Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electronic Commerce Research and Applications

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

Investigating privacy concerns and trust in the digital Euro in Germany

Fr´ed´eric Tronnier *, David Harborth , Peter Hamm
Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
This work analyzes the influence of privacy concerns and different dimensions of currency-related trust on in-
Digital Euro
Central bank digital currency
dividuals’ willingness to use Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), specifically a digital euro. A quantitative
CBDC survey with 1034 respondents was analyzed using partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM).
Trust Empirical results indicate that multiple antecedents are associated with privacy concerns in the digital euro that
Privacy concerns in turn influence intention to adopt a digital euro. Especially soft trust factors such as credibility and image are
Electronic payment systems found to influence both privacy concerns and the intention to adopt a digital euro. It contributes to the current
literature by introducing trust as a second-order construct composed of hard and soft trust factors for digital
currencies. The results provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners aiming at designing and
implementing CBDCs by demonstrating which factors need to be considered in order to achieve widespread
adoption by citizens.

1. Introduction
Over the course of history, money has been an essential factor in
the lives of individuals while undergoing constant change (Rothbard,
1963). It evolved from physical coins and banknotes to credit cards
and digital means of payment. Presently, the financial and monetary
system is facing the next, possibly revolutionary, change in money
through the introduction of digital currencies (Bank of England,
2020). In 2009, the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was launched,
implementing a payment system which does not rely on any
intermediaries (see Nakamoto, 2008) and offers decentralized trust
and a pseudonymous payment solution. In 2017, a new category of
digital currencies named stablecoins was introduced (Bouchaud et al.,
2020), aiming to eliminate high price volatility, which is one issue
identified for cryptocurrencies failing to operate as a medium of
exchange (G7 Working Group on Stablecoins, 2019).
These developments were accompanied by a decrease in physical
cash payments, especially in developed countries such as Sweden
(Sveriges Riksbank, 2017). Covid-19 led to an increase in adoption of
contactless payment options, for instance in China (CNNIC, 2019,
2021) and a drop of 20–25% drop in cash use in the Euro area
(Panetta, 2021). Central banks (CBs) did respond to these changes by
increasing their attention towards Central Bank Digital Currencies
(CBDC). Various central banks are researching and piloting CBDC
solutions for both interbank payments and settlements as well as
general purpose solutions
used as digital cash equivalents for end-users with “central banks
collectively representing a fifth of the world’s population are likely to
issue a general purpose CBDC in the next three years” (Boar et al.,
2020, p.7).
CBDC have the potential to not only reshape the monetary system,
but to also have an impact on the level of privacy in payments for in-
dividuals. Until today, cash, the exclusive type of legal tender provided
by CBs to individuals (European Commission, 2010), acts as the most
anonymous form of payment (Kahn et al., 2005). All new and digital
currencies or payment methods create and leave electronic records
(Wadsworth, 2018, p.10), which could be tracked and monitored to
counteract money laundering or other illegal activities (Wandho¨fer,
2017). However, data protection, privacy and trust play an essential
role in the monetary system, with privacy being identified as a crucial
element in the creation of a CBDC (Auer and Bo¨hme, 2020).
The European Central Bank (ECB) is presently investigating the
introduction of a digital euro, and conducted a survey among in-
dividuals, experts and organizations on the perception of stakeholders of
such a digital euro. Privacy in payments was identified as the primary
feature demanded by the 8,221 respondents (43%), followed by
security (18%) and usability across the euro area (European Central
Bank, 2021). Almost half of the professional respondents, including
merchants, are of the opinion that privacy would be a necessary
feature for the wide adoption of the digital euro by individuals. A
recent report by the Eu- ropean Data Protection Supervisor
demonstrated that the European

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Frederic.tronnier@m-chair.de (F. Tronnier).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101158
Received 26 October 2021; Received in revised form 8 April 2022; Accepted 16 May 2022
Available online 18 May 2022
1567-4223/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

Union is aware of the potential implications on privacy that a CBDC Bank of Japan study the effect of an interest bearing CBDC, as well as the
might have (Leucci and Riemann, 2021). Arguably the most important installation of a holding
aspect in the relation between CBs and their respective population is
trust in the currency. In their “report on the digital euro” ECB
president Christine Lagarde states: “Our role is to secure trust in money.
This means making sure the euro is fit for the digital age” (European
Central Bank, 2020). The people would therefore need to trust the
digital euro. Trust is found to be a highly complex construct whereby
various types of trust exist, with researchers defining trust according
to their disciplinary worldview (McKnight et al., 2002). A first, non-
academic, survey found that CBs are the institution most trusted to
issue digital money (Patel and Ortlieb, 2020). However, prior work
does not link trust to privacy concerns, does not tie it to a specific
CBDC and makes no differentiation between different factors and
types of trust that might influence in- dividuals’ willingness to use and
adopt CBDC in the future.
We close this gap and investigate privacy concerns, trust and the
willingness to use a CBDC in order to provide practical recommenda-
tions related to the role of privacy and trust and to foster CBDC
adoption. Presently, CBDC, as envisioned by various CBs, greatly differ
depending on the CBs’ approach, the underlying technologies,
employed in- frastructures, desired features and key objectives. These
factors might also influence individuals’ perceptions of the respective
CBDC. As the ECB has already published substantial information on
the digital euro, we focus on this specific digital currency and address
the following research questions:

RQ1: What factors contribute to individuals’ privacy concerns with

respect to the digital euro?
RQ2: How do privacy concerns influence individuals’ willingness to
use the digital euro?
RQ3: How does trust influence behavioral intention and privacy
concerns with respect to the digital euro?

2. Literature review

2.1. Central Bank digital currency

To define CBDC, Bech and Garratt (2017) present the framework of

the “Money Flower”, which differentiates between various types of
money, based on their main properties: issuer, form, accessibility and
technology. The issuer can be a central bank or other private banks,
money can be digital or physical while money may be accessible to the
general public or limited to interbank transactions. Lastly, money can
be account-based or token/value-based, in the case of distributed
ledger or blockchain-based money. Currently, only banknotes and coins
are issued by central banks as legal tender for the general public. Bank
deposits, the other form of money widely used by the public, are issued
by private commercial banks rather than central banks. The digital
euro can be seen as a digital form of central bank-issued money for the
general public, with no decision taken yet on its underlying
technology. In accordance with the information provided by the ECB
on the digital euro (European Central Bank, 2020) the focus in this
work lies on a retail CBDC that is to be introduced as an accessible
form of digital money for the general population. The proclaimed
objective hereby is to facilitate online retail payments, with the digital
euro not replacing cash, although an offline functionality for
contactless payments is envisioned as a desired feature (European
Central Bank, 2020).
In recent years, academic and central bank interest in CBDC has
soared to new heights. A literature review by Tronnier et al. (2020)
analyzed both central bank and academic research on the topic and
found that both groups rarely consider societal aspects and
implications of CBDC. Instead, most research focuses on monetary
policy and eco- nomic aspects. Additionally, design properties are
frequently discussed to study the implication of certain features on the
banking system. For instance, Yanagawa and Yamaoka, (2019) of the
2
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
limit in CBDC. The majority of work however focuses on providing a CBDC solutions (Goodell et al., 2021; Gross et al., 2021) from a
comprehensive introduction to the topic and discusses the different technical perspective, but do not study privacy concerns and their
ra- tionales, benefits and limitations, of the introduction of CBDC in
different countries (Yao, 2018; Sidorenko and Lykov, 2019). The
possible adoption of CBDC has been studied to a limited degree.
From a central bank-perspective, various central banks discussed
possible ben- efits that a CBDC might provide them in fulfilling their
mandates. Such benefits include an increase in payment efficiency
and financial stability as well as the fostering of financial inclusion
and the prevention of money laundering (Bech and Garratt, 2017;
Mancini Griffoli et al., 2018; Barontini and Holden, 2019). Alonso et
al. (2020) study reasons for and against the implementation of
CBDC by comparing the stated objectives and perceived benefits of
CBDC from multiple central banks. The au- thors find that that in
particular central banks from developing countries identify factors,
such as financial inclusion and lower costs, that speak for the
implementation of CBDC. Kiff et al. (2020) survey the current
research on CBDC and create a framework to help answering central
banks the question whether to implement a CBDC using a project
management perspective.
The work of Bijlsma et al. (2021) differs from the literature
discussed previously by following a consumer-oriented approach.
The authors study the possible adoption of CBDC using a Dutch
consumer panel, finding that price incentives, trust in banks and
central banks, privacy protection and knowledge on CBDC to be
important potential drivers for CBDC adoption. This work of the
Dutch central bank differs from this work as it does not follow an
established scientific model in studying CBDC adoption but surveys
individuals preferred features in a CBDC.
Money may best be defined through its core functions that are to
act as a store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account (Lo
and Wang, 2014). However, with regards to CBDC, Masciandaro,
(2018) argues that money also acts as a means of storing
information. Thus, by transferring money, transaction-level financial
data between different parties is shared and potentially sensitive
personal data is revealed (Auer and Bo¨hme, 2020). These data
include spending habits, user balances and location data, which is
why user privacy is considered one of the most vital factors in
designing a CBDC (Lannquist, 2020). In contrast to the current –
and anonymous (Kahn et al., 2005) – legal tender, digital payment
methods create and store a plethora of information through each
transaction (Wadsworth, 2018). Cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin
even store all transactions on blockchains that are, depending on the
specific cryptocurrency, publicly readable, making transactions pseu-
donymous (Harlev et al., 2018). For all payment solutions, a trade-off
between privacy and existing regulatory anti-money laundering
(AML), counter-financing terrorism (CFT) and know-your-customer
(KYC) requirements exists, often discussed with regards to crypto-
currencies as well as for CBDC (Wandho¨fer, 2017).
Privacy in payments as a core function or requirement for a
CBDC, and the focus of this work, is frequently mentioned by various
central banks and economic research institutions (Payments Canada,
Bank of Canada and R3, 2017; Allen et al., 2020; Lannquist (2020);
European Central Bank, 2021). In a public consultation with more
than 8000 re- spondents, the ECB finds that privacy concerns seem
to be the most important factor for individuals in a digital euro in the
euro area (Eu- ropean Central Bank, 2021). As privacy concerns are
frequently found to hinder technology adoption in information
systems research (Wang, Lin and Luarn, 2006; Xu et al., 2011) we
seek to investigate this topic in more detail for the digital euro. Only
the Bank of Canada (Darbha and Arora, 2020) and the ECB
(European Central Bank, 2019) have so far published dedicated work
on privacy and anonymity in CBDC (Tronnier, 2021). Both CBs focus
on evaluating technological options to create a higher level of privacy
in payments. One proposed solution is the use of a limited amount of
anonymity vouchers for small value transactions, while higher value
transactions are audited by a dedicated authority. Similarly, recent
academic works focus on the development of privacy- sensitive
3
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

