Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia online
Available Computer
at Science 00 (2020) 000–000
www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554

24th International Conference on Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering

24th International Conference on Knowledge-Based
Systems and Intelligent Information & Engineering
Systems
Technological trust from the perspective of digital payment
Technological trust from the perspective of digital payment
Oskar Szumski aa*
a
Oskar Szumski *
Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, ul. Szturmowa 3, Warsaw 02-678, Poland
a
Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, ul. Szturmowa 3, Warsaw 02-678, Poland

Abstract
Abstract
The major purpose of this research is to analyze current state of technological trust of various payment methods,
The major
services purpose ofThe
and providers. this research is to divided
was analyze current state of technological
into 3 sections: popularity oftrust
use of
of various
differentpayment
digital methods,
payment
services
methods,and providers.trust
technological The aspects
researchandwas divided into
demographic data3 of
sections: popularity of use of different digital payment
the respondents.
methods, technological
The research was executed trustchoosing
aspects and demographic
focus group of 400. data
Theof following
the respondents.
structure was applied: short introduction to
Thedigital
the research was executed
payment methodschoosing focus group
and technological of 400.
trust, The following
definition structure
of research method, was applied:
analysis andshort introduction
discussion of to
identified
the digital results.
payment A methods
group ofand fourtechnological
hundred randomly selected people
trust, definition from the
of research university
method, wasand
analysis examined. Conducted
discussion of
survey identified
identified results. following
A group ofelements: technological
four hundred randomlytrust is a visible
selected peopledriver for university
from the building upwaspopularity
examined.of particular
Conducted
survey identifiedmethod.
digital payment followingAs elements:
side effectstechnological
of the surveytrust is a visible
following driver for
conclusions building
were up popularity
identified: women tendof particular
to have
more limited
digital paymenttrust for a modern
method. As sidepayment
effects ofmethods thanfollowing
the survey men. Government
conclusionsis identified at similar
were identified: leveltend
women of to have
technological
more trustfor
limited trust expressed
a modern bypayment
the big ormethods
very bigthan
inconvenience of payment
men. Government data processing
is identified at similaraslevel
online
of payment
technological
operators and trust
sellersexpressed
of goodsby theservices
and big or very
wherebigover
inconvenience of payment
70% of respondents data processing
indicate as online payment
deficit of trust.
operators and sellers of goods and services where over 70% of respondents indicate deficit of trust.
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This
© is an
2019 open
The access article
Author(s). under
Published bythe CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review
This is an under
open responsibility
access article of
under KES
the CCInternational.
BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
KES International.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.
Keywords: Technological trust ; digital payment ; tech trust
Keywords: Technological trust ; digital payment ; tech trust

1. Introduction
1. Introduction
Nowadays, every company seems to be the technology company (IT company), accelerating presence of
Nowadays,
technology everylifecompany
in daily seemsoftopeople
and existence be the
hastechnology companyfrom
significant manner (ITthe
company), accelerating
perspective of getting, presence of
holding and
technology
losing in daily[1],
customers life[2].
andCompanies
existence ofrequest
peopletheir
has significant
customers manner
to trust from
themthe perspective
improving or of getting, the
extending holding
leveland
of
losing customers [1], [2]. Companies request their customers to trust them improving or extending the level of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +48-22-553-4002; fax: +48-22-553-4001

* E-mail oskar.szumski@uw.edu.pl
address:author.
Corresponding Tel.: +48-22-553-4002; fax: +48-22-553-4001
E-mail address: oskar.szumski@uw.edu.pl
1877-0509 © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open
1877-0509 access
© 2019 The article underPublished
Author(s). the CC BY-NC-ND
by Elsevier license
B.V. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under
This is an open responsibility
access of KES
article under International.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.

