International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

Predicting mobile wallet resistance: A two-staged structural equation

modeling-artificial neural network approach
Lai-Ying Leonga,*, Teck-Soon Hewb, Keng-Boon Ooic, June Wei (Jun)d
a
Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Universiti, Bandar Barat, 31900 Kampar, Perak, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Business and Information Science, UCSI University, No. 1 Jalan Menara Gading, UCSI Heights, 56000, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, W. P. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
d
Department of Management and MIS, University of West Florida, Bldg. 76A Room 325, 11000 University Pkwy., Pensacola, FL, 32514, USA

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The advancement in mobile technology has enabled the application of the mobile wallet or m-wallet as an
Mobile wallet resistance innovative payment method to substitute the traditional functions of the physical wallet. However, because of
Innovation resistance theory pro-innovation bias, scholars have a focus on the adoption of technology and very little attention has been given
Perceived novelty to the resistance of innovation, especially in the m-wallet context. This study addressed this absence by ex-
Socio-demographics
amining the inhibitors of m-wallet innovation adoption through the lens of innovation resistance theory (IRT).
Artificial neural network
By applying a sophisticated two-staged structural equation modeling-artificial neural network (SEM-ANN) ap-
proach, we successfully extended the IRT by integrating socio-demographics and perceived novelty. The study
has unveiled the noncompensatory and nonlinear relationships between the predictors and m-wallet resistance.
Significant predictors from SEM analysis were taken as the ANN model’s input neurons. According to the nor-
malized importance obtained from the multilayer perceptrons of the feed-forward-back-propagation ANN al-
gorithm, we found significant effects of education, income, usage barrier, risk barrier, value barrier, tradition
barrier, and perceived novelty on m-wallet innovation resistance. The ANN model can predict m-wallet in-
novation resistance with an accuracy of 76.4 %. We also discussed several new and useful theoretical and
practical implications for reducing m-wallet innovation resistance among consumers.

1. Introduction source of configurable resources e.g. Paytm). The m-wallet is a form of

The merging of mobile technologies and payment methods has
transformed traditional physical wallets into mobile wallets or m-wal-
lets (Sharma, Mangla, Luthra, & Al-Salti, 2018). This has revolutionized
the way payments were made as m-wallet has replaced the use of
various credit and debit cards. M-wallet supports a wide range of
monetary transactions such as consumer-to-business (C2B), consumer-
to-consumer (C2C), consumer-to-machine (C2M) and consumer to on-
line (C2O) (Shin, 2009). M-wallet technologies include direct carrier
billing (i.e. buyers make a purchases and the respective amount of
payments are directly deducted from the account), Quick Response
(QR) and barcodes (i.e. acts as an authentication for the monetary
transactions over the apps), Near Field Communication (NFC) (i.e.
monetary transfers from one to another in short-range distance e.g. NFC
payment system in Wal-Mart) and cloud-based solution (i.e. ubiquitous,
on-demand, and continuous network accessibility to a communal
mobile payment system. Generally, mobile payment systems can be
categorized into two types namely the proximity mobile payment
system and the general mobile payment system (Slade, Dwivedi, Piercy,
& Williams, 2015; Slade, Williams, Dwivedi, & Piercy, 2015). The
proximity mobile payment system uses barcode or Quick Response (QR)
code scanning (e.g. Starbucks, Pay Pal, and Kakao Talk), but NFC
technology is the universal technology standard for mobile payment
systems. Among the NFC mobile payment systems are Apple Pay,
Samsung Pay or Google Pay (Kim, Kim, & Kim, 2019).
Wadhera, Dabas, and Malhotra (2017) opined that there are four
types of m-wallet namely semi-closed wallets (i.e. reloadable but no
cash withdrawal or redemption, only allow us to buy products at
merchants that have partner-up with the m-wallet service provider e.g.
Paytm), semi-opened wallets (i.e. linked to a bank but no cash with-
drawal e.g. Airtel Money), open wallets (i.e. reloadable and linked with
a bank, allows cash withdrawal at retailer or agent outlets e.g. Vodafone