influence on intended usage. Lee et al. (2021a), Lee et al. (2021b) systems research on privacy (B´elanger and Crossler, 2011; Chen and
review privacy and security-related aspects in blockchain-based CBDC Chen, 2015). To evaluate and measure privacy concerns, a
and differentiate between identity-and transaction privacy. The
authors create a classification of different privacy-preserving
techniques that are discussed in existing work on CBDC. Atako (2021)
advocate for a privacy framework for retail CBDC by reviewing the US
Privacy Act of 1974 and propose refining it to maintain balance
between privacy and trans- parency in digital payments. Similarly to
privacy, central banks and researchers often mention trust as a core
business requirement that needs to be extended towards a CBDC
(European Central Bank, 2020; Patel and Ortlieb, 2020; Lee et al.,
2021). The Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum
(OMFIF) published a survey on trust in digital currencies in 2020,
showing that central banks are the entity most trusted in issuing a
digital currency (Patel and Ortlieb, 2020). Using only a very limited
number of questions, the study found that attitudes towards payment
options depend on the demographic char- acteristics of respondents,
with respondents from emerging markets being more likely to
embrace digital currencies than respondents in developed countries.
These findings however are based on digital cur- rencies in general
and not aimed specifically at CBDC.

2.2. Technology adoption and privacy concerns

A plethora of research studied adoption of electronic and mobile

payments (Zhou, Lu and Wang, 2010; Bhatiasevi, 2016; de Kerviler,
Demoulin and Zidda, 2016; Harris, Chin and Beasley, 2019) as well as
cryptocurrency usage and adoption (Alzahrani and Daim, 2019;
Esmaeilzadeh et al., 2019; Alharbi and Sohaib, 2021). To this end,
existing models such as the technology acceptance model (TAM)
(Davis, 1989) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT and UTAUT2) by Venkatesh et al., (2003) are
being utilized. These models have been extended and modified using
additional con- structs and factors with privacy concerns and trust are
found to be important factors in prior work that focuses on usage
intention in online and mobile payments (see Slyke et al., 2006; Slade
et al., 2015). Solberg So¨ilen and Benhayoun (2022) study CBDC
adoption using UTAUT and extending it with the construct of trust in the
digital currency system. The authors find that performance expectancy,
trust and social influence are factors that are positively associated with
intended CBDC use.
However, the focus of most of these models and studies are not pri-
vacy concerns in itself but rather technology adoption or usage inten-
tion. Acceptance factors for mobile payments have been extensively
researched using long-established technology acceptance models, with
new research providing only limited new insights (Dahlberg, Guo and
Ondrus, 2015). Thus, this work focuses on privacy concerns of in-
dividuals towards using a digital euro by evaluating factors that impact
privacy concerns, as well as the importance of trust in a digital
currency. The concept of privacy is highly subjective and various
definitions and types of privacy exist (Giancarlo et al., 2020). For
instance, Mal- hotra, Kim and Agarwal (2004) define privacy as a
users’ subjective view of fairness in dealing with personal data.
Smith, Dinev and Xu (2011) argue that privacy cannot be measured
directly as it is based on individuals’ perceptions, experiences and
knowledge. Thus, privacy concerns were introduced as a surrogate
to measure privacy (Smith, Dinev and Xu, 2011). Smith, Dinev and
Xu, (2011) and B´elanger and Crossler (2011) provide comprehensive
reviews on the subject. In this work, we adopt the notion of privacy of
personal data as the demand of an individual to control sensible data
(at least to some degree) that is possessed by other parties and to
keep certain information private. Following Dinev and Hart (2006),
privacy concerns may be defined as a users’ concerns about the loss of
privacy due to (in)voluntary disclosure of personal data (Dinev and
Hart, 2006). Privacy concerns are found to be an vital factor for
behavioral intention and actual adoption behavior (Smith, Dinev and
Xu, 2011; Xu et al., 2011) and a crucial construct in information
4
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
number of models were established. Most notably, this includes the Different dimensions of trust are established and their influence on
concern for information privacy (CFIP), internet users’ information
privacy concerns and the antecedents, privacy concerns and
outcomes (APCO) (Smith, Dinev and Xu, 2011; Dinev et al., 2015)
models as well as the privacy calculus (Laufer and Wolfe, 1977).
Bernstein (2017) studies the evolution of observation and the
historical change in research on transparency and privacy in
management theory. The author finds that observation shifted from
observing outcomes to observing individual activities as well as a
shift from the observation of technology by humans towards
technology know monitoring in- dividuals. A differentiation between
various forms of privacy is made, e. g., between temporary or
permanent transparency and consensual or mandated transparency.
These concepts serve further work for the conceptualization of
different roles of blockchain technology (Sarker et al., 2021). Within
these roles of for instance regulation or disclosure technology, the
purposes of data collection and the subsequent pro- cessing activities
of the data are explained.
Privacy concerns in payment systems have scarcely been
researched. Bandara, Fernando and Akter (2020) conducted a
systematic literature review on privacy concerns in the e-commerce
context, whereby pay- ment methods and technologies are discussed
only superficially. With regards to privacy concerns, the authors
argue that more research is necessary to evaluate whether consumer
trust in emerging decentralized cryptocurrency payments differs
from that of traditional e-payment methods. Reith et al. (2020) study
the effect of privacy on the acceptance of mobile payment solutions by
adapting the APCO model, originally developed by Smith, Dinev and
Xu (2011). Smith, Dinev and Xu (2011) provide a comprehensive and
interdisciplinary review on privacy by assessing 320 articles and 128
books on the topic. Based on their review, which clusters the work
into three main research areas, the authors develop a macro model
to study privacy concerns, the APCO model. The model states that
privacy concerns are influenced by a variety of ante- cedents (such as
demographics, awareness, prior privacy experiences and cultural
differences), and that these concerns in turn influence outcome
variables such as behavioral intention or willingness to use a
technology. Additionally, the model also evaluates privacy concerns
as an independent variable for outcomes, modeled as dependent
variables. Behavioral intention to use is found to be the most
important outcome variable as Venkatesh et al. (2003) found it to
predict actual technology acceptance.
In summary, prior findings on CBDC demonstrated that privacy is
a crucial factor for individuals in the adoption and usage of a future
CBDC. While there exist validated models to study privacy concerns
and tech- nology adoption, to the best of our knowledge, privacy
concerns in CBDC have not been studied yet. In this work, we close
this research gap by investigating potential antecedents and outcomes
of privacy concerns in a specific CBDC, the digital euro.

3. Methodology and hypotheses

In this work, we adapt the overarching APCO model to study

privacy concerns in the digital euro with a focus on the different
dimensions of trust in a currency and follow prior work which states
that trust is an antecedent of privacy concerns (Dinev and Hart,
2006; Harborth and Pape, 2021). All constructs have been adapted
from prior work in order to ensure validity and reliability. In the
following, all constructs are introduced to form the hypotheses of
this work. We address research question one regarding the factors
influencing privacy concerns through the hypotheses H1 to H5,
which study established antecedents of privacy concerns. The second
research question, on the influence of privacy concerns on
willingness to use, is addressed through hypotheses H6 and H7,
which survey the influence of perceived benefits and limitations –
privacy concerns – of a digital euro. Lastly, research question three,
regarding the influence of trust on privacy concerns and willingness
to use a digital euro, is addressed through the hypotheses H8 to H11.
5
F. Tronnier et al.
Fig. 1. Depicts the research model with the respective hypotheses addressing the three research questions of this work. Research Model for the digital euro.
privacy concerns and willingness to use is evaluated. Fig. 1 depicts the
research model with the respective hypotheses addressing the three
research questions of this work.
3.1. Antecedents
We adapt the antecedent privacy (victim) experiences of the
original APCO model (Smith, Dinev and Xu, 2011) as well as the
antecedents self- efficacy, perceived control and perceived vulnerability
of the work from Alashoor et al. (2017), who investigate privacy
concerns in the context of big data. The authors reviewed information
systems (IS) privacy literature and derived the construct perceived
control from the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and
perceived vulnerability and self-efficacy from protection motivation
theory (PMT) (Floyd, Prentice- Dunn and Rogers, 2000). We argue
that these constructs are also rele- vant for digital euro payments and
transactions, as will be discussed in the following.
The authors show that privacy issues have been raised in the
context of big data and provide evidence that awareness increases
privacy concerns (Smith, Dinev and Xu, 2011). Although the digital
euro has not been implemented yet, the topic has already been
covered in the media, with a public consultation held by the ECB. The
ECB clearly communi- cated the possible design options and the
expected use of a digital euro in its report (European Central Bank,
2020) which was largely covered in the media (See for instance
Pladson, 2021). We argue that awareness of the digital euro impacts
privacy concerns as individuals form per- ceptions about the digital
euro based on their awareness of it. Indeed, awareness might have a
positive or negative influence, depending on the individual and the
information that individuals have formed on the digital euro. While
there exists no indication for CBDC on this issue, a negative
relationship between internet literacy and privacy concerns was found
by Dinev and Hart (2005) while a positive relationship was
6
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
found by Krasnova et al. (2009) and confirmed for big data by
Alashoor et al. (2017). Thus, in this work, we argue that awareness of
the digital euro leads to a decrease in privacy concerns with respect to
the digital euro.
H1 Awareness of the digital euro is negatively associated with pri-
vacy concerns regarding the digital euro.
Prior work is ambiguous regarding the effect of privacy victim
expe- riences on privacy concerns (Lowry et al., 2011; Malhotra et al.,
2004). However, privacy victim experiences act as an antecedent in the
original APCO model, and research on internet scam victimization
involving financial payments showed a positive association between
being an internet scam victim and privacy concerns (Chen et al.,
2017). There- fore, we aim to verify past findings and argue that past
privacy victim experiences positively influence privacy concerns with
the digital euro.
H2 Privacy victim experiences of individuals are positively associ-
ated with privacy concerns regarding the digital euro.
Prior work regards information control as a crucial aspect of infor-
mation privacy (see Culnan and Armstrong 1999; Smith et al., 1996).
Recently, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was intro-
duced in the EU precisely with the aim to put individuals back in
control over their personal data (European Commission, 2018b).
Several studies found evidence on the negative influence of perceived
control on privacy concerns (Krasnova et al., 2009). Prior research
furthermore indicates that German citizens exhibit a stronger
preference for privacy regulation which relates to the perceived
control of German individuals over their data, as compared to US
citizens (Dogruel and Jo¨ckel, 2019). Thus, we hypothesize:
H3 Perceived control over the digital euro is negatively associated
with privacy concerns regarding the digital euro.
Similarly, perceived vulnerability describes the risks that individuals
may associate with the usage of the digital euro. Evidence for its
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
positive effect on privacy concerns is found in prior work (Dinev and
Hart, 2004;

