International Journal of Arts & Sciences,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 1944-6934 :: 11(01):375–390 (2018)

THE EFFECT OF TRUST ON MOBILE PAYMENT ADOPTION: A

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide

Central Queensland University, Australia

Trust is at the core of any payment method and it plays a crucial role in the adoption of new payment
systems. Individuals need to trust in one another in order to validate any monetary system developed.
With the evolution of the payment methods, shifting from paper-based to electronic-based, build
consumers’ trust has become a vital element for the success of businesses in the payment systems. In
this sense, the aim of this paper is to provide a scoping review of the relevant literature conducted
between 2013 and 2017 on mobile payment systems (MPS) sector and point out which factors might
affect trust and, in turn, might have influence on MPS adoption by users according to academics. In
order to organise the recent studies for further discussion, this paper proposes to divide the studies into
five distinct categories: country (where the study took place), method employed (surveys, interviews
etc), number of respondents, focus of the research (consumers, merchants or users in general) and
model (framework) used. The findings of 76 studies (2013-2017) pointed out that there are 111
different factors that have impact on mobile payment systems, according to the authors. In addition, the
findings have indicated that China is the country with more studies conducted on the adoption of MPS,
followed by Spain. It is worth mentioning that, in many countries the number of studies seems under-
represented and in others, there are no data published yet.

Keywords: Trust, Mobile payments, MPS, Adoption, Influencing factors.

Introduction

For any payment method to become acceptable, people need to trust that the prevailing currency, or in
other words, money, represents and is recognised by all parts involved. As ‘money is an abstraction built
on trust’ (Chakravorti and Mazzotta 2013, p.3), people need to feel assured that the currency they possess
is recognized by others and it holds the same value (Vigna and Casey 2015, p.15). In this context, cash
represents one of the most tangible forms of money, due to the fact that society as a whole needs to trust
that this paper-based payment method can be exchanged for goods and services. However, despite the
great acceptance among users, this payment method has been gradually substituted by new means of
payment.
With the evolution of the technology and the emergence of the Internet, traditional payment methods
such as cash and cheques have been affected by digital payment platforms. In addition, the advent of the
electronic commerce, or e-commerce, also has contributed to the rapid change in consumers’ behaviour.
In this sense, online banking activities have emerged as a response to this dramatic increase in
electronic transactions and a large part of business to consumer (B2C) transactions have moved online in
order to facilitate and make more convenient for consumers the experience of purchasing goods and

375
376 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

services without leaving their homes (Fondeson 2014, p.4). In other words, despite payment systems are
ancient as humankind itself, business and economic scenarios were modified by the advent of the new
payment systems (Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-Fernández and Muñoz-Leiva 2014a, p.473) in order to
attend the growing demand for online services.
At this point, it is noteworthy to mention that mobile devices have added more convenience to users
in so far as they allow users to instantaneously access similar information and resources once available
only from stationary desktop computers (Kalakota & Robinson 2001 cited in Hillman and Neustaedter
2017, p.12). Users can now access their banking accounts from anywhere at any time to make payments
through their mobile devices. In other words, the ubiquity of mobile devices has facilitate money
exchange among users in so far as they can use their gadgets to purchase, transfer money, and pay bills
online or at point–of-sale (POS). From the ‘business perspective, mobile devices have aided the process
of doing businesses by providing new ways of monetary exchange’ (Killian and Kabanda 2017, p.1).
From the users’ viewpoint, the use of mobile devices has released users from geographical barriers, as
well as the need to carry with them any physical or tangible forms of money to making payments.
Yet, despite the rapid advancement of the mobile technology and the use of new payment platforms,
trust in the mobile payment systems (MPS) is not unanimous. Over the past decade, various researches
have been targeting different aspects of the consumers, merchants, banks and providers in order to
understand what factors could have an impact on users’ acceptance of the MPS. In addition, several
academics have been investigating the effect of trust on people’s acceptance of new payment methods.
They have been developing theories and testing research models, in which trust is one of the variables, in
order to the test the acceptance of the new technologies from the perspective of organisations and
consumers. These theories, which could be applied in many areas of information systems, including the
MPS, have been investigating the reasons that lead users to adopt or not a new payment system.

Literature Review

Trust has been the focus of many studies over the past decades. Various academics have been studying
the effects of trust on mobile payment systems (MPS) acceptance. A study conducted by Duane, O’Reilly
and Andreev (2014, p.318), highlighted that ‘trust is the most powerful factor influencing consumers’
willingness to use Smart Phones to make M-Payments’. This is consistent with previous research
conducted by Xin, Techatassanasoontorn and Tan (2013, p.1), which pointed out that ‘trust is a crucial
factor of consumer’s intention to adopt mobile payment’. Dastan (2016) highlighted that perceived trust
have a positive impact on the adoption of MPS which was also endorsed by Mahad, Mohtar and Othman
(2015, p.6) who indicated that ‘perceived trust have a significant positive effects on the intention to use of
mobile banking’. Finally, Gong et al. (2016, p.1) suggested that ‘emotional trust in MP has a much
stronger effect on consumers’ intention to use, while cognitive trust in MP has both direct and indirect
effects on intention to use’.
Thus, trust is an essential factor on MPS adoption and building trust has become a critical factor that
have influence on mobile payment systems in so far as ‘maintaining a relationship with customers is
difficult, especially when there are less face-to-face contacts’ (Bourreau and Valetti 2015, p.31). In this
context, it is essential for service providers ‘build users’ initial trust in order to facilitate their usage of
mobile payment’ (Zhou 2014b, p.1519).
However, various authors have suggested that trust has influence on other factors such as perceived
usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and so forth, and this, as a consequence, affects the acceptance or
adoption of the MPS. Chen and Li (2016, p.1), for instance, indicated that while post-adoption perceived
risk’ was negatively affected by institutional-based trust, post-adoption perceived usefulness was
positively influenced by it. Gao and Waechter (2015, p.1) highlighted the positive impact that trust has on
perceived convenience and perceived benefit, and how the intention of use of the mobile payment
services can be predicted by these three influencing factors. Yang et al. (2015, p.9) suggested that ‘in the
current stage of China’s online payment, consumers have built up trust first as an antecedent of their
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 377

