The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluating the Role of Trust in Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment Systems: An Empirical Analysis
Abstract
Consumer adoption of mobile payment (m-payment) solutions is low compared to the acceptance of traditional forms of payments. Motivated by this fact, we propose and test a “trust-theoretic model for consumer adoption of m-payment systems.” The model, grounded in literature on “technology adoption” and “trust,” not only theorizes the role of consumer trust in m-payment adoption, but also identifies the facilitators for consumer trust in m-payment systems. It proposes two broad dimensions of trust facilitators: “mobile service provider characteristics” and “mobile technology environment characteristics.” The model is empirically validated via a sample of potential adopters in Singapore. In contrast to other contexts, results suggest the overarching importance of “consumer trust in m-payment systems” as compared to other technology adoption factors. Further, differential importance of the theorized trust facilitators of “perceived reputation” and “perceived opportunism” of the mobile service provider, and “perceived environmental risk” and “perceived structural assurance” of the mobile technology, are also highlighted. A series of post-hoc analyses establish the robustness of the theorized configuration of constructs. Subsequent, sub-group analyses highlight the differential significance of trust facilitators for different user sub-groups. Implications for research and practice emerging out of this study are also discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800302 · Cited by 22,355
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
An integrative model of organizational trust
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258792 · Cited by 10,736
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664
Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 · Cited by 5,718
(2003) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275 · Cited by 5,715
Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 · Cited by 5,550
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250951 · Cited by 4,726
Mathieson, K. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.173 · Cited by 4,216
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148781 · Cited by 3,921
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00253 · Cited by 2,913
Consumer trust in an Internet store
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000) · Information Technology and Management · doi:10.1023/a:1019104520776 · Cited by 2,577
Building consumer trust online
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/299157.299175 · Cited by 2,132
A trust model for consumer Internet shopping
Lee, M. K. O., & Turban, E. (2001) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044227 · Cited by 2,012
Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross-cultural validation
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Saarinen, L. (2006) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x · Cited by 1,882 · cited 4×
“Various researchers have shown significant positive relationship between perceived reputation of vendors and consumer trust [Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky, 1999].”
BackgroundInfluentialInformation Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation
Culnan, M. J., & Armstrong, P. K. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104 · Cited by 1,870
AGE DIFFERENCES IN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION DECISIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A CHANGING WORK FORCE
MORRIS, M. G., & VENKATESH, V. (2000) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x · Cited by 1,723
Predicting Intention to Adopt Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective1
Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036518 · Cited by 1,639 · cited 2×
“, institutional pressures [Liang et al., 2007; Teo et al., 2003], regulatory pressures and legal provisions [Porteous, 2006].”
BackgroundUnderstanding online purchase intentions: contributions from technology and trust perspectives
van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000445 · Cited by 1,230
Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. W. (2001) · ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems · doi:10.1145/506724.506730 · Cited by 1,099
Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of TAM and trust
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2003.817277 · Cited by 965
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Wong, W.-M., & Tam, K.-Y. (2002) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2002.11045692 · Cited by 827
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2003.822468 · Cited by 582 · cited 2×
“Numerous studies over the past decade have validated the significant relationship of PEOU with the AI [Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh, 2000; Davis and Venkatesh, 2004].”
BackgroundResultConnolly, R., & Bannister, F. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000071 · Cited by 132
Cited by
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20823 · Cited by 922
An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking
Zhou, T. (2011) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662241111176353 · Cited by 589
Assessing Common Method Bias: Problems with the ULMC Technique1
Chin, W. W., Thatcher, J. B., & Wright, R. T. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41703491 · Cited by 505
Gao, L., & Waechter, K. A. (2017) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9611-0 · Cited by 367
Marriott, H. R., & Williams, M. D. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.017 · Cited by 270
Metadata
- Authors
- Chandra, S., Srivastava, S. C., & Theng, Y.-L.
- Venue
- Communications of the Association for Information Systems
- Publisher
- Association for Information Systems
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 27
- ISSN
- 1529-3181 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1587653675
- Cited by
- 429
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 14.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.