See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321937299

The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E-Payment Adoption

Chapter  in  Studies in Computational Intelligence · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-73150-6_68

CITATIONS READS

31 10,126

2 authors, including:

Thanh D. Nguyen
Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City
39 PUBLICATIONS   328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Thanh D. Nguyen on 20 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust
on E–Payment Adoption

Thanh D. Nguyen1,2(&) and Phuc A. Huynh1

1
Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
thanhnd@buh.edu.vn, huynhanhphuc@gmail.com
2
Bach Khoa University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract. E–payment is one of the major constituents of e–commerce, which

assists to enhance user efficiency and smarten intention to use of e–commerce in
the digital era. This study investigates the roles of perceived risk and trust on
e–payment adoption. Data is collected from respondents who have used or
intend to use e–payments for e–commerce in Ho Chi Minh City. The structural
equation modelling (SEM) is analyzed on a total convenient sampling of 200
respondents. Interestingly, research results externalize that perceived risk and
trust have the principal roles of the structural model of e–payment adoption. The
research model accounts for 38% of e–payment adoption.

Keywords: E–commerce
E–payment
Perceived risk
IT adoption

Trust

1 Introduction

With the presto development of the Internet, e–payment systems in banking services
have met the customer expectations when participating in e–commerce [32]. In the
e–commerce context, e–payment is closely related to electronic transactions, e–pay-
ment is understood as the payment process made without the paper instrument usage
[24, 37]. The e–payment systems cover the variety of e–channels (e.g., debit/credit
card, online banking, m–banking, e–wallet, e–cash, e–check, online storage value) [21,
24, 44]. According to e–commerce and IT department in 2015, the proportion of cash
flow on total payment forms is only about 12%, and 97% of enterprises accepted
payment via funds transfer, 16% payment cards, 4% e–wallet [11]. According to
Vietnam e–commerce association in 2016, the obstacles in user e–commerce usage are
the quality of products and services in e–commerce business [21]. Currently, the habit
of paying in cash is the biggest obstacle for the development of e–payments, although
according to e–commerce and IT department, up to 45% of the population use the
Internet, revenue from e–payment only reached roughly 5% [11]. Which provided that
customers are still frightened to use e–payment when participating in e–commerce.
There are many theoretical models of the IT adoption such as TAM [9, 10], TAM2
[39], TAM2’ [38], TAM3 [40], and UTAUT [41] – these are the typical theories for
measuring the information systems’ behavioral intention and actual use by users.
Furthermore, there are several studies related to e–commerce around the world (e.g.,
e–CAM of Park et al. [28], intention to use e–payment of Bankole and Bankole [3],
© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
L. H. Anh et al. (eds.), Econometrics for Financial Applications, Studies in Computational
Intelligence 760, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73150-6_68
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 927

Cabanillas et al. [7], Gao and Waechter [17], Gefen et al. [18]), and in Vietnam (e.g.,
e–banking adoption of Nguyen and Cao [26]). Nevertheless, there are few studies on
the e–payment adoption in a potential market as Vietnam (except, e.g., Nguyen and
Nguyen [27]). Consequently, in the e–commerce context, research on e–payment
adoption is exceedingly essential and meaningful study.
The objective of this study investigates the role of perceived risk and trust on
e–payment adoption, measures the impact of influence factors on e–payment adoption
of e–commerce users. Data is collected from individual customers who have used or
intend to use e–payment in Ho Chi Minh City. The relationships in the research model
were analyzed by structural equation modelling (SEM). Research results not only
provide information to the business in developing e–commerce products and services,
and e–payment system, but also add knowledge to the theory of IT adoption.

2 Background
2.1 E–Payment
The rapid development of IT facilitates the e–payments’ development [36]. With the
propensity growth of the e–payment systems, demonstrating its potential, it will change
from a cash–based economy to a cashless or non–cash economy, but it’s hard to
transform a non–cash economy, so current trading activities are still firmly compacted
in cash–based [44]. According to Telle [37, p. 17], Junadi [21, p. 215], e–payment is
defined as “the payment process made without the paper instruments usage”. The
e–payment systems cover the variety of e–channels, including debit/credit card, funds
transfer, e–banking, online banking, m–banking, e–wallet, e–cash, e–check, online
storage value, digital accumulating balance, wireless payment [21, 24, 37, 44]. The
stakeholders in e–payment systems include customers, merchants, consumer banks,
merchant banks, payment instrument issuers, and payment service providers [24].

