PGDT Article p123 - 2

Perspectives on Global Development PERSPECTIVES
ON GLOBAL
DEVELOPMENT
and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151 AND
TEC HNOLOGY
brill.com/pgdt
M-Wallet Adoption in Emerging Markets:

A Combination of Technological, Behavioral and
Financial Aspects in a Rational Choice Model
Long Hoang Le
International Economics Faculty, Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Corresponding Author
longlh@buh.edu.vn
Giang Huong Duong

Faculty of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh City Open University,
giang.dh@ou.edu.vn
Sang Minh Nguyen

International Economics Faculty, Banking University of Ho Chi Minh City,
sangnm@buh.edu.vn
Abstract
The adoption of mobile wallets can help to advance financial inclusion and human
development in emerging countries. Current literature on mobile wallet (m-wallet)
adoption focuses on technological and behavioral aspects, but neglects the financial
aspect, which highly influences the decision-making of low-income people. This study
identified the impacts of all three aspects on m-wallet adoption behavior by including
behavioral technology acceptance factors and financial-related factors into a research
framework derived from rational choice theory. Drawing data from 214 respondents
across four emerging countries, the findings reveal the positive effects of perceived
ease of use, perceived usefulness, and network externalities on m-wallet adopting
intention. Regarding financial factors, while perceived risk negatively affects adopt-
ing intention, the effect of price value on adopting intention is not confirmed. Finally,
financial literacy is found to have both positively direct and moderating effects on the
relationship of perceived risk and users’ adopting intention.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/15691497-12341621

Downloaded from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
via London School of Economics
124 Le, Duong and Nguyen
Keywords
emerging markets – financial literacy – ICT adoption – mobile wallet – rational choice
theory
1 Introduction
Mobile wallet (m-wallet) refers to “a technology that needs to be installed in the

smartphone and allows customers to store money and do online transactions
directly from the wallet whereas QR [Quick Response] code works through a
few banking apps, store apps to integrate debit/credit card details” (Singh et al.
2020:191). In other words, m-wallet can be understood as “the digital equiva-
lent of a physical wallet” (Chawla and Joshi 2019:1590), thus, m-wallet can be
used widely in both online and offline transactions, including transactions
from various stakeholders such as consumer-to-consumer, consumer-to-bank,
consumer-to-business, consumer-to-online, and consumer-to-machine trans-
actions (Chawla and Joshi 2019; Grover and Kar 2020; Shin 2009). M-wallet has
been one of the recent fintech innovations which facilitates cashless payment
and financial inclusion, which in turn helps to advance sustainable develop-
ment (Sarma and Pais 2011). M-wallet adoption enables economic development
by broadening the person’s capability in terms of financial services (Sen 1988).
For example, consumers can bring their mobile phones to carry out any pay-
ment service at any time (Singh et al. 2020). M-wallet adoption also helps
businesses to save the costs and risks of holding money, and increases transac-
tion efficiency. The booming of m-wallet has been urged by the development of
mobile usage and social commerce. For example, a report by Kemp (2020) indi-
cated that there were 5.19 billion mobile phone users and 4.54 billion Internet
users on a global scale in January 2020. In line with this trend, the number of
m-wallet users reached 2.07 billion in 2019, increasing rapidly in comparison
with 1.6 billion m-wallet users in 2017 (GATE 2019). This report also revealed
that China has been the largest market for m-wallet with a 56 percent market
share. In the model of three phases of m-wallet engagement, the integration of
m-wallet to businesses requires the awareness and levels of customer engage-
ment (Kumar et al. 2019), which means when users become more familiar
with m-wallet, the more complex and higher integrated m-wallet to businesses
will be introduced. For example, in phase one, m-wallet is used as a payment
option during an online transaction; in phase two, m-wallet can be used at
the offline store via NFC and QR, whereas personal data of customers can be
integrated with their m-wallet account to offer personalized information; and
Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

M-Wallet Adoption in Emerging Markets 125
in phase three, m-wallet can be highly integrated as a marketing tool based

on the customer data (Ibid). In short, compared to other types of payment
such as in cash, via card, Internet banking, and mobile banking, m-wallet has
several advantages. First, m-wallet can be considered as an all-in-one payment
method when it can integrate with several banking accounts in one wallet.
Second, as mentioned above, m-wallet can be used for various transactions
from online to offline deals, with various stakeholders. Lastly, m-wallet has the
potential to be highly integrated with users’ data and merchants’ businesses,
which will provide personalized offers to customers.
M-wallet adoption has been confirmed to have significant impacts on cash-
less strategy and financial inclusion, which lead to socio-economic and human
development. From the government’s perspective, m-wallet adoption helps to
facilitate the future of a cashless society (Grover and Kar 2020). M-wallet has
been launched as one of the substitutions for cash in several countries such
as India (Chatterjee and Bolar 2019; Pal et al. 2020; Patil et al. 2020) and China
(Mombeuil 2020). Cashless payments can bring merits to many types of stake-
holders, for example, helping governments monitor tax collection effectively,
supporting central banks to record financial activities, reducing the costs and
risks of money storing for businesses (Sivabalan 2017), and enabling the poor
and people in isolated regions to access financial services (e.g., payments,
loans) (Qureshi and Najjar 2017; Sivabalan 2017).
M-wallet adoption also supports development via financial inclusion.
Financial inclusion refers to “a process that ensures the ease of access, availabil-
ity, and usage of the formal financial system for all members of an economy”
(Sarma and Pais 2011). Accordingly, financial inclusion aims to expand the
range of a person’s capability in terms of financial services, which was in-line
with the concept of economic development proposed by Sen (1988). Empirical
study also indicated that financial inclusion can positively influence develop-
ment indicators, i.e., improve income, literacy, and urbanization and reduce
regional inequality (Sarma and Pais 2011). By adopting m-wallet, financial
inclusion can contribute to the development of developing countries (Potnis
et al. 2020). At the micro-level, m-wallet unlocks and enhances financial
inclusion through its convenience, agility, and acceptance in many daily trans-
actions (Singh et al. 2020). At the macro level, the positive impact of financial
inclusion on economic growth, moderated by mobile penetration, has been
demonstrated across countries (Chatterjee 2020).
The adoption of new information communications technology (ICT) in the
form of m-wallet has attracted abundant academics and practical businesses.
Regarding the research stream of mobile payment adoption (i.e., including
mobile banking, mobile wallet, near-field communication payment, and quick
Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
response code payment), most of the previous studies focused on the tech-
nological and behavioral aspects of the adoption behavior. Specifically, past
studies pointed out that m-wallets have been adopted because of their con-
venience and quick and useful applications (Singh et al. 2020). Accordingly,
most of the past studies applied the technology adoption framework to justify
the adoption behavior, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) and
its extension (e.g., Alalwan et al. 2016; Hanafizadeh et al. 2014; Kesharwani
and Bisht 2012; Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Mehrad and Mohammadi 2017;
Mohammadi 2015); unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) and its extension (e.g., Afshan and Sharif 2016; Alalwan et al. 2017);
and diffusion of innovation (Montazemi and Qahri-Saremi 2015). Other stud-
ies examined the behavioral aspect of technology adoption, for example,
trust and lifestyle (e.g., Boateng et al. 2016) and trust (e.g., Malaquias and
Hwang 2016). In short, most of the current studies were successful in inves-
tigating the technical and behavioral aspects of mobile payment adoption.
However, we argue that the adoption of mobile payment in general, and
specifically m-wallet, is the result of a combination of three aspects, such as
technological, behavioral, and financial aspects. As a measure of payment, the
financial aspect is likely to be the most crucial factor that influences adop-
tion behavior. A few recent studies have considered this aspect, including
financial risks (Giovanis et al. 2019), but there is still a lack of reasonable jus-
tification for the negative effects of financial risks on adoption behavior, and
what factors can alleviate these negative effects, then facilitate the popularity
of m-wallet.
Another worthy note is that numerous studies have selected emerging mar-
kets as the context of m-wallet adoption, for example, Iran (Hanafizadeh et al.
2014; Mohammadi 2015), Pakistan (Afshan and Sharif 2016), Jordan (Alalwan
et al. 2016, 2017), India (Chawla and Joshi 2019; Kesharwani and Bisht 2012;
Pal et al. 2020; Patil et al. 2020; Singh et al. 2020), and South Africa (Matemba
and Li 2018). However, the specifications of the emerging country have not
been included in the related literature. The technology adoption in the emerg-
ing should face the problems of under-development of both technological
infrastructure (Kumar et al. 2019; Pal et al. 2020) and financial infrastructure
(Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Rutledge 2010). However, despite these hinders,
the growth of m-wallet in some emerging markets has been faster than in
developed markets (Kumar et al. 2019), for example, 65 percent usage rate of
mobile payment in Turkey as compared to 25 percent usage rate of mobile pay-
ment in Germany in 2019 (Beutin and Harmsen 2019); 58 percent of mobile
payments were carried out via m-wallet in China as compared to eight per-
cent in the US in 2016 (Kumar et al. 2019). The raising question that what

