Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

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

A dedication-constraint model of consumer switching behavior in mobile

payment applications
Xiang Gong, Xiaoxiao Liu, Zhenxin Xiao *
School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi, 710049 China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Consumer switching behavior damages the market share and profitability of mobile payment application (MPA)
Affective commitment providers. However, this issue has received scarce attention in the information systems discipline. Our study
Calculative commitment proposes a contextualized dedication-constraint model of consumer switching behavior of MPAs. By conducting
Switching behavior
an online survey of 973 MPA consumers, we find that platform leadership, service leadership, technology
Dedication-constraint model
Mobile payment applications
leadership, and affective commitment are key dedication-based factors, which reduce switching behavior.
Contextualization Meanwhile, personalization costs, learning costs, uncertainty costs, and calculative commitment are important
constraint-based factors, which decrease switching behavior. Our empirical findings have significant implications
for research and practice on switching behavior.

1. Introduction
Mobile payment applications (MPAs) which enable consumers to pay
for ubiquitous bills with mobile devices and terminals have become a
new engine of the world economy [1, 2]. The global mobile payment
market has reached US$881 billion in 2019 and is expected to exceed US
$3.08 trillion in 2023 [3]. Meanwhile, the global mobile payment users
have reached 982 million in 2019 and will grow to 1.31 billion in 2023,
accounting for 36% of smartphone users all over the world [3]. The huge
market potential is catching the fire and spreading it in the global mobile
payment market—a large variety of providers have delivered their
branded MPAs, such as Apple Pay, Alipay Wallet, WeChat Wallet, and
PayPal [4, 5]. The fierce competition among different MPA providers
offers the opportunity for increasing numbers of consumers to
frequently switch their payment choice [1, 6]. The loss revenue has
swollen to US$6.7 billion dollars for MPA providers globally due to the
increasing switching rates [7]. The increasingly frequent consumer
switching behavior and a large amount of loss revenue behind it pose
challenges for MPA providers [6, 8, 9]. Overall, it is of great importance
to investigate the consumer switching behavior of MPAs.
Consumer behavior in MPAs has been extensively investigated in the
information systems (IS) discipline [1, 2, 4–6, 10–14]. Prior IS studies
have primarily focused on the initial adoption behavior of MPAs [4, 13,
15–18], while very few studies have examined the switching behavior of
MPAs. Our observation is echoed by Wang et al [6]. who concluded that
the switching behavior of MPAs received scarce attention and deserved
further investigation. Following this call, our first research objective is
to examine the formation of switching behavior of MPAs because of its
potential theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, it shifts
the current research focus of MPAs from initial adoption behavior to
switching behavior. Although initial adoption of MPAs serves as a key
first step toward achieving the mobile payment business success, the
long-term There are two different stages of technology adoption and use:
preadoption stage (e.g., IS acceptance and IS adoption) and post­
adoption stage (e.g., IS continuance, IS discontinuance, IS migration,
and IS switching) [19] validity and sustainable success of MPAs depend
on whether consumers continue to use the MPAs or switch to alterna­
tives after the first-time use [20–22]. Practically, a complete under­
standing of switching behavior can yield the potential of guiding MPA
providers to finetune their consumer retention strategies and reduce
consumer churn rate in the competitive mobile payment market.
Our second research objective is to develop a contextualized
dedication-constraint model of switching behavior in MPAs. According
to the dedication-constraint model [23], switching behavior is deter­
mined by two structurally different mechanisms: (1) consumers’ dedi­
cation to the use of an incumbent technology as generated by the
prospect of context-specific benefits and (2) the constraint factors of
context-specific investments that make the switching process to alter­
natives become costly. We suggest that the dedication-constraint model
has advantages over general technology adoption models—including

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: xianggong3-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (X. Gong), zxxiao@xjtu.edu.cn (Z. Xiao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103640
Received 4 June 2020; Received in revised form 13 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022
Available online 18 March 2022
0378-7206/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

diffusion of innovation theory (DIT), unified theory of acceptance and Table 1

use of technology (UTAUT), information success model (ISM), and Single-context theory contextualization approach.
technology acceptance model (TAM)—to investigate the switching Guideline Explanation Our effort
behavior of MPAs. On the one hand, generic factors in general tech­
Step 1: Identifying the The core theory should be We identified the
nology adoption models cannot offer unique implications to the direct core theory applicable to the research dedication-constraint
implementation and practice of MPAs [6, 26]. However, the domain of interest model as the core theory,
dedication-constraint model highlights the role of contextual factors (i. which suggests that
e., context-specific benefits and investments) [23, 27, 28] which are consumer switching
behavior is the interplay
closely tied to the unique characteristics of MPAs in determining of dedication- and
switching behavior. On the other hand, general technology adoption constraint-based
models are originally developed to examine initial adoption behavior mechanisms.
[24, 25, 29]. An important difference between initial adoption behavior Step 2: Contextualizing The core theory should be We selected context-
and refining the core contextualized to the specific benefits and
and switching behavior is that switching from an incumbent technology
theory specific context by investments as the
to alternatives is constrained by past nontransferable investments in the choosing relevant principal contextual
incumbent technology, whereas initial adoption does not [23, 27]. Such variables variables of the
constraint-based mechanism has been largely overlooked in general dedication-constraint
technology adoption models [30, 31]. model.
Step 3: Identifying Conducting a We conceptualized
Bearing the above in mind, we formally investigate the following contextual factors comprehensive context-specific benefits
questions: What are contextualized 2 These generic factors include assessment of the context as platform leadership,
compatibility, relative advantage, observability, trialability, complexity, to generate context- service leadership, and
effort expectancy, performance expectancy, system/information/ser­ specific factors as (a) technology leadership in
antecedents, (b) the MPA context. We
vice quality, perceived ease-of-use, and perceived usefulness [24, 25]
moderators, or (c) operationalized context-
dedication- and constraint-based mechanisms in the consumer switching decomposed core specific investments as
behavior of MPAs? How will contextualized dedication- and constructs personalization costs,
constraint-based mechanisms collectively impact the consumer switch­ learning costs, and
ing behavior of MPAs? To answer these questions, we refer to Hong uncertainty costs in the
MPA context. We
et al.’s [32] single-context theory contextualization approach and
generated these
develop a contextualized dedication-constraint model of the consumer contextual-specific
switching behavior of MPAs through incorporating contextual factors as factors as antecedents of
antecedents of endogenous variables. Guided by the specific character­ affective commitment,
calculative commitment,
istics of MPAs, we operationalize platform leadership, service leader­
and switching behavior.
ship, and technology leadership as key context-specific benefits in the Step 4: Modeling Contextualizing the We developed a
dedication-based mechanism. Meanwhile, we frame personalization contextual variables general model by contextualized
costs, learning costs, and uncertainty costs as important context-specific incorporating context- dedication-constraint
investments in the constraint-based mechanism. Our analyses of a sur­ specific variables model of the consumer
switching behavior of
vey data set with 975 consumers show that these context-specific ben­
MPAs by incorporating
efits and investments could effectively prevent consumers switching context-specific variables
from incumbent MPA providers to alternatives. into the model.
Our study makes several contributions. First, prior studies have We empirically validated
the model using a field
primarily examined the initial adoption behavior of MPAs at the pre­
survey. The empirical
adoption stage [4, 13, 15–18], largely overlooking the switching analyses largely
behavior of MPAs at the postadoption stage. Our study shifts the current supported the model and
focus of MPA adoption and use from initial adoption behavior to con­ revealed the importance
sumer switching behavior. Second, researchers have employed general of the context-specific
variables.
technology adoption models to comprehend the impacts of generic
Step 5: Examining the Examining the interplay We developed future
factors (e.g., perceived ease-of-use and perceived usefulness) on MPA interaction between between context-specific research agenda for the
adoption and use [2, 11–13, 17, 18]. Our study advances the MPA contextual variables variables and other IT interaction between
adoption and use literature by highlighting the effects of contextual and other IT features features, such as IT context-specific factors
artifact, IT users, and IT and other salient
factors which are closely tied to the specific characteristics of MPAs on
usage context characteristics of MPAs.
consumer switching behavior. Third, we incorporate contextualization We encouraged future
into the theory development of dedication-constraint model in the MPA researchers to
context. Our contextualized dedication-constraint model provides in­ incorporate ubiquity,
sights for future research to account for contextual influences in the digital divide, and
payment scenario as
formation of consumer switching behavior.
potential moderators into
We organize the structure of the study following Hong et al.’s [32] the model.
single-context theory contextualization approach (see Table. 1). In the
next section, we review prior studies on IS switching behavior and the
dedication-constraint model. We further contextualize 2. Theoretical background
dedication-constraint theory and identify context-specific factors in the
MPA context. Then, we develop a contextualized dedication-constraint 2.1. IS switching behavior
model of switching behavior by incorporating context-specific factors,
following by our research design and results. Finally, we summarize the IS switching behavior is defined as the complete or partial termina­
study through discussing the implications for theory and practice based tion of the usage of the incumbent technology and replacement of it with
on our findings, acknowledge the limitations of our research, and point alternatives [19]. Bhattacherjee et al [33]. argued that IS switching
out avenues for future research. behavior comprises two alternative scenarios: (1) a complete switching
in which consumers permanently replace the use of the incumbent

