Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling

eISSN: 2590-4221 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling: 5(1),40-59, Jan 2021
DOI: 10.47263/JASEM.5(1)05

A MODIFIED UTAUT IN THE CONTEXT OF

M-PAYMENT USAGE INTENTION IN MALAYSIA

Kin Leong Tanga, Nai Chiek Aikb, and Wei Lim Choongc

a,b,c
Faculty of Accountancy and Management,
Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman,
Selangor, Malaysia

[email protected]
*a

ABSTRACT

This study revises the existing UTAUT model and incorporates two additional variables, namely
trust and convenience. In addition, the literature on the mediating effect of trust and performance
expectancy in Malaysia in the context of m-payment usage intention is still limited. This study
also attempts to fill the knowledge gap and examine the mediating effect of trust and performance
expectancy. A total of 393 usable questionnaires were collected in Malaysia and analysed using
IBM Amos version 23. The results show that convenience, trust, effort expectancy and
performance expectancy are significant factors that influence the m-payment usage intention for
Malaysian. Meanwhile, social influence is an insignificant factor. This study also revealed that
both trust and performance expectancy play a significant role to mediate between effort
expectancy and m-payment usage intention.
Keywords: M-payment, UTAUT, Behaviorial Intention, Convenience, Social Influence, Trust,
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy

INTRODUCTION

There have been numerous new technical developments and improvements over the last two
decades. These technological advancements enable traditional business activities to conduct
electronic transactions and related services on the Internet, namely electronic commerce (e-
commerce). The promising future of e-commerce is further shaped by the growing number of
resources and the role of artificial intelligence (A.I.) in big data analytics (Suresh & Rani, 2020).
Not only does e-commerce change the way consumers find products and services but also change
the way consumers pay for goods and services or transfer their money. Whilst the cash remains,
the modern payment processing ecosystem experienced a seismic change from physical to digital
payments in the last decade.
 Tang et al. 2021

Mobile payment (m-payment) allows the process of payment transactions on mobile devices such
as smartphones and tablets via wireless communication technologies (Choi, Park, Kim & Jung,
2020; Dahlberg, Mallat, Ondrus & Zmijewska, 2008). The proliferation of smartphones and
Internet users worldwide has pushed the m-payment market to expand. According to Statista
(2019), the global smartphone users increased significantly between 2016 and 2020 by 40 percent
with 3.5 billion users in 2020, representing 45 percent of the world’s population has a smartphone.
With the world becoming ever more interconnected, smartphone users are expected to rise
significantly in the coming years and accelerate m-payment. To gain from the trend, the global
stores and companies are aggressively adopting m-payment apps like PayPal, Apple Pay,
Samsung Pay, AliPay, and WeChat Pay to accept payments. It is projected that the proximity of
m-payment transaction users worldwide will hit 1.31 billion by 2023, over the 950 million users
in 2019 (Statista, 2020a). Malaysia had about 18.4 million smartphone users in 2019 and its
growth is expected to remain steady at about 1 percent per annum in the coming years (Statista,
2020b). Besides, the rapidly growing mobile commerce (m-commerce) has significantly promoted
m-payment in Malaysia (Yeow, Khalid & Nadarajah, 2017). M-commerce refers to e-commerce
in mobile web browsers or smartphone shopping apps (Cheong & Mohammed-Baksh, 2019). M-
payment is necessary for e-commerce and m-commerce to gain a competitive advantage
(Abdullah, Bohari, Warokka & Abdussalam, 2011). The Malaysian government has been pushing
for a cashless society as set out in Financial Sector Blueprint 2011-2020. Despite the 10-year plan
that will culminate in 2020, m-payment usage in Malaysia was relatively low when compared to
its mobile penetration rate (Ariffin & Lim, 2020).

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Usage intention is a prerequisite for new technology. Various researchers have attempted to
explain the technology usage intention using the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Chang, Sun, Pan &
Wang, 2015; Liébana-Cabanillas, Corral-Hermoso, Villarejo-Ramos & Higueras-Castillo, 2019;
Mehrad & Mohammadi, 2016). More recently, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) derived from TRA and TPB is adopted to model the acceptance of a
technology (Abbas, Hassan, Asif, Ahmed & Hassan, 2018; de Luna, Liébana-Cabanillas &
Sánchez-Fernández, 2018). UTAUT proposed two groups of predictors, namely, performance
expectation, effort expectation, social influence and facilitation control are external factors, while
age, gender, experience, and willingness are moderators that affect users' technology acceptance
and use. UTAUT has been empirically tested to have the capability to explain 70 percent of the
dependent variable (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). Bhatiasevi (2016) pointed out that
UTAUT is a more superior model to recognize the likelihood of success in new technology
introduction and factors that influence users’ use intention.
Previous studies have followed the original UTAUT model assume external factors have a direct
impact on user’s technology adoption and use. Although UTAUT is widely used to explore the
information systems (IS) and information technology (IT) usage intention, Venkatesh et al. (2003)
proposed a modification of the UTAUT model is necessary when examining certain IT
applications. Similarly, Lee et al. (2017) suggested that it would be necessary to modify the
UTAUT model over time. Bhatiasevi (2016) challenged the use of technology adoption models
that ignores other constructs that can explain the technology acceptance. Owing to this, recent
researchers have attempted to modify the existing UTAUT model to overcome this limitation by
adding new constructs. These include Khalilzadeh, Ozturk and Bilgihan (2017) for NFC based
mobile payment, Bhatiasevi (2016) for mobile banking, and Tarhini, El-Masri, Ali and Serrano
(2016) for internet banking.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 41

 Tang et al. 2021

Teo, Tan, Ooi, Hew and Yew (2015) argued that these external factors may significantly
determine the acceptance of common IS and IT application acceptance, but still inadequate to
predict the usage of m-payment. Back to the local scene, convenience is the backbone for m-
payment and no literature has integrated convenience as part of the predictors. Meanwhile, trust
is a sense of safety and guarantee provided by the service provider, which can lead to higher
acceptance and use. In a financial transaction, these factors appear to be key factors in determining
m-payment usage intention. In all these contexts, this study attempts to synthesis the existing
UTAUT model and integrate new constructs to improve the explanatory power in m-payment
usage intention for Malaysian. Besides, the benefits of this attempt also provide a reference for
the future revision of UTAUT.

LITERATURE REVIEW

M-payment refers to payment or funds transfer transaction made on mobile devices, where
consumers can pay bills, goods and services through mobile apps using mobile devices such as a
smartphone (Zhou, 2013). According to Garrett et al. (2014), m-payment can be made via a mobile
device using a mobile credit card or a mobile wallet application. Besides, m-payment also includes
Internet payments using mobile devices and payment through a mobile network operator (Liu,
2015). M-payment can be further classified into third-party payment (TPC) company-led m-
payment and bank-led m-payment (Liu et al., 2020). At present, there are two contemporary
studies of m-payment; one is the study of mobile payment technologies; the other is on the
consumers perspective (Dahlberg et al., 2008). Following Zhou (2013), this study refers to m-
payment to which consumers pay bills, goods and services through mobile apps using mobile
devices such as a smartphone.