factors enable m-wallet adoption in the emerging market, therefore, is pro-

foundly interesting. This study argues that the popular adoption of m-wallet
in emerging markets can be facilitated by several factors of technological
and behavioral aspects, but be constrained by perceived risks from the low
level of technological and financial infrastructure. However, these negative
impacts of perceived risks might be lessened thanks to the effects of financial
literacy, which varies across individuals but does not differ across developed
and developing countries (Rutledge 2010).
This study, therefore, targets three research questions: (1) what are the
determinants (i.e., including technological, behavioral, and financial factors)
of intention to use m-wallet in the context of emerging markets?; (2) does per-
ceived constraint (i.e., perceived risk) reduce the intention to use m-wallet?;
and (3) does financial literacy moderate the relationship between perceived
risks and m-wallet adoption behavior?
Addressing these questions might contribute to both theoretical and practi-
cal knowledge. Theoretically, this study expects to provide a comprehensive
model that covers all three aspects of m-wallet adoption in the emerging mar-
ket (i.e., technological, behavioral, and financial aspects). Specifically, drawing
on the literature with technology adoption models, this study further investi-
gates the roles of financial aspects (i.e., price value, perceived risks, and financial
literacy) to justify the popularity of m-wallet usage in the emerging market.
Practically, the above research questions deserve attention because they will
address the biggest problem of ICT adoption and financial marketing – how to
deliver fintech innovations to low-income customers in emerging markets. By
discovering the determinants of adoption usage and the moderating effects of
financial literacy, this study expects to help to facilitate the usage of m-wallet,
enabling a cashless society and financial inclusion in emerging markets.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Literature on M-Wallet Adoption in the Emerging Markets

The systematic review of mobile wallet adoption highlighted several key
points (see Appendix). First, as the new fintech innovation service, m-wallet
has attracted the interests of academics in recent years with the increasing
number of endeavors working on the adoption as well as the continuance of
m-wallet. Second, the adoption of m-wallet is likely to differ across countries,
therefore, the country context of the study on m-wallet is crucial. Most of the
current studies have concerned m-wallet adoption in emerging countries, for
example, China (Mombeuil 2020), India (Chawla and Joshi 2019; Gupta et al.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
2020; Kaur et al. 2020; Kesharwani and Bisht 2012; Pal et al. 2020; Patil et al. 2020;
Singh et al. 2020; Talwar et al. 2020), Brazil (Malaquias and Hwang 2016, 2019),
Ghana (Boateng et al. 2016), Iran (Hanafizadeh et al. 2014; Mohammadi 2015),
Pakistan (Afshan and Sharif 2016), Jordan (Alalwan et al. 2016, 2017), and
South Africa (Matemba and Li 2018). Only a few studies have investigated the
determinants of m-wallet adoption in developed countries (e.g., Shaw 2014;
Amoroso and Magnier-Watanabe 2012). The focus of the scholars on emerg-
ing markets might be due to several reasons including (i) the large population
in these countries; (ii) the rapid growth of m-wallet in these countries, espe-
cially in China and India (BCG and Google 2016); (iii) the under-development
of technological infrastructure (Kumar et al. 2019; Pal et al. 2020) and finan-
cial infrastructure (Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Rutledge 2010); and (iv) the
high impact of m-wallet adoption on socio-economic and human develop-
ment. Finally, most of the current studies adopted theories and models related
to technological and behavioral acceptance to justify the m-wallet usage in
emerging countries. The most popular relevant theories employed were tech-
nology acceptance model (TAM) and its extensions (Chawla and Joshi 2019;
Kesharwani and Bisht 2012; Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Matemba and Li 2018;
Mehrad and Mohammadi 2017; Shaw 2014); unified theory of acceptance
and usage of technology (UTAUT) and its variants and extensions (Afshan and
Sharif 2016; Alalwan et al. 2017; Chawla and Joshi 2019; Patil et al. 2020; Singh
et al. 2020); diffusion of innovations theory (DOI) (Kapoor et al. 2015; Kaur et al.
2020), and the information systems (IS) success model (Talwar et al. 2020).
Several studies adopted behavioral cognition theory to justify m-wallet usage,
for example, social cognitive theory (Boateng et al. 2016), the perspective of
mental cost (Chatterjee and Bolar 2019), and the facilitator-barrier analysis
framework (Pal et al. 2020). In short, the literature on m-wallet adoption in
the emerging markets mostly considered the technological and behavioral
aspects of the adoption behavior. Several studies examined the risk of using
m-wallet, which covers the part of financial risk (Leong et al. 2020; Pal et al.
2020); however, the question of how users surpass the risk and adopt m-wallet
remains uncovered.
In this study, we argued that adopting a fintech innovation in the con-
text of emerging countries should consider the financial aspects as well as
the personal characteristics of the adopters. Since low-income consumers in
emerging markets have to deal with many risks from the under-development
of technological and financial infrastructures, financial aspects should be
their priority when trying a new fintech service. Based on the framework of
cost-benefit analysis derived from rational choice theory, this study integrates
technology acceptance factors and other factors from the literature of m-wallet

adoption and financial literacy to justify m-wallet adoption behavior. By doing

so, this study can include all three aspects of m-wallet adoption behavior (i.e.,
technological, behavioral, and financial aspects). The model and hypothesis
development are represented thoroughly in the following sections.
2.2 Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development