2
X. Gong et al.
technology with alternatives or (2) a partial switching in which con­
sumers may decide to concurrently use the incumbent and alternative
technologies for a period of time. For instance, consumers may
completely switch from Alipay Wallet to alternative MPAs or switch
partially by implementing Alipay Wallet and alternative MPAs simul­
taneously in their smartphones to satisfy their different payment needs.
However, from the provider’s view, these two scenarios result in similar
consequences: consumers gradually moving out of their marketplace
[33–35]. Our literature review (see Appendix A) reveals two major
research streams of IS switching behavior: technology switching
behavior and provider switching behavior.
The technology switching behavior stream endeavors to comprehend
the replacement of the usage of an incumbent old technology with a
newly introduced technology because of the natural ending of a tech­
nology life-cycle considerations [36,37]. Consumers face switching sit­
uations between traditionally outdated technologies and innovatively
advanced technologies under the rapid technological innovations. For
instance, Xu et al [38]. suggested that consumers are likely to switch
from the incumbent second-generation (2 G) mobile data service plat­
form to new 3/4/5 G mobile data service systems. Li and Ku [39] con­
tended that consumers may decide to switch from incumbent
e-commerce websites to innovative social commerce websites to in­
crease transactional efficiency. Similarly, Polites and Karahanna [40]
found that consumers will engage in collaborative technology switching
from email to Google Docs for effective collaboration purposes.
The provider switching behavior stream devotes efforts in unearth­
ing the migration of the usage of a similar technology product from the
incumbent to alternative providers regardless of technology life-cycle
considerations [33, 41, 42]. Consumers switch frequently among
various providers of a similar technology product in a competitive
market. For instance, Hsu [43] and Lin and Huang [44] found that
consumers may make a decision to migrate the use of mobile operating
system from Android to iOS providers. Chang et al [35]., Xu et al [28].,
and Zhang et al. [45]. reported that dissatisfied consumers tend to fully
or partially terminate their relationship with the current social
networking site provider and switch to attractive alternatives. Likewise,
Bhattacherjee et al [33]. highlighted that preventing consumers from
switching from the adopted web browser to alternatives is a crucial task
for all web browser providers.
2.2. Dedication-Constraint model
The dedication-constraint model [23] provides a valid theoretical
lens to examine IS switching behavior. The model suggests that
long-term relationship maintenance or termination is determined by two
structurally different mechanisms: a dedication-based mechanism that
results from a genuine appreciation for long-term benefits from the
relationship and a constraint-based mechanism that centers on lock-in
physical and psychological investments [27, 46]. Consumers may
maintain the use of an incumbent technology because either they are
attracted to its beneficial attributes or feel lock-in by constraint factors
that make the switching process to alternatives costly. On the contrary,
consumers may terminate the use of the incumbent technology if they
cannot benefit from the incumbent technology or feel effortless to switch
to attractive alternatives.
The core concept of the dedication-based mechanism is affective
commitment, which captures the strength of a consumer’s emotional
attachment and identification with an incumbent technology [27, 46,
48]. Consumers with strong affective commitment will form dedications
to the use of technology and find their association with the technology to
be emotionally fulfilling [27, 47]. According to Kim and Son [23, p.5],
context-specific benefits are the fundamental elements for the formation
of affective commitment because “(1) a customer considers the current
value of the service (i.e., perceived benefits) as a cue from which to infer
the future value of the service and (2) the consumer is likely to favor a
long-term relationship with the provider in anticipation of future value”.
3
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
That is, consumers with beneficial experiences in using a technology will
form an emotional attachment and eventually develop a long-term
favorable relationship with the technology.
The principal concept of the constraint-based mechanism is calcu­
lative commitment, which describes the strength of potential costs
associated with the termination of using an incumbent technology [27,
46, 48]. Calculative commitment leads consumers to feel locked in using
the incumbent technology because of the high costs of relationship
termination [27, 48]. According to Kim and Son [23], context-specific
investments contribute to the formation of calculative commitment
because consumers often spend a large amount of time and effort in
using the incumbent technology which is not easily transferable to al­
ternatives. For instance, switching from the incumbent technology to
alternatives often comprises personalization costs because consumers
are likely to personalize the technology on the basis of their preferences
[8, 23]. Additionally, consumers may perceive high levels of learning
costs because they have invested in learning the use of features and
procedures of the incumbent technology [27, 31]. Therefore, consumers
who have already devoted physical and psychological investments in
using the incumbent technology will feel costly to terminate the use of
the technology and ultimately promote a long-term favorable relation­
ship with it.
2.3. Contextualized dedication-constraint model in MPAs
MPAs are mobile financial technologies with two contextual char­
acteristics (see Fig. 1). First, MPAs serve as intermediaries connecting
merchants, providers, and consumers to conduct payment activities [26,
49]. Merchants are usually the operators of various third-party trans­
action platforms, such as Airbnb, Amazon, Groupon, and Walmart.
Providers are operators of various branded MPAs, such as Alipay Wallet,
Android Pay, Samsung Pay, and PayPal. Moreover, MPA providers not
only release a large variety of first-party payment services, such as credit
card repay, utility bills, and healthcare bills, but also offer a wide range
of supporting payment technologies, such as customization, searching,
ordering, and authentication. To gain a competitive advantage, MPA
providers should devote their efforts to establishing platform leadership
through consistently cooperating with popular third-party transaction
platforms and acting as a leader in terms of platform cooperation [50,
51]. Meanwhile, MPA providers should allocate their resources to ser­
vice leadership by consistently introducing new first-party payment
services and acting as a leader in terms of service variety, as well as to
technology leadership through consistently rolling out innovative sup­
porting payment technologies and acting as a leader in terms of tech­
nological 3 Payment efficiency and effectiveness refer to consumers’
beliefs about whether a variety of third-party transaction platforms (or
first-party payment services and supporting payment technologies) can
operate smoothly, effectively, and efficiently on MPAs to provide satis­
factory payment performance [26, 38]. innovations [50, 51].
Second, a central function of MPAs is to support a large variety of
payment scenarios [1, 6]. To alleviate consumers’ information search
burden resulting from various payment scenarios, MPAs usually deliver
personalization features to help consumers tailor payment services ac­
cording to their preferences in the application interface [6, 8]. More­
over, MPA release training and learning feature to assist consumers to
learn the routines and procedures of conducting ubiquitous payment
activities [5, 26]. Additionally, MPAs are faced with many transaction
and security uncertainties because mobile terminals and networks are
more susceptible than the traditional online environment in conducting
financial payment activities [2, 52]. These contextual features raise
consumers’ concerns about personalization costs, learning costs, and
uncertainty costs when switching from incumbent familiar MPAs to
unfamiliar alternative MPAs.
Our literature review (see Appendix B) summarizes two dominant
streams of MPA research. The first stream unearths the antecedents and
psychological mechanisms of the adoption and use of specific MPAs (e.
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

Fig. 1. Ecosystem of mobile payment application [38,50].

g., Alipay Wallet). For instance, Cao et al [9]., Gong et al [4]., Lu et al
[5]., and Zhang [53] found that consumers’ trust can be transferred from
Alipay to its mobile extension called Alipay Wallet, which promotes
their intention to use Alipay Wallet. Gong et al [49]. and Yang et al [54].
contended that privacy assurance approaches are effective in alleviating
consumers’ concerns for information privacy and facilitating their in­
formation disclosure behavior toward Alipay Wallet. Likewise, Wang et
al [6]. and Zhou [1] argued that service quality, information quality,
system quality, perceived value, and self-efficacy collectively determine
consumers’ continuance usage of Alipay Wallet. The second stream in­
vestigates the determinants and psychological mechanisms that shape
the adoption and use of general MPAs. For instance, Johnson et al [17].
and Mallat [12] drawn upon DIT to propose that relative advantage,
compatibility, trialability, and complexity are key determinants of
consumers’ intention to use MPAs. Luo et al [2]. employed UTAUT to
hypothesize that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and
self-efficacy collectively promote consumers’ intention to use MPAs.
Similarly, ISM and TAM have also been used to explain how

Fig. 2. Research model.

