actual usage of mobile pay change from pre-covid to covid?
(RQ1) How are generational cohorts similar or dissimilar in their mobile
pay behavior? (RQ2) How is risk perceived through the pandemic and
between generational cohorts? (RQ3) Therefore, this study aimed to un-
derstand the difference in usage intentions and actual use behavior for
m-payment pre-covid (2019) and during the Covid pandemic (2021). In
addition, this study also examines the generational difference in m-pay
behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This study offers several contributions to the advancement of m-
pay research, understanding generational differences, and aids in un-
derstanding behavioral change during the pandemic. First, this study
draws upon the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of tech-
nology [8] and extends it by adding risk to assess the change in m-pay

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Briana_M_Martinez@baylor.edu (B.M. Martinez), lauraemc@uga.edu (L.E. McAndrews).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teler.2023.100076
Received 3 November 2022; Received in revised form 8 May 2023; Accepted 28 June 2023
2772-5030/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews
before and during covid. Second, this study examines age differences
using the generational cohort theory [9] to better illustrate m-pay be-
havioral changes during the pandemic. Third, through the usage of many
technology theories, researchers have analyzed the barriers and predic-
tors of behavioral intentions for mobile commerce [10], mobile banking
[11], and m-payment [12]. However, few studies have applied UTAUT
to compare the change in behavior over time and to analyze the gen-
erational difference in m-pay usage. Therefore, consumer perception of
m-payments may differ pre covid and during covid, and generational
differences may vary for m-pay usage behavior during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Literature review
Behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic
The pandemic changed how consumers made payments [13]. As
COVID-19 spread throughout the U.S. rapidly, consumer spending de-
clined in mid-March and April of 2020. However, with the delivery of
governmental aid, consumer spending rebounded a little during the late
spring and summer of 2020 [13].
Acting cautiously, retailers pushed a variety of no-touch and encour-
aged contactless m-payment options to U.S. consumers [14,15]. As a
result, the U.S. population was ready to spend again and turned more
often to m-payments over cash or cards despite risk concerns [15]. Mo-
bile payments in this study consist of NFC, cloud-based, and QR coded
based mobile payments such as Apply Pay, Venmo, and fast food re-
tailers’ payment options such as Chick Fil A. Consumers who adopted
m-payments increased significantly during COVID-19 as m-payments be-
came more common due to forced changes in shopping patterns [13].
Almost one-third of U.S. consumers used m-payments for the first time
during the pandemic [16], with approximately 57% wanting to con-
tinue using them when the pandemic subsides [15]. Overall, m-payment
adoption increased to 46.1% in 2020 versus 8.6% in 2019 [13]. The be-
havioral changes observed during the pandemic are hard to determine if
they are temporary or a move towards a more permanent change [13].
Consumer behavior does not change consistently, and the same is true of
any changes during the pandemic as they are heterogeneous; thus, there
is a need to analyze the change by varied groupings such as generations.
Generational cohorts
Generational cohort theory states that each generation group varies
from one another due to their different lived experiences [17]. Addi-
tionally, the differences are not a direct result of a shared age range
but more of the shared influences and experiences of a specific gener-
ation. These shared attributes create similar perspectives of attitudes,
beliefs, and values, thus creating a generational group identity. Within
consumer behavior, the co-creation of generational identity significantly
influences behavioral patterns and habits [2]. This study focuses on
three specific generations, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Genera-
tion Y. Each generation will be briefly defined and their technological
identities described.
Baby boomers (1945–1964)
At the onset of the pandemic, baby boomers were between the ages
of 58–76 [18]. Baby boomers are sometimes referred to as digital im-
migrants as they were not born into the digital world [2]. They are the
traditionalist of the three generations, preferring analog to digital life
as they communicate face to face, via phone, or through the mail. The
technological expansion of their youth was the television [18]; thus, one
can imagine that this generation experienced the most difficulty with the
forced behavioral change due to the pandemic [2]. Baby boomers par-
ticipate the least of all the generations in the information society age;
although their mobile technology rates are steadily increasing, they are
2
Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076
still significantly behind younger generations [19]. However, the pan-
demic prompted many baby boomers to discover and use technology as
it offered them a safe alternative to traditional methods [2].
Generation X (1965–1980)
Generation X was between 42 and 57 when the pandemic began [18].
This generation grew as the computer revolution took hold and mobile
phones were introduced [2]. Because of this, they are knowledgeable
and comfortable with technology but risk-averse [19]. Generation X
tends to be skeptical of marketing efforts and therefore tends to be hard
to influence [7]. On the other hand, they value the opinion of others
and desire community relationships [19]. Generation X prefers digital
methods over other traditional methods, unlike baby boomers. How-
ever, unlike millennials, generation x was not constantly surrounded by
technological advancements; thus, they had to invest their effort and
time in learning new digital skills [19].
Millennials (1981–1996)
Millennials are the largest generation [20], and at the inception of
the pandemic, they were 26–41 years old [18]. Millennials are referred
to as digital natives as their adolescence was a time of rapid internet de-
velopment as they adapted to social media, constant connectivity, and
on-demand entertainment and communication [18]. They use digital
technology, especially smartphones, constantly in their daily lives and
see it as the norm, as they have never experienced it another way [19].
Early technology exposure has framed their psychological, social, and
cognitive behavior [7]. Because their communication is shaped by tech-
nology, the internet, and social media, millennials are more likely to
share their opinions and feelings with friends, brands, and companies
[7].
Theory and model development
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
synthesizes eight theories and models [21]. The comprehensive model
that resulted explains 70 percent of the variance in usage intention, an
improvement over the eight original models [22]. Therefore, UTAUT
is the most thorough model for analyzing information technology adop-
tion. UTAUT identifies four central constructs: performance expectancy,
effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. These
constructs are direct determinants of behavioral intention. Facilitating
conditions also influence use behavior. To better describe the consumer
technology context, UTAUT was extended and included the constructs of
hedonic motivation, price value, and habit [8]. Additionally, UTAUT2
examined the moderation of age, gender, and experience on the rela-
tionship between the four key constructs and intention and actual use.
Since this study focuses on the efficient and accessible nature of m-pay,
hedonic motivation, and price value were excluded [23].
Generational cohorts
Venkatesh et al.’s [8] usage of the moderators show that age will
place different weights on various factors that may influence technol-
ogy usage. Previous research [24,25,26] examined the moderation ef-
fect of interaction between UTAUT constructs and users’ intention to
use m-pay solutions. When individuals born within the same time frame