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Commerce & Accountancy, Faculty of Business and Finance, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman Kampar Campus, Jalan
Universiti, Bandar Barat, 31900 Kampar, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia.
E-mail addresses: lyennlly@gmail.com (L.-Y. Leong), hewtecksoon@gmail.com (T.-S. Hew), ooikengboon@gmail.com (K.-B. Ooi), jwei@uwf.edu (J. Wei).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102047
Received 26 April 2019; Received in revised form 25 November 2019; Accepted 26 November 2019
0268-4012/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Lai-Ying Leong, et al., International Journal of Information Management,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102047
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
M-pesa) and closed wallets (i.e. non-reloadable with cash and no cash
withdrawal e.g. Gift Vouchers). Examples of m-wallet are Google Pay,
Apple Pay, Android Pay, Samsung Pay, WeChat Pay, Ali Pay, Pay Pal,
MobiKwik, Paytm, Oxygen Wallet, Citrus Wallet, FreeCharge Wallet, Boost,
Touch-n-Go, etc. The adoption of m-wallet has been growing constantly
and Appendix A shows that Apple Pay is the most popular m-wallet
from 2015 to 2017 (Statista, 2018a). The non-cash transactions per-
formed via e-wallet were expected to reach 41.8 billion globally in 2016
and Appendix B shows the growth in percentage and volume of non-
cash transactions by region from 2012 to 2016 (Capgemini, 2018). Even
so, m-wallet technology has not been substantially exploited by con-
sumers or retailers owing to various inhibitors (Sharma et al., 2018). A
survey (Appendix C) by Statista (2018b) shows that the main reasons
for not using m-wallet are (1) it is easier to pay with card (2) m-wallet is
not safe and (3) cash is a preferred payment mode.
Studies on m-wallet can be broadly categorized into seven main
streams (Appendix D) namely (1) the acceptance (Amin, Azhar, Amin,
& Akter, 2016; Reddy et al., 2017) or intention to use (Slade, Dwivedi
et al., 2015; Slade, Williams et al., 2015; Tang, Lai, Law, Liew, & Phua,
2014) (2) adoption of m-wallet (Amoroso & Magnier-Watanabe, 2012;
Chawla & Joshi, 2019; Kapoor, Dwivedi, & Williams, 2015; Madan &
Yadav, 2016; Patil, Rana, & Dwivedi, 2018; Sharma, Sharma, &
Dwivedi, 2019; Shaw, 2015; Slade, Dwivedi, Williams, & Piercy, 2016)
(3) the inhibitors (Sharma et al., 2018), (4) the rejection (Swilley,
2010) toward m-wallet, (5) satisfaction in using m-wallet (Amoroso &
Ackaradejruangsri, 2019), (6) intention to switch to m-wallet
(Alaeddin, Altounjy, Zainudin, & Kamarudin, 2018) and (7) require-
ments for the m-wallet ecosystem (Casal et al., 2017).
Though there are several studies on the adoption and acceptance of
m-wallets, studies on what inhibits consumers from using m-wallets are
very limited. An existing study (Sharma et al., 2018) on the inhibitors of
m-wallet is a descriptive study based on a literature review that was not
supported by any theory and was not empirically validated. Hence, the
findings from this study are insufficient to explain the causality of the
relationships that lead to m-wallet resistance. Therefore, there is an
immediate need to conduct an explanatory study that is theory-driven
to provide more understanding that is theoretical and insight that is
validated by empirical evidence from scholars and practitioners.
The significance of this research is three-pronged. Firstly, this re-
search can address the gap that exists in the extant m-wallet literature
by offering empirical evidence and theoretical supports on the ante-
cedents of m-wallet inhibitors. Secondly, the study uses an SEM-ANN
approach in capturing linear-nonlinear and non-compensatory relations
between the exogenous and the endogenous variables. With this ap-
proach, the complexity of consumers’ decision-making on resistance
toward m-wallet is better explained. In a non-compensatory model, a
reduction in one factor (e.g. value barrier) cannot be neutralized by an
increase in other factors (e.g. risk barrier). Thirdly, the study extended
the Innovation Resistance Theory (IRT) by integrating perceived no-
velty and demographic external variables. With the extended IRT
model, the effects of demographics, perceived novelty, and IRT on
consumers’ resistance toward m-wallet can be better understood as the
model can provide a more holistic and comprehensive insight on what
triggers m-wallet resistance. Hence, the research question is:
“What are the effects of demographics, perceived novelty, and IRT
on consumers’ resistance toward m-wallet?”
There are several implications to m-wallet service providers, firms,
government policymakers, and other relevant stakeholders. First, m-
wallet service providers will be able to upgrade their services based on
the findings from this study. For example, m-wallet service providers
may find ways to reduce the barriers that currently exist in order to
facilitate consumers who are using m-wallet. Second, firms that accept
2
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
m-wallet may streamline their marketing strategies to make their
businesses m-wallet-friendly by reducing the potential barriers that may
deter consumers from buying their products or services via m-wallet
platforms. Third, government policymakers may consider using the
findings from this research to remove or at least minimize the hin-
drances in terms of laws and regulatory terms that may discourage the
use of m-wallet among consumers and firms. Finally, m-wallet software
designers and engineers may also utilize the outcomes of the study to
further improve the research and development (R&D) processes in
minimizing the potential barriers that may impede the adoption of m-
wallet.
M-wallet is especially relevant in our country as it is still in its in-
fancy where many players are spending lots of money to acquire cus-
tomers and merchants. The total of approved non-bank e-money issuers
has risen 33 % from 2016 to first half of 2018 because of high mobile
and Internet penetration rates, which are 64 % and 86 %, respectively,
and large young and tech-savvy population where 59 % are aged below
35 years old as well as high financial literacy where 85 % population is
banked (Tan, 2018). PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) estimates that the
m-wallet market is anticipated to grow to $20 billion USD by the year
2024 supported by favorable industry growth dynamics and market
potential (Tan, 2018). However, the m-wallet market is still in its in-
fancy with a low adoption rate, and, there are some key concerns such
as low merchant adoption, poor user interface, and security risks that
need to be appropriately addressed (Yap & Ng, 2019). In fact, 92.5 % of
transactions in Malaysia are in cash, though there is a 9 % annual
growth of electronic transactions (Nizam, Hwang, & Valaei, 2019).
Therefore, it is important to study the resistance in using m-wallet to
raise the adoption rate among consumers.
The paper is organized into several sections. The paper commences
with an introduction that is followed by a literature review of existing
research. Then, we propose the hypothesis and the research model. The
next sections are the research methodology and the results of the
findings. After presenting a discussion of the findings, the paper con-
cludes with limitations and future direction.
2. Background context
2.1. Existing m-wallet studies
Studies on m-wallet have gained growing attention from scholars
and have focused on seven main streams. In terms of user acceptance,
Shin (2009) used a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) with additional variables of social influence,
perceived security, self-efficacy, and trust. Based on 296 usable re-
sponses gathered from an online survey posted to discussion forums of
m-payment, m-commerce and mobile games in South Korea, the find-
ings indicated that there are significant influences of attitude, trust, and
perceived security on behavioral intention in m-wallet adoption. Ad-
ditionally, attitude is influenced by perceived usefulness and ease of use
whereas intention to use has a significant influence on use behavior.
The research model is capable of explicating 39 %, 72 % and 81 % of
the variance in attitude, usage intention, and user behavior respec-
tively. However, the study remains as an exploratory study as m-pay-
ments were not yet a mainstream phenomenon in the US (Shin, 2009).
Similarly, Amin et al. (2016) investigated the acceptance of m-
wallet using 104 respondents in Bangladesh with the technology ac-
ceptance model (TAM). The findings show that perceived usefulness
and attitude have significant impacts on behavioral intention while
perceived usefulness and ease of use have significant influences on at-
titude. The research model explained 31 % and 40 % variance in atti-
tude and intention to use. Likewise, Reddy et al. (2017) survey 102
Indian students to examine the determinants that lead to acceptance of
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
m-wallet. Results from logistic regression and SEM showed that fast
service, direct operator billing, ease of use and promotions and offers
significantly influence m-wallet acceptance.
Conversely, Tang et al. (2014) studied Gen-Y’s intention to use m-
wallet in Malaysia by applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) model. Based on responses from 418
smartphone users, it was revealed that performance and effort ex-
pectancy, hedonic motivation, facilitating conditions, and habits have
significant influences on behavioral intention. The research model can
elucidate 53 % variance in intention to use m-wallet.
In terms of m-wallet adoption, Shaw (2015) used a modified UTAUT
model, and based on 411 participants from the United States, the author
found that word of mouth has a significant effect on trust and facil-
itating conditions. Besides, trust and facilitating conditions also have
significant effects on performance and effort expectancy, which even-
tually influence intention to use. The research model may explain 18 %,
23 %, 59 %, 61 %, and 60 % of the variance in trust, facilitating con-
ditions, effect expectancy, performance expectancy, and intention to
use m-wallet, respectively.
Shaw (2014) further investigated the mediating effect of trust on m-
wallet adoption in Canada. Drawing from the TAM model, the results
unveiled that perceived usefulness is the main factor that influences m-
wallet adoption that is mediated by trust. Using an online survey with
random sampling, 284 usable samples were gathered and analyzed with
Partial Least Squares (PLS). The results showed that there are sig-
nificant associations between perceived usefulness, trust, informal
learning and intention to use m-wallet. In addition, information
learning also positively influences perceived usefulness. However, there
are no significant effects of perceived ease of use and m-wallet self-
efficacy on the intention to use and perceived usefulness respectively.
In the same vein, Rathore (2016) administered a questionnaire to
132 smartphone users in India, and based on the ANOVA result, the
author found insignificant differences between male and female users.
Furthermore, convenience in online buying, brand loyalty, and useful-
ness of the digital wallet are the main adoption factors. Safety and se-
curity of funds are the main issues, and dependency on the Internet
connection is the main reason for low adoption. Finally, Amoroso and
Magnier-Watanabe (2012) studied m-wallet adoption in the Japanese
context. Their conceptual paper suggests an integrated model consisting
of perceived risk, facilitating conditions, perceived ease of use, per-
ceived security and privacy, the attractiveness of alternatives, trust,
perceived value, perceived usefulness, attitude and actual usage.
In terms of satisfaction in using m-wallet, Amoroso and
Ackaradejruangsri (2019) carried out a study to unveil the factors that
affect consumers’ satisfaction and loyalty with m-wallet application in
Thailand. Altogether, 461 usable samples were gathered in the survey.
Drawing from the consumer satisfaction model, the findings showed
that consumers’ attitudes and personal innovativeness have strong in-
fluences on satisfaction and loyalty. Similarly, there exists a significant
association between satisfaction and loyalty in m-wallet usage.
Alternatively, Alaeddin et al. (2018) studied the factors that influ-
ence consumers’ intentions to shift from a physical wallet to an m-
wallet in Malaysia. Drawing from the TAM model and based on 98
random samples using online surveys, the results indicated that per-
ceived usefulness and ease of use significantly affect consumers’ atti-
tudes toward switching while attitudes significantly influence intention
to switch to m-wallet, and this relationship is moderated by perceived
risk.
From another viewpoint, Casal et al. (2017) studied the require-
ments for the m-wallet ecosystem in Portugal based on an action-re-
search that is user-centered and iterative. Using a functional prototype
called weWallet and focus group discussion; the findings revealed that
the requirements for the m-wallet ecosystem consist of data storage,
3
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
processing, security, interfaces, ID information systems, social net-
works, billing software, Paypal, and credit cards.
From the perspective of m-wallet rejection, Swilley (2010) analyzed
the data of 226 students and 480 consumers in the United States with
an extended TAM. The results showed that a wallet phone is not re-
garded as useful or easy to use (Swilley, 2010). A wallet phone is “a
mobile phone that is embedded with a smart chip to allow consumers to
store private information as is contained in their wallet and may be
used as a mobile wallet without having to use credit or debit cards by
waving the wallet phone at the payment machine” (Swilley, 2010, p. 1).
It was discovered that perceived risk significantly influences the atti-
tude that poses a negative effect on behavioral intention. The study also
showed a moderating effect of innovation resistance toward the asso-
ciation between attitude and perceived usefulness (Swilley, 2010).
Concerning m-wallet resistance, Sharma et al. (2018) engaged 20
experts in financial services to study the inhibitors of m-wallet in Oman.
From the results of the interpretive structural modeling in tandem with
fuzzy MICMAC (“Matriced’ Impacts Croise´s Multiplication Applique´e
a UN Classement”) of the experts’ feedback, it was found that “Com-
plexity of new technology”, “Anxiety toward new technology”, “Lack of
awareness of mobile wallet benefits” and “Lack of new technology
skills” are key barriers to m-wallet adoption. However, the results may
be biased because the developed model used experts’ feedback instead
of users’ (Sharma et al., 2018). The main shortcoming is the lack of
theoretical underpinning that can explain the causality of the inhibitors
toward resistance to m-wallet, especially from the users’ perspective.
Hence, the findings are insufficient to explain the mechanism that leads
to consumers’ resistance toward m-wallet. In order to address the ex-
isting literature void, it is imperative to carry out a study to fulfill the
research gap and further expand our understanding of m-wallet re-
sistance. A summary of the extant m-wallet studies is shown in Ap-
pendix E.
2.2. Innovation resistance theory
Innovation resistance is consumers’ opposition toward innovation
because of potential change in the existing state of satisfaction or
contradictions in beliefs (Chen & Kuo, 2017; Ram & Sheth, 1989). In-
novation resistance is referred to as “the resistance offered by con-
sumers to innovation, either because it poses potential changes from a
satisfactory status quo or because it conflicts with their belief structure”
(El Mhamdi, Wolfcarius-Khiari, Mhalla, Ben Salem, & Soltani, 2011).
Resistance will occur once the innovation interrupts consumers’ norms,
traditions, habits, or routines or leads to conflicts with consumers’ faith,
belief, and values (Ma & Lee, 2019). Chen, Nayak, and Xu (2010)
opined that the majority of consumers are unwilling to change and the
propensity of upholding the status quo appears more rational and ty-
pical. Existing research on innovations have primarily concentrated on
motivators and drivers of adoption and have largely ignored the in-
hibitors or resistances that impede the adoption of innovations (Enkel,
Heil, Hengstler, & Wirth, 2017; Ma & Lee, 2019). This situation occurs
because of pro-innovation bias whereby scholars presume that the in-
novations are nice and ought to be adopted by consumers eventually
(Snyder, 1961). Understanding the reasons behind consumers’ reluctant
to the adoption of innovation is important as this awareness may assist
businesses in warranting the success in designing and developing new
products and reducing the high failure rate (Snyder, 1961). Initially,
innovation resistance was categorized into three classes, namely re-
jection, postponement, and opposition (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). The
extreme form of innovation resistance in which consumers reject in-
novation in mass is rejection. A more moderate form of innovation
resistance is a postponement in which consumers postpone their deci-
sion in adopting an innovation albeit they may find it acceptable. The
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
last form of innovation resistance is opposition in which consumers may
try out the innovation prior to a final rejection as an innovation that is
opposed by some consumers and does not seem to give a distinct ad-
vantage that really benefits them, but instead, consumers actually
consider it a relative disadvantage (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998). More re-
cently, innovation resistance has been classified as passive, active, or
very active (El Mhamdi et al., 2011). Passive resistance exists when
consumers feel unwilling to adopt an innovation while active resistance
happens when they postpone their adoption decisions, and the re-
sistance may be very active when they decide to go against the adoption
of the innovation (Mani & Chouk, 2017). Sources of passive resistance
include an inclination to resist changes and status quo satisfaction while
sources of active resistance consist of psychological barriers and func-
tional barriers (Talke & Heidenreich, 2014). In this study, the innova-
tion resistance is based on the more recent classification by El Mhamdi
et al. (2011).
El Mhamdi et al. (2011) suggested a holistic theory to explicate the
factors underpinning consumers’ resistance to innovation, a theory that
is called the innovation resistance theory (IRT). It is assumed that
consumers’ resistance toward innovation may be classified into psy-
chological barriers and functional barriers. The theory suggests that
functional barriers will exert influence when consumers sense the
changes caused by the innovation while psychological barriers can be
activated when the innovation contradicts the established values or
beliefs (Ma & Lee, 2019). IRT has been extensively used in the literature
of marketing and business research to elucidate consumers’ resistance
toward various innovative products including mobile social commerce
(Hew, Leong, Tan, Ooi, & Lee, 2019). Functional barriers consist of risk,
usage, and value barriers while psychological barriers entail image and
tradition barriers (El Mhamdi et al., 2011).
Among the functional barriers, the usage barrier is a prerequisite
and the first to be removed to enhance consumers’ acceptance rate (El
Mhamdi et al., 2011). Usage barriers are the situations that occur when
innovations trigger inconvenience or incompatibility to the extant
practices, workflows, or habits as new products may disturb the usage
patterns (i.e. consumers’ personal routines or habits) and lead to more
problems instead of convenience (Kleijnen, Lee, & Wetzels, 2009). In
the m-wallet context, usage attributes such as perceived ease of use,
usefulness, and habit are regarded as crucial antecedents that can in-
fluence users’ intention to use m-wallet (Tang et al., 2014).
Value barriers refer to the costs of innovations and their perfor-
mance-to-price ratios in comparison to the existing substitutes (El
Mhamdi et al., 2011). This definition indicates that to attract customers
to change, the values generated by the innovative products should be
greater than that of the current products (Chen & Kuo, 2017). There-
fore, in the m-wallet context, if users perceive that the cost to perfor-
mance ratio is too high, then they will resist adopting m-wallet.
Risk barriers entail the uncertainties of any kind of innovations (El
Mhamdi et al., 2011). Initially, consumers may possess limited in-
formation to assess the innovations based on their performances,
complexities, and potential harms, and they would not adopt such in-
novations until the perceived risks are reduced via information gath-
ering (Ma & Lee, 2019). According to El Mhamdi et al. (2011), risk
barriers include social, functional, physical, and economic risks. The
risks the m-wallet users may encounter include functional risk because
of network instability and economic risk caused by cyber frauds or
phishing. Hence, if m-wallet users perceive that there are risks in using
m-wallet, they will be reluctant to use it.
Tradition barriers are triggered when innovations change con-
sumers’ existing culture and lead to conflict with it (Lian & Yen, 2014).
If consumers need to break the existing traditions or diverge from their
social norms in order to accept innovation, resistance will occur (Ma &
Lee, 2019). Nevertheless, consumers tend to be more comfortable in the
4
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
daily habits and routines and therefore are unwilling to change if they
are content with the present status quo (El Mhamdi et al., 2011). In the
m-wallet context, consumers have been using traditional wallets in
their daily habits and routines, thus the use of m-wallets that may
change this tradition will make them feel uncomfortable and eventually
resist adopting m-wallets.
Image barriers exist when consumers have unfavorable impressions
of the brands, product qualities produced by the originating countries,
industries, or side effects of the innovations (Lian & Yen, 2014). The
product image is an essential indication for consumers to assess the
service and product (Ma & Lee, 2019). In the context of m-wallet, when
users have an unfavorable impression about using m-wallet, the re-
sistances toward m-wallet would be greater than it would be when they
have a favorable impression of m-wallet. In this study, Innovation Re-
sistance Theory was integrated as part of the theoretical framework
because it is closely related to consumers’ resistance toward using m-
wallet. In addition, this theory has also been widely applied in various
innovation resistance studies such as mobile social commerce (Hew
et al., 2019), digital payment (Sivathanu, 2019) and brand mobile apps
(Chen, Lu, Gong, & Tang, 2019).
2.3. Perceived novelty
Perceived novelty exists when consumers perceive innovation to be
novel, unique, recent, or new (Mani & Chouk, 2017). Novelty is a
fundamental property of any innovation, and consumers will sense
novelty once there is a swift alteration in the product’s concept or at-
tribute of the product (Ram, 1989). Rogers (2015, p. 11) asserted, “The
perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines his or her
reaction to it.” In the m-wallet context, when consumers perceive that
the m-wallet innovation is novel, unique, and recent, their tendencies to
adopt it would be higher and they will be less reluctant to use m-wallet
and therefore there will be lower m-wallet resistance. Perceived novelty
is referred to as the degree to which adopting m-wallet to make pay-
ments will make consumers feel excited as if they are doing something
novel and fun (Wang, 2018).
Rogers (2015) asserts that novelty is a fundamental attribute of any
innovation. Likewise, Venkatraman and Price (1990) opined that in-
novation is considered novel if it is deemed to be different and recent or
new and unique. Ram and Sheth (1989) stressed that consumers will
perceive the novelty of innovation only when there is a drastic altera-
tion in the product concept or changes in the characteristic of the
product. Perceived novelty has been studied in adoption of Information
Technology (IT) innovation, consumers’ resistances toward smart pro-
ducts, continuance intention to use social networking, location-based
and mobile services, satisfaction in using personalized recommender
systems, and attitude toward innovation (Choi, Lee, & Kim, 2017; Mani
& Chouk, 2017; Truong, 2013; Wells, Campbell, Valacich, &
Featherman, 2010; Yang & Lin, 2017). Since m-wallet is an innovation
that is relatively new in the current context of the study, we anticipate
that perceived novelty will have a significant effect on consumers’ re-
sistance in using m-wallet and, based on this justification, we have
integrated perceived novelty as part of the theoretical framework.
3. Research model and hypotheses
Demographics are key predictors of consumers’ decisions on adop-
tion, rejection, or intention to use (Laukkanen, 2016). Thus far, studies
on the effects of demographics have been focused mainly on innovation
adoption instead of innovation resistance. Hence, it is imperative and
significant to conduct research in unveiling the role of demographics in
m-wallet resistance. Since the objective of our study is to investigate
consumers’ rejection toward using m-wallet; hence, we anticipate that
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
Fig. 1. Research model.
(Source: Adapted from Ram & Sheth, 1989)
demographics will have some roles to play and, therefore, they were
integrated as part of the theoretical framework. Past studies have re-
lated age to adoption or rejection whereby younger users are more
probable to adopt technology in comparison to the older counterparts
(Ferreira, da Rocha, & da Silva, 2014). Age has a significant effect on
adoption and rejection decisions in the case of Internet and mobile
banking (Laukkanen, 2016).
Furthermore, Laukkanen, Sinkkonen, Kivijärvi, and Laukkanen
(2007) also validated that demographics such as age can explain con-
sumers’ resistance in mobile banking. Lee, Cho, Xu, and Fairhurst
(2010) found that age has a negative influence on the intention to use
retail self-service checkouts where older patrons are more probable to
have technology anxiety and are less likely to use the service. Similarly,
Bélanger and Carter (2010) found that age has a negative effect on the
intention to use Internet voting. In the context of m-wallet, we antici-
pate that there will be a negative association between age and m-wallet
resistance as m-wallet provides similar services of the Internet and
mobile banking. Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H1. Age has a negative effect on m-wallet resistance.
In addition, we also expect that education will have negative asso-
ciations with m-wallet resistance. Studies have shown that the in-
dividual’s education level is associated with the usage behavior in
technologies (Gunawardana & Ekanayaka, 2009). Hubona and Kennick
(1996) found a direct influence of education on IT usage behaviors. It
was also confirmed that education has a negative influence on the usage
behavior toward word processing (Burton-Jones & Hubona, 2005). On
the other hand, Kim and Jee (2006) opined that education has an in-
fluence on users’ willingness to adopt Internet services. Similarly, Dale
Wagner and Flannery (2004) discovered that education has a direct
influence on the intention to use e-learning.
Laukkanen et al. (2007b) assert that education can explain con-
sumers’ resistance in mobile banking. Consumers who are highly edu-
cated with higher income will have more considerations to accept new
innovations such as m-wallet compared to their counterparts. They are
more critical and careful in deciding whether to use m-wallet or not and
5
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
therefore are more skeptical of its adoption. We anticipate that con-
sumers who are more educated will tend to have higher resistance to-
ward m-wallet. Henceforth, the hypothesis is:
H2. Education has a negative effect on m-wallet resistance.
Finally, it is anticipated that consumers with higher incomes will
have stronger resistance toward m-wallet. A previous study has shown
that consumers with high incomes have higher resistance toward
technological adoption (Rocha, Hammond, & Hawkins, 2005). In ad-
dition, Laukkanen et al. (2007b) also found that consumers of higher-
income have greater resistance toward mobile banking adoption.
Moreover, income is correlated to the level of education of an in-
dividual as the higher the level of education, the higher the income will
be. Hence, with a higher level of education, the individual will have
more considerations and concerns in deciding whether to use m-wallet
or not, which leads to higher resistance toward m-wallet.
Thus, it is postulated that:
H3. Income has a negative effect on m-wallet resistance.
M-wallet is conducted using mobile devices with small keypads and
screens which makes it difficult to type and read texts and graphics,
therefore, making interpretations and data entries more difficult in
comparison to that of using laptops or desktop computers (Bruner &
Kumar, 2005). These complexities have prevented consumers from
using Internet banking (Kuisma, Laukkanen, & Hiltunen, 2007). Usage
barriers are formed when innovation is incompatible with current
practices, habits or workflows, and it is the main cause of resistance to
innovation among consumers (Laukkanen, Sinkkonen, Kivijärvi, &
Laukkanen, 2007). The usage barrier has been found to have negative
effects on the adoption of m-commerce (Mahatanankoon & Vila-Ruiz,
2008; Moorthy et al., 2017) and mobile services (Soliman, Salem, &
Arabia, 2014). The usage barrier is one of the key determinants that
positively affect mobile banking resistance (Yu & Chantatub, 2016).
Therefore, we anticipate that the stronger the usage barrier, the higher
the resistance toward m-wallet.
H4. The usage barrier has a positive effect on m-wallet resistance.
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 1 1989). In the m-wallet context, there may be some economic or fi-
Demographics profile. nancial risks as there are possibilities of information theft (e.g. PIN
Frequency Percent numbers) and security threats (e.g. virus) that can cause illegal mone-
tary transfers. Moreover, some consumers may fear that they might
Gender Female 278 58.2 make careless mistakes in using m-wallet that can lead to functional
Male 200 41.8 risks. The risk barrier has a negative effect on intention to use m-
Age (years) Below 20 76 15.9
21 - 30 194 40.6
commerce (Moorthy et al., 2017; Yin, Zhang, & Wang, 2004). In the
31 - 40 104 21.8 same vein, Lian and Yen (2013) found a negative association between
41 - 50 64 13.4 risk barriers and intention to shop online. Similarly, in the perspective
51 and above 40 8.4 of m-payment, the risk is the main barrier in China (Peng, Xu, & Liu,
Highest education completed High School 82 17.2
2011). In the m-commerce context, the fear of loss of confidentiality
Pre-U / Foundation 56 11.7
Diploma 87 18.2 and security breaches are the most trivial reasons that discourage
Degree 187 39.1 consumers in the adoption of mobile transaction services (Marett,
Master 40 8.4 Pearson, Pearson, & Bergiel, 2015). The higher the perceptive risks
PhD 14 2.9 toward innovation, the lower the technology acceptance rates will be
Others 12 2.5
Monthly income* Below 1,000 81 16.9
(Luo, Li, Zhang, & Shim, 2010). It is anticipated that the higher the
1,001–2,000 45 9.4 consumers’ perceived risks in using m-wallet, the higher their re-
2,001–3,000 115 24.1 sistances are. Therefore:
3,001–4,000 144 30.1
4,001–5,000 53 11.1 H6. The risk barrier has a positive effect on m-wallet resistance.
5,001 and above 40 8.4
Purpose of using m-walleta To buy products/ 226 42.8 Tradition barriers to adopting new technologies are related to
services consumers’ social norms, family and social values. In the m-wallet
To pay for bills 117 22.2 context, tradition barriers may exist if the mode of conducting m-wallet
To transfer fund 130 24.6 transactions is not the manner consumers are familiarized with paying
To pay installment 55 10.4
Type of m-wallet useda Alipay 11 1.6
bills, as they simply prefer to pay with cash rather than using the mo-
CIMB Pay 138 19.8 bile devices (Laukkanen et al., 2007b). Tradition barriers negatively
Mastercard MPay 92 13.2 affect the intention to use m-financial services and PayPal adoption
PayPal or MasterPass 124 17.8 (Chemingui & Ben Lallouna, 2013; Low, 2017). Besides, the tradition
Samsung Pay 24 3.4
barrier is a key barrier that prevents consumers from using m-banking
Visa Checkout 114 16.4
Vcash 37 5.3 as well as mobile buying intention (Dasgupta, Paul, & Fuloria, 2011; El
Wechat Pay 157 22.5 Badrawy, Abd El Aziz, & Fady, 2011; Lian & Yen, 2013). The tradition
Frequency in using m-wallet per Less than 2 times 341 71.4 barrier has a positive effect on Internet banking adoption (Kuisma et al.,
month 3 – 4 times 75 15.7 2007). In the context of m-wallet, we foresee that if consumers have to
5 – 6 times 44 9.2
change their daily routines, habits and existing culture, they will have
7 – 8 times 10 2.1
9 – 10 times 3 0.6 higher resistance toward m-wallet. Thus, we posit the hypothesis as
More than 10 times 5 1.0 follows:
Experience in using m-wallet Less than 1 year 365 76.4
1 but less than 2 years 68 14.2 H7. The tradition barrier has a positive effect on m-wallet resistance.
2 but less than 3 years 29 6.1
3 years and above 16 3.3
Image barriers may exist as innovations have a particular identity
based on their origins (e.g. country of origin, product category or
a
Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. brand). Some consumers may perceive innovation as very hard to use
* the denomination is in Ringgit Malaysia (RM). that they immediately capture a negative image of the services asso-
ciated with the technology (Laukkanen et al., 2007b). Image barriers
Value barrier is linked to the monetary value of innovation and negatively influence the intention to use Internet banking and m-
when the innovation is incapable of offering a good performance-to- banking (El Badrawy, Abd El Aziz, & Fady, 2011; Kuisma et al., 2007).
price ratio in comparison to its substitutes then consumers will perceive In addition, image barriers also negatively influence the intention to
that it is not worthwhile to alter the ways of accomplishing certain tasks buy online products and services (Lian, Liu, & Liu, 2012). The image
(Laukkanen et al., 2007b). The value barrier is the key barrier of online barrier has a positive influence on resistance toward Internet banking
and m-banking services (Laukkanen, 2016). Lian, Liu, & Liu (2012) adoption (Kuisma et al., 2007). In the m-wallet context, if consumers
found that the value barrier has positive effects on resistance toward have negative impressions that m-wallet is difficult to use then their
online shopping. Likewise, Swilley (2010) asserts that consumers tend resistance toward using it would be stronger. Hence, we theorize that:
to reject wallet phone technology if they cannot discover the value of
H8. The image barrier has a positive effect on m-wallet resistance.
using it. Lack of value in adopting an innovation has a negative impact
on the adoption of innovations (Antioco & Kleijnen, 2010). Therefore, it A basic attribute of any innovation is its novelty, which refers to the
is expected that if the value of using the m-wallet is low then consumers uniqueness, differences, recency or newness of the innovation
will be likely to resist using m-wallet. Therefore, the hypothesis is (Laukkanen et al., 2007b). Consumers will regard innovation as a novel
posited as: advancement if there is a drastic change in the product’s concepts or
attributes (Ram & Sheth, 1989). Yang and Lin (2017) assert that the
H5. The value barrier has a positive effect on m-wallet resistance.
perceived novelty is a key determinant that positively influences con-
Risk barrier is related to the level of risks an innovation entails tinuance intention to adopt the social network and location-based
because uncertainty is inherent in innovations; hence, there must be at mobile services (i.e. SoLoMo services). This indicates that when users’
least some levels of perceived risks. Generally, risks may be categorized novelty needs are satisfied, they will be less reluctant to use SoLoMo
into functional, physical, economic, and social risks (Ram & Sheth,

