Shin 2010

This article was downloaded by: [TCU Texas Christian University]
On: 09 December 2014, At: 18:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Human-

Computer Interaction
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hihc20
Modeling the Interaction of Users and

Mobile Payment System: Conceptual
Framework
a
Dong-Hee Shin
a
Sungkyunkwan University , Seoul , Korea
Published online: 13 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Dong-Hee Shin (2010) Modeling the Interaction of Users and Mobile Payment
System: Conceptual Framework, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26:10,
917-940, DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2010.502098
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.502098
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
INTL. JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION, 26(10), 917–940, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1044-7318 print / 1532-7590 online
DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2010.502098

Modeling the Interaction of Users and Mobile
Payment System: Conceptual Framework
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTEDDong-Hee RETRACTED Shin
Downloaded by [TCU Texas Christian University] at 18:36 09 December 2014
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

The growing interest in mobile commerce and the high penetration rate of mobile
RETRACTED
communication service RETRACTED RETRACTED
are expected to provide mobile operators with RETRACTED
a new and
great business opportunity, the mobile payment. This study proposes a research
model that examines the factors that determine consumer acceptance of mobile pay-
RETRACTED
ment system. To achieve RETRACTED RETRACTED
this goal, it employed RETRACTED
the technology acceptance model
(TAM), adding the concepts of security, trust, social influence, and computer-efficacy
from Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. The model is examined
RETRACTED
through an empiricalRETRACTED RETRACTED
study using structural equation RETRACTED
modeling techniques. Although
the model confirms the classical role of TAM factors, the results also show that users’
RETRACTED
attitudes and intentions RETRACTED RETRACTED
are influenced by perceived RETRACTED
risk and trust. Significant sup-
port for the model was found in the data collected from a survey of potential mobile
payment system users. Based on the findings, this study proposes a conceptual frame-
RETRACTED
work of adoption enablers, RETRACTED RETRACTED
drivers, and barriers with propositions to RETRACTED
guide future
research in mobile payment. Implications to practice and means to overcome the
RETRACTED
barriers are suggested. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
1. INTRODUCTION RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
RETRACTED
One promising area of RETRACTED RETRACTED
mobile commerce (m-commerce) receivingRETRACTED
growing atten-
tion globally
RETRACTED is mobile payment (m-payment).
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED M-payment system (MPS) refers to
a system using mobile devices to make transactions such as pay bills and perform
RETRACTED
banking transactions RETRACTED(Gerpott & Kornmeier, RETRACTED
2009). MPS can be RETRACTED
understood as a
point-of-sale
RETRACTED payment made through a mobile
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED device, such as a cellular phone or
personal digital assistant. What makes m-payment particularly interesting is that
RETRACTED
the payment servicesRETRACTED for any retail purchases RETRACTED
may well be provided RETRACTED
by mobile
operators and not by the established
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED banking systems. That is, MPS provides the
RETRACTED
This research was supportedRETRACTED RETRACTED
by WCU (World Class RETRACTED
University) program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant
RETRACTED
No. R31-2008-000-10062-0).RETRACTED
This work was supported RETRACTED RETRACTED
by the National Research Foundation of Korea
Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-B00171).
RETRACTED
Correspondence shouldRETRACTED
be addressed to Dong-HeeRETRACTED RETRACTED
Shin, Department of Interaction Science (WCU-
Funded Program), Sungkyunkwan University, International Hall, 53 Myeongnyun-dong 3-ga, Jongno-
RETRACTED
gu, Seoul 110-745, RepublicRETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
of Korea. E-mail: dshin@skku.edu
RETRACTED
918 RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED Shin

mobile operators an opportunity to extend their business operation to the finan-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
cial service area (Viehland RETRACTED
& Leong, 2007). It is true that MPSRETRACTED
becomes the killer
RETRACTED RETRACTED
application in mobile commerce. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Traditionally, financial transactions have been made through the networks
RETRACTED
operated by banksRETRACTED RETRACTED
and financial institutions. Banks especially RETRACTED
have played a very
RETRACTED RETRACTED
important role, acting RETRACTED
as issuing banks, acquiring RETRACTED
banks, and even clearinghouses.
Even though mobile operators are involved in some financial transactions, they
RETRACTED RETRACTED
were within the boundary RETRACTED
of their own traditional RETRACTED
business operation, the telecom-
RETRACTED
munication service. RETRACTED
The mobile operators RETRACTED
are now able to enterRETRACTED
the retail payment
service market and take some of the shares that could otherwise remain with exist-
RETRACTED
ing players such as RETRACTED
banks and financial RETRACTED
institutions. The marketRETRACTED
share that these
RETRACTED RETRACTED
mobile operators capture RETRACTED
in the retail payment market can beRETRACTED
significant if the
substantial number of mobile subscribers use m-payment service (Ho, Fong, &
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Yan, 2008). The mobile RETRACTED
operators also have RETRACTED
an enormous customer base, estab-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
lished billing system, RETRACTED
and technical expertise RETRACTED
that can be utilized for a successful
business operation in the retail payment market. Nevertheless, it is still unclear
RETRACTED
whether MPS can RETRACTED
be successfully deployed RETRACTED RETRACTED
and practiced in the market. Despite
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the mobile operators’ aggressive efforts,RETRACTED RETRACTED
MPS is still not showing success in most
markets (Chen, 2008). Mobile vendors have struggled over how to personalize
RETRACTED
phones over the airRETRACTED
as well as how to enableRETRACTED RETRACTED
a better experience for downloading
RETRACTED
MPS applications to RETRACTED
the phone. AnotherRETRACTED
challenge is posed byRETRACTED
the many compet-
ing standards; it is necessary to standardize m-payment protocols, schemes, and
RETRACTED
services. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Among other problems, RETRACTED
customer apathy RETRACTED
seems to be the greatest barrier, and
customer acceptance turned out to be a decisive factor (Dahlberg, Mallat, Ondrus,
RETRACTED
& Zmijewska, 2008). RETRACTED RETRACTED
Consumers are uncomfortable RETRACTED
with the idea of m-payment—
RETRACTED RETRACTED
that is, “the fear of an unknown medium”—andRETRACTED RETRACTED
they are not even willing to
try paying with their mobile device. Although enthusiasm and hope about m-
RETRACTED
payment service is RETRACTED
widespread, there RETRACTED RETRACTED
are also fears of security breaches and
RETRACTED
identity theft. MPS RETRACTED
provides many functions RETRACTED RETRACTED
on a single mobile phone, so that
having all your personal and sensitive information stored on that phone poses a
RETRACTED RETRACTED
great risk if the phone is lost, broken, or RETRACTED
stolen. RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Although the issue RETRACTED
of security has emerged RETRACTED
as a major inhibitor of MPS accep-
tance (Herzberg, 2003; Mallat, Rossi, & Tuunainen, 2004; Misra & Wickamasinghe,
RETRACTED
2004), the researchRETRACTED RETRACTED
on this issue is quite rare to date, especially RETRACTED
from the viewpoint
RETRACTED
of customers. There RETRACTED
exists a need for moreRETRACTED RETRACTED
substantive, theory-based research
and a deeper understanding of consumer behavior with regard to MPS. This
RETRACTED RETRACTED
study aims to explore RETRACTED
and model the central RETRACTED
consumer perceptions that affect the
RETRACTED
decision to use and RETRACTED
accept MPS. It mayRETRACTED RETRACTED
be important to investigate how users
perceive security and their privacy concerns over MPS. The perception of m-
RETRACTED
payment procedures’ RETRACTED RETRACTED
security by the customer RETRACTED
is one major factor for the market
breakthrough of the
RETRACTED according systems.RETRACTED
RETRACTED This study examinesRETRACTED
security issues in
MPS from the viewpoint of customers by focusing the factors influencing users’
RETRACTED RETRACTED
perceived risk in the MPS. It applies the RETRACTED RETRACTED
unified theory of acceptance and use
of technology (UTAUT)
RETRACTED RETRACTED and modifies the technology acceptance
RETRACTED model (TAM)
RETRACTED
to propose a research model that incorporates computer-efficacy, perceived risk,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Users and Mobile Payment System Interaction RETRACTED RETRACTED 919

trust, and subjective norm as enhancing constructs to predict users’ motivations
RETRACTED
for adopting an MPS.RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
With the integrated RETRACTED
theoretical framework,RETRACTED
this study conducts RETRACTED
an empirical
assessment the research model in the m-payment context. This study seeks to
RETRACTED
examine the motivationsRETRACTED
and intentions ofRETRACTED
MPS users. It offers aRETRACTED
set of implica-
RETRACTED
tions that can help TAMRETRACTED RETRACTED
researchers and m-payment RETRACTED
vendors better understand
how users develop perceived risk and how that contributes to user trust. The struc-
RETRACTED
tural equation modelingRETRACTED
approach was appliedRETRACTED RETRACTED
to assess the empirical strength of
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the relationships in the extended TAM model. RETRACTED
The results do have RETRACTED
a scholarly as
well as a practical impact: They provide a basis for the selection of appropriate
RETRACTED
indicators for furtherRETRACTED RETRACTED
empirical studies. Furthermore, RETRACTED
they can serve as a guide-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
line for MPS service providers RETRACTED
to prevent security RETRACTED
concerns through appropriate
design and communication of payment procedures and to convince customers of
RETRACTED
the security of their RETRACTED
mobile procedures byRETRACTED
addressing concernsRETRACTED
in informative
RETRACTED RETRACTED
advertising. The m-payment RETRACTED
industry is facing the challenge ofRETRACTED
how to design
m-payment services that are useful, secure, and controllable (Linck, Pousttchi, &
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Wiedemann, 2006). However, RETRACTED
interface designs RETRACTED
and related elements are rarely
RETRACTED
examined as qualitiesRETRACTED RETRACTED
in the context of human–computer RETRACTED
interaction. The find-
ings in this study should be useful for MPS developers to improve their work.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Implications and directions for future studyRETRACTED
are discussed. RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The rest of the article RETRACTED
is organized as follows: RETRACTED
Section 2 provides a literature
review on m-payment and on the theoretical framework used to investigate m-
RETRACTED
payment and users. RETRACTED
Section 3 proposes the RETRACTED
research model and RETRACTED
develops the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
hypotheses tested in this RETRACTED
study. Section 4 describes the research RETRACTED
method. Section
5 provides the results of empirical tests, which are discussed in Section 6. Section
RETRACTED
7 presents conclusions RETRACTED
and some implications RETRACTED RETRACTED
for practitioners and researchers.
RETRACTED
Finally, Section 8 endsRETRACTED
with the limitations RETRACTED RETRACTED
of this study and topics for future
studies.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
RETRACTED
2.1. M-Payment and RETRACTED
MPS Trends RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
M-payment is a new RETRACTED
and rapidly adopted RETRACTED RETRACTED
alternative payment method—
RETRACTED
especially in Asia andRETRACTED
Europe (Viehland &RETRACTED
Leong, 2007). InsteadRETRACTED
of paying with
cash, check, or credit cards, a consumer can use a mobile phone to pay for a wide
RETRACTED
range of services andRETRACTED RETRACTED
for digital or hard goods RETRACTED
such as music, videos, ringtones,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
online game subscription or game items, RETRACTED
wallpapers, and other RETRACTED
digital goods.
Mobile devices can be used in a variety of payment scenarios, such as payment
RETRACTED RETRACTED
for digital content (e.g., RETRACTED
ringtones, logos, news, music, or games), RETRACTED
tickets, park-
RETRACTED
ing fees, and transportRETRACTED RETRACTED
fares, or to access electronic RETRACTED
payment services to pay bills
and invoices. Gartner Research Firm (2009) forecasted that the MPS market will
RETRACTED RETRACTED
gain significant traction RETRACTED
over 2010–2012. Gartner predicted thatRETRACTED
more than 3%
of all mobile device users
RETRACTED will be making RETRACTED
RETRACTED mobile payments, at RETRACTED
which point the
practice will have become mainstream in 2013. Recently, m-payment providers
RETRACTED
(such as Mobile CashRETRACTED
and Zong) are getting RETRACTED
traction in social RETRACTED
networks; users
RETRACTED