and sharing common traits and experiences are grouped, they are called
generational cohorts. These cohorts are people born during the same
time frame who share similar values, attitudes, beliefs, and expectations
throughout their lifetime, forming a cohort identity [1,2,19]. Cohorts
can impact consumer buying, shopping habits, and behaviors [2]. In
the context of m-pay, millennials are technologically competent digital
natives whose lives are often mediated by technology and who use mo-
bile phones for almost all activities [25]. Therefore, compared to Baby
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews
Boomers and Generation X, it can be inferred that their behaviors to-
wards the antecedents and usage of m-pay will differ.
Performance expectancy
Performance expectancy is how consumers use m-payments to assist
in transactions more accurately and conveniently. It is one of the most
robust antecedents to behavioral intentions, with several studies sup-
porting its impact [12,20,24,27,28]. Performance expectancy is focused
on technologies’ usefulness, efficiency, and time-saving opportunities
for users [1]. These features are vital to m-payments as they offer a com-
petitive advantage against traditional forms of payment [1]. Therefore,
consumers use m-pay when they find it beneficial for their transactional
needs [30]. Millennials adopt technology faster than generation X, and
generation x will adopt it faster than baby boomers [19].
Effort expectancy
Effort expectancy is the consumers’ comfort with using technology
[8]. Davis [31] theorized it as a cognitive tradeoff process in which
efforts needed to use the technology are weighed against the benefits
gained through technology usage. M-pay must highlight its benefits,
such as a seamless payment process, intuitive graphic displays, and cus-
tomer support, and how they differ from established payment solutions.
Research has validated the importance of effort expectancy as an an-
tecedent of intentions [29,32], although there is some evidence of non-
significance [24,27,33]. The nonsignificant relationships are theorized
due to increased mobile phone literacy and users’ comfort with mobile
technology [34]. While m-payments are relatively easy to learn and use,
U.S. m-pay usage has displayed low saturation rates [35]. For many, the
ability to use an m-payment is not intuitive; therefore, when consumers
believe there are few barriers to learning how to use m-pay, then con-
sumers are more likely to use it [30]. Millennials are mobile savvy, and
Generation X is willing to put in the effort to learn if they see the ben-
efits; whereas baby boomers prefer traditional methods; however, the
pandemic forced them to learn new skills.
Social influence
Social influence is the degree a person believes that essential people
in the consumers’ lives expect them to use new technology [36,8]. Peo-
ple are more inclined to return to their social circles to comprehend and
extend their knowledge of new technology or to be accepted for their
usage of the technology. Therefore, extending this concept to m-pay,
users who engage in m-payment will look for acceptance from friends
and family while using m-pay [1]. However, past research has shown so-
cial influence to have a mixed effect, with some researchers indicating
a positive significance of intention [12,27,29,33] while other research
found non-significance [10,34]. Each generation values social connec-
tions, although the younger generations prefer digital connections over
face-to-face communications. Therefore, each generation is likely to use
mobile payments if their friends and families encourage the behavior.
Facilitating conditions
Facilitating conditions are when an individual perceives the tech-
nology is assisted by the company and technical infrastructure [8]. For
example, usage of m-payment requires individuals to own a mobile de-
vice, access the internet, have storage space to install a mobile app, and
awareness of the risk related to the service [34,36]. Additionally, the
likelihood of technology usage increases when individuals regard facil-
itating conditions such as a chat feature or online service walkthrough
as helpful [34]. Venkatesh et al. [8] and other past studies examined the
positive influence of facilitating conditions on intention to use and use
behavior on an array of technology-based systems [28,29]. However,
some researchers [10,24,30] also noted the negative or nonsignificant
3
Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076
influence in their research, noting that the availability of resources may
not be sufficient if the technology is too complex for the consumers’ ap-
titude. Thus, if resources and support services are available to aid the
consumers, they will be more likely to use m-payment. Both millennials
and generation x seek information and resources to help them compre-
hend technology, and baby boomers seek out customer service agents
to handle service-related issues.
Habit
Habit is the automatic, repeated response learned over time without
conscious intention [8]. Research posited habit as a vital determinant
to use behavior [33,37], and numerous studies demonstrated its influ-
ence on usage intention and actual behavior [26,32,33]. Ameen et al.’s
[32] study emphasizes the importance of consumers forming good m-
payment habits. If positive habits are not formed, little to no influence
on intention will happen. Thus, if consumers find m-payments useful,
they are more likely to make them a part of their routine [26]. When
generations find the value in mobile pay and make a habit of using them,
they are more likely to continue the behavior.
Risk
To further elucidate the complexity of consumers’ perception of m-
pay in the U.S., the construct of risk is necessary to understand the in-
hibitors of usage. Perceived risk is the extent consumers of m-payment
services feel they may be exposed to certain types of financial, social,
psychological, physical, or time risk [38]. Perceived risk has long been
established as a leading factor in influencing consumer behavior and
acts as a significant negative influence on the behavioral intentions of
m-pay [12,36,38,39]. When the technology adopted has a monetary na-
ture, perceived risk is often believed to be the primary inhibitor of its
adoption [36]. Perceived risk can be reduced when businesses ensure a
stable platform with excellent security measures [36]. Generation Y is
less risk-averse in comparison to baby boomers and generation X [7].
Behavioral intention and use behavior
An integral part of the UTAUT2 model is behavioral intention. Be-
havioral intention is the individual’s inclination and effort to perform
the behavior [40]. Thus, intention encompasses various motivational
factors that affect individuals to perform a behavior. Individuals are
more likely to observe a behavior when they hold strong intentions.
[40]. Also, behavioral intention is a strong indicator of actual use be-
havior [26,29,41]. Use behavior describes a user’s preparedness to do a
specific task [36]. Therefore, investors and business owners must know
if consumers, specifically using generational cohort segmentation, in-
tend to use m-payment solutions and if that intention would result in
actual behavior.
3.10 Research model
The UTAUT2 constructs and risk are significant indicators of behav-
ioral intentions [10,12,23,38], and cohorts moderate the antecedents
of intention to use m-pay. Additionally, facilitating conditions, habits,
and risks are expected to influence actual behavior significantly. There-
fore, the researchers constructed two studies. The first investigated the
differences between m-pay pre-COVID pandemic (2019) and during the
COVID pandemic (2021). This was essential to understanding changing
behaviors over time which helped in establishing the next study. Upon
establishing a difference, study 2 investigated generational cohort as a
moderator in m-pay during the pandemic (2021). The research models
(Figs. 1 and 2) and the corresponding study’s hypotheses are as follows:
Study 1 hypotheses
H1: The variables of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, so-
cial influence, facilitating conditions, habit, risk, intention to use, and
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model.