1877-0509 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the KES International.
10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.032
3546 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554
2 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000

information gathered from the customers. At the same time users can read almost regularly about the newest data
breaches, security hacks, misuse or illegal use of personal data [3], [4]. Trust in technology become the new
challenge all together with wide spreading digitalization of one’s life [5]. The current trust in technology can be
recognized in two aspects: human-like trust that includes benevolence, integrity, and ability or system-like trust
constructs helpfulness, reliability, and functionality thus no direct guidance is provided what type of technological
trust should be employed. Trust can be defined in many different ways but the observed status indicates that trust is a
very fragile factor that can be easily affected by different means. The example of public trust of companies like
Facebook and Google: it has changed over last years moving to the negative rates as per Pew Research Center
survey [6] issued in 2019 where respondents indicated the change of the opinion decreasing the overall views from
71% to 50% to the negative views that raised from 17% to 33 % (almost doubled). Everyone can notice that world is
changing very fast in every dimension, including digital evolution, transformation and business and personal
approach, very often driven by human behavior or demand raised or identified within users [7]. It is not so easy to
address all the concerns or how to leverage the technology to serve people’s needs, as everyone has different needs
[8], [9], [10]. Trust in technology has been addressed in many ways [11]. One of the most popular approaches
designed in 2017 was 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer [12] - where different factors were leveraged and initial
decrease in trust in technology was identified, yet technology sector still is granted high level of trust of the society
[13]. Following research of Edelman group following 3 signals were presented for the technology area:
1. Tech stays stable with trust while other areas were increasing the share, so the effort should be focused on
enablement of trust among technology users
2. Deficit in trusted behaviors due to unclear and not transparent overview of how technology is contributing to
the good of the society and in particular concerns related to data protection [14],
3. Some innovations yet to earn trust such as blockchain technology autonomous cars are still without relevant
level of society trust.
Technology trust is an asset that every business need to focus [15] on especially when the innovation is
introduced this is also something that needs to be analyzed and taken care off on daily basis as trust once lost is
difficult to recover [16].
Literature indicates wide availability of researches and publications focused on various aspects of trust. The
digital era of modern economy moved the technological trust towards one of the most important drivers of
technology adoption[17]. In many reports and papers [18], [19] related to the technology trust definition of
technology trust is defined and used to serve the needs of those researches, thus no single definition of technological
trust has been agreed among the scientists as no single picture and understanding can be compromised. The author
decided to focus on technology trust aspects from the perspective of digital payment methods taking system oriented
approach [20] addressed as digital trust drivers in Digital Planet Report 2017 [21] where Poland was ranked as
country with deficit of technological trust.
The author has decided to investigate the level of technology trust among the focus group identified within the
students of Faculty of Management of Warsaw University. There are various definitions of technological trust that
different authors use to explain the conditions of such approach [16], [22]. To meet the goal of the research the
author has defined Technological trust as the expectation of efficiency, reliability and effectiveness of technical
devices and systems, from the perspective of people who have created the given technology, information systems of
material objects, etc. The most important aspect of adopting digital channels to carry on payment transactions is to
gather relevant level of trust among users. From this perspective it is valuable to identify such factors related to
technological trust that would allow to determine what drives users the most to make one payment method leading
over the other ones. The article has two goals: first, to conduct an empirical investigation of consumers’
technological trust for digital payment methods and second, to demonstrate how different characteristics linked to
the trust drive the decision to choose particular digital payment method for person purchases. This research is
important because, in an era when emerging payment methods and development and adaptation of mobile
technology are introduced [23], [24], its beneficial to know what characteristics might increase the popularity of
payment methods as well what factors might rise the common technological trust that in the final state also might
finally replace existing or unpopular payment methods [25].
 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554 3547
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000 3

The main target of this study is to analyze initial set of technological trust determinants that drive the adoption of
digital payment methods [26]. This is the second part of a series of surveys focused on the payment methods in
digital economy.
Analysis of technological trust from the perspective of digital payment methods are executed mostly to:
• broaden knowledge about the particular technological trust factors its rules importance for the users,
• create a ranking of the frequently used payment methods used as future reference to gain higher level of
technological trust of analyzed instruments,
• select determinants that from the customer's point of view to create patterns that support adoption of
modern payment methods.
Following article is focused mostly on the first from the above statements. The analysis is targeted to define the
most important characteristics of technological trust accompanied with rationale behind the decision to use particular
digital payment methods.
The article consists of four sections: general background and literature overview, where author reviews chosen set
of literature in the area of technological trust and payment methods, second section describes used research
methodology, third part is dedicated to the detailed analysis of collected data and the last part states for the
compound summary of the research findings.

