Factors Affecting Mobile Payment Adoption Intention: An Indian Perspective

Introduction

The innovation in technology and robust line blend of it with information technology have

made the mobile phone a strategic and profitable tool for delivering the products, services and

information (Bauer, Reichardt, Barnes & Neumann, 2005; Hsu & Kulviwat, 2006; Varshney

& Vetter, 2002). Mobile commerce (m-commerce) has emerged as a new platform for

satisfying the different routine needs of consumers (Skeldon, 2011), and m-payment service

has major contribution in the potential development of m-commerce. m-Payment enables users

to make payment and fund transfer in comfortable and efficient manner (Mallat, Rossi &

Tuunainen, 2004). The consumers have exercised positive adoption behaviour towards mobile

banking, mobile retailing, mobile health and mobile media (Barutcu, 2008; Xu, Teo, Tan &

Agarwal, 2009). However, less than one per cent of smartphone users have used m-payment

services worldwide (Schierz, Schilke & Wirtz, 2010). The most important question in front of

m-payment service providers is the reason why there is slow adoption of m-payment? So it is

required to explore the factors influencing m-payment adoption intention (Dahlberg, Mallat,

Ondrus & Zmijewska, 2008). m-Payment adoption is of considerable attention for managers

and researchers as commercial organization, payment service provider, software service

provider and third party can get great benefit from it (Lim, 2008; Ondrus & Pigneur, 2006). So

the study attempts to explore factors influencing m-payment adoption intention. The remaining

of the article is structured as follows. Second section focuses on review of literature and in third

section, rational of study is described. The research objective is presented in fourth section.

Fifth section focuses on research methods which implied in the study. Sixth section presents

the theoretical framework followed by seventh section which focuses on data analysis.

Discussion of the findings is presented in eighth section followed by conclusion in ninth

section. Tenth section describes the implications of the study followed by limitation and

suggestion for future research in eleventh section.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Trust

Trust can be defined as positive expectation of consumer towards service provider (Mayer,

Davis & Schoorman, 1995). Trust consists of three beliefs: integrity, ability and benevolence

(Palvia, 2009). Integrity is the capability of m-payment service entities to keep their

obligations. Ability means parties have enough technical knowledge to fulfil their promises.

Benevolence is service provider’s concern to safeguard consumer interest. In electronic

services, trust is the most important determinant which affects consumer perception (Mallat,

2007; Yan et al., 2009). Consumer acceptance of electronic payment requires a belief that

concerns of the customers will be addressed (Gupta & Sareen, 2001). Srivastava, Chandra and

Theng (2010) proposed a trust-theoretic model and identified trust as most important construct

compared to other factors trough an empirical study in Singapore. Perceived ubiquity, PEOU

and perceived security have significant impact on initial trust, which is a significant predictor

of m-payment usage intention (Zhou, 2011). Based on trust transfer theory and valence

framework, Lu, Yang, Chau and Cao (2011) proposed a trust-based decision-making model in

the context of m-payment. Findings of the study suggested that trust has significant impact on

cross-environmental relationship and BI. Information and service quality have positive impact

on trust and trust leads to users’ continuation of m-payment usage (Zhou, 2013). While using

m-payment services, personal and financial information shared by consumers so, trust plays

important role in m-payment adoption intention (Duane et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2010). Trust

has been studied as a multidimensional construct in different social sciences domain

(Bhattacherjee, 2002; Carlos Roca, José García & José de la Vega, 2009). So, for better

understanding, we have used multi-item scale to measure consumer trust.

H1 Trust has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Perceived Ease of Use

Davis (1989) defined ease of use as the degree of beliefs that using a particular technology will

be effortless. Chen (2008) proposed a model based on TAM and innovation diffusion theory

(IDT) and found PEOU as crucial determinant of m-payment acceptance. Some of the studies

have examined PEOU as an important determinant influencing m-payment adoption at the

retail point of sale (Apanasevic et al., 2016; Dahlberg et al., 2008; Duane et al., 2014; Kim et

al., 2010; Schierz et al., 2010; Viehland & Leong, 2010). In many m-commerce and m-banking

adoption studies, PEOU has been identified as a crucial antecedent of adoption intention (Kim.,

Shin & Lee, 2009; Peng et al., 2012; Shankar & Kumari, 2016; Zarmpou et al., 2012).