7
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

Alashoor et al., 2017) Therefore, a positive association between

H7, Privacy concerns are negatively associated with the
perceived vulnerability and privacy concerns is hypothesized.
behavioral intention to adopt the digital euro.
H4 Perceived vulnerability through the digital euro is positively
Maintaining trust in money is one of the essential tasks of central
associated with privacy concerns regarding the digital euro.
banks (European Central Bank, 2020). Angino et al. (2021) review
The antecedent self-efficacy refers to the ability of an individual to
existing literature on trust in central banks and argue that it is an
cope with perceived privacy threats created through the digital euro.
essential factor for the successful application of monetary policy by a
Maddux and Rogers (1983) studied self-efficacy and argued for its
central bank such as inflation management. Trust in central banks is
importance in privacy protection motivation. Self-efficacy is found to
also needed to demonstrate and ensure the legitimacy of a central
influence the intention to adopt coping behaviors and to positively
bank, such as the ECB (Angino et al., 2021). The average level of trust
predict internet security intentions (Tsai et al., 2016). Moreover, self-
in the ECB differs between countries with Italy, the Netherlands or
efficacy is found to negatively influence privacy concerns (Alashoor
Portugal demonstrating higher average level of trust than Germany,
et al., 2017).
which in turn scores higher than France or Greece (Bursian and Fürth,
Thus, we hypothesize that self-efficacy negatively influences
2015). The authors further find that socioeconomic factors such as
privacy concerns as individuals demonstrate perceived competence to
political leaning and low education are associated with a decrease in
cope with privacy threats introduced through the digital euro.
ECB trust, with trust generally decreasing in all countries following
H5 Self-efficacy is negatively associated with privacy concerns in
the global financial crisis of 2008. Angino et al. (2021) additionally
the digital euro.
find sub-national differences in social trust, using the World Values
Lastly, the original APCO-model considered demographic and
Survey (WVS) that influence trust in ECB.
personality-related differences as antecedents of privacy concerns.
In academic research, trust is widely found to positively influence
Junglas et al. (2008) studied the influence of the “Big Five”
individuals behavioral intentions, such as the intention to provide per-
personality traits in location-based services, finding agreeableness,
sonal information online (Dinev and Hart, 2006). The authors also
conscientious- ness, and openness to influence privacy concerns. In
find that trust might be able to counteract the negative influence of
this work, the 10- item short version survey by Rammstedt and John
privacy concerns. In the context of online payments, it is found to
(2007) is used to measure extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness,
positively influence purchasing behavior (Pavlou and Fygenson,
conscientiousness and openness. As additional antecedents, age,
2006). Smith et al. (2011) note that trust is modeled differently in
gender, education, annual household income and global information
various studies. Trust is modelled as a mediator between privacy
privacy concerns (Malhotra et al., 2004) were also surveyed.
concerns and outcomes (Alashoor et al., 2017), as an antecedent for
privacy concerns, perceived benefits and perceived risks (Li et al.,
3.2. Privacy concerns
2014), as well as an antecedent for behavioral intentions (Dinev and
Hart, 2006). Gao and Waechter (2017) study initial trust in mobile
Privacy concerns are predicted by a set of antecedents while the
payment adoption using the information systems success (ISS) model
construct itself is used as an indicator for privacy-related behavior
and a modified TAM model. The model identifies perceived
such as self-disclosure and behavioral intentions (Smith et al., 2011;
information quality, system quality and service quality as important
Alashoor et al., 2017), and are closely linked to the concept of the
facilitators for initial trust in mobile payments. Szumski (2020)
privacy cal- culus. Within the calculus, individuals deliberately make a
surveys the difference in trust between different pay- ment methods,
trade-off is made between privacy risks (and concerns) and benefits
such as cash, credit cards, online and mobile banking as well as
(Laufer and Wolfe, 1977). Based on Xu et al. (2013), who showed that
cryptocurrencies finding online banking to be the payment so- lution
privacy risks predict privacy concerns, Dienlin and Metzger (2016)
with the highest level a trust. Women are found to display a higher
conceptualize privacy concerns as cost in a privacy calculus. We adopt
degree of inconvenience over the sharing of transaction-related
this method and argue that the digital euro is seen as beneficial if it
information compared to men. The work by Solberg So¨ilen and Ben-
offers individuals a convenient and useful form of currency that is
hayoun (2022) studies CBDC adoption using the UTAUT model in a
preferable over existing and traditional payment methods and
survey whereby the authors include trust in the digital currency system as
hypothesize:
a factor that influences intention to use and actual use behavior. Trust
H6 Perceived benefits are positively associated with the behavioral
is found to be positively associated with intended CBDC usage.
intention to adopt the digital euro.
Wonneberger and Mieg (2011) studied different aspects of trust in
currency and divided these aspects into hard, soft and idealistic factors
3.3. The role of trust and the behavioral intention
of a currency, following the work of Tyszka and Przybyszewski (2006).
Based on literature on currency systems, the authors derive twelve
For the outcomes of the research model, privacy concerns act as an
important features for money that are then divided into two
independent variable while behavioral reactions act as the dependent
subgroups. Hard factors of trust in money relate to the economic
one. Hereby, a distinction needs to be made between behavioral inten-
factors of money that directly relate to the core functions of money as
tion (BI) and actual behavior or the actual acceptance of a technology.
a medium of ex- change, unit of account and store of value, while soft
As the digital euro has not been implemented as of yet, it is not
factors encompass social and technical aspects of trust, such as trust in
possible to measure actual CBDC usage behavior. In the information
the security of a system and the credibility of an entity (Wonneberger
systems (IS) domain the gap between the two concepts is widely
and Mieg, 2011). As the authors focused on a regional currency, a third
known as the “privacy-paradox” with respect to privacy concerns of
group of idealistic factors such as regionality and ecological aspects
individuals (Barnes, 2006), while older research argued that behavior
have also been studied but are not applicable to this work. Thus, we
follows intention (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Venkatesh et al. (2003)
adopt six factors and operationalize trust as two reflective-formative
showed that willingness to use acts as the most important construct to
(type II) second-order constructs (Becker et al., 2012) that influence
measure actual technology acceptance. Privacy concerns were found to
both privacy concerns and behavioral intention. Hard factors hereby
nega- tively influence the behavioral intention to use a technology
include perceived liquidity, stability and fungibility of the digital euro,
(Smith et al., 2011) or online services (Angst and Agarwal, 2009)
with issuer and currency credibility, system security and image being
specifically in online banking (Lee, 2009), mobile payment (Huang
soft factors. We decided to choose the reflective-formative second-
and Liu, 2012), cryptocurrencies (Alharbi and Sohaib, 2021) and in
order construct (type II) as the different trust concepts from the
actual behavior (Son and Kim, 2008). Thus, we hypothesize that
literature represent different trust dimensions in the digital euro. This
privacy concerns negatively influence the intention to adopt the digital
differentiation allows us to derive optimal practical recommendations
euro as a currency, specif- ically as a means of payment.
8
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
for the development of the digital euro. As social indicators are
found to be appreciated more