2.2 E–Payment Benefits and Disadvantages

E–payment Benefits
For Customers. The e–payment systems allow clients to make their payments from
anytime and anywhere [44]. It is very convenient – the greatest e–payments benefit [35]
to handle their transactions (e.g., users only have bank accounts for logging–on the
browsers with online banking or smartphone applications with m–banking) [44].
Besides, it may increase the benefits of cashless payments without using retail pay-
ments [18] (e.g., customers have credit/debit cards for access to card systems [44]). For
Organizations. The e–payment cost is another benefit [35], for most of the vendors,
businesses and merchants – it is free of charge [44]. On the flip side, e–payment
systems may commit the e–commerce quality services due to serve better the cus-
tomer’s needs. Accordingly, every transaction is encrypted, making monitoring more
928 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

convenient and effective1. Thus, for credit institutions providing e–payment services
have to invest enormous amounts of money for IT infrastructures. For the Economy.
E–payment has many positive impacts on the economy [18]. It is committed to price
and quality guarantee. E–payment eliminates gradually using cash–based, which limits
illegal activities (e.g., counterfeit money, tax evasion, corruption…), so increasing the
transparency [18] and the law enforcement capacity. E–payment reduces cash in
monetary circulation and driving economic benefits [18].
E–payment Disadvantages
Online Security. The e–payment systems have the lack of authentications – the biggest
e–payments problem [35]. Meanwhile, there are no solutions to verify or authenti-
cate who entering the information e–payment systems [35] that are not a criminal [33].
Thus, it comes critical to dispute the fraudulent actions have been made by using bank
accounts or debit/credit cards. Missed Errors. The merchandise arrives with the mis-
takenly pay and ordered in e–commerce, so it cannot be used, and customers have been
out their money [33]. Hence, it is must be to return the unessential merchandise and
wait for a long time to replace another. Fees. Some vendors of e–payment systems
require the customers or merchants pay a service fee [33] (e.g., Paypal, Visa, Mas-
ter…). Furthermore, One of e–payments downside is repudiation of charges, because
no transaction information of the e–payments, customers may have an exceedingly
hard time debating this cost [35]. Thus, customers should know how to protect in place
concerning fees applied to the incorrect processing of e–payment systems.

3 Research Model
3.1 Literature Review

IT Adoption
Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action (TRA) [14] is a fundamental theory of
human behavior. Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) [1] is inherited TRA and
integrated a construct of perceived behavioral control to improve intention and
behavior. Davis [9] and Davis et al. [10] developed technology acceptance model
(TAM), which based on TRA and TPB with characteristic features of perceived use-
fulness and perceived ease of use. TAM provides a shrewdness view to predicting
systems that effect on attitude and behavior use of information technology. The tech-
nology acceptance model extension, TAM2 of Venkatesh and Davis [39], TAM2’ of
Venkatesh [38], TAM3 of Venkatesh and Bala [40] emphasize the perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use in the intention to use and usage behavior, respectively.
Venkatesh et al. [41] proposed the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) for explaining the behavioral intention and use behavior of information
systems. Especially, TAM [10] and UTAUT [41] are two models of information

1
E–payments in Vietnam: Need to exploit all potential (2016) at http://tapchitaichinh.vn.
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 929

systems have the most cited in the world (TAM: 35,825 and UTAUT: 18,647 – updated
on August 10, 2017, from Google scholar).
Perceived Risk
The perceived risk theory explains user behavior on the risks [5]. The negative
causalities may emphasize from the user actions lead to a significantly established
concept in consumer behavior, namely perceived risk [5]. Meanwhile, perceived risk is
a natural conception of as sense unreliability regarding possible use negatively related a
service or product [13]. According to Bauer [5, p. 13] perceived risk is ‘‘a combination
of uncertainty plus seriousness of outcome involved’’. Besides, perceived risk has been
divided into two dimensions, called perceived risk in the online transaction (PRT) and
perceived risk with a service or product (PRP) [28]. In which, PRT is a possible the risk
of transactions that users can face when revealed to e–commerce [28] and RP is the
overall account to anxiety observed or uncertainty by a user in a particular service
or product when they use e–commerce [28]. A typical model for perceived risk is
e–commerce adoption model (e–CAM) of Park et al. [28].
Trust
Together with perceived risk, trust is one of two critical challenges of e–payment
systems [2]. Besides, the trust is the subjective belief that a party will fulfil its obli-
gations according to the expectations of stakeholders as the goodwill [25, 29].
According to Pavlou [29, p. 106] trust is ‘‘a defining feature of the major social and
economic interactions in which uncertainty is present’’. Furthermore, the trust is also
built from the reputation. Meanwhile, reputation is the faith in the transaction envi-
ronment [29]. Many authors have studied about two of perceived risk and trust on e–
services (e.g., Featherman and Pavlou [13], Gefen et al. [18]), e–commerce (e.g., Park
et al. [28], Pavlou [29]), e–banking (e.g., Gao and Waechter [17], Nguyen and Nguyen
[27], Pham et al. [30]), and evidenced that the perceived risk and the trust are the most
protrusive elements in e–payment. In which, a comparison between traditional payment
and e–payment systems provided that the more consumers would rather use e–payment
channel, the trust higher level in the e–payments [43].