are increasingly choosing SMS mobile payments for microtransactions on social
RETRACTED
network applicationsRETRACTED
and gaming sites. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
M-payments are RETRACTED
a growing part of theRETRACTED
digital economy. RETRACTED
Since its inception,
MPS has had exponential business growth with the introduction of its mobile
RETRACTED
commerce technology RETRACTED RETRACTED
and its unique marketing RETRACTED
business plan, and through the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
successful recruitment of a group of an RETRACTED
enterprising and strong RETRACTED
marketing force
(Chen, 2008). With the rapid evolution of mobile technology, and an expanding
RETRACTED
base of mobile phoneRETRACTED
users, MPS has beenRETRACTED RETRACTED
recognized as having growth poten-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tial in the m-commerce industry (Au & RETRACTED
Kauffman, 2007). TheRETRACTED
industry strives to
develop and build solid m-commerce applications and at the same time provide
RETRACTED
an environment forRETRACTED RETRACTED
secure, convenient, cost-saving, RETRACTED
and efficient business transac-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tions. Despite the potential RETRACTED
growth powers, MPS adoption hasRETRACTED
remained modest,
especially in the United States.
RETRACTED
Previous studiesRETRACTED RETRACTED
in the area of m-payment RETRACTED
consumer acceptance have focused
RETRACTED
on security (Dewan RETRACTED
& Chen, 2005; ViehlandRETRACTED RETRACTED
& Leong, 2007), convenience (Dewan
& Chen, 2005; Teo, Fraunholz, & Unnithan, 2005), cost (van der Kar & van der
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Duin, 2004; Zmijewska, RETRACTED
2005), and perceived RETRACTED
ease of use and usefulness (Dewan &
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Chen, 2005; Teo et al., RETRACTED
2005; Zmijewska, 2005). RETRACTED
The findings of most of these studies
can be summarized as follows: For m-payments to succeed, they much be secure,
RETRACTED
convenient, easy toRETRACTED RETRACTED
use, and offered at little RETRACTED
or no additional cost to the consumer.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Despite all the research, RETRACTED
a lingering question is, Are consumers RETRACTED
ready to embrace
this new method of payment? What barriers or incentives might reduce or increase
RETRACTED
uptake of m-paymentsRETRACTED RETRACTED
in the consumer market? It may be trueRETRACTED
that the MPS is an
RETRACTED RETRACTED
innovative technology that can provide RETRACTED
customers with a great RETRACTED
convenience, but
these are still the elusive questions. In terms of the most significant barriers that
RETRACTED
remain for m-paymentRETRACTED RETRACTED
and the new services RETRACTED
(e-purses, virtual wallets, wireless
RETRACTED RETRACTED
wallets, mobile cash, RETRACTED
etc.), one that comes RETRACTED
up frequently is security, both real and
perceived. Many consumers still are not comfortable with giving that much value
to the mobile handset.
RETRACTED
2.2. A TAM ModelRETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Modified With the UTAUT
An m-payment is, in essence, an information technology (IT). As such, intentions
RETRACTED
to use MPS shouldRETRACTED
be explained in part RETRACTED
by the TAM introduced RETRACTED
by Davis (1989).
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Moreover, these procedures RETRACTED
are functional services adopted forRETRACTED
utilitarian reasons.
Thus, the model was chosen as an appropriate basic model in this study. If mod-
RETRACTED
ified appropriately,RETRACTED
the TAM is the most RETRACTED RETRACTED
effective tool for a study like this one,
RETRACTED
which investigatesRETRACTED RETRACTED
factors relating to usage and adoption, suchRETRACTED
as social influences
and cognitive instrumental dimensions.
RETRACTED
The TAM was RETRACTED
inspired by the theory RETRACTED
of reasoned action,RETRACTED
which argues that
RETRACTED RETRACTED
both the attitude toward RETRACTED
an action and subjective norms have anRETRACTED
impact on behav-
ioral intention, which in turn affects how people perform an action. The TAM was
RETRACTED
an early attempt to RETRACTED
apply psychologicalRETRACTED
factors to information RETRACTED
systems (IS) and
computer adoption.
RETRACTED It assumed that perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED usefulness and perceived conve-
RETRACTED
nience were major influences on an individual’s attitude toward using technology
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and, thus, ultimately RETRACTED
were related to actual use (Davis, 1989).RETRACTED
Previous research
RETRACTED RETRACTED

has demonstrated the validity of the TAM across a wide range of IT. Recently,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
there is a growing trend for researchers toRETRACTED
extend the TAM with RETRACTED
various other
RETRACTED
motivational factors. RETRACTED
It has been revised toRETRACTEDincorporate additionalRETRACTED
variables for
specific contexts. In this study, MPS is a specific context that calls for additional
RETRACTED RETRACTED
constructs (such as trust and perceived risk) RETRACTED RETRACTED
to be incorporated into the TAM to
RETRACTED RETRACTED
better explain variances. This study incorporatesRETRACTED
the UTAUT intoRETRACTED
the TAM model
because such additional constructs fit nicely into the UTAUT domain. The UTAUT
RETRACTED
aims to explain users’RETRACTED
intention to use an IS RETRACTED
and their subsequent RETRACTED
usage behav-
RETRACTED
ior. The theory holdsRETRACTED
that four key constructs RETRACTED RETRACTED
(performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions) are direct determinants
RETRACTED
of usage intention andRETRACTED
behavior (VenkateshRETRACTED RETRACTED
et. al., 2003). The variables of gender,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
age, experience, and voluntariness of use areRETRACTED
posited to moderate theRETRACTED
impact of the
four key constructs on usage intention and behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003). These
RETRACTED RETRACTED
determinants and moderators will be used to RETRACTED
extend the proposedRETRACTED
research model.
RETRACTED
Integrating the UTAUT RETRACTED
and the TAM model RETRACTED
will enable a betterRETRACTED
explanation of
MPS acceptance and usage behavior.
3. HYPOTHESES
RETRACTED
This study proposes RETRACTED
an adaptation of theRETRACTED TAM/UTAUT that RETRACTED
incorporates as
variables trust, perceived risk, perceived benefit, and perceived convenience.
RETRACTED
Figure 1 presents theRETRACTED
MPS acceptance/use RETRACTED
model proposed here.RETRACTED
The accep-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tance of MPS was evaluated using a UTAUT RETRACTEDmodel modified RETRACTED
from the one
originally proposed by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003). The research
RETRACTED
model postulates seven RETRACTED
constructs (perceived RETRACTED RETRACTED
benefit, perceived convenience,
social influence, self-efficacy,
RETRACTED RETRACTED risk, trust, and attitude toward using
RETRACTED technology)
RETRACTED
Computer
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED efficacy RETRACTED
Trust
RETRACTED
Perceived RETRACTED RETRACTED +H8 RETRACTED
benefit +H3 +H6
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED Use
+H +H2
RETRACTED RETRACTED Attitude RETRACTED Intention
RETRACTEDbehavior
RETRACTED
Perceived +H4
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
convenience –H5
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED +H7 RETRACTED
Perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED risk RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED Social
norm
RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED FIGURE 1 ProposedRETRACTED research model. RETRACTED
RETRACTED

that determine behavioral intent and two constructs influencing usage behavior
RETRACTED
(behavioral intent RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
and facilitating conditions).
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The utility of this RETRACTED
integrated model stems from the fact thatRETRACTED
MPSs are heavily
technology driven as well as user oriented (Dahlberg et al., 2008). This model is
RETRACTED RETRACTED
well suited to reflect RETRACTED
the nature of MPS, because RETRACTED
it addresses the evolutionary pro-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
gression of technology and usage dynamicsRETRACTED
toward a more fluidRETRACTED
and agile social
existence. In applying this integrated model to a technology-driven environment,
RETRACTED
the classical TAM RETRACTED
variables are posited RETRACTED
as key drivers of MPS RETRACTED
adoption, and, in
RETRACTED
consideration of the RETRACTED
UTAUT, the modelRETRACTED
integrates additionalRETRACTED
key drivers, such
as security, risk, and trust. All the key drivers are defined and explained, and
RETRACTED
their relationship toRETRACTED
transaction intentions RETRACTED
and the acceptance of RETRACTED
the MPS is exam-
RETRACTED
ined. Placing theseRETRACTED RETRACTED
variables under the nomological structureRETRACTED
of the UTAUT and
precisely describing their interrelationships integrates them into a coherent and
RETRACTED
parsimonious researchRETRACTED
model. RETRACTED RETRACTED
3.1. Attitude and Intention
Since its inception by Venkatesh et al. (2003), the UTAUT has been increasingly
studied from the perspective of the field of IS, which is concerned with the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
determinants of consciously RETRACTED
intended behaviors. The model was RETRACTED
shown to be 70%
accurate at predicting user acceptance of IT innovations (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
By generating a significantly higher percentage of technology innovation success,
RETRACTED
the UTUAT is deemed RETRACTED
a superior metric RETRACTED
than the prior metrics.RETRACTED
The UTAUT suggests that a person’s performance of a specified behavior is
determined by his or her behavioral intention to perform the behavior, and behav-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ioral intention is jointly determined by the RETRACTED
person’s attitudes andRETRACTED
subjective norms
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The best predictor of behavior is intention, which is the
cognitive representation of a person’s readiness to perform a given behavior, and
RETRACTED RETRACTED
it is considered to be RETRACTED
the immediate antecedent of behavior. RETRACTED
According to the UTAUT, attitude toward a behavior is defined as an individ-
ual’s positive or negative feeling about performing the target behavior, whereas
RETRACTED RETRACTED
subjective norm refers RETRACTED
to a person’s perception RETRACTED
that most people who are impor-
tant to him or her think he or she should or should not perform the behavior
RETRACTED RETRACTED
in question. In addition, RETRACTED
a person’s attitude RETRACTED
toward a behavior is determined
RETRACTED
by his or her salientRETRACTED RETRACTED
beliefs and evaluations. Given the wide RETRACTED
applicability of the
TAM/UTAUT to emerging technologies, it can be expected that the general causal-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ities found in the UTAUT RETRACTED
are applicable to RETRACTED
the context of m-payment. In particular,
RETRACTED
the relation between RETRACTED
attitude and intentionRETRACTED
has been confirmedRETRACTED
(Shin & Kim, 2008).
H1: Attitude toward m-payment has a positive effect on the intention to use
RETRACTED a MPS. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Intention to useRETRACTED
technology is a central RETRACTED
concept in the TAM RETRACTED
(Davis, 1989) and
the UTAUT (Venkatesh
RETRACTED et al., 2003). Furthermore,
RETRACTED RETRACTED intention to use a system can
RETRACTED
explain a large portion of a user’s actual system usage. Intention has been studied
RETRACTED
in the context of theRETRACTED
theory of reasonedRETRACTED RETRACTED
action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which
RETRACTED
Users and Mobile PaymentRETRACTED
System Interaction RETRACTED RETRACTED 923