2. Methodology

Following article is complementary to the other article that was focused on payment methods and thus is based on
similar set of research data. Due to different scope of analysis the same data base was analyzed to achieve additional
or extended conclusions.
The report utilizes the survey data conducted in November 2019 the sample data consist of 400 fully answered
questionnaires. Each respondent was identified as adult (18 years of age or above). The survey was conducted in
Polish language. Respondents were recruited through convenient sampling where identification of the respondent
group was not accidental; respondents were mainly students of from students of University of Warsaw, Faculty of
Management possible influencers and users of modern technology.
The CAWI (Computer-assisted web interviewing) method uses dedicated algorithm for creating web interviews
provided in a website to provide respondents with survey questions. Following phases were introduced during the
activity:
1. Focus group identified as users of digital technology,
2. Deployment of the online version of a survey on the infrastructure of Faculty of Management of the University
of Warsaw,
3. Pre-execution verification of the survey and its functionality,
4. Distribution of an active link to the survey and time window for the research set up,
5. Collection of survey data using a questionnaire hosted on the online survey platform, analysis and discussion of
results,
6. Conclusion from the results obtained from the survey.
The reader should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can
introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.
The age of the respondent was of range 20-21 83,75 % of all respondents. The age represents typical age of
students of BA and BSc students.

First part of the questionnaire had the volumetric character of different payment methods the section was used to
determine priority of analysis against particular digital payment methods carried on in further parts of the research.
Second part examines level of technological trust related to digital payment methods. Third section analyses
willingness to share payment data with various parties including banks, online payment operators and government.
Last section collects demographic data of the respondents. Author used following definitions for places of living:
rural and towns (residents of rural area all together with residents of towns of 10000 inhabitants), medium size cities
(10001-100000 inhabitants), big and very big cities (over 100000 inhabitants). Distribution by the means of place of
3548 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554
4 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000

living: cities with over 100,000 residents almost 33 %, living in towns/cities within 10,000-100,000 residents – 30%,
37% from towns up to 10,000 residents and rural areas.

3. Discussion of results

The leading digital payment methods from the perspective of frequency of use (from the analysis author has
excluded cash payments and direct payments made in bank branches as not treated as digital payment method):
payments made with physical credit/debit card (91%), payments made via e-banking (web access) (85%), payments
made via m-banking (mobile app) IKO PKO BP, mBank PL (73%), payments made via e-wallet (smartphone,
computer, tablet), e.g. Google Pay, Apple Pay, Visa Checkout, Masterpass (40%), payments made via
cryptocurrency card (e.g. BitCoin, Monero) / mobile app eg. Coinbase Card (1%), payments made via
cryptocurrency card (eg. BitCoin, Monero) / e-wallet e.g. Wirex (2%).
From the results received it can be noticed that deficit of trust for the leading payment methods is relatively small
within range of 0-1% of no trust responses. Considering still emerging approach to the mobile technology and
blockchain based it can be seen that trust in those areas is slightly lower than the leading and well knows methods.
Considering compound level of trust deficit expressed by the summary of no trust and low trust answers credit card
payments, e-banking and m-banking represent satisfactory level of trust in technology. E-wallets and blockchain
based services don’t have a trust of a quarter of respondents (19%) it shows the need for better understanding for the
users to enable higher level of use of such methods. The research is in line with findings of other researchers in the
area with the regards of frequency and popularity of use of paperless payment methods. The highest deficit of trust
is observer within blockchain based payment instruments and is understood from the perspective of still high level
of complexity and missing transparency of the technology itself as well as present gaps in low at the national level
especially from the perspective of blockchain technology and high level of fluctuation of monetarization of different
cryptocurrency. The results of collected data in more detailed manner and also cross other layers of use will be
analyzed deeper in the further sections of the article where focus is set on various services used to handle different
payment transactions (Table 1).