9
 F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

Table 1
Demographics descriptive statistics.
3.4. Data collection

Gender N Percent Education N Percent

The survey was conducted in Germany through a professional
N Percent Without general school 4 0,39% market research institute, respondi.com, certified by ISO 20252. All
leaving certificate (1)
constructs and items were translated into German by a DIN EN 15,038
Female 498 48,16% Lower secondary 99 9,57%
education (2) and ISO 17,100 certified institute and then verified by multiple native
Male 533 51,55% Secondary school (3) 281 27,18% language speakers. We utilized quotas following the EUROSTAT 2018
Other 3 0,29% University entrance 307 29,69% (European Commission, 2018a) survey to gather a representative
qualification (4)
sample of the German adult population regarding age and gender
Annual household income Bachelors’ degree (5) 120 11,61%
distribution. Lime- Survey was used as the survey solution.
Less than 90 8,70% Masters’ degree and 211 20,41% Respondents were initially given an introductory text on expected
10.000€ (1) equivalent (6) and communicated properties of the digital euro, based on the infor-
10.000€ to 115 11,12% PhD and higher (7) 11 1,06%
19.999€ (2) mation provided by the ECB. Through this introductory text, partici-
20.000€ to 112 10,83% No answer 1 0,10% pants should gain an understanding on the digital euro and form
29.999€ (3) expectations on its functioning and qualities (Table 6. 2082 respondents
30.000€ to 130 12,57% Age participated in the survey, of which 1034 completed surveys are
39.999€ (4) analyzed in this work. Respondents were discarded if they failed to
40.000€ to 122 11,80% 18–29 222 21,47%
49.999€ (5) answer control questions correctly or if their respective quota in terms of
50.000€ to 103 9,96% 30–39 199 19,25% gender and age had already been filled. Control questions tested for both
59.999€ (6) attention and the introductory information given beforehand. The
60.000€ to 140 13,54% 40–49 202 19,54% objective was to ensure that respondents had obtained a basic under-
79.999€ (7) standing of the digital euro. In total, the sample consists of 498 females
80.000€ to 63 6,09% 50–59 238 23,02%
99.999€ (8) and 533 males with a median age of 45. The age distribution is a close
100.000€ to 55 5,32% 60 and older 173 16,73% approximation of the overall age distribution of Germany for both males
149.999€ (9) and females, excluding minors. Thus, our sample is representative for

more than 13 1,26% Mean 43.93 the German population. Table 1. depicts the demographics and
150.000€
(10) descriptive statistics while Table 2 depicts descriptive statistics on the
No answer 91 8,80% Median 45.00 constructs based on respondents’ willingness to use in order to
demon- strate significant differences between individuals that are or
are not willing to use a digital euro.
strongly than economic indicators in peoples’ view towards money
(Musil, 2005), we hypothesize that soft trust factors exert a stronger
4. Findings
ef- fect on the use intentions than hard trust factors.
H8: Soft trust factors are stronger negatively associated with
We use structural equation modelling (SEM) to assess our research
privacy concerns regarding the digital euro than hard trust factors.
model. The two main approaches for SEM are partial least squares
H9: Hard trust factors are negatively associated with privacy con-
SEM (PLS-SEM) and covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) (Hair et al.,
cerns regarding the digital.
2011). As we are among the first ones – to the best of our knowledge –
H10: Soft trust factors are stronger positively associated with will-
to predict use intentions of the digital euro, our research is by
ingness to use the digital euro than hard trust factors.
definition highly exploratory with respect to the target construct BI.
H11: Hard trust factors are positively associated with willingness to
Furthermore, the goal of our research is to maximize the explained
use the digital euro.
variance for this target variable. Thus, we use PLS-SEM for our
analysis (Hair et al. 2011; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014; Hair et al., 2017).
The structural model was tested

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for groups based on willingness to use (Asymptotic significance: *0.05).
Group 1
Group 2 Mann-Whitney-U test
(Likert less than 2.52)
N = 531 (Likert greater than 2.52)
N = 503
Construct M Mdn SD M Mdn SD U Z r

Age 45.54 48 14.10 42.40 43 14.30 116720.00 −3.507* −0.11

Education 4.028 4 1.32 4.14 4 1.31 126323.00 −1.550 −0.05
Income 4.45 4 2.36 5.09 5 2.41 94033.50 −12.628* −0.13
Awareness 2.85 3 1.33 3.30 3 1.24 107988.00 −5.465* −0.17
Perceived Control 4.04 4 1.00 4.08 4 0.88 132926.50 −0.139 −0.00
Perceived Vulnerability 4.15 4 0.89 3.44 4 0.96 78652.00 −12.002* −0.37
Self-Efficacy 2.49 3 0.94 3.33 3 0.88 73055.50 −13.345* −0.41
Privacy Victim Experience 1.47 1 0.72 1.39 1 0.72 124650.00 −2.283* −0.07
Privacy Concerns 4.14 4 0.91 3.39 4 0.98 75835.50 −12.628* −0.39
Perceived Benefits 2.36 2 0.91 3.40 3 0.68 52423.00 −18.05* −0.56
Trust hard factor 2.90 3 0.71 3.60 3.6 0.55 59418.50 −15.527* −0.48
Trust soft factor 2.53 2.6 0.79 3.50 3.4 0.66 46819.00 −18.135* −0.56
GIPC 3.42 3 1.02 3.03 3 0.94 104968.00 −6.241* −0.19
Extraversion 3.10 3 1.01 3.24 3 0.94 123548.50 123548.50* −0.07
Agreeableness 3.12 3 0.85 3.26 3 0.74 123366.00 123366.00* −0.07
Openness 3.64 4 1.01 3.60 4 0.94 128024.00 128024.00 −0.04
10
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
Neuroticism 2.85 3 1.02 2.87 3 0.88 130643.00 130643.00 −0.02
Conscientiousness 4.01 4 0.80 3.86 4 0.80 119824.50 119824.50* −0.09

11
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

Table 3
Table 4
ICR and AVE of reflective constructs.
Path estimates (Statistical significance: *0.05, **0.01, ***0.001).

Construct Cronbach’s α Composite reliability AVE Variable Path Coefficient

DV: Privacy DV: Willingness to
Awareness 0.917 0.941 0.800 Concerns Use
Willingness to Use 0.914 0.934 0.706
Benefits 0.807 0.887 0.724 Adjusted R2 0.668 0.644
GIPC 0.934 0.950 0.792 General information privacy 0.277***
Perceived Control 0.785 0.842 0.647 concerns
Perceived Vulnerability 0.924 0.943 0.770 Age 0.046*
Privacy Concerns 0.949 0.963 0.868 Gender −0.013
Self-Efficacy 0.829 0.921 0.853 Income −0.018
Soft Trust Factors Conscientiousness 0.041*
Credibility 0.742 0.885 0.794 Extraversion −0.015
Image 0.746 0.887 0.797 Neuroticism 0.024
Hard Trust Factors Openness 0.003
Fungibility 0.486 0.793 0.658 Agreeableness 0.016
Stability 0.598 0.831 0.711 Awareness (H1) −0.023
Big 5 Personality Traits Perceived control (H3) 0.027
Extraversion 0.785 0.871 0.701 Perceived vulnerability (H4) 0.466***
Agreeableness 0.127 0.634 0.519 Privacy victim experience (H2) 0.01
Openness 0.603 0.834 0.715 Self-efficacy (H5) −0.115***
Neuroticism 0.667 0.844 0.733 Hard Trust Factors (H8/H10) 0.056 0.167***
Conscientiousness 0.469 0.766 0.631 Soft Trust Factors (H9/H11) −0.155*** 0.290***
Privacy concerns (H7) −0.122***
Benefits (H6) 0.404***
using SmartPLS version 3.3.3 (Ringle, Wende and Becker, 2015) and rea- sons to keep them were already given, the AVEs are larger than 0.5
further data analyses were done with SPSS. We aim to predict specific with the other constructs and the loadings are close to 0.7. Thus, we
target constructs in our structural equation model (in our case privacy refrained
concerns in the digital euro and willingness to use the digital euro).
Conse- quently, we use PLS-SEM for our analysis instead of CB-SEM
which is oftentimes used for theory testing (Hair et al., 2011). The
computations were done with the path weighting scheme with a
maximum of 300 it- erations and a stop criterion of 10 −7. For the
bootstrapping procedure, we used 5000 bootstrap subsamples and no
sign changes as the method for handling sign changes during the
iterations of the procedure.

4.1. Measurement model assessment

All first-order constructs in the structural model are measured

reflectively. Thus, we evaluate the internal consistency reliability,
convergent validity and discriminant validity to properly assess the
constructs and evaluate our hypotheses (Hair et al., 2011). Internal
consistency reliability (ICR) is assessed by calculating Cronbach’s α
and the composite reliability. Values for Cronbach’s α and composite
reli- ability should be between 0.7 and 0.95 as our research was build
using widely verified constructs and models. Table 3 depicts the
results for the two measures.
There are problematic values for Cronbach’s alpha for the first-
order constructs making up the second-order construct hard factor
trust, i.e., fungibility and stability. This indicates that the single items
of these constructs may not measure the same construct or that there
are not enough items per factor. However, the compositive reliability
is acceptable and the constructs are not established ones from the
litera- ture but yielded acceptable results in the work of Wonneberger
and Mieg (2011). Considering that the loadings are above 0.7 with an
average variance extracted (AVE) larger than 0.5, we argue that the
constructs are reliable. Furthermore, we find that some of the
constructs of the big 5 personality scale are also yielding low alpha
values (agreeableness, extraversion). However, as this is an
established scale for measuring personality traits, we decided against
deleting one of the two items for agreeableness and extraversion as the
AVEs are above 0.5 and the composite reliability values are deemed
acceptable.
Convergent validity is given if the outer loadings are larger than 0.7
and the AVE is larger than 0.5. The only items below 0.7 are item 6 of
willingness to use (0.657), item 1 of perceived control (0.607), item 2 of
agreeableness (0.325), item 1 of conscientiousness (0.619) and item 2
of extraversion (0.296). Besides the items in the big 5 scale for which

12
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

from deleting them. Lastly, we assess the discriminant validity, i.e.,

the degree of uniqueness of a construct compared to other constructs
(Hair et al., 2011). We evaluate the cross-loadings and apply the
Fornell- Larcker criterion. The square root of the AVE of each of our
constructs is larger than the correlation with other constructs
which indicates discriminant validity. Due to problems in
determining the discriminant validity based on cross-loadings and
the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT) was proposed as a new measure (Henseler et al., 2015).
HTMT divides between-trait correlations with within-trait
correlations. This gives us a measure of what the true cor- relation
between two constructs would be if the measurement is assumed
to be flawless (Hair et al., 2017). Values close to 1 for HTMT signal
a lack of discriminant validity. A conservative threshold is 0.85. No
value is above the suggested threshold of 0.85, except for the
formative relations between the second-order trust constructs and
their respective sub-dimensions. However, HTMT as well as the
other mea- sures cannot be applied to formative constructs which
explains these results (see Henseler et al. 2015, p. 131 for a
discussion on discriminant validity for formative measures).
As a next step, we controlled for common method bias using Har-
man’s one-factor test in accordance with Podsakoff et al. (2003). Of
the 49 factors used, 12 had an Eigenvalue greater than 1. The largest
factor accounted for 25.59% of the cumulative variance, substantially
lower than the 50% threshold for common method bias.