finds an individual’s attitude toward a behavior to be a driving factor toward that
RETRACTED RETRACTED
individual’s actual behavior. RETRACTED
In this study, behavioral intention isRETRACTED
a dependent or
RETRACTED
endogenous variable RETRACTED
as well as an intermediaryRETRACTED
variable. RETRACTED
RETRACTED
H2: An individual’s RETRACTED
intention to use an RETRACTED
m-payment will have RETRACTED
a positive effect
RETRACTED RETRACTED
on that individual’s usage behavior RETRACTED
concerning MPS. RETRACTED
RETRACTED
3.2. Perceived Benefit RETRACTED RETRACTED
and Perceived Convenience in the TAMRETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The TAM uses two distinct RETRACTED
but interrelated beliefs—perceived RETRACTED
usefulness and per-
RETRACTED
ceived ease of use—as RETRACTED RETRACTED
the basis for predicting end-user acceptanceRETRACTED
of computer
technology. Of the two TAM variables, studies have found perceived usefulness to
RETRACTED RETRACTED
have the stronger influence RETRACTED
(Davis, 1989). There has been a focus onRETRACTED
these beliefs in
RETRACTED RETRACTED
previous studies of consumer acceptance andRETRACTED RETRACTED
the adoption of m-payment (Dewan
& Chen, 2005; Teo et al., 2005). The classical definition of perceived usefulness by
RETRACTED
Davis (1989) is that theRETRACTED
degree to which a RETRACTED
person believes that RETRACTED
using a particu-
RETRACTED
lar system will enhance RETRACTED RETRACTED
his or her job performance. RETRACTED
The current study highlights
the aspect social economic benefit of usefulness and changes the term to perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED
benefit. This can be a significant RETRACTED
conceptual shift RETRACTED
from personal usefulness to social
RETRACTED
benefit (Lee, 2009). RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which a person believes that using a
RETRACTED
particular system willRETRACTED RETRACTED
be free of effort (Davis, 1989). In this study,RETRACTED
perceived ease
RETRACTED
of use is similar to theRETRACTED
concept of convenience, RETRACTED
which means any RETRACTED
issues related to
ease and comfort of use. Perceived convenience in m-payment can include ease
RETRACTED RETRACTED
handling, fast processing RETRACTED
of the payment transaction, RETRACTED
high number of accepting
RETRACTED RETRACTED
merchants, easy learnability RETRACTED
of payment procedure, RETRACTED
no installation of software on
the mobile device, and no pre-registration necessary (Pousttchi, 2003). Following
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Pousttchi’s (2003) concept, this study replacesRETRACTED
perceived ease of useRETRACTED
with perceived
RETRACTED
convenience. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
H3: Perceived benefitRETRACTED
of m-payment hasRETRACTED
a positive effect on RETRACTED
attitude toward
RETRACTED
MPS. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
H4: Perceived convenience of m-payment has a positive effect on attitude
RETRACTED
toward MPS. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
3.3. Perceived Risk RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Perceived risk is that level of risk a customer believes exists regarding the purchase
RETRACTED
of a specific product RETRACTED
from a specific retailer, RETRACTED
whether or not thatRETRACTED
belief is correct
RETRACTED
(Miyazaki & Fernandez, RETRACTED RETRACTED
2001). The perceptions of risk and the RETRACTED
way they affect
customer behavior have been the subject of several studies, which consistently
RETRACTED
show that providers mustRETRACTED RETRACTED
overcome the customer’s RETRACTED
perceived risk. For instance,
perceived risk influences
RETRACTED the IS’s adoptionRETRACTED
RETRACTED decision when circumstances
RETRACTED of the
decision create feelings of uncertainty, discomfort and/or anxiety, conflict aroused
RETRACTED RETRACTED
in the customer, psychological RETRACTED
discomfort, or cognitive dissonanceRETRACTED
(Featherman &
RETRACTED

Pavlou, 2003). Miyazaki and Fernandez (2001) argued that the rate of purchasing
RETRACTED
products online is RETRACTED
negatively related to RETRACTED RETRACTED
the perceived risk of making online pur-
RETRACTED
chases. They further RETRACTED
argued that a higherRETRACTED RETRACTED
level of Internet experience may lead
to lower risk perceptions regarding online shopping and fewer specific concerns
RETRACTED
regarding system RETRACTED RETRACTED
security and online retailer fraud, yet more RETRACTED
concerns regard-
RETRACTED
ing online privacy.RETRACTED
Therefore, perceivedRETRACTED
risk partially mediates RETRACTED
the impact of the
Internet experience on online purchase behavior. In the same manner, online pur-
RETRACTED
chasing experienceRETRACTED RETRACTED
can influence the transaction RETRACTED
in virtual reality. Modifying the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
definition from Miyazaki and Fernandez,RETRACTED
the perceived risk in RETRACTED
the m-payment can
be defined as a concern over the security of transactions in m-payment. Perceived
RETRACTED
risk was measuredRETRACTED RETRACTED
with Likert scales measuring RETRACTED
the perception of the risk and
RETRACTED
uncertainty inherent RETRACTED RETRACTED
in the m-payment service. RETRACTED
Based on the previous studies, this
study hypothesizes that perceived risk regarding the security of transactions is one
RETRACTED RETRACTED
of the factors influencing RETRACTED
m-payment behavior. The followingRETRACTED
hypotheses detail
RETRACTED
the relationships: RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
H5: Perceived riskRETRACTED RETRACTED
has a negative effect RETRACTED
on the intention to use a MPS.
RETRACTED
3.4. Trust RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Reflecting the increasing importance of trust in mobile commerce (Misra &
RETRACTED
Wickamasinghe, 2004),RETRACTED
trust is proposedRETRACTED RETRACTED
in this study as an antecedent variable to
the intention to use an MPS. It has been defined as the belief that vendors will per-
form some activity in accordance with customers’ expectations (Gefen & Straub,
RETRACTED
2004; Pavlou & Gefen,RETRACTED RETRACTED
2004). As trust has RETRACTED
been a critical factor in IS (McKnight
et al., 2002), it has been extensively addressed as a research topic from different
RETRACTED
viewpoints and atRETRACTED RETRACTED
different levels of analysis. Mobile customersRETRACTED
often feel more
RETRACTED RETRACTED
uncertain about mobile vendors and the RETRACTED
outcomes of mobileRETRACTED
transactions (Siau
& Shen, 2003). Mobile vendors should, therefore, act to help customers overcome
RETRACTED RETRACTED
uncertainty by building trust in vendors’RETRACTED RETRACTED
websites and in the Internet as a medium
RETRACTED RETRACTED
for transactions (Liu, Marchewka, Lu, & RETRACTED
Yu, 2005; Nijite & Parsa,RETRACTED
2005).
When it comes to MPS, trust is even more critical, given the possible risks of
RETRACTED
being hacked. TheRETRACTED
growth of m-payments RETRACTED
has a very patchyRETRACTED
record. One major
RETRACTED
concern is that theRETRACTED
risk of financial lossRETRACTED
acts as an impediment RETRACTED
to the adoption
of m-payment. This may be because of widespread knowledge of actual losses, or
RETRACTED RETRACTED
reports of vulnerabilities, or just becauseRETRACTED
of uninformed concerns RETRACTED
and natural risk-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
aversion. To understand RETRACTED
the substance of RETRACTED
the issue, it is necessary that payment
schemes intended for use in mobile contexts be subjected to risk assessment.
H6: Trust in m-payments
RETRACTED RETRACTED positively affects
RETRACTEDthe customer’s RETRACTED
intention to use an
MPS.
3.5. Computer Efficacy
Self-efficacy theory states that behavior is cognitively mediated by the strength of
a person’s self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is defined in this study
RETRACTED
Users and Mobile Payment RETRACTED

as an individual’s assessment of his or her ability to perform desirable behaviors
RETRACTED
in specific situations. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Perceptions of self-efficacy are not reflectiveRETRACTED
of a global per-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
sonality trait; rather, they RETRACTED
vary across different behavioral domains RETRACTED
(e.g., physical
self-efficacy, productivity self-efficacy, play self-efficacy, etc.). Computer-efficacy is
RETRACTED
defined as one’s beliefRETRACTED RETRACTED
that he or she is capable of using a computer RETRACTED
to complete a
RETRACTED
task, without regard to RETRACTED RETRACTED
the task’s difficulty or consequences. RETRACTED
It is suggested that the greater a user’s self-efficacy, the greater the user’s inten-
RETRACTED
tion to use MPS. Based RETRACTED
on the assumptionsRETRACTED
in the model, this study RETRACTED
proposes the
RETRACTED
following hypothesis:RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
H7: Self-efficacy is RETRACTED
positively related to theRETRACTED
customers’ intention RETRACTED
to use an MPS.

RETRACTED
3.6. Social Norm RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
As noted by numerous IS researchers (Brown & Venkatesh, 2005; Davis, 1989; Hsu
RETRACTED
& Lu, 2007; Shin, 2008), RETRACTED RETRACTED
the TAM is incomplete RETRACTED
in one key respect: It does not
RETRACTED RETRACTED
account for social influence in the adoptionRETRACTED
and utilization of new RETRACTED
technologies.
Nysveen et al. (2005) defined social influence as “the person’s perception that most
RETRACTED
people who are important RETRACTED RETRACTED
to him think he should RETRACTED
or should not perform the behav-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ior in question” (p. 332). RETRACTED
The importance of normative pressure onRETRACTED
intention to use
mobile services is revealed in studies that are based on the IS perspective (Teo
RETRACTED
& Pok, 2003). As Nysveen,RETRACTED RETRACTED
Pedersen, Thorbjornsen, and BerthonRETRACTED
(2005) showed,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
people use mobile services in a public socialRETRACTED
context in which theyRETRACTED
observe others’
activities and in which they must adapt to others’ interactions. In addition, pre-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
vious studies consistently show that socialRETRACTED
influence can determine RETRACTED
individuals’
RETRACTED
behaviors (VenkateshRETRACTED
& Morris, 2000; Wu, RETRACTED RETRACTED
Tao, & Yang, 2007). Specifically, Shin
(2007) found that social influence (subjective norm) is a determinant in the unique
RETRACTED RETRACTED
feature of mobile Internet via mobile devices.RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Based on previous RETRACTED RETRACTED
studies on social influence, the research modelRETRACTED
here hypoth-
esizes a positive relationship between subjective norm and intention. This is
RETRACTED
confirmed by recent RETRACTED RETRACTED
empirical studies (Cheong, Cheol, & Hwang,RETRACTED
2002; Shin,
RETRACTED
2007), by a review of theRETRACTED
literature (Dahlberg RETRACTED RETRACTED
et al., 2008), and by theoretical mod-
els such as the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior (Lucas
RETRACTED RETRACTED
& Spitler, 2000; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). RETRACTED RETRACTED
H8: Social influence positively influences customers’ intentions to use an MPS.
4. STUDY DESIGN
RETRACTED
This study used an onlineRETRACTED
survey conducted RETRACTED
between January and RETRACTED
March 2009.
Participants were recruited by advertising on a number of U.S. websites and
RETRACTED
newsletters. There was RETRACTED RETRACTED
no incentive for participation RETRACTED
except a summary of the
results. A pilot test was
RETRACTED undertaken to examine
RETRACTED RETRACTEDtest–retest reliability
RETRACTEDand con-
struct reliability before conducting the fieldwork. Twenty undergraduates who
RETRACTED
had had experience with RETRACTED
m-commerce and RETRACTED
m-payment participated,RETRACTED
with tests
RETRACTED