4
X. Gong et al.
information/service/system quality, perceived ease-of-use, and
perceived usefulness collectively determine consumers’ intention to use
MPAs.
Hence, our literature review makes two observations. First, prior
studies have primarily investigated consumer initial adoption behavior
of MPAs at the preadoption stage. Yet, to date, the consumer switching
behavior of MPAs at the postadoption stage remains largely underex­
plored. Second, researchers have comprehended the antecedents of
consumers’ adoption and use of MPAs pertaining to generic factors, such
as effort expectancy, performance expectancy, relative advantage, and
self-efficacy. However, limited studies have devoted efforts to uncov­
ering the impacts of contextual factors (e.g., platform leadership, service
leadership, technology leadership, personalization costs, learning costs,
and uncertainty costs), which are highly relevant to the salient charac­
teristics of MPAs on consumers’ adoption and use of MPAs.
3. Research model and hypotheses
Fig. 2 illustrates the contextualized dedication-constraint model of
the consumer switching behavior of MPAs. We operationalize platform
leadership, service leadership, and technology leadership as contextual
antecedents of affective commitment in the dedication-based mecha­
nism. We further conceptualize personalization costs, learning costs, and
uncertainty costs as contextual antecedents of calculative commitment
in the constraint-based mechanism. We examine how dedication- and
constraint-based mechanisms collectively determine the consumer
switching behavior of MPAs.
3.1. Core predictors of affective commitment
Platform leadership refers to the innovation efforts of MPA providers
in cooperating with various popular third-party transaction platforms
and acting as a leader in terms of platform cooperation in the mobile
payment market [50, 51]. The core function of MPAs is to support a wide
range of payment scenarios, such as eating in restaurants, checking out
in supermarkets, or shopping on e-commerce websites [1,6]. To meet
consumers’ demands for various payment scenarios, MPAs should
develop platform leadership through cooperating with a large variety of
popular transaction platforms, such as Groupon, Walmart, Amazon, and
eBay [26, 49]. Cooperating with these transaction platforms allows
consumers to improve their payment efficacy and effectiveness when
using MPAs to perform payment activities during business transactions
[11]. Over time, these beneficial payment experiences help consumers
develop emotional attachment and identification with MPAs, thereby
generating a sense of affective commitment. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1. Platform leadership positively influences affective commitment.
Service leadership refers to the innovation efforts of MPA providers
in introducing various first-party payment services and acting as a leader
in terms of service variety in the mobile payment market [50, 51]. Other
than cooperating with third-party transaction platforms, MPAs
frequently release various first-party payment services for its consumers,
such as utility bills, healthcare bills, credit card repay, and financial
loans [1, 6]. These first-party payment services and third-party trans­
action platforms form the basis of payment structure around MPAs,
which greatly increases the efficiency and effectiveness of MPAs in
conducting payment activities [6, 55]. For example, consumers usually
have the payment need for credit card repay. When a MPA release the
payment service of credit card repay on its application interface, con­
sumers can quickly pay for their credit card bills with the application. As
more and more payment services are available for use with a MPA,
consumers will be more likely to view the MPA as a convenient and
effective tool for performing payment activities. As a result, these
beneficial payment services will contribute to the formation of affective
commitment toward the MPA. Thus, we hypothesize:
H2. Service leadership positively influences affective commitment.
Technology leadership refers to the innovation efforts of MPA
5
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
providers in rolling out various supporting payment technologies and
acting as a leader in terms of technological innovation in the mobile
payment market [50, 51]. These supporting payment technologies
include ordering, searching, customization, fingerprint identification,
and facial recognition [56, 57]. As thousands of payment services are
available for use in the application interface, consumers face an ongoing
challenge to effectively find target payment services that fit with their
payment needs [49]. Supporting payment technologies can help con­
sumers reduce information processing costs through providing a better
match between consumers’ payment needs and target payment services
[26]. For example, searching and ordering technologies enable con­
sumers to quickly obtain target payment services that match their
transaction needs. Customization technologies assist consumers to tailor
frequently used payment services in the application interface according
to their preferences. Based on the above, it is reasonable to infer that
consumers will develop a genuine appreciation for beneficial payment
experiences derived from supporting payment technologies and then
produce a sense of affective commitment toward MPAs. Thus, we
hypothesize:
H3. Technology leadership positively influences affective
commitment.
3.2. Core predictors of calculative commitment
Personalization costs denote the time and effort of consumers
invested in tailoring the content and procedures of incumbent MPAs
according to their preferences [23, 50]. MPAs are rooted in mobile de­
vices with relatively small screen size and low processing capability [1,
2]. MPAs with personalization features allow consumers to modify
transactional attributes fitting with their own payment needs [58, 59].
For example, consumers can add frequently used payment services to the
application interface and remove scarcely used payment services from
the application interface. These personalization features promote con­
sumers’ payment efficacy and effectiveness when using incumbent
MPAs to conduct payment activities [6, 8]. When making decisions to
switch to alternative MPAs, consumers’ past investments in personal­
izing incumbent MPAs will be lost [23, 31]. The more personalization
costs invested in incumbent MPAs, the more likely consumers are con­
strained by and locked in the use of incumbent MPAs. As a result, the
consumers may generate a sense of calculative commitment toward
MPAs. Thus, we hypothesize:
H4. Personalization costs positively influence calculative
commitment.
Learning costs capture the time and effort of consumers invested in
familiarizing the routines and procedures of incumbent MPAs [23].
When switching from incumbent familiar MPAs to unfamiliar alterna­
tive MPAs, consumers often perceive high levels of learning costs in that
they have devoted a large amount of physical and psychological in­
vestments to learning the use of incumbent MPAs [6, 8]. The amount of
time and effort represents the physical and psychological learning costs
that lock consumers in the use of incumbent MPAs [60, 61]. Consumers
will be constrained by incumbent MPAs because their possessed
knowledge and skills from the use of incumbent MPAs are not neces­
sarily applicable to alternative MPAs [5, 6]. Consequently, consumers
will experience a sense of being locked in incumbent MPAs because of
the high costs of relationship termination, thereby producing calculative
commitment toward MPAs. Thus, we hypothesize:
H5. Learning costs positively influence calculative commitment.
Uncertainty costs demonstrate the time and effort of consumers
invested in alleviating the uncertainty and unpredictability of using
incumbent MPAs [31, 62]. MPAs are mobile financial applications that
are typically faced with high possibilities of malicious viruses attacks
and information leakage [1, 2]. Compared to incumbent MPAs, con­
sumers usually have more difficulty in predicting the outcome of using
unfamiliar alternative MPAs for payment activities during business
transactions [2, 15]. Consumers are concerned about whether
X. Gong et al.
unfamiliar alternative MPAs have the ability to provide them with
reliable and comparable payment services as they have obtained from
incumbent MPAs [12]. Uncertainty costs arise when the actual payment
services of unfamiliar alternative MPAs are unsatisfactory, resulting in
the loss of payment efficiency, performance, and convenience [63, 64].
These uncertainty costs further facilitate the formation of calculative
commitment toward incumbent MPAs. Thus, we hypothesize:
H6. Uncertainty costs positively influence calculative commitment.
3.3. Core predictors of switching behavior
Affective commitment captures the strength of consumers’
emotional attachment and identification with the use of incumbent
MPAs [46]. According to the dedication-constraint model, consumers
hesitate to switch from an incumbent technology to alternatives because
they have a genuine emotional appreciation for the relationship with the
incumbent technology [23, 27]. In the context of MPAs, high levels of
affective commitment imply that consumers develop emotional con­
nections and feelings of belongingness toward incumbent MPAs [48].
Consumers tend to commit to the relationship maintenance with
incumbent MPAs when conducting payment activities because of
considering the relationship emotionally rewarding [1, 4]. When mak­
ing decisions to switch to alternative MPAs, consumers are likely to be
concern about whether alternative MPAs have the ability to provide
comparable payment services [2]. Under this circumstance, consumers
will be loyal to the relationship with incumbent MPAs and hesitate to
switch to alternative MPAs. Thus, we hypothesize:
H7. Affective commitment negatively influences switching behavior.
Calculative commitment denotes the strength of consumers’ sense of
being locked in and constrained by incumbent MPAs because of the high
costs of relationship termination [46]. According to the
dedication-constraint model, consumers hesitate to terminate the use of
an incumbent technology in that they are constrained by high costs of
switching to alternatives [23, 27]. In the context of MPAs, high levels of
calculative commitment mean that consumers have an awareness of
high costs associated with the termination of the use of incumbent MPAs
[30, 48]. These termination costs make consumers be constrained by the
use of incumbent MPAs [31]. Consumers in constrained situations will
realize that they have to continue to use incumbent MPAs and that
actively seeking for alternatives makes no sense. Overall, consumers will
become inattentive to alternative MPAs and be less likely to switch to
alternative MPAs. Thus, we hypothesize:
H8. Calculative commitment negatively influences switching
behavior.
The dedication-constraint model suggests that consumers with
strong affective commitment will be loyal to incumbent MPAs and
hesitate to switch to alternative MPAs because of the emotionally
rewarding relationship [23, 27]. At the early stage of using MPAs,
consumers usually invest a limited amount of time and effort in using
incumbent MPAs and have a weak sense of calculative commitment
toward incumbent MPAs [4, 6]. Under this unconstrained situation,
consumers rely heavily on affective commitment in making switching
decisions [47]. If consumers perceive the use of incumbent MPAs as
beneficial and emotionally rewarding, they are unlikely to make
switching decisions to alternatives. On the contrary, if consumers view
the use of incumbent MPAs as unbeneficial and emotionally unsatis­
factory, they will switch from incumbent MPAs to attractive alternatives
without consideration. At the later stage of using MPAs, consumers have
invested a large amount of time and effort in using incumbent MPAs and
established a strong sense of calculative commitment toward incumbent
MPAs [4, 6]. Under this constrained situation, consumers will realize
that it is rational to continue using incumbent MPAs rather than
switching to alternative MPAs less attractive because of the high costs of
relationship termination [8, 61]. Consumers may engage in the inertial
state of using incumbent MPAs and lack interest to switch to alterna­
tives, even though they perceive that incumbent MPAs become less
6
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
beneficial and emotionally rewarding [40, 65]. Consequently, con­
sumers tend to gradually discount the reliance of affective commitment
in making switching decisions. Thus, we hypothesize:
H9. Calculative commitment moderates the effect of affective
commitment on switching behavior by making the relationship weaker.
4. Methodology
4.1. Sample and data collection
We conducted an online field survey in the model validation. The
target research sample is the current consumers of a popular MPA in
China, namely, Alipay Wallet. By June 2019, the Alipay Wallet had an
estimated mobile transaction value of $417 billion dollars and accoun­
ted for 54.2% MP market share in China [66]. Although Alipay Wallet is
gaining popularity in the Chinese MP market, it faces intense competi­
tions with various newly introduced MPAs, such as PayPal, Android Pay,
Samsung Pay, WeChat Wallet, and Apple Pay [6]. To reduce the churn
rate of current consumers, the Alipay Wallet devotes its innovation ef­
forts to cooperating with popular third-party transaction platforms,
delivering various first-party payment services, introducing innovative
supporting payment technologies, as well as updating personalization,
learning, and security functions (see Fig. 3).
We hired a professional survey research company called Sojump
(www.sojump.com) to collect the survey data. Sojump is a particularly
useful platform for survey studies because it has millions of registered
respondents with a diverse sociodemographic range [67, 68]. Sojump
provides researchers with multiple data-filtering measures to recruit
eligible respondents. First, we recruited Alipay Wallet consumers with
preferred characteristics using advance-screening measures. For
example, we asked respondents to provide their Alipay Wallet accounts
to verify that they were actual Alipay Wallet consumers. Additionally,
we recorded the usage experience and frequency of the respondents to
confirm that they have actively used Alipay Wallet. Second, we provided
randomly presented attention-trap questions to verify the honesty and
completeness of respondents in answering the survey questions. These
attention-trap questions comprised as follows: “(1) If seven minus the
number three equals four then only choose “neutral” and nothing else”,
“(2) If five minus the number two equals three then only choose
“somewhat agree” and nothing else”, and “(3) If you have been
answering honesty thus far then only choose “strongly agree” and
nothing else”. Third, we removed repetitive submissions from the same
respondent and eliminated professional survey takers with financial
purposes using Sojump’s technical options. Fourth, we monitored the
spent survey time to identify speeders, straightliners, and inattentive
respondents. We removed abnormally fast responses in comparison with
our pilot tests to ensure data accuracy.
The introduction to the survey for respondents called it as an
“Opinion Survey Regarding Mobile Payment Applications”. Initially,
respondents were asked to recall their prior payment experiences and
wrote down their frequently experienced payment scenario with Alipay
Wallet. This exercise served as a retrieval cue to trigger respondents’
experience of Alipay Wallet stored in their memory. Then, respondents
were provided with a series of contextual payment scenario as additional
stimulus cues which help them facilitate recall context-specific benefits
(i.e., platform leadership, service leadership, and technology leadership)
and context-specific investments (e.g., personalization costs, learning
costs, and uncertainty costs) regarding Alipay Wallet. To increase the
response rate, we offered an economic incentive valued at US$2 dollar
for participation. Finally, we collected a total of 973 valid responses (see
Table. 2).
4.2. Measures
We modified previously validated measures in the literature to
operationalize the principal variables in the model. All principal
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

Fig. 3. Screenshot of Alipay Wallet.

from Xu et al [50]. to measure platform leadership, service leadership,

Table 2
and technology leadership. These scales were originally developed by
Demographic profile (n= 973).
Xu et al [50]. in the IS discipline to reflect the innovation efforts of
Construct Category Number Percentage (%) mobile data service providers in cooperating with various popular
Gender Male 440 45.2 transaction platforms, delivering various innovative data services, and
Female 533 54.8 rolling out various innovative supporting-data technologies. In this
Age 20 or below 12 1.2 study, we slightly modified Xu et al.’s [50] scales to measure platform
21–30 591 60.7
31–40 329 33.8
leadership, service leadership, and technology leadership in the use of
41 or above 41 4.2 MPAs.
Education Below college 53 5.5 Context-specific investments. We used six-item scales adapted
Junior college 119 12.2 from Kim and Son [23] to measure personalization costs and learning
Bachelor 519 53.3
costs. These scales were originally proposed by Kim and Son [23] to
Master or above 282 29.0
Income $5000 or below 313 32.2 capture consumers’ past investment in their history of interacting with
(yearly) $5001 to $10,000 294 30.2 online services over time. We further employed four-item scales modi­
$10,001 to $20,000 146 15.0 fied from Pavlou et al [63]. and Ray et al [31]. to measure uncertainty
$20,001 or above 220 22.6 costs. Pavlou et al [63]. proposed four-item scales to reflect consumers’
Experience > 0 and < = 1 88 9.0
> 1 and < = 3 524 53.9
perceived uncertainty in purchasing products on the e-commerce web­
> 3 and < = 5 259 26.6 site. Ray et al [31]. developed four-item scales to denote consumers’
< 5 (years) 102 10.5 perceived unpredictability and uncertainty about online services. In this
Frequency Yearly (one time a year) 31 3.2 study, we used the scales from Kim and Son [23], Pavlou et al [63]., and
Monthly (up to 2–3 times a 213 21.9
Ray et al [31]. to conceptualize personalization costs, learning costs, and
month)
Weekly (up to 3–4 times a week) 369 37.9 uncertainty costs in the use of MPAs.
Daily (at least one time every day) 360 37.0 Affective commitment. We used four-item scales adapted from
Bateman et al [48]. to operationalize affective commitment. The scales
for affective commitment were originally developed by Meyer and Allen
variables were modeled as unidimensional reflective constructs using a [69] to reflect employees’ emotional attachment and identification in
seven-point Likert scale. To ensure content validity, we invite subject the organizational setting. Bateman et al [48]. extended Meyer and
matter experts to review the adapted constructs and scales Table. 3. Allen’s [69] scales to reflect consumers’ emotional attachments and
illustrate the constructs and scales. bonding toward online communities. Prior IS studies have widely
Context-specific benefits. We employed twelve-item scales adapted employed Bateman et al.’s [48] scales to measure consumers’ affective