Behavioral Intention

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) delineates behavioral intention as the reflection of
individual behavioral intention (Ajzen, 2014). Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) claimed that
intentions vary between the time of intention measurement and behavioral performance. Their
findings revealed that one would expect the intention-behavior correlation to decrease over time.
Islam et al. (2013) found that behavioral intention can predict corresponding behavior in
voluntary situations. Milano (2012) explained that technology use intention is about an individual
may delay his/her decision, an intention to use technology, an intention to use technology in the
near future, and the step to start using technology. More recently, Liébana-Cabanillas et al.
(2018) suggested the behavioral intention is an indicator for evaluating the use of technology. It
was evident that behavior intention will influence the actual use of m-payment (Oliveira et al.,
2014), while Nie and Amarayoun (2019) concluded that usage intention is critical to the
development of m-payment services.

Convenience

The seamless integration of mobile device, mobile application, mobile network providers and
financial institutions enable consumers to make payment and transfer money quickly and
conveniently. Convenience is one of the critical characteristics of mobile devices, compared with
conventional payment methods, consumers can complete a transaction quickly. Kavak and Anwar
(2019) described convenience as processes that cut down the transaction time. Meanwhile, Nie
and Amarayoun (2019) referred to convenience as ease, comfort to use, as well as the realization
of specific benefits. However, the impact of convenience is a driving factor on consumers m-
payment usage intention has not been thoroughly studied (Boden et al., 2020).

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 42

 Tang et al. 2021

In the context of m-payment, respondents’ perception of m-payment is timesaving, easy to use,

availability and flexibility (Abrahão et al., 2016; Nie & Amarayoun, 2019; Zhao, 2019). In
Australia, Gao and Waechter (2017) surveyed the acceptance of m-payment among the
consumers and found that convenience is a significant factor to influence m-payment usage
intention. Similarly, Kaitawarn (2015) investigated NFC m-payment usage in Bangkok
Transportation System (BTS) in Thailand and concluded that convenience is the primary driver
in m-payment usage intention. The findings of Chamnankit (2019) is consistent with Sobti (2019)
and Chen and Chowdhury (2018). Their findings have shown that convenience is the most critical
factor influencing the m-payment usage intention. Hence, from the above discussions, we have
drawn the following hypothesis:
H1: Convenience has a positive effect on m-payment usage intention.

Social Influence

Social influence in technology use intention refers to the degree to which users perceive
themselves to be in lined with their opinion peers when using new technology (Venkatesh et al.,
2003). Yang et al. (2017) and Khalilzadeh et al. (2017) considered the social influence in a
collective environment is the perception of how other members in the consumers' social groups
think and act. It is the perceived pressure from the opinion of peers felt by the users in their
intention to use m-payment (Yang et al., 2017; Feng et al., 2019). A study conducted by Abrahão
et al. (2016) have confirmed a positive correlation between social influence and m-payment usage
intention. Their result is consistent with the findings of Bailey et al. (2019). On the contrary, a
survey conducted by Oliveira et al. (2014) found that social influence has no significant impact on
m-banking usage intention. Similarly, Khalilzadeh et al. (2017) found that social influence had an
insignificant impact on the intention to use NFC-based m-payment in a restaurant. Recently, Pal
et al. (2019) argued that the effect of social influence is mixed due to the individualistic or
collectivist culture of the consumers. The following hypothesis is posited based on these
arguments:
H2: Social influence has a positive effect on m-payment usage intention.

Trust

Sinha and Mukherjee (2016) defined trust is the combination of trust in the other party and trust
in the successful control mechanism of the transaction, while Raza et al. (2019) defined trust as
the ability of an individual to succeed in a given technological environment. In the context of the
use intention of an information system, trust is a critical factor as it affects users’ usage intention
(Chong et al., 2012; Maureen Nelloh et al., 2019). Tossy (2014) postulated trust is the
fundamental requirement of m-payment usage intention, followed by social influence and
performance expectancy. This is because trust is crucial in reducing uncertainty which is a
concern expressed by Lu et al. (2011). Meanwhile, Nguyen and Lu (2018) claimed that trust is
very important in the initial stage of introducing new technology. When consumers lack trust,
they will be affected by uncertainty, which will affect consumers decision m-payment usage
intention. Another study by Humbani and Wiese (2018) suggested the success of m-payment
depends on consumers’ trust in new payment methods. Following Wang et al. (2018), trust in
this study refers to trust in m-payment service provider, banks and other users, and trust in the
m-payment application. Hence, this study proposed:
H3: Trust has a positive effect on m-payment usage intention.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 43

 Tang et al. 2021

Performance Expectancy

Based on the UTAUT, Venkatesh et al. (2012) identified perceived usefulness same as effort
expectancy based on the expectancy theory cited in Rampersad et al. (2012). Therefore, the
meaning of both perceived usefulness and performance expectancy is interchangeable.
Performance expectancy is referred to as the users’ perceived performance gain from the adopted
technology (Hasan et al., 2019; Hung et al., 2019). Performance expectancy in m-payment
context relates to the extent to which m-payment can enhance the payment performance of
consumers (Cai et al., 2019). In other words, performance expectancy is the degree to which m-
payment helps consumers to make payment (Madan & Yadav, 2016; Doa et al., 2019; Moorthy et
al., 2019). Morosan and DeFranco (2016) found that performance expectancy has significantly
predicted intention in the NCF m-payment system while Zalessky and Hasan (2018) asserted that
performance expectancy was the strongest determinant of behavioral intention in their study. To
validate the effect of performance expectancy in m-payment usage intention in Malaysia context,
this study posited:
H4: Performance expectancy has a positive effect on m-payment usage intention.

Effort Expectancy

The term effort expectancy and perceived ease of use are interchangeable (Lai, 2017). Effort
expectancy is perceived easiness of use with specific information system and technology (Doa et
al., 2019; Raza et al., 2019). Baptista and Oliveira (2016) conducted a meta-analysis of 57 articles,
and the results suggest that effort expectancy is positively correlated to m-banking intention. In
the context of m-payment, Morosan and DeFranco (2016) found a positive relationship between
effort expectancy and NFC m-payment intention. The relationship between effort expectancy and
m-payment intention is assured by the recent findings of Alalwan et al. (2018) and Feng et al.
(2019). In Malaysia, Fadzil (2018) stated the positive impact of effort expectancy on mobile
application intention. On the contrary, Tossy (2014) found that effort expectancy does not affect
Tanzanian’s m-payment usage intention. Similarly, Slade et al. (2015) acknowledged the effort
expectancy has no impact on the m-payment intention of non-users. Their finding is consistent
with the study of Oliveira et al. (2014) on m-banking in Portugal, the country with the highest
mobile phone penetration in the European Union (EU). To verify the effect of effort expectancy
on m-payment usage intention, the following hypothesis is posited:
H5: Effort expectancy has a positive effect on m-payment usage intention.