perceived risks’. Zhou (2015, p.56) has shown that ‘switch intention may be affected by the enablers,
which include trust, satisfaction and flow’. Killian and Kabanda (2017, p.1), stated that ‘trust, risk and
habitual use were factors that significantly affected intention to adopt mobile payment by South African
middle class citizens’. Finally, Lwoga and Lwoga (2017, p.1) suggested that ‘m-payment knowledge,
trust and compatibility predicted perceived ease of use of m-payment services.
In contrast, several academics highlighted that trust is affected by a myriad of factors. Yan and Yang
(2015, p.117) confirmed in their studies that user’s trust is significantly affected by perceived ease of use,
ubiquity, structure assurance and perceived usefulness and this, consequently, has a relevant effect on
user’s willingness to use the MPS. Shuhaiber (2016, p.II) suggested that trust is strongly influenced by
customers’ uncertainty avoidance, which is considered the most negative factor that has influence on m-
payment adoption, followed by perceived privacy risks. Wu and Zhang (2017, p. 363) pointed out that
trust is influenced by reference groups and reputation. Finally, Abidin et.al (2017, p.5) stated that
‘perceived risk has a negative direct influence on behavioural intention, and a negative indirect effect
through trust’.
Therefore, trust itself affects and it is affected by several different factors and this may have
influence on mobile payments adoption. In addition, it is worth mentioning that many authors have been
focusing their studies on different aspects of the users, merchants, banks and providers and trying to
understand what might be the factors that have driven or inhibited users to adopt the MPS. Furthermore,
these researches have pointing out the influencing factors that have impact on the intention to adopt the
MPS in five distinct areas: country (where the study took place), method employed (surveys, interviews
etc), number of respondents, focus of the research (consumers, merchants or users in general) and model
(framework) used. In this sense, Table 1 summarises 76 recent studies, conducted from 2013 to the 2017,
as follows:

Table 1. Studies conducted in MPS between 2013 and 2017

Authors Authors
Country Method N* Focus Model Country Method N* Focus Model
(2017) (2017)

Chang,
Conceptual Lwoga and
Jang and
Taiwan Survey 423 Users research Lwoga Tanzania Survey 292 Users TAM (extended)
Wang
model (2017)
(2017)

de Reuver
Chen and TAM Netherland Multi-sided
China Survey 127 Users and Ondrus Interviews 12 Merchants
Wu (2017) (extended) s platform theory
(2017)

Liébana-
Koloseni
Cabanillas, Conceptual
and
Leiva and Spain Interviews 151 Merchants research Tanzania Survey 309 Consumers TPB (extended)
Mandari
Fernández model
(2017)
(2017)

Baganzi Wu and Mayer’s three-

TAM
and Lau Uganda Survey 438 Users Zhang China Survey 352 Consumers dimensional trust
(extended)
(2017) (2017) and Trust theory

Ho, Wang Conceptual

Abidin et al. Philippine UTAUT2
and Fang China Survey 345 Consumers Research Survey 223 Consumers
(2017) s (extended)
(2017) model

Killian and Trojanowsk

South UTAUT UTAUT2
Kabanda Survey 127 Consumers i and Kuáak, Poland Survey 397 Consumers
Africa (extended) (extended)
(2017) (2017)

Logistic
Liébana-
regression
Cabanillas Middle
modeling and William et
and Lara- Spain Interviews 25 Merchants East and Survey 237 Consumers TAM (extended)
neural al. (2017)
Rubio Africa
network
(2017)
analysis

Khalilzade
h, Ozturk UTAUT and Masele and
UTAUT
and USA Survey 412 Mechants TAM Taluka Tanzania Survey 140 Consumers
(extended)
Bilgihan (extended) (2017)
(2017)
378 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Authors Authors
Country Method N Focus Model Country Method N Focus Model
(2016) (2016)

United
Jenkins and Conceptual
South Shuhaiber Arab CTMP
Ophoff Survey 331 Users research Survey 340 Consumers
Africa (2016) Emirates (extended)
(2016) model
(UAE)

Conceptual
Research model
243 (S) (based on IT
Liu and Tai TAM Chen & Li Surveys and
Vietnam Survey 90 Consumers China Users continuance,
(2016) (extended) (2016) Interviews
38 (I) risk-trust and
affect-cognition
literature)

Liébana
Conceptual
Cabanillas, Guo &
Literature Research model
Slade and N/A N/A Merchants N/A Bouwman China Interviews 12 Merchants
review (analytical multi-
Dwivedi (2016)
level framework)
(2016)

Qasim and
Abu- UTAUT Ooi & Tan
Jordan Survey 253 Consumers Malaysia Survey 459 Users MTAM
Shanab (extended) (2016)
(2016)

Phonthanuk
Cao, Dang TAM and itithaworn,
TAM and IDT
& Nguyen Vietnam Survey 489 Consumers TPB Sellitto, & Thailand Survey 529 Consumers
(extended)
(2016) (extended) Fong
(2016)

Dastan & Trust-based

TAM Gong et al.
Gürler Turkey Survey 225 Consumers China Survey 273 Consumers acceptance
(extended) (2016)
(2016) model (extended)

Conceptual
Research
Köster,
model (2x2
Matt & Ting et al.
Germany Survey 432 Merchants between – Malaysia Survey 311 Consumers TPB (extended)
Hess (2016)
subjects
(2016)
design
experiment)

Choi and Conceptual

Kristensen TAM South
Denmark Survey 217 Consumers Choi Survey N/I* Users research model
(2016) (extended) Korea
(2016) (Overall trust)

Authors Authors
Country Method N Focus Model Country Method N Focus Model
(2015) (2015)

IDT and
Pham and Slade et al. UTAUT
Taiwan Survey 402 Consumers TAM UK Survey 244 Consumers
Ho (2015) (2015b) (extended)
(extended)

Gao & ISS, TCE and

Tai and Liu TAM
Vietnam Survey 604 Consumers Waechter Australia Survey 851 Users TAM
(2015) (extended)
(2015) (extended)

Multi-stage
decision
Jia, Hall
making model Teo et al. UTAUT
and Zhu China Survey 322 Consumers Malaysia Survey 319 Consumers
and Initial (2015) (extended)
(2015)
trust building
theory