7
X. Gong et al.
Table 3
Construct and scales.
Constructs
Platform leadership (AVE = 0.80, CR = 0.94)
1. Alipay Wallet keeps cooperating with new transaction platforms.
2. Alipay Wallet supports a great variety of online transaction platforms.
3. Alipay Wallet supports a great variety of offline transaction platforms.
4. Alipay Wallet is always among the first that cooperates with new
transaction platforms in the market.
Service leadership (AVE = 0.84, CR = 0.95)
1. Alipay Wallet keeps introducing new services to the market.
2. Alipay Wallet frequently innovates its service offerings for its
customers.
3. Alipay Wallet offers a great variety of services.
4. Alipay Wallet always provides a diversified selection of services for its
customers.
Technology leadership (AVE = 0.88, CR = 0.97)
1. Alipay Wallet keeps rolling out state-of-the-art technologies.
2. Alipay Wallet frequently introduces technological innovations for its
customers.
3. Alipay Wallet is always among the first that introduces the latest
generation of technology.
4. Alipay Wallet always deploys innovative technologies to the market
before others.
Personalization costs (AVE = 0.75, CR = 0.90)
1. I “set up” Alipay Wallet to use it the way I want to.
2. I have put effort into adapting Alipay Wallet to meet my needs.
3. I have chosen features offered by Alipay Wallet to suit my style of
payment use.
Learning costs (AVE = 0.87, CR = 0.95)
1. Learning to use the features offered by Alipay Wallet took a lot of time
and effort.
2. There was a lot involved for me to understand Alipay Wallet well.
3. I spent a lot of time and effort to learn how the “system works” at
Alipay Wallet.
Uncertainty costs (AVE = 0.75, CR = 0.92)
1. I feel that financial services offered by other mobile payment
applications involves a high degree of uncertainty.
2. I feel that the uncertainty associated with other mobile payment
application is high.
3. I am expected to many transaction uncertainties if I use financial
services offered by other mobile payment applications.
4. There is a high degree of uncertainty when use financial services
offered by other mobile payment applications.
Affective commitment (AVE = 0.76, CR = 0.92)
1. I feel like I’m a part of something on Alipay Wallet.
2. I have a real emotional attachment to Alipay Wallet.
3. I feel a strong sense of belonging on Alipay Wallet.
4. I feel a strong connection to Alipay Wallet.
Calculative commitment (AVE = 0.78, CR = 0.93)
1. It would be too costly for me to leave Alipay Wallet.
2. To stop using Alipay Wallet would require considerable personal
sacrifice.
3. To stop using Alipay Wallet could result in unexpected hassles.
4. I would lose a lot if I stop using Alipay Wallet.
Switching behavior (AVE = 0.72, CR = 0.93)
1. I am considering switch from Alipay Wallet.
2. The likelihood of switching from Alipay Wallet to the other MPA is
high.
3. I am determined to switch from Alipay Wallet to the other MPA.
4. I will switch from Alipay Wallet to the financial services offered by the
other MPA.
5. I will switch from Alipay Wallet to the other MPA in the near future.
Fashion consciousness (AVE = N.A., CR = N.A.)
1. When I must choose between the two, I usually dress for fashion, not
for comfort
2. An important part of my life and activities is dressing smartly
3. A person should try to dress in style
Note: Fashion consciousness was a marker variable in the survey.
commitment toward digital services. In this study, we adapted Bateman
et al.’s [48] scales to frame affective commitment in the use of MPAs.
Calculative commitment. We employed four-item scales adapted
from Bateman et al [48]. to measure calculative commitment. The scales
for calculative commitment were initially developed by Meyer and Allen
[69] in the organization management discipline and then extended by
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
Bateman et al [48]. to the IS discipline. Researchers have widely used
Bateman et al.’s [48] scales to demonstrate the costs of terminating the
Loadings use of incumbent online services or switching to alternative online ser­
vices. In this study, we employed Bateman et al.’s [48] scales to oper­
0.94 ationalize calculative commitment in the use of MPAs.
0.97 Switching behavior. We used five-item scales adapted from Zhang
0.90 et al [45]. and Kim and Son [23] to measure switching behavior. Zhang
0.75 et al [45]. provided three-item scales to reflect consumers’ switching
behavior from incumbent microblog services to alternatives. Kim and
0.93 Son [23] developed two-item scales to denote consumers’ attentiveness
0.96 during searching for and switching to alternative online service pro­
viders. In this study, we integrated and modified scales from Zhang et al
0.93
[45]. and Kim and Son [23] to form five-item scales to measure
0.83
switching behavior in the use of MPAs.
0.94 4.3. Common method bias
0.97
0.95
Common method bias (CMB) was detected using two different sta­
tistical techniques. We initially conducted Harman’s single-factor test
0.89 with an unrotated factor solution. We incorporated all items of principal
variables into factor analysis and ran the principal component analysis
[70]. We selected an unrotated factor solution to explain the maximum
0.85
0.92 amount of variance with a minimal number of factors [70]. The unro­
0.83 tated factor solution revealed seven factors with eigenvalues higher than
1.0 and accounted for 79.86% of the total variance. As the first factor
explained only 43.39% of the total variance, less than 50% of the total
0.94
variance [84, 85], thereby providing preliminary evidences for allevi­
0.98 ating the concern for CMB. Additionally, we conducted a correlation
0.88 marker technique by collecting a survey marker variable. We selected
fashion consciousness as a marker variable in that it was theoretically
unrelated to other principal variables in the model [71, 72]. We used the
0.76
smallest positive correlation (β = 0.04, p > 0.05) between marker var­
0.91 iable and other principal variables to adjust the size and significance of
construct correlations. The results showed that all nonsignificant
0.89 construct correlations remain statistically nonsignificant after the
0.90
adjustment, thereby confirming that CMB was less likely to be a critical
issue.
0.91 5. Data analysis and results
0.93
0.93
0.68 5.1. Reliability and validity
0.94 We conducted confirmatory factor analysis with AMOS 24.0 to check
0.92 the construct reliability and validity. We evaluated construct reliability
0.87
by examining whether the composite reliability (CR) was higher than
0.79 0.70 [73, 74]. Meanwhile, we tested convergent validity by assessing
whether the average extracted variance (AVE) surpassed 0.50 and
0.84 whether the item loadings were at 0.70 or above [73, 74]. The results in
0.81
Table 3 showed that the CR values of all constructs ranged from 0.89 to
0.90 0.97, the AVE values ranged from 0.72 to 0.88, and the majority of item
0.91 loadings were greater than 0.70. We examined discriminant validity by
calculating whether intra-construct correlations were lower than the
0.78 square roots of constructs’ AVE value and whether our nine principal
variables were distinctive [75]. The results in Table. 4 showed that
N.A.
intra-construct correlations were significantly lower than the square
N.A. roots of constructs’ AVE values. Furthermore, the model fitted the data
N.A. well, χ2(491) = 2414.50, p < 0.001, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.94,
relative fit index (RFI) = 0.93, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.95,
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.94, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.95,
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06. In sum,
our scales had acceptable reliability and validity for hypotheses testing.
5.2. Hypotheses testing
We performed structural equation modeling with AMOS 24.0 to test
the hypotheses (see Fig. 4). Specifically, we compared three alternative
8
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

Table 4
Descriptive statistics and construct correlations.
Construct Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Platform leadership 5.86 0.90 0.89

2. Service leadership 5.68 0.97 0.67 0.92
3. Technology leadership 5.30 1.08 0.59 0.69 0.94
4. Personalization costs 4.84 1.19 0.59 0.61 0.54 0.87
5. Learning costs 5.58 0.91 0.48 0.58 0.57 0.47 0.93
6. Uncertainty costs 4.95 1.30 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.85
7. Affective commitment 3.00 1.09 0.36 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.59 0.04 0.87
8. Calculative commitment 5.03 1.18 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.26 0.19 0.27 0.88
9. Switching behavior 2.84 1.09 –0.58 –0.63 –0.62 –0.66 –0.68 –0.07 –0.72 –0.36 0.85

Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; χ2(491) = 2414.50, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.94, RFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06.

Fig. 4. Structural model.

models to check whether the change in R-square from the main and
interaction effects was significant and substantial. In Model 1, we only
included the effects of control variables (i.e., age, gender, education,
income, experience, and frequency) on dependent variables (i.e., affec­
tive commitment, calculative commitment, and switching behavior). In
Model 2, we added independent variables (i.e., platform leadership,
service leadership, technology leadership, personalization costs,
learning costs, and uncertainty costs) into model 1 to predict dependent
variables. In Model 3, we added the interaction term (i.e., affective
commitment*calculative commitment) into model 2 to predict depen­
dent variables. Following the product indicator method, we created the
interaction term by multiplying the indicators of the predictor and
moderator constructs. Each indicator of the predictor and moderator
was mean centered before performing multiplication to reduce collin­
earity between the main and interaction effects.
The results showed that platform leadership (β = –0.04, p > 0.05)
exerted a nonsignificant influence on affective commitment, thereby
rejecting H1. Service leadership (β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and technology
leadership (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) had positive effects on affective
commitment. Therefore, H2 and H3 were supported. Meanwhile,
personalization costs (β = 0.21, p < 0.001), learning costs (β = 0.16, p <
0.001), and uncertainty costs (β = 0.16, p < 0.001) positively influenced
calculative commitment, thereby providing confirmatory evidences to
H4, H5, and H6. Finally, affective commitment (β = –0.62, p < 0.001)
and calculative commitment (β = –0.21, p < 0.001) negatively affected
consumer switching behavior, thereby confirming H7 and H8. Calcu­
lative commitment (β = 0.09, p < 0.05) significantly weaken the effect of
affective commitment on consumer switching behavior. The model
explained 30%, 14%, and 59% of the variance in affective commitment,
calculative commitment, and switching behavior, respectively. The
model fitted the data well, χ2(504) = 3164.95, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.91,
RFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.92, CFI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07. In
congruence with Aiken and West [76], we performed simple slope tests
to visually interpret the moderating effect of calculative commitment on
the relationship between affective commitment and switching behavior
(see Fig. 5). The results showed that when consumers had low levels of
calculative commitment, affective commitment negatively influenced
switching behavior (β = –0.71, p < 0.001). Moreover, when consumers
had high levels of calculative commitment, the relationship between
affective commitment and switching behavior became significantly