Table 1. Level of trust for leading digital payment methods

payments payments payments made via payments payments payments
made via e- made with m-banking (mobile made via made via made via
banking physical app) IKO PKO BP, e-wallet cryptocurrency cryptocurrency
(web credit/debit mBank PL card/ mobile card / e-wallet
access) card app eg. e.g. Wirex
Coinbase Card
No trust 1% 0% 1% 1% 8% 8%
Low level of trust 7% 5% 11% 18% 11% 12%
High level of trust 61% 60% 53% 23% 3% 3%
Full trust 28% 34% 21% 11% 1% 1%
Don’t use the service 4% 1% 14% 47% 77% 77%

Another element of the investigation is the relation between popularity of use of the leading digital payment
methods cross the level of trust that respondents declared. From the diagram it is well seen that trust level is also
reflected in the rating of use of particular payment methods (Fig. 1).
 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000 5
Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554 3549

Fig. 1. Popularity of payment method and level of tech trust

Findings, related to the division via the gender of respondents, of the most popular payment methods are
presented in Table 2. e-banking payment method is recognized with almost the same level of tech trust by both male
and female respondents (male 27%, female 28%), Credit/debit card payment female respondents indicate lower level
of the tech trust with the results of 10% more negative responses than male respondents (male 12%, female 22%)
and 10% less high/full trust (male 42% and female 30%), m- banking returns almost the same level of full or high
level of trust within those 2 groups (male 93% and female 94%) with male respondents giving higher rank to full
trust than female respondents. Similar situation is also reflected for e-wallet payment methods where both groups
indicate similar level of no trust (male 12% and female 13%), High and full level of trust is on the high level of 72%
(male) and 74% (female) respondents also in this situation male respondents tend to grant full trust more often than
women (Table 2). It might indicate that women are slightly more skeptical than men or just need different attributes
to increase their level of tech trust of the new payment methods related to financial operations.

Table 2. Level of trust from the perspective of gender

Credit card Credit card e-banking - e-banking - m-banking - m-banking - e-wallet - e-wallet -
- male -female male female male female male female
No trust 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1%
Low level of 11% 21% 5% 7% 2% 6% 10% 12%
trust
High level of 30% 20% 60% 61% 55% 63% 49% 54%
trust
3550 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554
6 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000

Full trust 12% 10% 27% 28% 38% 31% 23% 20%
Don’t use the 46% 47% 6% 3% 4% 0% 17% 12%
service

Author has analyzed the level of technological trust of 19 different payment providers (makers or providers of the
service). Only Pay Pal has been recognized as the most recognized and used by the focus group with the overall
response of 73% of users among the focus group. Remaining systems are not widely used by Polish young students
and over 50% of respondents refer to statements that they don’t use those services/systems to carry on payment
transactions. Table 3 represents the most frequently used payment service, Table 4 presents payment service that are
less popular ( over 85% of respondents declared not to use those services)

Table 3. Level of trust for makers/providers of payment systems part 1 – the most popular systems.
AliExpress Apple Pay Google Pay MasterCard PayPal Revolut Visa
Pocket PayPass Checkout
No trust 5% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
Low level of trust 23% 6% 14% 7% 11% 6% 5%
High level of 10% 19% 22% 31% 45% 16% 18%
trust
Full trust 2% 11% 8% 12% 15% 8% 11%
Don’t use the 61% 64% 55% 50% 29% 68% 66%
service