4.2. Structural model assessment

Collinearity seems to be no issue in our model with a maximum

inner VIF equal to 3.165. We do however find higher inner VIF
values between the second-order construct soft trust factors, image
and credibility, indi- cating that both constructs need to be
investigated and disentangled in the future. The results for the path
coefficients of the structural model can be found in Table 4. The
values for the adjusted R 2 are 64.4% for willingness to use the digital
euro and 66.8% for privacy concerns. Fig. 2 depicts the overall
research model of this work including path co- efficients and
adjusted R2 values.
In addition to analyzing the direct effects in our model, we also
include an assessment of the total effects (direct plus indirect effects
of variables on respective dependent variables) in order to trace
other relevant relationship in the model. The total effects are
shown in Table 5.
The analysis finds that hard and soft factors of trust both exert

13
F. Tronnier et al.
Fig. 2. Depicts the overall research model of this work including path coefficients and adjusted R2 values. Research Model for the digital euro.
Table 5
Total effects.
Total Effect Effect Size
Soft Factors Trust -> Behavioral Intention 0,309
Hard Factors Trust -> Behavioral Intention 0,160
Awareness -> Behavioral Intention 0,003
Prior privacy victim experiences -> Behavioral Intention −0,001
Perceived Control -> Behavioral Intention −0,003
Perceived Vulnerability -> Behavioral Intention ¡0,057
Self-efficacy -> Behavioral Intention 0,014
Age -> Behavioral Intention −0,006
significant direct and indirect (mediated via privacy concerns) effects
on the willingness to use the digital euro. Furthermore, we find that
perceived control, self-efficacy and age are statistically significant.
How- ever, all three effect sizes are too small to be considered
relevant. Finally, perceived vulnerability has a significant negative
total effect, mediated via privacy concerns, on the willingness to use
the digital euro. Thus, the higher the perceived potential risks
associated with revealing personal information by using the digital
euro as a payment method, the less willing are the participants to use
the digital euro.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The results of this work need to be discussed with the current level
of information on a digital euro in mind. Respondents were given an
introductory text on the digital euro that introduces the topic based on
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
the material provided by the ECB at the time of the questionnaire. The
digital euro has not been implemented yet, respondents were therefore
unable to assess its technical functioning or additional features beyond
P-Value the information provided by the ECB. Thus, respondents could only
0,000 voice their perceived privacy concerns without certainty over the exact
0,000 level of transparency that digital euro payments would exhibit. More
0,254
knowledge on the different types of privacy with regards to a digital
0,592
0,268
euro could lead to a clearer view of privacy concerns by the individual.
0,000 This includes a differentiation in digital euro payments with respect to
0,001 consensual or mandated and temporary or permanent payment trans-
0,042 parency, as outlined by Bernstein (2017).
Regarding RQ1 we find that awareness of the digital euro, privacy
victim experiences and perceived control do not have a significant effect
on privacy concerns (H1 – H3 not confirmed). This indicates that for
our German respondents, past privacy victim experiences are not
linked to the digital euro, confirming previous findings by Malhotra et
al. (2004). This might be explained with the fact individuals do not
link past financial privacy victim experiences with (retail) banks or
other finan- cial service providers with a central bank and the digital
euro. The high median value of perceived control demonstrates that
respondents would only use a digital euro if they remain in control
over the sharing of their personal and financial information. The fact
that perceived control does not significantly influence privacy
concerns could indicate that control over personal data is seen as a
prerequisite for respondents before even thinking about using it for
payments.
As discussed earlier, prior research indicated that awareness of the
digital euro could have been positively or negatively associated with
14
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

privacy concerns. The findings suggest that awareness is not relevant factors of a digital euro with respect to both privacy concerns and the
in the context of this study. This indicated that respondents did not willingness to use the
need to be aware of the possibility of a digital euro to form opinions
about it. A possible explanation could be that respondents did equate
their opinions on other digital payment methods that they know, such
as mobile pay- ment solutions or cryptocurrencies, to the digital euro.
Similarly, their attitudes towards digital privacy, for instance in the
context of smart- phones or social media, could have been applied
towards a digital euro. These hypotheses need be investigated in more
detail in the future as respondents could have created a strong mental
link between a digital euro and other payment systems or digital
technologies which could also influence adoption.
Perceived vulnerability and self-efficacy have significant effects on
privacy concerns in the digital euro (confirming H4 and H5). Individuals
who believe that their data could be misused by different actors exhibit
stronger privacy concerns, while individuals who feel that they can
cope with privacy threats demonstrate lower privacy concerns. This is
in line with prior findings that demonstrate that German users feel
less able to control their personal information than US users (Dogruel
and Jo¨ckel, 2019). Regarding demographics, we find that older
respondents exhibit significantly higher privacy concerns, as do
respondents that scored high on the conscientiousness personality
trait. However, both constructs are only significant at the 0.05 level,
with beta coefficients much lower than those of other constructs. No
significant differences were found with regards to respondents’
gender, education or other personality traits.
Regarding RQ2 we find that privacy concerns negatively influence
individuals’ willingness to use the digital euro (confirming H7). Thus,
these results are in accordance with prior findings on other payment
methods and online technologies in which privacy concerns are found
to negatively affect usage intention in individuals. This finding is also
in line with the previous report of the ECB in which respondents,
especially from Germany, chose privacy in payments to be their most
important feature in a digital euro (European Central Bank, 2021). It
has to be emphasized that these findings are not generalizable towards
all in- dividuals worldwide. Prior research indicates that German
citizens demonstrate a particular liking for privacy protection and
expect more damage and a higher probability of violations of privacy,
for instance as compared to US citizens in the case of social networks
(Krasnova and Veltri, 2010). Similarly, German users exhibit a higher
preference for privacy regulation and less perceived control over their
smartphone data compared to US users (Dogruel and Jo¨ckel, 2019).
Furthermore, we find evidence for the privacy calculus as perceived
benefits positively influence use intentions, confirming H6. Perceived
benefits demonstrate the strongest effect of all variables in our
analysis, emphasizing the importance of a proper communication and
education strategy about the benefits of the digital euro in the future.
It is of particular importance that a digital euro possesses features that
offer a competitive advantage against existing payment methods. The
digital euro needs to be convenient, that is easy to use as well as
useful, in order to be widely accepted. To create a competitive
advantage, these factors would need to be more pronounced than in
existing payment solutions. For instance, a digital euro might be more
convenient than cash if it is accepted for physical payments in stores
as well as online payments in e- commerce context. A highly
convenient digital euro would require no credit card but only a
smartphone, which most users already possess. Of course, privacy-
friendliness also represents a potential perceived benefit of a digital
euro, especially for countries who highly value privacy.
Regarding RQ3 we find that soft trust factors indeed demonstrate a
stronger influence on privacy concerns and willingness to use the
digital euro than hard trust factors (confirming H9 and H11). H8 could
not be confirmed as hard trust factors are found to not significantly
affect privacy concerns in the digital euro. However, results indicate
that they significantly affect the willingness to use the digital euro
(confirming H10). This demonstrates that soft trust factors are
regarded as much more important for individuals than hard trust
15
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
digital euro. Respondents did not demonstrate that they are or technology. Our findings show that the differentiation of trust in soft
concerned about a lack of liquidity of the digital euro, nor did they and
fear price fluctuations. These factors, e.g., the acceptance of the
digital euro in all of Europe (Liquidity), are not directly related to
privacy concerns as this trust dimension does not encompass the
transfer of data and information in any way. This is opposed to soft
trust factors such as Credibility where trust in the central banks’
ability to handle data is included. While both factors positively
influence willingness to use, the effect is found to be higher for soft
factors. A reason might be the fact that individuals might take the
hard trust factors of a digital euro for granted and expect them, given
their experiences with cash and banknotes that have already proven
to be stable and highly liquid. As the digital euro does not exist yet
and the ECB could not yet prove that it can successfully create and
implement a reliable and secure digital currency, soft trust factors
might be more crucial for individuals. Again, these findings need to
be un- derstood in the context of the sample, consisting of German
citizens. The work of Patel and Ortlieb (2020) demonstrates that trust
in central banks is similarly strong in advanced economies such as
Japan, France, the US and Germany (Patel and Ortlieb, 2020, p.7).
Emerging markets, such as Russia or India, demonstrate much higher
degrees of trustworthiness for central banks as well as for retail
banks, other payment service providers and big tech companies.
Such other entities in the payment market are generally regarded as
untrustworthy in European countries, whereby French and Italian
citizens generally demonstrate higher degrees of untrustworthiness
than German citizens. The findings of Bursian and Fürth (2015)
indicate that European countries are comparable with each other in
trust in the ECB. The German average level of trust in ECB is hereby
between that of France, with a lower average level of trust and that of
the Netherlands, Ireland and Portugal, with a higher average level of
trust in ECB. While the findings of Angino et al. (2021) demonstrate
that there are differences between Euro area regions, e.g. trust in
ECB is found to be lower in Eastern Germany than in Western
Germany, we argue that our results are applicable to the German
pop- ulation, given the age and gender distribution of our sample.
However, the impact of the different types of trust investigated in
this work on privacy concerns and willingness to use might differ
between countries. For instance, it could be argued that hard trust
factors, which can be understood as the core functions of a central
bank, might be of higher importance for countries in which legal
tender is lacking in these properties. While advanced economies with
stable currencies might see these properties as already fulfilled
prerequisites, this may not the case for all countries.