UTAUT and Conceptual

Shaw Zhou
USA Survey 597 Consumers TAM China Survey 331 Users research
(2015) (2015)
(extended) model (trust)

Conceptual
Xin,
Dennehy research
Techatassan
and Literature New model
N/A N/A Users N/A asoontorn & Survey 302 Consumers
Sammon review Zealand adapted from
Tan
(2015) previous
(2015)
study (trust)

Dahlberg, Collective
Guo and Literature de Reuver, Netherland action theory
N/A N/A Consumers N/A Interviews 15 Merchants
Ondrus review et al. (2015) s and platform
(2015) theory

Conceptual
research Phonthanuk
Yang et al. model (based itithaworn, TAM
China Survey 870 Consumers Thailand Survey 256 Consumers
(2015) on TRA, Sellitto, & (extended)
TPB, TAM Fong (2015)
and DTPB)

Dahlberg et Literature Yan and TAM

N/A N/A Merchants N/A China Survey 220 Users
al. (2015) review Pan (2015) (extended)
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 379

Conceptual
Research
Bourreau & Yan &
Literature model (Two-
Valetti N/A N/A Merchants N/A Yang China Survey 193 Users
review factor
(2015) (2015)
authentication
model)

Slade et al. UTAUT2 Mtaho TAM

UK Survey 268 Consumers Tanzania Survey 50 Consumers
(2015a) (extended) (2015) (extended)

Authors Authors
Country Method N Focus Model Country Method N Focus Model
(2014) (2014)

Liébana-
Conceptual Cabanillas,
Zhao and research Sánchez-
TAM (extended
Kurnia China Interviews 18 Users model (based Fernández Spain Survey 2012 Consumers
– MPTAM)
(2014) on various & Muñoz-
models) Leiva
(2014a)

Liébana-
Cabanillas,
Sánchez-
Yan and TAM TAM (extended
China Survey 220 Users Fernández Spain Survey 2012 Users
Pan (2014) (extended) – MPTAM)
& Muñoz-
Leiva
(2014b)

Liébana-
de Cabanillas,
Albuquerqu Sánchez- TRA,TAM
Literature
e, Diniz N/A N/A Users N/A Fernández Spain Survey 2012 Users (extended -
review
and Cernev & Muñoz- MPAM-VSN)
(2014) Leiva
(2014c)

Arvidsson, TAM and IDT Shaw

Sweden Survey 169 Consumers Canada Survey 284 Consumers TAM (extended)
(2014) (extended) (2014)

Conceptual Conceptual
Zhou Research Duane et research model
China Survey 226 Users Ireland Survey 82 Consumers
(2014a) model al.(2014). (Smartphone M-
(trust) payment model)

Conceptual
Zhou Vasileiadis
China Survey 229 Users Research Greece Survey 79 Consumers TAM (extended)
(2014b) (2014)
model (trust)

Mingxing,
Morosan TAM Jing, and
USA Survey 556 Consumers China Survey 196 Consumers TAM (extended)
(2014) (extended) Yafang,
(2014)

Nyirenda &
Hillman et
USA Interviews 21 Users Mental model Chikumba Malawi Interviews N/I Consumers IDT (extended)
al. (2014)
(2014)

Anthony &
TAM
Mutalemwa Tanzania Survey 131 Merchants
(extended)
(2014)

Authors Authors
Country Method N Focus Model Country Method N Focus Model
(2013) (2013)

Conceptual Xin,
San-Martin
research Techatassan
& López- New Conceptual
Spain Survey 447 Consumers model (m- asoontorn & Survey 302 Consumers
Catalán, Zealand model (trust)
shopper Tan
(2013)
satisfaction) (2013)

ISS and flow Conceptual

Zhou Teoh et al.
China Survey 195 Users theory Malaysia Survey 183 Consumers research model
(2013) (2013)
(extensions) (Factor analysis)

Slade,
Pourghomi Williams
Literature Literature
& Ghinea N/A N/A Merchants N/A and N/A N/A Consumers N/A
review review
(2013) Dwivedi
(2013)

New Conceptual
Xin (2013) Survey 302 Consumers
Zealand model (trust)

*N – Number of participants
*N/A – Not Applicable (studies based on literature review)
*N/I – Not-informed
380 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

Analysis of the Literature

The findings of 76 studies relating to MPS adoption in which trust is one of the constructs revealed that
most academics preferred to use questionnaire surveys as the main instrument of their researches. 59
surveys were conducted during the period analysed (2013-2017). Interviews were used in 9 studies and
there were 8 literature reviews conducted in this period. In addition, the majority of studies focused on
consumers during the period 2013-2017. 42 out of 76 studies investigated consumers’ habits, 22 targeted
users in general and 12 focused on merchants. It is worth mentioning that 4 out of 12 studies conducted
with merchants are reviews of the literature. Table 2 illustrates the focus of the studies:

Table 2. Focus of researches conducted between 2013 and 2017

Research methods Focus

Literature review Surveys Interviews Consumers Users Merchants

8 59 9 42 22 12

Countries analysed

With regards to the number of investigations of the effects of trust on MPS adoption by country, 28
different countries were analysed between 2013 and 2017. By far China was the country with more
studies conducted on the adoption of MPS. 17 out of 76 studies were conducted in China. Spain was the
second most investigated country with 6 studies, closely followed by Tanzania with 5. Table 3 illustrates
the complete list of countries analysed during the period of 2013-2017.

Table 3. Countries analysed

Countries Analysed: 28
China Spain Tanzania USA Malaysia Vietnam New Zealand
17 6 5 4 4 3 3
UK South Africa Taiwan Netherlands Thailand UAE Malawi
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Sweden Canada Denmark Philippines Australia Greece Germany
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Middle East
Turkey Ireland South Korea Jordan Uganda Poland
and Africa
1 1 1 1 1 1
1

The USA and Malaysia were focus of 4 studies each, while Vietnam and New Zealand were
investigated 3 times each. The UK, South Africa, Taiwan, Netherlands and Thailand were examined twice
each. It is noteworthy to mention that the majority of the countries analysed (16) were investigated only
once each.