The results indicated that deficit of trust for the most popular payment services is at minimum level the rating
indicates that respondents don’t trust the service. Where the highest level of no trust is assigned to service
AliExpress Pocket (5%), Revolut gained 3% of votes for no trust, Visa Chackout and Google Pay received 2% of
No trust answers and Pay Pal and Apple Pay have noted 1% on No trust votes.
In comparison Payment services that were answered as not used by over 80% of respondents have more services
with 5% of no trust responses (Escrow, Giropay, Yahoo! Wallet) and 4% (Coinbase Card, Skrill, Webmoney,
Western Union, Wirex).
Taking a closer look at the trust driver and deficit of trust, the highest level of trust indicated (including high and
full trust responses) the higher the service is paced on the list of frequently used payment services. The only
deviation can be noticed with regards to AliExpress Pocket. Due to lack of additional data author was not able to
investigate further the situation.
Remaining services with the lowest share in usage have noted trust of less than 10% among the users. That might
be the reason of not using those services by the respondents and also this is the conclusion that producers and
providers should acknowledge to get better share of the usage of those payment services to work on building up the
trust among the society.

Table 4. Level of trust for makers/providers of payment systems part 1 – the less popular systems.
Cash Coinba Escrow Giro Payo Samsung Skrill Webm Western Wirex Yahoo! Amazon
app se Card pay neer Pay oney Union Wallet Pay
No trust 3% 4% 5% 5% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 2%
Low level 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 8%
of trust
High level 4% 1% 1% 0% 3% 6% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 5%
of trust
Full trust 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Don’t use 86% 88% 89% 88% 88% 83% 87% 88% 86% 89% 87% 84%
the service
 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000 7
Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554 3551

Another set of data is focused on peoples will to allow different organizations to process record of financial
transactions (Table 5).

Table 5. Willingness to share the record of payment transaction by different organizations

Your Your Internet The online The online Seller Seller Seller, his Govern
bank Bank and payment payment payment and his business ment
its operator operator and operator, its business partners and
business its business business partners their customers
partners partners partners and
their clients
Rather big 11% 39% 36% 50% 35% 36% 32% 20% 35%
inconvenience
Very big 4% 15% 14% 28% 56% 42% 58% 75% 46%
inconvenience
Very little 42% 10% 11% 3% 2% 5% 1% 1% 5%
inconvenience
Rather small, 44% 37% 39% 20% 7% 18% 9% 5% 14%
inconvenience

The majority of respondents answered that processing of payment transaction data is not seen as harmful for them
if own bank process such data. Only 15% of respondents indicated the issue with processing of such data by own
banks. At the same time over half of a focus group sees the issue with processing of payment data by bank and its
partners (54%) the remaining 46% of respondents don’t see this as an issue. Equally votes were divided into big
inconvenience and small impact with regards to Internet payment operator processing payment data. In situation
when the impact is extended with Online payment operator and their business partners, high level of an
inconvenience increases, giving almost 80% of answers raising concerns for such processing, with division of share
between rather big (50%) and very big concerns (28%). The situation changes further when it comes to the
information processing and sharing among business partners but also other customers, 56% of respondents identifies
the situation as very big concern and inconvenience. Respondents also see as inconvenience situation when Seller
process payment data - 36% of respondents indicates this as rather big inconvenience and 42 % very big
inconvenience. Again shares increase in favor of very big inconvenience if Seller wants to share the payment data of
customers with their business partners (32% indicate this as rather big inconvenience and 58% as very big
inconvenience). In situation when Seller would like to share such data additionally with their customers, majority of
responses indicate the situation as a very big inconvenience (75%) and 20% as rather big inconvenience. What is
interesting over 80% of respondents see the case with processing of their payment data as rather big or very big
inconvenience if done by government.
The generic conclusion coming from this analysis is that people tent to trust banks but trust is limited in situation
when payment transactions are processed by payment operators or sellers and it also is noticeable with regards to the
Government.
Considering government to be a body that citizens should trust, it’s very interesting to see deficit of trust among
that party.