This study attempts to cover three aspects related to m-wallet adoption (i.e,
technological, behavioral, and financial aspects), and develop a comprehen-
sive model that justifies m-wallet adoption behavior in the emerging markets.
To obtain such goals, the cost-benefit analysis framework was employed, within
the technological and behavioral factors from the technology acceptance
model (TAM) and financial factors from the literature of m-wallet adoption
and financial literacy. The cost-benefit analysis framework is derived from
rational choice theory, where the individual evaluates the costs versus benefits
of several alternatives before making the decision (Simon 1955). As the “central
role in the social science” (Satz and Ferejohn 1994:71), the rational choice the-
ory is more effective when justifying the behavior under strong constraints
(Satz and Ferejohn 1994). We believe that the cost-benefit analysis framework
derived from the rational choice theory might be one of the most appropriate
models to justify the behavior of m-wallet adoption in the emerging market
because of several reasons. First, besides the e-wallet, consumers have several
alternatives to carry out payments, for example, cash, physical cards, internet
banking, mobile banking, and so on. Consumers, thus, might make the cog-
nitive evaluation to select the most proper alternative to fulfill the payment.
Second, in the emerging market, the under-development of technological and
financial infrastructures might constrain the perceived and behavioral adop-
tion of a new fintech innovation such as an e-wallet. Finally, the cost-benefit
analysis framework is flexible to examine factors that merit or constrain the
behavior. Therefore, the constructs from TAM and relevant literature can be
included in the model.
TAM has been considered as one of the most authoritative models to jus-
tify innovation adoption behavior (Davis 1989; Venkatesh and Davis 2000). The
foundation of TAM proposed the roles of perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use as the key determinants that enable technology acceptance and
usage (Davis 1989). These factors cover both technical and behavioral aspects
of the adoption behavior, and therefore, remain as the core factors of the origi-
nal and variants of extended TAM in the relevant literature. As mentioned
above, TAM has been the dominant theoretical basis to explain m-wallet
adoption. Thus, this study also includes two main factors of TAM in the con-
ceptual framework.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Figure 1 Conceptual framework on M-wallet adoption in the emerging markets

Source: Authors’ adaptation from the cost-benefit framework
and literature review
Regarding perceived benefits, this study suggests perceived ease of use, per-
ceived usefulness (from TAM), and network externalities as the technical
determinants of behavioral adoption. Additionally, price value is also consid-
ered as a financial benefit factor. In terms of perceived constraint, this study
proposed perceived risk as another financial aspect that hinders m-wallet
adoption. Whereas, besides the cost-benefit factors, this study also suggests the
role of personally financial-related factors (i.e., financial literacy) that might
affect adoption behavior and also moderate the effect of perceived risk and
adoption. The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1 with the details of
hypothesis development in the following sections.
2.2.1 Beneficial Factors

Perceived ease of use refers to “the degree to which a person believes that
using a particular system would be free of effort,” whereas perceived useful-
ness mention “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis 1989:320). Drawing
on TAM, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are the main factors
that enable technology adoption intention (Davis 1989). M-wallet is an innova-
tive technology in the mobile platform that requires a certain level of technical
knowledge and skill to use it efficiently (Alalwan et al. 2018). Furthermore, as
the substitution for the physical wallet, m-wallet requires a strict process for
installation and verification to link with the banking account. The m-wallet

providers, thus, have attempted to simplify the complex process in the user
interface to facilitate the initial usage. When the consumer feels more capable
and effortless, they are likely to adopt m-wallet. Regarding perceived useful-
ness, m-wallet can be used in various types of transactions with a high level of
agility. Since the smartphone has become a tool in daily activities (Hartanto
and Yang 2016), the integration of a payment method into the smartphone
can help consumers to fulfill their daily transactions quickly and efficiently.
Under the context of the emerging countries where the large population stays
in the under-developed areas in terms of technological infrastructure (Rutledge
2010), consumers might have difficulties accessing physical payment services
such as banks, auto teller machines, and point-of-sale devices. In this case, ease
of use and usefulness appears to be one of the most crucial determinants of
m-wallet adoption (Kumar et al. 2019). The positive effects of ease of use and
usefulness on m-wallet adoption were also investigated in abundant empirical
studies (e.g., Amoroso and Magnier-Watanabe 2012; Chatterjee and Bolar 2019;
Gupta et al. 2020; Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Matemba and Li 2018; Patil et al.
2020; Shaw 2014; Shin 2009; Singh et al. 2020; Talwar et al. 2020;). Thus, this
study proposed the following hypotheses about these effects.
Hypothesis 1: Perceived ease of use positively influences users’ intention to

use m-wallet.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived usefulness positively influences users’ intention
to use m-wallet.
Network externalities refer to “the greater number of merchants and consum-

ers in the network enhance mobile payments scope as an alternative payment
mode by reaching the critical mass” (Pal et al. 2020:4). M-wallet, as a kind of
payment system, requires initial adoptions and a sufficient amount of con-
sumers and merchants to warrant its success (Mallat 2007). Kumar, Nim, and
Sharma (2019) defined four phases of m-wallet adoption under the firm’s
marketing strategy view and emphasized the important role of the network
externalities in the early phases. Merchants can use m-wallet for online
operations and as an integrated marketing tool (Kumar et al. 2019), which in
turn, attracts more consumers to adopt m-wallet. More consumers adopting
m-wallet, then, facilitate the usage of other consumers and merchants (Mallat
2007). In another approach, Pal et al. (2020) related network externalities with
social influence, which has significant effects on users’ technology acceptance
among developing countries. Thus, this study argued that network externali-
ties might have a positive impact on users’ intention to use m-wallet in the
emerging countries.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Hypothesis 3: Network externalities positively influence users’ intention

to use m-wallet.
Price value refers to “consumers’ cognitive tradeoff between the perceived

benefits of the applications and the monetary cost for using them” (Venkatesh
et al. 2012:161). Specifically, under the context of the emerging countries, price
value can be defined as “the discounts and cashback offers received on product
price on purchase through or use of mobile payment apps” (Pal et al. 2020:4).
In the three-phase model of customer engagement in m-wallet in the emerg-
ing markets, Kumar, Nim, and Sharma (2019) suggested that promotions and
discounts will facilitate m-wallet adoption of users; therefore, merchants
and m-wallet providers normally carry out personalized promotions and
price discounts to attract more customers. In the emerging markets, individu-
als with low income appear to be not willing to spend extra budget for new
technology; conversely, they are sensitive to the changes in price and willing
to try new products and services offered at preferable prices (Pal et al. 2020).
From the consumer’s perspective, the financial efficiency of m-wallet thanks to
personalized promotions and discounts was also demonstrated in past studies
(Alalwan et al. 2017; Kumar et al. 2019; Mallat 2007; Shin 2009). Thus this study
proposed that:
Hypothesis 4: Price value positively influences users’ intention to use