3.2 Research Model

From the theoretical basis of IT adoption as TAM, TAM2, TAM2’, UTAUT, the
theories of perceived risk and trust, and the previous studies, it proposes a model of
perceived risk and trust on e–payment adoption for measuring the relationships among
the constructs (Fig. 1). The research model is integrated from the relevant theoretical
models. In which, the concepts of perceived risk and trust are based on Bauer [5], Pavlou
[29], e–CAM of Park et al. [28] the concepts of ease of use and perceived usefulness are
based on TAM of Davis [9] and Davis et al. [10], TAM2 of Venkatesh and Davis [39],
TAM2’ of Venkatesh [38], TAM3 of Venkatesh and Bala [40]. The details of all
concepts and relationships among these concepts are interpreted as follows:
Research Concepts
E–payment Adoption (EPA) is understood as the intention to use by the current user or
intention continue to use in the future [1]. The EPA dimension harmonizes with the
930 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

foundational theories of behavioral intention is considered in IT adoption [9, 10, 38–41],

as the basis for the relationship from antecedent and intermediate to the outcome as
behavioral intention. The e–payment adoption has been referenced from the TAM by
Davis [9] and Davis et al. [10], TAM2 by Venkatesh and Davis [39], TAM2’ by Venkatesh
[38], TAM3 by Venkatesh and Bala [40], UTAUT by Venkatesh et al. [41], and previous
studies such as Barkhordari et al. [4], Francisco et al. [15], Phonthanukitithaworn et al.
[31], Yaokumah et al. [44]. This research tests the structural model with the relationships
between antecedent elements (perceived risk, and trust), intermediate elements (perceived
usefulness, and ease of use), and outcome element (e–payment adoption).

–0,271

Perceived –0.039(ns) Perceived

risk usefulness
0,376
0.234
–0.085(ns)
–0.092(ns) E–payment
0.122(ns)
adoption
0.014(ns)
0,345

Trust Ease of use

0.237

0,284
(ns): no significant

Fig. 1. Research model and testing result

Perceived Risk (PER) is a structure that reflects the emotions of customer uncer-
tainty about the possible negative impact on using new technology [5]. The PER
dimension has been referenced from the perceived risk theory by Bauer [5], e–CAM by
Park et al. [28]. The perceived risk is also referenced from previous empirical studies
about e–services such as Featherman and Pavlou [13], Pavlou [29], e–payment
adoption as Cabanillas et al. [7, 8], Francisco et al. [15], Phonthanukitithaworn et al.
[31], Yang et al. [43]. In this study, perceived risk is understood as the risks of online
transactions and the security issues of the e–payment systems.
Trust (TRU) is the belief in individual interactions that cannot be sure of the
outcome, or which the other party will act appropriately responsibly [29]. Trust also
increases the perception of certainty associated with expected behavior when using
e–payment and reduces the fear of the risks [22]. The TRU element has been referenced
from the theory of perceived risk and trust by Pavlou [29]. The trust is also referenced
from previous empirical studies on e–services such as Featherman and Pavlou [13],
Gefen et al. [18], e–payment as Barkhordari et al. [44], Cabanillas et al. [7, 8],
Francisco et al. [15], Yang et al. [43]. In this research, trust is understood for the safety
and reliability of e–payments. Despite the risk, but customers still ready use the
e–payment systems.
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 931

Perceived Usefulness (PEU) is the degree to which a person believes that using a
particular system will enhance their performance [9]. The PEU dimension has been
referenced from the TAM by Davis et al. [9] and Davis et al. [10], TAM2 by Venkatesh
and Davis [39]. The perceived usefulness is also referenced from previous empirical
studies about e–payment adoption such as Cabanillas et al. [7, 8], Francisco et al. [15],
Gefen et al. [18], Phonthanukitithaworn et al. [31]. In this study, perceived usefulness
is understood as the value that users receive when using e–payment.
Ease of Use (EOU) is the level to which a person believes that using a particular
system without much effort [9]. The EOU element has been referenced from the TAM
of Davis et al. [9] and Davis et al. [10], TAM2’ by Venkatesh [38], TAM3 by
Venkatesh and Bala [40]. The ease of use is also referenced from previous empirical
studies on e–payment adoption as Cabanillas et al. [7, 8], Gefen et al. [18],
Phonthanukitithaworn et al. [31], Yang et al. [43]. In this study, ease of use is
understood as the ease accomplishing an e–payment in e–commerce transactions.
Hypotheses
Some scholars provided that perceived risk and trust have the parallel relationship (e.g.,
Featherman and Pavlou [13], Francisco et al. [15]). Others noted that the relationship
between the perceived risk and the trust is serial, and trust as a perceived risk’s function
(e.g., Cabanillas et al. [7], Francisco et al. [15], Pavlou [29]). Moreover, Kim and
Benbasat [22] mentioned about risk concerning trust as the less risk would exhort the
more trust in e–commerce. Hence, under e–payment systems, we propose a hypothesis:
– H1: The perceived risk’s lower level is related to the trust’s higher level
The theoretical models and relevant studies pointed out the positive impact of the
trust on the perceived usefulness such as Francisco et al. [15], Gefen et al. [18], Pavlou
[29] and ease of use as Cabanillas et al. [7, 8], Pavlou [29]. The other side, perceived
risk has a negative relationship with the perceived usefulness such as Featherman et al.
[12], Featherman and Pavlou [13], Yang et al. [43] and ease of use such as Cabanillas
et al. [7, 8], Lacan and Desmet [23], Yang et al. [39]. Hence, under e–payment systems,
we propose these hypotheses:
– H2a: Perceived risk has a negative effect on ease of use.
– H2b: Trust has a positive effect on ease of use.
– H2c: Perceived risk has a negative effect on perceived usefulness.
– H2d: Trust has a positive effect on perceived usefulness.
The models of TAM [8], TAM2 [39], TAM2’ [38] indicated the positive impact of
the ease of use on the perceived usefulness. Furthermore, the relevant studies have
confirmed this relationship (e.g., Featherman et al. [12], Francisco et al. [15], Gefen
et al. [14]; Park et al. [22], Phonthanukitithaworn et al. [31]). Thus, under e–payment
systems, we propose a hypothesis:
– H3: Ease of use has a positive impact on perceived usefulness.
The positive influence of the perceived usefulness and the ease of use on intention to
use or behavioral intention is the main point of the IT adoption models, namely TAM
[10], TAM2 [39], TAM2’ [38]. Furthermore, Bankole and Bankole [3], Gefen et al.
932 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