9
X. Gong et al.
Fig. 5. Interaction between affective commitment and calculative commitment.
weaker (β = –0.53, p < 0.001).
6. Discussion and conclusion
This study sought to examine the formation of the consumer
switching behavior of MPAs. Specifically, we followed Hong et al.’s [32]
single-context theory contextualization approach and developed a
contextualized dedication-constraint model of the consumer switching
behavior of MPAs. An online field survey of 973 MPA consumers was
developed in the model validation. The survey study largely supported
the model and explained 58% variance in the consumer switching
behavior of MPAs.
First, platform leadership had a nonsignificant effect on affective
commitment (H1 rejected). One plausible explanation for this surprising
and unexpected result is that although platform leadership offers con­
sumers a wide range of cooperated third-party transaction platforms, it
increases the information processing costs of selecting target transaction
platforms [26]. Simply increasing the variety of cooperated third-party
transaction platforms may not effectively increase consumers’ affective
commitment because they will experience information overload [50,
56]. For example, consumers will feel exhausted when processing
thousands of cooperated third-party transaction platforms available for
use with MPAs.
Second, service leadership was positively associated with affective
commitment (H2 supported). Service leadership is an effective contex­
tual strategy in enhancing consumers’ affective commitment toward
MPAs [26, 49]. Consumers tend to develop emotional attachment and
identification with incumbent MPAs when they perceive the innovation
efforts of MPA providers in introducing various first-party payment
services in the application interface.
Third, platform leadership had a positive effect on affective
commitment (H3 supported), and its effect (β = 0.35, p < 0.001) was
much stronger than that of platform leadership (β = –0.04, p > 0.05) and
service leadership (β = 0.18, p < 0.001). Technology leadership played a
dominant role in formulating affective commitment toward MPAs
because supporting payment technologies can effectively help con­
sumers reduce information processing costs through providing a better
match between consumers’ payment needs and target payment services
[38, 50], especially in the presence of thousands of third-party trans­
action platforms and first-party payment services.
Fourth, personalization costs exerted positive influences on calcu­
lative commitment (H4 supported). Personalization is the strategy of
MPAs in allowing consumers to tailor payment services on the basis of
their preferences [23, 50]. The time and effort of consumers in
personalizing their incumbent MPAs cannot be easily transferrable to
10
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
alternative MPAs [58, 59]. These personalization costs serve as past
nontransferable investments that make consumers be locked in and
constrained by the use of incumbent MPAs.
Fifth, learning costs were positively related to calculative commit­
ment (H5 supported). Consumers usually invest a large amount of time
and effort in learning the routines and procedures of using incumbent
MPAs [6, 8]. Similar to personalization costs, learning costs are impor­
tant sources of past nontransferable investments that are not easily
extended to alternative MPAs [60, 61]. These learning costs lock con­
sumers in the use of incumbent MPAs because their knowledge and skills
learned from incumbent MPAs will be lost when switching to alternative
MPAs.
Sixth, uncertainty costs were positively associated with calculative
commitment (H6 supported). As typical mobile financial applications,
MPAs are susceptible to various transaction and security risks [1, 2]. The
switching process from incumbent familiar MPAs to alternative unfa­
miliar MPAs involves great uncertainty because consumers have the
difficulty in predicting the outcomes of using alternative unfamiliar
MPAs [63, 64]. Consumers will experience a sense of being locked in the
use of incumbent MPAs when they perceive high uncertainty costs of
leaving.
Seventh, affective commitment and calculative commitment were
effective in decreasing the consumer switching behavior of MPAs (H7
and H8 supported). These intramechanism effects are important find­
ings, which confirm that dedication- and constrained-based mechanisms
exhibit highly discernable patterns in determining the consumer
switching behavior of MPAs. On the one hand, consumers tend to be
loyal to incumbent MPAs and refuse to switch to alternative MPAs
because they develop a genuine and emotional appreciation for the
relationship maintenance. On the other hand, consumers will engage in
continuance usage of incumbent MPAs and hesitate to switch to alter­
native MPAs because they are constrained by past nontransferable in­
vestments of using incumbent MPAs that make it costly to switch.
Eighth, calculative commitment weakened the effect of affective
commitment on the consumer switching behavior of MPAs (H9 sup­
ported). This intermechanism effect is an interesting finding, which in­
dicates that dedication- and constraint-based mechanisms differentially,
yet complementarily, determine the consumer switching behavior of
MPAs. At the early stage of using MPAs, consumers make switching
decision primarily dependent on whether they perceive the relationship
with incumbent MPAs as beneficial and emotionally rewarding [4, 6]. At
the later stage of using MPAs, consumers are constrained by and locked
in the use of incumbent MPAs because of a large amount of physical and
psychological investments [8, 61]. Consumers in constrained situations
will discount the role of dedication-based mechanism and rely heavily
X. Gong et al.
on constraint-based mechanism in making switching decisions.
6.1. Theoretical implications
This study offers several important implications for theory. First, our
study advances the MPA literature by shifting the research focus from
initial adoption behavior to switching behavior of MPAs. Existing MPA
research is still evolving with dominant foundation-building conceptual
studies [52], and with most empirical studies that focus on initial
adoption behavior issues [4, 13, 15–18]. While the initial adoption
behavior of MPAs serves as a foundation for the mobile payment busi­
ness success, the sustainable success of MPAs depends largely on
whether consumers determine to continue the use of MPAs or switch to
alternatives rather than first-time use [20–22]. The continuous devel­
opment and maturity of the mobile payment market present theoretical
and practical opportunities to look beyond initial adoption behavior by
investigating the switching behavior of MPAs.
Second, our study extends the MPA literature by shifting the research
focus from generic factors to contextual factors in determining the
consumer switching behavior of MPAs. Prior MPA studies have pri­
marily examined the initial adoption behavior of MPAs with theoretical
insights from general technology adoption models, such as DIT, UTAUT,
ISM, and TAM [4, 13 ,15–18]. Among these studies, consumer adoption
and use of MPAs are determined by generic factors pertaining to
compatibility, relative advantage, effort expectancy, performance ex­
pectancy, perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness, and self-efficacy
[2, 11–13, 17, 18]. However, limited research efforts have been
devoted to the impacts of contextual factors on the consumer switching
behavior of MPAs. Our study fills the knowledge gap by investing the
impacts of context-specific benefits and investments on the consumer
switching behavior of MPAs. In particular, we conceptualize
context-specific benefits as platform leadership, service leadership, and
technology leadership. Meanwhile, we operationalize context-specific
investments as personalization costs, learning costs, and uncertainty
costs. These contextual conceptualizations serve as a basis for future
MPA research.
Third, our study enriches the dedication-constraint model by incor­
porating contextualization into theory development. Avgerou [77, p.
977] argued that “most theoretical models on IT use are contextually
underdeveloped, leaving all of the organizational and environmental
context outside the model.” Hong et al. [32, p. 111] further contended
“the IS behavioral science research paradigm is passive with respect to
technology, often ignoring or under-theorizing the artifact its self.” The
majority of previously validated dedication- and constraint-based fac­
tors are generic factors, such as perceived benefits and switching costs
[28, 31, 46, 78]. Very few studies have recognized the significance of
context in the theory development of dedication-constraint model. Our
study adopts single-context theory contextualization [32] by identifying
a series of contextual factors as antecedents of endogenous variables in
the dedication-constraint model in the MPA context. Our study provides
insights for future research to account for contextual influences in the
formation of IS postadoption phenomena when applying the
dedication-constraint model.
6.2. Practical implications
Consumer switching behavior is a vexing ongoing challenge for MPA
providers in the global mobile payment market [6, 8]. The eMarketer
reported that consumers switch frequently among MPA providers
because they have a variety of payment options to choose from like
Alipay Wallet, Apple Pay, and PayPal to the slew of retailer-specific
mobile payment solutions offered by companies like Walmart and
Starbucks [7]. For example, the market share of consumers of Starbucks
payment has shrunk from 40.0% in 2018 to 39.4% in 2019 in the US
mobile payment market [79]. While Starbucks payment has enjoyed a
dominant market share of mobile payment users for a period of time, it
11
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
has a relatively lower growth potential than other popular MPAs (e.g.,
Alipay Wallet) since it can only be used at Starbucks stores. To prevent
consumer switching behavior and reduce churn rate of MPAs, our study
proposes two possible strategies: the dedication-based mechanism of
affective commitment and the constraint-based mechanism of calcu­
lative commitment.
First, MPA providers should employ the dedication-based mecha­
nism of affective commitment by establishing platform leadership, ser­
vice leadership, and technology leadership in the mobile payment
market. These leadership strategies can help consumers establish a
strong sense of affective commitment toward an incumbent MPA pro­
vider and therefore effectively curb their switching behavior. For
instance, the Alipay Wallet provider has devoted innovation efforts in
cooperating with a variety of popular third-party transaction platforms,
such as eBay, Amazon, Uber, Walmart, and Starbucks. Such cooperation
with popular transaction platforms allows consumers to perform pay­
ment activities efficiently with Alipay Wallet at anytime, anywhere,
while shopping on e-commerce websites, paying for taxi bills, or
checking out in supermarkets. Moreover, the Alipay Wallet provider has
frequently innovated its own first-party payment services, such as utility
bills, healthcare bills, credit card repay, and financial loans. Consumers
can conveniently adopt Alipay Wallet for their frequently used payment
services in the application interface. Finally, the Alipay Wallet provider
has consistently released supporting payment technologies, such as
ordering, searching, customization, and facial recognition. These
advanced supporting payment technologies assist consumers to effec­
tively find target payment services in the presence of thousands of third-
party transaction platforms and first-party payment services available
for use. The successful experience of Alipay Wallet serves as a basis for
other MPA providers in establishing platform, service, and technology
leadership to retain their current consumers.
Second, MPA providers should leverage the constraint-based mech­
anism of calculative commitment by increasing personalization costs,
learning costs, and uncertainty costs in the switching process. Con­
sumers will develop a strong sense of calculative commitment toward an
incumbent MPA provider and hesitate to switch to alternatives because
of the high costs of relationship termination. For instance, the Alipay
Wallet provider allows consumers to personalize the application inter­
face through removing scarcely used payment services and adding
frequently used payment services. Additionally, the Alipay Wallet pro­
vider delivers training and learning features to assist consumers to
familiarize the functions and procedures of performing payment activ­
ities. Typical learning features comprise function trying animation,
logical payment path, transactional history tracking, and transactional
process training. Finally, the Alipay Wallet provider implements security
features to help consumers alleviate their concerns for uncertainty and
risks in conducting payment activities. Typical security features include
real-name verification, biological identification, and authorization
management. Other MPA providers may refer to the successful experi­
ence of Alipay Wallet in delivering effective personalization, learning,
and security features to reduce the churn rate of their current
consumers.
6.3. Limitations and future research
Although we have highlighted several notable implications for the­
ory and practice, we acknowledge some limitations as well. First, our
research model is tested using cross-sectional data, and therefore only
the interrelationships are validated. To control for the threat to internal
validity, we develop the research model and establish causality among
constructs based on well-established theories [80]. Future research
should employ longitudinal survey method to gather empirical data at
different points of time. Although the longitudinal survey method is
challenging given the high dropout rates of respondents, it can help
better establish casual relationships among constructs [81].
Second, the generalizability of our findings should be established by
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