6. Contributions and implications

To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to investigate

the effects of individuals’ privacy concerns and trust perceptions on
their intention to use the digital euro in Germany. Existing research
is currently focused on technical and legal issues of different types
and forms of CBDC. With respect to privacy and anonymity in
payments, current research investigates frameworks on how to best
create a privacy-sensitive CBDC (Goodell et al., 2021; Gross et al.,
2021) without considering the factors that cause privacy concerns
and their influence on adoption. Although our findings are not
generalizable to other IT- artefacts, we argue that our results are
generalizable to the German population. With the findings on
comparable levels on trust in the ECB (Bursian and Fürth, 2015) and
the strong preference for privacy from German users and
respondents (Krasnova and Veltri, 2010; European Central Bank,
2021) in mind, our results can serve as a first approxi- mation for
privacy concerns in CBDC of other countries within and outside the
Euro area. Thus, we contribute to the literature by deriving a causal
research model and proposing a new second-order trust construct to
explain CBDC adoption. We could demonstrate that trust in money is
a multifactorial construct whose factors differ in their influence on
the constructs of privacy concerns and willingness to use a currency
16
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158

hard factors is crucial for the investigation of digital currencies as it

Table 6
enables us to provide more detailed practical recommendations.
Questionnaire items (All items measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Definitions
For central banks, the findings of this work lead to several implica- and items adapted from Alashoor et al. 2017 if not otherwise indicated) and
tions for the successful development and implementation of a CBDC. We introductory text.
show that privacy concerns are influenced by a set of antecedents that
Construct Definition Item
need to be considered when developing a privacy-sensitive CBDC. Pri- Awareness of the Awareness of the term I am familiar with the term
vacy concerns need to be addressed by central banks as they are found digital euro digital euro including its “digital euro”.
to negatively influence individuals’ willingness to use a CBDC. We find implications for central I am aware that the digital
that perceived vulnerability and self-efficacy influence privacy concerns banks and individuals. euro is created by the
European central bank.
which implies that central banks should aim to put individuals in I am aware that central
control of the amount and type of data that is transferred when using banks are researching
the digital euro in order to increase self-efficacy and reduce perceived digital equivalents of their
vulnerability. The proposed solution using “anonymity vouchers” as national currencies, e.g.,
the digital euro.
imagined by the ECB (European Central Bank, 2019) to allow for a
I understand the meaning of
specific amount of private transactions in digital euro might therefore the term “digital euro.”
act as a suitable option to let
individuals control a limited number of anonymous transactions. Perceived control The perceived ability to I would only use the digital
Alternatively, the use of privacy enhancing techniques, such as Zero- control personal data euro if the system allowed
Knowledge-Proof (ZKP), used in the proposed solution by Gross et al. provided in transactions me to control the
using the digital euro. information that financial
(2021), could provide a suitable solution to overcome privacy concerns.
institutions can use from
We recommend to alleviate privacy concerns and increase use intentions me.
by fostering soft trust factors which include strategies to improve the Being able to control the
image and credibility of the central bank and its respective CBDC. The personal information that I
provide by paying with the
ECB should continue to inform transparently about their status of
digital euro is important to
research on the digital euro to increase credibility and trustworthiness. me.
As credibility is linked with the competent handling of data, the flow of I would only provide
information in digital euro transactions should be clearly communi- accurate personal and
cated. This includes not only the types and frequency of data but also financial information for
payments with the digital
the parties to which data is transferred as well as the circumstances of
euro if the system is
data transfer. controlled by a reputable
Focusing on hard trust factors such as fungibility and stability may party.
not reduce privacy concerns and increases willingness to use less Perceived vulnerability The perceived potential I could be subjected to
risks associated with malicious IT security
strongly than improving soft trust factors. Practically, central banks
revealing personal problems (e.g., virus,
need to work on improving soft trust factors, instead of strengthening information by using the privacy, identity theft,
their core competencies which are included in the hard trust factors. digital euro as a payment hacking) when using the
Lastly, central banks should ensure and communicate possible method. digital euro.
benefits of a CBDC, such as usability, convenience and transaction I feel my payment
information could be
speed (European Central Bank, 2020; Lannquist (2020)).
misused when using the
digital euro.
7. Limitations and future work I feel my personal
information could be made
available to unknown
Our results are limited as the survey was conducted solely in Ger-
individuals or companies
many. Thus, cultural differences, especially in countries with differing without my knowledge if I
perceptions about online privacy may play an important role. We use the digital euro.
aimed to mitigate these issues by utilizing market research institutes to I feel my personal
information could be made
gather a representative sample of the German population in terms of
available to government
age and gender distribution. Our findings demonstrate that personality agencies when using the
traits and gender play only a very limited role in explaining privacy digital euro.
concerns and willingness to use the digital euro, which could serve as I feel my personal
an indication that the model could also be applicable for other information could be
inappropriately used if I use
countries and CBDC, although the study should be replicated within
the digital euro.
different countries and cultures. While German citizens are generally Self-efficacy Competence and I believe I have the ability
found to be privacy- sensitive, their trust in the ECB is found to be confidence to cope with to protect my personal
relatively comparable to other citizens within the Euro area. privacy threats by paying information when using the
with a digital euro. digital euro.
Additionally, respondents might be subject to self-report biases as the
It is easy for me to take
protection of one’s privacy is regarded as socially expected. The fully privacy measure features by
anonymized survey aimed to mitigate this issue. Lastly, the digital myself when using the
euro has not been introduced yet. Respondents therefore had to form digital euro.
opinions on a CBDC that they could not yet truly
evaluate with respect to its features, technical design and privacy- by differentiating Privacy concerns in the Concerns about
digital euro opportunistic behavior related
friendliness. To address this issue, participants were provided with between different (Adapted from to personal information
supplementary information, based on official ECB documents on the perceived benefits Dinev and Hart submitted when using the
digital euro, prior to the survey. Furthermore, we were required to of a CBDC and 2004) digital euro.
measure intentions instead of more favorable measures of actual use
behavior. This is especially relevant to consider as a limitation due to
the intention-behavior gap for privacy-related studies (Crossler et al.,
2013). Future work should investigate these phenomena in more detail
10
F. Tronnier et al. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
I am concerned that
information on my purchasing behavior (bought products, purchasing frequency,
credit score) could be used in a way I did not foresee when using the digital euro.
(continued on next page)

