The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm
IJBM
32,2
150
Received 31 May 2013
Revised 5 September 2013
Accepted 22 September 2013
International Journal of Bank
Marketing
Vol. 32 No. 2, 2014
pp. 150-170
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-05-2013-0048
Consumer attitudes on mobile
payment services – results from
a proof of concept test
Niklas Arvidsson
KTH Industrial Engineering and Management,
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – A society’s potential economic gains from replacing cash-based payments with electronic
payments are large, and mobile payments may help this transition. The purpose of this paper is to
understand consumers’ attitudes on start using mobile payment services.
Design/methodology/approach – The study builds on quantitative data from a proof of concept
test of a mobile payment service that was done in Sweden in 2011. The theoretical foundation rests on
technology adoption models (TAM) and diffusion of innovation theories.
Findings – The study finds that the most important factor explaining whether consumers are likely
to use a mobile payment service is ease of use. In addition, relative advantage, high trust, low
perceived security risks, higher age and lower income were associated with a positive view on
adopting the service.
Research limitations/implications – The results leads to the conclusion that studies of innovation
in the payment industry cannot rely on TAM and innovation diffusion theory alone. Theories on
learning, network economies and value-creation must also be included if change processes in payment
systems are to be fully understood.
Practical implications – Companies aiming to launch mobile payment services must understand
that consumers’ put high importance on reliability of such services and that trust in services is built
via learning process. If consumers learn to use the service, the probability they also start to trust it
increases. This means that the launch of services must be designed as learning processes for
consumers and merchants.
Originality/value – The newness in this paper is, first, that the TAM model is tested quantitatively
in a regression analysis using data from Sweden, and, second, that the traditional theories used to
explain consumers’ use of new types of payment services are discussed and suggestions for additional,
complementary theories are proposed.
Keywords Innovation, Sweden, Multiple regression analysis, Customer attitudes, Payments,
Retail service industries
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
There are many efforts in Europe that aim to increase the use of electronic forms of
mass-payment services to the detriment of cash. And there is reason to believe this
transition would benefit the society. The economic benefits for a society if cash is
replaced by electronic payments may be around or even more than 0.3 percent of GDP
annually since the costs for cash-based services are significantly higher than the costs
for electronic payments (Danmarks Nationalbank, 2011; Bergman et al., 2007;
Humphrey et al., 2006; Flatraaker and Robinsson, 1995). Given this potential and the
The author wants to acknowledge the support and collaboration with the bank, the bank service
provider and the telecom operator that initiated the proof-of-concept test. All of them wish to
remain anonymous.
common belief that mobile phones are a potential platform for electronic payments that Mobile payment
replace cash-based payments, this study of factors determining consumers’ potential services
use of mobile payment services is highly motivated. The research question underlying
this study concerns which factors that are likely to make consumers willing (or not) to
start using mobile phones as the platform for payment services?
There has been a lot of research on technology adoption in general and mobile
payment services in particular in the last decade but there is nevertheless a call for 151
theoretically based quantitative studies of consumers’ attitudes toward mobile
payment services. Dahlberg et al. (2008) made a large literature review of research on
mobile payment services and used a combination of Porter’s (1980) five forces model
and contingency theory (Gardner et al., 2000; Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985;
Zeithaml et al., 1988) to categorize and summarize their literature study. They conclude
that the areas which have been studied most extensively include the consumer
perspective on mobile payment services as well as the role of technical security and
trust. However, areas like social and cultural factors impact on the use of mobile
payment services as well as comparisons of traditional payment services with mobile
payment services lack studies (Gardner et al., 2000; Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985;
Zeithaml et al., 1988). Given this, Dahlberg et al. (2008) identifies two areas in which
there is a lack of research. The first concerns how social and cultural factors impact
the growth of mobile payment services, and the second concerns the impact traditional
payment services have on the growth of mobile payment services (Dahlberg et al., 2008,
p. 178). They propose that, first; research should study portfolios of payment services
and not just mobile payment services in isolation. Second, research on consumer
power has been focussed on business-to-consumer and consumer-to-consumer
payments and therefore neglected aspects related to business-to-business payments
which imply that the role of merchants has not been studied thoroughly. Third,
they call for research based on empirical data and clearly related to theory as there are
many conceptual articles but little empirical research that is well founded in theory
(Dahlberg et al., 2008).

Theory
Research on how consumers adopt innovations is often based on the conceptual idea
that innovation first is accepted and used by a small group of interested people
and then over time diffused to more and more people in the population. This model was
formulated by Rogers (1995) in this discussion of diffusion of innovation, and Rogers’
framework is underlying a lot of research in this field. Moore and Benbasat (1991) is
another influential article which has been enabling researchers to build and test models
of innovation diffusion. More particularly, studies of how mobile payment offerings,
i.e. combinations of technologies and services, are adopted by consumers have
generally been studied via general technology adoption models (TAM) and diffusion of
innovation theories (Mallat, 2007).
Mallat provides an extensive qualitative model of these factors (Mallat, 2007, p. 426),
which include relative advantage, costs, compatibility, complexity, network
externalities, trust and security risks. There are few quantitative studies that
actually test the work by Mallat and other work on technology adoption in the area
mobile payment services, however. The ambition of this paper is therefore to
quantitatively test theories on technology adoption as well as the propositions in
Mallat’s (2007) study in relation to mobile payment services. This study statistically
test hypotheses and propositions from earlier work based on quantitative data.
IJBM We discuss the previous work where each area of discussion leads to one unique
32,2 hypothesis.
To start with, relative advantages of a new product or services if compared to
existing ones is considered as one of the most important factors influencing consumer
adoption. Perceived usefulness of the service is a key factor explaining intention
to adopt the service (Kim et al., 2010a; Davis, 1989). This factor includes basic factors
152 such as price and quality (in use), performance (Davis, 1989; Moore and Benbasat,
1991), mobility factors such as independence of time and location in use (Carlsson et al.,
2006; Constantiou et al., 2006; Jarvenpaa and Lang, 2005; Mallat et al., 2004):

H1. States that the higher the relative advantages of a mobile payment service, the
more positive the individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

Similar to Mallat (2007), this study separates the cost of the payment service from
other relative advantage factors even though cost often has been incorporated in the
relative advantage construct (Rogers, 1995). We therefore model cost as a factor
separate from other factors leading to relative advantage such as speed. One
motivation of this choice is found in a study by Kim et al. (2007) that found that the
perceived fee has a significant effect on the perceived value of mobile internet.
In addition, the transaction costs of mobile payments are often included in the price of
the purchased item (Mallat, 2007) and not clearly connected to each transaction. Given
that mobile payments require smart phones that may be costly, we use costs as a
separate factor:

H2. States that the higher the perceived cost of a mobile payment service, the more
negative the attitudes to adopting the service will be.