Fig. 2. Study 2 Conceptual Model.

4
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews
actual use will be statistically different between the pre-covid 2019
group and the covid 2021 group.
H2: (a) Performance expectancy, (b) effort expectancy, (c)social in-
fluence, (d) facilitating conditions, (e) habit, and (f) risk will have an
influence on intention to use m-payments for both pre-covid in 2019
and during covid in 2021.
H3: (a) Facilitating conditions, (b) habit, (c)risk and (d) intention to
use will have an influence on the use behavior of m-payments for both
pre-covid in 2019 and during covid in 2021.
H4: The variance of intention to use and actual use will be stronger
for the covid 2021 group.
Study 2 hypotheses
H1: The variables of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, so-
cial influence, facilitating conditions, habit, risk, intention to use, and
actual use will be statistically different between the generational cohort
groups.
H2: (a) Performance expectancy, (b) effort expectancy, (c)social in-
fluence, (d) facilitating conditions, and (e) habit will positively influence
intention to use m-payments moderated by generational cohort.
H3: (a) Facilitating conditions and (b) habit will positively influence
use behavior moderated by generational cohort.
H4: Risk will negatively influence (a) intention to use m-payments
and (b) actual use moderated by generational cohort.
H5: Intention to use m-payments will positively influence use behav-
ior.
H6: The variance of intention to use and actual use will differ for
each cohort.
Research methods
Following previous research, the study’s research design employed a
quantitative approach utilizing a survey research strategy. The study’s
research objectives were to test UTAUT2 with habit and risk on behav-
ioral intention and use behavior, which is an existing theory, however
with the contemporary event of the COVID-19 pandemic that may im-
pact mobile pay behavior (Rahi, 2017) [42]. Survey items were based on
existing measurement items and slightly adapted to fit the mobile pay
context. After data collection, the raw data was cleaned and analyzed
using IBM SPSS and Amos statistical software.
Measurement development
Endogenous variables
Use behavior was measured by adapting Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu
[8] for mobile pay asking respondents to choose their usage frequency
for ten different mobile pay options (i.e., Apple Pay, Google Pay, Sam-
sung pay, etc.). Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert scale for
frequency 1=never to 7=many times a day.
Exogenous variables
Utilizing the UTAUT2 model and measurements established by pre-
vious research [8], performance expectancy (usefulness, performance
efficiency), effort expectancy (ease of use and understandable), social
influence (important people tell me to use), and facilitating conditions
(well-equipped technology that can be learned) each had four measure-
ment items. In addition, habit (the need or obsession to use) and be-
havioral intention (likeliness or willingness to use in the future) utilized
and adapted Tak and Panwar [43] scale with habit having three items
and behavioral intention having four items, and risk (safe or worried
about using) was measured with four items utilizing Abrahao and col-
leagues [44]. All scale items measured respondents’ level of agreement
on a 7-point Likert scale with 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree.
The measurement model with reliability and validity testing is discussed
in the results section.
5
Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076
Sample characteristics
The pre-COVID sample description was 74.2 percent female, 71.0
percent white, with a mean age of 44 years, totaling 1194 respondents.
The COVID sample description was 65.8 percent female, 84.9 percent
white, with a mean age of 50 years, totaling 1130 respondents. Table 1
displays the demographic characteristics of the sample population for
study 1. Table 2 gives the demographic characteristics for the COVID
group by generational cohorts.
Data collection
Data were collected utilizing Qualtrics purchased panel with a simple
random sampling where the population was defined as U.S. adults, 18
and older, who owned a smartphone with m-pay capability. For study
1 and study 2, data collection was distributed through an online sur-
vey administered by Qualtrics, which collected responses in October
2019 (pre-COVID) and June 2021 (during COVID) to test the influence
of UTAUT2 extended with risk on usage intention and actual use.
Data analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses
based on established theory [45]. Both studies 1 and 2 are grounded in
the UTAUT2 theoretical framework and the risk variable for m-pay dur-
ing different periods. First, confirmatory factor analysis tested the latent
model showing convergent validity, composite reliability, and discrimi-
nant validity. Second, a structural model was tested for both pre-COVID
2019 data and COVID 2021 data.
Results
Study 1: MANOVA for group differences testing
A MANOVA was conducted in IBM SPSS 20 with the eight model
variables as independent variables and time (2019 and 2021) as a de-
pendent variable. The eight independent variables were performance
expectancy (PEX), effort expectancy (EEX), social influence (SINF), fa-
cilitating conditions (FCON), habit (HAB), risk (RISK), intention to use
(IUSE), and actual use (AUSE). Results generated a statistically signif-
icant difference between the 2019 and 2021 model variables, Wilks
𝜆 = 0.975, F (8,2232) = 7.064, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.025, observed
power =1.0. Therefore, evidence was sufficient to reject the null hy-
pothesis and conclude that pre-COVID (2019) and COVID (2021) m-pay
behavior was significantly different.
Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at a
0.025 (0.05/2) alpha level. For each IV, the results were for PEX,
F(1,2239) = 5.673, p < .025, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.003, observed power
=1.0, EEX F(1,2239) = 6.856, p < .025, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.003, ob-
served power = 1.0, SINF F(1,2239) = 18.456, p < .001, partial
𝜂 2 = 0.008, observed power = 1.0, FCON F(1,2239) = 5.134, p
< .025, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.002, observed power =1.0, HAB F(1,2239)
=41.026, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.018, observed power = 1.0,
RISK F(1,2239) = 10.497, p < .025, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.002, observed
power = 1.0, IUSE F(1,2239) = 16.306, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.007,
observed power = 1.0, AUSE F(1,2239) = 21.541, p < .001, par-
tial 𝜂 2 = 0.010, observed power = 1.0. Therefore, hypothesis 1 is
supported.
Study 1: measurement model
For study 1, the measurement model was tested using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) in Amos 18 software to examine the relationship
between latent variables in the pre-COVID 2019 and COVID 2021 data
model.x2 = 2536.28, df = 532, x2 /df = 4.767, CFI = 0.94, TFI = 0.93,
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 1
Study 1 Demographics.

Pre Covid Group 2019 Covid Group 2021

All All
(n = 1194) (n = 1130)

Mean Age 44.0 50.2

Gender (%) Female 74.2 65.8
Male 25.8 33.8
Other 0.0 0.4
Race/Ethnicity (%) White/Caucasian 71.0 84.9
Black/African American 15.6 6.3
Indigenous 0.9 0.7
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.6 2.9
Hispanic/ Latino(a) 7.0 3.3
Multi-racial 1.9 1.6
Other 0.0 0.3
Education (%) Less than high school 2.5 1.1
High school graduate 29.1 20.2
Some college 27.2 24.9
2-year degree 12.6 11.9
4-year degree 19.0 28.1
Professional degree 8.5 13.3
Doctorate 1.2 0.6
Annual household income Less than $49,999 59.9 42.0
(%) $50,000-$99,999 28.6 40.8
$100,000-$149,999 7.5 11.6
More than$150,000 3.8 5.6
Operating system (%) Apple 39.1 42.1
Android 60.8 57.3
Other 0.1 0.5

Table 2
Study 2 Demographics.

Covid Group - 2021

All Baby Boomers Gen X Millennial

(n = 1130) (n = 381) (n = 372) (n = 376)

Mean Age 50.2 64.9 47.7 37.7

Gender (%) Female 65.8 60.4 68.3 68.9
Male 33.8 39.6 31.7 30.1
Other 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.1
Race/Ethnicity (%) White/Caucasian 84.9 94.0 86.3 74.2
Black/African 6.3 2.1 5.4 11.4
American .7 0.3 1.3 0.5
Indigenous 2.9 0.8 3.2 4.8
Asian/Pacific 3.3 1.6 2.2 6.1
Islander 1.6 0.8 1.6 2.4
Hispanic/ Latino(a) 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5
Multi-racial
Other
Education (%) Less than high 1.1 0.3 1.3 1.6
school 20.2 16.5 19.1 25.0
High school 24.9 23.4 24.5 26.6
graduate 11.9 13.9 12.4 9.6
Some college 28.1 30.4 26.3 27.4
2-year degree 13.3 15.2 15.9 8.8
4-year degree 0.6 0.3 0.5 1.1
Professional degree
Doctorate
Annual household Less than $49,999 42.0 37.8 38.6 56.3
income (%) $50,000-$99,999 40.8 43.0 38.5 10.6
$100,000-$149,999 11.6 13.6 15.6 40.7
More than$150,000 5.6 5.5 7.5 3.7
Operating system Apple 42.1 41.2 41.9 43.1
(%) Android 57.3 57.7 57.8 56.6
Other .5 1.0 0.3 0.3

RMSEA = 0.06. For the COVID 2021 data; the model was also a good
fit: x2 = 2675.815, df = 566, x2 /df = 4.73 CFI = 0.94, TFI = 0.93, RM-
SEA = 0.06. [43]. Next, convergent validity was achieved by the fol-
lowing criteria: the factor loading items were significant and exceeded
0.7; composite reliability (C.R.) and Cronbach 𝛼 exceeded 0.7, and the
average variance extracted (AVE) of constructs exceeded 0.5 [43]. In ad-
dition, multicollinearity was checked, showing exogenous variable tol-
erances were less than 0.2 and VIFs were less than 5.0. This was seen for
both the pre-COVID 2019 and COVID 2021 data, as shown in Table 3. Fi-
nally, discriminant validity was established by comparing and checking
that the square roots of values of the AVE were greater than the corre-
sponding squared correlation coefficients between the factors [43]. Dis-
criminant validity was confirmed for both CFA models except for habit
and social influence, as shown in Table 4.