Trust as mediator

Gu et al. (2009) surveyed 910 respondents and found that users’ effort expectancy had no
significant impact on trust. They argued that where m-banking services are provided by the
existing bank, its users will perceive m-banking is trustworthy. As such, users are willing to trust
the service providers if they gain more knowledge about m-banking rather than ease of use.
Similarly, Yan and Yang (2015) proposed that when m-payment is easy to use and has good
interface design and navigation features, it reflects the ability and benevolence of service
providers, thus affecting the trust of users. Hence, the hypothesis is proposed as:
H6: Effort expectancy has a positive effect on influence on trust.

Giovannini and Ferreira (2015) examined the mediating role of trust between effort expectancy
and mobile commerce (m-commerce) intention. The result revealed that there is a partial

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 44

 Tang et al. 2021

mediating effect on the relationship. The result appears to be a positive association between effort
expectancy and trust and trust positive correlate with m-commerce intention. Furthermore, the
effort expectancy is positively correlated with then m-commerce intention. Yan and Yang (2015)
surveyed 193 university students in cities in central China. They found that the effort expectancy
is a significant factor that impacts the trust which in turn positively impacts the m-payment usage
intention. This is because the ability of m-payment service providers to provide easy to use m-
payment would affect the evaluation by users (Yan & Yang, 2015). Likewise, when users lose
trust in m-payment service providers, users will not have positive expectations for m-payment.
Hence, this study posits the following hypothesis:
H7: Trust mediates the relationship between effort expectancy and m-payment usage intention.

Performance Expectancy as the mediator

The empirical studies have discovered the effort expectation has a strong effect on behaviour
intention (Boonsiritomachai & Pitchayadejanant, 2017; Sobti, 2019). Abrahão et al. (2016)
affirmed that effort expectancy is associate with m-payment usage intention. Similarly, a study
by Alalwan et al. (2018) on the use of internet banking by Jordanian customers found that effort
expectancy has a key predictor impact on performance expectancy. In the context of m-payment,
Andre et al. (2019) indicated that effort expectancy provides ease of use of the m-payment system
may reduce the consumers’ effort when making payment. When consumers have high effort
expectancy (easy to use), they will consider that m-payment exhibits higher performance
expectancy and more useful (Hung et al., 2019). Hence, the following is the proposed hypothesis:
H8: Effort expectancy has a positive effect on performance expectation.
Al-Qeisi et al. (2014) supported the performance expectancy to play a mediating role in the effect
of effort expectancy and usage intention. Yan and Yang (2015) argued that the ease of use on m-
payment greatly reduces the effort of users to learn to use m-payment and focuses their intention
on the primary transaction activities. Tan and Lau (2016) discovered that when users perceived
the effort expectancy (ease of use) of technology is high, they would have high-performance
expectancy. Their findings implied that added effort expectancy has a significant indirect effect
on usage intention through performance expectancy. Besides, Shaw and Kesharwani (2019)
posited that effort expectancy has a positive influence on performance expectancy. Thus, the
following hypothesis is constructed:
H9: Performance expectancy mediates the relationship between effort expectancy and m-payment usage
intention.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 45

 Tang et al. 2021

METHODS

This study focuses on the consumers’ m-payment usage intention in the banking industry.
According to 2019 Malaysia Population Statistics, the Klang Valley and Selangor have a
population of 1,780,700 and 6,528,400 respectively, accounting for 25.5% of the population.
Therefore, this study adopted a quantitative research method and collected data by distributing
questionnaire online. Respondents are individual consumers aged 18 and above living in the
Klang Valley and Selangor.
The sample of this study is targeted at those mobile device users who have never used m-payment.
Since the sampling frame is unavailable, a convenience sampling technique is used. Convenience
sampling also benefit the researcher to obtain information from the large populations. According
to the suggestion by Saunders et al. (2016), a minimum sample size of 384 is required if the
targeted population exceeds 1,000,000. This sample size was calculated with a margin of error of
5% and a confidence level of 95%. Therefore, the survey was conducted using an online Google
form, and participants were invited to answer the survey through social media such as Facebook
and Facebook Groups.
The online survey consists of several sections, namely screening, demographic profile, and factors
that capturing respondents’ opinion on factors related to this study. The face validity of each
construct in the survey was verified by academicians majoring in marketing. The surveys were
then sent to some targeted respondents for pre-testing. The question of the survey was little
changed during pre-testing, with some words were replaced to cater to Malaysian consumers.
The internal consistency of each construct was tested with a pilot test of 30 sample respondents.
The results show that all constructs are above 0.7 have a high Cronbach’s Alpha value. After
data screening, univariate and multivariate outliers were eliminated, a total of 393 valid responses
were obtained.
In this study, structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was performed on the collected data
using IBM SPSS 26 and IBM AMOS version 23 to examine the complex relationships among
these constructs. Based on the total 393 responses, common method bias testing and the
goodness-of-fit of the model were tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A common
method bias can be addressed using common laten factor. The square root value of unstandardised
coefficient of this test was 0.000, which is below the threshold value of 0.50, indicating that there
is no common method bias in the model. In addition, Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggested that
convergent validity and discriminant validity be tested in CFA as a new approach to address
common method bias. According to Kock (2015), the loading value exceeding the threshold value
of 0.5 is the acceptable convergent validity, while for a given construct (i.e., latent variable), the
square root of average variance extracted (AVE) greater than any correlation is considered to be
the acceptable discriminant validity. There are various fit indices, including CMIN/DF, GFI,
NFI, CFI and RMSEA. After the model fitting valuation, the construct reliability (CR) for
convergent validity and average variance extracted (AVE) for discriminant validity were
determined. Lastly, the structural model of this study was assessed.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Table 1 reported the demographic information of participants of this study. Half of the
respondents were aged between 26 to 35 years old and employed cohort. In addition, most of the
respondents completed an undergraduate or postgraduate degree. The findings indicate the
study’s sample is mainly young Malaysian educated with earnings strength.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 46

 Tang et al. 2021

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (N=393).