m-wallet.
2.2.2 Constraint Factors

Perceived risk is defined as “the potential for loss in the pursuit of the desired
outcome of using the service” (Featherman and Pavlou 2003:453). When
adopting fintech innovations, several risks can occur such as performance/
operational risk, privacy risk, financial risk, psychological risk, and time risk
(Giovanis et al. 2019). These risks might lead to a consequence of a financial
loss to the users, which creates the perception and belief about the risk of
m-wallet adoption. When users recognize the potential risks, they will neglect
other benefits (i.e., usefulness, price value) and resist adopting the new fintech
innovations (Singh et al. 2020). Therefore, understanding the insights of users’
risk perception is crucial to justify the adoption behavior.
Due to the under-developed technological and financial infrastructures,
payment service failure might happen more frequently and in various forms
in the emerging market (Pal et al. 2020). Additionally, in several emerging
markets, the high pace growth of m-wallet has surpassed the development of
communication infrastructure and legislation framework (Taylor 2016), which

might cause the risk of digital payment fraud. In short, the riskier users per-
ceive the technology to be, the less likely they adopt m-wallet.
Hypothesis 5: Perceived risk negatively influences users’ intention to use

m-wallet.
2.2.3 The Role of Financial Literacy

With the argument that m-wallet adoption is a financial-related behavior, this
study suggests expanding the cost-benefit analysis framework with a person-
ally financial-related factor, i.e., financial literacy. Financial literacy refers to “a
combination of awareness, knowledge, skill, attitude and behaviour necessary
to make sound financial decisions and ultimately achieve individual financial
wellbeing” (OECD/INFE 2011:3). There have been several worthy notes from the
literature on financial literacy. First, despite being derived from the word ‘lit-
eracy,’ financial literacy differs from general literacy or education (Lusardi and
Mitchell 2011). Second, financial literacy is found to be the determinant of vari-
ous robust financial behaviors (Fernandes et al. 2014). Third, financial literacy
varies across individuals, but surprisingly, was found to be indifferent across
developed countries and emerging countries (Rutledge 2010).
As mentioned above, adopting an m-wallet can be considered as a financial-
related decision, which requires users to obtain basic knowledge about new
technologies and payment alternatives. Mallat (2007) found that the com-
plexity of mobile payment services (i.e., including verifying process, complex
registration procedure, billing management, and the linkage between bank
account and wallet account) might hinder adoption behavior. Although the
literature on financial literacy investigated the effects of financial literacy on
consumer behavior, only a few studies pointed out the relationship between
financial literacy and mobile payment services. Lusardi and Mitchell (2011)
indicated that higher financial literacy individuals appear to select the more
efficient alternative of payment in terms of cost and price value. Whereas,
Lusardi (2018) showed that mobile payment users with low financial lit-
eracy might have more financial problems. Thus, this study speculates a
positive effect of financial literacy on m-wallet adoption, and also, a moder-
ating effect of financial literacy on the relationship between perceived risk
and m-wallet adoption. In other words, the negative effect of perceived risk on
m-wallet adoption might be lessened when users have higher financial literacy.
Hypothesis 6: Financial literacy positively influences users’ intention to

use m-wallet. Specifically, the individual with higher (lower) financial lit-
eracy is more (less) likely to intend to adopt an m-wallet.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Hypothesis 7: Financial literacy negatively moderates the relationship

between perceived risk and users’ intention to use m-wallet. Specifically,
the individual with higher (lower) financial literacy will perceive the less
(more) negative impact of risk on his/her intention to adopt an m-wallet.
3 Research Methodology
3.1 Measurements
Since this study focused on ICT adoption at the individual level, a self-
report study was the better alternative. A questionnaire survey was carried
out to gather data for testing the proposed hypotheses. Table 1 represents all
25 question items for seven constructs. The measurements were adapted from
literature to be appropriate with the context of m-wallet adoption. All ques-
tion items (7-point Likert scale) were adapted from previous studies.
Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements
Constructs Scale
Intention to 1. I intend to use a mobile wallet, when the opportunity arises.

use1 2. I am likely to use a mobile wallet in near future.
3. I plan to use a mobile wallet frequently in my daily life.
Perceived 1. Mobile wallet is easy to use.

EOU1,2 2. Mobile wallet use is clear and understandable.
3. Mobile wallet transactions save me a lot of time and energy.
4. It is easy to interact with mobile wallet.
5. Mobile wallet apps are very complex and take lots of your time
and brain.*
Perceived 1. I find using mobile wallet useful in my daily life.

usefulness1,2 2. Mobile wallet is very helpful.
3. Using mobile wallet helps me to accomplish my tasks more
efficiently.
4. Work becomes easier after using mobile wallets.

Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements (cont.)
Constructs Scale
Network I am using mobile payment apps instead of other payment options,

externalities3 like cash, because:
1. The merchants are also using mobile payment apps.
2. The people I transact money with use mobile payment apps.
3. My social circle (friends, colleagues, co-workers) use mobile
payment apps.
Price value2,3 1. Mobile payment apps offer discounts and cashback.

2. I save money when I pay through mobile payment apps.
Perceived When I use mobile payment apps, I feel:

risks3 1. I may lose money due to careless mistakes.
2. There are chances of potential thefts.
3. The mobile payment app may process payments incorrectly.
Financial 1. Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate
literacy4,5 was 2% per year.
After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the
account if you left the money to grow?
(i) More than $102; (ii) Exactly $102; (iii) Less than $102; (iv) Do
not know (DK); (v) Refuse.
2. Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate
is 20% per year and you never withdraw money or interest pay-
ments. After 5 years, how much would you have on this account
in total?
(i) More than $200; (ii) Exactly $200; (iii) Less than $200; (iv) DK;
(v) Refuse.
3. Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1%
per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, how much
would you be able to buy with the money in this account?
(i) More than today; (ii) Exactly the same; (iii) Less than today;
(iv) DK; (v) Refuse.
4. Assume a friend inherits $10,000 today and his sibling inher-
its $10,000 3 years from now. Who is richer because of the
inheritance?
(i) My friend; (ii) His sibling; (iii) They are equally rich; (iv) DK;
(v) Refuse.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements (cont.)
Constructs Scale
5. Suppose that in the year 2010, your income has doubled and
prices of all goods have doubled too. In 2010, how much will you
be able to buy with your income?
(i) More than today; (ii) The same; (iii) Less than today; (iv) DK;
(v) Refuse.
Notes: EOU = ease of use; 1. Singh et al. 2020; 2. Venkatesh et al. 2012; 3. Pal et al. 2020; 4. Lusardi
and Mitchell 2008, 2017; 5. Five questions about (1) Numeracy, (2) Compound interest, (3) Infla
tion, (4) Time value of money, and (5) Money Illusion, * This reversed question was presented at
the end of the survey and was only used to check the consistency of responses.
Source: Authors’ adaptation from the literature review
3.2 Data Collection