given at a 3-week interval. The participant group was familiar with mobile appli-
RETRACTED
cations, and, priorRETRACTED RETRACTED
to answering the questionnaire, they wereRETRACTED
strictly instructed
RETRACTED RETRACTED
to ask the experimenter RETRACTED
any questions about RETRACTED
questionnaire items that they didn’t
understand. With these precautions, the possibility of participants’ filling out some
RETRACTED
questions without RETRACTED
exactly understandingRETRACTED RETRACTED
the content of those questions was elim-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
inated. Finally, to reduce RETRACTED
questions’ possible RETRACTED
ambiguity in syntax and semantics, a
final pilot test, involving 22 respondents self-selected from the mobile community,
RETRACTED
was performed. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The finished survey was administered RETRACTED RETRACTED
online, and a web-based survey ques-
tionnaire was posted on discussion forums devoted to m-payment, online trans-
RETRACTED
actions (auctions), RETRACTED
m-commerce, and mobile RETRACTED
games and on the RETRACTED
forums of several
RETRACTED RETRACTED
professional associations, and the membersRETRACTED
of each communityRETRACTED
were cordially
invited to participate. A cover letter was attached to explain its purpose and to
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ensure confidentiality. RETRACTED
By the time the survey RETRACTED
ended, 627 visitors had browsed it,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and 317 questionnaires were submitted. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Of the submitted questionnaires, 31 were
excluded because of incomplete answers, leaving 294 usable responses. The web-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
site where the questionnaire was posted RETRACTED RETRACTED
had a tracking function showing how
RETRACTED RETRACTED
many users had visited RETRACTED
the site. A total of RETRACTED
2,612 users visited the site and presum-
ably saw the invitation but declined to participate. The response rate was 11.2%, a
RETRACTED
fairly desirable rateRETRACTED RETRACTED
in web survey methodology (Shin & Kim, RETRACTED
2008).
RETRACTED
As the use of the RETRACTED RETRACTED
MPS is still an emerging phenomenon, itRETRACTED
was important to
ensure that the participants had an appropriate level of exposure to, and experi-
RETRACTED
ence of, m-payment RETRACTED
(Chou, Lee, & Chung, RETRACTED RETRACTED
2004). We checked plausibility, integrity,
RETRACTED
and completeness RETRACTED RETRACTED
of the received questionnaires RETRACTED
with the result that 1,104 could
be used for further analysis. The sample of U.S. mobile phone users was 75.63%
RETRACTED
male and 24.37% RETRACTED
female. Respondents’ RETRACTED
direct statements let RETRACTED
the sample appear
RETRACTED
as the target groupRETRACTED
for m-payment: 20.38% RETRACTED
indicated that theyRETRACTED
have already used
an m-payment procedure. Because completing the questionnaire took about 10
RETRACTED
min, it is assumed RETRACTED
that it was necessary for RETRACTED RETRACTED
most of the respondents to have a cer-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tain interest in m-payment RETRACTED
and MPS. It can RETRACTED
be said that the questionnaire cannot
make general statements about the total population but can address the current
RETRACTED
m-payment target RETRACTED
group very well. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Table 1 presentsRETRACTED
the sample demographics.RETRACTED RETRACTED
The final sample is rather unbal-
anced in terms of age, education, and experience. This may have resulted from the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
prescreening procedure that selected usersRETRACTED RETRACTED
of substantial experiences with mobile
RETRACTED RETRACTED
usage. Given the nature of m-payment,RETRACTED
however, this unbalance RETRACTED
is understand-
able, because a large number of mobile users are young and college educated and
RETRACTED RETRACTED
able to afford a computer RETRACTED
or are interested in having one. Thus,RETRACTED
the collected sam-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ple in this study reflects RETRACTED
the general population RETRACTED
of mobile services. For the analysis
of statistics, AMOS, a maximum likelihood-based SEM software, was used. There
RETRACTED
are several software RETRACTED
packages exploringRETRACTED RETRACTED
nonlinearities and interactions in cause–
effect models, suchRETRACTED
RETRACTED as LISREL, EQS, SEPATH, RETRACTED and PLS. Among them, AMOS for
RETRACTED
Windows (version 16) was selected for the structural equation model because
RETRACTED
it seems to provide RETRACTED
reasonable, replicableRETRACTED
results. AMOS is RETRACTED
a covariance-based
approach, in which
RETRACTED the covariance structure,
RETRACTED RETRACTEDderived from the observed data, is
RETRACTED
used to simultaneously fit the measurement and structural equations specified in
RETRACTED
the model. SPSS’s RETRACTED
version of AMOS is aRETRACTED
competitive packageRETRACTED
that implements a
RETRACTED

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics
of Participants
RETRACTEDCharacteristic RETRACTED RETRACTED No. % RETRACTED

RETRACTEDAge RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
20 or younger 70 23.4
RETRACTED RETRACTED 21–30
RETRACTED
167 56.0
RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED 31–40
41–50
RETRACTED
48
5
16.4
1.70
RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED 51 and older RETRACTED
1 0.30 RETRACTED
Other/Missing 3 1.01
RETRACTEDEducation RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
High school or below 41 14.0
RETRACTED RETRACTED College RETRACTED

181 61.0 RETRACTED
Graduate school or above 70 23.8
RETRACTED RETRACTED Other/Missing RETRACTED
4 1.36 RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED Gender
Female
RETRACTED
130 44.2
RETRACTED
RETRACTEDUser RETRACTED
Male
game experience
RETRACTED
171 55.8 RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED 1–3 months RETRACTED
25 8.6 RETRACTED
3–6 months 32 11.1
RETRACTED RETRACTED 6 months–1 years RETRACTED
45 15.1 RETRACTED
1–2 years 126 42.5
RETRACTED RETRACTED 2–3 years RETRACTED
37 12.5 RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED More than 3 years
Other/Missing
RETRACTED
20
7
6.8
2.3
RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED Note. N = 294.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
general approach to dataRETRACTED RETRACTED
analysis known variously as structuralRETRACTED
modeling, analy-
sis of covariance structures, or causal modeling. In addition, AMOS provides a rich
RETRACTED
modeling framework RETRACTED
for theory building and RETRACTED
model testing. RETRACTED
4.1. Measurement Development
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The participants indicated their agreementRETRACTED RETRACTED
with a set of statements, using a 7-
point Likert-type scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) drawn from
previously validated instruments. The measures of perceived benefit, perceived
RETRACTED
convenience, behavioral RETRACTED
intention, and attitudeRETRACTED
were adapted from RETRACTED
previous stud-
ies relating to the TAM model, mainly from Davis (1989). To address the elements
of perceived risk and trust, this study used items by Featherman and Pavlou
RETRACTED
(2003). The measure usedRETRACTED RETRACTED
to assess computer-efficacy was taken RETRACTED
from Schwarzer
(1994). Subjective norm was measured with items from Shin (2008). The final scales
used in this study consisted of 27 items, three items per each factor.
RETRACTED
4.2. Data Analysis RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Discriminant validity using correlation. For discriminate validity, test of
RETRACTED
correlation among the RETRACTED
factors was performed RETRACTED RETRACTED
to test the reciprocal relationship
RETRACTED

among them. Simple Linear Correlation (Pearson r) was used to determine the
RETRACTED
extent to which values RETRACTED
of the variablesRETRACTED
are proportional to RETRACTED
each other. Table 2
RETRACTED
presents a correlation RETRACTED RETRACTED
matrix of the variables. The generally RETRACTED
modest intercorre-
lations among the variables indicate no significant multicollinearity problem.
In addition to the correlation test, Cronbach’s alpha is used to test the internal
RETRACTED
reliability of each of RETRACTED
the composite constructs RETRACTED
(Table 3). Internal RETRACTED
consistency mea-
sures estimate how consistently individuals respond to the items within a scale.
All independent variables show acceptable values (above 0.8) in the Cronbach’s

Table 2: Discriminant Validity RETRACTED
RETRACTED Construct RETRACTED 1 2 RETRACTED
3 4 5 6 RETRACTED
7 8
RETRACTED Perceived risk RETRACTED 0.71 RETRACTED RETRACTED

Perceived benefit 0.25 0.19
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Perceived convenience 0.24 0.18 RETRACTED
0.61 RETRACTED
Social influence 0.63 0.23 0.57 0.62
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Computer-efficacy 0.16 0.24 RETRACTED
0.45 0.71 0.32 RETRACTED
Trust 0.05 0.74 0.14 0.29 0.59 0.32
RETRACTED Intention RETRACTED 0.34 0.15 RETRACTED
0.10 0.29 0.28 0.62RETRACTED
0.43
Attitude 0.42 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.24 0.34 0.61 0.54
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Note. Diagonals
the shared variance.
represent the average RETRACTED RETRACTED
variance extracted. Other entries represent

Table 3: Internal Consistency Reliability
RETRACTED RETRACTED Initial Final
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Measurement Cronbach’s
RETRACTED
Construct RETRACTEDItems Items RETRACTED
M (SD) RETRACTED
Error Alpha
RETRACTED
Perceived benefit RETRACTED 3 3 RETRACTED
5.806
(1.353)
RETRACTED
0.24
0.32
0.8854
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED0.23 RETRACTED