[18], Park et al. [28], Phonthanukitithaworn et al. [31] have also tested and evidenced
about the relationship between the perceived usefulness, the ease of use and the
behavioral intention. Hence, under e–payment systems, we propose these hypotheses:
– H4: Perceived usefulness has a positive impact on e–payment adoption.
– H5: Ease of use has a positive impact on e–payment adoption.
Moreover, perceived risk has a negative impact on the intention to use such as
Barkhordari et al. [4], Cabanillas et al. [7, 8], Francisco et al. [15], Park et al. [28],
Phonthanukitithaworn et al. [31]. Aside from, trust also has a positive impact on the
intention to use as Gefen et al. [16], Gao and Waechter [17], Phonthanukitithaworn et al.
[31], Yang et al. [43]. Thus, under e–payment systems, we propose these hypotheses:
– H6: Perceived risk has a negative impact on e–payment adoption.
– H7: Trust has a positive impact on e–payment adoption.

3.3 Research Methods

Research process
This study is conducted in two phases – the first phase is a preliminary research with
the qualitative method, and the second phase is a formal analysis with the quantitative
method. Firstly, it is begun from the theoretical basis and the relevant studies, for
constituting a draft scale. Next, the discussions with the experts on e–commerce and
banking systems are implemented – especially, e–payment systems, for ensuring the
accuracy of the scale’s contents. Then, the adjusted scale is used as a measurement
scale for the formal research. This study uses a 5–point Likert questionnaire with the
levels: (1) strongly disagree – (2) disagree – (3) undecided – (4) agree – (5) strongly
agree, for measuring the assessment levels of the indicators. The details of the scale are
designated in Table 1. Meanwhile, in the measurement scale, there are five items of
perceived risk, three items of trust, five items of perceived usefulness, four items of
ease of use, and five items of in e–payment adoption dimensions.
Data is collected by a convenient sampling method, based on the accessibility of the
surveyees. The questionnaires are sent to respondents who have used or intended to use
all kinds of e–payments in Ho Chi Minh City – Vietnam by online via Google docs,
and offline via hard copy. Finally, the collected data are cleaned, coded, and analyzed
structural equation modelling (SEM) by IBM software with AMOS and SPSS. All of
the 200 valid samples out of a total of 215 samples (15 invalid samples) of 20 indi-
cators in the measurement scale are used in this study.
Data description
Age. the age groups of 16–22 and 23–30 are the majority with 40.0% and 34.5%,
respectively, followed by the age group of 31–45 to 19.0%, and over 45 years old is the
lowest proportion 6.5%. Education. the university degree is the highest percentage of
44.0%, there are 30.0% of respondents have postgraduate qualifications,
intermediate/college and high school account for 22.0% and 4.0%, respectively.
Income. the level of below VND 5 million has the most interest in e–payment with
41.5%, followed by the level of VND 5–10 million accounts for 29.5%, similarities
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 933

Table 1. Data description

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
(%) (%)
Age Gender
Ages 16–22 80 40.0 Male 94 47.0
Ages 23–30 69 34.5 Female 106 53.0
Ages 31–45 38 19.0 Job position
Over age 45 13 6.5 Students 89 44.5
Education Worker/Jobholder 34 17.0
High school 8 4.0 Officer 39 19.5
Intermediate/College 44 22.0 Entrepreneur/Manager 30 15.0
University degree 88 44.0 Others 8 4.0
Postgraduate 60 30.0 E–payment type
Income Debit card 52 14.6
Below VND 5 mil. 83 41.5 Credit card 84 23.7
VND 5–10 mil. 59 29.5 E–wallet 4 1.2
VND 10.1–15 mil. 29 14.5 Online banking 123 34.6
Over VND 15 mil. 29 14.5 Mobile banking 92 25.9

exist between the levels of VND 10.1–15 million and over VND 15 million are
roundly 14.5% respondents. Gender. it is no large difference with 47.0% male and
53.0% female. Job Position. 44.5% of students, and officer, worker/jobholder and
entrepreneur/manager diminutively amount to 19.5%, 17.0% and 15.0%. The detail of
data sample description is presented in Table 1.