6
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 2
Common latent factor analysis.
Path Substantive loading Substantive variance T Statistics Path Method loading Method variance T Statistics

IB → IB1 0.7769 0.6036 18.5303 Method → IB1 0.1045 0.0109 2.1321

IB → IB2 0.8522 0.7262 19.8743 Method → IB2 −0.0491 0.0024 1.1247
IB → IB3 0.8799 0.7742 18.6075 Method → IB3 −0.0622 0.0039 1.2253
PN → PN2 0.9565 0.9149 119.2397 Method → PN2 −0.0191 0.0004 1.4703
PN → PN3 0.9763 0.9532 130.5444 Method → PN3 0.0192 0.0004 1.463
RB → RB1 0.3855 0.1486 8.5787 Method → RB1 0.5681 0.3227 12.0991
RB → RB2 0.9874 0.9750 22.6038 Method → RB2 −0.0817 0.0067 1.6903
RB → RB3 1.1773 1.3860 19.6237 Method → RB3 −0.3985 0.1588 6.0093
RB → RB4 0.9862 0.9726 24.281 Method → RB4 −0.0684 0.0047 1.4799
RB → RB5 0.9709 0.9426 19.4619 Method → RB5 −0.0747 0.0056 1.3418
TB → TB1 1.0262 1.0531 26.9425 Method → TB1 −0.1318 0.0174 2.9402
TB → TB2 1.0843 1.1757 22.5833 Method → TB2 −0.3147 0.0990 5.8025
TB → TB3 0.8857 0.7845 13.1861 Method → TB3 −0.1167 0.0136 1.8074
TB → TB4 0.4290 0.1840 9.8053 Method → TB4 0.5117 0.2618 11.1399
UB → UB1 0.6050 0.3660 12.1506 Method → UB1 0.3147 0.0990 6.2404
UB → UB2 1.0039 1.0078 18.9089 Method → UB2 −0.0737 0.0054 1.3091
UB → UB3 1.1684 1.3652 27.4781 Method → UB3 −0.2537 0.0644 5.4502
UB → UB4 0.9145 0.8363 20.4938 Method → UB4 0.0186 0.0003 0.3826
VB → VB1 0.9276 0.8604 33.6466 Method → VB1 0.0015 0.0000 0.0472
VB → VB2 1.1423 1.3048 24.0194 Method → VB2 −0.4456 0.1986 7.7984
VB → VB4 0.2913 0.0849 8.7837 Method → VB4 0.6745 0.4550 19.5629
VB → VB5 1.1589 1.3430 28.5129 Method → VB5 −0.3306 0.1093 7.8239
Total 19.5862 18.7627 −0.2077 1.8403

Table 3 services. In addition, the perceived novelty positively influences con-

Linearity of relationships. sumers’ resistance to smart products (Mani & Chouk, 2017). Wells et al.
Sum of df Mean F Sig. (2010) further assert that perceived novelty is a key determinant that
Squares Square positively affects attitudes toward IT innovation. Hence, if m-wallet is
being perceived as novel, distinctive and unique, consumers will have
UB * RS (Combined) 340.003 13 26.154 70.347 0.000
less resistance toward its adoption. The above explanation induces the
Linearity 265.288 1 265.288 713.550 0.000
Deviation from 74.716 12 6.226 16.747 0.000
final hypothesis (Fig. 1).
Linearity
H9. The perceived novelty barrier has a negative effect on m-wallet
VB * RS (Combined) 158.649 13 12.204 35.914 0.000
Linearity 123.531 1 123.531 363.534 0.000 resistance.
Deviation from 35.118 12 2.926 8.612 0.000
Linearity
RB * RS (Combined) 239.204 13 18.400 51.510 0.000 4. Methodology
Linearity 185.104 1 185.104 518.177 0.000
Deviation from 54.100 12 4.508 12.621 0.000
Linearity
4.1. Data gathering process
TB * RS (Combined) 181.288 13 13.945 45.518 0.000
Linearity 143.592 1 143.592 468.692 0.000 Since the sampling frame of the m-wallet user population is not
Deviation from 37.696 12 3.141 10.253 0.000 available, non-probability sampling was used. Therefore, judgmental
Linearity
sampling was engaged to gather the sample needed for this research. In
IB * RS (Combined) 139.377 13 10.721 27.493 0.000
Linearity 112.199 1 112.199 287.713 0.000 terms of the m-payment industry in Malaysia, the number of m-banking
Deviation from 27.178 12 2.265 5.808 0.000 accounts had surged to 11.5 million in 2017, in comparison to 1.6
Linearity million in 2011. Meanwhile, the number of financial transactions via m-
PN * RS (Combined) 123.089 13 9.468 19.665 0.000 banking had recorded a total of 106.1 million transactions valued at
Linearity 62.774 1 62.774 130.379 0.000
Deviation from 60.315 12 5.026 10.439 0.000
RM48.3 billion in 2017 compared to 2.2 million transactions valued at
Linearity RM0.9 billion in 2011 (Wei & Tsu, 2018). In addition, the number of
Age * RS (Combined) 180.741 13 13.903 14.150 0.000 subscribers to m-payment services had risen from 0.8 million in 2017 to
Linearity 96.764 1 96.764 98.484 0.000 3.4 million at the end of June 2018 (Wei & Tsu, 2018).
Deviation from 83.978 12 6.998 7.123 0.000
Questionnaires were administered to respondents from four states
Linearity
Edu * RS (Combined) 146.499 13 11.269 6.057 0.000 that constitute more than half of the population. Similar to Leong,
Linearity 96.324 1 96.324 51.775 0.000 Jaafar, and Ainin (2018), we used mall intercept technique from major
Deviation from 50.175 12 4.181 2.247 0.009 shopping malls in these states (Tan & Ooi, 2018; Tan, Lee, Lin, & Ooi,
Linearity 2017; Tan, Lee, Hew, Ooi, & Wong, 2018). Following Yani-de-Soriano
Income * RS (Combined) 248.373 13 19.106 11.350 0.000
Linearity 176.340 1 176.340 104.760 0.000
et al. (2019), the interceptions took place close to the mall’s exits and
Deviation from 72.034 12 6.003 3.566 0.000 entrances to minimize the sampling bias and to attain mixed re-
Linearity spondents. The mall intercept method is popular especially among
marketing researchers and has been widely used in similar studies. This
Note: Edu = Education, UB = Use Barrier, VB = Value Barrier, RB = Risk method is suitable for our study as it allowed the interviewers to screen
Barrier, TB = Tradition Barrier, IB = Image Barrier, PN = Perceived Novelty,
and filter for potential respondents to ensure eligibility and to seek
RS = Resistance towards m-wallet.
clarification if needed (Yani-de-Soriano et al., 2019). After discarding
the incomplete and unreturned questionnaires, 478 valid

7
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Fig. 2. Scatter plot.