MPS Dominant Theories

The findings of 76 recent researches point out that technology acceptance model (TAM), theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), theory of planned behaviour (TPB), and innovation
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 381

diffusion theory (IDT) are the main research models used by various authors to test the attributes.
Conceptual research models, in which trust was the main construct, appeared in various studies. Table 4
shows the theoretical frameworks used in studies conducted in the period of 2013-2017:

Table 4. Theoretical framework used between 2013 and 2017

Theoretical Frameworks
TAM UTAUT TRUST TPB
29 10 11 4
IDT ISS OTHER MODELS
4 2
16

In order to understand the origin of most frameworks, there is a need to analyse two of the most
influential and adopted theoretical frameworks: the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of
planned behaviour (TPB).
Developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in 1975, TRA explains the behaviour of the users from a
social psychological perspective (Yan and Yang, 2015, p.118). In other words, this theoretical framework,
explains “the behaviour of an individual as a result of an intention” (Duan, 2012, p.45).
This model was criticised due to the fact that it ignored the “importance of social factors that may
influence the specific behaviour” (Grandon, Nasco and Mykytyn, 2011 as cited in Duan 2012, p. 45). As a
result, Ajzen (1991) added a new construct to TRA in 1991, perceived behavioural control, which could
reflect “an individual’s perceptions that personal and situational impediments to the performance of the
behaviour may exist” (Grandon, Nasco and Mykytyn, 2011, p.292). Therefore, TPB, which is an
extension of TRA, explains the consumer behaviour through an analysis of independent determinants of
intention such as attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991, as cited in
Ting et al. 2016, p.370). It was used in 4 studies conducted between 2013 and 2017.
Another theory that is considered an extension of TRA is technology acceptance model (TAM).
Proposed by Davis in 1989, this theoretical framework can be used to predict the “determinants of
acceptance and use of the information technology” (Kristensen, 2016, p.12). In other words, TAM states
that ‘the usage is a direct function of behavioural intention, which itself is influenced by attitudes towards
the IS [Information System] formulated from the innovation’s perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use’ (Davis 1989 cited in Slade, Williams and Dwivedi 2013, p.7). In addition, Davis proposed in 1993
that “external variables such as system characteristics, development processes and training influence the
intention of an individual in the adoption of technology indirectly via perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use” (Davis 1993 cited in Duan 2012, p.47).
Thus, TAM has been used to explain the intention and acceptance of information technology by
users and it has been adapted, over the years, with additional constructs by several authors for the
purposed of many studies in the field of MPS. It was the preferred theoretical framework of academics
and it was tested 29 times in recent researches in the MPS area.
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a well-known model used by
various academics, and it “has been employed to investigate different technology adoptions including e-
government, mobile payments, mobile banking, e-commerce and similar technologies” (Masele and
Taluka, 2017, p.68). This research model proposed in 2003 by Venkatesh et al. (2003) uses four major
constructs (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating conditions) in the
pursuit of explaining the intention to use a technology (Qasim and Abu-Shanab 2016, p.1022). In
addition, various studies have been using extended versions of this model with one or more constructs in
order to investigate and understand the factors that affect users and in turn their intention to adopt the
MPS. The UTAUT was used in 10 recent studies.
382 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

A further consumer-focused study that has been used over the years to explain the adoption of new
technologies such as the MPS is the innovation diffusion theory (IDT), which is frequently associated
with “the conceptual idea that innovation first is accepted and used by a small group of interested people
and then over time diffused to more and more people in the population” (Arvidsson 2014, p.151). In other
words, this theory could explain “the acceptance of the technology by individuals as well as their
intention to adopt an innovation” (Rogers 2003 cited in Phonthanukitithaworn, Sellitto and Fong, 2016,
p.39). Based on the studies of Everett Rogers, this theory points out five distinct perceived attributes of
innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability which could help
to understand the variables determining the rate of adoption of an innovation (Rogers 2003, p.223). This
research model was used in 4 studies by academics.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that most of these studies have been using the primarily
frameworks and extending their models with trust, as one of the constructs, in order to investigate and
better understand the reasons that could lead users to adopt the MPS. Trust, itself, as the main construct,
appears in 11 studies conducted during the period analysed (2013-2017). However, it was 3 times used by
the same authors (Xin et al. 2015; Xin et al. 2013 and Xin 2013) who extended their first version of the
research model in order to analyse the MPS adoption, and 3 times by Zhou (2015, 2014a and 2014b) who
examined the users’ switch intention from online payments to mobile payments.
Yet, notwithstanding there are 16 other studies which used theories such as information system
success model (ISS model), factor analysis, transaction cost economics (TCE), flow theory and so forth,
this study has examined only the main theories and frameworks, as well as the extension models, used by
academics during the period between 2013-2017 in the field of MPS.

Influencing Factors

As point out in the previous sections, various academics tested their theories adding new variables to
existing research models. This variables or constructs were tested in order to understand the effect of trust
and other factors on consumers, users or merchants’ intentions to adopt the MPS. In this sense, the
analysis of 76 studies conducted from 2013, in which trust was one of the constructs, pointed out that
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived risk were the most studied variables among
academics as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Factors that have influence on the intention to adopt the mobile payment systems

Factors Articles Factors Articles Factors Articles Factors Articles

Perceived Perceived ease of Performance

27 26 Perceived risk 24 11
Usefulness use expectancy
Perceived security
Social influence 11 Effort expectancy 10 Compatibility 10 10
levels
Attitudes 9 Perceived cost 9 Subjective norms 8 Innovativeness 8
Mobile Payment
Behavioural Facilitating
Experience / MP 7 7 Age 7 7
intention conditions
knowledge

Structural assurance 6 Gender 5 Perceived mobility 5 Perceived reputation 5

Providers’
Privacy risk 5 User satisfaction 5 5 Hedonic motivation 5
trustworthiness

Perceived Perceived benefit /

5 Price value 4 4 Self-efficacy 4
convenience relative advantage
Perceived system Perceived Perceived service Perceived
4 3 3 3
quality enjoyment quality uncertainty
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 383