H2 Perceived ease of use has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Perceived Usefulness

The PU is the degree of consumer’s beliefs that adopting particular technology will enhance

their performance (Davis, 1989). In the context of m-payment, smooth transactions such as

online utility bill payment, mobile and dish TV recharge, sending and receiving money, mobile

shopping, balance transfer and ticket booking are the indicators of system usefulness. Before

adopting any new technology, consumers critically evaluate all the benefits they will get after

using it. Kim et al. (2010) analysed the impact of user-centric and characteristics of system on

m-payment usage across different types of users and found that PU has significant positive

impact on m-payment usage. The PU has been empirically validated as a crucial antecedent of

new technology adoption intention (Apanasevic et al., 2016; Arvidsson, 2014; Chen, 2008;

Duane et al., 2014; Keramati et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2010).

H3 Perceived usefulness has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Personal Innovativeness

Agarwal and Prasad (1998) defined PI as consumer willingness to try out any new technology.

It is an inherent part of individual personality and the level of innovativeness varies from

customer to customer (Gupta, Xu & Zhang, 2011; Im, Bayus & Mason, 2003). Domain-specific

innovativeness supports the user in adoption of technological innovation (Yi, Fiedler & Park,

2006). Innovativeness positively influences the consumers to adopt mobile retailing (Bauer et

al., 2005). Yang, Lu, Gupta, Cao and Zhang (2012) explored factors affecting pre-adoption and

post-adoption stages of m-payment adoption in China and concluded that PI is a crucial

determinant for adoption and use of m-payment. Kim et al. (2010) explained that personal

innovation positively influences PEOU, which is a curial determinant of m-payment adoption.

They argued that innovative late adopters respond positively to the use of m-payment

technology. Innovative person can critically examine the usefulness and ease of use of any

technology based services (Lu, Yao & Yu, 2005) In India, majority of people do not have

experienced new information technology and mobile services. So, PI can play a crucial role in

m-payment adoption intention.

H4 Perceived innovation has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Subjective Norm

Subjective norm is the degree of individual attention influenced by other societal members’

opinion while taking a particular decision (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975). The SN has been

employed in TPB model and many studies identified it as a crucial determinant of technology-

based services adoption intention (Amin, Hamid, Lada & Anis, 2008; Chong, Chan & Ooi,

2012; Oliveira et al., 2016; Ting et al., 2015; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Yan et al., 2012).

Based on TAM theory, Schierz et al. (2010) explained that SN, compatibility, individual and
mobility have significant impact on consumers’ acceptance of m-payment services. Positive

word of mouth is an important factor of electronic payment communication source, which

increases awareness among users (Bapat, 2012). Positive opinions of friends, relatives, peers

and family members motivate an individual to adopt new services and individual start

perceiving that services are useful (Schepers & Wetzels, 2007).

H5 Subjective norm has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Self-efficacy

The degree to which an individual believes in performing any specific activity with the skill

they are having refers to SE (Hsu, Chang & Yen, 2011; Lai, 2008). Lee, Hsieh and Huang

(2011) argued that SE has positive impact on consumer intention to adopt mobile

advertisement. Igbaria and Iivari (1995), Pedersen (2005) and Chen, Chen and Yen (2011) have

also found that SE has direct positive impact on PEOU in new technology adoption. Khalifa

and Ning Shen (2008) demonstrated the influence of social and individual characteristic on m-

commerce. They further explained that SE has positive impact on m-commerce adoption

intention. Transactional SE has a crucial impact on purchase intention in the context of

electronic commerce. On the basis of detailed literature review, a research framework has been

proposed to examine the impact of various determinants on m-payment adoption behaviour in

India (Figure 1).

H6 Self-efficacy has significant impact on mobile payment adoption intention.

Research method

Sample and Survey Administration

M-payment services have been recently launched in India. Therefore, for better exploration of

factors affecting m-payment adoption intention, an exploratory study has been conducted. A

total of twelve unstructured interviews were conducted with the government officials,
academic experts, and technical experts to explore factors affecting m-payment adoption

intention in India. An equal number of four experts were selected from each group for

interview. Survey questionnaire was developed on the basis of literature review and

unstructured interview. A pilot test was also performed to examine the reliability and validity

of measures. For pilot testing, data were collected through 30 respondents for examining initial

reliability and validity of the constructs. Results of the pilot test indicated that measures are

reliable and valid. A five-point Likert scale (anchored at strongly disagree = 1 and strongly

agree = 5) was used to collect the responses.