E–payment Type. the most respondents use online banking with 34.6%, mobile
banking and credit card account for 25.9% and 23.7%, other types of e–payment has a
lower rate. Furthermore, the respondents have used more than two types of e–payment
up to 33.5%. Hence, it can be seen that e–payment is being used widely, but more
focusing mainly on e–banking and credit card than other types.

4 Research Results

4.1 Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The first exploratory factor analysis (EFA) eliminates two indicators, namely PEU2 and
EOU4 of perceived usefulness (PEU) and ease of use (EOU) dimensions whereas the
EFA’s factor loading <0.50 [20]. Then, the second EFA has extracted five elements
from 18 indicators. The variables coalesce into five groups of factors in the rotated
component matrix as in the theoretical model, including perceived risk, trust, perceived
usefulness, ease of use, and e–payment adoption factors. The EFA factor loading of all
indicators ranges from 0.714 to 0.912, details in Table 2.
 934

Table 2. Measurement scales and analysis results

Talent Indicator Factor loading CR AVE
EFA CFA
Perceived risk PER1 There may be leaked information online transactions 0.810 0.688 0.879 0.646
PER2 There may be caused error in the process of online transactions 0.714 Eliminated
PER3 There may be caused fraud or lost money when using e–payments 0.836 0.815
PER4 There may be accessed into unauthorized personal data by hackers 0.887 0.798
PER5 E–payment transactions may not be secure 0.900 0.901
Trust TRU1 Despite perceived risk, but still ready to use e–payments 0.765 0.657 0.753 0.506
TRU2 Believe that using e–payment systems, whereas safety and reliability 0.859 0.759
T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

TRU4 Believe that using e–payment systems will bring many benefits 0.796 0.712
Perceived usefulness PEU1 Using e–payment systems unnecessary carry cash 0.927 0.963 0.930 0.895
PEU2 Using e–payment systems to help control spending Eliminated –
PEU3 Using e–payment systems to improve payment efficiency 0.912 0.948
PEU4 Using e–payment systems to make the transaction faster 0.911 0.929
PEU5 Using e–payment systems to make the transaction easier 0.865 0.784
Ease of use EOU1 E–payment systems is ease of use 0.822 0.771 0.757 0.516
EOU2 E–payment systems is evident and easy to understand 0.800 0.740
EOU3 Ease of use e–payment systems proficiently 0.797 0.627
EOU4 E–payment transactions may be used every where and every time Eliminated –
E–payment adoption EPA1 Having a inention to use e–payment systems 0.789 0.828 0.798 0.590
EPA2 Having a plan to use e–payment systems in the future 0.832 0.720
EPA3 Willing use regularly e–payment systems in the future 0.810 0.712
AVE: Average variance extracted; CR: Composite reliability
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 935

Furthermore, the test indexes of Kaiser Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett result as
KMO measure of sampling adequacy = 0.782; Chi–square (v2) = 212.207; Bartlett test
of sphericity, dF = 136 (p = 0.000). Those provide that the EFA of the all observa-
tional variables is appropriate [20], so the measurement scale is valuable. Nevertheless,
the total variance extracted (TVA) = 75.72% that should well explain the difference in
the data roughly 75.72%. Hence, the measurement scale may use for the further
analysis, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modelling
(SEM), and Bootstrap analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The first confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) continues to eliminate one observational
variable, namely PER2 of perceived risk (PER) dimension, whereas the CFA’s factor
loading <0.50 [20]. The second CFA with 17 indicators demonstrates that the indexes
of the measurement scale as v2/dF = 1.215; GFI = 0.943; TLI = 0.986; CFI = 0.989;
RMSEA = 0.033, so the measurement model is compatible with the market data [6].
The CFA factor loading of all indicators ranges between 0.688 and 0.948, details in
Table 2. Besides, the composite reliability (CR) of these factors as perceived risk, trust,
perceived usefulness, ease of use, and e–payment adoption ranges from 0.753 to 0.930
(>0.5), details in Table 2.

Table 3. Data, average variance extracted, and square correlation coefficient

Mean S.D PER TRU PEU EOU EPA
PER 3.512 0.545 0.646*
TRU 3.347 0.858 0.008 0.506*
PEU 3.753 0.823 0.003 0.002 0.895*
EOU 3.585 0.912 0.032 0.012 0.001 0.516*
EPA 3.570 0.867 0.038 0.097 0.064 0.159 0.590*
*
S.D: Std. deviation; AVE: Average variance extracted

In addition, the values of the average variance extracted (AVE) are from 0.506 to
0.895, details in Table 3, so the measurement scale gains the convergence value [6].
Moreover, the value of the AVE for each factor is also larger than the square correlation
coefficient (r2), respectively – details are indicated in Table 3, so the measurement scale
is discriminant value [16].
Structural Equation Modelling
The structural equation modelling (SEM) is proceeded by the maximum likelihood
(ML) estimation provides that the theoretical scale indexes as v2/dF = 1,185; GFI =
0,936; TLI = 0,987; CFI = 0,988; RMSEA = 0,036. Whereby, the theoretical model
is adequate fit with the market data [6]. The SEM in the estimates is presented in
Table 4.
Meanwhile, antecedent factors – perceived risk (PER) has the negative impact on
trust (TRU), perceived usefulness (PEU), ease of use (EOU), and e–payment adoption
(EPA) factors. Notwithstanding, there is only a negative relationship between PER and
936 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