Compatibility is an indicator of how willing consumers are to adopt a new product or

service and has been defined as the consistency between an innovation and the values,
experiences and needs of potential adopters (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Taylor and
Todd, 1995; Lee et al., 2003; Mallat, 2007; Rogers, 1995). Compatibility in itself has also
been found to be an important explanation behind how consumers adopt mobile
technologies and service adoption (Teo and Pok, 2003; Wu and Wang, 2005). We use
compatibility as an indicator of how the mobile payment service generates value for
the consumer not only directly related to the payment situation but also including
other benefits related to the payment service:

H3. States that the higher the perceived compatibility between users’ preferences
and the mobile payment service, the more positive the individual’s attitudes to
adopt the service will be.

Another variable that may explain consumers’ view on new technologies relates to the
degree of complexity of the technology (Mallat, 2007) or, to phrase it more positively,
the ease of use of the new technology (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 1995). This factor has been
defined as the “degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand
and use” (Rogers, 1995, p. 16). It relates to ease with which an adopter can start using
the service and a key variable positively influencing the intention of both early and late
adopters to adopt mobile payment technology (Kim et al., 2010a). Problems with
usability have been found to explain low adoption of a variety of payment systems,
including smart cards and mobile banking (Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005; Szmigin Mobile payment
and Bourne, 1999). Ease of use also affects consumers’ attitudes toward adoption of services
mobile technologies and services more generally ( Jarvenpaa et al., 2003; Nysveen et al.,
2005; Teo and Pok, 2003). If it is difficult to start using a new service there will be usage
barriers (Ram and Sheth, 1989) that harm the adoption (Laukkanen and Kiviniemi,
2010; Saaksjarvi, 2003). Laukkanen and Kiviniemi’s (2010, p. 383) study of the role
of information for mobile banking resistance found that information and guidance 153
by banks has strong impact on consumers’ perception of functional usability but also
that it increases a positive image associated with the innovation. Thus, ease of use
of a new mobile payment service – or lack of complexity – is expected to lead to a
positive attitude vis-à-vis the new service by the consumers:

H4. States that the higher the ease of use of the service, the more positive the
individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

Network externalities exist when the value of a product or service for a single user
increases when the overall number of product or services sold and used increases
(Economides, 1996, p. 678). This is not always the case since the value of a product or
service may be related to its uniqueness, i.e. the value may increase if demand is stable
and supply decreases. Industries having network externalities, i.e. where there is
a positive effect on value from an increased number of users, include telephone and
communication systems, transportation systems and financial markets. Both financial
markets in general (Economides, 1996) and payment markets in particular (Van Hove,
1999) are characterized by network externalities. This implies that the value of a
mobile payment service for a single user – payer as well as payee – will increase if the
number of users – payers as well as payees – increases. A payer wish to be able to use
the service at as many shops and stores as possible and the payee wish that as many
customers as possible use the same type of payment service. The intention to use
a technology is positively related to the number of overall users (Song et al., 2009). This
factor also relate to social influence from other users of the same service where
studies have found that opinions of friends and relatives have a significant impact
on a users’ decision to adopt a mobile payment service (Lopez-Nicolas et al., 2008).
We therefore include this variable in our model of consumer attitudes toward a mobile
payment service:

H5. States that the greater the network externalities of a new mobile payment
service, the more positive the individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

The importance of trust in a study of mobile payment service is natural given that
the value of money and payments in themselves are based on trust. Money is
generally defined and seen as a medium of exchange, unit of account and a store of
value (Willesson, 2007; Ferguson, 2008; Sveriges Riksbank, 2011), and the trust
economic actors have in money determines the value of money. This implies that
the value of money is built on its ability to perform these three roles and that the
users’ view on this ability or the reliability of its function is a critical factor
determining the value of money and a payment service. In the case of payments,
consumers’ belief in the reliability of a particular means of payments – e.g. cash,
card or mobile payments – is an important factor in a study of the launch of a new
payment service.
IJBM The importance of trust in actors has been found to be important in studies of
32,2 electronic and mobile commerce because of the spatial and temporal separation
between buyer and seller when buyers are required to give delicate personal
information such as a telephone number or a credit card number to the seller
(Grabner-Kräuter and Kaluscha, 2003). Trust has been found to be a significant
determinant influencing customers’ willingness to conduct electronic commerce
154 transactions (Gefen et al., 2003; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000). And, research proposes that
perceived security and trust in vendors and payment systems is a significant
determinant of mobile commerce success (Siau et al., 2004; Xu and Gutiérrez, 2006).
As for security, consumers’ concerns about the privacy and security of mobile
payments are commonly related to authentication and confidentiality issues as well
as to concerns about secondary use and unauthorized access to payments and
user data (Dewan and Chen, 2005).
Similar to Mallat (2007) this paper proposes that both security in a technical sense
and trust in the actors providing a new mobile payment service will have a positive
effect on consumers’ attitudes to the new service but we will test these two factors
separately. As argued above, security and trust are similar but still different factors,
which have been found in a study by Yousafzai et al. (2003) and also discussed by
Gefen (2002). Yousafzai et al. (2003) propose that perceived security and perceived
privacy are the key elements trust in e-banking, and that trustworthiness attributes of
the bank providing these services in turn moderate these two variables. Another study
found that the degree to which users perceived there were security and privacy risks
had a negative relation to the use of online banking services (Lee, 2009). Similar to, for
instance, Kim et al. (2010b) as well as Yousafzai et al. (2010), we separate trust from
security. Trust is therefore primarily related to actors – banks, card companies
and operators – while security is defined to be a technical and system-related issue.
Given that banks are heavily restricted in terms of how information about consumers
can be used, e.g. via bank secrecy regulation, we can also infer that the issue of
concerns for privacy that has been found to be important for studies of mobile
payment services (Yousafzai et al., 2010). Our study acknowledges the difference
between privacy risks – which we frame as trust in actors (H6) and security – which
we frame as technological risks (H7):

H6. States that the higher the perceived trust by consumers in the actors that are
providing the mobile payment service, the more positive the individual’s
attitudes to adopt the service will be.

H7. States that the higher the perceived security risks (in a technological form) in
the mobile payment service, the more negative the individual’s attitudes to
adopt the service will be.