6
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 3
Study 1 Measurement and CFA.

Composite Cronbach’s
Construct AVE Reliability 𝛼 Item Loadings t-value

Performance PRE .77 .91 .93 PEX1 .86 –

expectancy 2019 PEX2 .87 40.48
(PEX) PEX3 .89 41.66
PEX4 .89 41.94
COVID2021 .79 .92 .94 PEX1 .87 –
PEX2 .89 42.40
PEX3 .90 43.24
PEX4 .91 43.73
Effort PRE .80 .93 .94 EEX1 .89 –
expectancy 2019 EEX2 .92 48.98
(EEX) EEX3 .90 47.11
EEX4 .87 44.18

COVID2021 .85 .95 .96 EEX1 .90 –

EEX2 .94 53.86
EEX3 .95 54.63
EEX4 .89 47.40
Social PRE .62 .80 .85 SINF1 .85 –
influence 2019 SINF2 .72 27.83
(SINF) SINF3 .84 35.24
SINF4 .72 27.98

COVID2021 .62 .80 .86 SINF1 .86 –

SINF2 .69 27.28
SINF3 .87 35.48
SINF4 .70 27.21
Facilitating PRE .58 .71 .81 FCON1 .74 –
conditions 2019 FCON2 .77 25.62
(FCON) FCON3 .78 25.94
COVID2021 ..60 .73 .82 FCON1 .78 24.68
FCON2 .76 24.68
FCON3 .80 27.48
Habit (HAB) PRE .75 .87 .90 HAB1 .81 –
2019 HAB2 .90 36.92
HAB3 .89 36.42
COVID2021 .72 .85 .88 HAB1 .72 –
HAB2 .91 31.76
HAB3 .90 32.28
Risk (RISK) PRE .61 .79 .86 RISK1 .64 –
2019 RISK2 .79 22.18
RISK3 .90 23.70
RISK4 .77 27.83
COVID2021 .62 .80 .86 RISK1 .60 –
RISK2 .81 20.25
RISK3 .89 21.42
RISK4 .82 20.50
Intention of PRE .85 .95 .96 IUSE1 .92 –
Use (IUSE) 2019 IUSE2 .93 52.90
IUSE3 .93 52.47
IUSE4 .94 54.61
COVID2021 .87 .96 .96 IUSE1 .92 –
IUSE2 .94 58.98
IUSE3 .94 57.58
IUSE4 .93 56.76
Note. Convergent validity AVE should be >0.5; CR should be >0.7.

Study 1: structural equation model testing of use behavior explained by the IVs. Table 5 shows the SEM results and
hypotheses summary.
To test the study’s hypotheses H1 a-f and H2 a-d, a structural
equation model (SEM) was utilized and run in Amos 18. Both pre-
Study 2- MANOVA for group differences testing
COVID 2019 and COVID 2021 data model was run, which gener-
ated a good fit model for the pre-COVID 2019 group: x2 =2604.36,
From study 1, the analysis of data and hypothesis testing showed
df=536, x2 /df =4.86, RMSEA=0.057, TFI=0.93, CFI=0.94 and COVID
that consumers were influenced to use m-pay differently between 2019
2021 group: x2 =2742.49, df=570, x2 /df =4.81, RMSEA=0.058,
and 2021. With established differences, generational cohorts’ m-pay be-
TFI=0.93, CFI=0.93. In addition, R2 was reviewed for both models. For
havior was further examined for the COVID 2021 data set. Therefore, a
the pre-COVID 2019 model, 54.6 percent of the variance of behavioral
MANOVA was conducted with the eight model variables as independent
intention was explained by the IVs, and the IVs explained 31.4 percent
variables and with generational cohort (baby boomer, gen x, and millen-
of the variance of use behavior. However, a stronger association was
nial) as a dependent variable. The eight independent variables were per-
seen in the COVID 2021 model, with 68.7 percent of the variance of be-
formance expectancy (PEX), effort expectancy (EEX), social influence
havioral intention explained by the IVs and 38.4 percent of the variance
(SINF), facilitating conditions (FCON), habit (HAB), risk (RISK), inten-

7
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 4
Study 1 Discriminant validity of pre-COVID 2019 and COVID 2021 measurement model.

Pre-COVID 2019

Latent PEX EEX SINF FCON HAB RISK IUSE

Variables

PEX 0.88
EEX 0.79 0.90
SINF 0.65 0.55 0.78
FCON 0.77 0.85 0.63 0.76
HAB 0.56 0.49 0.85 0.49 0.87
RISK −0.20 −0.18 −0.01 −0.08 0.00 .78
IUSE 0.68 0.59 0.51 .59 0.49 −0.14 0.92

COVID 2021

Latent PEX EEX SINF FCON HAB RISK IUSE

Variables

PEX 0.89
EEX 0.76 0.92
SINF 0.70 0.57 0.79
FCON 0.77 0.83 0.60 0.78
HAB 0.60 0.53 0.83 0.49 0.85
RISK −0.34 −0.36 −0.11 −0.29 −0.10 .78
IUSE 0.77 0.70 0.58 .65 0.56 −0.38 0.93

Notes. PEX, Performance Expectancy; EEX, Effort Expectancy; SINF, Social Influence; FCON, Facilitating Conditions; HAB,
Habit; IUSE, Intention to Use.

Table 5
Study 1 SEM Results.

Pre-Covid COVID
𝛽 𝛽 Conclusion

H1a: Performance expectancy →Intention to use .80∗∗∗ .78∗∗∗ Supported

H1b: Effort expectancy −0.10 .15∗∗∗ Supported for Covid group
H1c: Social Influence −0.20∗∗ −0.19∗∗∗ Supported
H1d: Facilitation Conditions .01 −0.14∗ Supported for Covid group
H1e: Habit .23∗∗∗ .20∗∗∗ Supported
H1f: Risk .01 −0.10∗∗∗ Supported for Covid group
H2a: Facilitation Conditions →Actual use .00 .06 Not supported
H2b: Habit .48∗∗∗ .50∗∗∗ Supported
H2c: Risk .15∗∗∗ .18∗∗∗ Supported
H2d: Intention to use .11∗∗∗ .15∗∗∗ Supported

Note.
∗
= p < .05;.
∗∗
= p < .01;.
∗∗∗
= p < .001.