future research. On the one hand, our research setting was limited to
only one MPA, Alipay Wallet, thereby limiting the generalizability
across contexts. Prior research uncovered two broad categories of MPAs:
service-oriented MPAs and consumer-oriented MPAs [26].
Service-oriented MPAs are developed from dominant business trans­
action platforms in which the large number of merchant services makes
the application appealing to consumers in the payment ecosystem, such
as Alipay Wallet and PayPal. Consumer-oriented MPAs are affiliated
with popular social communication platforms in which the large side of
the consumer base helps the application attract merchant services in the
payment ecosystem, such as WeChat Wallet, Apple Pay, and Samsung
Pay. To enhance the generalizability of our research findings, re­
searchers are encouraged to extend our research model by collecting
data from other MPA contexts, such as WeChat Wallet, Apple Pay, and
Samsung Pay. On the other hand, our empirical data were collected from
only one country (i.e., China) which limits the generality across borders.
Different countries have different cultural anthropology, resulting from
multiple religious, legal, economic, political, technological, and service
systems [11]. These cross-culture issues among MPA consumers in
different countries have been informative, which requires further
investigation to address the concern of generalizability.
Third, our study adopts a single-context theory contextualization
approach by identifying context-specific factors as antecedents of
endogenous variables in the dedication-constraint model. Another di­
rection of single-context theory contextualization is to investigate
context-specific factors as moderators of relationships in the dedication-
constraint model [32]. For example, ubiquity is a silent characteristic of
mobile payment technology that enables consumers to pay for ubiqui­
tous bills with the help of wireless networks [1]. The digital divide is a
typical characteristic of mobile payment consumers which describes the
gap between consumers at different socioeconomic levels toward the
opportunities in benefiting from accessing innovative MPAs [82, 83].
Similarly, payment scenario is a key characteristic of mobile payment
usage context which comprises proximity payment performed with near
field communication technologies on the spot and remote payment
conducted with remote payment servers independent of consumers’
locations [4, 26]. We encourage future researchers to incorporate
ubiquity, digital divide, and payment scenario as potential moderators
into the model.
6.4. Conclusion
Consumer switching behavior is a pervasive and growing phenom­
enon in the competitive mobile payment market. In this study, we adopt
a single-context theory contextualization approach and construe a
contextualized dedication-constraint model of the consumer switching
behavior of MPAs. The model posits that platform leadership, service
leadership, technology leadership, and affective commitment are key
dedication-based factors, which can effectively curb consumer switching
behavior. Meanwhile, the model suggests that personalization costs,
learning costs, and uncertainty costs are important constraint-based
factors, which can further decrease consumer switching behavior. The
findings of our study advance the theoretical understanding of consumer
switching behavior of MPAs and offer practical guidance for designing
effective strategies to curb this ongoing challenge.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the editor-in-chief, the associate editor, and the
two anonymous reviewers who contributed insightful and constructive
suggestions to improve the paper. The work described in this paper was
supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Project Nos. 72001168, 72032006, 72001170, and 72002167)
and the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (Project No.
2020M673341).

APPENDIX A. Literature review on IS switching behavior

Category Source Context Definition Important findings

Technology switching behavior: a
complete or partial replacement of the
use of an incumbent old technology
with a newly introduced technology
because of the natural ending of
technology life-cycle considerations.
Provider switching behavior: a temporary
or permanent migration of a technology
product from an incumbent provider to
alternative providers regardless of
technology life-cycle considerations.
Fan and Suh [1] Switching from IS switching behavior: a complete or Disconfirmation and expectation toward
incumbent partial replacement of the use of an disruptive technology positively influence
technology to incumbent old technology with a newly dissatisfaction toward incumbent
disruptive technology introduced technology. technology, which leads to switching
behavior. Financial and procedural
switching costs moderate the effects of
dissatisfaction on switching behavior.
Hong and Zhu Switching from IS switching behavior: a complete or Technology integration, web spending, web
[2] offline commerce to e- partial replacement of the use of an functionality, electronic data interchange,
commerce incumbent old technology with a newly partner usage, and perceived obstacles are
introduced technology. important predictors of switching behavior
Li and Ku [3] Switching from e- IS switching behavior: the behavioral Low efficiency, conformity, personal
commerce to social tendency in which users may terminate experience, social presence, social support,
commerce or significantly reduce their use of one social benefit, and self-presentation are
technology product if an alternative important predictors of switching behavior.
technology product satisfies their needs. Conformity and personal experience are
moderate the effects of low efficiency on
switching behavior.
Polites and Switching from email IS switching behavior: a complete or Incumbent system habit, switching costs,
Karahanna [4] to Google Docs partial replacement of the use of an inertia, perceived ease-of-use, relative
incumbent old technology with a newly advantage, and subjective norm are
introduced technology. important predictors of switching behavior.
Xu et al [5]. Switching from 2 G to IS migration behavior: a complete or Technology perceptions, external
3/4/5G partial replacement of the use of an influences, and complementarities are
incumbent old technology with a newly important predictors of migration behavior.
introduced technology.
Bhattacherjee Switching from IS switching behavior: a complete or Relative advantage, satisfaction, and habit
[6] Microsoft Internet partial replacement of the use of one are an important predictor of web browser
Explorer to Opera technology product with a substitute switching behavior. Personal innovativeness
web browser that serves similar needs. moderates the effects of relative advantage
(continued on next page)

12
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

(continued )
Category Source Context Definition Important findings

and satisfaction on web browser switching

behavior.
Chang et al [7]. Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Regret and dissatisfaction are an important
Facebook, MySpace, permanent migration from one predictor of social networking site switching
and MSN to other technology product to a substitute for a behavior. Switching costs and alternative
social networking certain period of time. attractiveness moderate the effects of regret
sites and dissatisfaction on social networking site
switching behavior.
Hsu [8] Switching from iOS IS switching behavior: a complete or Switching benefits, switching costs,
system phone to partial replacement of the use of one satisfaction, and perceived switching value
Android system technology product with a substitute are predictors of switching behavior.
phone that serves similar needs. Satisfaction moderates the effects of
switching benefits and switching costs on
switching value.
Kim et al [9]. Switching from IS switching behavior: a complete or Satisfaction, attractive alternatives, and
incumbent email partial replacement of the use of one IT switching costs are important predictors of
services to product with a substitute that serves email switching behavior. Attractive
alternatives similar needs. alternatives and switching costs moderate
the effects of satisfaction on email switching
behavior.
Lin and Huang Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Disconfirmation, low satisfaction, inertia,
[10] Android system permanent migration of a technology switching cost, network effect, unfavorable
phone to iOS system product from an incumbent provider to subjective norm, and relative advantage are
phone alternative providers. important predictors of mobile phone
switching behavior.
Ranganathan et Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Relational investments and user
al [11]. incumbent mobile permanent migration of a technology demographics are important predictors of
data service provider product from an incumbent provider to mobile service technology switching
to alternatives alternative providers. behavior.
Wang et al [12]. Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Perceived economic value, past investments,
Alipay Wallet to permanent migration of a technology technical self-efficacy, inertia, privacy
alternatives product of an incumbent provider to concern, and monetary rewards are
alternative providers. important predictors of mobile payment
switching behavior. Inertia moderates the
effects of privacy concern ad monetary
reward on mobile payment switching
behavior.
Xiao et al [13]. Switching from IS replacement behavior: the decision of Software-as-a-service quality, satisfaction,
incumbent cloud IS consumers to terminate the existing affective commitment, and calculative
computing provider exchange relationship with the current commitment are important predictors of
to alternatives provider regardless of technology life- cloud computing replacement behavior.
cycle considerations.
Xu et al [14]. Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Dissatisfaction, alternative attraction,
incumbent social permanent migration of a technology switching costs, and peer influence are
networking site product from an incumbent provider to important predictors of social networking
providers to alternative providers. site switching behavior.
alternatives
Zhang et al Switching from IS switching behavior: a temporary or Satisfaction, attractive alternative, and sunk
[15]. incumbent microblog permanent migration of a technology costs are important predictors of microblog
service to alternatives product from an incumbent provider to switching behavior. Gender and sunk costs
alternative providers. moderate the effects of satisfaction and
attractive alternatives on microblog
switching behavior.

APPENDIX B. Literature review on mobile payment applications

Category Source Topic Theory Independent variables Mediating variables Dependent

variables

Specific mobile Cao et al Initial Trust transfer theory Trust in web payment Perceived Trust in mobile payment Intention to use
payment [16]. adoption similarity Perceived entitativity
application (Alipay Gong et al Initial Trust transfer theory Cognitive trust in web payment Cognitive trust in mobile Intention to use
Wallet): [17]. adoption Emotional trust in web payment payment Emotional trust in
Perceived entitativity mobile payment
Gong et al Initial Status quo bias theory Transition costs Sunk costs Inertia Perceived value Intention to use
[18]. adoption Loss aversion Perceived threat Perceived
controllability
Gong et al Initial Control agency theory Privacy setting Privacy policy Industry Privacy concerns Self-disclosure
[19]. adoption self-regulation Government legislation
Lu et al Initial Trust transfer theory Trust in web payment Trust in mobile Perceived cost Perceived Intention to use
[20]. adoption payment risk Relative advantage
Compatibility Image
Postadoption
(continued on next page)

13
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

(continued )
Category Source Topic Theory Independent variables Mediating variables Dependent
variables

Wang et al Pull-mooring-push Perceived economic value Past Privacy concern Inertia Switching
[12]. model investments Self-efficacy Monetary rewards behavior
Yang et al Initial Diffusion of innovation Subjective norm Image Personal Perceived risk Perceived fee Intention to use
[21]. adoption theory innovativeness Compatibility Relative
advantage
Yang et al Initial Privacy calculus theory Perceived benefits Privacy setting Perceived value Self-disclosure
[22]. adoption Privacy policy Perceived risks Psychological comfort
Zhang et al Initial Categorization theory Cognitive trust in web payment Perceived value of mobile Intention to use
[23]. adoption Emotional trust in web payment payment
Perceived similarity Perceived
business tie
Zhou [24] Postadoption Information success System quality Information quality Trust Flow Satisfaction Continuance
model Service quality intention
General mobile Johnson et Initial Diffusion of innovation Privacy risk Ubiquity Trialability Ease-of-use Relative Intention to use
payment al [25]. adoption theory advantage Visibility
application: Perceived security
Kim et al Initial Technology acceptance Innovativeness Knowledge Mobility Perceived usefulness Intention to use
[26]. adoption model Reachability Compatibility Perceived ease-of-use
Convenience
Kim et al Initial Diffusion of innovation Relative advantage Propensity to trust Trusting beliefs Intention to use
[27]. adoption theory Structural assurance Firm reputation
Luo et al Initial Unified theory of Self-efficacy Propensity to trust Performance expectancy Intention to use
[28]. adoption acceptance and use of a Structural assurance Trusting belief Perceived
technology risk
Mallat [29] Initial Diffusion of innovation Relative advantage Compatibility Trust & risk Network Intention to use
adoption theory Complexity externality Security
Tam and Initial Task-technology fit Task characteristics Technology Task-technology fit Intention to use
Oliveira adoption model characteristics
[30]