In addition to the factors above, the study will also test two demographic variables,
i.e. age and income. Age is an interesting variable potentially explaining the adoption
of new technologies and has received relatively little attention in TAM research
(Sun and Zhang, 2006). Many studies have a negative relation between age and
intention to adopt new technologies (Morris and Venkatesh, 2000; Morris et al., 2005).
However, a study of age in relation to technology adoption found that age had a
negative relation to internet self-efficacy but it did not have an effect on perceived ease
of use, perceived usefulness and intention to participate in online community web sites
(Chung et al., 2010). Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) on the other hand that the typical Mobile payment
user of mobile banking services is found in the age categories 30-39 and 40-49 years old services
while usage among both younger than 30 and older than 49 is lower. There does not
seem to be a perfect linear relationship between age and use of mobile banking
services. Based on these studies we can identify a need to test this further and include
age in our study. We phrase our hypothesis in a standard manner:
155
H8. States that the higher the age of the consumer, the more negative the
individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

Income has also found to be an important variable explaining adoption of electronic

banking services. Black et al. (2002) argue that wealthier consumers are more likely to
have a broader choice of channels for financial services available and thus also more
likely to adopt new channels. This result can be expected to be similar to the case of
mobile payments where wealthier consumers may be more likely to be able to use more
types of payment services. Karjaluoto et al. (2002) found that the use of online banking
had a positive connection to income. Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) also tested if
income had an effect on the use of mobile banking services but their study did not show
a statistically significant relation between household income and use of mobile
banking services. We therefore include income as one of our variable we test:

H9. States that the higher the income of the consumer, the more positive the
individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

Lastly, the study will test how a consumer’s previous use of a card payment service
affect her attitudes toward adopting the mobile payment service. We previously
discussed the importance of usage barriers in relation to H4 (see above) and we will
argue that consumers’ previous experience of financial innovations may decrease
usage barriers in relation to new innovations. We therefore want to control whether
there are differences in adoption related to previous use of payment services. In this
study we propose that previous use of card payments function as an indicator of
a lower ex ante barrier to adopting the mobile payment service. This is definitely
motivated in our study since the mobile payment service works as a card payment.
The infrastructure for card payments – the so-called four party model – is structuring
the mobile payment, and the major difference from a traditional card payment is
that it is the mobile phone application that initiates the process. Thus, if the consumer
were primarily using cash payments, the usage barrier can be expected to be higher:

H10. States that the higher the previous use of card payments by the consumer, the
more positive the individual’s attitudes to adopt the service will be.

This study define the dependent variable – consumers’ attitudes to adopting the mobile
payment service – similar to what has been done in previous research in this area[1].
The variable relates to consumers’ intention to use the mobile payment service
(Davis, 1989) (Table I).

Methodology
The collection of data was done through a collaborative effort including one bank, one
provider of the mobile payment service, one actor in the mobile operator industry and
IJBM myself. The foundation for this study is a proof of concept test of a new mobile
32,2 payment solution done in Sweden. The test was launched in November 2010 and
finalized in June 2011. During this test period there were 22 merchants that had
installed the mobile payment service in their stores and there were 294 active users
(consumers) that made 972 transactions during the test period. The transaction pattern
showed a slow start and most of the transactions were done in May and June 2011. The
156 author’s role in this project was to participate in the design of the concept test
and in the collection of consumer and merchant data with a particular focus on
consumers’ views.
The data collected include three different parts. The first part consisted of a
quantitative survey on expectations of the test before it was initiated which was sent to
merchants[2] and consumers. Unfortunately, the collection of pre-test expectation data
was delayed and once it was collected many of the respondents had already tried
the payment service and the data therefore became influenced by their initial use of the
service. It was no longer pure data on expectations. Moreover, the number of responses
in the pre-test survey was low, and the data on expectation is therefore not used in this
paper. The second part consisted of a quantitative survey on consumers’ attitudes
in relation to adopting the actual mobile payment service, which is the main data in
this study. Finally, the quantitative data was complemented by qualitative interviews
with consumers and merchants, but this data is not used in this study. This study is
using the data from the quantitative survey on attitudes toward adopting the mobile
payment service.
The survey includes responses from 169 consumers out of the sample of 294 active
users which means the response rate is very high, i.e. 57 percent. This group is
dominated by male (81 percent) and young people (48 percent is below 30 years of age
and 83 percent is below 40). The group is well educated (61 percent has a university
degree) but not well paid, which is explained by relative young ages of the respondents.
The respondents in the quantitative survey can be characterized as early adopters
(Rogers, 1995), as the recruitment process was aimed at consumers willing to try
a new service that was not yet offered to the market. Participants – merchants and
consumers – were recruited either by the company that developed the payment service
or the participating bank. Some participants also volunteered to participate after
having seen information on one of the two company’s web sites. The decision to join
was completely voluntary.
This set-up indicates that the group of respondents in the sample are interested in
mobile payment services and thus primarily being early adopters rather than a random

Adoption factor Proposed effect on attitudes towards adoption

Relative advantage þ
Costs 
Compatibility þ
Ease of use þ
Table I. Network externalities þ
Summary of the Trust in actors þ
hypotheses and Security risks 
the expected Age 
effect on attitudes Income þ
toward adoption Use of card payments þ
sample of users from the entire population. This selection bias, which of course is not Mobile payment
uncommon in studies of prototype testing of new products and services, implies that services
the results can be expected to be somewhat more positive toward the new mobile
payment service than what the average consumer in the entire population can be
expected to be. More particularly previous studies have found that early adopters tend
to relate their intention to adopt a service much to the ease of use of the service highly
while late adopters were found to put higher emphasis of usefulness of the service 157
in relation to their adoption (Kim et al., 2010a). We may therefore expect that ease of use
will have a relatively larger impact in our study than what a study of a representative
sample of an entire population of user would have.
The mobile payment service tested both blue tooth-based communication
and camera-based information transfer via Quick Response (QR) codes. In the end,
what worked best were QR-codes that were read by the camera in the mobile phone.
This identified and connected the consumer, the purchase and the merchant. The
actual payment was then done via pre-registered debit or credit cards. The payment
service provider had developed a unique POS-terminal which at that time was not
possible to integrate with the cash registration system.