This study was aimed at consumers in several emerging countries. To advance
the respondents’ understanding of this research, they were asked to name at
least one popular m-wallet that they knew but had not used at the time of the
survey.
Before the official survey, a pilot test was carried out with responses from
59 students in Vietnam who experienced online commerce and paid for the
transactions using cash or via card. The pilot test was to examine the face and
content validity. Additionally, results from the pretest indicated high reliabil-
ity and consistency in the data analysis. After the pretest, the official survey
was implemented through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (M-Turk) to collect
random respondents in the international frame. M-Turk has been previously
validated as a platform where academics can employ respondents for their rig-
orous research (Steelman et al. 2014). Additionally, M-Turk can provide tools to
collect data in the international frame, which helps to generalize the results.
First, we set the requirement of respondents in emerging countries (i.e., India,
Brazil, Indonesia, Vietnam), where mobile payments have been increasing
recently. We also selected these countries because of the high share of the pop-
ulation using English in these countries. Second, respondents were asked to
write down the name of at least one of the popular m-wallets in their country.
We also checked the name of this provided information with the statistical fact
about the popularity of m-wallets in the country of respondents to ensure they
provide valid information. Third, we asked respondents the question items
related to our research. Finally, we requested several demographic information

including age, gender, income, and education, and a verification code to match
with the M-Turk platform. The data collection was processed in ten days.
There are 319 records of participation from both the pilot and main sur-
veys. We removed 105 invalid records for several reasons (e.g., not knowing any
type of mobile wallet yet, not finishing all the questions, failing to address the
reversed questions). The final data set with 214 valid observations were used
in the analysis. Hair Jr. et al. (2016) specified the ten-time rule for minimum
sample-size requirement (i.e., ten times the largest number of structural paths
toward a construct). In this study, we employed 214 data points, which is larger
than the minimum requirement, which specifies 60 observations.
The data descriptions are represented in Table 2. The descriptions show
that 54.4% of respondents are male; respondents’ ages range from 18 to 70,
with 52.3% of them are from 25–35 years old; 53.3% of respondents achieved a
bachelor’s degree; 61.7% of respondents earned less than 500 USD per month.
We also tested the respondent bias by splitting the data set into two subsets
Table 2 Descriptive data analysis
Demographic variables Frequency % Min Max Mean Std.

(N = 214) dev.
Gender 1-Male 129 60.3 1 2 1.40 0.490

0-Female 85 39.7
Age Under 25 47 22.0
25–35 112 52.3
35–45 47 22.0 18 70 30.14 7.709
45–55 6 2.8
Over 55 2 0.9
Education 1: No HS diploma 0 0.0
2: HS graduate 35 16.4 2 4 3.14 0.671
3: B
achelor’s degree 114 53.3
4: Graduate 65 30.4
Income 1: Below 200 51 23.8
(USD/month) 2: 200–350 48 22.4
3: 350–500 33 15.4 1 6 3.04 1.699
4: 500–750 30 14.0
5: 750–1000 27 12.6
6: Above 1000 25 11.7
Source: Authors’ calculations

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
and comparing their demographic information. We found no respondent bias

in the data set.
4 Data Analysis and Results
This study used the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Model (PLS-
SEM) to process and analyze the data. Compared to Covariance-based SEM
(CB-SEM), PLS-SEM has been used popularly in management information
systems in recent years because of several advantages (Hair Jr. et al. 2014).
First, PLS-SEM is more appropriate to deal with exploratory and forecast-
ing research models, which are the goals of this study. Using the cost-benefit
analysis framework, this study extended TAM with financial factors and per-
sonally financial-related factors. The main goals of this study are to explore the
effects of several financial-related and personally financial-related factors and
forecast the adoption behavior under the context of the emerging countries.
Second, PLS-SEM relaxes the assumption of normality data. Lastly, PLS-SEM
can perform well with a complex model and a small sample size.
We carried out three steps to obtain robust results, including measure-
ment model assessment, structural model assessment without moderating
effect, and moderating effect assessment. Testing of the main effects and the
moderating effects should be implemented separately to warrant the accu-
rate estimate of main effects (Hair Jr. et al. 2016); accordingly, PLS-SEM and
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to test the theoretical hypotheses.
4.1 Measurement Model

The measurement model is evaluated by the assessments of reliability, conver-
gent validity, and discriminant validity (see Table 3). Regarding reliability, all
construct values of composite reliability and Cronbach’s Alpha in this model
surpasses 0.708 (Hair Jr. et al. 2016). For convergent validity, the values of the
average variance extracted (AVE) are all larger than 0.5 (Ibid).
Table 3 Reliability and convergent validity assessment
Construct Items Factor Cronbach’s AVE Composite

loading alpha (α) reliability
Intention to use IU2 0.893 0.818 0.734 0.892

m-wallet (IU) IU1 0.850
IU3 0.826

Table 3 Reliability and convergent validity assessment (cont.)
Construct Items Factor Cronbach’s AVE Composite

loading alpha (α) reliability
Perceived ease of use EOU4 0.911 0.919 0.804 0.943

(EOU) EOU3 0.886
EOU2 0.913
EOU1 0.876
Perceived usefulness PU4 0.896 0.924 0.814 0.946
(PU) PU3 0.911
PU2 0.900
PU1 0.901
Network externalities NWE3 0.863 0.863 0.785 0.916
(NWE) NWE2 0.911
NWE1 0.884
Price value (PV) PV1 0.922 0.750 0.797 0.887
PV2 0.863
Perceived risks (PR) PR2 0.890 0.760 0.659 0.853
PR3 0.786
PR1 0.755
Financial literacy BI (*) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
(FINL)
Note: *Financial literacy was built from factor analysis on five question items, which was con-
verted into dummy variables. Barlett index (BI) was used as the recommendation of Lusardi and
Mitchell (2017).
Source: Authors’ calculations from SPSS and SmartPLS
To evaluate the discriminant validity, the square root of AVE is higher than its
highest correlation with any research construct according to the criterion of
Fornell and Larcker (1981) (see Table 4). All square root values of AVE are higher
than the correlation among other constructs, which indicates an acceptable
discriminant validity.
4.2 Structural Model

The structural model is evaluated by assessments of multicollinearity and R2,
and the statistical significance of structural relationships (Hair Jr. et al. 2016).
The values of variance inflation factor (VIFs) are less than 5, showing that there
is no multicollinearity issue in this study. The adjusted R-squared value for the