Table 4 there are 7 parameters in the neural network, the minimum number of
Reliability and convergent validity. sample size required would be 350. Therefore, the sample size of 478 is
rho_A CR Cronbach’s AVE MSV ASV R2 Square
sufficiently large for the ANN analysis.
Alpha
4.2. Measures
Image Barrier 0.793 0.873 0.782 0.696 0.542 0.420 0.000
Perceived Novelty 0.930 0.966 0.929 0.934 0.243 0.177 0.000
Risk Barrier 0.930 0.951 0.935 0.795 0.756 0.530 0.000 Similar to Shareef, Kumar, Dwivedi, and Kumar (2016), to warrant
Tradition Barrier 0.889 0.909 0.867 0.716 0.688 0.502 0.000 the construct validity of the measures, items were extracted from the
Usage Barrier 0.944 0.959 0.943 0.854 0.756 0.563 0.000 literature review and adapted to the context of m-wallet. Items for
Value Barrier 0.927 0.918 0.881 0.738 0.671 0.500 0.000
usage barriers and image barriers were derived from Laukkanen et al.
m-Wallet 0.930 0.949 0.929 0.824 0.524 0.418 0.605
Resistance
(2007a), items for value barriers were taken from Laukkanen et al.
(2007a) and Elbadrawy and Abdel Aziz (2011), items for risk barriers
Note: CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average variance extracted, were drawn from Laukkanen et al. (2007a) and Peng et al. (2011), items
MSV = Minimum shared variance, ASV = Average shared variance. for tradition barriers were modified from Mahatanankoon and Vila-Ruiz
(2008), items for perceived novelty were derived from Wells et al.
(2010), and finally items for m-wallet resistances were derived from
questionnaires were successfully gathered. The sample size of 478 has Hyunwoo (2009). Gender, purpose, and type of m-wallet usages were
surpassed the suggested minimum sample size of 111 obtained from measured using nominal scales; age was captured using 5-point ordinal
G*Power with an effect size of 0.3, an alpha level of 0.05 and a power of scales while education and income were measured using 7-point and 6-
0.95 (Erdfelder, Faul, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). In addition, this sample point interval scales respectively. For other attitudinal scales, 5-point
size has also surpassed the 50 times rule of thumb for artificial neural Likert scales were used. 5-point Likert scales were used to minimize the
network analysis, which states that the minimum sample size should be respondents’ frustration level and boost the response rate because 7-
not less than 50 times the number of modifiable parameters in the point Likert scales are long and can confuse the respondents (Pai &
neural network (Alwosheel, van Cranenburgh, & Chorus, 2018). Since Huang, 2011). The use of different points of Likert scales may reduce

Table 5
Fornell-Larcker criterion.
IB PN RS RB TB UB VB

Image Barrier 0.8345

Perceived Novelty −0.3616 0.9664
m-Wallet Resistance 0.5954 −0.4924 0.9080
Risk Barrier 0.7199 −0.3763 0.6881 0.8919
Tradition Barrier 0.6890 −0.4129 0.6837 0.8069 0.8461
Usage Barrier 0.7361 −0.4411 0.7238 0.8695 0.8292 0.9243
Value Barrier 0.7054 −0.4255 0.6690 0.7989 0.7492 0.8193 0.8590

Note: Diagonal element is the square root of average variance extracted (AVE); UB = Use Barrier, VB = Value Barrier, RB = Risk Barrier, TB = Tradition Barrier,
IB = Image Barrier, PN = Perceived Novelty, RS = Resistance towards m-wallet.

8
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 6
Cross-loadings.
IB PN RS RB TB UB VB

IB1 0.8736 −0.3299 0.5540 0.6722 0.6038 0.6871 0.6267

IB2 0.8024 −0.2602 0.4516 0.5274 0.6858 0.5648 0.5170
IB3 0.8259 −0.3107 0.4773 0.5919 0.4411 0.5813 0.6169
PN2 −0.3556 0.9677 −0.4849 −0.3759 −0.4082 −0.4464 −0.4229
PN3 −0.3431 0.9650 −0.4665 −0.3509 −0.3895 −0.4054 −0.3991
RS1 0.5644 −0.5016 0.9164 0.6358 0.6387 0.6814 0.6145
RS2 0.5273 −0.4625 0.8923 0.6421 0.6337 0.6548 0.6353
RS3 0.5389 −0.4540 0.9308 0.6159 0.6102 0.6425 0.5932
RS4 0.5309 −0.3632 0.8919 0.6032 0.5981 0.6485 0.5845
RB1 0.7323 −0.4045 0.7083 0.9155 0.8317 0.8777 0.8211
RB2 0.6471 −0.3010 0.5914 0.9065 0.7293 0.7898 0.7209
RB3 0.5212 −0.2053 0.4683 0.7962 0.5717 0.6557 0.6077
RB4 0.6487 −0.3379 0.6367 0.9272 0.7283 0.7783 0.7160
RB5 0.6337 −0.3930 0.6272 0.9076 0.7024 0.7509 0.6729
TB1 0.5134 −0.3627 0.5971 0.7058 0.9088 0.7250 0.6650
TB2 0.3983 −0.2951 0.5054 0.5930 0.7991 0.6227 0.4974
TB3 0.7264 −0.2962 0.4850 0.5453 0.7719 0.5864 0.5590
TB4 0.6895 −0.4220 0.6933 0.8390 0.8962 0.8344 0.7723
UB1 0.6840 −0.4374 0.6988 0.8211 0.7829 0.9055 0.7739
UB2 0.6776 −0.3862 0.6625 0.8117 0.7693 0.9329 0.7573
UB3 0.6603 −0.3910 0.6409 0.7660 0.7471 0.9263 0.7360
UB4 0.6977 −0.4136 0.6704 0.8126 0.7640 0.9325 0.7596
VB1 0.5986 −0.4018 0.5999 0.7161 0.7047 0.7506 0.9355
VB2 0.5273 −0.2321 0.4013 0.4772 0.4046 0.4651 0.7270
VB4 0.7346 −0.4532 0.7260 0.8569 0.8329 0.8753 0.9046
VB5 0.5236 −0.3214 0.4946 0.6072 0.5210 0.6281 0.8541

Note: PN1 and VB3 were dropped due to poor factor loadings; UB = Use Barrier, VB = Value Barrier, RB = Risk Barrier, TB = Tradition Barrier, IB = Image Barrier,
PN = Perceived Novelty, RS = Resistance towards m-wallet.

Fig. 3. Structural model.

the chances of having the common method bias in the study (Hew &
Kadir, 2017a). Prior to the final fieldwork, pretest and pilot tests were
conducted. Similar to Kim, Oh, Shin, and Chae (2009)), during the
pretest, the survey instrument’s face validity and content validity were
assessed by conducting interviews with three professors who are well
versed in mobile application adoptions. Based on the feedbacks of the
interviews we identified the ambiguity in the wordings and performed
minor amendments. Similar to Dwivedi, Kapoor, Williams, and
Williams (2013) and Kapoor, Dwivedi, Piercy, Lal, and Weerakkody
(2014), the pilot test was conducted and questionnaires were dis-
tributed to fifty respondents in our study. Cronbach’s alpha values su-
perseded 0.70, which indicates good construct reliability. The items and
their sources are portrayed in Appendix F.

9
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 7
Path analysis.
Hypothesis Structural Path Beta T Statistics 95 % Confidence Interval Remark
(LB, UB)

H1 Age → RS 0.0121 0.4040ns (-0.0467, 0.0709) Not supported supported

H2 Education → RS −0.1166 2.7244** (-0.2005, -0.0327) Supported
H3 Income → RS 0.1686 3.7490*** (0.0804, 0.2568) Not Supported
H4 Usage Barrier → RS 0.2434 3.2444** (0.0964, 0.3904) Supported
H5 Value Barrier → RS 0.1089 2.0816* (0.0064, 0.2114) Supported
H6 Risk Barrier → RS 0.1334 2.3371* (0.0215, 0.2453) Supported
H7 Tradition Barrier → RS 0.1543 2.8129** (0.0469, 0.2617) Supported
H8 Image Barrier → RS 0.0454 0.9677ns (-0.0465, 0.1373) Not supported
H9 Perceived Novelty → RS −0.1900 3.6786*** (-0.2913, -0.0887) Supported

ns
Note: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, p > 0.05; RS=Resistance towards m-wallet; LB=lower boundary, UB=upper boundary.

Fig. 4. Artificial neural network diagram.

5. Results variables were collected via a single instrument. Initially, Harman’s

5.1. Demographics
The respondents’ demographic details are shown in Table 1.
5.2. Common method bias (CMB)
We evaluate the existence of CMB because predictor and outcome
single factor was conducted, and the result from statistical analysis
indicates that a single factor explains just 19.5.3 % of the overall var-
iance. Because it is below 50 %, therefore the issue of CMB does not
exist.
To confirm further the non-issue of CMB, we also performed a
common latent factor analysis by changing every indicator into a single-
item second-order construct (Hew & Kadir, 2017b). The result (Table 2)
shows that the bulk of the method loadings are either negligible or

10
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table 8 purpose, we employed SmartPLS 3 to validate the hypotheses in the

RMSE values. research model (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2015). Because of the existence
Training Testing of nonlinear relationships between the independent and outcome
variables, we conducted further analysis using artificial neural net-
N SSE RMSE N SSE RMSE Total works (ANN) to rank the normalized importance of the significant
samples
predictors based on the PLS analysis. The application of a two-staged
428 5.235 0.1106 50 0.299 0.0773 478
427 6.397 0.1224 51 0.352 0.0831 478
SEM-PLS-ANN approach would complement each other because the
433 6.606 0.1235 45 0.363 0.0898 478 SEM-PLS is suitable for hypothesis testing of linear relationships but
426 6.432 0.1229 52 0.361 0.0833 478 cannot capture the nonlinearity of relationships. While the ANN can
430 7.456 0.1317 48 0.413 0.0928 478 detect nonlinear relationships, it is unsuitable for hypothesis testing
428 6.653 0.1247 50 0.368 0.0858 478
because of its “black box” operation (Hew, Leong, Ooi, & Chong, 2016;
431 7.291 0.1301 47 0.415 0.0940 478
427 6.453 0.1229 51 0.370 0.0852 478 Tan, Ooi, Leong, & Lin, 2014).
430 6.471 0.1227 48 0.371 0.0879 478
430 6.101 0.1191 48 0.350 0.0854 478 5.4. Measurement model
mean 6.510 0.1231 mean 0.366 0.0865
Standard deviation 0.6102 0.0058 sd 0.0327 0.0049
In the initial stage, hypothesis testing was carried out through
Note: SSE = Sum square of errors, RMSE = Root mean square of errors, SmartPLS 3 with bootstrapping of 5000 random subsamples and no sign
N = sample size. change setting. A one-tailed test with a significance level of 0.05 was
engaged. Based on the results of the PLS algorithm, we evaluated the
Table 9 reliability and validity of the constructs. Table 7 indicates that all the
Sensitivity analysis. Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability are larger than 0.70. Hen-
ceforth, we confirm that the measurement model has a high degree of
Neural network (NN) ED IN UB VB RB TB PN
construct reliability (Hew, Leong, Tan, Lee, & Ooi, 2018). From the
NN (i) 0.182 0.134 0.150 0.115 0.094 0.076 0.249 perspective of convergent validity, the magnitude of the average var-
NN (ii) 0.147 0.124 0.258 0.093 0.096 0.073 0.211 iance extracted (AVE) is above 0.50, which confirmed that the items
NN (iii) 0.193 0.171 0.137 0.083 0.060 0.143 0.213
converge to the relevant constructs and thus construct validity is ver-
NN (ix) 0.107 0.119 0.198 0.115 0.183 0.143 0.135
NN (v) 0.074 0.067 0.218 0.120 0.172 0.181 0.168 ified (Leong, Jaafar, & Ainin, 2018; Nordman & Tolstoy, 2016).
NN (vi) 0.101 0.125 0.147 0.130 0.183 0.171 0.143 From the perspective of discriminant validity, Table 4 verifies that
NN (vii) 0.091 0.137 0.131 0.092 0.191 0.198 0.16 all AVEs are greater than their corresponding minimum and average
NN (viii) 0.122 0.150 0.219 0.062 0.086 0.195 0.166 shared variances, while the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Table 5) indicates
NN (ix) 0.099 0.088 0.156 0.087 0.184 0.275 0.111
NN (x) 0.146 0.182 0.225 0.073 0.093 0.116 0.165
that the square roots of AVEs are more than the inter-correlation
Average importance 0.120 0.130 0.184 0.097 0.134 0.157 0.172 coefficients (Alalwan, Dwivedi, & Rana, 2017). Furthermore, we also
Normalized importance 65.3 70.5 100.0 52.7 73.0 85.4 93.6 used the HTMT criterion to assess discriminant validity, and Appendix
(%) G shows that except for the HTMT ratio among usages, risks and tra-
dition barriers which is slightly more than 0.90, other HTMT ratios are
Note: ED = Education, IN = Income, UB = Use Barrier, VB = Value Barrier,
less than 0.90 (PLS-SEM, 2015). Similar to Segarra-Moliner and
RB = Risk Barrier, TB = Tradition Barrier, PN = Perceived Novelty.
Moliner-Tena (2016), for the HTMT ratio above 0.90, we examined the
upper boundary of the HTMT confidence interval (Appendix H) and
negative and insignificant. In addition, similar to Karjaluoto, Shaikh,
found that all are less than 1. Finally, based on the cross-loadings
Saarijärvi, and Saraniemi (2019) the ratio of substantive to method
(Table 6), it is apparent that all items load strongly to its constructs thus
variance is substantially large. Consequently, we confirm that indeed
confirming discriminant validity. The measurement model can explain
CMB is a non-issue.
60.54 % of the variance in m-wallet resistances.