Perceived convenience 3 3 4.131 0.31 0.8898
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED (1.321) RETRACTED
0.19
Perceived risk 5 3 6.171 0.21 0.8291
(1.263) RETRACTED
0.22
RETRACTED
Trust
RETRACTED 4 3
RETRACTED
6.019
RETRACTED
0.18
0.06 0.8972
0.24
0.13
RETRACTED
Social influence RETRACTED 4 3 RETRACTED
6.413 RETRACTED
0.58 0.8091
(1.532) 0.35
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED0.24 RETRACTED
Intention 3 3 5.993 0.85 0.8231
0.31
0.27
RETRACTED
Attitude
RETRACTED 4 3
RETRACTED
5.892
RETRACTED
0.17 0.8831
0.26
0.25
RETRACTED

alpha coefficients which indicate the reliable measures of their respective con-
RETRACTED
structs (Nunnally, 1978). RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Confirmatory analysis: Lisrel measurement model. The goal of using con-
RETRACTED
firmatory factor analysis RETRACTED RETRACTED
is to improve convergent validity. The RETRACTED
items loading
lower
RETRACTEDthan 0.5 from the exploratory factor analysis
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED are dropped for confirmatory
factor analysis. Using the remaining 915 data points from the initial sample, the
RETRACTED
three constructs and RETRACTED
their indicators wereRETRACTED
subjected to confirmation RETRACTEDthrough a
measurement
RETRACTED model in LISREL 8.12 (Joreskog
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED & Sorbom, 1996). This model pro-
vided evidence of trait validity in its component forms of discriminant validity
RETRACTED
and convergent validity RETRACTED
(Peter, 1981). RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Structural model.RETRACTED Structural equationRETRACTED
modeling was usedRETRACTED to analyze the
RETRACTED
data. Structural modeling RETRACTED evaluates whetherRETRACTED RETRACTED
the data fit a theoretical model.
Table 4 shows the estimates from the structural modeling. The overall fit of the
RETRACTED
model is satisfactory, RETRACTED
with all of the relevant RETRACTED
goodness of fit indices RETRACTED
greater than
RETRACTED
0.90. The goodness of RETRACTED RETRACTED
fit index (GFI) is 0.95, the adjusted GFIRETRACTEDis 0.91 and the
Tucker–Lewis index is 0.91. Similarly, there is no evidence of misfit, with the root
RETRACTED
mean square error ofRETRACTEDapproximation (RMSEA) RETRACTED RETRACTED
showing a very satisfactory level
RETRACTED
of 0.067, which compares RETRACTED
favorably to the RETRACTED
benchmarks by Joreskog RETRACTED
and Sorbom
(1996), who suggested that values of 0.06 or more reflect close fit. The standard-
RETRACTED
ized root mean square RETRACTED
residual was also RETRACTED
very good, at 0.027, RETRACTED
well below the
threshold for a good overall fit. Another positive test statistic was the normed
chi-square value (a chi-square divided by degrees of freedom) of 1.98, a value that
RETRACTED
is appropriately below RETRACTED
the benchmark of 3, RETRACTED
to indicate good overall RETRACTED
model perfor-
mance. Given a satisfactory measurement of the model’s fit to the data, the path
coefficients of the structural model were assessed.
RETRACTED Table 4: FitRETRACTED RETRACTED
Indices for the Measurement Model and Structural RETRACTED
Model
RETRACTED RETRACTED Measurement RETRACTED
Structural RETRACTED
Fit Statistics Model Model
RETRACTED
Recommended Value
<5 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)

RETRACTED
Normed chi-square
Average variance extracted
RETRACTED 2.03
0.81
RETRACTED
1.97
—
RETRACTED
>0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
RETRACTED
p
Goodness of fit index
RETRACTED .000
0.93
RETRACTED
.000
0.94
RETRACTED
<.05 (Bentler, 1990)
>0.9 (Kelloway, 1998)
RETRACTED
Standardized root mean RETRACTED 0.012 RETRACTED
0.027 The smallerRETRACTED
the RMR, the
square residual better the fit (Byrne, 2001)
RETRACTED
Tucker–Lewis index RETRACTED 0.90 RETRACTED
0.92 Approaches RETRACTED
1 (Byrne, 2001)
Adjusted goodness of fit index 0.92 0.90 >0.8 (Etezadi-Amoli et al.,
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED 1996) RETRACTED
>0.9 (Loehlin, 1998)
RETRACTED
Root mean square error of
RETRACTED 0.031
RETRACTED
0.068
RETRACTED
>0.06 (Joreskog & Sorbom,
RETRACTED
approximation RETRACTED RETRACTED 1996) RETRACTED
> 0.05 (Byrne, 2001)
RETRACTED

5. RESULTS
RETRACTED
5.1. Structural Paths RETRACTED
and HypothesesRETRACTEDTests RETRACTED
RETRACTED
The final step in modelRETRACTED RETRACTED
estimation is to explore RETRACTED
the path significance of each causal
RETRACTED RETRACTED
relationship for hypotheses and examine RETRACTED
the variance explained RETRACTED
by each path in
the model. The structural parameter estimates and the variance explained are
RETRACTED
described in TableRETRACTED
5. Six hypotheses were RETRACTED
supported and twoRETRACTED were rejected. The
RETRACTED
results are reported RETRACTED
and depicted in Table RETRACTED
5 and in Figure 2. The RETRACTED
overall fit of the
model is acceptable, as the GFI statistics are satisfactory and acceptable. The results
RETRACTED
generally support RETRACTED RETRACTED
the proposed model, illustrating the new roles RETRACTED
of perceived risk
RETRACTED
and trust in MPS RETRACTED
services. The specifiedRETRACTED relationship between RETRACTED
perceived benefit
and attitude was supported by the data, as indicated by a significant critical ratio
RETRACTED
(CR = 2.501). The RETRACTED
CR is a t value obtained RETRACTED
by dividing the estimate RETRACTEDof the covari-
RETRACTED
ance by its standard RETRACTED
error. According toRETRACTEDArbuckle (2005), CRRETRACTED values larger than
1.96 and 2.32 are statistically significant at 0.05 and 0.01, respectively. Convenience
RETRACTED
of MPS may be conduciveRETRACTED RETRACTED
to reaching a higher level of positiveRETRACTED
attitude. Perceived
RETRACTED
risk was the most RETRACTED
important determinant RETRACTED MPS (CR = 4.204).
of user intention forRETRACTED
This reflects the significant effect of trust on user intention (CR = 3.149). On the
RETRACTED
other hand, the effectsRETRACTED of social influence RETRACTED
(CR = 0.391) andRETRACTED computer-efficacy
(CR = 0.043) on use
RETRACTED RETRACTED
intention were not RETRACTED
supported by the results. RETRACTED
There is a sig-
nificant positive relationship between attitude and intention to use and strong
RETRACTED
support for a positive RETRACTED
relationship between RETRACTED
intention to use and RETRACTED
use behavior. The
RETRACTED
results imply that RETRACTED
perceived benefit/convenienceRETRACTED may influence RETRACTED
attitude, which,
in turn, affects customers’ use intention. The enhanced use intention, which then
RETRACTED
again is enhanced RETRACTED
by perceived risk andRETRACTED trust, affects actual use RETRACTED
behavior.
RETRACTED
The research model RETRACTED
indicates that theRETRACTED
variance in MPS usage RETRACTED
explained by the
model is 71%, which is fairly high, given that numerous factors may affect accep-
RETRACTED
tance of, and intentionRETRACTEDto use, the service. RETRACTED
The results show that RETRACTED
the variance in
RETRACTED
individual intentions RETRACTED
toward accepting RETRACTED
the MPS can be explained RETRACTED by the large
proportion of perceived risk and trust, along with a relatively small proportion
Table 5: Summary of Hypothesis Tests
Hypothesis Estimate SE CR Support
RETRACTED RETRACTED ∗RETRACTED RETRACTED
H1: Attitude → Intention 0.415 0.014 2.501∗ Yes
RETRACTED RETRACTED
H2: Intention → Behavior 0.399∗RETRACTED0.103 2.152∗ RETRACTEDYes
H3: PB → Attitude 0.422∗ 0.016 2.113∗ Yes
RETRACTED H4: PC →RETRACTED
Attitude 0.301∗RETRACTED0.091 2.012∗ RETRACTEDYes
H5: PR → Intention 0.630∗∗ 0.438 4.204∗∗ Yes
RETRACTED H6: TrustRETRACTED
→ Intention RETRACTED
0.541∗∗ 0.218 3.149∗∗ RETRACTED
Yes
H7: SI → Intention
RETRACTED RETRACTED
H8: SE → Intention
0.0723
0.035
RETRACTED0.154
0.149
0.391
0.043
RETRACTED
No
No
Note. SE = estimate of the standard error of the covariance; CR = critical
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ratio obtained RETRACTED
by dividing the covariance estimate by its standard
∗ Critical ratios exceeding 1.96, at the .05 level of significance.
RETRACTED
error.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
∗∗ Critical ratios exceeding 2.32, atRETRACTED RETRACTED
the .01 level of significance.

RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED
Perceived RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
benefit Social Perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED norm RETRACTED risk RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED 0.721*
RETRACTED –0.501**
RETRACTED
RETRACTED0.412*
(2.012)
RETRACTED (2.392) 0.621**RETRACTED
(4.013)
(4.568) RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED 0.506** RETRACTED RETRACTED Use
(2.314) Intention
RETRACTEDRAttitude RETRACTED
2
= 0.39
RETRACTED
2
R = 0.72 RETRACTED
0.599** 2
behavior
R = 0.81
(3.011)
RETRACTED
H6 RETRACTED
(1.364)
RETRACTED
0.320*
RETRACTED RETRACTED
0.524**
(3.163)
RETRACTED
0.329* Trust
RETRACTED
(2.212)
(3.153)

(2.043)
RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Perceived RETRACTED Computer
RETRACTED RETRACTED
convenience
RETRACTED RETRACTED efficacy RETRACTED RETRACTED
FIGURE 2 Modified model. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
of social influence and computer-efficacy. Variance in individual attitude toward
RETRACTED
MPS was explained 39% RETRACTED
by perceived benefit RETRACTED
and convenience. RETRACTED
5.2. A Modified Research Model
RETRACTED
It can be inferred thatRETRACTED
there are unexpectedRETRACTEDmoderate relationships RETRACTED
in the model.
It is notable that computer-efficacy and social influence were found to have
RETRACTED
no significant effect RETRACTED
on any of the paths.RETRACTED This is an interesting RETRACTED
characteristic
RETRACTED
of MPS, as most other RETRACTED
technology adoption RETRACTED
models have credited RETRACTEDthe influ-
ence of the computer-efficacy/social influence factor on behavioral intention
RETRACTED
(Agarwal & Karahanna, RETRACTED
2000; Compeau, Higgins, RETRACTED
& Huff, 1999; Shin RETRACTED
& Kim, 2008;
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Venkatesh, 2000). Although this reveals an RETRACTED
important but uncommon RETRACTED
insight for
MPS, this study explores other possibilities. Given the minimal contribution of
RETRACTED
computer-efficacy and RETRACTED
social influence to the RETRACTED RETRACTED
explanation of behavioral attitude
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and intention, their moderating RETRACTED
effect on other variables shouldRETRACTEDbe considered.
It can be reasonably inferred that there are unexpected moderating relation-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ships in the model: between perceived risk RETRACTED
and trust, betweenRETRACTEDperceived risk
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and intention by subjective norm, betweenRETRACTEDperceived convenience RETRACTED
and attitude,
and between intention and usage by computer-efficacy. In addition, given the
RETRACTED
importance of trust in RETRACTED
m-commerce, trust RETRACTEDmay exert moderating RETRACTED
effects on the
relationships betweenRETRACTED
RETRACTED attitude and intention, and between perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED risk and
intention. These roles of trust were tested and confirmed by Fang, Shao, and Lan
RETRACTED
(2009). RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED

This study adopts the product indicator approach proposed by Chin, Marcolin,
RETRACTED
and Newsted (2003) RETRACTED RETRACTED
to measure the moderating effects model.RETRACTED
To see the moder-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ating effects of computer-efficacy, RETRACTED
the effect of computer-efficacy RETRACTED
on intention was
removed. As a result, the degree of the effect of perceived convenience on attitude
RETRACTED RETRACTED
was noticeably lowered. A similar result RETRACTED
was found when social RETRACTED
influence was
RETRACTED
removed from the RETRACTED
model; two path effectRETRACTED
sizes were noticeablyRETRACTED
lowered—the path
of attitude to intention and the path of intention to usage.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
It can be said that RETRACTED
the effects of attitude on intention and RETRACTED
the level of trust
RETRACTED
are influenced by RETRACTED
word of mouth from RETRACTED
users’ peers or other RETRACTED
people. Users tend
to voluntarily spread word of their experiences to peers, who may be reassured
RETRACTED RETRACTED
by their mobile buddies regarding possibleRETRACTED
benefits and risks RETRACTED
with MPS. Because
RETRACTED
MPSs are not widely RETRACTED
known and used even RETRACTED
less in the market,RETRACTED
consumers want
to have others’ opinions about the new system. In the same manner, users’ per-
RETRACTED
ceived convenienceRETRACTED
can be reinforced both RETRACTED RETRACTED
consciously and unconsciously through
RETRACTED RETRACTED
user computer-efficacy. Although previous RETRACTED RETRACTED
studies show the moderating effect of
demographics and individual experience, not many studies have investigated the
RETRACTED
moderating effect RETRACTED
of complicated pathsRETRACTEDamong the observedRETRACTED
factors. However,
RETRACTED
moderation by trust RETRACTED RETRACTED
is insignificant. Consequently, RETRACTED
trust seldom moderates the
relationship between attitude and intention and the relationship between per-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ceived risk and intention. RETRACTED
Trust is posited RETRACTED
to exert direct effects on attitude and
RETRACTED
computer-efficacy,RETRACTED
which demonstrates RETRACTED
that the direct effects RETRACTED
method is superior
to the moderating effects model.
RETRACTED
Accordingly, this RETRACTED
study extends the RETRACTED
proposed research model RETRACTED
to include the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
effects of two interactions RETRACTED
(between trust RETRACTED
and social influence and between
computer-efficacy and perceived convenience) and two direct effects (of trust on
RETRACTED
attitude and of trustRETRACTED
on computer-efficacy). RETRACTED
Trust exerted directRETRACTED
effects, rather than
RETRACTED
moderating effects,RETRACTED RETRACTED
on attitude and computer-efficacy, RETRACTED
which in turn significantly
affected intention. The result was consistent with previous research findings (Fang
RETRACTED RETRACTED
et al., 2009). For the extended model, theRETRACTED
direct and moderating RETRACTED
effects are shown
RETRACTED
in Figure 2. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
The fit indices of the extended research model are reported in Table 6. All
RETRACTED RETRACTED
indices are well above RETRACTED
or below the cut-off points. The current RETRACTED
study found that
RETRACTED
the extended model RETRACTED
has the same major RETRACTED RETRACTED
links as those identified by the pro-
posed research model. The normed chi-square for the extended model was 1.96.
RETRACTED
The AGFI, comparativeRETRACTEDfit index, and RETRACTED
incremental fit indexRETRACTED
values were 0.96,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
0.96, and 0.98, respectively. The normedRETRACTED
fit index and non-normed RETRACTEDfit index val-
ues were 0.89 and 0.95, with the RMSEA at 0.071. These results suggest that the
RETRACTED
measurement model RETRACTED
adequately fits the RETRACTED
data. The notable aspect RETRACTED
of the extended
RETRACTED
model may be thatRETRACTED RETRACTED
the significance of social RETRACTED
influence and attitude on intention
is greatly increased. It appears that the impact of trust on intention to play is
RETRACTED
enhanced throughRETRACTED
social influence, andRETRACTED
in the same manner,RETRACTED
the impact of per-
ceived convenienceRETRACTED
RETRACTED on attitude is increased by the effect of computer-efficacy.
RETRACTED RETRACTED This
finding fits nicely with the significance of the moderating roles of social influence
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and computer-efficacy. These moderating RETRACTED RETRACTED
roles can help to explain the interesting
results regarding the
RETRACTED influence of socialRETRACTED
RETRACTED influence and computer-efficacy
RETRACTED on atti-
tude and behavioral intention in IS research. The results indicate that mobile users
RETRACTED
seriously care about RETRACTED
peer players’ opinionsRETRACTED
when they perceive RETRACTED
risks associated
with m-payment.
RETRACTED

Table 6: Fit Indices for the Extended Model
Fit Statistics Normed Chi-Square p AGFI RMSEA CFI NFI IFI
Structural model 1.96 .000 0.96 0.071 0.96 0.89 0.98
Note. AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of
RETRACTED
approximation; CFI =RETRACTED
comparative fit index; NFIRETRACTED
= normed fit index; IFI =RETRACTED
incremental fit
index.
5.3. Monte Carlo Estimation
RETRACTED
In statistics, Monte Carlo RETRACTED
methods are a class RETRACTED
of computational RETRACTED
algorithms that
rely on repeated random sampling to compute their results (Rubinstein & Kroese,
2007). Monte Carlo methods are useful for modeling phenomena with significant
RETRACTED
uncertainty in inputs,RETRACTED
such as the calculation RETRACTED
of risk in business. ItRETRACTED
is a widely suc-
cessful method in risk analysis when compared to alternative methods or human
intuition. It is also used when a set of observations can be assumed to be from
RETRACTED
an independent and RETRACTEDidentically distributedRETRACTED
population. Monte Carlo RETRACTED
estimation
can be useful here because the responses from the sample might not fit the norm.
When it comes to the m-payment, the U.S. market still has not found the right
RETRACTED
kind of m-payment model RETRACTED (Chen, 2008). In RETRACTED
this study, Monte Carlo RETRACTED
estimation
involving 200 resamples was performed to derive t statistics for the structural
paths, to obtain better statistical significance for the extended research model. The
RETRACTED
path significance and RETRACTED
t-statistics are shown RETRACTED
in Figure 2. This number RETRACTED
of resamples
was sufficient for obtaining adequate parameter estimates (Chin, 2001). Standard
errors for calculating t values are shown in parentheses next to the path coeffi-
RETRACTED
cients. The structural modelRETRACTEDresults from theRETRACTED
extended model provided RETRACTED
reasonable
support for our theoretical model. The analysis explained a moderate-to-large
amount of variance in the endogenous constructs.
6. DISCUSSION
RETRACTED
The primary objectiveRETRACTED RETRACTED
of this study was to examine RETRACTED
consumer acceptance of MPS
in the United
RETRACTED States in the light of the TAM added
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED with new variables derived from
UTAUT. New constructs adapted from relevant prior research were employed to
RETRACTED
reflect the features ofRETRACTED
the m-payment. ThisRETRACTEDstudy concludes that RETRACTED
the TAM may
have only
RETRACTED a limited ability to explain MPS
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED adoption, for several reasons. Most
important, the TAM tends to neglect the social context in which a technology
RETRACTED
is being adopted. ForRETRACTED example, the TAM RETRACTED
does not consider social RETRACTED
influence in
the adoption
RETRACTED of new technologies (Malhotra
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED & Galletta, 1999). Second, the TAM
assumes that there are no barriers to prevent an individual from using a particular
RETRACTED
system if he or she hasRETRACTED RETRACTED
chosen to do so (Mathieson, Peacock, & Chin, RETRACTED
2001). Third,
the TAM tends to assume that there is only a single technology available to users.
Mobile applications can be heavily influenced by contextual factors such as social
RETRACTED
influence, and mobileRETRACTEDservice adoption may RETRACTED
involve complicatedRETRACTED
factors such as
cost. In addition, mobile services are in the midst of fierce competition; it is only
RETRACTED

one of many payment methods (such as online payment, digital cash, etc.), and
RETRACTED
customers have many RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
technological options.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
For these reasons, RETRACTED
this study used an integrated RETRACTED
model combining the TAM and
the UTAUT. The results promise to add to our understanding of users’ attitudes
RETRACTED
and intentions in RETRACTED
m-payment and to clarify RETRACTEDimplications forRETRACTED
the development
RETRACTED RETRACTED
of effective m-payment applications. TheRETRACTED RETRACTED
results of the measurement and struc-
tural model test lend support to the proposed research model. Overall, the results
RETRACTED
show that the modelsRETRACTED
demonstrate good RETRACTED
predictive powers andRETRACTED
explain behavioral
RETRACTED
intentions toward RETRACTED
MPS. RETRACTED RETRACTED
The results showed that consumer acceptance of m-payment were determined
RETRACTED RETRACTED
by the factors in the RETRACTED
model. Perceived benefit RETRACTED
and perceived convenience were the
RETRACTED
original constructsRETRACTED
in TAM, and they have RETRACTED
been found to influence RETRACTED
user acceptance
of technology-enabled products and services by countless prior studies. Thus, it is
RETRACTED RETRACTED
not surprising to find RETRACTED
that they also affect consumer acceptance RETRACTED
of MPS. Instead,
RETRACTED
it is notable to seeRETRACTED
that perceived risk andRETRACTED
trust are the two RETRACTED
main predictors of
intention, which is consistent with several prior research studies. Previous studies
RETRACTED
and industry reportsRETRACTED RETRACTED
have shown that security RETRACTED
concerns are the most important
RETRACTED
factor in m-payment.RETRACTED
The present studyRETRACTED
confirms the importance RETRACTED
of security and
trust, and further shows that security and trust can be enhanced by social influ-
RETRACTED
ence. These findingsRETRACTED RETRACTED
together raise a need RETRACTED
to highlight the customer’s subjective
RETRACTED
viewpoint. As Chen RETRACTED RETRACTED
(2008) argued, the perception of m-paymentRETRACTED
security by the
customer is one major factor for the market breakthrough of the system. Although
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the issue of security RETRACTED
has emerged as a major RETRACTED
inhibitor of m-payment acceptance,
RETRACTED
the research on thisRETRACTED RETRACTED
issue is quite rare to date, especially from theRETRACTED
viewpoint of cus-
tomers. The current study approached the issue from an empirical perspective in
RETRACTED
order to come to a RETRACTED
better understanding of RETRACTED
the concept of mobile RETRACTED
security. Security
RETRACTED RETRACTED
issues related to MPS are a major sourceRETRACTED RETRACTED
of concerns from consumers and will
negatively affect adoption through increased security fear. The growing concerns
RETRACTED RETRACTED
regarding issues such RETRACTED
as identity theft and hacking are likely toRETRACTED
make consumers
RETRACTED
think twice beforeRETRACTED
adopting an unfamiliar RETRACTED
payment option whose RETRACTED
security issues
have not been fully addressed (Linck et al., 2006). It sheds light on the basic distinc-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tion between the dimensions of objectiveRETRACTED
and subjective security. RETRACTED
In this study, the
RETRACTED RETRACTED
users’ subjective norm, RETRACTED
based on social influence, shows a much RETRACTED
stronger impact
on intention than previous studies on mobile use have indicated (Dahlberg &
RETRACTED
Öörni, 2007; LinckRETRACTED RETRACTED
et al., 2006). This suggests that MPS usersRETRACTED
are influenced by
RETRACTED
their peers in theirRETRACTED
decisions to use than RETRACTED RETRACTED
other mobile application users. Given
the early stage of MPS, customers may want a subjective norm, which increases
RETRACTED RETRACTED
their intention to adopt and use. JudgedRETRACTED
from the high level ofRETRACTED
its effect on inten-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tion, social influence plays a significantRETRACTED RETRACTED
role in moderating perceived risk, and
together, the two coinfluence intention, acting as a direct reinforcement. In sum,
RETRACTED
the extended model RETRACTED RETRACTED
sheds light on the vital RETRACTED
role of social influence in the adoption
process.
The findings indirectly support previous research on trust, because users
RETRACTED RETRACTED
reported that the reliability of system andRETRACTED
user confidence wereRETRACTED
important for their
intention to use anRETRACTED
RETRACTED MPS. Previous studies, however, addressedRETRACTED
RETRACTED neither the relation
between intrinsic motivation and trust nor the possible underlying effects of sub-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
jective norm and perceived risk on other RETRACTED
motivational variables. RETRACTED
From a theoretical
RETRACTED