Table 6. Level of loss/inconvenience due to sharing of your purchase data

Purchased Value of Sharing the Location of
products purchased purchase with shopping
products and others place
services
Very little or no noticeable inconvenience 4% 4% 4% 3%
Rather small, slightly noticeable inconvenience 20% 14% 22% 18%
Rather big, quite noticeable inconvenience 38% 40% 39% 34%
3552 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554
8 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000

Very big inconvenience 38% 42% 35% 45%

All respondents indicate that publication of their purchase data without prior permission is seen as big or rather
big inconvenience (Table 6). The highest impact on persons ‘perception of loss would be unauthorized publication
of value of purchased goods or services, and location of shopping place. Considering all the above data it is
interesting to see how users of different mobile apps or we-wallets use and store within those services personal data

Table 7. Level of loss/inconvenience due to sharing of your purchase data - divided by gender
Purchased Purchased Value of Value of Sharing Sharing Location Location
products - products - purchased purchased the the of of
female male products products purchase purchase shopping shopping
and and with with place - place -
services - services - others – others – female male
female male female male
Very little or no noticeable 4% 5% 3% 7% 4% 2% 2% 5%
inconvenience
Rather small, slightly 19% 23% 13% 14% 20% 25% 19% 14%
noticeable inconvenience
Rather big, quite noticeable 37% 39% 40% 41% 42% 35% 30% 41%
inconvenience
Very big inconvenience 40% 34% 44% 38% 34% 38% 48% 40%

All the respondents are conscious about the possible lost due to unauthorized publication of purchase data. Both
groups female and male indicate the average of 78% of concerns that unauthorized publication of purchase data
would be seen as rather big or very big inconvenience (Table 7). The level of responses indicates importance of
technological trust for used technology services and providers. With regards to the content of purchases goods of
services women are more concerned about the public display of the purchase 77% of female respondents rate the
inconvenience as rather big or very big comparing to 73% of male respondents, also women put more attention to
the possible loss of personal data related to their purchases in case of value of the purchase (84% comparing to 79%
male) and the fact that purchase was shared with the others (76% vs 73%) only in category of location male
respondents express higher level of concern (78% female vs 81% male).

Table 8. Storing of personal data in different mobile apps or e-wallets

Debit card Credit card Loyalty cards Boarding Tickets
cards
Yes 43% 15% 15% 12% 20%
No 21% 43% 44% 46% 41%
Don’t use 37% 42% 41% 42% 40%

The highest level of data stored within the mobile apps or e-wallets is related to debit cards (43% of positive
responses) the second place in the rating is taken by tickets stored in apps (20%) and credit cards and loyalty cards
(both 15% of positive answers) boarding cards are not stored as often (only 12 % of respondents declared to store
the boarding cards in mobile apps) (Table 8). The reason for that might be related to the travel paths that students are
following that might not involve as many boarding cards. The situation can be explained by the need to constant
money transfer to support in-app or in e-wallet purchases. Still it can be seen quite a high level of respondents that
declare not to use mobile devices for such purpose like storing of various cards data. It indicates lack of trust for
services offered by particular providers and services. Based on the above data it can be seen that this area of use of
mobile apps still need some effort to increase technological trust of various users.
 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554 3553
Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000 9