10
F. Tronnier et al.
Table 6 (continued )
Construct Definition Item
I am concerned that
personal information
relating to my identity
(name, address, personality
traits) could be used in a
way I did not foresee when
using the digital euro.
I am concerned that
unknown organizations or
individuals get access to my
information when paying
with the digital euro.
I am concerned about
paying with the digital euro
because of what others
might do with my
information.
Trust (Adapted from The extent to which users With the digital Euro you
Wonneberger and are confident that central can be sure that it will be
Mieg 2011) banks will handle their accepted everywhere in
personal information Europe. (Liquidity – Hard
competently, reliably, Factor)
and safely when using the The digital Euro is suitable
digital euro. for shopping and making
purchases. (Fungibility –
Hard Factor)
The digital Euro is a good
investment asset.
(Fungibility – Hard Factor)
The digital Euro is a stable
currency. (Stability – Hard
Factor)
The price of one digital
Euro equals the price of one
physical euro. (Stability –
Hard Factor)
The digital Euro is secure,
cannot be forged. (Security
– Soft Factor)
The creation of new digital
euros is trustworthy.
(Credibility – Soft Factor)
Central banks handle
personal information
submitted by individuals in
a competent fashion.
(Credibility – Soft Factor)
I have positive emotions
with regard to the digital
euro. (Image – Soft Factor)
Central banks are
trustworthy. (Image – Soft
Factor)
Willingness to use the Behavioral intention to I am willing to use the
digital euro use the digital euro as a digital euro
After reading the
currency.
introductory information
on the digital euro I am
willing to try it.
I will prefer the digital euro
over other currencies and
payment solutions.
I will use the digital euro
for everyday online
payments. I will the use
the digital euro as a safe
storage for my money.
Based on the information
given, the digital euro will
replace the payment
methods that I am currently
using.
Privacy victim Past privacy victim How frequently have you
experience experiences with digital personally been the victim
financial services of what you felt was an
improper privacy invasion
11
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
Table 6 (continued )
Construct Definition Item
from using digital financial
services?
Perceived Benefits Perceived benefits I prefer the digital euro over
associated with the digital other payment methods
euro such as traditional online
banking.
The digital euro offers a
convenient payment
method for online
payments.
The digital euro is a useful
payment method.
Before starting the survey, please read the following information carefully:
What is the digital euro and why might it be introduced?
The European Central Bank (ECB) is currently discussing the introduction of a
digital euro in Europe within the next five years.The digital euro is intended to act
as an additional means of payment for electronic transactions for private
individuals. It is being discussed by central banks to keep pace with the digital
payment behavior of citizens.
The digital euro serves as a supplement to cash and is not intended to replace it!
The digital euro would be created by the central bank. It is likely that many
companies and businesses will accept the digital euro as a payment option.
The digital euro would be a legal tender.
The technical system through which digital euros would be created and exchanged
would be built by the ECB in conjunction with other retail banks.
The goal is to create a secure, efficient, accessible, privacy-friendly and compliant
payment solution that could be used throughout Europe.
How can you use the digital euro?
Imagine that such a digital euro could be used in a similar way to existing payment
solutions such as online and mobile banking, and payment services such as PayPal.
The digital euro could be transferred between individuals for peer-to-peer (P2P)
payments or used as a means of payment between buyers and sellers via apps or
web interfaces.
Existing retail banks would offer accounts or wallets where individuals store their
digital euros. When a purchase or sale is made, these accounts or wallets are
debited. For the following questions, imagine that you want to buy a particular
product online that costs about €100. The seller offers several payment options,
including the digital euro. You can process this transaction through a website or an
app, similar to existing payment options.
considering the multiple dimensions and constructs for trust in CBDC
that might differ from traditional types of money. This includes the
differentiation between trust in the currency, the underlying
technology and related stakeholders. Lastly, differences in privacy
concerns and trust could not only be measured and compared between
countries and different CBDC but also between different digital
payment solutions, such as cryptocurrencies and digital payment
services created by large technology providers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fre´de´ric Tronnier: Funding acquisition, Project administration,
Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review
& editing, Software. David Harborth: Conceptualization, Resources,
Su- pervision, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Peter
Hamm: Conceptualization, Validation, Formal analysis, Writing – re-
view & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix
Table 6
F. Tronnier et al.
References
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
(2), 179–211.
Alashoor, T., Han, S., Joseph, R.C., 2017. Familiarity with big data, privacy concerns,
and self-disclosure accuracy in social networking websites: An APCO model.
Commun. Associat. Informat. Syst. 41, 62–96. https://doi.org/10.17705/
1cais.04104.
Alharbi, A., Sohaib, O., 2021. Technology Readiness and Cryptocurrency Adoption: PLS-
SEM and Deep Learning Neural Network Analysis. IEEE Access 9, 21388–21394.
Allen, S. et al. (2020) ‘Design Choices for Central Bank Digital Currency: Policy and
Technical Considerations’, NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES.
Alonso, S.L.N., Echarte Ferna´ndez, M.A´., Sanz Bas, D., Kaczmarek, J., 2020. Reasons
fostering or discouraging the implementation of central bank-backed digital
currency: A review. Economies 8 (2), 41.
Alzahrani, S. and Daim, T. U. (2019) ‘Evaluation of the cryptocurrency adoption decision
using hierarchical decision modeling (HDM)’, in PICMET 2019 - Portland
International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: Technology
Management in the World of Intelligent Systems, Proceedings. doi: 10.23919/
PICMET.2019.8893897.
Angino, S., Ferrara, F.M., Secola, S., 2021. The cultural origins of institutional trust: The
case of the European Central Bank. Europ. Union Polit. 23 (2), 212–235.
Angst, C.M., Agarwal, R., 2009. ‘Adoption of electronic health records in the presence of
privacy concerns: The elaboration likelihood modeland individual persuasion ’. MIS
Quart. Manage. Informat. Syst. 33 (2) https://doi.org/10.2307/20650295.
Atako, N., 2021. Privacy Beyond Possession: Solving the Access Conundrum in Digital
Dollars. Vanderbilt J. Entertainm. Technol. Law.
Auer, R., Bo¨hme, R., 2020. ‘The technology of retail central bank digital currency’. BIS
Quart. Rev. March, 85–100.
Bandara, R., Fernando, M., Akter, S., 2020. Privacy concerns in E-commerce: A
taxonomy and a future research agenda. Electron. Markets 30 (3), 629–647.
https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12525-019-00375-6.
Bank of England (2020) Central Bank Digital Currency, Opportunities, challenges and
design. Barnes, S.B., 2006. A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United
States. First
Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
Barontini, C. and Holden, H. (2019) Proceeding with caution - a survey on central bank
digital currency.
M.L. Bech R. Garratt Central bank cryptocurrencies https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_
qt1709f.htm 2017 Available at: Accessed: 16 November 2019.
Becker, J.M., Klein, K., Wetzels, M., 2012. Hierarchical Latent Variable Models in PLS-
SEM: Guidelines for Using Reflective-Formative Type Models. Long Range Plan. 45
(5–6), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001.
B´elanger, F., Crossler, R.E., 2011. Privacy in the Digital Age: A Review of Information
Privacy Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarter 35 (4).
Bernstein, E.S., 2017. Making transparency transparent: The evolution of observation in
management theory. Acad. Manage. Ann. 11 (1), 217–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/
annals.2014.0076.
Bhatiasevi, V. (2016) ‘An extended UTAUT model to explain the adoption of mobile
banking’, Information Development, 32(4), pp. 799–814. doi: \url{10.1177/
0266666915570764}.
Bijlsma, M. et al. (2021) ‘What triggers consumer adoption of CBDC?’, SSRN Electron. J.,
(709). doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3836440.
Boar, C., Holden, H., Wadsworth, A., 2020. Impending arrival - a sequel to the survey on
central bank digital currency. BIS papers 107, 19.
Bouchaud, M. et al. (2020) Central banks and the future of digital money. doi: 10.2139/
ssrn.3369649.
Bursian, D., Fürth, S., 2015. Trust Me! I am a European Central Banker. J. Money, Credit
Bank. 47 (8), 1503–1530. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12282.
Chen, H., Beaudoin, C.E., Hong, T., 2017. Securing online privacy: An empirical test on
Internet scam victimization, online privacy concerns, and privacy protection
behaviors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2017.01.003.
Chen, H.T., Chen, W., 2015. Couldn’t or wouldn’t? the influence of privacy concerns and
self-efficacy in privacy management on privacy protection. Cyberpsychol., Behav.
Soc. Network. 18 (1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0456.
CNNIC (2019) ‘The 44th Statistical Report on Chinás Internet Development’, China
Internet Network Information Center, (August). Available at: https://www.cnnic.com.
cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201911/P020191112539794960687.
CNNIC (2021) ‘The 47th Statistical Report on Chinás Internet Development’, China
Internet Network Information Center, (February). Available at: https://www.cnnic.
com.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/202104/P020210420557302172744.
Crossler, R.E., Johnston, A.C., Lowry, P.B., Hu, Q., Warkentin, M., Baskerville, R., 2013.
Future directions for behavioral information security research. Comput. Secur. 32,
90–101.
Culnan, M.J., Armstrong, P.K., 1999. Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness,
and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organ. Sci. 10 (1), 104–115.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.1.104.
Dahlberg, T., Guo, J., Ondrus, J., 2015. A critical review of mobile payment research.
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14 (5), 265–284.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j. elerap.2015.07.006.
Darbha, S. and Arora, R. (2020) Privacy in CBDC technology.
Davis, F., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quart. Manage. Informat. Syst. 13 (3), 319–339.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
Dienlin, T., Metzger, M.J., 2016. An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for SNSs:
Analyzing Self-Disclosure and Self-Withdrawal in a Representative U.S. Sample.
12
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 21 (5), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcc4.12163.
Dinev, T., et al., 2015. Economics: Thinking Outside the “ APCO ” Box Systems,
Psychology, and Behavioral Economics: Thinking Outside the “ APCO ” Box.
Informat. Syst. Res. 26 (November), 639–655.
Dinev, T., Hart, P., 2004. Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents -measurement
validity and a regression model. Behav. Informat. Technol. 23 (6), 413–422. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001715723.
Dinev, T., Hart, P. (2005) ‘Internet Privacy Concerns and Social Awareness as
Determinants of Intention to Transact’, 10(2), pp. 7–29.
Dinev, T., Hart, P., 2006. An extended privacy calculus model for e-
commerce transactions. Informat. Syst. Res. 17 (1), 61–80.
https://doi.org/10.1287/ isre.1060.0080.
Dogruel, L., Jo¨ckel, S., 2019. Risk perception and privacy regulation preferences from a
cross-cultural perspective. A qualitative study among German and U.S. smartphone
users. Int. J. Commun. 13, 1764–1783.
Esmaeilzadeh, P., Subramanian, H. and Cousins, K. (2019) ‘Individuals’ Cryptocurrency
Adoption: A Proposed Moderated-Mediation Model Completed’, (Saito 2015), pp. 1–
8. Available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1460&context=amcis2019.
European Central Bank (2019) Exploring anonymity in central bank digital currencies.
European Central Bank (2020) Report on a digital euro. Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Available at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/Report_on_a_digital_
euro~4d7268b458.en.pdf.
European Central Bank Eurosystem report on the public consultation on a digital euro
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/Eurosystem_report_on_the_public_
consultation_on_a_digital_euro~539fa8cd8d.en.pdf 2021.
European Commission (2010) ‘COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 22 March 2010
on the scope and effects of legal tender of euro banknotes and coins’, Official