Participants characteristics Frequency Percentage
Gender
Male 222 56.5
Female 171 43.5
Age
18 years old and below 8 2.04
26 – 35 years old 197 50.13
36 – 45 years old 129 32.82
Above 46 years old 59 15.01
Education level
Primary/Secondary school 22 5.6
Diploma 23 5.9
Undergraduate 240 61.1
Postgraduate 89 22.6
Others 19 4.8
Employment status
Student 160 40.7
Employed 197 50.1
Self-employed 19 4.8
Unemployed 10 2.5
Retired 7 1.8

The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. The results show that the mean values of all the
constructs are not widely deviated from their standard value.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Construct N Mean Std. Deviation
Performance Expectancy 393 3.8658 0.97085
Effort Expectancy 393 3.9847 0.98850
Social Influence 393 3.2120 1.00720
Trust 393 3.4830 0.86858
Convenience 393 3.9237 0.95058
Behavioural Intention 393 4.0059 0.94714

The measurement model was tested in Figure 1 and the major goodness-of-fit requirements for
SEM analysis are shown in Table 3 below. From Table 3, all the incremental fit values exceed
0.9 (the threshold value), except for the GFI. Despite the GFI is more than 0.8, it is acceptable as
suggested by Baumgartner and Homburg (2015). Meanwhile, the RMSEA value is 0.059, which
has great goodness of fit. These results suggest the measurement model has high goodness of fit
to the data.
Construct validity is tested by measuring convergent and discriminant validity. As shown in
Table 4, the statistical results indicate that the composite reliability (CR) values are above the
threshold value of 0.7, and average variance extracted (AVE) values are above the threshold value
of 0.5. Therefore, all the predictors in this study are highly reliable and results of convergent
validity suggest the latent constructs are well explained by observed variables as they are
correlated well with each other within the parent construct. The factor loading of all items in
Table 5 is above the value of 0.8, except item TR5 (loading = 0.669). While CR and AVE are in
the acceptable range, Chin (1998) suggested that the threshold of factor loading should be at least
0.6, suggesting no validity concern here.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 47

 Tang et al. 2021

Figure 2: The final measurement model

Table 3: Goodness-of-fit statistics for the CFA model

Model tested x2/df GFI CFI TLI NFI RMSEA
Criterion for goodness of fit <3 ≥ 0.9 >=0.90 ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0.90 ≤ 0.08
Model performance 2.878 0.874 0.973 0.969 0.955 0.059

Table 4: Factor Loading, Average variance Extracted and Construct Reliability of Study Instrument
Construct Items/Indicators Factor Loading CR AVE
Performance Expectancy PE1 0.930 0.945 0.813
PE2 0.847
PE3 0.930
PE4 0.897
Effort Expectancy EE1 0.915 0.956 0.846
EE2 0.913
EE3 0.936
EE4 0.915
Social Influence SI1 0.936 0.962 0.893
SI2 0.973
SI3 0.925
Trust TR1 0.848 0.932 0.735
TR2 0.876
TR3 0.948
TR4 0.916
TR5 0.669
Convenience CV1 0.893 0.955 0.841
CV2 0.887
CV3 0.939
CV4 0.948
Usage Intention BI1 0.950 0.924 0.803
BI2 0.846
BI3 0.889

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 48

 Tang et al. 2021

For further analysis of discriminant validity, the maximum shared variance (MSV) value should
less than the AVE. An examination in Table 5 discloses the MSV of each construct are less than
their AVE values (see Table 4). In addition, the square root of AVE for each construct is greater
than its inter-construct correlations. These results ascertain no discriminant validity issues in
this study.

Table 5: Squared Correlation Coefficient for Study Instruments

MSV MaxR(H) PE EE SI TR CV BI
PE 0.753 0.951 0.902
EE 0.701 0.957 0.801*** 0.920
SI 0.018 0.968 0.135* 0.019 0.945
TR 0.454 0.954 0.607*** 0.626*** 0.037 0.857
CV 0.747 0.960 0.864*** 0.836*** 0.107* 0.584*** 0.917
BI 0.753 0.939 0.868*** 0.837*** 0.106* 0.673*** 0.829*** 0.896
Note: CR: composite reliability. AV: average variance extracted. Bold values indicate the square root of AVE of each
construct. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

The results of the SEM in Table 6 reveal that hypotheses H1, H3, H4 and H5 are significant,
suggesting convenience, trust, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy are significantly
correlated with m-payment usage intention. It also indicates that performance expectancy
(β=0.418, p<0.001) is the strongest predictor of m-payment usage intention, followed by effort
expectancy (β=0.298, p<0.001), trust (β=0.162, p<0.001) and convenience (β=0.134, p<0.05).
The hypothesis H2, which is the influence of social influence (β=0.028, p>0.05) on the m-payment
usage intention is not statistically significant for Malaysian users.

Table 6: Results of SEM on Effect of Predictors on M-payment Usage Intention

Construct B SE Beta CR p Lower Upper
H1: Convenience → Usage Intention 0.136 0.058 0.134 2.327 0.020 -0.013 0.278
H2: Social Influence → Usage Intention 0.027 0.026 0.028 1.047 0.295 -0.026 0.084
H3: Trust → Usage Intention 0.183 0.040 0.162 4.530 0.000 0.110 0.264
H4: Performance Expectancy → Usage Intention 0.394 0.049 0.418 7.993 0.000 0.148 0.459
H5: Effort Expectancy → Usage Intention 0.295 0.079 0.298 3.707 0.000 0.148 0.459
Note: β: Standardised Regression Weight; SE: Standardised Error, CR: Critical Ratio

The results of SEM in Table 7 find that effort expectancy has a significant positive relationship
with trust (β=0.642, p<0.001) and performance expectancy (β=0.827, p<0.001). These results
supported the hypotheses H6 and H8. The result showed that there was a significant positive
relationship between effort expectancy and trust, which was in line with findings of Yan and Yang
(2015) and Gu et al., (2009). This implies that users will establish trust when the m-payment
application is easy to use, have clear instruction, and require less skilful (i.e., effort expectancy of
using m-payment). Similarly, there is a significant positive relationship between effort expectancy
performance expectancy, which is consistent with Andre et al. (2019) and Hung et al. (2019)
studies. This finding suggests that when m-payment is easier to use, users will find them more
useful, can complete payment transaction more quickly, and achieve their expected performance.

Table 7: Results of SEM on Effect of Effort Expectancy and Performance Expectancy

Construct B SE Beta CR p Lower Upper
H6: Effort Expectancy → Trust 0.562 0.042 0.642 13.307 0.000 0.469 0.680
H8: Effort Expectancy →
0.866 0.042 0.827 20.816 0.000 0.778 0.971
Performance Expectancy
Note: β: Standardised Regression Weight; SE: Standardised Error, CR: Critical Ratio

Findings in Table 7 raise the need to further investigate the mediating effect of trust and
performance expectancy. As reported in Table 7, effort expectancy (β=0.836, p<0.001) directly

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 49

 Tang et al. 2021

affect m-payment usage intention. Both the influence of trust on m-payment usage intention and
the effect of performance expectancy on m-payment usage intention is significant. The findings
suggest that trust and performance expectancy play a partial mediation effect on m-payment
usage intention.