Conclusions

The findings of this study shows that technological trust have a serious impact on the rationale for using of
different payment methods or payment services/providers. Conducted survey also included payment methods based
on Blockchain technology but due to small popularity of those methods still need further research and investigation
in line with rising of blockchain use understanding. Due to high level of answers that indicate that respondents are
not familiar with the solutions and instruments (majority of “I don’t use” answers) responses received might provide
misleading conclusions.
Conducted survey identified following findings.
From the results received it can be noticed that deficit of trust for the leading digital payment methods is
relatively small of no more than 1 % of all responses, that means maturity and transparency and knowledge about
the most popular payment methods encourage users to trust providers of those services.
The mobile and blockchain based technology are still seen as having limited tech trust levels comparing to the
leading and well knows digital payment methods. Small popularity of blockchain technology, limited understanding
of rules behind, possibilities to use and missing regulations might put blockchain in line with only cryptocurrency
area and high risk of investment in that. Considering this it would be beneficial to carry on the research all together
with raising of consciousness of a society towards blockchain technology to get better understanding of drivers
related to this area. It has been identified that level of tech trust indicated by the respondents has impact on the
common use of such payment methods , so it can be further analyzed what are the further drivers and accelerators of
human behavior to encourage people to use other methods more frequently building up technological trust among
the society.
Findings related to the gender division of the most popular payment methods indicate that women have lesser
level of technological trust for modern digital payment methods than men. The biggest spread in trust is noticed for
credit/debit card payment where female respondents indicate lower level of the tech trust with the results of 10%
more negative responses than male respondents. The results received could indicate that women are slightly more
skeptical than men in some areas. Further investigation with more focused questions could bring better answers.
The trust and trust deficit level indicators can highlight the relation between the usage level and trust indicator. It
has been noticed that services and providers that were rated as the most popular have gathered rating that reflects the
trust level among analyzed services.
One of findings coming from the research is related to the technological trust that government has gained from
the citizens. Considering government to be a body that citizens should trust, it’s very interesting to see deficit of
trust among that party on the level that is indicated for sellers and online payment operators. Further research to be
followed the investigation.
All the respondents are aware about the possible lost due to unauthorized publication of purchase data. Both
groups female and male indicate the average of 78% of concerns that unauthorized publication of purchase data
would be seen as rather big or very big inconvenience. The level of responses indicates importance of technological
trust for used technology services and providers.
The presented study is a pilot study that should be extended in the future to investigate further determinants of
technological trust within the digital society. Following was focused mostly on trust from the perspective of digital
payment methods’ trends on distinguished population of University Students. It shows the need for further
investigation in the area of blockchain technology as well as investigation of patterns used to convince people based
on gender to enable higher level of technological trust.

References

[1] Ziemba, Ewa (2017) “Zrównoważone społeczeństwo informacyjne.” Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Katowice
[2] Goliński, Michał (2016) “Rozwój e-administracji a rozwój gospodarczy w krajach Unii Europejskiej-próba analizy.” in Roczniki Kolegium
Analiz Ekonomicznych / Szkoła Główna Handlowa 2016, vol 42 Rozwój gospodarki informacyjnej: wybrane aspekty, pp. 27-37
[3] Alford, Samantha (2020) “GDPR: A Game of Snakes and Ladders. How Small Businesses Can Win at the Compliance Game.” Routledge,
doi: 10.4324/9781003004790
3554 Oskar Szumski / Procedia Computer Science 176 (2020) 3545–3554
10 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2020) 000–000