Data has been collected through online survey as well as field survey. Field survey was

conducted in four major cities (Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, and Kolkata) and adjacent

suburban/rural areas between October and December 2017. Further, we divided cities into five

regions; north, south, east, west, and central to ensure variability among responses.

Suburban/rural areas adjacent to these five regions were also covered. A total of 500

respondents were approached randomly among residents of houses, apartments and slums by

physical visit. Response were collected voluntarily and respondents had flexibility to provide

responses immediately or as per their convenience. A self-addressed postpaid envelope was

given to the respondents who agreed to send the responses after some time. The online survey

was conducted by sending the questionnaire through mail randomly on the email id obtained

by a marketing research firm. A total 500 email have been sent and reminder mail has also been

sent after one week. Finally, a total of 248 offline responses and 161 online responses were

used after deleting the responses containing incomplete and biased information. Hence, sample

of 379 respondents were used for further data analysis (See Table 1). Most of the respondents

were male (68%), employees (51%) and either non user of m-payment or recently adopt this

service (44%).
Results of independent samples T-Test represents that there are no differences in the early and

late respondents indicating absence of non-response bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). The

results also represent that similar responses have been received from online and offline

responses indicating the absence of non-response bias (Deutskens et al., 2006)

Measures and Instrument Development

The questionnaire has been divided into two section. Second section contains demographical

information of respondents and first section contains items relating to the constructs of the

study. Previous validated scale was taken to measure construct. But, items were modified to

suit mGov context. PU has been measured using five items, in which first three items were

taken from Davis (1989) and remaining two were from Cheng et al. (2006). PEOU has been

operationalized using three items taken from Davis (1989). Whereas, three item obtained from

Belanger and Carter, (2008) to measure trust. Four items measuring perceived security and four

items measuring perceived compatibility were taken from Shareef et al. (2014). The items

measuring MGov adoption intention were taken from Venkatesh and Zhang (2010) and Shareef

et al. (2014). Demographic characteristics of the respondents such as age, income, education

qualification may influence the mGov adoption intention (Sharma et al., 2017). Therefore,

these factors have been used as control variables in this study.

The survey was originally written in English language and further translated into Hindi

language. Translated questionnaire was again translated into English and cross examined by

bilingual expert. Respondents had the choice of responding the survey based on the language

proficiency.

Results

Internal consistency using Cronbach’s Alpha value was calculated to find reliability of the

constructs. Regression analysis using SPSS software package were performed to test the

proposed relationship.
Results indicate that value of Cronbach’s alpha for all exogenous and endogenous constructs

are more than 0.7 (See table 2), which reflect the significant reliability of the constructs (Hair

et al., 1998, p. 612).

Results exhibit that The result found that trust (β = 0.136, p<0.001), PEOU (β = 0.503,

p<0.001), SE (β = 0.096, p<0.05) and PU (β = 0.319, p<0.001) have significant positive impact

on m-payment adoption intention. SE (β = 0.329, p<0.001) and PI (β = 0.142, p<0.05) have

positive impact on PEOU. SN (β = 0.268, p<0.001) and PI (β = 0.080, p<0.05) have positive

impact on PU. However, path coefficients exhibit that PI and SN have an insignificant impact

on m-payment adoption intention. Results of this study are similar with previous technology

adoption studies in other contexts (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Chandra et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2011;

Keramati et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2012).

Discussions

This study proposed a comprehensive model for examining the influence of various factors on

m-payment adoption intention in India. We extended the model with four user-centric

variables. The results exhibit that trust, PEOU, PU and SE have a significant positive impact

on m-payment adoption intention. However, SN and PI have an insignificant impact on

adoption intention (Figure 2). The results suggested that PEOU is the most influencing

determinant of m-payment adoption intention in India. The significant influence of PEOU on

adoption intention is consistent with the previous findings of m-payment adoptionrelated

studies (Apanasevic et al., 2016; Arvidsson, 2014; Chen, 2008; Kim et al., 2010; Pousttchi &

Wiedemann, 2007; Zhou, 2011). The user can adopt m-payment only when they find it easy in

comparison with other traditional methods of financial transaction. The PU has crucial impact

on technology enabled product adoption intention which is consistent with the findings of many

pervious m-payment adoption-related studies (Chen, 2008; Duane et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2010;

Pousttchi & Wiedemann, 2007; Zhou, 2011). The user would adopt any new technology only
when they found it useful to fulfil their specific need. The user would switch to another system

for financial transaction if they perceived extra benefit in less or similar cost. Findings indicate

that SE has significant impact on m-payment adoption intention. Finding of this study is

consistent with the results of Shin (2009), Pedersen (2005), Chen et al. (2011) and Duane et al.