References for Appendix

[1] L. Fan, Y.-H. Suh, Why do users switch to a disruptive technology? An empirical study based on expectation-disconfirmation theory, Inf.
Manage. 51 (2014) 240–248.
[2] W. Hong, K. Zhu, Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: factors affecting e-commerce adoption and migration at the firm level, Inf. Manage.
43 (2006) 204–221.
[3] C.-Y. Li, Y.-C. Ku, The power of a thumbs-up: Will e-commerce switch to social commerce?, Inf. Manage. 55 (2018) 340–357.
[4] G.L. Polites, E. Karahanna, Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new
system acceptance, MIS Q. 36 (2012) 21–42.
[5] X. Xu, V. Venkatesh, K.Y. Tam, S.-J. Hong, Model of migration and use of platforms: role of hierarchy, current generation, and complemen­
tarities in consumer settings, Manag. Sci. 56 (2010) 1304–1323.
[6] A. Bhattacherjee, M. Limayem, C.M.K. Cheung, User switching of information technology: a theoretical synthesis and empirical test, Inf.
Manage. 49 (2012) 327–333.
[7] I.-C. Chang, C.-C. Liu, K. Chen, The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking sites, Inf. Syst. J. 24 (2014)
323–346.
[8] J.S.-C. Hsu, Understanding the role of satisfaction in the formation of perceived switching value, Decis. Support Syst. 59 (2014) 152–162.
[9] G. Kim, B. Shin, H.G. Lee, A study of factors that affect user intentions toward email service switching, Inf. Manage. 43 (2006) 884–893.
[10] T.-C. Lin, S.-L. Huang, Understanding the Determinants of Consumers’ Switching Intentions in a Standards War, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 19
(2014) 163–189.
[11] C. Ranganathan, D. Seo, Y. Babad, Switching behavior of mobile users: do users’ relational investments and demographics matter?, Eur. J. Inf.
Syst. 15 (2006) 269–276.
[12] L. Wang, X. (Robert) Luo, X. Yang, Z. Qiao, Easy come or easy go? Empirical evidence on switching behaviors in mobile payment applications,
Inf. Manage. 56 (2019) 103–150.
[13] X. Xiao, S. Sarker, R.T. Wright, S. Sarker, B.J. Mariadoss, Commitment and replacement of existing SaaS-delivered applications: a mixed-
methods investigation, MIS Q. 44 (2020) 1811–1857.
[14] Y. (Calvin) Xu, Y. Yang, Z. Cheng, J. Lim, Retaining and attracting users in social networking services: An empirical investigation of cyber
migration, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 23 (2014) 239–253.
[15] K.Z.K. Zhang, M.K.O. Lee, C.M.K. Cheung, H. Chen, Understanding the role of gender in bloggers’ switching behavior, Decis. Support Syst. 47
(2009) 540–546.
[16] X. Cao, L. Yu, Z. Liu, M. Gong, L. Adeel, Understanding mobile payment users’ continuance intention: a trust transfer perspective, Internet Res.
28 (2018) 456–476.
[17] X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, What drives trust transfer from web to mobile payment services? The dual effects
of perceived entitativity, Inf. Manage. 57 (2020) 103–150.
[18] X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, Transition from web to mobile payment services: The triple effects of status quo
inertia, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 50 (2020) 310–324.
[19] X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, What drives self-disclosure in mobile payment applications? The effect of privacy

14
X. Gong et al. Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640

assurance approaches, network externality, and technology complementarity, Inf. Technol. People. 33 (2020) 1174–1213.
[20] Y. Lu, S. Yang, P.Y.K. Chau, Y. Cao, Dynamics between the trust transfer process and intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-
environment perspective, Inf. Manage. 48 (2011) 393–403.
[21] S. Yang, Y. Lu, S. Gupta, Y. Cao, R. Zhang, Mobile payment services adoption across time: An empirical study of the effects of behavioral
beliefs, social influences, and personal traits, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2012) 129–142.
[22] Q. Yang, X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, H. Liu, M.K.O. Lee, Self-disclosure in mobile payment applications: Common and differential effects of
personal and proxy control enhancing mechanisms, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 52 (2020) 102–165.
[23] K.Z.K. Zhang, X. Gong, C. Chen, S.J. Zhao, M.K.O. Lee, Spillover effects from web to mobile payment services: the role of relevant schema and
schematic fit, Internet Res. 29 (2019) 1213–1232.
[24] T. Zhou, An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services, Decis. Support Syst. 54 (2013) 1085–1091.
[25] V.L. Johnson, A. Kiser, R. Washington, R. Torres, Limitations to the rapid adoption of M-payment services: Understanding the impact of
privacy risk on M-Payment services, Comput. Hum. Behav. 79 (2018) 111–122.
[26] C. Kim, M. Mirusmonov, I. Lee, An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26
(2010) 310–322.
[27] G. Kim, B. Shin, H.G. Lee, Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking, Inf. Syst. J. 19 (2009)
283–311.
[28] X. Luo, H. Li, J. Zhang, J.P. Shim, Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an
empirical study of mobile banking services, Decis. Support Syst. 49 (2010) 222–234.
[29] N. Mallat, Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments – A qualitative study, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 16 (2007) 413–432.
[30] C. Tam, T. Oliveira, Does culture influence m-banking use and individual performance?, Inf. Manage. 56 (2019) 356–363.

References [21] M. Limayem, S.G. Hirt, C.M. Cheung, How habit limits the predictive power of
intention: the case of information systems continuance, MIS Q 31 (2007) 705–737.
[22] A.O. De Guinea, M.L. Markus, Rethinking the roles of intention, habit, and emotion
[1] T. Zhou, An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment
in continuing information technology use, MIS Q 33 (2009) 433–444.
services, Decis. Support Syst. 54 (2013) 1085–1091.
[23] S.S. Kim, J.-.Y. Son, A dual model of post-adoption phenomena and its empirical
[2] X. Luo, H. Li, J. Zhang, J.P. Shim, Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-
test in the context of online services, MIS Q 33 (2009) 49–70.
faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: an empirical study of
[24] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
mobile banking services, Decis. Support Syst. 49 (2010) 222–234.
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q 27 (2003) 425–478.
[3] Merchantsavvy, 50+ global mobile payment stats, data & trends (Feb 2020), 2019.
[25] V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong, F.K.Y. Chan, P.J.H. Hu, Managing citizens’ uncertainty
https://www.merchantsavvy.co.uk/mobile-payment-stats-trends/(accessed May
in e-government services: the mediating and moderating roles of transparency and
22, 2020).
trust, Inf. Syst. Res. 27 (2016) 87–111.
[4] X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, What drives trust
[26] X. Gong, C.M.K. Cheung, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, M.K.O. Lee, Cross-side network
transfer from web to mobile payment services? The dual effects of perceived
effects, brand equity, and consumer loyalty: evidence from mobile payment
entitativity, Inf. Manage. 57 (2020) 103–150.
market, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 24 (2020) 279–304.
[5] Y. Lu, S. Yang, P.Y.K. Chau, Y. Cao, Dynamics between the trust transfer process
[27] Z. Zhou, Y. Fang, D.R. Vogel, X.-.L. Jin, X. Zhang, Attracted to or locked in?
and intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective, Inf.
predicting continuance intention in social virtual world services, J. Manag. Inf.
Manage. 48 (2011) 393–403.
Syst. 29 (2012) 273–306.
[6] L. Wang, X. Robert, X. Luo, Z. Yang, Easy come or easy go? empirical evidence on
[28] Y. Calvin Xu, Y. Yang, Z. Cheng, J. Lim, Retaining and attracting users in social
switching behaviors in mobile payment applications, Inf. Manage. 56 (2019)
networking services: an empirical investigation of cyber migration, J. Strateg. Inf.
103–150.
Syst. 23 (2014) 239–253.
[7] eMarketer, Four mobile payment trends to watch for in 2019, 2019. https://www.
[29] V. Venkatesh, J.Y. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information
emarketer.com/content/four-mobile-payment-trends-to-watch-for-in-2019
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, MIS
(accessed October 8, 2019).
Q 36 (2012) 157–178.
[8] M. Albashrawi, L. Motiwalla, Privacy and personalization in continued usage
[30] X. Ma, L. Khansa, S.S. Kim, Active community participation and crowdworking
intention of mobile banking: an integrative perspective, Inf. Syst. Front. 21 (2019)
turnover: a longitudinal model and empirical test of three mechanisms, J. Manag.
1031–1043.
Inf. Syst. 35 (2018) 1154–1187.
[9] X. Cao, L. Yu, Z. Liu, M. Gong, L. Adeel, Understanding mobile payment users’
[31] S. Ray, S.S. Kim, J.G. Morris, Online users’ switching costs: their nature and
continuance intention: a trust transfer perspective, Internet Res 28 (2018)
formation, Inf. Syst. Res. 23 (2012) 197–213.
456–476.
[32] W. Hong, F.K.Y. Chan, J.Y.L. Thong, L.C. Chasalow, G. Dhillon, A framework and
[10] E.W.K. See-To, E.W.T. Ngai, An empirical study of payment technologies, the
guidelines for context-specific theorizing in information systems research, Inf. Syst.
psychology of consumption, and spending behavior in a retailing context, Inf.
Res. 25 (2014) 111–136.
Manage. 56 (2019) 329–342.
[33] A. Bhattacherjee, M. Limayem, C.M.K. Cheung, User switching of information
[11] C. Tam, T. Oliveira, Does culture influence m-banking use and individual
technology: a theoretical synthesis and empirical test, Inf. Manage. 49 (2012)
performance? Inf. Manage. 56 (2019) 356–363.
327–333.
[12] N. Mallat, Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments – a qualitative study,
[34] A. Bhattacherjee, S.C. Park, Why end-users move to the cloud: a migration-
J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 16 (2007) 413–432.
theoretic analysis, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 23 (2014) 357–372.
[13] G. Kim, B. Shin, H.G. Lee, Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage
[35] I.-.C. Chang, C.-.C. Liu, K. Chen, The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual
intentions of mobile banking, Inf. Syst. J. 19 (2009) 283–311.
migration for social networking sites, Inf. Syst. J. 24 (2014) 323–346.
[14] E. Kazan, C.-.W. Tan, E.T.K. Lim, C. Sørensen, J. Damsgaard, Disentangling digital
[36] L. Fan, Y.-.H. Suh, Why do users switch to a disruptive technology? An empirical
platform competition: the case of UK mobile payment platforms, J. Manag. Inf.
study based on expectation-disconfirmation theory, Inf. Manage. 51 (2014)
Syst. 35 (2018) 180–219.
240–248.
[15] S. Yang, Y. Lu, S. Gupta, Y. Cao, R. Zhang, Mobile payment services adoption across
[37] W. Hong, K. Zhu, Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: factors affecting e-
time: an empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and
commerce adoption and migration at the firm level, Inf. Manage. 43 (2006)
personal traits, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2012) 129–142.
204–221.
[16] T. Zhou, Understanding users’ initial trust in mobile banking: an elaboration
[38] X. Xu, V. Venkatesh, K.Y. Tam, S.-.J. Hong, Model of migration and use of
likelihood perspective, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2012) 1518–1525.
platforms: role of hierarchy, current generation, and complementarities in
[17] V.L. Johnson, A. Kiser, R. Washington, R. Torres, Limitations to the rapid adoption
consumer settings, Manag. Sci. 56 (2010) 1304–1323.
of M-payment services: understanding the impact of privacy risk on M-Payment
[39] C.-.Y. Li, Y.-.C. Ku, The power of a thumbs-up: will e-commerce switch to social
services, Comput. Hum. Behav 79 (2018) 111–122.
commerce? Inf. Manage. 55 (2018) 340–357.
[18] C. Kim, M. Mirusmonov, I. Lee, An empirical examination of factors influencing the
[40] G.L. Polites, E. Karahanna, Shackled to the status quo: the inhibiting effects of
intention to use mobile payment, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2010) 310–322.
incumbent system habit, switching costs, and inertia on new system acceptance,
[19] X. Xiao, S. Sarker, R.T. Wright, S. Sarker, B.J. Mariadoss, Commitment and
MIS Q 36 (2012) 21–42.
replacement of existing SaaS-delivered applications: a mixed-methods
[41] G. Kim, B. Shin, H.G. Lee, A study of factors that affect user intentions toward email
investigation, MIS Q 44 (2020) 1811–1857.
service switching, Inf. Manage. 43 (2006) 884–893.
[20] A. Bhattacherjee, Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-
[42] C. Ranganathan, D. Seo, Y. Babad, Switching behavior of mobile users: do users’
confirmation model, MIS Q 25 (2001) 351.
relational investments and demographics matter? Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15 (2006)
269–276.