Table 8: Result of Mediation Effect of Trust and Performance Expectancy on Relationship between
Effort Expectancy and M-payment Usage Intention
Unstandardized Standardized
Indirect Path P-Value Lower Upper
Estimate Estimate
Effort Expectation → Trust →
0.103 0.104*** 0.001 0.067 0.146
Usage Intention
Effort Expectation →
Performance Expectation → 0.342 0.345** 0.001 0.242 0.438
Usage Intention
Note: Significance of Estimates: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.010; * p < 0.050; † p < 0.100

Effort expectancy has a significant positive relationship with trust (β=0.642, p<0.001) and
performance expectancy (β=0.827, p<0.001). Therefore, we concluded that hypotheses H6 and
H8 are supported. This study further investigates the mediating effect of trust and performance
expectancy. As can be seen from table 8, both relationships have significant indirect effects, and
neither of the two relationships contains 0 between lower bound and upper bound values (Memon
et al., 2018). Therefore, it affirmed that trust and performance expectancy play a mediation effect
on m-payment usage intention.

Figure 3: Structural model

DISCUSSION

Unsurprisingly, users started using m-payment because of its performance expectancy is high,
ease of use (effort expectancy), convenience and the fact that the service provider is a trusted
entity. However, the results in this study showed that all hypotheses are significant, except for
hypothesis H2. Social influence is the pressure on a user by the opinion of peers to influence his
or her behavior in a particular way. The finding shows that social influence did not affect a user’s
m-payment usage intention. The finding is inconsistent with the prior studies (Yang et al., 2012;
Abrahão et al., 2016; Khalilzadeh et al., 2017). Nevertheless, Sobti (2019) in his recent survey of
880 Indian users’ m-payment usage intention shows that social influence does not influence their

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 50

 Tang et al. 2021

m-payment usage intention. It can be explained that users are more concerned about the
performance, easiness in performing transaction and convenience. Furthermore, Alalwan et al.
(2018) suggested any inconsistent results might due to the technology (mandatory or voluntary),
country development (developing or developed country), nature of technology (personal or
common social able technology) and individual perception, skills and experience aspect that is
examined. Another possible reason is that the decision to use m-payments in the financial
transaction was driven by privacy concerns and was based more on personal needs than on the
influence of friends and family (Teo, Tan, Ooi, & Lin, 2015).
Convenience was the least important factor in this study. M-payment conveniently facilitates all
type of online payment transactions. Various studies have found that there is a positive
relationship between the convenience of m-payment and intention to use it (see, for example,
Humbani & Wiese, 2018; Kaitawarn, 2015). Thanks to the Internet, m-payment can link a user’s
credit/debit card or FPX online banking to reload credit into the m-payment apps anytime and
anywhere. Seamless m-payments technology also allows users to use m-payment apps for various
payment transaction such as bills, utilities, and fund transfers. Therefore, the function and
inclusion of m-payment meet the needs of various payment and financial transactions are
considered convenient, leading to the m-payment usage intention.
Financial transaction conducted through m-payment is skeptical to safety and payment security
(Teo, Tan, Ooi, & Lin, 2015). Therefore, trust is one of the key factors in determining intention
to use technology, especially when it comes to monetary transactions. Studies have found that
trust is the most influential factor in determining m-payment usage intention (Ooi & Tan, 2016;
Yan & Yang, 2015). A recent study conducted by Fan et al. (2018) examined university students’
m-payment usage intention from the University of Minnesota and Beijing Foreign Studies
University found that trust had a positive impact on m-payment usage intention on both groups
of samples. However, this study found that trust was the third important factor after the
performance expectancy and effort expectancy. The findings suggest the Malaysian users are
more concern about the advantage and ease of use of m-payment than the trust factor. This can
be explained that in Malaysia, the major m-payment services providers are a non-bank service
provider but are governed by Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) and Financial Service Act (FSA)
2013. Therefore, trust can be easily built on this ground.
Performance expectancy is highly associated with behavioral intention to use mobile technology
(Abdullah Omran et al., 2017). Behavior intention is high when a new technology is believed to
be useful and able to assist consumers to achieve their goals and increase productivity. For
example, Leong et al. (2013) claim that users will accept and use technology when it can provide
them with relevant and useful features. The results of this study affirmed that performance
expectancy is the key factor in affecting users’ intention to use m-payment. In addition, the
relationship between performance expectancy and usage intention of this study is consistent with
previous studies by Feng et al. (2019) and Ibrahim et al. (2019), Wu et al. (2017) and Teo, Tan,
Ooi, and Lin (2015) on the m-payment usage intention.
There is a direct and significant relationship between effort expectancy and m-payment usage
intention. This result is consistent with previous studies by Feng et al. (2019), Teo, Tan, Ooi,
and Lin, 2015, Tan et al. (2014) and Nasrul and Mohamed (2018). Teo, Tan, Ooi, and Lin (2015)
claim that when users use new technology without much effort and knowledge, users will tend to
use it. At the same time, with the ease of use of m-payment, users increasingly believe that using
the m-payment can save their effort in the financial transaction, thus leading to the intention to
use it. A recent study on the users’ acceptance of electronic payment systems among users at
Malaysia government agencies has supported this argument (Nasrul & Mohamed, 2018).
In the early stages of the technology adoption life cycle, innovators and early adopters recognize
that compatibility and ease of use are rational reasons to try or intend to use technology. M-

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 51

 Tang et al. 2021

payment effort expectancy is reflected to be ease of use, good navigation and well interface design,
thus influencing the trust of users. Similarly, when m-payments are easy to use, there is less effort
to understand, monitor and control financial transaction, thus establish trust, and users are more
likely embrace m-payment usage intention (Yang et al., 2015). This result is consistent with the
findings by Yan and Yang (2015), that is, in Central China city, effort expectancy has a significant
impact on students’ trust and later poses intention to use m-payment. The result also implies that
trust plays a mediating role in this relationship, and the ease of use of m-payment resulting in
trust and leads to m-payment usage intention (Yang et al., 2015).
A study conducted by Hew et al. (2015) suggested that there is a relationship between effort
expectancy and performance expectancy. Tan et al. (2014) argued that effort expectancy
influences the formation of performance expectation. A study conducted by Teo, Tan, Ooi, Hew,
et al. (2015) on 400 university students from one of the universities in Malaysia found effort
expectancy is associated with performance expectancy in m-payment usage intention. When
users perceive the ease of use of m-payments, their usefulness will be affected. Performance
expectancy mediates the relationship between effort expectancy and m-payment usage intention
was supported by Teo, Tan, Ooi, Hew, et al. (2015). Therefore, the greater the ease of use of m-
payments, the greater the benefit users will get from system performance, thus increasing the
possibility of using m-payments.
In summary, trust and convenience are secondary factors for Malaysian users. Performance
expectancy, effort expectancy and convenience are significantly impacting the users m-payment
usage mainly due to the change of urban lifestyle and the demand for fast and convenient services
(Kumar & Arun Palanisamy, 2019). This study also reveals that the weight of the trust factor on
the m-payment usage intention was lower than performance expectancy and effort expectancy.
In can be explained that trust is earned over the period, while the m-payment service providers
are usually provided by well-established banks or third-party service providers (Ntaukira et al.,
2019).