perspective, the findings on trust add to the understanding of multidimensional
RETRACTED
construct of trust. ShinRETRACTED
(2007) suggested that RETRACTED
future research needs RETRACTED
to understand
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the link between the possible RETRACTED
moderating effects RETRACTED
of trust and other variables.
In response to this call for research, the findings in the current study find a
RETRACTED RETRACTED
significant role for perceived RETRACTED
risk and its underlying RETRACTED
linkage to other variables—
RETRACTED RETRACTED
namely, how it is related to usage, subjectiveRETRACTED
norm, and possiblyRETRACTED
mobile system
self-efficacy. This finding constitutes a theoretical improvement for the TAM. As
RETRACTED
antecedent variables, RETRACTED
the roles of trust andRETRACTED RETRACTED
security are important, because one
RETRACTED
of the limitations of RETRACTED
the TAM is that it does RETRACTED RETRACTED
not help us to explain acceptance
in ways that guide development, beyond suggesting that system characteristics
RETRACTED RETRACTED
have an impact on perceptions RETRACTED
of convenience RETRACTED
and benefit. Therefore, it is essen-
RETRACTED
tial to understand theRETRACTED
antecedents of the key RETRACTED
TAM variables to beRETRACTED
able to explain
individuals’ acceptance and use.
7. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE
RETRACTED RETRACTED
The results of this study RETRACTED
have several implications RETRACTED
for researchers as well as for
the MPS industry. From a theoretical standpoint, the results contribute to the exist-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
ing literature in a number RETRACTED
of ways. The empirical findings proveRETRACTED
that employing
RETRACTED
perceived risk and trustRETRACTED RETRACTED
would be a worthwhile extension of RETRACTED
the TAM in the
mobile transaction context, as both were found to be influential in predicting atti-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tude and behavioral intention RETRACTED
to use an m-payment. RETRACTED
Although plentiful studies
RETRACTED RETRACTED
are presented in the mobile literature, few RETRACTED
have used integratedRETRACTED
models of trust
and security, or methods to assess these factors. Prior research on mobile adoption
RETRACTED
examined the impactRETRACTED RETRACTED
of trust, flow, and subjective RETRACTED
norm on adopting intentions
RETRACTED
for mobile transactions,RETRACTED
assuming that trust RETRACTED RETRACTED
in MPS and the subjective norm of
m-payment would have an effect on intention to use the service (i.e., Chen, 2008;
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Dahlberg, Mallat, & Öörni, 2003). However, RETRACTED
previous studies haveRETRACTED
neglected to
RETRACTED RETRACTED
investigate the relationship of security to RETRACTED RETRACTED
other factors of subjective norm. The
present study shows that perceived risk, as a variation of trust and subjective
RETRACTED
norm, exerts important RETRACTED
influences on users’RETRACTED
intentions, as well asRETRACTED
on their usage
RETRACTED
behavior. Behavioral RETRACTED
intention can be viewed RETRACTED
as an individual’s RETRACTED
underlying atti-
tude, which ultimately determines behavioral intentions via attitude. Thus, this
RETRACTED
study contributes to theRETRACTED RETRACTED
literature on the UTAUT and the TAM byRETRACTED
confirming that
perceived risk, as a salient
RETRACTED belief, can influence
RETRACTED behavioral intention
RETRACTED and loyalty
RETRACTED
through attitude.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Practical implications for industry can beRETRACTED RETRACTED
drawn from these findings, in terms
of strategies and newRETRACTED
RETRACTED models for m-payment services. The studyRETRACTED
RETRACTED found that con-
sumers are more likely to adopt m-payment if they believe that it is convenient to
RETRACTED
use. This suggests that RETRACTED
MPS devices shouldRETRACTED RETRACTED
be well designed so that the payment
procedure is straightforward
RETRACTED RETRACTED and easy to execute.
RETRACTEDPayment screens must be easy
RETRACTED
to understand and navigate. The number of steps involved in the process should
RETRACTED
be minimized to reduce RETRACTED RETRACTED
complexity, and adequate feedback to theRETRACTED
user regarding
the status of the transaction is also
RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED helpful to avoid any confusion.
In addition, based on findings of the importance of customers’ perceived
RETRACTED RETRACTED
risk, vendors should implement RETRACTED
security tools. RETRACTED
Mobile trust mechanisms, such as
RETRACTED

payment credentials, trust negotiation systems, and a trusted third-party system,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
are necessary to increase RETRACTED
users’ perceived RETRACTED
risk. All forms of mobile transactions
RETRACTED RETRACTED
will involve the electronic exchange ofRETRACTED RETRACTED
smart card and financial information.
Security for this information exchange is critical. In particular, in mobile transac-
RETRACTED
tions enabled andRETRACTED
facilitated by mobileRETRACTED RETRACTED
agent technologies, shared trust among
RETRACTED
customers clearly RETRACTED
has the potential to RETRACTED
catalyze a powerful RETRACTED
means of commu-
nication and transactions. Once security concerns are resolved, transactions via
RETRACTED
m-payment will becomeRETRACTED RETRACTED
as secure as those RETRACTED
in traditional physical banks.
RETRACTED
The finding thatRETRACTED RETRACTED
security impacts behavioral RETRACTED
intention through attitude indi-
cates that vendors should establish user trust in MPS security by ensuring that
RETRACTED RETRACTED
their services are conducted RETRACTED
in accordance RETRACTED
with users’ expectations—namely, that
RETRACTED
their services are RETRACTED RETRACTED
reliable, and that promises and commitmentsRETRACTED
are kept. MPS
providers must focus on the four components of mobile security outlined by
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Chen (2008): authentication, RETRACTED
confidentiality, non-repudiation,RETRACTED
and data integrity
RETRACTED
to provide a securityRETRACTED RETRACTED
transaction environment. Future m-paymentRETRACTED
devices should
incorporate more sophisticated schemes of authentification and confidentiality to
RETRACTED
protect the ownersRETRACTED
of payment devices. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
In sum, the outcome RETRACTED
of the study is an empirically devisedRETRACTED
set of dimensions,
categories, and aspects that is suitable to serve as a basis for the selection of appro-
RETRACTED
priate indicators forRETRACTED RETRACTED
further empirical studies. Future studiesRETRACTED
can use them for
RETRACTED RETRACTED
further study to examine RETRACTED
the influence of RETRACTED
the subjective security on the intention
to use MPS. Furthermore, the results can give recommendations for m-payment
RETRACTED
service providers RETRACTED RETRACTED
to prevent security concerns RETRACTED
through appropriate design and
RETRACTED
communication of RETRACTED
the payment procedures RETRACTED RETRACTED
and to convince customers of the secu-
rity of their m-payment by meeting their concerns in informative advertising. The
RETRACTED RETRACTED
findings of this study will be especiallyRETRACTED RETRACTED
useful for mobile industry interested in
RETRACTED
increasing averageRETRACTED RETRACTED
revenue per user through m-payments and RETRACTED
merchants who
wish to provide MPS to their customers.
8. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDIES
RETRACTED
Just as other studiesRETRACTED RETRACTED
using statistical methods, RETRACTED
this study bears weaknesses of
reflecting only limited aspects of user experiences on m-payment services. First,
RETRACTED
the findings reflectRETRACTED
only limited aspectsRETRACTED RETRACTED
of user experiences with MPS. Because
RETRACTED
m-payments are not RETRACTED RETRACTED
a mainstream phenomenon RETRACTED
yet in the United States (Chen,
2008), this research is exploratory. These circumstances lead to a limited general-
RETRACTED
izability. Related toRETRACTED RETRACTED
this issue, the user sample RETRACTED
is a major drawback of the present
RETRACTED
study as the sample RETRACTED
drew only from the RETRACTED
U.S. mobile market. RETRACTED
Thus, it possibly
biased the findings and more research with other countries’ samples is needed
RETRACTED RETRACTED
to validate the current RETRACTED
results and provide pivotal implicationsRETRACTED
for future mobile
RETRACTED
services. Customers’ RETRACTED
value perceptions RETRACTED
and their influence on RETRACTED
commitment and
behavior may differ in different cultures, and results indicating the weights of
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the influence of different RETRACTED
value dimensions RETRACTED
should be interpreted cautionary. The
adoption and implementation
RETRACTED RETRACTED of m-payments using these technologies
RETRACTED RETRACTED have been
uneven in different countries. For instance, m-payments have been very success-
RETRACTED
ful in countries suchRETRACTED
as Japan and SouthRETRACTED
Korea but not in theRETRACTED
United States. The
RETRACTED