Results from the study

The quantitative data were used to test the hypotheses presented and summarized in
Table II. The analysis is done with the help of a regression analysis model where the
dependent variable is the consumers’ attitudes toward the mobile payment service they
had tested and the independent variables are the ones listed in Tables II-V.
The regression analysis shows that the most important factors, i.e. the ones having
a statistically significant influence on consumers’ attitudes toward adopting the mobile
payment service, are ease of use, lack of security risks, age and income. As has been
found in many other studies ease of use is a critical variable explaining consumers’
intention to adopt a new technology and the results in our study supports findings
from previous studies, i.e. that there is a positive relation between ease of use and
intention to adopt. H4 is supported. That perceived security risks are low has a
positive relation to adoption, which also in line with previous research. H7 is
supported. The next variable found to influence adoption is age but the results are
contradictory to how H8 was formulated. Instead of a negative relation between age
and adoption we find a positive relation in our study, i.e. the older the consumer, the
higher is the intention to adopt. The last finding in the regression analysis relates to
income. The hypothesis (H9) states that the higher the income, the more likely is the
intention to adopt but our study has the opposite result. We find that the higher the
income, the less likely is the intention to adopt. The regression model is robust and has
a strong explanatory power.
To test the model further a regression analysis was done in which variables where
entered or removed based on their explanatory power in the model[3] (Table VI). This
analysis indicates that three variables had strong explanatory power: relative
advantage, ease of use and trust in actors. Relative advantage in terms of faster
payments via the mobile has a positive relation to adoption, which provides support
for H1. Ease of use shows the same result as in the first regression model, which is
supporting H4. In addition, trust in actors – especially banks – has a positive relation
to intention to adopt which is supporting H6. The regression model is robust and has a
strong explanatory power (Table VII).
IJBM Dependent variable
32,2
Attitudes What is your overall experience of the mobile payment
service you have tested? (AttitudeX (scale 1-7;
standardized))
Independent variables
Relative advantage In your experience, was it slower or faster to pay products Faster2payX (scale 1-7;
158 and/or services with this mobile payment service if standardized)
compared to a regular card payment? (Faster2payX
(scale 1-7))
Costs How important barrier is each of the following for your BarrinitcostX (scale 1–7;
future use of mobile payments? standardized)
That the initial costs (for instance a new mobile phone) are BarrfeesX (scale 1-7;
too high. (BarrinitcostX (scale 1-7)) standardized)
That continuous fees and costs are too high. (BarrfeesX
(scale 1-7))
Compatibility If I started to use this payment service regularly, I believe I EffectcontrolX (scale 1-7;
would get better control of my own finances (EffectcontrolX standardized)
(scale 1-7)). EffectsatisfiedX (scale 1-7;
If I started to use this payment service regularly, I believe I standardized)
would become a more satisfied customer (EffectsatisfiedX
(scale 1-7))
Ease of use In your experience, was it easy or difficult to learn how to Easy2learnX (scale 1-7;
use this mobile payment service? (Easy2learnX standardized)
(scale 1-7)) Easier2payX (scale 1-7;
In your experience, was it easier or more difficult to pay standardized)
products and/or services with this mobile payment service if
compared to a regular card payment? (Easier2payX
(scale 1-7))
Network externalities How important barrier is the following factor for your BarrfewplacesX (scale 1-7;
future use of mobile payments: That there are too few standardized)
merchants and stores that accept this payment service. BarrfriendsX (scale 1-7;
(BarrfewplacesX (scale 1-7)) standardized)
How important barrier is the following factor for your
future use of mobile payments: that my family members
and/or friend do not use it. (BarrfriendsX (scale 1-7))
Trust in actors Who do you trust the most when it comes to handling your TrustbankX (scale 1-7;
payments standardized)
Your bank? (TrustbankX (scale 1-7)) TrustmobopX (scale 1-7;
Your mobile operator? (TrustmobopX (scale 1-7)) standardized)
Your card company? (TrustcardcompX (scale 1-7)) TrustcardcompX (scale 1-7;
standardized)
Perceived security In your experience, is this mobile payment service less Safer2payX (scale 1-7;
risks secure or more secure than a regular card payment? reverse coded)
(Safer2payX (scale 1-7)) BarrtrustX (scale 1-7;
How important barrier is the following factor for your standardized)
future use of mobile payments: that it is not possible
to trust this type of payment service. (BarrtrustX
(scale 1-7))
Age Which is your year of birth? Age (2011 – year of birth)
Income Which is your approximate annual income (before tax)? IncomeX (scale 1-7;
Payment tradition How often do you use cards today? standardized)
Table II. UsecardsX (scale 1-6;
The regression model standardized)
 Faster Barrinit- Barr- Effect- Effect- Easy Easier Barrfew- Barr- Trust- Trust- Trust- Safer Barr- Use-
2-payX costX feesX controlX satisfiedX 2-learnX 2-payX placesX friendsX bankX mobopX cardcompX 2-payX trustX Age IncomeX cardsX

Faster2-payX 
Barrinit-costX þ 0.136 
(0.105)
n 87
Barr-feesX þ 0.151 þ 0.653 
(0.081) (0.000)
n 87 n 123
Effect-controlX þ 0.090 þ 0.265 þ 0.171 
(0.199) (0.002) (0.029)
n 90 n 121 n 124
Effect-satisfiedX þ 0.186 þ 0.071 þ 0.082 0.435 
(0.043) (0.225) (0.190) (0.000)
n 86 n 115 n 117 n 121
Easy2-learnX þ 0.311 þ 0.038 0.025 0.134 þ 0.038 
(0.001) (0.359) (0.405) (0.096) (0.360)
n 97 n 93 n 93 n 96 n 91
Easier2-payX þ 0.654 þ 0.084 þ 0.089 0.054 þ 0.095 þ 0.262 
(0.000) (0.216) (0.202) (0.302) (0.188) (0.004)
n 96 n 90 n 90 n 93 n 89 n 100
Barrfew-placesX þ 0.113 þ 0.010 þ 0.141 0.062 þ 0.074 þ 0.014 þ 0.064 
(0.140) (0.454) (0.055) (0.241) (0.209) (0.447) (0.266)
n 94 n 126 n 129 n 131 n 123 n 100 n 97
Barr-friendsX 0.096 þ 0.400 þ 0.446 þ 0.156 þ 0.030 0.094 0.098 þ 0.137 
(0.185) (0.000) (0.000) (0.042) (0.373) (0.184) (0.179) (0.060)
n 89 n 122 n 123 n 124 n 119 n 94 n 91 n 129
Trust-bankX 0.016 0.042 0.036 0.145 0.090 þ 0.142 0.046 þ 0.005 0.110 
(0.439) (0.315) (0.341) (0.047) (0.158) (0.076) (0.325) (0.477) (0.102)
n 97 n 131 n 132 n 135 n 127 n 103 n 100 n 140 n 134
Trust-mobopX 0.027 þ 0.017 0.101 0.0.053 þ 0.126 þ 0.030 0.018 þ 0.001 0.055 þ 0.458 
(0.397) (0.425) (0.127) (0.273) (079) (0.384) (0.430) (0.494) (0.264) (0.000)
n 95 n 130 n 130 n 133 n 126 n 101 n 98 n 138 n 133 n 143

(continued)
services

Correlation matrix
Mobile payment

(independent variables)
Table III.
159
 32,2

160
IJBM

Table III.
Faster Barrinit- Barr- Effect- Effect- Easy Easier Barrfew- Barr- Trust- Trust- Trust- Safer Barr- Use-
2-payX costX feesX controlX satisfiedX 2-learnX 2-payX placesX friendsX bankX mobopX cardcompX 2-payX trustX Age IncomeX cardsX