Journal of the European Union. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:32010H0191&from=EN.
E. Commission EUROSTAT: Demography, population stock & balance https://ec.europa.
eu/eurostat/web/population-demography/demography-population-stock-balance/
database?p_p_id=NavTreeportletprod_WAR_NavTreeportletprod_INSTANCE_
YHU3YVInXvtt&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view 2018.
Commission, E., 2018b. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing
Directive 95/46/EC. (General Da Off. J. Europ. Union. https://doi.org/10.1308/
rcsfdj.2018.54.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975) ‘Beliefs, attitude, intention, and behavior’, Strategies of
Change: Persuasive Communication.
Floyd, D.L., Prentice-dunn, S., Rogers, R.W., 2000. A meta-analysis of research on
protection motivation theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30 (2), 407–429.
G7 Working Group on Stablecoins (2019) ‘Investigating the impact of global stablecoins’,
(October), p. 31.
Gao, L., Waechter, K.A., 2017. Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of
mobile payment services: an empirical investigation. Informat. Syst. Front. 19 (3), 525–
548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9611-0.
Giancarlo, C. H. et al. (2020) ‘The Digital Dollar Project Exploring a US CBDC’, (May).
Goodell, G., Al-Nakib, H.D., Tasca, P., 2021. A digital currency architecture for privacy
and owner-custodianship. Future Internet 13 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/
fi13050130.
Gross, J. et al. (2021) ‘Designing a Central Bank Digital Currency with Support for Cash-
Like Privacy’, SSRN Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3891121.
Hair, J. et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-
SEM). SAGE Publications.
Hair, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Market.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Harborth, D., Pape, S., 2021. Investigating Privacy Concerns related to Mobile
Augmented Reality Applications – A Vignette Based Online Experiment. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 122, 106833 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106833.
Harlev, M. A. et al. (2018) ‘Breaking Bad: De-Anonymising Entity Types on the Bitcoin
Blockchain Using Supervised Machine Learning’, Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 9, pp. 3497–3506. doi: 10.24251/
hicss.2018.443.
Harris, M.A., Chin, A.G., Beasley, J., 2019. Mobile Payment Adoption: An Empirical
Review and Opportunities for Future Research. Southern Association of Information
Systems (SAIS), (March), p. 7.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43
(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Huang, Y. and Liu, W. (2012) ‘The impact of privacy concern on users’ usage intention of
mobile payment’, Proceeding of 2012 International Conference on Information
Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, ICIII 2012, 3(2008),
pp. 90–93. doi: 10.1109/iciii.2012.6339927.
Junglas, I.A., Johnson, N.A., Spitzmüller, C., 2008. Personality traits and concern for
privacy: An empirical study in the context of location-based services. European
Journal of Information Systems 17 (4), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1057/
ejis.2008.29.
Kahn, C.M., Mcandrews, J., Roberds, W., 2005. Money is privacy. Int. Econom. Rev. 46
(2), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2005.00323.x.
de Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N.T.M., Zidda, P., 2016. Adoption of in-store mobile payment:
Are perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? J. Retai. Consum. Servic. 31,
334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.011.
F. Tronnier et al.
Kiff, J. et al. (2020) ‘A Survey of Research on Retail Central Bank Digital Currency’, SSRN
Electron. J. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3639760.
Krasnova, H., Günther, O., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K., 2009. Privacy concerns and
identity in online social networks. Ident. Informat. Soc. 2 (1), 39–63.
Krasnova, H., Veltri, N.F., 2010. Privacy calculus on social networking sites: Explorative
evidence from Germany and USA. In: Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/
HICSS.2010.307.
Lannquist, A. (World E. F. (2020) ‘Central Bank Digital Currency Policy-Maker Toolkit’,
(January), pp. 1–47. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_CBDC_
Policymaker_Toolkit.pdf.
Laufer, R.S., Wolfe, M., 1977. Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A
Multidimensional Developmental Theory. J. Soc. Issues 33 (3), 22–42.
Lee, D.K.C., Yan, L., Wang, Y., 2021a. A global perspective on central bank digital
currency. China Econ. J. 14 (1), 52–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17538963.2020.1870279.
Lee, M.C., 2009. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of
TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electron. Commer. Res.
Appl. 8 (3), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006.
Lee, Y., et al., 2021b. A survey on security and privacy in blockchain-based central
bank digital currencies. J. Intern. Serv. Informat. Secur. 11 (3), 16–29.
https://doi.org/ 10.22667/JISIS.2021.08.31.016.
Leucci, S., Riemann, R., 2021. TechSonar Rep. https://doi.org/10.2804/641632.
Li, H., Gupta, A., Zhang, J., Sarathy, R., 2014. Examining the decision to use standalone
personal health record systems as a trust-enabled fair social contract. Decis. Support
Syst. 57, 376–386.
Lo, S., Wang, J.C., 2014. Bitcoin as Money? Curr. Policy Perspectiv. 14, 1–28.
Lowry, P.B., et al., 2011. Using an Elaboration Likelihood Approach to Better Understand
the Persuasiveness ofWebsite Privacy Assurance Cues for Online Consumers. J. Am.
Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 63 https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.
Lowry, P.B., Gaskin, J., 2014. Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation
modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: When to choose
it and how to use it. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 57 (2), 123–146.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ TPC.2014.2312452.
Maddux, J.E., Rogers, R.W., 1983. Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised
theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19 (5), 469–479.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Agarwal, J., 2004. Internet users’ information privacy
concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Informat. Syst. Res.
15 (4), 336–355.
Mancini Griffoli, T., Martinez Peria, M., Agur, I., Ari, A., Kiff, J., Popescu, A., Rochon, C.,
2018. ‘Casting Light on Central Bank Digital Currencies ’. Staff Discussion Notes 18
(08), 1.
Masciandaro, D., 2018. Central Bank Digital Cash and Cryptocurrencies: Insights from a
New Baumol-Friedman Demand for Money. Austral. Econom. Rev. 51 (4), 540–550.
McKnight, D.H., Choudury, V., Kacmar, C., 2002. Developing And Validating Trust
Measure for E-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Informat. Syst. Res. 13 (3),
334–359.
Musil, R. (2005) Geld. Raum. Nachhaltigkeit: alternative Geldmodelle als neuer Weg der
endogenen Regionalentwicklung? Verlag für Sozialo¨konomie.
Nakamoto, S. (2008) Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System | Satoshi Nakamoto
Institute, 2008-10-31.
F. Panetta Cash still king in times of COVID-19 2021 European Central Bank Available at:
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2021/html/ecb.
sp210615~05b32c4e55.en.html.
Patel, B. and Ortlieb, P. (2020) ‘Digital Currencies - A question of trust’. Available at:
www.omfif.org.
Pavlou, P.A., Fygenson, M., 2006. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quart. Manage.
Informat. Syst. 30 (1), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148720.
Payments Canada, Bank of Canada and R3 (2017) ‘Jasper: A Canadian Experiment with
Distributed Ledger Technology for Domestic Interbank Payments Settlement’, pp. 1–
66. Available at: https://www.payments.ca/sites/default/files/29-Sep-17/jasper_
report_eng.pdf.
Pladson, K. (2021) ‘European Central Bank moves ahead with digital euro pilot project’.
Available at: https://www.dw.com/en/european-central-bank-moves-ahead-with-
digital-euro-pilot-project/a-58251871.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common Method
Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended
Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (5), 879–903.
13
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 53 (2022) 101158
Rammstedt, B., John, O.P., 2007. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item
short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J. Res. Pers. 41 (1),
203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001.
Reith, R. et al. (2020) ‘How privacy affects the acceptance of mobile payment solutions’,
27th European Conference on Information Systems - Information Systems for a Sharing
Society, ECIS 2019, pp. 0–19.
C.M. Ringle S. Wende J.M. Becker SmartPLS 3 2015 SmartPLS GmbH Boenningstedt
http://www.smartpls.com.
M.N. Rothbard What Has Government Done to Our Money? 1963.
Sarker, S., et al., 2021. Use Of Blockchain As A Resource For Combating Corruption In
Global Shipping: An Interpretive Case Study. Journal of Management Information
Systems 38 (2), 338–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2021.1912919.
Sidorenko, E. L. and Lykov, A. A. (2019) ‘Prospects for the Legal Regulation of Central
Bank Digital Currency’, in Digital Age: Chances, Challenges and Future. Cham: Springer
International Publishing (Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems), pp. 613–621. doi:
10.1007/978-3-030-27015-5_73.
Slade, E., Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y., Piercy, N., 2015. Exploring consumer adoption of
proximity mobile payments. J. Strat. Market. 23 (3), 209–223.
Slyke, C., Shim, J.T., Johnson, R., Jiang, J., 2006. Concern for Information Privacy and
Online Consumer Purchasing. J. Associat. Informat. Syst. 7 (6), 415–444.
Smith, H.J., Dinev, T., Xu, H., 2011. ‘Information Privacy Research. Interdiscipl. Rev. 35
(4), 989–1015.
Smith, H.J., Milberg, S.J., Burke, S.J., 1996. Information Privacy: Measuring Individuals’
Concerns About Organizational Practices. MIS Quarterly 20 (2), 167.
Solberg So¨ilen, K., Benhayoun, L., 2022. Household acceptance of central bank digital
currency: the role of institutional trust. Int. J. Bank Market. 40 (1), 172–196. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2021-0156.
Son, J.Y., Kim, S.S., 2008. Internet users’ information privacy-protective responses: A
Taxonomy and a nomological model. MIS Quart. Manage. Informat. Syst. 32 (3)
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148854.
Sveriges Riksbank (2017) ‘The Riksbank’s e-krona project’, (September), p. 44.
Szumski, O., 2020. Technological trust from the perspective of digital payment. Procedia
Comput. Sci. 176, 3545–3554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.09.032.
Tronnier, F., 2021. Privacy in Payment in the Age of Central Bank Digital Currency.
Privacy and Identity Management, Mariobor.
Tronnier, F., Recker, M. and Hamm, P. (2020) ‘AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) Towards
Central Bank Digital Currency – A Systematic Literature Review Towards Central
Bank Digital Currency – A Systematic Literature Review’.
Tsai, H.-Y., Jiang, M., Alhabash, S., LaRose, R., Rifon, N.J., Cotten, S.R., 2016.
Understanding online safety behaviors: A protection motivation theory perspective.
Comput. Secur. 59, 138–150.
Tyszka, T., Przybyszewski, K., 2006. Cognitive and emotional factors affecting currency
perception. J. Econ. Psychol. 27 (4), 518–530.
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, Davis, 2003. ‘User acceptance of information technology:
Toward a unified view’, MIS Quarterly. Managem. Informat. Syst. 27 (3), 425.
Wadsworth, A., 2018. The pros and cons of issuing a central bank digital currency.
Reserve Bank New Zeal. Bullet. 81 (7), 1–21.
Wandho¨fer, R., 2017. The future of digital retail payments in Europe: A role for central
bank issued crypto cash? J. Paymen. Strat. Syst. 11 (3), 1750–1806.
Wang, Y.S., Lin, H.H., Luarn, P., 2006. Predicting consumer intention to use mobile
service. Informat. Syst. J. 16 (2), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2575.2006.00213.x.
Wonneberger, E.T., Mieg, H.A., 2011. Trust in money: hard, soft and idealistic factors in
Euro, gold and German community currencies. J. Sustain. Finan. Investm. 1 (3–
4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2012.655891.
Xu, F., Michael, K., Chen, X., 2013. Factors affecting privacy disclosure on social network
sites: An integrated model. Electron. Comm. Res. 13 (2), 151–168. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10660-013-9111-6.
Xu, H., et al., 2011. The personalization privacy paradox: An exploratory study of
decision making process for location-aware marketing. Decis. Support Syst. 51 (1),
42–52.
Yanagawa, N., Yamaoka, H., 2019. ‘Digital Innovation. Data Revol. Central Bank Digit.
Curren. 1–20.
Yao, Q., 2018. A systematic framework to understand central bank digital currency. Sci.
China Informat. Sci. 61 (3), 33101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-017-9294-5.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y., Wang, B., 2010. Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking
user adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (4), 760–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2010.01.013.