tion to use (IUSE), and actual use (AUSE). Results yielded a statistically
significant difference between the three cohort groups’ model variables,
Wilks 𝜆 = 0.786, F (16,2236) = 17.833, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.113, ob-
served power = 1.0. Therefore, evidence was sufficient to reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that the generational cohorts’ m-pay behavior
was significantly different.
Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at a
0.025 (0.05/2) alpha level. For each IV, the results were for
PEX, F(2,1125) = 55.471, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.09, observed
power = 1.0, EEX F(2,1125) = 59.304, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.10,
observed power = 1.0, SINF F(2,1125) = 55.706, p < .001, par-
tial 𝜂 2 = 0.09, observed power = 1.0, FCON F(2,1125) = 41.485,
p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.07, observed power = 1.0, HAB F(2,1125)
=60.143, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.10, observed power = 1.0, RISK
F(2,1125) = 6.366, p < .025, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.01, observed power = 0.90,
IUSE F(2,1125) = 52.942, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.09, observed
power = 1.0, AUSE F(2,1125) = 100.225, p < .001, partial 𝜂 2 = 0.15,
observed power = 1.0. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported.
Study 2: measurement model
A multi-group SEM analysis was conducted to moderate three gen-
erational cohorts (baby boomers, gen x, and millennials). The measure-
ment model was again examined using CFA but with the multi-group
COVID 2021 group: x2 =4065.94, df=1698, x2 /df =2.40, RMSEA=0.035,
TFI=0.92, CFI=0.92. However, reliability and validity testing were done
by cohort groups. A summary of convergent validity for each variable,
broken down by cohort, is shown in Table 6. The factor loadings of each
variable, Cronbach 𝛼, C.R., and AVE, were all within acceptable ranges
[45]. Discriminant validity was also reviewed by the cohorts, and all
were acceptable except for habit and social influence for gen x and mil-
lennial groups, as shown in Table 7. In addition, multicollinearity was
checked, showing exogenous variable tolerances were greater than 0.2,
and VIFs were less than 5.0.
Study 2: structural equation model testing
To test study 2′s H2- H5, a multi-group SEM analysis was con-
ducted with moderation in Amos 18. First, the model was run with-
out moderation for COVID 2021: x2 =1400.99, df=570, x2 /df =2.46,
RMSEA=0.063, TFI=0.91, CFI=0.92, thus, giving a good model fit. Per-
formance expectancy (𝛽 = 0.73, p < .01) and effort expectancy (𝛽 = 0.22,
p < .01) positively influenced intention to use m-pay, supporting H2a
and b without moderation. Habit (𝛽 = 0.44, p < .001) positively in-
fluenced the actual use of m-pay, supporting H3b without moderation.
Risk (𝛽 = −0.14, p < .01) negatively influenced the intention to use m-

8
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 6
Study 2 Measurement and CFA.

Construct AVE Composite Reliability Cronbach’s 𝛼 Item Loadings t-value

Performance expectancy (PEX) Baby .81 .93 .95 PEX1 .91 –

Boomer PEX2 .88 26.11
PEX3 .80 28.14
PEX4 .92 29.54
Gen X .79 .92 .93 PEX1 .84 –
PEX2 .89 22.18
PEX3 .90 22.69
PEX4 .91 22.94
Millennial .72 .88 .91 PEX1 .83 –
PEX2 .88 20.84
PEX3 .85 19.88
PEX4 .85 19.93
Effort expectancy (EEX) Baby .87 .96 .96 EEX1 .89 –
Boomer EEX2 .95 31.38
EEX3 .97 32.89
EEX4 .91 27.85
Gen X .85 .95 .96 EEX1 .92 –
EEX2 .93 32.25
EEX3 .94 33.35
EEX4 .89 27.82
Millennial .77 .91 .93 EEX1 .87 –
EEX2 .90 24.94
EEX3 .89 24.20
EEX4 .85 22.18
Social influence (SINF) Baby .61 .80 .84 SINF1 .88 –
Boomer SINF2 .74 16.94
SINF3 .88 22.14
SINF4 .59 12.35
Gen X .62 .80 .84 SINF1 .80 –
SINF2 .64 12.71
SINF3 .83 17.59
SINF4 .76 15.72
Millennial .60 .79 .85 SINF1 .86 –
SINF2 .68 14.53
SINF3 .85 19.99
SINF4 .72 15.64
Facilitating conditions (FCON) Baby .60 .73 .82 FCON1 .75 –
Bommer FCON2 .74 13.88
FCON3 .83 15.44
Gen X .60 .73 .80 FCON1 .77 –
FCON2 .66 12.42
FCON3 .83 15.71
Millennial .60 .72 .82 FCON1 .75 –
FCON2 .80 15.19
FCON3 .76 14.33
Habit (HAB) Baby .73 .85 .88 HAB1 .80 –
Boomer HAB2 .88 19.28
HAB3 .88 19.27
Gen X .72 .85 .87 HAB1 .77 –
HAB2 .89 17.94
HAB3 .88 17.75
Millennial .67 .80 .84 HAB1 .70 –
HAB2 .86 15.19
HAB3 .89 15.54
Risk (RISK) Baby .61 .80 .85 RISK1 .52 –
Boomer RISK2 .79 10.51
RISK3 .96 11.18
RISK4 .79 10.51
Gen X .62 .80 .86 RISK1 .60 –
RISK2 .81 11.70
RISK3 .89 12.05
RISK4 .86 12.03
Millennial .61 .80 .86 RISK1 .66 –
RISK2 .79 12.89
RISK3 .87 13.64
RISK4 .80 12.99
(continued on next page)

9
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 6 (continued)

Construct AVE Composite Reliability Cronbach’s 𝛼 Item Loadings t-value

Intention of Use (IUSE) Baby .89 .97 .97 IUSE1 .92 –

Boomer IUSE2 .96 37.12
IUSE3 .95 35.63
IUSE4 .95 34.45
Gen X .87 .96 .97 IUSE1 .92 –
IUSE2 .94 34.62
IUSE3 .94 33.57
IUSE4 .94 34.46
Millennial .80 .93 .94 IUSE1 .90 –
IUSE2 .90 26.38
IUSE3 .89 26.18
IUSE4 .89 25.75
Note. Convergent validity AVE should be >0.5; CR should be >0.7.

Table 7
Study 2 Discriminant validity of Baby Boomer, Gen X, and Millennial measurement model.

Baby Boomer Cohort

Latent
Variables PEX EEX SINF FCON HAB RISK IUSE

PEX 0.90
EEX 0.70 0.93
SINF 0.73 0.54 0.78
FCON 0.73 0.80 0.62 0.77
HAB 0.63 0.56 0.71 0.51 0.85
RISK −0.54 −0.50 −0.40 −0.46 −0.37 .78
IUSE 0.77 0.68 0.59 0.65 0.63 −0.53 0.94
Gen X
Latent PEX EEX SINF FCON HAB RISK IUSE
Variables
PEX 0.88
EEX 0.73 0.92
SINF 0.62 0.52 0.65
FCON 0.75 0.80 0.53 0.76
HAB 0.55 0.50 0.85 0.44 0.84
RISK −0.25 −0.30 0.05 −0.28 −0.04 .79
IUSE 0.68 0.62 0.44 0.55 0.45 −0.35 0.94
Millennial
Latent PEX EEX SINF FCON HAB RISK IUSE
Variables
PEX 0.85
EEX 0.80 0.88
SINF 0.62 0.49
FCON 0.75 0.87 0.50 0.77
HAB 0.52 0.36 0.84 0.36 0.82
RISK −0.13 −0.18 0.15 −0.04 0.17 .78
IUSE 0.80 0.71 0.55 0.65 0.49 −0.22 0.89

Notes. PEX, Performance Expectancy; EEX, Effort Expectancy; SINF, Social Influence; FCON, Facilitating Conditions; HAB,
Habit; IUSE, Intention to Use.