Trust-cardcompX 0.073 0.036 þ 0.025 0.099 þ 0.028 þ 0.012 0.034 0.031 0.001 þ 0.731 þ 0.443 
(0.238) (0.341) (0.388) (0.125) (0.376) (0.453) (0.370) (0.359) (0.493) (0.000) (0.000)
n 97 n 131 n 132 n 135 n 127 n 103 n 100 n 140 n 134 n 145 n 143
Safer2-payX þ 0.231 0.084 0.167 0.024 þ 0.198 0.037 þ 0.296 0.170 0.179 0.100 0.143 0.087 
(0.016) (0.231) (0.067) (0.416) (0.039) (0.364) (0.003) (0.058) (0.053) (0.176) (0.094) (0.210)
n 86 n 79 n 82 n 83 n 81 n 89 n 87 n 86 n 83 n 89 n 87 n 89
Barr-trustX 0.032 þ 0.514 þ 0.546 þ 0.115 0.008 þ 0.004 0.048 þ 0.255 þ 0.416 0.64 0.196 0.115 0.342 
(0.379) (0.000) (0.000) (0.098) (0.467) (0.485) (0.322) (0.002) (0.000) (0.229) (0.012) (0.092) (0.001)
n 92 n 125 n 126 n 127 n 121 n 96 n 94 n 132 n 128 n 136 n 134 n 136 n 85
Age 0.053 0.189 0.044 0.149 þ 0.115 0.199 0.091 0.108 0.256 þ 0.149 þ 0.133 þ 0.125 þ 0.113 0.035 
(0.304) (0.015) (0.309) (0.042) (0.041) (0.022) (0.183) (0.103) (0.001) (0.037) (0.057) (0.066) (0.145) (0.345)
n 97 n 131 n 132 n 135 n 127 n 103 n 100 n 140 n 134 n 145 n 143 n 145 n 89 n 136
IncomeX 0.020 0.163 þ 0.035 0.026 þ 0.113 0.180 0.076 0.065 0.138 þ 0.093 0.039 þ 0.079 þ 0.342 0.091 þ 0.531 
(0.426) (0.037) (0.353) (0.385) (0.112) (0.043) (0.240) (0.232) (0.064) (0.144) (0.329) (0.182) (0.001) (0.155) (0.000)
n 86 n 121 n 121 n 124 n 117 n 92 n 89 n 129 n 124 n 133 n 132 n 133 n 78 n 125 n 133
Use-cardsX 0.085 þ 0.060 .075 þ 0.140 0.014 þ 0.087 0.017 þ 0.139 þ 0.010 þ 0.103 0.033 þ 0.075 0.037 þ 0.030 þ 0.019 þ 0.169 
(0.203) (0.247) (0.195) (0.052) (0.436) (0.190) (0.435) (0.051) (0.456) (0.109) (0.348) (0.185) (0.365) (0.365) (0.410) (0.026)
n 97 n 131 n 132 n 135 n 127 n 103 n 100 n 140 n 134 n 145 n 143 n 145 n 89 n 136 n 145 n 133

Note: The data in each square is correlation coefficient (at the top); level of statistical significance (in parenthesis); and number of observations
Dependent variable Construct R2 of model Adjusted R2 of model SE of the estimate F ratio

Attitudes AttitudeX 0.507 0.381 0.95333 4.045 (0.000)

Independent variables Items or constructs Standardized b Significance Toleranceb
Constant 0,161
Block 1: relative advantage Faster2payX þ 0.237 0.058 2.044
Block 2: costs BarrinitcostX 0.164 0.195 2.142
BarrfeesX 0.096 0.437 2.060
Block 3: compatibility EffectcontrolX þ 0.084 0.441 1.578
EffectsatisfiedX þ 0.030 0,.780 1.526
Block 4: ease of use Easy2learnX þ 0.404 0.000 1.396
Easier2payX þ 0.038 0.748 1.925
Block 5: network externalities BarrfewplacesX þ 0.051 0.600 1.259
BarrfriendsX 0.013 0.906 1.545
Block 6: trust in actors TrustbankX þ 0.214 0.131 2.657
TrustmobopX þ 0.030 0.789 1.691
TrustcardcompX 0.007 0.956 2.400
Block 7: perceived security risks Safer2payX þ 0.234 0.038 1.659
BarrtrustX þ 0.203 0.108 2,101
Block 8: age, income and use of card payments Age þ 0.263 0.021 1.673
IncomeX 0.363 0.003 1.841
UsecardsX þ 0.117 0.213 1.183
Notes: aMissing values are deleted pairwise, i.e. a case is excluded from the graph if the case is missing a value for any of the variables actually used in the
graph. For example, if variables x, y, and z are used in the graph, a case is excluded only if it is missing a value for one of these variables. The missingness of
other variables is not considered. This is the default behavior for handling missing values in SPSS; btolerance is shown in the form of Variance Inflation Factor
(VIF) values (1/(1r2)). As a general rule, VIF values below 10 indicate there is no problem with multicollinearity and given that all values in this regression are
below 2, we can exclude the risk of multicollinearity
services

analysis (SPSS)a
Results from regression
Table IV.
Mobile payment

161
IJBM The regression models indicate that the statistically significant explanatory variables
32,2 are ease of use, relative advantage, trust, security risks, age and income. Four
variables – ease of use, relative advantage, trust and security risks – show results that
are in line with what we expected. This means that our study showed strong support
for H4. In addition there were support for H1, H6 and H7. Two variables – age and
income – show results that contradictory to H8 and H9. Variables as costs,
162 compatibility, network externalities and previous use of card payments were not
found to influence attitudes toward adoption in our study. There is no support for H2,
H3, H5 and H10.