(2014). Lee et al. (2011) concluded that SE has a significant impact on m-payment adoption

intention as well as PEOU, which is consistent with the findings of the study. Consumer trust

is a crucial factor while adopting technology-enabled services, as consumer trust reduces the

customer perceived risk which leads to adoption (Mallat, 2007). The results also indicated that

initial trust has significant impact on adoption intention. This finding is consistent with the

findings of many m-payment adoption studies (Arvidsson, 2014; Duane et al., 2014;

Phonthanukitithaworn et al., 2015; Yan et al., 2009; Zhou, 2011). If users do not trust m-

payment service provider, they may perceive that the service provider lacks in providing

quality services. Results also indicate that perceived innovativeness plays insignificant role in

m-payment adoption. This may be because of the reason that m-payment is perceived to be

similar financial channel as m-banking, which does not require any specific knowledge.

Implications

The pace of adoption has increased dramatically after demonetization of currency in India.

Now people have limited choice other than cashless transaction for payment. m-Payment could

be the best option for cashless transaction because of high wireless density. Most of the Indian

banks have launched their wallet and advertising it heavily to tap the market. Existing m-

payment service providers are also introducing innovative services to attract new users. As

India is an emerging potential market for m-payment, this study provides better understanding

of user-centric factors affecting m-payment adoption intention. Increased popularity of mobile

application will help in rapid growth of m-payment in the near future. From theoretical

perspective, we tried to explore the factors affecting m-payment adoption intention through
extended TAM. The result indicated that the proposed model has good explanatory power (77.2

per cent) to predict m-payment adoption intention. This study illustrates better explanatory

power in comparison with other studies exploring adoption intention studies which explained

40–50 per cent of the variance (Miltgen, Popovič & Oliveira, 2013; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).

m-Payment is a new concept in emerging Indian market and very few research studies have

been conducted in this area. So, this study will provide a base for further studies in the field of

m-payment adoption intention. The proposed model can be tested and verified in other

emerging markets for better understanding of m-payment adoption behaviour. This study will

enrich m-payment adoption intention-related literature in the context of developing countries.

This research will provide a direction to other researchers to explore crucial determinants of

m-payment adoption intention in future. From a managerial perspective, the findings of this

study hold several implications for the upgradation of m-payment system to increase the pace

of adoption in India. First, there is positive relation between SE and m-payment adoption which

indicates that if users have technical knowledge, they easily adopt m-payment services. Service

providers should organize campaigns to increase the awareness on the usefulness and

convenience. Awareness about m-payment service will develop SE among users which will

lead to positive adoption intention. Second, trust is another crucial issue that service providers

should prioritize. Customer trust can be built by providing error-free, reliable and responsive

customer services. Entities involved in m-payment services should ensure error-free and

speedy transaction with round the clock for customer support. Third, both PEOU and PU have

significant impact on m-payment adoption. Service provider should come up with some

innovative strategies to develop a belief among users that this new system is more useful than

traditional payment system. The design of m-payment application has significant impact on

user acceptance. If application is easy to navigate and user-friendly, then consumers will easily

adopt it. This study is one of the few studies which have empirically investigated the factors
affecting m-payment adoption intention in India, which is the fastest growing country in terms

of mobile usage. Knowledge of factors affecting m-payment adoption intention could help

service providers in developing their strategies to ensure that people use m-payment service.

Limitation and Future Research

This article examines crucial factors which affect adoption intention in the context of m-

payment, but there are some limitations of this study. The respondents of this study are m-

payment users only. A study could be conducted between users and non-users of m-payment

to know the impact of different factors on both the groups. Furthermore, majority of the sample

is between the age group of 21–40 years. Future study could be extended by multi-group

analysis between different age group and better understanding 14 Global Business Review

19(3S) of adoption behaviour. This study is limited to Indian m-payment users only. Further

studies are required to know the significant factors in other culture and contexts. This study is

limited to user-centric factors only, and stakeholder-centric factors may also be considered for

future research. Further research can be conducted to examine mediating effect of PEOU and

PU to get better prediction model of adoption intention. A longitudinal study can better explore

crucial factors affecting m-payment adoption intention.