[4] Dongre, Siddharth, Mishra, Sumita, Romanowski, Carol and Buddhadev, Manan. (2019) “Quantifying the Costs of Data Breaches.”
International Conference on Critical Infrastructure Protection, ICCIP 2019: Critical Infrastructure Protection XIII, Springer International
Publishing, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-34647-8_1
[5] De La Pena, Jorge and Papadonikolaki, Eleni. (2019) “From relational to technological trust: How do the Internet of Things and Blockchain
technology fit in?” in Proceedings of the 2019 European Conference on Computing in Construction, pp. 415-424, doi:
10.35490/EC3.2019.153.
[6] Pew Research Center (2019) “Americans have become much less positive about tech companies’ impact on the U.S.”
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/29/americans-have-become-much-less-positive-about-tech-companies-impact-on-the-u-s/
[7] Goliński, Michał (2019) “Pomiar gospodarki cyfrowej w badaniach Unii Europejskiej.” in Roczniki Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych / Szkoła
Główna Handlowa 2019, vol 54 Rozwój gospodarki informacyjnej: wybrane aspekty, pp. 155-169
[8] Wielki, Janusz (2019) “Influencerzy cyfrowi i ich rola w działaniach promocyjnych organizacji.” in Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, vol. 20,
issue: 12, part 2, pp. 97-108
[9] Kujawski, Jarosław and Januszewski, Arkadiusz. (2017) “Business simulation game as an educational method for postgraduate studies in
management and finance.”, in INTED2017 Proceedings, 11th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, pp. 8944-
8951, doi: 10.21125/inted.2017.2109
[10] Chmielarz, Witold (2020) “The Usage of Smartphone and Mobile Applications from the Point of View of Customers in Poland.” in
Information 11 (4). 220, doi: 10.3390/info11040220
[11] Taddeo, Mariarosaria. (2010). “Trust in Technology: A Distinctive and a Problematic Relation.” in Knowledge and Policy, vol. 23 (3), pp.
283-286, doi: 10.1007/s12130-010-9113-9
[12] Edelman (2017) “2017 Edelman Trust Barometer - Global Results.” https://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2017-edelman-trust-
barometer-global-results-71035413
[13] Stewart, Michale (2017) “Trust in tech: no room for complacency.” https://www.edelman.com/post/trust-tech-no-room-complacency
[14] Dilek, Şerif (2019) “Cryptocurrencies in the Digital Era: The Role of Technological Trust and Its International Effects.” in Umit Hacioglu
(ed) Blockchain Economics and Financial Market Innovation, pp. 453-474, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-25275-5_22
[15] Mondego, Domingos and Gide, Ergun. (2018) “The effect of trust on mobile payment adoption: a comprehensive review of literature.” in
International Journal of Arts & Sciences vol 11 (01), pp. 375-389
[16] Tripp, John F. (2015) “Technology, Humanness and Trust: Rethinking Trust in Technology.” in Journal of the Association for Information
Systems JAIS, vol. 16, issue 10, pp. 880-918
[17] Wątróbski, Jarosław, Ziemba, Ewa, Karczmarczyk, Artur and Jankowski, Jarosław. (2018) “An Index to Measure the Sustainable
Information Society: The Polish Households Case.” in Sustainability, vol. 10 (9), 3223, Special Issue Methodological Aspects of Solving
Sustainability Problems: New Challenges, Algorithms and Application Areas, doi: 10.3390/su10093223
[18] Ejdys, Joanna (2017) “Determinanty zaufania do technologii.” in Przegląd Organizacji 12/2017, pp. 20-27, doi: 10.33141/po.2017.12.03
[19] Ejdys, Joanna (2018) “Building technology trust in ICT application at a university.” in International Journal of Emerging Markets, vol. 13,
issue 5, pp. 980-997, doi: 10.1108/IJoEM-07-2017-0234
[20] Dayi, Faruk (2019) “The Global Financial System’s New Tool: Digital Money.” in Umit Hacioglu (ed) Blockchain Economics and Financial
Market Innovation, pp. 17-39, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-25275-5_2
[21] Chakravorti, Bhaskar and Chaturvedi, Ravi Shankar. (2017) “Digital Planet 2017. How Competitiveness and Trust in Digital Economies
Vary Across the World.” https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/files/2017/05/Digital_Planet_2017_FINAL.pdf
[22] Ziemba, Ewa (ed.) (2020) “Information Technology for Management: Current Research and Future Directions.”, 17th Conference, AITM
2019, and 14th Conference, ISM 2019, Held as Part of FedCSIS, Leipzig, Germany, September 1–4, 2019, Extended and Revised Selected
Papers, Springer Nature
[23] Sampet, Jomjai, Changchit, Chuleeporn and Lonkani, Ravi. (2020) “A Comparative Study of Mobile Banking Adoption: An Analysis of
Banking Customers in U.S. and Thailand.” in Zuopeng (Justin) Zhang (ed.) Novel Theories and Applications of Global Information Resource
Management, pp. 109-153, doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1786-4
[24] Knezevic, Dusko (2018) “Impact of Blockchain Technology Platform in Changing the Financial Sector and Other Industries.” in
Montenegrin Journal of Economics, vol. 14, no. 1 (2018), pp. 109-120, doi: 10.14254/1800-5845/2018.14-1.8
[25] Wielki, Janusz (2018) “An Analysis of Opportunities, Challenges and Key Strategic Implications Connected with the Utilization of the
Internet of Things by Contemporary Business Organizations.” in International Journal of Engineering & Technology, vol. 7 (3.13), pp. 99-
103, doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i3.13.16333
[26] Masrek, Mohamad Noorman, Uzir, Nora'ayu Ahmad and Khairuddin, Irni Eliana. (2012) “Examining Trust In Mobile Banking: A
Conceptual Framework.” in Proceeding of the 18th International Business Information Management (IBIMA) Conference