pay, supporting H4a without moderation. Intention to use (𝛽 = 0.13,
p < .05) positively influenced the actual use of m-pay, supporting H5
without moderation.
After analyzing the data without the moderating variable, the co-
hort was added as the moderator in a multi-group structural equation
model with a good model fit of x2 =4137.36, df=1710, x2 /df =2.42,
RMSEA=0.035, TFI=0.91, CFI=0.92. Habit (baby boomers 𝛽 = 0.21,
p < .001; gen x 𝛽 = 0.11, p = 0.28; millennial 𝛽 = 0.12, p = .17) had a
positive influence on intention to use m-pay, but only for baby boomers.
Social influence (baby boomers 𝛽 = −0.26, p < .001; gen x 𝛽 = −0.11,
p = 0.31; millennial 𝛽 = −0.03, p = .75) was moderated by the baby
boomer cohort but had a negative influence on intention to use m-pay.
Therefore, only H2e was supported. However, there are nuances to the
cohort moderator analysis, and Table 8 summarizes the findings.
To test H6, the R2 or variance was checked for each cohort group
for the COVID 2021 data. For the baby boomer group, 70.5 percent
of the variance of behavioral intention was explained by the IVs, and
the IVs explained 41.8 percent of the variance of use behavior. For the
gen x group, 57.5 percent of the variance of behavioral intention was
explained by the IVs, and the IVs explained 29.7 percent of the variance
of use behavior. For the millennial group, 70.0 percent of the variance
of behavioral intention was explained by the IVs, and the IVs explained
34.9 percent of the variance of use behavior. Again, for comparison, the
entire COVID 2021 model had 57.5 percent of the variance of behavioral
intention explained by the IVs, and the IVs explained 29.7 percent of the
variance of use behavior. Suggesting that the model’s variables explain
the baby boomers’ and millennials’ m-pay behavior more than gen x.
Therefore, supporting H6.
Discussion
This research was constructed as a two-study project to examine m-
pay for U.S. consumers. First, pre-COVID 2019 and COVID 2021 data
were compared using the UTAUT2 model extended with risk to find that
the pandemic’s intention to use and actual m-pay usage changed. Even
with U.S. consumers’ previous reluctance to adopt m-payment options,
the pandemic lockdown forced more U.S. consumers to make an effort
to try m-pay. Second, generational cohorts were added as a moderator in

10
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076

Table 8
Study 2 SEM Results.

All Baby Boomer Gen X Millennial

𝛽 𝛽 𝛽 𝛽 Conclusion

H2a: Performance expectancy →Intention to use .73∗∗ .84∗∗∗ .73∗∗∗ .75∗∗∗ Supported without moderation
H2b: Effort expectancy .22∗∗ .09 .22∗∗ .04 Supported without moderation for Gen X
H2c: Social Influence −0.11 −0.26∗∗∗ −0.11 −0.03 Supported for Baby Boomer
H2d: Facilitation Conditions −0.25∗∗ −0.07 −0.25∗∗ −0.01 Supported without moderation for Gen X
H2e: Habit .11 .21∗∗∗ .11 .12 Supported for Baby Boomer
H3a: Facilitation Conditions →Actual use .07 .11 .07 −0.01 Not supported
H3b: Habit .44∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ .44∗∗∗ .45∗∗∗ Supported without moderation
H4a: Risk →Intention to use −0.14∗∗ −0.05 −0.14∗∗ −0.12∗∗ Supported without moderation for Gen X and Mil
H4b: Risk →Actual use .17∗∗ .15∗ .17∗∗ .22∗∗∗ Supported without moderation
H5: Intention to use →Actual use .13∗ .23∗∗ .13∗ .15∗ Supported without moderation

Note.
∗
= p < .05;.
∗∗
= p < .01;.
∗∗∗
= p < .001.

the extended UTAUT2 model to compare m-pay use intention and actual
use during 2021. Overall, the UTAUT2 with risk influenced intention to
use and actual use more for baby boomers and millennials, showing that
retailers need to strategize m-pay differently for various demographics.
Study 1 showed that U.S. consumers’ mobile payment behavior
changed between 2019 and 2021. Specifically, during covid, consumers
perceived effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, and risk were sig-
nificant indicators of an intention to use mobile pay; however, these
antecedents were insignificant pre-pandemic. These latent variables ex-
plained that the intention to use and actual use of m-payments increased
in 2021. In addition, the results show that U.S. consumers were more
inclined to try and use m-pay during the pandemic, suggesting that U.S.
consumers now expect m-payment options when purchasing products.
As a result, retailers need to strategize where m-pay fits into their busi-
ness model and the different use behaviors of their target market.
Based on the findings in study 1, it determined a difference in mo-
bile payment behavior in all likelihood due to the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic; therefore, study 2 further explores the mobile payment pan-
demic behavior. In addition, study 2 analyzed US consumers during the
COVID-19 pandemic by examining their generational differences toward
mobile payment behavioral antecedents.
In study 1, social influence negatively influenced the intention to use
m-payments. These results were replicated again in study 2, where so-
cial influence negatively impacted the intention to use m-pay but was
only moderated by the baby boomer cohort. Contrary to Zhao and Bacao
[27] and Zhou et al. [29], the results of this study suggest that significant
others in one’s life are not impactful on m-payment behavior. Before the
pandemic, people connected more digitally than face to face; however,
the pandemic and the presiding lockdown restrictions further exacer-
bated how people interacted, with many preferring digital interactions
over physical ones. These findings may suggest that social influence may
be a two-factor construct. One construct may be the physical friends and
family we see and interact with face-to-face. Another construct could be
for the digital friends, family, and influencers we interact with online.
Future research could further investigate the social influence variable
and see if it needs updating.
Both studies agreed with Martinez and McAndrews [24] and Bailey
et al. [30]., facilitating conditions were insignificant and did not explain
the intention to use or actual use of m-payments. Facilitating conditions
are the resources to help aid in m-pay setup and use. Therefore, retailers
must consider how their facilitating conditions are presented or mar-
keted to current and potential m-pay users because each generational
cohort has a different base knowledge of technology due to their dif-
ferent shared beliefs and experiences [17]. Thus, different m-payment
resources, such as the help page or chatbot, maybe more complicated
or an actual detriment to using m-payments for those generations who
have less technical experience. Additionally, the millennial generation
is highly tech-savvy, and the U.S. has a high smartphone adoption rate;
thus, using m-pay is effortless for these individuals, and additional re-
sources are not needed or seldom used.
Risk was a significant variable in both iterations of this project. Be-
fore the pandemic in 2019 and supporting Bailey et al. [30], risk was
insignificant in intention to use. Nevertheless, during the pandemic in
2021, and agreeing with Sharma et al. [36] and Liebana-Cabanillas et al.
[39], there was a negative influence on intention to use for both gen x
and millennials, who are relatively comfortable with new technology.
However, risk did not seem to influence the intention of baby boomers.
COVID-19 and its restrictions most affected baby boomers as many of
their traditional shopping methods were upended [2]; thus, the benefits
of m-payments may have vastly outweighed the risk during the pan-
demic. Interestingly, all cohorts were not risk-averse when it came to
actual use. Thus, once consumers used m-pay, the risk they associated
with it no longer decreased their usage.
Referring to RQ2, generational cohorts were added to examine the
difference between mobile payment behavioral antecedents. The results
suggest that all cohorts behaved similarly for performance expectancy to
intention to use and habit and risk to actual use. However, baby boomers
were unique in their behavior related to the perception of habit and
social influence and its impact on their intention to use mobile pay.
Generation X showed a significant influence of facilitating conditions
on their intention to use mobile pay; however, when it came to actual
usage, it was not significant. Thus, Generation X appears to believe in
the traditional needs of technology acceptance, but the reality is quite
different. Although Millennials are the first generation to grow up with
technology compared to the other two, their intentions and use behavior
were not significantly different.
Theoretical implications
This study provides three main theoretical implications. First, this
study analyzed the constructs influencing users’ usage intentions of m-
payments before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is miss-
ing from the evaluation of prior studies. As a result, this study furthers
the literature on technology usage in the U.S. during a pandemic. As
the COVID-19 pandemic continues, additional studies may be needed to
bring further insights into changing m-payment behavior.
Second, this study extended the UTAUT2 model with perceived risk,
adding to the theoretical development of emerging literature on tech-
nology adoption. Concurrently, this study also demonstrates the further
investigation of actual use behavior. From the results in study 1, the
pre-COVID 2019 model showed that 54.6 percent of the variance of be-
havioral intention was explained by the IVs and only 31.4 percent for
actual use. The COVID 2021 model showed that the IVs explained 68.7
percent of the variance of behavioral intention, and the IVs explained