EPA is statistical significance with c coefficient = –0.271 (p < 0.001), the relationships
between PER and the others are not statistical significance (p > 0.05). Thus, a
hypothesis H6 is supported, and the hypotheses H1, H2a and H2c are rejected. Hence,
with perceived risk under e–payment systems, “perceived risk has the negative effect
e–payment adoption” is a significant statement. Likewise, TRU factor has the positive
impact on EOU, PEU, and EPA, but the positive paths from TRU to EOU and EPA are
statistical significance with c = 0.237 (p < 0.01) and 0.284 (p < 0.001), respectively.
Thus, the hypotheses H2b and H7 are supported. The relationship between TRU and
PEU are not statistical significance (p > 0.05). Thus, a hypothesis H2d is rejected.
Hence, with trust under e–payment systems, “trust has the positive effect on ease of use
and e–payment adoption” is a significant statement.
Furthermore, intermediate factors – the positive relationship between EOU and PEU
is not statistical significance (p > 0.05), so a hypothesis H3 is also rejected. In addition,
the data support the positive paths from PEU and EOU to EPA with c coeffi-
cients = 0.345 (p < 0.001) and 0.234 (p < 0.01), respectively, Thus, the hypotheses H4
and H5 are supported. Hence, with e–payment adoption under e–payment systems,
“perceived usefulness and ease of use have the positive effect on e–payment adoption” is
a significant statement. Interestingly, all paths which have the relationships with
e–payment adoption are strongly supported. The SEM in the paths is shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Path and hypothesis testing results

H Path Estimate S.E. C.R. p–value Result
H1 TRU ← PER –0.092 0.131 –0.961 0.337 Rejected
H2a EOU ← PER –0.085 0.106 –1.001 0.317 Rejected
H2b EOU ← TRU 0.237 0.092 2.413 0.008 Supported
H2c PEU ← PER –0.039 0.142 –0.519 0.604 Rejected
H2d PEU ← TRU 0.014 0.103 0.166 0.868 Rejected
H3 PEU ← EOU 0.122 0.136 1.243 0.214 Rejected
H4 EPA ← PEU 0.345 0.173 3.731 *** Supported
H5 EPA ← EOU 0.234 0.096 2.914 0.002 Supported
H6 EPA ← PER –0.271 0.133 –3.407 *** Supported
H7 EPA ← TRU 0.284 0.163 3.521 *** Supported
*** p < 0,001

According to the SEM results, the indexes of the standard error (S.E.) – standard
deviation of the sampling distribution, and the critical ratio (C.R.) – dividing regression
weight by the standard error estimate of each path in the research model. Both S.E. and
C.R. indexes are detailed in Table 4.
Bootstrap Analysis
The Bootstrap analysis is used to validate the estimates of the research model with the
repeat and replace samples [34]. In this study, the quantity of reduplicate sample has
been artificial as N = n*5 = 1000. The results of Bootstrap estimates are calculated by
the difference of the critical ratio (C.R.), the detail indexes are externalized in Table 5.
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 937

The indexes include the estimate, standard error (S.E.), S.E.–S.E., mean, bias, S.E.–
bias, and |C.R.|. According to Bootstrap results, all paths of the theoretical model have |
C.R.| < 2, so the difference is very assumption and no significant (p > 0.05) [20]. Thus,
the estimates of the research model are trustworthy.

4.2 Result Discussions

The research results manifested that the influences of the trust – positive and the perceived
risk – negative on the e–payment adoption are relatively large, with the coefficients of
c = 0.284 and –0.271, respectively. That confirmed the relationships as in e–CAM of
Park et al. [28] and validated the substantial roles of the perceived risk and the trust on the
e–payment adoption. On the other hand, the trust also has a significant impact on an
intermediate – ease of use with a relatively large influence (c = 0.237), but not statistical
significance with another intermediate – perceived usefulness. This result indicated that,
under e–payment systems, the data rejected the relationship between the trust and the
perceived usefulness as in the theories of Gefen et al. [18], Pavlou [29]. There are non–
significant for a path from the perceived risk to the perceived usefulness and the ease of
use. Incidentally, under e–payment systems, the data did not support a negative rela-
tionship between perceived risk and trust as in Kim and Benbasat [22], Pavlou [27].
Differently, although the e–payment is ease of use, uncertain the perceived usefulness
because the data did not support the path from the ease of use to the perceived usefulness as
in the TAM. Furthermore, the impacts of two intermediates on the e–payment adoption are
significant. In particular, the perceived usefulness and the ease of use had statistical
significance with the e–payment adoption, the coefficients of c = 0.234 and 0.345,
respectively. Which demonstrated that the research model is propriety with the IT
adoption models as the TAM series [9, 10, 38–40]. Meanwhile, the path from the ease of
use to the e–payment adoption is the largest coefficient in the structural model. Therefore,
besides the roles of the perceived risk and the trust, together with the perceived usefulness,
the ease of use are the critical factors in the e–payment adoption.