current state of global m-payment adoption leaves us with an interesting question:
RETRACTED
“What are the factorsRETRACTED RETRACTED
that account for different RETRACTED
patterns of adoption of mobile
RETRACTED
payments in differentRETRACTEDcountries?” Future RETRACTED
studies can investigate RETRACTED
this research
question.
RETRACTED
In addition, this study RETRACTED RETRACTED
did not include individual differences asRETRACTED
factors in MPS
RETRACTED RETRACTED
acceptance (e.g., demographics, RETRACTED
user experience, RETRACTED
personal innovativeness, etc.).
Given a significant increase variance of usage in many studies, it may be essen-
RETRACTED
tial to include individual RETRACTED
variables. A closer RETRACTED RETRACTED
inspection of individual differences
RETRACTED RETRACTED
and their direct and indirect effects on MPS RETRACTED
acceptance offers rich RETRACTED
opportunities
for future research.
RETRACTED
Finally, expandingRETRACTED
the behavioral findings RETRACTED
of this study, futureRETRACTED
studies may
RETRACTED RETRACTED
utilize physiological measures RETRACTED
in the evaluation of user attitudesRETRACTED
in transacting
MPS. It is worthwhile to test the efficacy of physiological measure as evaluators
RETRACTED
of collaborative user RETRACTED
experience with playRETRACTED
technologies. AddressingRETRACTED the ques-
RETRACTED
tion of whether there RETRACTED RETRACTED
is a different physiological response in the RETRACTED
user body when
using different MPS services will be an interesting, meaningful extension of this
RETRACTED
study. The findings in RETRACTED
this study provide RETRACTED
an initial step toward RETRACTED
using physio-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
logical responses to objectively identify a RETRACTED
user’s experience with RETRACTED
collaborative
play technology. Because this article reports an exploratory attempt to tailor the
RETRACTED
TAM/UTAUT research RETRACTED
process specifically RETRACTED
to the emerging wireless RETRACTED
payment ser-
RETRACTED
vices, future research thatRETRACTED
applies these resultsRETRACTED
in theoretical models RETRACTED
making use of
m-payment user constructs can demonstrate a wider generality. Only a few stud-
RETRACTED
ies have considered aRETRACTED
variety of underlyingRETRACTED
factors that explain RETRACTED
why consumers
RETRACTED
use or do not use MPS. RETRACTED
Further research toRETRACTED RETRACTED
refine and better qualify the factors
found in this study is needed.
RETRACTED
REFERENCES RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, RETRACTED RETRACTED
E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having RETRACTED
fun: Cognitive
RETRACTED
absorption and beliefsRETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
RETRACTED
Englewood Cliffs, NJ:RETRACTED
Prentice-Hall. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos TM 6.0 User’s Guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
RETRACTED
Au, Y. A., & Kauffman,RETRACTED RETRACTED
R. J. (2007). The economics of mobile payments: RETRACTED
understanding
RETRACTED
stakeholder issues forRETRACTED RETRACTED
an emerging financial technology RETRACTED
application. Electronic Commerce
Research and Applications, 7, 141–164.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation ofRETRACTED RETRACTED
structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: WH Freeman.
RETRACTED
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, RETRACTED RETRACTED
D. A. (1986). The moderator RETRACTED
mediator variable distinction in social
Psychological research, conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
RETRACTED
Personality and Social RETRACTED
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.RETRACTED RETRACTED
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107,
RETRACTED
238–246.
RETRACTED
Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, RETRACTED
V. (2005). Model of RETRACTED
adoption of technologyRETRACTED
in households: A
baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29,
RETRACTED
399–426. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL:
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Comparative approaches to testing for theRETRACTED RETRACTED
factorial validity of a measuring instrument.
RETRACTED
International RETRACTED
Journal of Testing, 1, 55–86. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Chen, L. (2008). A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. International Journal
RETRACTED RETRACTED
of Mobile Communications, 6, 32–52 RETRACTED RETRACTED
Cheong, J., Cheol, M., & Hwang, J. (2002, September 21). Mobile payment adoption in
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Korea. ITS 15th Biennial Conference, 11–23. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Chin, W. W. (2001). PLS-Graph RETRACTED
User’s Guide, Version 3.0. Houston, Texas:RETRACTED
Soft Modeling Inc.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable mod-
RETRACTED
eling approach for RETRACTED
measuring interactionRETRACTED RETRACTED
effects. Information Systems Research, 14 (2),
189–217.
Chou, Y., Lee, C.-W. & Chung, J. (2004). Understanding m-commerce payment systems
RETRACTED
through the analyticRETRACTED RETRACTED
hierarchy process. Journal of Business Research,RETRACTED
57, 1423–1430.
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual
RETRACTED RETRACTED
reactions to computing RETRACTED
technology. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145–158. RETRACTED
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J., & Zmijewska, A. (2008). Past, present and future
of mobile payments research: A literature review. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 7, 165–181.
Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., & Öörni, A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of mobile payment
RETRACTED RETRACTED
solutions. Proceeding RETRACTED
of the International Conference RETRACTED
on Mobile Business, 211–218.
Dahlberg, T., & Öörni, A. (2007). Understanding changes in consumer payment habits—
Do mobile payments and electronic invoices attract consumers? 40th Hawaii International
RETRACTED
Conference on SystemRETRACTED
Sciences. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
RETRACTED RETRACTED
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13,RETRACTED
319–340. RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Dewan, S., & Chen, RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
L. (2005).
Privacy and Security, 1, 4–28.
Mobile payment adoption in the US. Journal of Information
RETRACTED
Etezadi-Amoli, J., & RETRACTED
Farhoomand, A. F. (1996). RETRACTED
A structural model ofRETRACTED
end user computing
satisfaction and user performance. Information and Management, 30, 65–73.
RETRACTED
Fang, J., Shao, P., &RETRACTED
Lan, G. (2009). EffectsRETRACTED
of innovativeness and RETRACTED
trust on web survey
participation. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 144–152.
Featherman, M., & Pavlou, P. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets
RETRACTED RETRACTED
perspective. International RETRACTED
Journal of Human-Computer RETRACTED
Studies, 59, 451–474.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
RETRACTED
Fornell, C., & Larcker,RETRACTED
V. F. (1981). Evaluating RETRACTED
structural equation models RETRACTED
with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
RETRACTED
Gartner Research Firm. RETRACTED
(2009, April 27). MobileRETRACTED RETRACTED
Payment, 2007-2012 (Dataquest Insight, ID
Number G00167197).
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2004). Consumer trust in B2C e-commerce and the importance
RETRACTED
of social presence.RETRACTED
Omega, 32, 407–424. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Gerpott, T., & Kornmeier, K. (2009). Determinants of customer acceptance of mobile
RETRACTED
payment systems.RETRACTED RETRACTED
International Journal of Electronic RETRACTED
Finance, 3(1), 1–30.
Herzberg, A. (2003). Payments and banking with mobile personal devices. Communications
of the ACM, 46, 53–58.
RETRACTED
Ho, H., Fong, S., & RETRACTED
Yan, Z. (2008, October).RETRACTED
User acceptance testing RETRACTED
of mobile payment
in various scenarios. ICEBE ‘08. IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering,
RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Hsu, C., & Lu, H. RETRACTED
(2007). Consumer behaviorRETRACTED
in online game communities:
factor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1642–1659.
RETRACTED
A motivational

RETRACTED

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: Users’ Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific
RETRACTED
Software International.RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). RETRACTED
Using
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
RETRACTED
LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A RETRACTED
Researcher’s Guide.
RETRACTED
Lee, M. C. (2009). FactorsRETRACTED
influencing the adoptionRETRACTED
of internet banking: RETRACTED
An integration of
TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 8, 130–141.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Linck, K., Pousttchi, K., & Wiedemann, D. G. (2006). RETRACTED RETRACTED
Security issues in mobile payment from
the customer viewpoint. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems
RETRACTED
(ECIS 2006), 11–19. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
Liu, C., Marchewka, J., Lu, J., & Yu, C. (2005). Beyond concern: a privacy-trust-behavioral
intention model of electronic commerce. Information & Management, 41, 289–304.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Loehlin, J. C. (1998). Latent variables models: AnRETRACTED RETRACTED
introduction to factor, path, and structural
analysis (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
RETRACTED
Lucas, H. C., & Spitler,RETRACTED RETRACTED
V. K. (2000). Implementation in a world of RETRACTED
workstations and
networks. Information & Management, 38, 119–128
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. (1999, January). Extending the technology acceptance model to
RETRACTED RETRACTED
account for social influence: Theoretical basesRETRACTED
and empirical validation. RETRACTED
Proceedings of the
32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.
RETRACTED
Mallat, N., Rossi, M., & RETRACTED
Tuunainen, V. K. (2004).RETRACTED
Mobile banking services. RETRACTED
Communications
of the ACM, 47, 42–46.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model:
RETRACTED RETRACTED
the influence of perceived RETRACTED
user resources. The Data Base for Advances RETRACTED
in Information
Systems, 32, 86–112.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacma, C.RETRACTED
(2002). Developing and RETRACTED
validating trust
RETRACTED
measures
334–359.
for RETRACTED
e-commerce: An integrative RETRACTED
typology. Information RETRACTED
Systems Research, 13,
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Misra, S., & Wickamasinghe, N. (2004). SecurityRETRACTED
of a mobile transaction: RETRACTED
a trust model.
Electronic Commerce Research, 4, 359–372.
RETRACTED
Miyazaki, A., & Fernandez,RETRACTED
A. (2001). Consumer RETRACTED
perceptions of privacyRETRACTED
and security risk
for online shopping. The Journal of Consumer Affair, 35, 27–44.
Nijite, D., & Parsa, H.G. (2005). Structural equation modeling of factors that influence
RETRACTED RETRACTED
consumer internet purchase RETRACTED
intentions of services. RETRACTED
Journal of Services Research, 5, 43–59.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, H., Thorbjornsen, H., & Berthon, P. (2005). Mobilizing the brand.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Journal of Service Research, 7, 257–276. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with institution-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1),RETRACTED
37–59. RETRACTED
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: a review of basic issues and marketing practices.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133–145.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Pousttchi, K. (2003). Conditions RETRACTED
for acceptance and usage of mobile paymentRETRACTED
procedures.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business, 201–210.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Rubinstein, R. Y., & Kroese, RETRACTED
D. P. (2007). Simulation and the Monte Carlo RETRACTED
Method (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley & Sons.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions:
RETRACTED
A systematic overview. RETRACTED
Psychology and Health:RETRACTED
An International Journal,RETRACTED
9, 161–180.
Shin, D. (2007). User acceptance of mobile Internet: Implication for convergence technolo-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
gies. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 45–59. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED
Shin, D. (2008). RETRACTEDbehaviors
Understanding purchasing RETRACTED RETRACTED
in virtual economy:
behavior of virtual currency in Web2.0 communities. Interacting with Computers, 20,
Consumer
RETRACTED
RETRACTED

Shin, D., & Kim, W. (2008). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and Flow Theory
RETRACTED RETRACTED
to Cyworld user behavior. CyberPsychologyRETRACTED RETRACTED
and Behavior, 11(4), 12–20.
RETRACTED
Siau, K., & Shen, Z. RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED
(2003).
the ACM, 46(4), 91–94.
Building customer trust in mobile commerce. Communications of
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Teo, E., Fraunholz, B., & Unnithan, C. (2005, RETRACTED RETRACTED
July). Inhibitors and facilitators for mobile
payment adoption in Australia: A preliminary study. Proceedings of the International
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Conference on Mobile Payments, 663–666. RETRACTED RETRACTED
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Teo, T., & Pok, S. (2003).
Omega, 31, 483–498.
RETRACTED
Adoption of WAP-enabled RETRACTED
mobile phones among Internet users,
RETRACTED
van der Kar, E., & vanRETRACTED RETRACTED
der Duin, P. (2004, January). RETRACTED
Dealing with uncertainties in build-
ing scenarios for the development of mobile services. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.
RETRACTED RETRACTED
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). WhyRETRACTED
don’t men ever stop to RETRACTED
ask for directions?
Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior.
RETRACTED
MIS Quarterly, 24,RETRACTED
115–139. RETRACTED RETRACTED
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 3, 425–478.
RETRACTED
Viehland, D., & Leong,RETRACTED
R. (2007, December).RETRACTED
Acceptance and use RETRACTED
of mobile payments.
18th Australasian Conference on Information Systems Acceptance and Use of M-Payments.
Toowoomba, Australia.
Wu, Y., Tao, Y., & Yang, P. (2007). Using UTAUT to explore the behavior of 3G mobile com-
munication users. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, 2, 199–203.
Zmijewska, A. (2005, July). Evaluating wireless technologies in mobile payments: A cus-
RETRACTED RETRACTED
tomer centric approach. Proceedings of theRETRACTED
International ConferenceRETRACTED
on Mobile Payments,
354–362.


Shin 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Shin 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shin 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [TCU Texas Christian University]

On: 09 December 2014, At: 18:36

International Journal of Human-

Modeling the Interaction of Users and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.502098

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTEDCharacteristic RETRACTED RETRACTED No. % RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED College RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED Perceived risk RETRACTED 0.71 RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED0.23 RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

<5 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988)

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED 0.221*

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED RETRACTED

You might also like