Discussion and conclusions

It should be acknowledged that the respondents in this study can be characterized as
early adopters which imply that we can expect their attitudes toward adopting a
mobile payment service to be somewhat more positive than what can be expected from
a random sample of respondents from a larger population. A previous study (Kim et al.,
2010a) has, for instance, found that the ease of use is relatively more important factor
for early adopters than what it is for late adopters, and we should expect this variable
to have a strong effect on adoption. We should therefore be somewhat cautious about
generalizing the results from this study to a larger population of payment service
users. The results in this study are nevertheless interesting since it is testing

ANOVA
Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Table V. Regression 62,500 17 3.676 4.045 0.000

Analysis of variance Residual 60,892 67 0.909
(ANOVA) Total 123,393 84

Dependent Adjusted R2 of SE error of

variable Construct R2 of model model the estimate F ratio

Attitudes AttitudesX 0,363 0,340 0,98488 15,403 (0,000)

Independent Items or
variables constructs Standardized b Significance Toleranceb
Constant 0.382
Relative Faster2payX
advantage þ 0.276 0.004 1.103
Ease of use Easy2learnX þ 0.395 0.000 1.115
Trust in actors TrustbankX þ 0.216 0.018 1.012
Notes: aMissing values are deleted pairwise, i.e. a case is excluded from the graph if the case is
missing a value for any of the variables actually used in the graph. For example, if variables x, y, and z
Table VI. are used in the graph, a case is excluded only if it is missing a value for one of these variables. The
Results from regression missingness of other variables is not considered. This is the default behavior for handling missing
analysis (SPSS) values in SPSS; btolerance is shown in the form of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values (1/(1r2)). As
with a stepwise a general rule, VIF values below 10 indicate there is no problem with multicollinearity and given that
enter/remove modela all values in this regression are below 2, we can exclude the risk of multicollinearity.
 Regression 1 Regression 2
Mobile payment
Hypotheses (enter model) (stepwise model) Result services
H1: the higher the perceived relative Faster2payX Support in 2nd
advantages of a mobile payment service, ( þ 0,276)** model
the more positive the individual’s attitudes
to adopt the service will be
H2: the higher the perceived cost of a
163
mobile payment service, the more
negative the attitudes to adopting the
service will be
H3: the higher the perceived compatibility
between a users’ preferences and the
mobile payment service, the more positive
the individual’s attitudes to adopt the
service will be
H4: the higher the ease of use of the Easy2learnX Easy2learnX Support in both
service, the more positive the individual’s ( þ 0,404)** ( þ 0,395)** models
attitudes to adopt the service will be
H5: the greater the network externalities
of a new mobile payment service, the more
positive the individual’s attitudes to adopt
the service will be
H6: the higher the perceived trust by TrustbankX Support in
consumers in the actors providing the ( þ 0,216)* second model
mobile payment service, the more positive
the individual’s attitudes to adopt the
service will be
H7: the higher the perceived security risks Safer2payX Support in first
(in a technological form) in the mobile ( þ 0.234)* model
payment service, the more negative the
individual’s attitudes to adopt the service
will be
H8: the higher the age of the consumer, the Age ( þ 0,263)* Support in first
more negative the individual’s attitudes to model (but
adopt the service will be contrary to H8)
H9: the higher the income of the consumer, IncomeX Support in first
the more positive the individual’s attitudes (0,363)** model (but
to adopt the service will be contrary to H9)
H10: the higher the previous use of card
payments by the consumer, the more
positive the individual’s attitudes to adopt Table VII.
the service will be Summary of results that
showed statistically
Note: *,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively significant results

hypotheses from previous research in a quantitative study of a genuine proof of

concept test of a mobile payment service in Sweden.
Ease of use was the most important factor for the adoption of mobile payment
services in our study, which is in line with findings in many studies (Mallat, 2007;
Davis, 1989; Rogers, 1995; Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005; Teo and Pok, 2003; Ram
and Sheth, 1989; Laukkanen and Kiviniemi, 2010). We interpret this result as an
indication of how easy it is to learn to use a new service. This in turn implies that the
IJBM entire adoption process could be framed as a consumer learning process, where the
32,2 adoption process is governed by consumers’ conditions for and ability to learn how to
use the mobile payment service as such. This is an important finding given that people
have a long experience with cash and card payments which create significant learning
problems when they try a new type of payment service. Since the respondents in this
study are early adopters and therefore likely to be familiar with new technologies as
164 well as generally positive toward learning how to use new technologies, we can infer
that ease of use also is important for late adopters.
Relative advantage was found to be a critical factor for the adoption of mobile
payment services. This is not surprising given that consumers are bound to compare
the new service with the existing means of payments they use today. The results from
this study are in line with discussions by Mallat (2007) and supports Dahlberg et al.’s
(2008, p. 178) proposition that studies of mobile payment services must consider the
impact traditional payment services has on the adoption of mobile payment services.
If the new service is not better – in some respect – than the payment service
currently used, there is simply no reason to start using it. Here it is interesting to
note that both consumers and merchants use card transactions as a benchmark
for the mobile payment service. The quantitative and qualitative data showed
that consumers and merchants believe that mobile payments should be at least as
quick, at least as simple, at least as inexpensive and at least as secure as a card
payment in order to be attractive! If it fails in these dimensions they are less likely
to start using it.
Both trust – trust in actors – and perceived security risks were found to be
important factors in consumers’ adoption process. These results are in line with
previous research and what we expected. It is interesting to note, however, that future
studies should continue separating trust in actors from perceived security risks. There
is no correlation at all between those two factors in this study. Our study confirms
research indicating these are two separate but of course-related factors (see e.g.
Yousafzai et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2010b; Yousafzai et al., 2010; Mallat, 2007) belief
that they are two different factors. Both of the two are significant on our study even if
these results turn up in different studies. These indications are in harmony with a
general definition of what makes money useful or not. It is the trust in the one
guaranteeing the value of money – be it the central bank or the card payment
framework provider – in combination with technologically related security risk that are
the most important aspects of trust.
Two factors – age and income – were found to have statistically significant
explanatory power in the first regression model. Interestingly both of them show
results that are not what we would expect. Age is positively related to evaluation of the
mobile payment service which indicates that older users are generally more positive
toward the service. The initial belief, however (as expressed in H8) would be that
young people would tend to be more positive than older people. Having said this, we
must bear in mind that the sample is consisting of generally young respondents where
the average age is around 32 years and the median age is 30 years. All in all, 83 percent
of the respondents are below 40 years old and the age differences are not great. We
therefore argue that these results are in line with findings by Laukkanen and Pasanen
(2008) that the relation between age and attitudes toward adopting mobile payment
services is not linear. It is more complex than that and other variables like, for instance,
ease of use is more important. The discussion of age could also be related to the
discussion of the second demographic variable, i.e. income.
 As for income the results are not in line with the hypothesis. Instead it is in line with Mobile payment
the results in Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008). In our study, income is negatively related services
to evaluation of the service. One interpretation of this can be that the level of
expectations may increase as the level of income increases. If a higher income leads
to more trials of new products and services in general (which is the argument in Black
et al., 2002), it may also make a consumer more demanding when trying the next new
service. But we should be cautious about the findings related to income as the sample 165
has a strong over-representation of students and that the income level of the sample
therefore is rather low. The average income for the entire population of Sweden was
around 340,800 SEK per year (before taxes) in 2010 according to Statistics Sweden[4]
and in this sample there are 53 percent of the respondents in the sample that has an
annual income below 340,000 SEK per year. In the end we can conclude that our study
does not indicate a direct, positive linear relationship between income and attitudes
toward adopting a new payment service.
The lack of results in relation to costs (H2) could be that the cost of the mobile
payment service as such was free during the test period and the banks and service
providers had not specified whether this service would incur a fee and in this case how
large this would be. Consumers therefore were not exposed to a real cost in this test.
There is reason to believe, however, that the actual cost of a new mobile payment
service will have a large impact on their adoption process. Especially given that
consumers in Sweden can access cash without a visible direct fee and therefore tend to
have an expectation that these services should not be too costly (Arvidsson, 2013).
As for compatibility (H3) one may believe that the effects from compatibility,
i.e. how the service relates to consumers overall use of other services, were not
transparent in this test since the mobile payment service was tested as a single, unique
service as such and was not included in a larger set of other financial or merchant
services. The set-up did not allow for positive effects from compatibility with other
consumer services.
That network externalities (H5) did not show strong results could also be a result
from the set-up the proof of concept test in itself. If compared to alternative payment
services such as cash or card payments, the relatively small number of merchants – 22
altogether – and that it was not possible to use the service for person-to-person
payments set a limit to the potential network economics in this test.
The respondents were generally frequent users of card payments (H10) which can
explain why the variable previous use of card payments did not stand out in this test.
The relative differences in the sample on previous card usage were small. All in all,
we note that four factors – costs, compatibility, network externalities and previous use
of card payments – did not show strong results in this study but we can nevertheless
not discard the potential importance of these factors. Additional studies could aim to
test this further.