CONCLUSION

This study concludes that performance expectancy convenience, trust and effort expectancy are
significant factors that influence m-payment usage intention for Malaysian users. However, social
influence did not significantly affect a user’s intention to use m-payment in Malaysia. The
insignificant effect of social influence is not consistent with the prior studies such as Abrahão et
al. (2016) and Khalilzadeh et al. (2017), but similar to the recent findings of Sobti (2019) who had
surveyed 880 users in India. In a nutshell, Malaysian are more inclined to m-payment usage
intention when they find it convenient, the service provider is a trusted entity, easy to use, and
expectation on performance are met, but not so much influenced by the opinion of peers. To sum
up, performance expectancy is the key factors affecting users’ intention to use m-payment in
Malaysia following by effort expectancy. Meanwhile, trust and convenience are less important
factors. These findings are consistent with the change of urban lifestyle and the demand for fast
and convenient services (Kumar & Arun Palanisamy, 2019). The empirical findings in this study
also reveal that the weight of the trust factor on the m-payment usage intention is lower than
performance expectancy and effort expectancy. A possible explanation is that trust is gained over
time, while the m-payment service providers in Malaysia are usually provided by well-established
banks which are met with high expectation on performance and ease of use.
A better understanding of m-payment usage intention in Malaysian is critical to policymaker and
service providers. For policymakers, understanding consumers’ m-payment usage intention
enable stakeholders to improve country infrastructure and better digital financial system
ecosystems to support the country’s digital economy development. The findings of this study

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 52

 Tang et al. 2021

provide valuable information such as consumers’ expectations. The insights also useful to m-
payment service providers to strengthen and overcome the weaknesses of their current m-
payment platforms and applications. The study found that performance expectancy and effort
expectancy were the most important factors in determining the m-payment usage intention,
followed by trust and convenience. In addition, Malaysians also reported a lower level of anxiety
when using technology. Therefore, it is necessary to develop user-friendly and better ecosystem
m-payment apps. Developers or m-payment service providers also encourage to create awareness
and promote and publicize the advantages, easiness, and convenience of m-payment to increase
m-payment usage intention.
In this study, the existing UTAUT model was modified to fill the theoretical gaps in the
literature. Similar studies mostly focus on the reuse of the existing model to verify the impact on
the m-payment usage intention. Besides, this study explores the mediating role of performance
expectancy and trust in consumers’ use of new technologies and involved in financial transactions.
The results enrich the m-payment literature show that trust and performance expectancy play a
significant indirect mediating role.

LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

In this study, we studied all forms of m-payment, while future research shall focus on the
successful mobile payment types, such as contactless NFC or QR code payment methods. In this
study, important predictors of TAM and UTAUT were retained, and trust and convenience
predictors were added to the conceptual research framework. There are undeniably important
predictors of perceived risk, perceived value, and individual innovativeness. Nor should
researchers neglect demographic predictors such as culturally different and geographical
differences (urban and rural) in Malaysia. Therefore, future study should include these predictors
to gain insight into m-payment usage intentions in Malaysia.

REFERENCE

Abbas, S. K., Hassan, H. A., Asif, J., Ahmed, B., Hassan, F., & Haider, S. S. (2018). Integration of
TTF, UTAUT, and ITM for mobile Banking Adoption. International Journal of Advanced
Engineering, Management and Science, 4(5), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.22161/ijaems.4.5.6
Abdullah, H. H., Bohari, A. M., Abdussalam, A., & Warokka, A. (2011). Strategic role of mobile
commerce (M-commerce) payment system: Establishing new competitive advantage.
Journal of Electronic Banking Systems, 3, 1575–1587. https://doi.org/10.5171/2012.578329
Abdullah Omran, N., Sukoharsono, E. G., & Baridwan, Z. (2017). The influence of critical factors
on the behavior intention to computerized accounting systems (CAS) in cement
manufactures in Libya. The International Journal of Accounting and Business Society, 25(1), 86–
108. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ijabs.2017.25.1.7
Abrahão, R. de S., Moriguchi, S. N., & Andrade, D. F. (2016). Intention of adoption of mobile
payment: An analysis in the light of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT). RAI Revista de Administração e Inovação.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rai.2016.06.003
Ajzen, I. (2008). Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. In Handbook of Consumer Psychology.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809570.ch20
Al-Qeisi, K., Dennis, C., Alamanos, E., & Jayawardhena, C. (2014). Website design quality and
usage behavior: Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Journal of Business
Research, 67(11), 2282–2290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.016
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Algharabat, R. (2018). Examining factors
influencing Jordanian customers’ intentions and adoption of internet banking: Extending

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 53

 Tang et al. 2021

UTAUT2 with risk. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.08.026
Andre, G. V., Baptista, P. T., & Setiowati, R. (2019). The Determinants Factors of Mobile Payment
Adoption in DKI Jakarta. 10(3), 823–831.
Ariffin, S. K., & Lim, K. T. (2020). Investigating Factors Affecting Intention to Use Mobile Payment
Among Young Professionals in Malaysia. 141, 6–11.
https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200514.002
Bailey, A. A., Pentina, I., Mishra, A. S., Anthony, A., Pentina, I., & Mishra, A. S. (2019). Exploring
factors influencing US millennial consumers ’ use of tap-and-go payment technology. The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2019.1667854
Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2016). A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking acceptance
research. In Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.074
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (2015). Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
13, 139–161.
Bhatiasevi, V. (2016). An extended UTAUT model to explain the adoption of mobile banking.
Information Development, 32(4), 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915570764
Boden, J., Maier, E., & Wilken, R. (2020). The effect of credit card versus mobile payment on
convenience and consumers’ willingness to pay. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
52(2019), 101910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101910
Boonsiritomachai, W., & Pitchayadejanant, K. (2017). Determinants affecting mobile banking
adoption by generation Y based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology Model modified by the Technology Acceptance Model concept. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.005
Cai, X., Qi, C., & Li, C. (2019). From traditional payment to mobile payment – Examining the
antecedents and consequences of Hongkonger's mobile payment habit. Twenty-Third Pacific
Asia Conference on Information Systems, China.
Chamnankit, B. (2019). Alipay – A mobile payment platform and its impact on Thailand’s tourism
industry (Masters' thesis). Retrived from
http://ethesisarchive.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/2018/TU_2018_6002040076_10494_10003.p
df
Chang, S.-C., Sun, C.-C., Pan, L.-Y., & Wang, M.-Y. (2015). An Extended TAM to explore
behavioural intention of consumers to use m-commerce. Journal of Information & Knowledge
Management, 14(02). https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219649215500148
Chen, S. (2018). Analysis on the usage intention of mobilepayment (Masters' thesis). Retrived from
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1318496/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Cheong, H. J., & Mohammed-Baksh, S. (2019). U.S. consumer m-commerce involvement: Using
in-depth interviews to propose an acceptance model of shopping apps-based m-commerce.
Cogent Business and Management, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1674077
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quaterly.
Choi, H., Park, J., Kim, J., & Jung, Y. (2020). Consumer preferences of attributes of mobile
payment services in South Korea. Telematics and Informatics, 51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101397
Chong, A. Y. L., Chan, F. T. S., & Ooi, K. B. (2012). Predicting consumer decisions to adopt mobile
commerce: Cross country empirical examination between China and Malaysia. Decision
Support Systems, 53(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.12.001
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J., & Zmijewska, A. (2008). Past, present and future of mobile
payments research: A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2),
165–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.001
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 54