Perceived
Habit 3 Perceived safety 3 3 Technology factors 3
behavioural control
Network Perceived
3 Ubiquity 3 3 Environmental risk 2
externalities/ effects Information quality
Users’ awareness / Perceived financial
Flow 2 2 Involvement 2 2
informal learning resources
Perceived value 2 Income 2 Demand factors 2 Dependencies 2

Openness to third
Impulsiveness 1 1 Perceived asset 1 Enticing promises 1
parties
Fingerprint
Consumers’
Governance issues 1 recognition 1 1 Switching costs 1
lifestyle
technology
Device-design
Transparency 1 Use of PIN 1 1 Familiarity 1
suitability
Consumers’ Organisational
Conflicts 1 1 Situational factors 1 1
willingness factors
Strategic objectives Pre-purchase Development of
service availability 1 1 1 1
and interests anxiety new products
Maintaining a
Perceived Perceived
Ethnicity 1 1 1 relationship with 1
entitativity expressiveness
customers
Inter-organisational Environmental
Attractiveness 1 1 Find policies 1 1
factors factors
Trusted Service
Ability 1 1 Scale 1 Word of mouth 1
Manager (TSM)

Integrity 1 Reference groups 1 Marital status 1 Benevolence 1

Exposure 1 Occupation 1 Location 1 Trialability 1

Assessment of the
Users’ Information
functional reliability 1 Social image 1 1 1
characteristics searching
of MPS
Additional values
Ease of issuing and Absorptive Mobile
1 of NFC mobile 1 1 1
distributing solutions capacity advertisement effect
payment
Company’s number Socio-economic
1 1 Utility 1 Fast transactions 1
of workers sector
Experience with
Role in the
traditional payment 1 Company’s income 1 Sales channels 1 1
company
systems
Typology of
Payment system’s
Interaction 1 payment systems 1 1 Digital lifestyle 1
providers
approached
Electronic readiness 1 Complexity 1

Perceived usefulness, which is ‘a belief that, using a particular system would enhance job
performance’ (Davis, 1989 cited in Dastan 2016, p.18), appears in 27 studies conducted between 2013
and 2017. Perceived ease of use, which can be described as ‘the effort or difficulty consumers derived
through the use a particular mobile service, exerts direct influence on intention to use mobile service’
(Davis 1989 cited in Cao et al. 2016, p.117) were investigated 26 times. Perceived risk which is a
construct that reflects feelings of uncertainty among consumers regarding the possible negative
consequence of using new technology that may dissuade adoption (Bauer 1967, Featherman and Pavlou
2003 cited in Phonthanukitithaworn, Sellitto and Fong 2016, p.41) was studied 24 times by many
academics.
Performance expectancy, which can be defined as ‘the degree to which individuals believe a system
adoption is helpful to achieve some advantages in job performance’ (Venkatesh et al 2003 cited
Khalilzadeh, Ozturk and Bilgihan 2017, p.462) was studied 11 times. Social influence, which is related to
consumer’s decision to adopt and use m-payments systems is influenced by other individuals in the
384 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

family, communities, working place etc.’ (Venkatesh et al. 2003 cited in Lwoga and Lwoga 2017, p.4),
also were the focus of 11 studies
It worth mentioning that the remaining factors that complete the table indicate that, in spite of
appearing to a lesser extent than the others, it by no means implies that they are less important. These
factors open a wide range of possibilities and combinations in so far as the academics have been trying to
comprehend which factors affect users’ intention to adopt MPS. Also, it represents the extensive work
and the researchers’ point of view. In this sense, these factors are relevant in the final results in so far as
they have influence on trust, which, in turn, have impact on MPS adoption.

Summary and Conclusion

This paper has provided a scoping review of the literature conducted between 2013 and 2017 in which
trust was one of the main constructs on research models. The findings of this preliminary study suggest
that trust affects and it is affected by other factors and this, in turn, has impact on users’ intentions to
adopt the MPS. It is valid to highlight that the results are not isolated events. The combinations of these
several factors with trust, in the various authors’ perspectives, have impact on consumers’ intention to
adopt the MPS.
The analysis of 76 researches pointed out that most studies in MPS focused on consumers as it was
highlighted in other studies (Liebana-Cabanillas, Slade and Dwivedi 2016; Dennehy and Sammon 2015;
Dahlberg, Guo and Ondrus 2015), and questionnaire surveys were the preferred method of gathering
information from participants. Few studies have collected data from participants through interviews, as
well as only few papers take into consideration merchants’ point of view.
China received more attention from the academic community in the period analysed (2013-2017).
Notwithstanding the number of studies in MPS area have been increasing over the years, it seems that the
amount of studies conducted in some countries still under-represented and in others there are no published
data available. In addition, there is just one study that analysed two different regions at the same time.
In regards to the research models used, TAM is the preferred framework among academics as it was
pointed out in other studies (Williams et al. 2017; Dennehy and Sammon 2015; Slade, Williams and
Dwivedi 2013). It was followed by UTAUT and conceptual trust models. 110 different variables were
tested in extensions of these research models in order to understand users’ intentions to adopt the MPS.

Limitations and Future Research Opportunities

This paper has collected data from studies conducted and published between 2013 and 2017. As mobile
technology has evolved significantly over the past years, as well as the payment systems, the main idea
was to focus on recent studies in so far as they can shed some light on the researches models used to point
out the issues that users have been facing over the past years. In addition, the reason to choose the period
aforementioned is that the mobile payment sector is in an ongoing implementation process mode in many
countries, and in some of them this process is still in its infancy stage.
Future research, as it was indicated in the discussion section, needs to investigate in-depth the impact
of trust from the perspective of the merchants, providers or vendors in so far as most studies focuses on
consumers. In addition, notwithstanding several of these studies conducted from 2013 to 2017 highlighted
trust as one of the constructs, only few of them considered trust as the main construct. New research
models could give new insights on users’ intentions to adopt the MPS. Furthermore, as trust is a huge
topic per se, there is a need to investigate how trust is influenced by all of these different factors at the
same time in one single model. Moreover, there is a need to compare and contrast different countries or
different cultures in future researches.
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 385