Implications for theory and research

Given the results from this study, this paper will conclude that theoretical frameworks
underlying research on consumer adoption of mobile payment services needs to be
discussed. Many studies are based on theories on technology adoption and innovation
diffusion models (e.g. Mallat, 2007; Gefen et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2003; Teo and Pok, 2003;
Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 1995). Such theoretical frameworks are – more or
less implicit – building on the idea that an innovation is born via an entrepreneur or
inside a larger firm and the main objective thereafter is to diffuse this innovation to the
IJBM market and/or to persuade consumers to adopt the innovation. The underlying
32,2 assumption is that consumers are rather passive actors during the innovation process
and then make their decision on whether to use the innovation or not once the product
and/or service is offered to them. It is the basic characteristics of the consumer in term
of willingness to adopt that make the difference. This study does not disclaim these
views but would like to add a discussion of how models in research on mobile payment
166 innovations may include a perspective where consumers play an active and interactive
role in the process of innovation. There is a need for research related to how consumer
learn how to use and trust mobile payment services.
The importance of ease of use is an indication that consumer adoption (or not) is the
result from a learning process that is influenced by not only firms selling products
and services but also the consumers themselves. Given that ease of use – interpreted
as a result from a learning process – is the most important factors for consumer
adoption of mobile payment services, the paper will propose that future studies of
mobile payment services should turn to theories and models that acknowledge
the relationships between companies and consumers as a critical factor explaining
the success (or not) of mobile payment services. Future studies of mobile payment
services could turn to theories on networks and service management in which the
actual relationship in itself is a critical factor for understanding the success of
service offerings. Possible routes forward could be to turn to theories on service
management (Grönroos, 1982, 2006; Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Normann, 2001; Normann
and Ramirez, 1993).
Another conclusion is that a quantitative survey with a representative sample
should be done. There is a lack of studies on mobile payment services that collect
empirical data and is based on theory, and this study is one step to meet this call but
there is need for more studies of this kind. The study address uses a quantitative study
of consumers’ views on mobile payment services but it is limited in the sense that the
group of respondents is characterized as a group of early adopters. Even though this is
to be expected given that mobile payment services are in the process of being launched,
it would be insightful to see a quantitative study with a sample representing a larger
population. Such studies should also try to receive data on actual use of mobile
payment services.

Policy-oriented implications
Given these results and the discussion of a need for a change in theoretical frameworks
in this area of research, there are policy-oriented implications. If there is a general
societal benefit from reducing the share of cash-based payments in a society and
replacing them with electronic payments in the form of mobile payment services,
consumers and merchants must be convinced that ease of use is high, that there are
advantages of this service, that mobile payments are secure and that the actors
providing these services are trustworthy. Here, policy-makers may make a difference
by financing research on these issues but also work to clarify rules and regulations
related to responsibilities, insurance as well as criminal activities tied to mobile
payments. The Payment Service Directive (PSD) from the EU is one tool to achieve
this but the authorities in each specific country – like Sweden – must work to
implement PSD as well as its updated version – PSD 2 – that was finalized in
July 2013. The policy-makers could also aim to build better understanding of
needed regulations in a renewed business landscape around mobile payment
services.
 In the short run, the national governments must work to realize PSD (1 and 2), but Mobile payment
this implies they must engage in medium- to long-term efforts to renew the payment services
systems. The Central Bank in Sweden and the Swedish Governmental Agency for
Innovation Systems (VINNOVA) could drive research on solutions for mobile payment
services. Innovation agencies can work as “switch tenders” (Arvidsson and Mannervik,
2009) that enable actors in the payment system to realize renewal. Another task for
policy-makers could be to educate consumers on the social and economic benefits of 167
moving away from a cash-based payment system (see Segendorf and Jansson, 2012)
and start using mobile payment services instead of cash.
Notes
1. Following the recommendation by Turner et al. (2010), we initially aimed to collect data on
actual use of the service tested in this project but laws restricting the use of personal
information on bank transactions made this impossible.
2. The term merchants is used throughout the paper even though it includes different types of
such as restaurants, jewelry stores, pubs, grocery stores, clothes stores and fashion stores.
3. Variables were entered or removed in a stepwise manner where criteria for a variable to enter
the model was set at significance level 0,05 and criteria for a variable to be removed from the
model was set at significance level 0,10.
4. www.scb.se/default____2154.aspx