5.3. Multivariate statistical assumptions 5.5. Structural model

To perform multivariate analysis, several prerequisites need to be
fulfilled (Ooi, Lee, Tan, Hew, & Hew, 2018). From the perspective of
linearity, Table 3 verifies the linear and nonlinear relationships be-
tween the exogenous and endogenous variables. To assess the multi-
collinearity problem, we examined the VIFs and tolerances. The results
showed that the VIFs fall within 1.457–5.790 that is below the standard
threshold of 10. The tolerances fall within 0.173 to 0.686 which are
greater than 0.10, which indicating that there is no issue of multi-
collinearity (Hew & Kadir, 2016).
To assess homoscedasticity, we inspected the standard residuals
scatter plot (Fig. 2) and noticed that the residuals are dispersed around
a diagonal line. Hence, homoscedasticity is verified.
To evaluate the normality of distribution, we conducted the one-
sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The result shows that the data dis-
tribution is non-normal as all p-values are smaller than 0.05. Because of
the non-normality of the distribution, the variance-based structural
equation modeling (SEM) of partial least squares (PLS) was adopted
because it is robust against non-normal distribution compared to the
covariance-based SEM (Leong, Hew, Ooi, & Lin, 2019). For this
From the bootstrapping of the structural model (Fig. 3), the path
analysis result (Table 7) shows that six out of nine paths are significant.
To ascertain the significance of the relationship, we have used the t-
statistics as well as the 95 % confidence intervals. A relationship is
significant if the lower and upper boundaries of the 95 % confidence
interval do not include a zero. Based on these criteria, age
(beta = 0.0121, t = 0.4040) and image barriers (beta = 0.0454,
t = 0.9677) have no significant effects on m-wallet resistances. Hence,
hypotheses H1 and H8 are not supported. The insignificant effect of age
is inconsistent with the finding of Laukkanen (2016), and this may be
because the majority of the population is IT-savvy and therefore re-
gardless of age, the level of resistance toward m-wallet is not affected.
On the other hand, the insignificant effect of the image barrier is in
contradiction to those of Kuisma et al. (2007) and El Badrawy et al.
(2011). This may be justified as the majority of the population has been
exposed to m-wallet via social media, printed media and other elec-
tronic media (e.g. TV, radio and Internet). Moreover, in tandem with
the Malaysian government’s effort in promoting and facilitating the use
of m-wallet among bankers, vendors, and consumers, they do not seem

11
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
to have negative impressions that can lead to the formation of image
barriers in using m-wallet. Education (beta=-0.1166, t = 2.7244) has a
significant effect on m-wallet resistance, and hence hypothesis H2 is
supported. This newly validated relationship is not verified in previous
studies. However, income (beta = 0.1686, t = 3.7490) though sig-
nificant but because of the positive effect that contradicts the proposed
negative effect, and therefore hypothesis H3 is not supported. The in-
significant effect of income contradicts that of Ferreira et al. (2014),
and this may be due to the standard of living in Malaysia, which will
achieve high-income status by the year 2022. Hence, the majority of the
population is financially able to use m-wallet, and therefore income is
not affecting the resistance toward its usage. However, this interesting
finding needs further investigation. Usage barriers (beta = 0.2434,
t = 3.2444), value barriers (beta = 0.1089, t = 2.0816), risk barriers
(beta = 0.1334, t = 2.3371) and tradition barriers (beta = 0.1543,
t = 2.8129) have significant effects on m-wallet resistance. Thus, hy-
potheses H4, H5, H6, and H7 are supported. The significant effect of
usage barriers is consistent with Yu (2013) while the significant effect
of value barriers is in line with Antioco and Kleijnen (2010). Likewise,
the significant influence of risk barriers is consistent with Peng et al.
(2011) and Lian and Yen (2013), whereas the significant effect of tra-
dition barriers is consistent with El Badrawy et al. (2011), Lian and Yen
(2013) and Low (2017). Finally, perceived novelty (beta=-0.1900,
t = 3.6786) has a significant effect on m-wallet resistances, hence hy-
pothesis H9 is supported. This is consistent with Mani and Chouk
(2017) and Wells et al. (2010).
5.6. ANN analysis
In the following stage, similar to Liébana-Cabanillas, Marinković,
and Kalinić (2017)), we took the significant factors of the SEM-PLS path
analysis as the input neurons for the ANN model (Fig. 4). Among the
justifications for applying the ANN are non-normal data distribution
and the existence of non-linear relationships among the exogenous and
endogenous variables. In addition, the ANN is robust against noise,
outliers, and small sample sizes. It can also accommodate non-com-
pensatory models where a decrease in one factor needs not to be
compensated by an increase in another factor. The ANN analysis was
implemented using IBM’s SPSS neural network module. The ANN al-
gorithm can capture linear and nonlinear relationships and does not
need normal distribution (Teo, Tan, Ooi, Hew, & Yew, 2015). The al-
gorithm can learn through the training process to predict the outcomes
of the analysis using a feed-forward-backward-propagation (FFBP) al-
gorithm, where inputs are feed in a forward path and the estimated
errors will move in a backward direction (Taneja & Arora, 2019).
Multilayer perceptrons and sigmoid activation functions were used for
the input and hidden layers (Sharma & Sharma, 2019). Through several
rounds of the learning process, the errors can be minimized, and the
accuracy of the prediction can be further improved (EL Idrissi, Idri, &
Bakkoury, 2019). Similar to Leong et al. (2018b), we allocated 90 % of
the samples for the training procedure and the remaining of the samples
was used for the testing procedure. To evade the possibility of over-
fitting, we engaged a ten-fold cross-validating procedure and obtained
the root mean square of errors (RMSE) (Ooi & Tan, 2016). Table 8
portraits that the average RMSE values of the training and testing
procedures are relatively small at 0.1231 and 0.0865, respectively.
Therefore, we confirm that there is an excellent model fit. Using a si-
milar approach as Hew and Kadir (2016), we computed the R2 of the
ANN model, and the result reveals that the ANN model predicts m-
wallet resistances with an accuracy of 76.4 %.
To measure the strengths of the predictive power of each of the
input neurons, we conducted sensitivity analysis (Table 9) to obtain the
normalized importance of these neurons by dividing its relative im-
portance to the maximum importance and present it in the form of
12
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
percentage (Karaca, Moonis, Zhang, & Gezgez, 2019). The result shows
that the usage barrier is the most important predictor followed by a
perceived novelty that has normalized importance of 93.6 %. This is
followed by tradition barrier (85.4 %), risk barrier (73.0 %), income
(70.5 %), education (65.3 %) and value barrier (52.7 %).
6. Discussion
The outcomes of our study show that age is not a significant pre-
dictor for the m-wallet resistance. This interesting finding goes against
the findings by Ferreira et al. (2014) and Laukkanen (2016). However,
the outcome is consistent with that of Ifezue, Ama, and Moseki (2016))
where age is not a predictor of usages of innovative technologies. The
contradictory result may be caused by the social media and Web 2.0
technology, which have exposed consumers to various innovative
technologies including m-wallet to almost all age brackets. In addition,
there are differences in the existing contexts of study e.g. mobile and
Internet banking (Laukkanen, 2016) and technology readiness (Ferreira
et al., 2014). Hence, consumers’ resistance levels are not affected by the
age factor.
Education has a negative effect on m-wallet resistance, and this
indicates that the higher education achievement, the lesser the re-
sistance toward m-wallet adoptions. However, income has a significant
positive impact on m-wallet resistance, and this contradicts the pro-
posed negative effect in hypothesis H3. This is a surprising finding from
what we anticipated previously. It indicates that the higher the income,
the stronger the resistance toward using m-wallet. Perhaps there are
hidden reasons behind it, and therefore further investigation is required
to unveil these reasons.
Among the innovation barriers, the usage barrier has the strongest
effect on m-wallet resistance in our study. It is also the strongest pre-
dictor of all predictors of m-wallet resistance. This shows that when
consumers perceive that the m-wallet is difficult to use because of the
limited display and small keypads of the mobile devices they will be
reluctant to use m-wallet. This finding is similar to Mahatanankoon and
Vila-Ruiz (2008) and Soliman et al. (2014). However, our study is
different as it is conducted in the context of m-wallet rather than the
existing contexts of m-commerce and mobile services. Therefore, the
study has provided new contextualization evidence to enrich the ex-
isting literature in m-wallet.
The tradition barrier is the second strongest predictor in our study.
This finding implies when consumers are used to paying with tradi-
tional modes of payment using physical wallets they will continue with
these habits, routines, and culture, and they will not move out from
their existing status quo, as they feel comfortable and therefore will
have strong resistance toward m-wallet. Our finding is similar to that
from Chemingui and Ben Lallouna (2013), Dasgupta et al. (2011), El
Badrawy et al. (2011), and Lian and Yen (2013). Nevertheless, our
study is different from the existing contexts of study (i.e. m-financial
services, PayPal, m-banking and buying intention). Therefore, new
empirical evidence has been obtained to provide new insights and un-
derstandings of m-wallet resistance that can further advance the extant
literature of consumer resistance.
The risk barrier is the third strongest predictor in our study, which
implies that when consumers perceive that there are risks caused by
network instability, frauds, and privacy concerns, they will have some
reservations in using m-wallet, and this will lead to resistance toward
its usage. The current finding is similar to that of Lian and Yen (2013),
Moorthy et al. (2017), and Peng et al. (2011), Nevertheless, it is not the
same as the existing contexts of study (i.e. m-commerce, m-payment,
intention to shop online) as it is focused specifically on the m-wallet
context. Hence, our study has offered new empirical evidence to further
advance the existing literature on consumers’ resistance toward m-
wallet.
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
The value barrier is the weakest predictor among all significant
innovation barriers in our study. This finding indicates that when
consumers feel that the value of using m-wallet is not as great as using
the existing physical wallet they will continue to use the physical wallet
and therefore are reluctant to change to m-wallet. Our finding is similar
to that of Laukkanen (2016) and Swilley (2010). However, there are
cultural differences as the existing studies have been done in European
countries (e.g. Finland, USA) while the current study is conducted in an
Asian country. Hence, this study has contributed to enlightening our
understanding of m-wallet resistance from the Asian context that can
further enrich the extant literature.
The perceived novelty is the second strongest predictor among all
significant predictors of m-wallet resistance. This finding implies that
when consumers perceive that m-wallet is new, unique, and up-to-date,
they will be eager to try the innovative technology and therefore will be
less reluctant toward its usage. Though this finding is similar to that
from Mani and Chouk (2017), the context of our study is different be-
cause smart products are in a general context while m-wallet is in a
specific context. In addition, there are also differences between the
French and Malaysian cultures. Hence, this has provided new con-
tributions in terms of contextualization and cultural differences to the
extant m-wallet literature.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
First, the integration of socio-demographic factors in our research
model has offered a new theoretical contribution to the m-wallet re-
sistance literature. With the inclusion of age, education, and income,
scholars will gain further understanding of their effects on m-wallet
resistance. This theoretical finding may be used as the groundwork for
imminent research on m-wallet resistance.
Secondly, the inclusion of the perceived novelty as an external
variable has also proffered new theoretical contributions, as previously
there are scarcities of studies that examined its effect on resistance
toward m-wallet. Previously, the perceived novelty has been used as a
predictor of innovation adoption rather than innovation inhibitor. This
is perhaps the first research that investigates the perceived novelty’s
effect on m-wallet resistance and may shed more light on innovation
resistance to scholars.
Third, we have successfully extended the IRT by integrating socio-
demographics and perceived novelty. With this integrated model, we
can provide a holistic and comprehensive insight on the inhibitors of m-
wallet. The integrated ANN model is capable of providing a predictive
accuracy of 76.4 % in m-wallet resistance.
Fourth, several new relationships were discovered, and these in-
clude the relationship between education and perceived novelty with
m-wallet resistance. Hitherto, there have been limited studies that in-
vestigate the effect of education and perceived novelty on m-wallet
resistance. Although the effects of education (Leong, Ooi, Chong, & Lin,
2011) and perceived novelty (Wells et al., 2010) on innovation adop-
tion have been studied before; however, their effects on innovation
resistance remain unexplored and unknown. Thus, these new relation-
ships will provide new foundations for future scholars to extend further
the existing literature.
Finally, unlike existing related studies that used linear models, we
have engaged a two-staged SEM-PLS-ANN approach that comprises of
linear and compensatory PLS model and nonlinear and non-compen-
satory ANN model. It is a new approach because, in a linear compen-
satory model, a drop in one predictor may be neutralized by a rise in
another predictor. However, this may not be always true especially in
the context of innovation barriers. For example, a decrease in the value
barrier cannot be compensated by an increase in the risk barrier.
Therefore, with the use of a non-compensatory ANN model, we have
successfully addressed the deficiency of the linear models and therefore
offered a novel theoretical contribution to the existing literature.
13
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
6.2. Practical contributions
The first practical contribution is based on the significant negative
effect of education on m-wallet resistance. Since the higher the edu-
cation achievement of the consumers the lesser the resistance toward
m-wallet, therefore, m-wallet service providers may consider raising the
education standards of the general public as higher education level will
lead to less resistance toward m-wallet. For example, they may provide
some financial assistance in the form of scholarships, loans or bursary to
be applied by those who want to further their studies at local or foreign
higher education institutions. In addition, they can also contribute di-
rectly by donating money to set up education institutions that offer
courses based on a not-for-profit principle so that the fees will be af-
fordable and provide good chances for people to upgrade themselves.
By doing so, it will help to raise the education standard and ultimately
reduce the resistance toward m-wallet. Moreover, m-wallet service
providers can educate consumers on the benefits of using m-wallet.
With better understanding among the consumers, they will have less
resistance toward m-wallet. Finally, as a part of the corporate social
responsibilities, m-wallet service providers may cooperate with non-
government organizations in establishing some institutions of higher
learning through sponsorships or launching grants.
Second, in terms of monthly income that has a positive effect on m-
wallet resistance that goes against the hypothesized negative effect;
therefore, we would like to suggest that while waiting for the further
verification and clarification from future studies, m-wallet service
providers may continue with the status quo by using the existing po-
licies and strategies. However, to obtain a better understanding of this
matter, it is suggested that m-wallet service providers may establish
smart partnerships with external researchers and scholars by providing
the necessary research grants to verify and clarify the issue in a short
period. Alternatively, they may also establish a research unit and em-
ploy their researchers to conduct market researches.
Third, to reduce the positive effect of the usage barriers on m-wallet
resistance, service providers may consider developing user-friendly m-
wallet apps. It would be good if they can conduct surveys on consumers’
satisfaction in using m-wallet, and based on their feedback, upgrades,
and improvements can be carried out. These improvements can be in
the form of physical appearance (i.e. hardware) or product applications
(i.e. software or apps). Another alternative is to increase the number of
retailers that accept m-wallet through partnerships and collaborations.
This will reduce the level of usage barriers and make consumers feel
convenient in using m-wallet anytime and anywhere.
Forth, to lower the tradition barrier among consumers, steps may be
taken by service providers to change consumers’ routines, habits, and
culture of using the traditional physical wallets. Though it is easy to say
than do, with the right strategies consumers’ habits may be changed.
For example, free trials may be offered to consumers to use m-wallet so
that they can gradually change their habits of using physical wallets. In
addition, incentives in the forms of monetary rewards or cash prizes can
also be given to consumers who wish to use m-wallets. This will attract
consumers to try to use m-wallet, and as time goes by, they will
eventually shift from physical wallets to m-wallets without their no-
tices.
Fifth, service providers may minimize the risk barriers in using m-
wallet to reduce consumers’ resistance toward their usage. For instance,
they may convince the consumers on the safety features of m-wallet by
presenting the testimonials from existing users on security, safety, and
privacy of using m-wallet. Additionally, they can also collaborate with
renowned cybersecurity firms to enhance the security and safety fea-
tures of the m-wallet apps. Besides, all transactions that exceed a cer-
tain amount should be alerted to the users through email and SMS
notifications. This would reduce the risk of unauthorized payments or
cyber frauds. Finally, security codes or passwords may be used to
protect consumers in case their m-wallet smartphones are stolen.
Next, to reduce consumers’ perception of the value barrier, service
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
providers may think of increasing the value of using an m-wallet
compared to that of using a physical wallet. For example, they may
advertise the benefits and advantages of using m-wallets in social
media, printed media, TVs and radios. With a better understanding of
the value of using m-wallet among consumers, they will gradually shift
to m-wallet. Moreover, service providers may consider incorporating
additional functionalities and features into the m-wallet apps. With
these value-added add-ons, consumers will perceive that there is a great
difference between the physical wallet and m-wallet and that the m-
wallet has out-performed the physical wallet in terms of security,
convenience, safety, and privacy, etc.
Finally, since the perceived novelty has a negative influence on m-
wallet resistance, it is important for service providers to always im-
prove their products with new and unique features so that consumers
will see some novelties and newness in using m-wallet. For example,
new versions of m-wallet apps can be released from time to time, and
the list of newly joined outlets that accept m-wallet are updated and
notified to the consumers in real-time. New features and functions of m-
wallet should also be notified through push technologies so that con-
sumers are always alerted with such information.
6.3. Limitation and future direction
Firstly, this research is restricted in the sense that it was carried out
in an Asian nation, and hence the findings are not suitable to be gen-
eralized and applied to other nations, e.g. European countries.
Therefore, future studies may engage a cross-nation or cross-cultural
perspective to further extend the scope of the current study. Secondly,
since the ANN model is able to predict with an accuracy of 76.4 %;
therefore, future studies may incorporate additional predictors from
other innovation resistance theories to increase further its predictive
power. Thirdly, the study used a cross-sectional approach that captured
respondents’ responses at one point in time. Hence, forthcoming studies
may contemplate using a longitudinal approach to examine the tem-
poral effects. Finally, this study was based on the developing Asian
economy and this has limited the application of the findings to other
economies. Therefore, we would suggest that in the future, a com-
parative study on user’s resistance toward m-wallet between the de-
veloped and developing economy contexts could be carried out to gain
more understanding of the effects of nation development status on m-
wallet resistance.
Appendix A
Fig. A1
Fig. A1. Number of Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, and Android Pay users from 2015 to 2017 (in millions).
14
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
7. Conclusion
This study has successfully verified the effects of IRT on consumers’
resistances toward m-wallet using a two-staged SEM-ANN approach
with a nonlinear non-compensatory neural network model. In addition,
we have also incorporated the demographic variables of education, age,
and income in the research model and introduced perceived novelty as
an extension variable to IRT. Education, value barriers, usage barriers,
tradition barriers, and risk barriers have significant effects on m-wallet
resistance but not for age, income and image barriers. In terms of
normalized importance, usage barriers are the most important followed
by perceived novelty, tradition barriers, risk barriers, income, educa-
tion and value barriers. The ANN model is able to predict m-wallet
resistance with an accuracy of 76.4 %.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Lai-Ying Leong: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization, Supervision.
Teck-Soon Hew: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Keng-Boon Ooi:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Project administration. June Wei: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources,
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
We would like to mention our greatest appreciation to the editor
and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and
constructive comments. We also like to express our heartfelt apprecia-
tion to the group of research assistants who have assisted the authors in
gathering the data needed for this research.
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix B