15
X. Gong et al.
[43] J.S. -C. Hsu, Understanding the role of satisfaction in the formation of perceived
switching value, Decis. Support Syst. 59 (2014) 152–162.
[44] T.-.C. Lin, S.-.L. Huang, Understanding the determinants of consumers’ switching
intentions in a standards war, Int. J. Electron. Commer. 19 (2014) 163–189.
[45] K.Z.K. Zhang, M.K.O. Lee, C.M.K. Cheung, H. Chen, Understanding the role of
gender in bloggers’ switching behavior, Decis. Support Syst. 47 (2009) 540–546.
[46] J. Kuem, S. Ray, M. Siponen, S.S. Kim, What leads to prosocial behaviors on social
networking services: a tripartite model, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 34 (2017) 40–70.
[47] Z. Lin, Z. Zhou, Y. Fang, D. Vogel, L. Liang, Understanding affective commitment in
social virtual worlds: the role of cultural tightness, Inf. Manage. 55 (2018)
984–1004.
[48] P.J. Bateman, P.H. Gray, B.S. Butler, The impact of community commitment on
participation in online communities, Inf. Syst. Res. 22 (2011) 841–854.
[49] X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, C. Chen, C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, What drives self-
disclosure in mobile payment applications? The effect of privacy assurance
approaches, network externality, and technology complementarity, Inf. Technol.
People. 33 (2020) 1174–1213.
[50] X. Xu, J.Y.L. Thong, V. Venkatesh, Effects of ICT service innovation and
complementary strategies on brand equity and customer loyalty in a consumer
technology market, Inf. Syst. Res. 25 (2014) 710–729.
[51] C.-.W. Wu, The study of service innovation for digiservice on loyalty, J. Bus. Res.
67 (2014) 819–824.
[52] H. Hoehle, E. Scornavacca, S. Huff, Three decades of research on consumer
adoption and utilization of electronic banking channels: a literature analysis, Decis.
Support Syst. 54 (2012) 122–132.
[53] K.Z.K. Zhang, X. Gong, C. Chen, S.J. Zhao, M.K.O. Lee, Spillover effects from web
to mobile payment services: the role of relevant schema and schematic fit, Internet
Res 29 (2019) 1213–1232.
[54] Q. Yang, X. Gong, K.Z.K. Zhang, H. Liu, M.K.O. Lee, Self-disclosure in mobile
payment applications: common and differential effects of personal and proxy
control enhancing mechanisms, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 52 (2020) 102–165.
[55] E.L. Slade, Y.K. Dwivedi, N.C. Piercy, M.D. Williams, Modeling consumers’
adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extending
UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust, Psychol. Mark. 32 (2015) 860–873.
[56] R.T. Cenfetelli, I. Benbasat, S. Al-Natour, Addressing the what and how of online
services: positioning supporting-services functionality and service quality for
business-to-consumer success, Inf. Syst. Res. 19 (2008) 161–181.
[57] C.-.W. Tan, I. Benbasat, R.T. Cenfetelli, IT-mediated customer service content and
delivery in electronic governments: an empirical investigation of the antecedents of
service quality, MIS Q 37 (2013) 77–109.
[58] S.Y. Ho, D. Bodoff, The effects of Web personalization on user attitude and
behavior: an integration of the elaboration likelihood model and consumer search
theory, MIS Q 38 (2014) 497–520.
[59] K.Y. Tam, S.Y. Ho, Understanding the Impact of Web Personalization On User
Information Processing and Decision Outcomes, MIS Q, 2006, pp. 865–890.
[60] S. Kujala, R. Mugge, T. Miron-Shatz, The role of expectations in service evaluation:
a longitudinal study of a proximity mobile payment service, Int. J. Hum.-Comput.
Stud. 98 (2017) 51–61.
[61] H. Mohammadi, A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran, Comput. Hum. Behav.
44 (2015) 35–47.
[62] A. Dimoka, Y. Hong, P.A. Pavlou, On product uncertainty in online markets: theory
and evidence, MIS Q 36 (2012) 395–426.
[63] P.A. Pavlou, H. Liang, Y. Xue, Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal–agent perspective, MIS Q 31 (2007) 105–136.
[64] Y. (Kevin) Hong, P.A. Pavlou, Product fit uncertainty in online markets: nature,
effects, and antecedents, Inf. Syst. Res. 25 (2014) 328–344.
[65] H.-.W. Kim, A. Kankanhalli, Investigating user resistance to information systems
implementation: a status quo bias perspective, MIS Q 33 (2009) 567–582.
[66] iResearch, China’s third-party mobile payment transactions rose 22.6% in Q2
2019, 2019. http://www.iresearchchina.com/content/details7_58033.html
(accessed May 22, 2020).
[67] S. Zhang, L. Zhao, Y. Lu, J. Yang, Do you get tired of socializing? an empirical
explanation of discontinuous usage behaviour in social network services, Inf.
Manage. 53 (2016) 904–914.
[68] X.-.L. Shen, Y.-.J. Li, Y. Sun, N. Wang, Channel integration quality, perceived
fluency and omnichannel service usage: the moderating roles of internal and
external usage experience, Decis. Support Syst. (2018).
[69] J.P. Meyer, N.J. Allen, A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1 (1991) 61–89.
16
Information & Management 59 (2022) 103640
[70] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.-.Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003) 879–903.
[71] V. Venkatesh, T.A. Sykes, F.K.Y. Chan, J.Y.L. Thong, P.J.H. Hu, Children’s Internet
addiction, family-to-work conflict, and job outcomes: a study of parent-child dyads,
MIS Q 43 (2019) 903–927.
[72] N.K. Malhotra, S.S. Kim, A. Patil, Common method variance in IS research: a
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research, Manag. Sci.
52 (2006) 1865–1883.
[73] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, J. Mark. Res. 18 (1981) 39–50.
[74] D. Gefen, D.W. Straub, E.E. Rigdon, An update and extension to SEM guidelines for
admnistrative and social science research, MIS Q 35 (2011) iii–xiv.
[75] D. Straub, M.-.C. Boudreau, D. Gefen, Validation guidelines for IS positivist
research, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 13 (2004) 380–427.
[76] L.S. Aiken, S.G. West, Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions,
Sage (1991).
[77] C. Avgerou, Contextual explanation: alternative approaches and persistent
challenges, MIS Q 43 (2019) 977–1066.
[78] S.-.W. Chou, C.-.H. Chiang, Understanding the formation of software-as-a-service
(SaaS) satisfaction from the perspective of service quality, Decis. Support Syst. 56
(2013) 148–155.
[79] eMarketer, Apple pay overtakes Starbucks as top mobile payment app in the US,
2020. https://www.emarketer.com/content/apple-pay-overtakes-starbucks-as-top-
mobile-payment-app-in-the-us (accessed March 19, 2021).
[80] P.B. Lowry, J. Zhang, C. Wang, M. Siponen, Why do adults engage in cyberbullying
on social media? An integration of online disinhibition and deindividuation effects
with the social structure and social learning model, Inf. Syst. Res. 27 (2016)
962–986.
[81] A. Rindfleisch, A.J. Malter, S. Ganesan, C. Moorman, Cross-sectional versus
longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines, J. Mark. Res. 45
(2008) 261–279.
[82] K.-.K. Wei, H.-.H. Teo, H.C. Chan, B.C.Y. Tan, Conceptualizing and testing a social
cognitive model of the digital divide, Inf. Syst. Res. 22 (2011) 170–187.
[83] V. Venkatesh, T.A. Sykes, Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: a
longitudinal field study in a village in India, Inf. Syst. Res. 24 (2013) 239–260.
[84] J.D. Xu, I. Benbasat, R.T. Cenfetelli, The Nature and Consequences of Trade-Off
Transparency in The Context of Recommendation Agents, MIS Q 38 (2014)
379–406.
[85] C.-.W. Tan, I. Benbasat, R.T. Cenfetelli, IT-mediated customer service content and
delivery in electronic governments: an empirical investigation of the antecedents of
service quality, MIS Q 37 (2013) 77–109.
Xiang Gong is an associate professor of Department of Marketing in the School of Man­
agement at Xi’an Jiaotong University. He received his PhD degree in Information Systems
from the joint PhD program between the University of Science and Technology of China
and the City University of Hong Kong. His-research interests include sharing economy,
social commerce, financial technology, and cyberdeviance. His-research has been pub­
lished in international journals such as Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
Information Systems Journal, and Information & Management.
Xiaoxiao Liu is an assistant professor of Department of Information Systems in the School
of Management at Xi’an Jiaotong University. He received his PhD degree in Management
Science and Engineering at the Harbin Institute of Technology. His-research interests
include sharing economy, social commerce, and healthcare technology. His-research has
been published in international journals such as MIS Quarterly, Journal of the Association
for Information Science & Technology, and International Journal of Electronic Commerce.
Zhenxin Xiao(corresponding author) is an assistant professor of Department of Marketing
in the School of Management at Xi’an Jiaotong University. He received his PhD degree in
Marketing from the joint PhD program between the Xi’an Jiaotong University and the City
University of Hong Kong. His-research interests include sharing economy, social com­
merce, marketing strategy, and enterprise innovation management. His-research has been
published in international journals such as Journal of Business Ethic, Technovation, and
Industrial Marketing Management.