References
Arvidsson, N. (2013), “Det kontantlösa samhället – rapport från ett forskningsprojekt”, TRITA
IEO-R 2013:01, ISSN 1100-7982, ISBN 978-91-7501-631-3, INDEK, KTH.
Arvidsson, N. and Mannervik, U. (2009), “The innovation platform – enabling balance between
growth and renewal”, VINNOVA Report VR 2009:25, Stockholm, October.
Bergman, B., Guiborg, G. and Segendorf, B. (2007), “The costs of paying – private and social costs
of cash and card”, Working Paper Series No. 212, Sveriges Riksbank, Stockholm.
Black, N.J., Lockett, A., Ennew, C., Winklhofer, H. and McKechnie, S. (2002), “Modelling consumer
choice if distribution channels: an illustration from financial services”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 161-173.
Carlsson, C., Walden, P. and Bouwman, H. (2006), “Adoption of 3G þ services in Finland”,
International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 369-385.
Chung, J.E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J. and McLaughlin, M. (2010), “Age differences in
perceptions of online community participation among non-users: an extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1674-1684.
Constantiou, I.D., Damsgaard, J. and Knutsen, L. (2006), “Exploring perceptions and use of mobile
services: user differences in an advancing market”, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 231-247.
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J. and Zmijewska, A. (2008), “Past, present and future of mobile
payments research: a literature review”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 165-181.
Danmarks Nationalbank (2011), Omkostninger ved betalinger i Danmark, Danmarks
Nationalbank, Copenhagen.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, September, pp. 319-340.
Dewan, S.G. and Chen, L.-d. (2005), “Mobile payment adoption in the USA: a cross-industry,
cross-platform solution”, Journal of Information Privacy & Security Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 4-28.
IJBM Economides, N. (1996), “The economics of networks”, International Journal of Industrial
Organization, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 673-699.
32,2
Ferguson, N. (2008), The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, Penguin Press,
London.
Flatraaker, D.-I. and Robinsson, P.E. (1995), Income, Costs, and Pricing in the Payment System,
Norges Bank Economic Bulletin , Oslo, Vol. 66, pp. 321-332.
168 Gardner, D., Johnson, F., Lee, M. and Wilkinson, I. (2000), “A contingency approach to
marketing high technology products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1053-1077.
Gefen, D. (2002), “Customer loyalty in e-commerce”, Journal of the Association of Information
Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 27-51.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping:
an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Ginsberg, A. and Venkatraman, N. (1985), “Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy:
a critical review of the empirical research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 421-434.
Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Kaluscha, E.A. (2003), “Empirical research in on-line trust: a review and
critical assessment”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 58 No. 6,
pp. 783-812.
Grönroos, C. (1982), “An applied service marketing theory”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 30-41.
Grönroos, C. (2006), “What Can a Service Logic Offer Marketing Theory?”, in Lusch, R.F. and
Vargo, S.L. (Eds), The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and
Directions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 354-364.
Humphrey, D., Willesson, M., Bergendahl, G. and Lindblom, T. (2006), “Benefits from a changing
payment technology in European banking”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 1631-1652.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Lang, K.R. (2005), “Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 7-23.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Lang, K.R., Takeda, Y. and Tuunainen, V.K. (2003), “Mobile commerce at
crossroads”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46 No. 12, pp. 41-44.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store”,
Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1 Nos 1-2, pp. 45-71.
Karjaluoto, H., Mattila, M. and Pento, T. (2002), “Factors underlying attitude formation
towards online banking in Finland”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 261-272.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010a), “An empirical examination of factors influencing the
intention to use mobile payment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 310-322.
Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N. and Kim, K.-S. (2010b), “An empirical study of customers’ perceptions
of security and trust in e-payment systems”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 84-95.
Kim, H.-W., Chan, H.C. and Gupta, S. (2007), “Value-based adoption of mobile internet:
an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Laukkanen, T. and Kiviniemi, V. (2010), “The role of information in mobile banking resistance”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 372-388.
Laukkanen, T. and Pasanen, M. (2008), “Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they
differ from other online users?”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 86-94.
Laukkanen, T. and Lauronen, J. (2005), “Consumer value creation in mobile banking services”, Mobile payment
International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 325-338.
services
Lee, M.-C. (2009), “Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM
and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit”, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 130-141.
Lee, M.S.Y., McGoldrick, P.J., Keeling, K.A. and Doherty, J. (2003), “Using ZMET to explore
barriers to the adoption of 3G mobile banking services”, International Journal of Retail & 169
Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 340-348.
Lopez-Nicolas, C., Molina-Castillo, F.J. and Bouwman, H. (2008), “As assessment of advanced
mobile services acceptance: contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models”,
Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 359-364.
Mallat, N. (2007), “Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments – A qualitative study”,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 413-432.
Mallat, N., Rossi, M. and Tuunainen, V.K. (2004), “Mobile banking services”, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 42-46.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions
of adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 192-223.
Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Age differences in technology adoption decisions:
implications for a changing work force”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 375-403.
Morris, M.G., Venkatesh, V. and Ackerman, P.L. (2005), “Gender and age differences in employee
decisions about new technologies: an extension to the theory of planned behavior”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Normann, R. (2001), Reframing Business – When the Map Changes the Landscape, Wiley,
Chichester.
Normann, R. and Ramirez, R. (1993), “Designing interactive strategy: from value chain to value
constellation”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 65-77.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjørnsen, H. (2005), “Intentions to use mobile services:
antecedents and cross-service comparisons”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 330-346.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Competitors and Industries,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Ram, S. and Sheth, J.N. (1989), “Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and
its solutions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 5-14.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Saaksjarvi, M. (2003), “Consumer adoptions of technological innovations”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Segendorf, B. and Jansson, T. (2012), “The cost of consumer payments in Sweden”, Working
Paper Series No. 262, Sveriges Riksbank, Stockholm, June.
Siau, K., Sheng, H., Nah, F. and Davis, S. (2004), “A qualitative investigation on consumer trust in
mobile commerce”, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 283-300.
Song, M., Parry, M.E. and Kawakami, T. (2009), “Incorporating network externalities into the
technology acceptance model”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 291-307.
Sun, H. and Zhang, P. (2006), “The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 53-78.
Sveriges Riksbank (2011), Den svenska finansmarknaden 2011, Sveriges Riksbank, Stockholm.
IJBM Szmigin, I. and Bourne, H. (1999), “Electronic cash: a qualitative assessment of its adoption”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 192-202.
32,2
Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage – a test of
competing models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-176.
Teo, T.S.H. and Pok, S.H. (2003), “Adoption of WAP-enabled mobile phones among internet
users”, Omega, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 483-498.
170 Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S. and Budgen, D. (2010), “Does the technology
acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review”, Information and
Software Technology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 463-479.
Van Hove, L. (1999), “Electronic money and the network externalities theory: lessons for real
life”, Netnomics, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 137-171.
Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic of marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Willesson, M. (2007), “Payment Efficiency and Payment Pricing – Four Essays”, Doctoral
Dissertation, Gothenburg University, BAS Publishing, Gothenburg.
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.
Xu, G. and Gutiérrez, J.A. (2006), “An exploratory study of killer applications and critical success
factors in M-commerce”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 63-79.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Foxall, G.R. and Pallister, J.G. (2010), “Explaining internet banking behavior:
theory of reasoned action. Theory of planned behavior, or technology acceptance model?”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1172-1202.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Pallister, J.G. and Foxal, G.R. (2003), “A proposed model of e-trust for electronic
banking”, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 847-860.
Zeithaml, V., Varadarajan, P. and Zeithaml, C. (1988), “The contingency approach: its foundations
and relevancy to theory building and research in marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 37-64.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.