References

1. Abidin, WZ, Rivera, O, Maarop, N & Hassan, NH 2017, Mobile payment framework for the unbanked
Filipinos, paper presented at 2017 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information
Systems (ICRIIS), 16-17 July 2017, viewed 28 December 2017,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8002478/
2. Ajzen, I 1991, The theory of planned behaviour, Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Process,
vol.50, pp.79-211.
3. Anthony, D & Mutalemwa, DK 2014 Factors influencing the use of mobile payments in Tanzania: insights
from Zantel’s Z-pesa services, Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, vol.5, no.2,
pp.69-90.
4. Arvidsson, N 2014, Consumer attitudes on mobile payment services - results from a proof of concept test,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol.32, no.2, pp.150-170.
5. Baganzi, R & Lau, AK 2017, Examining trust and risk in mobile money acceptance in Uganda, Sustainability
2017, vol. 9, no.12, 2233, pp.1-22
6. Bourreau, M & Valetti, T 2015, Competition and interoperability in mobile money platform markets: what
works and what doesn’t? Communications & Strategies, no. 99, pp. 11-32.
7. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) n.d., The benefits of online banking, viewed 11 July 2017,
https://www.cibc.com/en/personal-banking/advice-centre/benefits-of-online-banking.html
8. Cao, TK, Dang, PL & Nguyen, HA 2016, Predicting consumer intention to use mobile payment services:
empirical evidence from Vietnam, International Journal of Marketing Studies, vol.8, no.1, pp.117-124.
9. Chakravorti, B & Mazzotta, B 2013, The cost of cash in the United States, viewed 28 June 2017,
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/CostofCash/~/media/Fletcher/Microsites/Cost%20of%20Cash/CostofCashStudyFinal.p
df
10. Chang, SE, Jang, YTJ & Wang, WC 2017, Exploring users’ trust and interaction in mobile payment, Referred
paper from the 13th Asia-Pacific Business Research Conference, East Asia Institute of Management,
Singapore, pp.1-11, viewed 28 December 2017, https://wbiworldconpro.com/uploads/singapore-conference-
2017-october/marketing/1508388530.pdf
11. Chen, X & Li, S 2016, Understanding continuance intention of mobile payment services: an empirical study,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, pp.1-12, viewed 2 February 2017,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08874417.2016.1180649.
12. Choi, H & Choi, YJ 2016, The impact perceived risk on user’s trust and continuance intention in mobile
payment systems, Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering, vol. 20, no.
6, pp. 1096-1102, viewed 28 December 2017,
http://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/ArticleFullRecord.jsp?cn=HOJBC0_2016_v20n6_1096
13. Dahlberg, T, Bouwman, H, Cerpa, N & Guo, J 2015, M-Payment - how disruptive technologies could change
the payment ecosystem, Refereed paper from the Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems,
pp.1-17, viewed 17 January 2017, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomi_Dahlberg/publication/290445070
_M-PAYMENT_-_HOW_DISRUPTIVE_TECHNOLOGIES_COULD_CHANGE_THE_PAYMENT_
ECOSYSTEM/links/569901d108aeeea985944f5f.pdf
14. Dahlberg, T, Guo, J & Ondrus, J 2015, A critical review of mobile payment research, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, vol. 14, no.5, pp.265-284.
15. Dastan, I & Gürler C 2016, Factors affecting the adoption of mobile payment systems: an Empirical Analysis,
Emerging Markets Journal, vol.6, no.1, pp.17-24.
16. Davis, FD 1989, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,
MIS quarterly, pp.319-340.
17. Davis, FD 1993, User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and
behavioural impacts, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol.38, no.3, pp.475-487.
18. de Albuquerque, JP, Diniz, EH & Cernev, AK 2014, Mobile payments: a scoping study of the literature and
issues for future research. Information Development, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 527-553, viewed 17 November 2017,
19. de Reuver, M & Ondrus, J 2017, When technological superiority is not enough: the struggle to impose the SIM
Card as the NFC secure element for mobile payment platforms, Telecommunications Policy, vol. 41, no. 4, pp.
253-262.
386 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

20. de Reuver, M, Verschuur, E, Nikayin, F, Cerpa, N & Bouwman, H 2015, Collective action for mobile payment
platforms: a case study on collaboration issues between banks and telecom operators, Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, vol.14, no.5, pp.331-344.
21. Dennehy, D & Sammon, D 2015, Trends in mobile payments research: a literature review, Journal of
Innovation Management, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 49-61.
22. Duan, X 2012, ‘An integrated solution to the adoption of electronic market in Australian small-and-medium
sized enterprises’, PhD thesis, RMIT University.
23. Duane, A, O’Reilly, P & Andreev, P 2014, Realising M-Payments: modelling consumers’ willingness to M-
pay using Smart Phones, Behaviour & Information Technology, vol.33, no.4, pp.318-334.
24. Fishbein, M & Ajzen 1975, Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research,
Reading, PA: Addison-Wesley.
25. Fondeson, MM 2014, ‘Provider reactions and cooperation models in the Swedish mobile payment space’, MSc
thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology.
26. Gao, L & Waechter, KA 2015, Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services:
an empirical investigation, Information Systems Frontiers, pp.1-24.
27. Gong, X, Zhang, KZ, Zhao, SJ & Lee, MK 2016, The effects of cognitive and emotional trust on mobile
payment adoption: a trust transfer perspective, paper presented at PACIS 2016 Proceedings, Paper 350, viewed
11 January, 2017, http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=pacis2016
28. Grandon, Nasco & Mydytyn Jr 2011, Comparing theories to explain e-commerce adoption, Journal of Business
Research, vol.64, pp. 292-298.
29. Guo, J & Bouwman, H 2016, An analytical framework for an m-payment ecosystem: a merchants ʾperspective,
Telecommunications Policy, vol.40, no.2, pp.147-167.
30. Hillman, S & Neustaedter, C 2017, Trust and mobile commerce in North America, Computers in Human
Behavior, vol.70, pp.10-21.
31. Hillman, S, Neustaedter, C, Oduor, E & Pang, C 2014, User challenges and successes with mobile payment
services in North America, Refereed papers from the 16th International Conference on Human-computer
Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, Simon Fraser University, Toronto, pp. 253-262.
32. Ho, C.W., Wang, Y.B. and Fang, C.H., 2017. Mobile advertising effect: investigating factors affecting the
usage of mobile payment, Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, vol.4, no. 1, pp. 17-29.
33. Jenkins, P & Ophoff, J 2016, ‘Factors influencing the intention to adopt NFC mobile payments - a South
African perspective’, Refereed papers from the International Conference on Information Resources
Management (CONF-IRM), pp. 1-12, viewed 28 December 2017,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=confirm2016
34. Jia, L, Hall, D & Zhu, S 2015, Trust building in consumer learning process and its effect on consumers’
behavioral intention toward mobile payments, Refereed papers from the Twenty-first Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Puerto Rico , pp.1-12, viewed 28 December 2017,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/AdoptionofIT/GeneralPresentations/6/
35. Khalilzadeh, J, Ozturk, AB & Bilgihan, A 2017, Security-related factors in extended UTAUT model for NFC
based mobile payment in the restaurant industry. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 70, pp. 460-474.
36. Killian, D., & Kabanda, S. 2017, Mobile payments In South Africa: middle income earners’ perspective,
Refereed papers from the Twenty First Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Langkawi,
viewed 27 December, http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1241&context=pacis2017
37. Koloseni, D & Mandari, H 2017, Why mobile money users keep increasing? investigating the continuance
usage of mobile money services in Tanzania, Journal of International Technology and Information
Management, vol.26, no.2, pp.117-145.
38. Köster, A, Matt, C & Hess, T 2016, Carefully choose your (payment) partner: how payment provider
reputation influences m-commerce transactions, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, vol. 15, pp.
26-37.
39. Kristensen, SM 2016, ‘Understanding factors influencing Danish consumers’ intention to use mobile payment
at point-of-sale’, MSc thesis, Aarhus University.
40. Liébana-Cabanillas, F. and Lara-Rubio, J., 2017, Predictive and explanatory modeling regarding adoption of
mobile payment systems, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol.120, pp. 32-40.
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 387