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
dependent variable is 0.470, indicating that 47% variability of intention to

use can be explained by the model (Ibid). Results from Table 5 shows that all
hypotheses were supported, except Hypothesis 4 on the relationship between
price value and intention to use.
Table 4 Discriminant validity assessment
IU EOU PU NWE PV PR FINL
IU 0.857
EOU 0.622 0.897
PU 0.629 0.766 0.902
NWE 0.495 0.519 0.649 0.886
PV 0.362 0.362 0.457 0.426 0.893
PR −0.243 −0.206 −0.231 −0.187 −0.033 0.812
FINL 0.217 0.154 0.117 −0.02 0.061 −0.037 1.000
Source: Authors’ calculations from SmartPLS
Table 5 PLS main effects results
Path Standardized STDEV T-value P-value Hypothesis

estimate Testing
H1 Perceived ease 0.303 0.105 2.891 0.004 (***) H1: supported

of use → ITU
H2 Perceived 0.235 0.100 2.346 0.019 (**) H2: supported
usefulness → ITU
H3 Network 0.140 0.058 2.391 0.017 (**) H3: supported
externalities → ITU
H4 Price value → ITU 0.074 0.054 1.355 0.176 (n.s.) H4: unsupported
H5 Perceived −0.093 0.055 1.679 0.093 (*) H5: supported
risks → ITU
H6 Financial 0.138 0.058 2.388 0.017 (**) H6: supported
literacy → ITU
Notes: ITU = Intention to Use; p-value *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01, n.s. not significant.
Source: Authors’ calculations from SmartPLS bootstrapping with 5,000 subsamples

4.3 Moderating Effect Testing

The moderating effects testing was conducted by using the K-mean cluster
and ANOVA analysis. First, the values of perceived risks were computed by the
average mean of its three items, whereas, the values of financial literacy were
computed by the sum of its five dummy items. Second, the K-mean cluster
was used to categorize ‘high’ and ‘low’ groups of those independent variables.
Finally, ANOVA was used to examine the moderating effects. Results of the
K-mean cluster are presented in Table 6.
Table 7 shows the results of the ANOVA analysis. Mean values of intention to
use were compared among four groups: (1) low perceived risks + low financial
literacy; (2) low perceived risks + high financial literacy; (3) high perceived risks
+ low financial literacy; and (4) high perceived risks + high financial literacy.
F-value (5.035) is higher than the critical value, showing that the moderating
effect is statistically significant. The mean value of intention to use in the low
perceived risks is less than this one in the high perceived risks, indicating that
people are less likely to continue to use mobile wallets when they perceive
higher risk. Additionally, the mean value of intention to use in the combina-
tion of high perceived risks – low financial literacy is the smallest (4.608),
while the mean value of intention to use in the combination of low perceived
Table 6 K-mean cluster analysis
Constructs Low mean High mean F-value P-value
Perceived risks 2.87 (N = 149) 5.19 (N = 65) 347.899 0.000***

Financial literacy 1.38 (N = 72) 4.09 (N = 142) 601.866 0.000***
Notes: (N) = number of observations; P-value * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01
Source: Authors’ calculations from SPSS
Table 7 Financial literacy moderates perceived risks toward intention to use
Factor Low PR High PR F-value Duncan

(p-value)
1. Low FL 2. High FL 3. Low FL 4. High FL
Intention to use 5.4000 5.7766 4.6078 5.5139 5.035 (0.000) 3,1,2,4
Notes: PR = Perceived Risks; FL = Financial Literacy.

Source: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) from SPSS

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
risks – high financial literacy is the largest (5.777), illustrating the moderat-
ing effect of financial literacy on the relationship between perceived risks and
intention to use.
5 Discussions
5.1 Findings Discussions

This study aims to identify the determinants of m-wallet adoption behavior and
the moderating role of financial literacy. This study, based on CFA, PLS-SEM,
and ANOVA techniques, provides several interesting findings. First, perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness were found to have positive effects on
adopting m-wallet intention. These findings further confirm the findings of
abundant studies on m-wallet adoption in emerging markets (e.g., Amoroso
and Magnier-Watanabe 2012; Chatterjee and Bolar 2019; Gupta et al. 2020;
Malaquias and Hwang 2019; Matemba and Li 2018; Patil et al. 2020; Shaw 2014;
Shin 2009; Singh et al. 2020; Talwar et al. 2020). Additionally, this study reveals
the positive effect of network externalities on m-wallet adoption. Although this
relationship was mentioned in several studies (Kumar et al. 2019; Mallat 2007)
and was empirically tested with the intention of continuance using (Pal et al.
2020), the finding of this study emphasizes the role of network externalities in
terms of attracting new adopters. Second, despite the expectation to have a posi-
tive effect, price value was found to have no impact on adopting intention. This
result can be explained that the price value, which includes perceptions of pro-
motion and price discounts when using m-wallet, is effective in several phases
of the m-wallet integration to the marketing and business process (Kumar et al.
2019). Furthermore, the promotion and discount strategies might also vary
upon the purchasing customs in each region. Third, this study indicates that
users in the emerging markets are less likely to adopt m-wallet when they per-
ceived the risk of using them. This result confirms the crucial role of perceived
risk, which might hinder significantly adopting intention. Finally, financial
literacy is explored to have a positive impact on adopting intention, and mod-
erates the negative impact of perceived risk on adopting intention. Although
there were a few studies that forecasted these effects (Lusardi 2018; Lusardi
and Mitchell 2011), this study, to our best knowledge, investigated the direct
effect and moderating effect of financial literacy.
5.2 Theoretical Implications

Past studies on ICT usage typically examined the adoption behavior as the
results of the technological and behavioral factors, for example, by relying on

the technology acceptance model (TAM) (Venkatesh and Davis 2000), Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2012),
and diffusion of innovation (DOI) (Rogers 2003). In those models, the role of
financial factors, which should be highly crucial in the context of fintech usage
and low-income markets, has not been fully investigated. This study adopts
the cost-benefit analysis framework derived from rational choice theory to
justify m-wallet adoption in emerging countries. The rational choice theory
is strongly appropriate to explain the decision of low-income users when they
have several financial-related alternatives. With the integration of the financial
aspect into the analysis, this new perspective can provide further insights to
understand m-wallet adoption, as a complex behavior with the multi-aspect
combination. To advance the understanding of the financial aspect, this study
classified the financial aspect into functionally financial-related factors (i.e.,
price value, perceived risk) and personally financial-related factors (i.e., finan-
cial literacy). Together with core factors of TAM (i.e., perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness), these financial factors are found to have explanatory
power to justify m-wallet adopting intention. Additionally, this study suggests
the roles of financial literacy, which have not been investigated in the literature
on m-wallet adoption. The significant findings of this study, therefore, might
pave the way for future research which relates ICT adoption with economic
development at the individual level.
5.3 Practical Implications

The contributions of this research for practical implications are also pro-
found. As mentioned above, m-wallet adoption can contribute significantly to
socio-economic and human development since it enables individual users in
emerging markets, especially the low-income and isolation-located users, to
access a wide range of financial services without bank presence (e.g., payment,
transfer, money storage). To promote ICT adoption toward a digitalized society
and financial inclusion for a wide range of populations, several implications
are suggested for different stakeholders. Regarding the m-wallet providers
and merchants, the findings of this study highlight the role of the financial
aspect of m-wallet usage. M-wallet providers can attract more adopters by
utilizing the process and systems, which deliver the customer’s perceptions
of ease to use, usefulness, and especially, risklessness. M-wallet providers
and merchants can reduce the budget for promotions and price discounts,
because of their limited effects on adopting intention. The significant roles
of financial literacy provide several implications. For m-wallet providers,
before launching the services, they should deliver their service information
or provide training campaigns to raise consumers’ awareness and knowledge