11
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews
only 38.4 percent of the variance of use behavior. The difference of
variance between intention and actual was significant, thus suggesting
technology research should not be reliant on intention and more so on
actual behavior
Third, this study expands the knowledge of generational cohort the-
ory and its impact on m-payment behavior. Consistent with the findings
of Lissitsa and Kol [19], Eger et al. [2], and Vinerean et al. [1], where
all studies used generational cohort theory to examine mobile commerce
intentions and found that cohorts exhibited different consumer behav-
ior. Additionally, the results of this study expand the understanding of
UTAUT2 to understand U.S. m-payment usage during a pandemic to an-
alyze changing consumer behavior.
Practical implications
For various reasons, U.S. consumers have been slow to adopt m-
payment options compared to other countries and regions. However,
during the COVID pandemic, U.S. consumers were more inclined to use
m-payment options, which may have been due to lockdowns and restric-
tions on traditional shopping behaviors. As a result, U.S. consumers will
now expect m-payment options, with almost 60% stating they are more
prone to visit a business if it has m-payment [4]. Therefore, retailers
should understand their target market’s m-payment usage intention and
implement appropriate payment options for their brick-and-mortar and
e-commerce operations.
In addition, different factors impact the intention to use and ac-
tual use of m-payment for each generational cohort. For example, baby
boomers and Millennials were more similar in behavior than Genera-
tion X. For Generation X, effort expectancy positively influenced and
facilitating conditions negatively influenced intention, but those factors
did not significantly influence the other cohorts. Thus, Generation X
felt comfortable using m-payment technology, though they found the
resources, like a help page, not impactful in using m-payments. Sec-
ond, baby boomers found social influence to influence intention nega-
tively, whereas habit positively influenced intention and actual use. In
other words, baby boomers are not reliant on their friends and family
to recommend and influence their m-pay usage, and during the pan-
demic, when they were isolated from their network, it did not affect
baby boomers’ use of m-pay. However, once baby boomers started to use
m-pay, they continued to think about using and use m-pay, which was
unique compared to the other cohorts. Finally, performance expectancy,
habit, and risk were the only variables that influenced the intention to
use m-pay for millennials. There may be other influences not explained
in the UTAUT2 model extended with risk impacting millennials’ m-pay
use that needs to be explored.
People were more inclined to use m-pay during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. However, it is essential to note that the m-payment system did
not change, but consumer awareness did change. Therefore, retailers
need to market the specific impacts of their target market. Furthermore,
retailers must push and potentially add incentives to m-payment usage.
It is especially vital for those retailers whose target markets are baby
boomers and generation x, who stereotypically have to exert more ef-
fort to learn new technology. These marketing efforts are vital to propel
m-payment usage as the pandemic’s unique situation subsides.
Limitations and future research
This study has limitations to be acknowledged. First, the data col-
lection is restricted to the United States during two points, one several
months before the onset of the pandemic and the other during a partic-
ular period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, results should not be
generalized to different countries or situations. Future research should
examine various cultural backgrounds, cross-cultural effects, or the in-
tersectionality of consumers. Second, the study examined two points in
time through a MANOVA, showing that the UTAUT2 extended with risk
change over time with the pandemic. Therefore, future research should
12
Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076
continue to collect consumer data to understand if this is a temporary or
permanent change in consumer m-payment behavior. Third, the study
sample did not have a sufficient sample size to include Generation Z for
analysis. Thus, future studies should continue generation cohort analysis
of m-payment issues to extend to generation Z to understand continuous
usage and its application to other segments such as advertising.
Conclusion
The study aimed to understand the difference in usage intentions
and actual use behavior for m-payment pre-COVID (2019) and during
the COVID pandemic (2021). In addition, this study also examines the
generational difference in m-pay behavior during the COVID-19 pan-
demic in 2021. Study one drew from the UTAUT2 model [8], extended
with risk, to assess the change in m-pay before and during the pandemic.
Further, study 2 showed that age differences, utilizing generational co-
hort theory [9], helped illustrate m-pay behavioral changes. The study’s
results suggest that researchers continue exploring and investigating the
intersectional demographic characteristics that influence m-pay. In ad-
dition, retailers need to recognize how target markets adopt and use
technology differently, and an umbrella strategy for implementing m-
payment may need to be different.
Author’s contributions
BM designed the theoretical framework to create the survey and col-
lect data. LM analyzed the data. Both BM and LM wrote the manuscript.
Funding
Authors have no funding to declare
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.teler.2023.100076.
References
[1] S. Vinerean, C. Budac, L.A. Baltador, D.C. Dabija, Assessing the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on m-commerce adoption: an adapted UTAUT2 approach, Elec-
tronics, 11 (2022) 1269.
[2] L. Eger, L. Komarkova, D. Egerova, M. Micik, The effect of COVID-19 on consumer
shopping behavior: generational cohort perspective, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 61
(2021) 102542.
[3] Y.A. Au, R.J. Kauffman, The economics of mobile payments: understanding stake-
holder issues for an emerging financial technology application, Electron. Commer.
Res. Appl. 7 (2) (2008) 141–164.
[4] Walk-Morris, T. (2021). More retailer mobile apps offer PayPal than Apple Pay: re-
port. https://www.retaildive.com/news/more- retailer- mobile- apps- offer- paypal-
than- apple- payreport/598364/#:í:text=Incognia%2C%20a%20location%
20identity%20company,report%20shared%20with%20Retail%20Dive (Accessed 8
July 2021).
[5] S. Bansal, P. Bruno, O. Denecker, M. Goparaju, M. Niederkorn, Global Payments
2018: A dynamic Industry Continues to Break New Ground, Global Banking McKin-
sey, 2018.
[6] H. Marjanen, A.-M. Kohijoki, K. Saastamoinen, J. Engblom, Old dogs learning new
tricks? The effect of age and generation on shopping behavior, Int. Rev. Retail, Dis-
trib. Consum. Res. 29 (5) (2019) 549–567.
[7] D. Chaney, M. Touzani, K.B. Slimane, Marketing to the (new) generations: summary
and perspectives, J. Strat. Market. 25 (3) (2017) 179–189.
B.M. Martinez and L.E. McAndrews
[8] V. Venkatesh, J.Y. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information tech-
nology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, MIS Q.
36 (1) (2012) 157–178.
[9] R. Ingelhart, The Silent Revolution. Changing values and Political Style Among West-
ern Publics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1977.