Table 5. Bootstrap analysis results

Path Estimate Bootstrap
S.E. Mean Bias |C.R.| p–value
TRU ← PER –0.092 0.137 –0.089 0.003 0.750 ns
EOU ← PER –0.085 0.110 –0.091 –0.006 1.500 ns
EOU ← TRU 0.237 0.164 0.268 –0.005 1.667 ns
PEU ← PER –0.039 0.152 –0.040 –0.001 0.200 ns
PEU ← TRU 0.014 0.115 0.008 –0.006 1.500 ns
PEU ← EOU 0.122 0.156 0.125 0.003 0.600 ns
EPA ← PEU 0.345 0.198 0.340 –0.005 1.667 ns
EPA ← EOU 0.234 0.168 0.237 0.003 0.750 ns
EPA ← PER –0.271 0.177 –0.265 0.006 1.200 ns
EPA ← TRU 0.284 0.178 0.252 –0.002 0.500 ns
ns: non–significant
938 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

These results exposed that, under e–payment systems, the trust has the direct and
indirect (through ease of use) impacts on e–payment adoption. The path of the trust –
ease of use – e–payment adoption has the maximum value and statistical significance.
Which demonstrated that the perceived trust of e–payment systems (e.g., safety and
reliability, e–payment benefits) and the perceived ease of use of e–payment systems
(e.g., clear and easy to understand, use systems proficiently…) have a large influence
on e–payment adoption. Although the perceived risk supported the direct relation with
the e–payment adoption, not supported with the other factors as trust, perceived use-
fulness, and ease of use. Hence, with the perceived risk, under e–payment systems,
which evidenced that the customers are not interested in the perceived usefulness (e.g.,
don’t improve payment efficiency, don’t make transactions faster and easier); the ease
of use (e.g., don’t think e–payments is easy to understand and use); and the trust (e.g.,
don’t convince when using e–payments, not yet ready to use e–payments, because
perceived risk…). Interestingly, along with the IT adoption based – the perceived
usefulness and the ease of use, the perceived risk and the trust have been the principal
roles of the structural model of e–payment adoption.
Summary, there are five out of ten hypotheses have been supported. The structural
equation modelling (SEM) also denoted that the antecedent elements – perceived risk
and trust, and intermediate elements – perceived usefulness and ease of use may be
explained roughly 38% (R2 = 0.376) the outcome factor – intention to use or
e–payment adoption. The findings are comparable with TAM of Davis [9] and Davis
et al. [10], and UTAUT of Venkatesh et al. [41] amounted to 40% and 56% in
behavioral intention, respectively. The explanations in this study are modest when
compared with the IT adoption models. Besides, this study also identified the integrated
dimensions as perceived risk and trust in the structural model (Fig. 1). Which are the
contributions to the theoretical side of the perceived risk, the trust, and the IT adoption.

5 Conclusion and Future Work

The research results demonstrated that the measurement scale of the antecedent ele-
ments, the intermediate elements, and e–payment adoption are ensured reliability. The
exploratory factor analysis and the confirmatory factor analysis of all indicators
externalized that the factor loading of all items loaded high value relatively. Hence, the
measurement scale is performed discriminant and convergence values. The structural
equation modelling with the maximum likelihood provided a structural relationship
among the dimensions, including perceived risk, trust, perceived usefulness, ease of use
and e–payment adoption. Whereby, the Bootstrap analysis indicated that the research
model’s estimates are trusted. In addition, the model with a structural relationship
among these dimensions accounted for roughly 36.7% of the intention to use or
e–payment adoption. Interestingly, along with the IT adoption based – the perceived
usefulness and the ease of use, the perceived risk and the trust have been the principal
roles of the structural model of e–payment adoption. Which are the contributions to the
theoretical side of the perceived risk, the trust, and the IT adoption.
In future work, it may be possible to add more elements that impact on the intention
to use or e–payment adoption (e.g., habit, organizational culture, social influence…),
 The Roles of Perceived Risk and Trust on E–Payment Adoption 939

literature the theory on behavioral intention and actual use of information systems.
Furthermore, it’s also possible to consider demographic as a moderator variable for the
e–payment systems’ acceptance and use.