Appendix A. Measurement Scales and Items

Perceived usefulness (PU) (Davis, 1989; Kim et al., 2010)
PU1 using m-payment would enable me to pay more quickly.
PU2 using m-payment makes it easier for me to conduct transactions.
PU3 using m-payment would be advantageous.
PU4 I would find m-payment a useful possibility for paying.
Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Davis (1989)
PEOU1 I believe that when I use m-payment, the process will be clear and understandable.
PEOU2 I believe that it is easy for me to become skilful at using m-payment.
PEUO3 I believe that m-payment is easy to use.
Self-efficacy (SE) (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Hoon et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 1989)
SE1 I feel confident using a mobile phone for social activities.
SE2 I feel confident using a mobile phone to access online movies and music.
SE3 I feel confident using a mobile phone to access online print news media.
SE4 I feel confident using a mobile phone to access television news media.
SE5 I feel confident using a mobile phone to watch television programmes.
SE6 I feel confident using my mobile phone to access gaming services.
SE7 I feel confident using my mobile phone for payment.
Subjective norm (SN) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Taylor and Todd, 1995)
SN1 People who are important to me think I should use m-payment
SN2 People whose opinions I value are prefer me to use m-payment.
SN3 People who are important to me (e.g., family members, close friends, and colleagues)
support me to use of m-payment.
Personal innovativeness (PI) (Agarwal & Prasad, 1998; Bauer et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2011
PI1 I like to experiment with new m-payment services. et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2011)
PI2 Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new m-payment services.
PI3 My peers highly rate my opinion of m-payment services.
Trust (TRUST) (Chau et al., 2007; Cheung & Lee, 2003; Pavlou, 2003)
TRUST1 I believe that legal frameworks for m-payment provision are sufficiently robust to
protect consumers.
TRUST2 I believe that m-payment service provider has sufficient expertise and resources to
provide these services.
TRUST3 I believe that m-payment service provider will act ethically when capturing, retaining,
processing and managing my personal data.
TRUST4 I believe that m-payment service provider act honestly in dealing with consumers.
TRUST5 I am confident in the privacy controls of m-payment service provider.
TRUST6 I believe that m-payment service provider implements adequate security measures to
secure my personal data.
TRUST7 I believe that M-payment parties will keep my best interests in mind.
M-payment adoption intention (MPAI) (Kim et al., 2010)
MPAI1 Now I pay for purchases with a mobile phone.
MPAI2 Assuming that I have access to the m-payment, I intend to use it.
 MPAI3 During the next six (6) months I intend to pay for purchases with a mobile phone.
MPAI4 Five (5) years from now I intend to pay for purchases with a mobile phone.
References
Abu-Shanab, E. (2014), “Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in
Jordan”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 480-
499.
Abu-Shanab, E. A. (2016), “E-government familiarity influence on Jordanians’
perceptions”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No.1, pp. 103-113.
Abu-Shanab, E. A., and Baker, A. A. N. A. (2011), “Evaluating Jordan's e-government website: a
case study”, Electronic Government, an International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 271-289.
Abu-Shanab, E., Knight, M., and Refai, H. (2010), “E-voting systems: a tool for e-
democracy”, Management Research and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 264-275.
Agarwal, R., and Prasad, J. (1998), “A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 9No. 2, pp. 204-215.
Aggelidis, V. P., and Chatzoglou, P. D. (2009), “Using a modified technology acceptance model
in hospitals”, International journal of medical informatics, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 115-126.
Ahmad Al-Hawari, M. (2014), “Does customer sociability matter? Differences in e-quality, e-
satisfaction, and e-loyalty between introvert and extravert online banking users”, Journal
of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 538-546.
Ajzen, I. (1974), “Effects of information on interpersonal attraction: Similarity versus affective
value”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.29 No. 3, pp. 374-380.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In n J. Kuhl and J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action control from cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg.
Alenezi, H., Tarhini, A., and Masa'deh, R. (2015), “Investigating the strategic relationship between
information quality and e-government benefits: A literature review”, International Review
of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Al-Hujran, O., Al-Debei, M. M., Chatfield, A., and Migdadi, M. (2015). The imperative of
influencing citizen attitude toward e-government adoption and use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 53, 189-203.
Almarabeh, T., and AbuAli, A. (2010), “A general framework for e-government: definition
maturity challenges, opportunities, and success”, European Journal of Scientific
Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Alomari, M., Woods, P., and Sandhu, K. (2012). Predictors for e-government adoption in Jordan:
Deployment of an empirical evaluation based on a citizen-centric approach. Information
Technology & People, 25(2), 207-234.
Aloudat, A., Michael, K., Chen, X., and Al-Debei, M. M. (2014), “Social acceptance of location-
based mobile government services for emergency management”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 153-171.
Armstrong, J. S., and Overton, T. S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail
surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402
Barney, J. B., and Hansen, M. H. (1994), “Trustworthiness as a source of competitive
advantage. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. S1, pp. 175-190.
Bélanger, F., and Carter, L. (2008), “Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 165-176.
Beldad, A., van der Geest, T., de Jong, M., and Steehouder, M. (2012), “A cue or two and I'll trust
you: Determinants of trust in government organizations in terms of their processing and
 usage of citizens' personal information disclosed online”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 41-49.
Bestavros, A. (2000), “Banking industry walks ‘tightrope’in personalization of web
services”, Bank Systems and Technology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 54-56.
Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Testing
structural equation models, K. A. Bollen and J. S. Long, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 136–162.
Bryer, T. A. (2007), “Toward a relevant agenda for a responsive public administration”, Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 479-500.