Fig. B1

Fig. B1. Number of global non-cash transactions via m-wallet (billions) by region, 2012-2016.

15
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix C

Fig. C1

Fig. C1. Why haven’t you used mobile wallets to make purchases?.

16
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix D

Fig. D1

Fig. D1. Mobile wallet research crux.

Appendix E

Table E1

17
 L.-Y. Leong, et al.

Table E1
Summary of m-wallet related studies.
Authors Context of study (Country) Theory/Model Methodology Findings

(Sharma et al., 2018)
(Shin, 2009)
(Yee Tang et al., 2014)
(Swilley, 2010)
Inhibitors of m- wallet None. Eleven inhibitors were chosen based on a 20 experts dealing with digital financial services from ‘Anxiety towards new technology’, ‘Lack of new
(Oman) comprehensive literature review. Oman were asked to rank the importance of a number of technology skills’, ‘Lack of awareness of mobile wallet
inhibitors using a 5-point Likert scale and the data were benefits’ and ‘Complexity of new technology’ are key
analyzed using Interpretive Structural Equation Modeling inhibitors of mobile wallets.
(SEM) with fuzzy MICMAC approach.
M-wallet acceptance Modified UTAUT with constructs of security, trust, 296 data were gathered using a web survey and analyzed There are significant effects of attitude, perceived
(South Korea) social influence, and self-efficacy. using SEM security, and trust on intention to use. Attitude was
affected by perceived usefulness and ease of use while the
intention to use significantly influences use behavior.
Determinants of m-wallet UTAUT2 Using an online survey, 418 data were collected and Perceived expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating
intention among Gen-Y analyzed using multiple regression analysis. conditions, hedonic motivation and habit positively
(Malaysia) influence intention to use.
Consumer rejection of Extended TAM 226 students and 480 consumers were gathered and Wallet phone is not considered as useful or easy to use.
wallet phone analyzed using SEM. Perceived risk has a significant effect but security and
(United States of America) privacy have a negative effect on attitudes toward wallet
phones. Attitude has a negative effect on intention to use.
There is a moderating effect of innovation resistance

18
between perceived usefulness and attitudes towards
wallet phones.
(Amin et al., 2016) M-wallet acceptance TAM 104 data were gathered and analyzed using PLS-SEM Perceived usefulness and attitude significantly influence
(Bangladesh) the intention to use. Attitude was significantly affected by
perceived usefulness and ease of use.
(Shaw, 2015) M-wallet adoption Modified UTAUT Using an online survey, 411 data were collected and Word of mouth significantly influences trust and
(United States of America) analyzed using SmartPLS. facilitating conditions. Trust and facilitating conditions
have significant effects on effort expectancy and
performance expectancy. Effect expectancy and
performance expectancy have significant influences on
intention to use.
(Rathore, 2016) Digital wallet adoption None 132 survey questionnaires were used and analyzed using There is no significant difference between male and
(India) ANOVA. female users. The three important adoption factors are
convenience in online buying, brand loyalty, and
usefulness of digital wallets. Security and safety of the
funds are the most challenging issues. Dependency on an
Internet connection is the main reason for low adoption.
Modified TAM None
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Table E1 (continued)
Authors
(Amoroso & Magnier-Watanabe,
2012)
(Reddy et al., 2017)
(Amoroso & Ackaradejruangsri,
2019)
(Alaeddin et al., 2018)
19
(Casal et al., 2017)
(Shaw, 2014)
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
Context of study (Country) Theory/Model Methodology Findings
M-wallet adoption A conceptual paper based on a literature review with no
(Japan) statistical analyses
M-wallet acceptance Five factors were identified from focus group Data were analyzed using logistic regression and SEM Acceptance of mobile wallets is influenced by fast service,
(India) discussion namely convenience, multi-utility, direct direct operator billing, ease of use and promotions and
operator billing, fast service, promotions and ease offers.
of use.
m-wallet satisfaction Consumer satisfaction model 461 Thai respondents were surveyed using a snowball Consumer attitudes and personal innovativeness have
(Thailand) sampling approach and analyzed using multiple significant effects on satisfaction while satisfaction
regression analysis. significantly influences loyalty.
m-wallet switching TAM 98 respondents were gathered using an online survey Perceived usefulness and ease of use have significant
intention using a random sampling method. The data were effects on consumers’ attitudes toward switching from
(Malaysia) analyzed using PLS-SEM. physical payment to m-wallet. Attitude significantly
influences the intention to switch and perceived risk
reduces the level of this influence.
Requirements for m-wallet None Action research (iterative and user-centered) with focus The requirements for the m-wallet ecosystem include data
ecosystem group discussion. storage, processing, security, interfaces, ID information
(Portugal) systems, social networks, billing software, Paypal and
credit card.
m-wallet adoption TAM Convenience sampling from a Canadian public university Results showed that perceived usefulness, trust, and
(Canada) was used and incentives in the form of iPad Mini were informal learning significantly influence the intention to
given to 800 respondents. Altogether 284 usable samples use m-wallet. Furthermore, information learning also
were collected and analyzed using PLS. significantly influences perceived usefulness.
Nevertheless, there are no significant effects of perceived
ease of use and m-wallet self-efficacy on the intention to
use and perceived usefulness respectively.
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix F

Table F1

Table F1
Items and their sources.
Item Construct Source

UB Usage Barrier
UB1 M-wallet services are difficult to use. (Laukkanen, Sinkkonen, Kivijärvi, & Laukkanen, 2007)
UB2 The use of m-wallet services is inconvenient.
UB3 M-wallet services are slow to use.
UB4 The process in m-wallet services is unclear.
VB Value Barrier
VB1 The use of m-wallet services is uneconomical. (Laukkanen et al., 2007a, 2007b)
VB2 M-wallet services do not offer any advantages compared to cash payments. (Elbadrawy & Abdel Aziz, 2011)
VB3 The use of m-wallet services does not increase my ability to control my financial matters.
VB4 M-wallet services are not a good substitute for traditional cash payment.
VB5 M-wallet services do not eliminate the constraint of time when conducting the transactions.
RB Risk Barrier
RB1 I fear of making any mistakes in the process of using m-wallet services. (Laukkanen et al., 2007a, 2007b)
RB2 I fear of entering wrong information when using m-wallet services to make payment. (Peng et al., 2011)
RB3 I fear that the battery of the electronic devices will run out or the connection will otherwise be lost when using
m-wallet services.
RB4 I fear of exposure of privacy to the third party when using m-wallet services.
RB5 I fear of any unreasonable or fraudulent charges if using m-wallet services.
TB Tradition Barrier
TB1 I feel impatient with m-wallet services. (Mahatanankoon & Vila-Ruiz, 2008)
TB2 I prefer engaging in face-to-face communication when purchasing goods and services that I want.
TB3 I prefer physical forms of payment.
TB4 I prefer making purchases online.
IB Image Barrier
IB1 I have a very negative image of m-wallet services. (Laukkanen et al., 2007a, 2007b)
IB2 New technology is often too complicated to be useful.
IB3 I have such an image that m-wallet services are difficult to use.
PN Perceived novelty
PN1 I find using m-wallet services to be a novel experience. (Wells et al., 2010)
PN2 Using m-wallet services is new and refreshing.
PN3 M-wallet services represent a neat and novel way of making payment.
RS Mobile wallet resistance
RS1 I fear of wasting my time using m-wallet services. (Hyunwoo, 2009)
RS2 It is unlikely that I use m-wallet services in the near future.
RS3 M-wallet services are not for me.
RS4 I do not need m-wallet services.