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
about the service. Financial knowledge can also help to reduce the risks of
losing money during future usage. For the policymakers of the emerging
countries, to obtain a cashless society via encouraging m-wallet usage, the
training programs can be held publicly and widely to enhance the individual’s
financial literacy.
5.4 Limitations and Future Research

This study has several certain limitations. First, this study can only examine
the intention to use m-wallet, not actual behavior. Additionally, the usage of
m-wallet in the combination with other types of payment services (e.g., in
cash, via cards) is not in the scope of this study. Future research can work on
the actual behavior and identify the mixed usage of m-wallet and other types of
payment methods. Second, the usage of Amazon M-Turk to collect data might
cause some biases from the monetary incentive and differences in the customs
of purchasing and making payments across countries. Lastly, the measure-
ment of financial literacy is still controversial in the literature. Although we
adapt the popular basic measurement from Lusardi and Mitchell (2008, 2017),
there are several concerns about the validity of this measurement. There are
several forms of financial literacy measurement, for example, measurements
for advanced financial literacy, measurements for short-term or long-term
financial literacy. Future studies can extend this research by including these
measurements of financial literacy.
Appendix: Literature Review of Relevant Study1
Key: Study; Context; Theory/Model; Dependent Variables; Independent Variables.
Internet Banking
Boateng et al. (2016); Ghana; Social cognitive theory; Internet banking adoption;
Website social features, trust, ease of use, lifestyle compatibility, online customer
service.
Kesharwani and Bisht (2012); India; Extended TAM; Intention towards use of internet
banking technologies; Layer 1: trust, website design, perceived behavioral control,
social influences, Layer 2: Perceived risk, ease of use, usefulness.
1 Notes: DOI (Diffusion of Innovation theory); Initial Trust Model (ITM); Innovation resis-
tance theory (IRT); Task Technology Fit (TTF); TAM (Technology Acceptance Model); UTAUT
(Unified Theory of Acceptance and Usage of Technology); Source: Authors’ literature review.

Interbank Mobile Payment Service
Kapoor et al. (2015); India; DOI; Behavioral intention; Voluntariness, visibility, trialabil-
ity, social approval, riskiness, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, cost,
image, observability, result demonstrability, communicability.
M-Wallet
Amoroso and Magnier-Watanabe (2012); Japan; Extending TAM with attractiveness of

alternatives; Behavioral intention, actual use; Ease of use, usefulness, facilitating
conditions, perceived security/privacy, perceived risk, attitude toward using, per-
ceived value, social influence, trust, attractiveness of alternatives.
Chatterjee and Bolar (2019); India; The perspective of mental cost; Intention to use
m-wallet; Ease of use, compatibility, perceived behavioral control, trust.
Chawla and Josh (2019); India; TAM, UTAUT; Consumer attitude, intention to use
m-wallets; Ease of use, usefulness, trust, security, facilitating conditions, lifestyle
compatibility.
Gupta et al. (2020); India; Extended expectation-confirmation model; Continuance
intention; Pre-adoption performance expectancy, pre-adoption effort expectancy,
confirmation, post-adoption self-efficacy, post-adoption perceived usefulness, sat-
isfaction, post-adoption perceived security.
Kaur et al. (2020); India; DOI; M-wallet usage; Relative advantage, compatibility, com-
plexity, observability, trialability.
Leong et al. (2020); Malaysia; IRT; M-wallet resistance; Usage barrier, value barrier, risk
barrier, tradition barrier, image barrier, perceived novelty, demographics.
Matemba and Li (2018); South Africa; Extended TAM; Attitude, actual system use;
Design feature, usefulness, ease of use.
Mombeuil (2020); African students in China; Literature on m-wallet adoption;
Renewed adoption of m-wallet; Relative convenience, relative advantages, per-
ceived security, perceived privacy.
Pal et al. (2020); India; Facilitator – barrier framework, and relevant literature; Mobile
payment usage intention; Facilitators: price benefit, network externalities, trust,
and habit, Barriers: risk, lack of facilitating conditions, and operational constraints.
Shaw (2014); Canada; TAM; Intention to use m-wallet; Mobile self-efficacy, informal
learning, ease of use, usefulness, trust.
Singh et al. (2017); India; Literature on m-wallet adoption; Usage, preference of mobile
wallet users ; Perception, satisfaction, age, gender.
Singh et al. (2020); India; UTAUT2; Intention to use m-wallet; Ease of use, usefulness,
perceived risk, attitude.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Talwar et al. (2020); India; IS success model and transaction cost economics, and
expectation confirmation theory; Initial trust; Information quality, service quality,
perceived uncertainty, perceived asset specificity.
Mobile Banking
Afshan and Sharif (2016); Pakistan; UTAUT, TTF, and ITM; Intention to adopt
m-banking; Task technology fit, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, facilitating conditions, initial trust.
Alalwan et al. (2017); Jordan; Extending UTAUT2 with trust; Behavioral intention,
adoption; Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, hedonic
motivation, price value, trust, facilitating conditions.
Hanafizadeh et al. (2014); Iran; TAM; Intention to use mobile banking; Usefulness, ease
of use, trust, cost of use, perceived risk, need for personal interaction, credibility,
compatibility with lifestyle and needs.
Malaquias and Hwang (2016); Brazil; Literature on mobile banking adoption; Trust;
Risk perception, age, gender, task characteristics, personal innovativeness, social
influence, undergraduate course area.
Malaquias and Hwang (2019); Brazil and the US; Extended TAM; Mobile banking use;
Usefulness, ease of use, trust in mobile banking, social influence, gender, age.
Mehrad and Mohammadi (2017); Iran; Extended TAM; Attitude, intention to continue
using mobile banking; Layer 1: word of mouth, trust, social norm, Layer 2: useful-
ness, ease of use.
Mobile Payment Services
Patil et al. (2020); India; Extended meta-UTAUT; Attitude, intention to use mobile pay-
ment, use behavior; Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence,
facilitating conditions, personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust.
References
Afshan, Sahar and Arshian Sharif. 2016. “Acceptance of Mobile Banking Framework in
Pakistan.” Telematics and Informatics 33(2):370–387.
Alalwan, Ali Abdallah, Abdullah M. Baabdullah, Nripendra P. Rana, Kuttimani
Tamilmani, and Yogesh K. Dwivedi. 2018. “Examining Adoption of Mobile Internet