 Tang et al. 2021

de Luna, I. R., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2018). Mobile
payment is not all the same: The adoption of mobile payment systems depending on the
technology applied. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.018
Doa, N. H., Tham, J., Khatibi, A. A., & Azam, S. M. F. (2019). An empirical analysis of Cambodian
behavior intention towards mobile payment. Management Science Letters, 9(12).
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.011
Fadzil, F. (2017). A study on factors affecting the behavioral intention to use mobile apps in
Malaysia. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3090753
Fan, J., Shao, M., Li, Y., & Huang, X. (2018). Understanding users’ attitude toward mobile
payment use. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 118(3), 524–540.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-06-2017-0268
Feng, Z., Tham, J., & Azam, S. M. F. (2019). Determinants of users’ willingness to use mobile
payment: an empirical study in Tongren Univerisity, China. European Journal of Management
and Marketing Studies, 4(4), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3560323
Gao, L., & Waechter, K. A. (2017). Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile
payment services: An empirical investigation. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(3), 525–548.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9611-0
Garrett, J. L., Rodermund, R., Anderson, N., Berkowitz, S., & Robb, C. A. (2014). Adoption of
mobile payment technology by consumers. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal,
42(2), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12069
Giovannini, C. J., Ferreira, J. B., da Silva, J. F., & Ferreira, D. B. (2015). The effects oftrust
transference , mobileattributes and enjoyment on mobile trust. Brazillian Administration
Review, 12(1), 88–108.
Gu, J. C., Lee, S. C., & Suh, Y. H. (2009). Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking.
Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 11605–11616.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.024
Hasan, R., Liu, Y., Kitchen, P. J., & Rahman, M. (2019). Exploring consumer mobile payment
adoption in the bottom‐of‐the‐pyramid context: A qualitative study. Strategic Change, 28(5),
345–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2289
Hew, J. J., Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., & Wei, J. (2015). What catalyses mobile apps usage intention:
An empirical analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(7), 1269–1291.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2015-0028
Humbani, M., & Wiese, M. (2017). A cashless society for all: Determining consumers’ readiness
to adopt mobile payment services. Journal of African Business.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2017.1396792
Hung, D. N., Tham, J., Azam, S. M. F., & Khatibi, A. A. (2019). An empirical analysis of perceived
transaction convenience, performance expectancy, effort expectancy and behavior intention
to mobile payment of Cambodian users. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 11(4).
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v11n4p77
Ibrahim, M. H., Hussin, S. R., & Hussin, S. H. (2019). Factors influencing Malaysian consumers’
intention to use quick response (QR) mobile payment. Jurnal Pengurusan, 57.
https://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2019-57-02
Irani, A. N. (2019). An empirical analysis of the international mobile payment startups (Masters' thesis).
Retrived from
https://www.politesi.polimi.it/bitstream/10589/145886/5/2019_04_Navab_Irani.pdf
Islam, M. Z., Low, P. K. C., & Hasan, I. (2013). Intention to use advanced mobile phone services
(AMPS). Management Decision, 51(4), 824–838.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741311326590
Kaitawarn, C. (2015). Factor influencing the acceptance and use of m-payment in Thailand : A
case study of AIS mPAY Rabbit. Review of Integrative Business & Economics Research, 4(3),
222–230.

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 55

 Tang et al. 2021

Kavak, W., & Anwar, K. (2019). Technological innovation in mobile payment solutions (Masters'
thesis). Retrived from http://kth.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1372142/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Khalilzadeh, J., Ozturk, A. B., & Bilgihan, A. (2017). Security-related factors in extended UTAUT
model for NFC based mobile payment in the restaurant industry. Computers in Human
Behavior, 70, 460–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.001
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach.
International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kumar, A. S., & Palanisamy, Y. A. (2019). Examining the consumers’ preference towards adopting
the mobile payment system. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 9(4).
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEF.2019.104071
Lai, P. (2017). The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty
technology. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14(1), 21–38.
https://doi.org/10.4301/S1807-17752017000100002
Lee, D.-C., Lin, S.-H., Ma, H.-L., & Wu, D.-B. (2016). Use of a modified UTAUT model to
investigate the perspectives of internet access device users. International Journal of Human–
Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2016.1261249
Leong, L. Y., Ooi, K. B., Chong, A. Y. L., & Lin, B. (2013). Modeling the stimulators of the
behavioral intention to use mobile entertainment: Does gender really matter? Computers in
Human Behavior, 29, 2109–2121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.004
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Corral-Hermoso, J. A., Villarejo-Ramos, Á. F., & Higueras-Castillo, E.
(2019). New social consumer? Determining factors of Facebook commerce. Journal of
Decision Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2019.1592990
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinkovic, V., Ramos de Luna, I., & Kalinic, Z. (2018). Predicting the
determinants of mobile payment acceptance: A hybrid SEM-neural network approach.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.015
Liu, W., Wang, X., & Peng, W. (2019). State of the art: Secure mobile payment. IEEE Access, 10.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963480
Liu, Y. (2015). Consumer protection in mobile payments in China: A critical analysis of Alipay’s
service agreement. Computer Law & Security Review, 31, 679–688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.05.009
Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P. Y. K., & Cao, Y. (2011). Dynamics between the trust transfer process
and intention to use mobile payment services: A cross-environment perspective. Information
& Management, 48(8), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2011.09.006
Madan, K., & Yadav, R. (2016). Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: A developing
country perspective. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-
10-2015-0112
Maureen Nelloh, L. A., Santoso, A. S., & Slamet, M. W. (2019). Will users keep using mobile
payment? It depends on trust and cognitive perspectives. The Fifth Information Systems
International Conference 2019, 161, 1156–1164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.228
Mehrad, D., & Mohammadi, S. (2017). Word of Mouth impact on the adoption of mobile banking
in Iran. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.009
Memon, M. A., Cheah, J. H., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., & Chuah, F. (2018). Mediation analysis:
Issues and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(1).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322293701
Moorthy, K., Loh, C. T., Kwong, C. Y., Ang, W. H., Lee, J. I., Poon, C. F., & Tan, J. Y.. (2020).
What drives the adoption of mobile payment? A Malaysian perspective. International Journal
of Finance & Economics, 25(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.1756
Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2016). It’s about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’
intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 53, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.003