Appendix G

Table G1

Table G1
HTMT ratio.
Image Novelty Resistance Risk Tradition Usage

Novelty 0.422
Resistance 0.694 0.528
Risk 0.830 0.395 0.729
Tradition 0.840 0.453 0.751 0.873
Usage 0.852 0.470 0.772 0.919 0.905
Value 0.833 0.453 0.714 0.847 0.807 0.868

20
L.-Y. Leong, et al. International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Appendix H

Table H1

Table H1
HTMT confidence interval.
Original Sample Sample Mean 2.5 % 97.5 %
(O) (M)

Novelty → Image 0.422 0.421 0.314 0.523

Resistance → Image 0.694 0.693 0.607 0.770
Resistance → Novelty 0.528 0.528 0.432 0.617
Risk → Image 0.830 0.828 0.782 0.868
Risk → Novelty 0.395 0.394 0.290 0.497
Risk → Resistance 0.729 0.728 0.655 0.794
Tradition → Image 0.840 0.840 0.798 0.882
Tradition → Novelty 0.453 0.454 0.361 0.546
Tradition → Resistance 0.751 0.750 0.678 0.813
Tradition → Risk 0.873 0.872 0.841 0.899
Usage → Image 0.852 0.850 0.806 0.888
Usage → Novelty 0.470 0.470 0.379 0.561
Usage → Resistance 0.772 0.771 0.704 0.830
Usage → Risk 0.919 0.919 0.895 0.940
Usage → Tradition 0.905 0.905 0.879 0.928
Value → Image 0.833 0.833 0.782 0.876
Value → Novelty 0.453 0.453 0.356 0.543
Value → Resistance 0.714 0.713 0.644 0.776
Value → Risk 0.847 0.847 0.811 0.880
Value → Tradition 0.807 0.806 0.763 0.844
Value → Usage 0.868 0.867 0.833 0.896

References India – An empirical study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37(7),

Alaeddin, O., Altounjy, R., Zainudin, Z., & Kamarudin, F. (2018). From physical to digital:
Investigating consumer behaviour of switching to mobile wallet. Polish Journal of
Management Studies, 17(2), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2018.17.2.02.
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of
mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002.
Alwosheel, A., van Cranenburgh, S., & Chorus, C. G. (2018). Is your dataset big enough?
Sample size requirements when using artificial neural networks for discrete choice
analysis. Journal of Choice Modelling, 28(September 2018), 167–182. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jocm.2018.07.002.
Amin, M. K., Azhar, A., Amin, A., & Akter, A. (2016). Applying the technology acceptance
model in examining Bangladeshi consumers’ behavioral intention to use mobile
wallet: PLS-SEM approach. 2015 18th international conference on computer and in-
formation technology, ICCIT, 2015, 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCITechn.2015.
7488049.
Amoroso, D. L., & Ackaradejruangsri, P. (2019). Satisfaction with applications fuels the
growth of mobile wallet use in Thailand. International Journal of Business Economics
and Management, 6(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.62.2019.61.16.22.
Amoroso, D. L., & Magnier-Watanabe, R. (2012). Building a research model for mobile
wallet consumer adoption: The case of mobile Suica in Japan. Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(1), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.4067/
S0718-18762012000100008.
Antioco, M., & Kleijnen, M. (2010). Consumer adoption of technological innovations:
Effects of psychological and functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence
of content situation. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11), 1700–1724. https://doi.
org/10.1108/03090561011079846.
Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2010). The digital divide and internet voting acceptance. 4th
international conference on digital society, ICDS 2010, includes CYBERLAWS 2010: The
1st international conference on technical and legal aspects of the e-Society, 307–310.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDS.2010.54.
Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet
devices. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 553–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2003.08.002.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual differences and usage behavior:
Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. Data Base for Advances in
Information Systems, 36(2), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/1066149.1066155.
Capgemini (2018). World payments report 2018Retrieved fromhttps://
worldpaymentsreport.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/10/World-Payments-
Report-2018.pdf.
Casal, J., Monteiro, D., Sousa, L., Santos, P., Santos, J., & Ramos, J. (2017). Requirements
elicitation for a holistic Mobile wallet ecosystem. ICETE 2017 - proceedings of the 14th
international joint conference on E-business and telecommunications, 2, 63–70. https://
doi.org/10.5220/0006390600630070.
Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2019). Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in
1590–1618. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2018-0256.
Chemingui, H., & Ben Lallouna, H. (2013). Resistance, motivations, trust and intention to
use mobile financial services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31(7), 574–592.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-12-2012-0124.
Chen, L., Nayak, R., & Xu, Y. (2010). Improving matching process in social network.
Proceedings - IEEE international conference on data mining, ICDM, 305–311. https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICDMW.2010.41.
Chen, P. T., & Kuo, S. C. (2017). Innovation resistance and strategic implications of en-
terprise social media websites in Taiwan through knowledge sharing perspective.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 118(May 2017), 55–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.002.
Chen, Q., Lu, Y., Gong, Y. (Yale), & Tang, Q. (2019). Why do users resist service orga-
nization’s brand mobile apps? The force of barriers versus cross-channel synergy.
International Journal of Information Management, 47(August 2019), 274–282. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.012.
Choi, J., Lee, H. J., & Kim, H. W. (2017). Examining the effects of personalized App
recommender systems on purchase intention: A self and social-interaction perspec-
tive. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 73–102. Retrieved from http://
web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/bsi/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=
5&sid=ec82fcce-d397-4a09-9d02-088cc8b4e54f%40sessionmgr4009.
Dale Wagner, G., & Flannery, D. D. (2004). A quantitative study of factors affecting
learner acceptance of a computer-based training support tool. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 28(5), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590410533071.
Dasgupta, S., Paul, R. I. K., & Fuloria, S. (2011). Factors affecting behavioral intentions
towards mobile banking usage: Empirical evidence from India. Romanian Journal of
Marketing, 6(1), 6–117.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Kapoor, K. K., Williams, M. D., & Williams, J. (2013). RFID systems in
libraries: An empirical examination of factors affecting system use and user sa-
tisfaction. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 367–377. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.10.008.
El Badrawy, R., Abd El Aziz, R., & Fady, R. (2011). The state of mobile banking in the
Egyptian industry. Proceedings of the European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern
conference on information systems, EMCIS 2012, 598–605.
EL Idrissi, T., Idri, A., & Bakkoury, Z. (2019). Systematic map and review of predictive
techniques in diabetes self-management. International Journal of Information
Management, 46(June 2019), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.
011.
El Mhamdi, S., Wolfcarius-Khiari, G., Mhalla, S., Ben Salem, K., & Soltani, S. M. (2011).
Prevalence and predictors of smoking among adolescent schoolchildren in Monastir,
Tunisia. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 17(6), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.
1108/EUM0000000002542.
Elbadrawy, R., & Abdel Aziz, R. (2011). Resistance to mobile banking adoption in Egypt:
A cultural perspective. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 3(4),
9–21. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmit.2011.3402.
Enkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., & Wirth, H. (2017). Exploratory and exploitative in-
novation: To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity
contribute? Technovation, 60–61(February 2017), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