References
1. Ajzen, I.: The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 179–
211 (1991)
2. Aladwani, A.M.: Online banking: a field study of drivers, development challenges, and
expectations. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 21(3), 213–225 (2001)
3. Bankole, F., Bankole, O.: The effects of cultural dimension on ICT innovation: empirical
analysis of mobile phone services. Telemat. Inform. 34(2), 490–505 (2017)
4. Barkhordari, M., Nourollah, Z., Mashayekhi, H., Mashayekhi, Y., Ahangar, M.: Factors
influencing adoption of e–payment systems: an empirical study on Iranian customers. Inf.
Syst. e–Bus. Manag. 14(3), 89–116 (2016)
5. Bauer R.A.: Consumer behavior as risk taking. In: AMA Proceedings, Chicago (1960)
6. Byrne, B.: Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Routledge, New York (2016)
7. Cabanillas, F., Fernandez, J., Leiva, F.: 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). Int. J. Inf. Manage. 34(2), 151–166 (2014)
8. Cabanillas, F., Leiva, F., Fernandez, J.: A global approach to the analysis of user behavior in
mobile payment systems in the new electronic environment. Serv. Bus. 11(1), 1–40 (2017)
9. Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)
10. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., Warshaw, P.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison
of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)
11. E–commerce and IT department: 2015 e–commerce report. Hanoi (2016)
12. Featherman, M., Miyazaki, A., Sprott, D.: Reducing online privacy risk to facilitate e–
service adoption: the influence of perceived ease of use and corporate credibility. J. Serv.
Mark. 24(3), 219–229 (2010)
13. Featherman, M., Pavlou, P.: Predicting e–services adoption: a perceived risk facets
perspective. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59(4), 451–474 (2003)
14. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I.: Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research. Addison–Wesley, Reading (1975)
15. Francisco, L., Francisco, M., Juan S.: Payment systems in new electronic environments:
consumer behavior in payment systems via SMS. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 14(2),
421–449 (2015)
16. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18(1), 39–50 (1981)
17. Gao, L., Waechter, K.: Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment
services: an empirical investigation. Inf. Syst. Front. 19(3), 525–548 (2017)
18. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.: Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated
model. MIS Q. 27(1), 51–90 (2003)
19. Goczek, L., Witkowski, B.: Determinants of card payments. Appl. Econ. 48(16), 1530–1543
(2016)
20. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., Tatham, R.: Multivariate Data Analysis.
Pearson (2014)
940 T. D. Nguyen and P. A. Huynh

21. Junadi, S.: A model of factors influencing consumer’s intention to use e–payment system in
Indonesia. In: ICCSCI 2015 Proceedings, pp. 214–220. Indonesia (2015)
22. Kim, D., Benbasat, I.: The effects of trust–assuring arguments on consumer trust in internet
stores: application of Toulmin’s model of argumentation. Inf. Syst. Res. 17(3), 286–300
(2006)
23. Lacan, C., Desmet, P.: Does the crowdfunding platform matter? Risks of negative attitudes
in two–sided markets. J. Consum. Mark. 34, 472–479 (2017)
24. Laudon, K., Traver, C.: E–commerce: Business Technology Society. Pearson (2016)
25. Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P., Cao, Y.: Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross–environment perspective. Inf. Manag. 48
(8), 393–403 (2011)
26. Nguyen, T.D., Cao, T.H.: Structural model for adoption and usage of e–banking in Vietnam.
J. Econ. Dev. 220, 116–135 (2014)
27. Nguyen, V.T.T., Nguyen, T.D.: Perceived risk in the e–payment adoption via social
network. J. Econ. Dev. 27(12), 66–81 (2016)
28. Park, J., Lee, D., Ahn, J.: Risk–focused e–commerce adoption model: a cross–country study.
J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 7, 6–30 (2004)
29. Pavlou, P.A.: Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with
the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 7(3), 101–134 (2003)
30. Pham, L., Cao, N.Y., Nguyen, T.D., Tran, P.T.: Structural models for e–banking adoption in
Vietnam. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 9(1), 31–48 (2013)
31. Phonthanukitithaworn, C., Sellitto, C., Fong, M.: An investigation of mobile payment
(m–payment) services in Thailand. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. 8(1), 37–54 (2016)
32. Poon, W.C.: Users’ adoption of e–banking services: the Malaysian perspective. J. Bus. Ind.
Mark. 23(1), 59–69 (2007)
33. Rahman, S.: Introduction to E–Commerce Technology in Business. GRIN (2014)
34. Schumacker, R., Lomax, R.: A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling.
Routledge, New York (2016)
35. Swick, N.K.: Benefits & risks of electronic payment systems (2010). https://
thatcreditunionblog.wordpress.com
36. Tee, H., Ong, H.: Cashless payment and economic growth. Financ. Innov. 2(1), 2–4 (2016)
37. Tella, A.: Determinants of e–payment systems success: a user’s satisfaction perspective. Int.
J. E-Adopt. 4(3), 15–38 (2012)
38. Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioral
control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst.
Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)
39. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four
longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)
40. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on
interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)
41. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, F.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a
unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)
42. Vietnam e–commerce association: Vietnam e–commerce index report. HCMC (2016)
43. Yang, Q., Pang, C., Liu, L., Yen, D., Tarn, J.: Exploring consumer perceived risk and trust
for online payments: an empirical study in China’s younger generation. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 50, 9–24 (2015)
44. Yaokumah, W., Kumah, P., Okai, E.: Demographic influences on e–payment services. Int.
J. E-Bus. Res. 13(1), 44–65 (2017)

View publication stats