Bwalya, K. J. (2009), “Factors affecting adoption of e-government in Zambia”, The Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1-13.
Carmines, E. G., and McIver, J. P. (1981), “Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis
of covariance structures”, in Social Measurement, ed. George W. Bohrnstedt and Edgar F.
Borgatta, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 65-116.
Carter, L., and Campbell, R. (2011), “The impact of trust and relative advantage on internet voting
diffusion”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 6 No.
3, pp. 28-42.
Chandra, S., Srivastava, S. C., and Theng, Y. L. (2010), “Evaluating the role of trust in consumer
adoption of mobile payment systems: An empirical analysis”, Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 27 No. 29, pp. 562-588.
Chen, J. V., Jubilado, R. J. M., Capistrano, E. P. S., and Yen, D. C. (2015), “Factors affecting
online tax filing–An application of the IS Success Model and trust theory”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 43, 251-262.
Chen, Y. R. (2008), “Corporate governance and cash holdings: Listed new economy versus old
economy firms”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 430-
442.
Cheng, T. E., Lam, D. Y., and Yeung, A. C. (2006), “Adoption of internet banking: an empirical
study in Hong Kong”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1558-1572.
Cheung, C. M., and Thadani, D. R. (2012), “The impact of electronic word-of-mouth
communication: A literature analysis and integrative model”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 461-470.
Chiou, J. S., and Shen, C. C. (2012), “The antecedents of online financial service adoption: the
impact of physical banking services on Internet banking acceptance”, Behaviour &
Information Technology, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 859-871.
Cole, M., and Jupp, V. (2005), “Leadership in Customer Service: New Expectations, New
Experiences”, The Government Executive Series.
Daniel, E. (1999), “Provision of electronic banking in the UK and the Republic of
Ireland”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 72-83.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319–339.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (1985), “The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination
in personality”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 109-134.
Delone, W. H., and McLean, E. R. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: a ten-year update”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 9-30.
Deutskens, E., De Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2006), “An assessment of equivalence between
online and mail surveys in service research”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp.
346-355.
Evangelidis, A., Akomode, J., Taleb-Bendiab, A., and Taylor, M. (2002), “Risk assessment &
success factors for e-government in a UK establishment”, Electronic Government, 395-
402.
Groß, M. (2015), “Exploring the acceptance of technology for mobile shopping: an empirical
investigation among Smartphone users”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 215-235.
Gupta, J. P., and Suri, P. (2017), “Measuring public value of e-governance projects in India:
citizens’ perspective”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 236-261.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th edn Prentice Hall International, New York, NY.
Heeks, R., and Bailur, S. (2007), “Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies,
theories, methods, and practice”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp.
243-265.
Hung, M. C., and Jen, W. Y. (2012), “The adoption of mobile health management services: an
empirical study”, Journal of Medical Systems, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 1381-1388.
Hussien, I. M. and Abd El Aziz, R. (2013), "Investigating e-banking service quality in one of
Egypt’s banks: a stakeholder analysis", The TQM Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 557-576.
Iqbal, S., and Bhatti, Z. A. (2015), “An investigation of university student readiness towards m-
learning using technology acceptance model”, The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 83-103.
Irani, Z., Dwivedi, Y. K., and Williams, M. D. (2009), “Understanding consumer adoption of
broadband: an extension of the technology acceptance model”, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, Vol. 60 No. 10, pp. 1322-1334.
Jaeger, P. T. (2003), “The endless wire: E-government as global phenomenon”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 323-331.
Jiang, P. (2009), “Consumer adoption of mobile internet services: An exploratory study”, Journal
of Promotion Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 418-454.
Kalsi, S. N., and Kiran, R. (2013), “E-governance success factors: an analysis of e-governance
initiatives of ten major states of India”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 320-336.
Kamal, M., and Alsudairi, M. (2009), “Investigating the importance of factors influencing
integration technologies adoption in local government authorities”, Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 302-331.
Kapugama, N. (2009), “Colloquium: Identifying conditions for the delivery of m-government
services to the BOP”, LIRNEasia: India. Retrieved from
http://lirneasia.net/2009/08/colloquium-identifying-conditions-for-the-delivery-of-m-
government-services-to-the-bop-india/
Keramati, A., Taeb, R., Larijani, A. M., and Mojir, N. (2012), “A combinative model of
behavioural and technical factors affecting ‘Mobile’-payment services adoption: an
empirical study”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1489-1504.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn Guilford
Press. New York, NY.
Kumar, M., and Sinha, O. P. (2007). M-government–mobile technology for e-government.
In International conference on e-government, India, pp. 294-301.
Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., and Persaud, A. (2007), “Factors for successful e-government
adoption: a conceptual framework”, The Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 5 No.
1, pp. 63-76.
Kuo, Y. F., and Yen, S. N. (2009), “Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use
3G mobile value-added services”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 103-
110.
Kushchu, I. (2007), Mobile Government: An Emerging Direction in E-Government. IGI
Publishing.
Lean, O. K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., and Fernando, Y. (2009), “Factors influencing intention to
use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 458-475.
Lee, K. C., and Chung, N. (2009), “Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with
mobile banking in Korea: A modified DeLone and McLean’s model
perspective”, Interacting with Computers, Vol. 21 No. 5-6, pp., 385-392.
Lin, F., Fofanah, S. S., and Liang, D. (2011), “Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government
initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information
systems success”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 271-279.
Liu, Y., Li, H., Kostakos, V., Goncalves, J., Hosio, S., and Hu, F. (2014), “An empirical