21
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
technovation.2016.08.002.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research
Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Ferreira, J. B., da Rocha, A., & da Silva, J. F. (2014). Impacts of technology readiness on
emotions and cognition in Brazil. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 865–873.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.005.
Gunawardana, K. D., & Ekanayaka, S. (2009). An empirical study of the factors that
impact medical representatives” attitude toward the intention to use M-learning for
career development. Sasin Journal of Management, 15(1), 1–26.
Hew, J. J., Leong, L. Y., Tan, G. W. H., Lee, V. H., & Ooi, K. B. (2018). Mobile social
tourism shopping: A dual-stage analysis of a multi-mediation model. Tourism
Management, 66(June 2018), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.10.
005.
Hew, J. J., Leong, L. Y., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., & Lee, V. H. (2019). The age of mobile
social commerce: An Artificial Neural Network analysis on its resistances.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144(July 2019), 311–324. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.007.
Hew, T. S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2016). Predicting instructional effectiveness of cloud-
based virtual learning environment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(8),
1557–1584. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2015-0475.
Hew, T. S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2017b). Applying Channel Expansion and Self-
Determination Theory in predicting use behaviour of cloud-based VLE. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 36(9), 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.
1307450.
Hew, T. S., & Kadir, S. L. S. A. (2017a). The drivers for cloud-based virtual learning
environment: Examining the moderating effect of school category. Internet Research,
27(4), 942–973. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-08-2016-0256.
Hew, T. S., Leong, L. Y., Ooi, K. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2016). Predicting drivers of mobile
entertainment adoption: A two-stage sem-artificial-neural-network analysis. Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 56(4), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08874417.2016.1164497.
Hubona, G. S., & Kennick, E. (1996). The influence of external variables on information
technology usage behavior. Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference
on system sciences, 4, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.1996.495323.
Hyunwoo, K. (2009). Factors affecting consumer resistance to innovation: A study of smart-
phones. Retrieved fromSweden: Jonkoping International Business School. http://
www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:223332/FULLTEXT02.
Ifezue, A. N., Ama, N. O., & Moseki, K. K. (2016). An exploratory factor analysis of older
adults’ resistance to innovation adoption: A case study of university of Botswana.
Journal of Management and Research, 8(4), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v8i4.
9825.
Kapoor, K., Dwivedi, Y., Piercy, N. C., Lal, B., & Weerakkody, V. (2014). RFID integrated
systems in libraries: Extending TAM model for empirically examining the use. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, 27(6), 731–758. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-10-2013-0079.
Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Examining the role of three sets of
innovation attributes for determining adoption of the interbank mobile payment
service. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(5), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10796-014-9484-7.
Karaca, Y., Moonis, M., Zhang, Y. D., & Gezgez, C. (2019). Mobile cloud computing based
stroke healthcare system. International Journal of Information Management, 45(April
2019), 250–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.012.
Karjaluoto, H., Shaikh, A. A., Saarijärvi, H., & Saraniemi, S. (2019). How perceived value
drives the use of mobile financial services apps. International Journal of Information
Management, 47(August 2019), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.
08.014.
Kim, C., Oh, E., Shin, N., & Chae, M. (2009). An empirical investigation of factors af-
fecting ubiquitous computing use and U-business value. International Journal of
Information Management, 29(6), 436–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.
06.003.
Kim, M. K., & Jee, K. Y. (2006). Characteristics of individuals influencing adoption in-
tentions for portable internet service. ETRI Journal, 28(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.
4218/etrij.06.0104.0175.
Kim, M., Kim, S., & Kim, J. (2019). Can mobile and biometric payments replace cards in
the Korean offline payments market? Consumer preference analysis for payment
systems using a discrete choice model. Telematics and Informatics, 38(May 2019),
46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.02.003.
Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to
innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.004.
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T., & Hiltunen, M. (2007). Mapping the reasons for resistance to
Internet banking: A means-end approach. International Journal of Information
Management, 27(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.08.006.
Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business
Research, 69(7), 2432–2439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.013.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., & Laukkanen, P. (2007a). Innovation re-
sistance among mature consumers. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7),
419–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710834834.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., & Laukkanen, P. (2007b). Segmenting bank
22
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
customers by resistance to mobile banking. Conference Proceedings - 6th international
conference on the management of mobile business, ICMB 2007. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICMB.2007.57.
Lee, H. J., Cho, H. J., Xu, W., & Fairhurst, A. (2010). The influence of consumer traits and
demographics on intention to use retail self-service checkouts. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 28(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634501011014606.
Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., & Lin, B. (2019). Do electronic word-of-mouth and
elaboration likelihood model influence hotel booking? Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 59(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.
1320953.
Leong, L. Y., Jaafar, N. I., & Ainin, S. (2018a). The effects of Facebook browsing and usage
intensity on impulse purchase in f-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior,
78(January 2018), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.09.033.
Leong, L. Y., Jaafar, N. I., & Ainin, S. (2018b). Understanding facebook commerce (F-
Commerce) actual purchase from an artificial neural network perspective. Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 19(1), 75–103. Retrieved from http://www.jecr.org/
sites/default/files/19_1Paper5.pdf.
Leong, L. Y., Ooi, K. B., Chong, A. Y. L., & Lin, B. (2011). Influence of individual char-
acteristics, perceived usefulness and ease of use on mobile entertainment adoption.
International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(4), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.
1504/IJMC.2011.041141.
Lian, J. W., Liu, H. M., & Liu, I. L. (2012). Applying innovation resistance theory to
understand user acceptance of online shopping: The moderating effect of different
product types. Computer Technology and Application, 3(2012), 188–193. Retrieved
from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d40b/
2af41d4cb4e03a30506fa11103d5460285ab.pdf.
Lian, J. W., & Yen, D. C. (2013). To buy or not to buy experience goods online: Perspective
of innovation adoption barriers. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 665–672.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.009.
Lian, J. W., & Yen, D. C. (2014). Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age
and gender differences. Computers in Human Behavior, 37(August 2014), 133–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.028.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinković, V., & Kalinić, Z. (2017). A SEM-neural network ap-
proach for predicting antecedents of m-commerce acceptance. International Journal of
Information Management, 37(2), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.10.
008.
Low, K. H. (2017). Factor affecting consumer resistance to PayPal mobile payment adoption: A
study of generation X consumers in Malaysia. Retrieved fromUniversiti Tunku Abdul
Rahmanhttp://eprints.utar.edu.my/2427/1/Thesis_(PayPal).pdf.
Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and
multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study
of mobile banking services. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 222–234. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.02.008.
Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2019). Understanding the barriers to the use of MOOCs in a devel-
oping country: An innovation resistance perspective. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 57(3), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118757732.
Madan, K., & Yadav, R. (2016). Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: A devel-
oping country perspective. Journal of Indian Business Research, 8(3), 227–244.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2015-0112.
Mahatanankoon, P., & Vila-Ruiz, J. (2008). Why won’t consumers adopt m-commerce?
An exploratory study. Journal of Internet Commerce, 6(4), 113–128. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15332860802086367.
Mani, Z., & Chouk, I. (2017). Drivers of consumers’ resistance to smart products. Journal
of Marketing Management, 33(1–2), 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2016.
1245212.
Marett, K., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R. A., & Bergiel, E. (2015). ). Using mobile devices in
a high risk context: The role of risk and trust in an exploratory study in Afghanistan.
Technology in Society, 41(May 2015), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.
11.002.
Moorthy, K., Suet Ling, C., Weng Fatt, Y., Mun Yee, C., Ket Yin, E. C., Sin Yee, K., et al.
(2017). Barriers of mobile commerce adoption intention: Perceptions of generation X
in Malaysia. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2),
37–53. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762017000200004.
Nizam, F., Hwang, H. J., & Valaei, N. (2019). Measuring the effectiveness of E-wallet in
Malaysia. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 786, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-96803-2_5.
Nordman, E. R., & Tolstoy, D. (2016). The impact of opportunity connectedness on in-
novation in SMEs’ foreign-market relationships. Technovation, 57–58(November-
December 2016), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.04.001.
Ooi, K. B., Lee, V. H., Tan, G. W. H., Hew, T. S., & Hew, J. J. (2018). Cloud computing in
manufacturing: The next industrial revolution in Malaysia? Expert Systems With
Applications, 93(March 2018), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.10.
009.
Ooi, K. B., & Tan, G. W. H. (2016). Mobile technology acceptance model: An investigation
using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Systems with
Applications, 59(October 2016), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.015.
Pai, F. Y., & Huang, K. I. (2011). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to the
introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 78(4), 650–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.11.007.
Patil, P. P., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). Digital payments adoption research: A
review of factors influencing consumer’s attitude, intention and usage. Lecture Notes
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and
Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11195 LNCS, 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
030-02131-3_6.
Peng, H., Xu, X., & Liu, W. (2011). Drivers and barriers in the acceptance of mobile
payment in China. 2011 international conference on E-business and E-government,
ICEE2011 - Proceedings, 7911–7914. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBEG.2011.
5887081.
PLS-SEM (2015). Discriminant validity : Check out how to use the new HTMT criterion !
Retrieved from a primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
website:http://www.pls-sem.com/?q=node/68.
Ram, S. (1989). Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance. An
empirical test. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6(1), 20–34. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0737-6782(89)90011-8.
Ram, S., & Sheth, J. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: The marketing problem
and its solutions. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.
1108/EUM0000000002542.
Rathore, H. S. (2016). Adoption of digital wallet by consumers. BVIMSR’s Journal of
Management Research, 8(1), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-10-2015-0112.
Reddy, R. S., Agrawal, S., Chaitanya, B. K., Bist, H., Saftar, S., Patil, P. R., et al. (2017).
Factors affecting consumers’ choice to use mobile wallet to access m-commerce in-
dustry in India. International Journal on Customer Relations, 5(1), 14–21.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2015). SmartPLS 3.0. https://doi.org/http://
www.smartpls.com http://Www.Smartpls.De.
Rocha, M. A. V., Hammond, L., & Hawkins, D. H. (2005). Age, gender and national factors
in fashion consumption. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(4), 380–390.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13612020510620768.
Rogers, E. M. (2015). Evolution: Diffusion of innovationsInternational encyclopedia of the
social & behavioral sciences (second edition). 378–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-08-097086-8.81064-8.
Segarra-Moliner, J. R., & Moliner-Tena, M.Á. (2016). Customer equity and CLV in Spanish
telecommunication services. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4694–4705.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.017.
Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kumar, U. (2016). Service delivery through
mobile-government (mGov): Driving factors and cultural impacts. Information Systems
Frontiers, 18(2), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9533-2.
Sharma, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Al-Salti, Z. (2018). Mobile wallet inhibitors:
Developing a comprehensive theory using an integrated model. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 45(November 2018), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.08.008.
Sharma, S. K., Sharma, H., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). A hybrid SEM-Neural network model
for predicting determinants of mobile payment services. Information Systems
Management, 36(3), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2019.1620504.
Sharma, S. K., & Sharma, M. (2019). Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in
the actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation. International
Journal of Information Management, 44(February 2019), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.013.
Shaw, N. (2014). The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of the mobile wallet.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jretconser.2014.03.008.
Shaw, N. (2015). Younger persons are more likely to adopt the mobile wallet than older
persons, or are they? The moderating role of age. Twenty-First Americas Conference on
Information Systems, 1–15. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/
AdoptionofIT/GeneralPresentations/28/.
Shin, D. H. (2009). Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile
wallet. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1343–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2009.06.001.
Sivathanu, B. (2019). Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in
India: An empirical study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(1),
143–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-07-2017-0033.
Slade, E., Dwivedi, Y., Williams, M., & Piercy, N. (2016). An empirical investigation of
remote Mobile payment adoption. Let’s get engaged! Crossing the threshold of marketing’s
engagement era441–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11815-4_122.
Slade, E. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Piercy, N. C., & Williams, M. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’
adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending
UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823.
Slade, E., Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y., & Piercy, N. (2015). Exploring consumer adoption of
proximity mobile payments. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(3), 209–223. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2014.914075.
Snyder, R. G. (1961). Vibrational spectra of crystalline n-paraffins. II. Intermolecular
effects. Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, 7(1–6), 116–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0022-2852(61)90347-2.
Soliman, A., Salem, M. S., & Arabia, S. (2014). Investigating Intention to Use Mobile
Instant Messenger: The Influence of Sociability, Self-Expressiveness, and Enjoyment.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, 19(2), 286–294.
Statista (2018a). Barriers to digital wallet adoption in the United States 2017. Retrieved
December 5, 2018, fromhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/306828/us-users-not-
using-digital-wallets-reasons/.
Statista (2018b). Number of Apple pay, Samsung pay and Android pay contactless payment
23
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
users from 2015 to 2017 (in millions). Retrieved December 5, 2018, fromhttps://www.
statista.com/statistics/722213/user-base-of-leading-digital-wallets-nfc/.
Swilley, E. (2010). Technology rejection: The case of the wallet phone. The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 27(4), 304–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/
07363761011052341.
Szmigin, I., & Foxall, G. (1998). Three forms of innovation resistance: The case of retail
payment methods. Technovation, 18(6–7), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-
4972(98)00030-3.
Talke, K., & Heidenreich, S. (2014). How to overcome pro-change bias: Incorporating
passive and active innovation resistance in innovation decision models. The Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 894–907. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.
12130.
Tan, G. W. H., Lee, V. H., Hew, J. J., Ooi, K. B., & Wong, L. W. (2018). The interactive
mobile social media advertising: An imminent approach to advertise tourism pro-
ducts and services? Telematics and Informatics, 35(8), 2270–2288. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tele.2018.09.005.
Tan, G. W. H., Lee, V. H., Lin, B., & Ooi, K. B. (2017). Mobile applications in tourism: The
future of the tourism industry? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3),
560–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2015-0490.
Tan, G. W. H., & Ooi, K. B. (2018). Gender and age: Do they really moderate mobile
tourism shopping behavior? Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1617–1642. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.04.009.
Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Leong, L. Y., & Lin, B. (2014). Predicting the drivers of beha-
vioral intention to use mobile learning: A hybrid SEM-Neural Networks approach.
Computers in Human Behavior, 36(July 2014), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2014.03.052.
Tan, Y. (2018). Banking on the e-wallet in Malaysia. PwC Malaysia webpage. Retrieved from
https://www.pwc.com/my/en/assets/blog/pwc-my-deals-strategy-banking-on-the-
ewallet-in-malaysia.pdf.
Taneja, A., & Arora, A. (2019). Modeling user preferences using neural networks and
tensor factorization model. International Journal of Information Management, 45(April
2019), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.010.
Tang, C. Y., Lai, C. C., Law, C. W., Liew, M. C., & Phua, V. V. (2014). Examining key
determinants of mobile wallet adoption intention in Malaysia: An empirical study
using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 model. International
Journal of Modelling in Operations Management, 4(3/4), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.
1504/ijmom.2014.067383.
Teo, A. C., Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Hew, T. S., & Yew, K. T. (2015). The effects of
convenience and speed in m-payment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(2),
311–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2014-0231.
Truong, Y. (2013). A cross-country study of consumer innovativeness and technological
service innovation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(1), 130–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.10.014.
Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory
innovativeness. Concepts, measurement, and implications. Journal of Business
Research, 20(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2.
Wadhera, T., Dabas, R., & Malhotra, P. (2017). Adoption of M-Wallet: A way ahead.
International Journal of Engineering and Management Research (IJEMR), 7(4), 1–7.
Wang, H. Y. (2018). Investigating the factors of hospitality company-branded Line
stickers that influence users’ attitudes toward hospitality companies. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(3), 1808–1826. https://doi.org/
10.1108/IJCHM-09-2016-0551.
Wei, L. Z., & Tsu, D. K. P. (2018). Transforming mobile phones into E-Wallets in Malaysia.
Retrieved fromBank Negara Malaysia35–43. http://www.bnm.gov.my/files/
publication/qb/2018/Q2/p7.pdf.
Wells, J. D., Campbell, D. E., Valacich, J. S., & Featherman, M. (2010). The effect of
perceived novelty on the adoption of information technology innovations: A Risk/
Reward perspective. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 813–843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-5915.2010.00292.x.
Yang, H. L., & Lin, R. X. (2017). Determinants of the intention to continue use of SoLoMo
services: Consumption values and the moderating effects of overloads. Computers in
Human Behavior, 73(August 2017), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.
018.
Yani-de-Soriano, M., Hanel, P. H. P., Vazquez-Carrasco, R., Cambra-Fierro, J., Wilson, A.,
& Centeno, E. (2019). Investigating the role of customers’ perceptions of employee
effort and justice in service recovery: A cross-cultural perspective. European Journal of
Marketing, 53(4), 708–732. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2017-0570.
Yap, C. M., & Ng, B. A. (2019). Factors Influencing Consumers’ Perceived Usefulness of M-
Wallet in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Review of Integrative Business and Economics
Research, 8(4), 1–23.
Yin, X., Zhang, J., & Wang, X. (2004). Sequential injection analysis system for the de-
termination of arsenic by hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry. Fenxi
Huaxue, 32(10), 1365–1367. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Yu, C. S. (2013). What influencing consumers to resist using mobile banking. Proceedings
of the International Conference on Electronic Business (ICEB), 34–41.
Yu, C. S., & Chantatub, W. (2016). Consumers’ resistance to using mobile banking:
Evidence from Thailand and Taiwan. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
Studies, 7(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1375.
L.-Y. Leong, et al.
Lai-Ying Leong holds a Ph.D. in Business Information
Systems from the University of Malaya. She is an Assistant
Professor at the Faculty of Business and Finance, UTAR. Her
research interests include Mobile Applications, Technology
Adoption, E-commerce, and Business Information Systems.
Her works have appeared in Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Internet Research, Computers in Human
Behavior, Expert Systems with Applications, Tourism
Management, Journal of Business Research, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, Journal of Knowledge Management,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, etc.
Teck-Soon Hew obtained his Ph.D. in Information Systems
from the University of Malaya. His research interests in-
clude Information Systems, Artificial Neural Networks,
Mobile Applications, Virtual Learning Environment, and
Technology Adoption. His works have appeared in
Computers & Education, Computers in Human Behavior,
Internet Research, Expert Systems with Applications, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Behavior & Information
Technology, Telematics & Informatics, Journal of Business
Research, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, Journal of
Knowledge Management, International Journal of Mobile
Communications, etc.
24
International Journal of Information Management xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Keng-Boon Ooi is a Professor in Information Systems and
Industrial Management. He is the Dean for the Faculty of
Business & Information Science, UCSI University. His works
have been published in Decision Support Systems,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Computers in
Human Behavior, Tourism Management, International Journal
of Information Management, Journal of Business Research,
Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Expert Systems with
Applications, International Journal of Production and
Economics, etc.
June Wei is a Professor of the Department of Management
and Management Information Systems at the University of
West Florida. She earned a Ph.D. from Purdue University.
She has over 180 publications including papers in referral
journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, Behavior and
Information Technology, and among others. She has over six
years of industry working experience and currently serving
as Editor-in-Chief for two referral international journals.