41. Liébana-Cabanillas, F, Sánchez-Fernández, J & Muñoz-Leiva, F 2014a, Antecedents of the adoption of the
new mobile payment systems: the moderating effect of age, Computers in Human Behavior, vol.35, pp.464-
478.
42. Liébana-Cabanillas, F, Sánchez-Fernández, J & Muñoz-Leiva, F 2014b, Role of gender on acceptance of
mobile payment, Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol.114, no.2, pp.220-240.
43. Liébana-Cabanillas, F, Sánchez-Fernández, J & Muñoz-Leiva, F 2014c, The moderating effect of experience in
the adoption of mobile payment tools in Virtual Social Networks: The m-Payment Acceptance Model in
Virtual Social Networks (MPAM-VSN). International Journal of Information Management, vol. 34, no. 2,
pp.151-166.
44. Liébana-Cabanillas, F, Slade, E & Dwivedi, Y 2016, Time for a different perspective: a preliminary
investigation of barriers of merchants’ adoption of mobile payments, Refereed papers from the Twenty-second
Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, pp. 1-8, viewed 27 December 2017,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2016/Adoption/Presentations/7/
45. Liébana-Cabanillas, Muñoz-Leiva, F, & Sánchez-Fernández, J 2017, Examining Merchants’ Refusal to Adopt
Mobile Payment Systems in Spain, Smartphones from an Applied Research Perspective, pp.113-136.
46. Liu, GS & Tai, PT 2016, A study of factors affecting the intention to use mobile payment services in Vietnam,
Economics, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 249-273.
47. Lwoga, E & Lwoga, N 2017, User acceptance of mobile payment: the effects of user-centric security, system
characteristics and gender, The Electronic Journal Information Systems in Developing Countries, vol. 81, no.
3, pp. 1-24.
48. Mahad, M, Mohtar, S & Othman, AA 2015, The effect of perceived trust of mobile banking services in
Malaysia, International Academic Research Journal of Business and Technology, vol.1, no.7, pp.1-7.
49. Masele, JJ & Taluka, E 2017, Influence of perceived trust in rural consumer mobile payment service adoption:
an understanding of moderation effects of gender and age, Business Management Review, vol.19, no.2, pp.66-
81.
50. Mingxing, S, Jing, F & Yafang, L 2014, An empirical study on consumer acceptance of mobile payment based
on the perceived risk and trust, Refereed paper from the International Conference on Cyber-Enabled
Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery 2014, pp. 312-317, viewed 17 January 2017,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6984325
51. Morosan, C 2014, Toward an integrated model of adoption of mobile phones for purchasing ancillary services
in air travel, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 246-271.
52. Mtaho, AB 2015, Improving mobile money security with two-factor authentication, International Journal of
Computer Applications, vol.109, no.7, pp.9-15.
53. Nyirenda, M & Chikumba, PA 2013, Consumer adoption of mobile payment systems in Malawi: case of Airtel
Malawi ZAP in Blantyre city, paper presented at International Conference on e-Infrastructure and e-Services
for Developing Countries, pp.178-187, viewed 17 January 2017, https://link-springer-
com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-08368-1_22
54. Ooi, KB & Tan, GWH 2016, Mobile technology acceptance model: an investigation using mobile users to
explore smartphone credit card, Expert Systems with Applications, vol.59, pp.33-46.
55. Pham, TTT & Ho, JC 2015, The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and attractiveness of
alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments, Technology in Society, vol.43, pp.159-172.
56. Phonthanukitithaworn, C, Sellitto, C & Fong, MW 2015, User intentions to adopt mobile payment services: a
study of early adopters in Thailand, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, vol.20, no.1, pp.1-29.
57. Phonthanukitithaworn, C, Sellitto, C & Fong, MW 2016, An investigation of mobile payment (m-payment)
services in Thailand, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, vol.8, no.1, pp.37-54.
58. Pourghomi, P & Ghinea, G 2013, Ecosystem scenarios for cloud-based NFC payments, paper presented at
MEDES 13: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital
EcoSystems, pp.113-118, viewed 17 January 2017,
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pardis_Pourghomi/publication/262347911_Ecosystem_scenarios_for_clo
ud-based_NFC_payments/links/54797e430cf293e2da2b3be9.pdf
59. Qasim H & Abu-Shanab, E 2016, Drivers of mobile payment acceptance: the impact of network externalities,
Information Systems Frontiers, vol.18, no.5, pp.1021-1034.
60. Rogers, EM 2003, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition, Free Press, New York, NY.
388 The Effect of Trust on Mobile Payment Adoption: A Comprehensive Review of Literature