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 56

 Tang et al. 2021

Nasrul, F., & Mohamed, S. (2018). Factors affecting consumers’ acceptance towards electronic
payment system: Case of a government land and district office. Jurnal Intelek, 13(1).
Nguyen, H. Q., & Lu, Y. (2018). Adoption and diffusion of in-store mobile payment: Lessons from China.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1222699/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Nie, J., & Amarayoun, W. (2019). The factors influence the intention use of mobile payment in
Thailand e-commerce. 2018 5th International Conference on Information Science and Control
Engineering, ICISCE 2018, 561–568. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICISCE.2018.00122
Ntaukira, J., Khomba, J. K., & Maliwichi, P. (2019). Investigating factors that determine continuous
intention behaviour to use mobile payment services in Malawi.
https://wwww.easychair.org/publications/preprint_download/291N
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending the understanding of
mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of
Information Management, 34(5), 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004
Ooi, K. B., & Tan, G. W. H. (2016). Mobile technology acceptance model: An investigation using
mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Systems with Applications, 59, 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.015
Pal, A., De’, R., Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2019). A review of contextual factors affecting mobile
payment adoption and use. Journal of Banking and Financial Technology, 3(1), 43–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42786-018-00005-3
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases
in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rampersad, G., Plewa, C., & Troshani, I. (2012). Investigating the use of information technology
in managing innovation: A case study from a university technology transfer office. Journal
of Engineering and Technology Management, 29(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2011.09.002
Raza, A., Shaikh, H., Qureshi, M. S., Qayyum, N. U., & Shah, A. (2018). A conceptual framework
for measuring acceptance of contactless payment methods. 2018 IEEE 5th International
Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS).
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETAS.2018.8629179
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.).
Pearson Education Limited.
Shaw, B., & Kesharwani, A. (2019). Moderating effect of smartphone addiction on mobile wallet
payment adoption. Journal of Internet Commerce, 18(3), 291–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1620045
Sinha, I., & Mukherjee, S. (2016). Acceptance of technology, related factors in use of off branch e-
banking: an Indian case study. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 27(1),
88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2016.04.008
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling Cconsumers’
adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT
with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823
Sobti, N. (2019). Impact of demonetization on diffusion of mobile payment service in India. Journal
of Advances in Management Research, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-09-2018-0086
Statista. (2019). Number of smartphone users worldwide from 2016 to 2021. Retrived from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/
Statista. (2020a). Mobile payments worldwide. Retrived from
https://www.statista.com/topics/4872/mobile-payments-worldwide/
Statista. (2020b). Number of smartphone users in Malaysia from 2015 to 2025. Retrived from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494587/smartphone-users-in-
malaysia/#statisticContainer
Suresh, A., & Rani, N. J. (2020). Consumer perception towards artificial intelligence in e-

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 57

 Tang et al. 2021

commerce with reference to Chennai city, India. Journal of IT and Economic Development,
11(1), 1–14.
Tan, E., Lau, L. J. (2016). Behavioural intention to adopt mobile banking among the millennial
generation. Young Consumers, 17(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-07-2015-00537
Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Chong, S. C., & Hew, T. S. (2014). NFC mobile credit card: The next
frontier of mobile payment? Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 292–307.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.06.002
Tarhini, A., El-Masri, M., Ali, M., & Serrano, A. (2016). Extending the UTAUT model to
understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon. Information
Technology & People, 29(4), 830–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2014-0034
Teo, A. C., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Lin, B. (2015). Why consumers adopt mobile payment?
A partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. International
Journal of Mobile Communications, 13(5). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2015.070961
Teo, A. C., Tan, G. W. han, Ooi, K. B., Hew, T. S., & Yew, K. T. (2015). The effects of convenience
and speed in m-payment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(2), 311–331.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2014-0231
Tossy, T. (2014). Modeling the adoption of mobile payment system for paying examination fees
in Tanzanian major cities. International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, 8(1), 83–98.
http://www.ijcir.mak.ac.ug/volume8-number2/article7.pdf
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward
a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Tong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wang, X., Yuen, K. F., Wong, Y. D., & Teo, C. C. (2018). An innovation diffusion perspective of
e-consumers’ initial adoption of self-collection service via automated parcel station. The
International Journal of Logistics Management, 29(1), 237–260.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2016-0302
Wu, J., Liu, L., & Huang, L. (2017). Consumer acceptance of mobile payment across time
Antecedents and moderating role of diffusion stages. Industrial Management and Data
Systems, 117(8), 1761–1776. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2016-0312
Yan, H., & Yang, Z. (2015). Examining mobile payment user adoption from the perspective of
trust. International Journal of U- and e-Service, Science and Technology, 8(1), 117–130.
https://doi.org/10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8.1.11
Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D. C., & Tarn, J. M. (2015). Exploring consumer perceived risk
and trust for online payments: An empirical study in China’s younger generation. Computers
in Human Behavior, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.058
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., & Zhang, R. (2012). Mobile payment services adoption across
time: An empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and personal
traits. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 129–142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.019
Yang, Y., Asaad, Y., & Dwivedi, Y. (2017). Examining the impact of gamification on intention of
engagement and brand attitude in the marketing context. Computers in Human Behavior, 73,
459–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.066
Yeow, P. M., Khalid, H., & Nadarajah, D. (2017). Millennials’ Perception on Mobile Payment
Services in Malaysia. Procedia Computer Science.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.170
Zalessky, A., & Hasan, M. M. (2018). The impact of payment context on the use of mobile payment
systems (Masters' thesis). Retrived from https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2598704/no.ntnu%3Ainspera%3A1763954.pdf?sequence
=1
Zhao, Z. (2019). Cashless society: Consumer perceived value propositions of mobile payment (Masters'
thesis). Retrived from

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 58

 Tang et al. 2021

https://trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/115548/ZhaoZheng.pdf?sequence=2
Zhou, T. (2013). An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services.
Decision Support Systems, 54(2), 1085–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.034

© 2021 Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling 59