[10] N. Shaw, K. Sergueeva, The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: extending
UTAUT2 with perceived value, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 45 (2019) 44–55.
[11] F. Muñoz-Leiva, S. Climent-Climent, F. Liébana-Cabanillas, Determinants of inten-
tion to use the mobile banking apps: an extension of the classic TAM model, Spanish
J. Market. 21 (1) (2017) 25–38.
[12] Q. Cao, X. Niu, Integrating context-awareness and UTAUT to explain Alipay user
adoption, Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 69 (2019) 9–13.
[13] Greene, C., Merry, E.A., & Stavins, J. (2021). Has COVID changed consumer
payment behavior?. Federal reserve bank of Atlanta research data report 22-01.
https://www.atlantafed.org/- /media/documents/banking/consumer- payments/
research- data- reports/2022/02/07/has- covid- changed- consumer- payment-
behavior/RDR_2022_COVID- payment- behavior.pdf.
[14] Hung, K. (2020). Covid-10 bringing in new mobile payment users. https://www.
forbes.com/sites/kevinhung/2020/08/17/covid- 19- bringing- in- new- mobile-
payment-users/?sh=310f5d1d2b54 (Accessed 6 April 2021).
[15] Shearman, J.C. (2020). Coronavirus leads to more use of contactless cards
and mobile payments despite cost and security concerns. https://nrf.com/
media- center/press- releases/coronavirus- leads- more- use- contactless- credit- cards-
and- mobile- payments (Accessed 6 April 2021).
[16] Keates, S. (2020). The future of consumer payment methods in a post-covid-
19 world. https://www.paymentsjournal.com/the- future- of- consumer- payment-
methods- in- a- post- covid- 19- world/ (Accessed 6 April 2021).
[17] J.S. Ignatius, M.R.M. Hechanova, Internet usage from a generational perspective,
Philipp. J. Psychol. 47 (1) (2014) 133–152.
[18] Dimock, Michael. (2019). Defining generations: where millennials end and
generation z begins. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-
millennials- end- and- generation- z- begins/ (Accessed 12 July 2022).
[19] S. Lissitsa, O. Kol, Four generational cohorts and hedonic m-shopping: associa-
tions between personality traits and purchase intentions, Electron. Commer. Res.
21 (2021) 545–570.
[20] Fry, Richard. (2020). Millennials overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest gener-
ation. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2020/04/28/millennials- overtake-
baby- boomers- as- americas- largest- generation/ (Accessed 12 July 2022).
[21] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (3) (2003) 425–478.
[22] C. Martins, T. Oliveira, A. Popovic, Understanding the internet banking adoption: a
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application,
Int. J. Inf. Manag. 34 (2014) 1–13.
[23] T. Oliveira, M. Thomas, G. Baptista, F. Campos, Mobile payment: understanding
the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 61 (2016) 404–414.
[24] B.M. Martinez, L.E. McAndrews, Do you take...? The effect of mobile payment solu-
tions on use intention: an application of UTAUT2, J. Market. Analyt. (2022) 1–12.
[25] M.-F. Wei, Y.-H. Luh, Y.-H. Huang, Y.-C. Chang, Young generation’s mobile payment
adoption behavior: analysis based on an extended UTAUT model, J. Theoret. Appl.
Electron. Commer. Res. 16 (2021) 618–637.
[26] G. Baptista, T. Oliveira, Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of
mobile banking services, Internet Res. 27 (1) (2017) 118–139.
[27] Y. Zhao, F. Bacao, How does the pandemic facilitate mobile payment? An investiga-
tion on users’ perspective under the COVID-19 pandemic, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 18 (3) (2021) 1016.
13
Telematics and Informatics Reports 11 (2023) 100076
[28] J.P. Cabrera-Sánchez, Á.F. Villarejo-Ramos, Acceptance and use of big data tech-
niques in services companies, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52 (2020) 101888.
[29] M. Zhou, L. Zhao, N. Kong, K.S. Campy, G. Xu, G. Zhu, X. Cao, S. Wang, Understand-
ing consumers’ behavior to adopt self-service parcel services for last-mile delivery,
J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 52 (2020) 101911.
[30] A.A. Bailey, C.M. Bonifield, A. Arias, J. Villegas, Mobile payment adoption in Latin
America, J. Serv. Market. (2022) Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print.
[31] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of in-
formation technology, MIS Q. 13 (3) (1989) 319–340.
[32] N. Ameen, M.H. Shah, J. Sims, J. Choudrie, R. Willis, Are there peas in a pod when
considering mobile phone and mobile applications use: a quantitative study, J. Re-
tail. Consum. Serv. 55 (2020) 102067.
[33] P. Ramírez-Correa, F.J. Rondán-Cataluña, J. Arenas-Gaitán, F. Martín-Velicia,
Analysing the acceptance of online games in mobile devices: an application of
UTAUT2, J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 50 (2019) 85–93.
[34] G. Baptista, T. Oliveira, Understanding mobile banking: the unified theory of ac-
ceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 50 (2015) 418–430 September.
[35] De Best, R. (2020). Mobile payments in the United States- statistics & facts. https:
//www.statista.com/topics/982/mobile-payments/ (Accessed 6 April 2021).
[36] R. Sharma, G. Singh, S. Sharma, Modelling internet banking adoption in Fiji: a de-
veloping country perspective, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 53 (2020) 102116.
[37] X.M. Loh, V.H. Lee, G.W.H. Tan, K.B. Ooi, Y.K. Dwivedi, Switching from cash to
mobile payment: what’s the hold-up? Internet Res. 31 (1) (2021) 376–399.
[38] F. Liebana-Cabanillas, I. Garcia- Maroto, F. Munoz-Leiva, I. Ramos-de-Luna, Mobile
payment adoption in the age of digital transformation: the case of Apple pay, Sus-
tainability 12 (2020) 5443.
[39] P. Patil, T. Kuttimani, N.P. Rana, V. Raghavan, Understanding consumer adoption of
mobile payment in India: extending meta-UTAUT model with personal innovative-
ness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 54 (2020) 102144.
[40] A.A. Alalwan, Y.K. Dwivedi, N.P. Rana, Factors influencing adoption of mobile bank-
ing by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust, Int. J. Inf. Manag.
37 (3) (2017) 99–110.
[41] B. Tabachnick, L. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed., Pearson, 2013.
[42] S. Rahi, Research design and methods: a systematic review of research paradigms,
sampling issues and instruments development, Int. J. Econ. Manag. Science 6 (2)
(2017).
[43] P. Tak, S. Panwar, Using UTAUT 2 model to predict mobile app based shopping:
evidences from India, J. Indian Bus. Res. 9 (3) (2017) 248–264.
[44] R. Abrahao, S. de, S.N. Moriguchi, D.F. Andrade, Intention of adoption of mobile
payment: an analysis in the light of the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT), RAI- Rev. Admin. Inov. 13 (3) (2016) 221–230.
[45] R.B. Kline, Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed, Guilford
Press, 2016.
Dr. Briana Martinez is an Assistant Professor in Apparel Merchandising in the Department
of Human Sciences and Design at Baylor University. Her research interest is exploring
mobile commerce and consumers’ usage of mobiles to aid in decision-making. She utilizes
both qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Dr. Laura McAndrews is an Assistant Professor in Product Development and Design in
the Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Interiors at the University of Georgia.
Her research interest is exploring the human dynamic of the global apparel supply chain
to include the hidden voices or underserved supply chain members. She utilizes both
qualitative and quantitative research methods.