investigation of mobile government adoption in rural China: A case study in Zhejiang
province”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 432-442.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., and Patil, A. (2006), “Common method variance in IS research: A
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research”, Management
Science, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1865-1883.
Marangunić, N., and Granić, A. (2015), “Technology acceptance model: a literature review from
1986 to 2013”, Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 81-95.
Marsh, H. W., and Hocevar, D. (1985), “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study
of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across
groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 562-582.
Matute, J., Polo-Redondo, Y., and Utrillas, A. (2016), “The influence of EWOM characteristics on
online repurchase intention: Mediating roles of trust and perceived usefulness”, Online
Information Review, Vol.40 No. 7, pp. 1090-1110.
Misuraca, G. C. (2009), “e-Government 2015: exploring m-government scenarios, between ICT-
driven experiments and citizen-centric implications”, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 407-424.
Miyazaki, A. D., and Fernandez, A. (2001), “Consumer perceptions of privacy and security risks
for online shopping”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
Olasina, G., and Mutula, S. (2015), “The influence of national culture on the performance
expectancy of e-parliament adoption”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 34 No.
5, pp. 492-505.
Park, E., Baek, S., Ohm, J., and Chang, H. J. (2014), “Determinants of player acceptance of mobile
social network games: An application of extended technology acceptance
model”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Peng, R., Xiong, L., and Yang, Z. (2012), “Exploring tourist adoption of tourism mobile payment:
An empirical analysis”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Poblet, M. (2011), “Rule of law on the go: New developments of mobile governance”, Journal of
Universal Computer Science, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 498-512.
Podsakoff, P. M., and Organ, D. W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Quach, T. N., Thaichon, P. and Jebarajakirthy, C. (2016), “Internet service providers' service
quality and its effect on customer loyalty of different usage patterns”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 104-113.
Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D., and Weerakkody, V. (2016), “Adoption of online
public grievance redressal system in India: Toward developing a unified view. Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 265-282.
Rehman, M., Esichaikul, V., and Kamal, M. (2012), “Factors influencing e-government adoption
in Pakistan”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp.
258-282.
Rogers, E. M. (1995), “Diffusion of Innovations: modifications of a model for telecommunications
(pp. 25-38). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovation, The Free Press New York, NY.
Romano Jr, N. C., Pick, J. B., and Roztocki, N. (2010), “A motivational model for technology-
supported cross-organizational and cross-border collaboration”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-133.
Shaikh, A. A., and Karjaluoto, H. (2015), “Mobile banking adoption: A literature
review”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Shankar, A., and Datta, B. (2018), “Factors Affecting Mobile Payment Adoption Intention: An
Indian Perspective”, Global Business Review, 0972150918757870.
Shankar, A., and Kumari, P. (2016), “Factors Affecting Mobile Banking Adoption Behavior in
India”, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Shareef, M. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Stamati, T., and Williams, M. D. (2014), “SQ mGov: a
comprehensive service-quality paradigm for mobile government”, Information Systems
Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 126-142.
Sharma, S. K., Govindaluri, S. M., Al-Muharrami, S., and Tarhini, A. (2017), “A multi-analytical
model for mobile banking adoption: a developing country perspective”, Review of
International Business and Strategy, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 133-148.
Soni, V., Dey, P. K., Anand, R., Malhotra, C., and Banwet, D. K. (2017), “Digitizing grey portions
of e-governance”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 419-455.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Experiments in a vacuum. In J. Israel and H. T. Triandis (Eds.), The context of
social psychology: A critical assessment (pp. 69–119). London: Academic Press.
The National Mobile Governance Initiative (2018). Retrieved 18 March 2018, from
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/TSDReportJan23032018.pdf
Tomer, G., Chauhan, G. S., and Panigrahi, P. K. (2016), “Feasibility of m-governance in
agriculture: insights from a multimodal study in rural India”, Transforming Government:
People, Process and Policy, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 434-456.
TRAI. (2018, January). Telecom Subscription data as on 31st December 2017. Retrieved 18 March
2018, from http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/TSDReportJan23032018.pdf
Trimi, S., and Sheng, H. (2008), “Emerging trends in M-government”, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 53-58.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., and Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs.
China. Journal of global information technology management, 13(1), 5-27.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003), “User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-
478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., and Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-178.
Vincent, J., and Harris, L. (2008), “Effective use of mobile communications in e-government: How
do we reach the tipping point?”, Information, Community and Society, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp.
395-413.
Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., and Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013),
“Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-government adoption: An
empirical investigation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No.
5, pp. 716-725.
Wu, J. H., and Wang, S. C. (2005), “What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp.
719-729.
Yang, S. (2016), “Role of transfer-based and performance-based cues on initial trust in mobile
shopping services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information Systems and e-Business
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 47-70.
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y., and Zhang, R. (2012), “Mobile payment services adoption
across time: An empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and
personal traits”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A., and Vlachopoulou, M. (2012), “Modeling users’ acceptance
of mobile services”, Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 225-248.
Tables and Figures:

Table 1. Demographical characteristics of respondents.

Measure Item N %
Gender Male 256 68%
Female 123 32%
Age Below 20 72 19%
21-30 127 34%
31-40 93 25%
41-50 62 16%
Above 51 25 7%
Occupation Student 94 25%
Employee 195 51%
Business man 73 19%
Other 17 4%
Education level High school 53 14%
College/university 185 49%
Master 89 23%
PhD 52 14%
Years using mSeva < 6 months 166 44%
6 months to 1 year 95 25%
1 to 3 years 84 22%
> 3 years 34 9%

Table 2. Construct cross-correlation matrix

Constructs PEOU TRUST PU PI SN MPAI

PEOU 1
TRUST .19 **
1
PU .03* .02* 1
PS .09 *
.12 **
.02* 1
SN .18 **
.09 **
.12 **
.05* 1
MPAI .04 *
.05 *
.02 *
.12 **
.06* 1
Notes: ** Correlation is significant at p<0.01, * Correlation is significant at p<0.05
Table 4. Path coefficients

Relation Estimate S.E. C.R. P Hypothesis

TRUSTMPAI .31 .05 6.08 *** Supported
PUMPAI .25 .04 2.92 *** Supported
PEOUMPAI .07 .03 2.25 0.026** Supported
SNMPAI .10 .04 5.66 0.023** Supported
PIMPAI .25 .03 3.15 *** Supported
SEMPAI .59 .04 11.74 *** Supported

Notes: ** p<0.01, *p<0.05.