61. San-Martin, S & López-Catalán, B 2013, How can a mobile vendor get satisfied customers?, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, vol. 113, no.2, pp.156-170.
62. Shaw, N 2014, The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of the mobile wallet, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, vol.21, no.4, pp. 449-459.
63. Shaw, N 2015, Younger persons are more likely to adopt the mobile wallet than older persons, or are they? the
Moderating role of age, Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto Rico, pp.1-15.
64. Shuhaiber, A 2016, ‘Factors influencing consumer trust in mobile payments in the United Arab Emirates’, PhD
thesis, Victory University of Wellington.
65. Slade, EL, Dwivedi, YK, Piercy, NC & Williams, MD 2015a, Exploring consumer adoption of proximity
mobile payments, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol.23, no.3, pp.209-223.
66. Slade, EL, Dwivedi, YK, Piercy, NC & Williams, MD 2015b, Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of
remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust,
Psychology & Marketing, vol.32, no.8, pp.860-873.
67. Slade, EL, Williams, MD & Dwivedi, Y 2013, Extending UTAUT2 to explore consumer adoption of mobile
payments, Refereed papers from the UK Academy for Information Systems Conference (UKAIS), viewed 27
December 2017, http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=ukais2013
68. Tai, PT & Liu, GS 2015, An analysis of factors affecting the intention to use mobile payment services in
Vietnam, Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economics, Finance and
Social Sciences, pp.1-21.
69. Teo, AC, Tan, GWH, Ooi, KB & Lin, B 2015, Why consumers adopt mobile payment? A partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach, International Journal of Mobile Communications, vol.13,
no.5, pp.478-497.
70. Teoh, WMY, Chong, SC, Lin, B & Chua, JW 2013, Factors affecting consumers’ perception of electronic
payment: an empirical analysis, Internet Research, vol.3, no.4, pp.465-485.
71. Ting, H, Yacob, Y, Liew, L & Lau, WM 2016, Intention to use mobile payment system: a case of developing
market by ethnicity, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 224, pp.368-375.
72. Trojanowski, M & Kuáak, J 2017, The impact of moderators and trust on consumer’s intention to use a mobile
phone for purchases, Journal of Management and Business Administration, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 91-116.
73. Vasileiadis, A 2014, Security concerns and trust in the adoption of m-commerce, Social Technologies, vol.4,
no.1, pp.179-191.
74. Venkatesh, V, Brown, SA & Bala, H 2013, Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: guidelines for
conducting mixed methods research in information systems, MIS quarterly, vol.37, no.1, pp.21-54.
75. Venkatesh, V, Morris, MG, Davis, GB & Davis, FD 2003, User acceptance of information technology: toward
a unified view, MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no.3, pp. 425-478.
76. Vigna, P & Casey, MJ 2015, Cryptocurrency: how bitcoin and digital money are challenging the global
economic order, The Bodley Head.
77. Williams, MD, Roderick, S, Davies, GH & Clement, M 2017, Risk, trust, and compatibility as antecedents of
mobile payment adoption, Refereed papers from the Twenty-third Americas Conference on Information
Systems, pp.1-10, Boston, viewed 5 February 2018,
https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=amcis2017
78. Wu, H & Zhang, W 2017, Factors affecting customer initial trust in the mobile payment service providers: an
empirical study, Refereed papers from the Wuhan International Conference on e-Business (WHICEB 2017),
pp. 358-365, viewed 27 December 2017,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=whiceb2017
79. Xin, H 2013, ‘Exploring the influence of trust and culture on mobile payment adoption’, MBIS thesis,
Auckland University of Technology.
80. Xin, H, Techatassanasoontorn, AA & Tan, FB 2013, Exploring the influence of trust on mobile payment
adoption, Refereed papers from the Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2013), paper
143, pp. 1-17, viewed 17 January 2017,
https://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/5475/PACIS%202013%20Xu-Tech-
Tan.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
81. Xin, H, Techatassanasoontorn, AA & Tan, FB 2015, Antecedents of consumer trust in mobile payment
adoption, Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol.55, no.4, pp.1-10.
 Domingos Mondego and Ergun Gide 389

82. Yan, H & Pan, K 2014, Examine user adoption of mobile payment using the TAM: a trust transfer perspective,
Refereed papers from the Wuhan International Conference on e-Business (WHICEB 2014), pp.402-409,
viewed 27 December 2017, http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=whiceb2014
83. Yan, H & Pan, K 2015, Examining mobile payment user adoption from the perspective of trust transfer,
International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, vol.15, no.2-3, pp.136-151, Abstract only,
viewed 7 December 2016 http://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJNVO.2015.070423
84. Yan, H & Yang, Z 2015, Examining mobile payment user adoption from the perspective of trust, International
Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology, vol.8, no.1, pp.117-130.
85. Yang, Q, Pang, C, Liu, L, Yen, DC & Tarn, JM, 2015, Exploring consumer perceived risk and trust for online
payments: an empirical study in China’s younger generation, Computers in Human Behavior, vol.50, pp.9-24.
86. Zhao, Y & Kurnia, S 2014, Exploring mobile payment adoption in China, Refereed papers from the Pacific
Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), viewed 27 December 2017,
http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/232/
87. Zhou, S, Montgomery, A & Gordon, G 2016, Exploring customer spending behavior and payday effect using
prepaid cards transaction data, Machine Learning Department, Carnegie Mellon University, pp.1-17.
88. Zhou, T 2013, An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services, Decision
Support Systems, vol.54, no.2, pp.1085-1091.
89. Zhou, T 2014a, Understanding the determinants of mobile payment continuance usage, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, vol.114, no.6, pp.936-948.
90. Zhou, T 2014b, An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile payment, Wireless Personal
Communications, vol.77, no.2, pp.1519-1531.
91. Zhou, T 2015, An empirical examination of users’ switch from online payment to mobile payment,
International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction (IJTHI), vol.11, no.1, pp.55-66.