in Saudi Arabia: Extending TAM with Perceived Enjoyment, Innovativeness and

Trust.” Technology in Society 55:100–110.
Alalwan, Ali Abdallah, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, and Nripendra P. Rana. 2017. “Factors
Influencing Adoption of Mobile Banking by Jordanian Bank Customers: Extending
UTAUT2 with Trust.” International Journal of Information Management 37(3):99–110.
Alalwan, Ali Abdallah, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Nripendra P.P. Rana, and Michael D. Williams.
2016. “Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking in Jordan.” Journal of Enterprise
Information Management 29(1):118–139.
Amoroso, Donald L. and Rémy Magnier-Watanabe. 2012. “Building a Research Model
for Mobile Wallet Consumer Adoption: The Case of Mobile Suica in Japan.” Journal
of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 7(1):94–110.
Beutin, Nikolas and Maximilian Harmsen. 2019. Mobile Payment Report 2019.
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Boateng, Henry, Diyawu Rahman Adam, Abednego Feehi Okoe, and Thomas Anning-
Dorson. 2016. “Assessing the Determinants of Internet Banking Adoption Intentions:
A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective.” Computers in Human Behavior 65:468–478.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and Google. 2016. Digital Payment 2020: The Making
of a $500 Billion Ecosystem in India. India: The Boston Consulting Group and Google
India Private Limited.
Chatterjee, Amrita. 2020. “Financial Inclusion, Information and Communication
Technology Diffusion, and Economic Growth: A Panel Data Analysis.” Information
Technology for Development 26(3):1–29.
Chatterjee, Debmallya and Kartikeya Bolar. 2019. “Determinants of Mobile Wallet
Intentions to Use: The Mental Cost Perspective.” International Journal of Human –
Computer Interaction 35(10):859–869.
Chawla, Deepak and Himanshu Joshi. 2019. “Consumer Attitude and Intention to
Adopt Mobile Wallet in India – An Empirical Study.” International Journal of Bank
Marketing 37(7):1590–1618.
Davis, Fred D. 1989. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance
of Information Technology.” MIS Quarterly 13(3):319–340.
Featherman, Mauricio S. and Paul A. Pavlou. 2003. “Predicting E-Services Adoption:
A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective.” International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 59(4):451–474.
Fernandes, Daniel, John G. Lynch Jr., and Richard G. Netemeyer. 2014. “Financial
Literacy, Financial Education, and Downstream Financial Behaviors.” Management
Science 60(8):1861–1883.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research
18(1):39–50.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
Giovanis, Apostolos, Pinelopi Athanasopoulou, Costas Assimakopoulos, and Christos

Sarmaniotis. 2019. “Adoption of Mobile Banking Services.” International Journal of
Bank Marketing 37(5):1165–1189.
Global Acceptance Transaction Engine (GATE). 2019. Mobile Wallet Trends Annual
Report 2019. Global Acceptance Transaction Engine.
Grover, Purva and Arpan Kumar Kar. 2020. “User Engagement for Mobile Payment
Service Providers – Introducing the Social Media Engagement Model.” Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 53:101718.
Gupta, Anil, Anish Yousaf, and Abhishek Mishra. 2020. “How Pre-Adoption Expectancies
Shape Post-Adoption Continuance Intentions: An Extended Expectation-
Confirmation Model.” International Journal of Information Management 52:102094.
Hair Jr., Joseph F., G. Tomas M. Hult, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2016. A
Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). UK: Sage
Publications.
Hair Jr., Joseph F., Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014.
“Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in
business research.” European Business Review 26(2):106–121.
Hanafizadeh, Payam, Mehdi Behboudi, Amir Abedini Koshksaray, and Marziyeh
Jalilvand Shirkhani Tabar. 2014. “Mobile-Banking Adoption by Iranian Bank Clients.”
Telematics and Informatics 31(1):62–78.
Hartanto, Andree and Hwajin Yang. 2016. “Is the Smartphone a Smart Choice? The
Effect of Smartphone Separation on Executive Functions.” Computers in Human
Behavior 64:329–336.
Kapoor, Kawaljeet Kaur, Yogesh K. Dwivedi, and Michael D. Williams. 2015. “Examining
the Role of Three Sets of Innovation Attributes for Determining Adoption of the
Interbank Mobile Payment Service.” Information Systems Frontiers 17(5):1039–1056.
Kaur, Puneet, Amandeep Dhir, Rahul Bodhi, Tripti Singh, and Mohammad Almotairi.
2020. “Why Do People Use and Recommend M-Wallets?” Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 56(2):102091.
Kemp, Simon. 2020. Digital 2020: Global Digital Overview. We Are Social and Hootsuite.
Kesharwani, Ankit, and Shailendra Singh Bisht. 2012. “The Impact of Trust and Per-
ceived Risk on Internet Banking Adoption in India.” International Journal of Bank
Marketing 30(4):303–322.
Kumar, V., Nandini Nim, and Amalesh Sharma. 2019. “Driving Growth of Mwallets in
Emerging Markets: A Retailer’s Perspective.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 47(4):747–769.
Leong, Lai-Ying, Teck-Soon Hew, Keng-Boon Ooi, and June Wei. 2020. “Predicting
Mobile Wallet Resistance: A Two-Staged Structural Equation Modeling-Artificial
Neural Network Approach.” International Journal of Information Management 51:
102047.

Lusardi, Annamaria. 2018. “The Uncomfortable Relationship Between Mobile Pay-

ments and Financial Literacy.” The Wall Street Journal, June 7. Retrieved July 18,
2020 (https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2018/06/07/the-uncomfortable-relationship
-between-mobile-payments-and-financial-literacy/).
Lusardi, Annamaria and Olivia S. Mitchell. 2008. “Planning and Financial Literacy:
How Do Women Fare?” American Economic Review 98(2):413–417.
Lusardi, Annamaria and Olivia S. Mitchell. 2011. “Financial Literacy around the World:
An Overview.” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 17107.
Lusardi, Annamaria and Olivia S. Mitchell. 2017. “How Ordinary Consumers Make
Complex Economic Decisions: Financial Literacy and Retirement Readiness.” The
Quarterly Journal of Finance 7(3):1750008.
Malaquias, Rodrigo F. and Yujong Hwang. 2016. “An Empirical Study on Trust in
Mobile Banking: A Developing Country Perspective.” Computers in Human Behavior
54:453–461.
Malaquias, Rodrigo F. and Yujong Hwang. 2019. “Mobile Banking Use: A Comparative
Study with Brazilian and US Participants.” International Journal of Information
Management 44:132–140.
Mallat, Niina. 2007. “Exploring Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payments – A Qualitative
Study.” The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 16(4):413–432.
Matemba, Elizabeth D. and Guoxin Li. 2018. “Consumers’ Willingness to Adopt and
Use WeChat Wallet: An Empirical Study in South Africa.” Technology in Society 53:
55–68.
Mehrad, Daniel and Shahriar Mohammadi. 2017. “Word of Mouth Impact on the
Adoption of Mobile Banking in Iran.” Telematics and Informatics 34(7):1351–1363.
Mohammadi, Hossein. 2015. “A Study of Mobile Banking Loyalty in Iran.” Computers in
Human Behavior 44:35–47.
Mombeuil, Claudel. 2020. “An Exploratory Investigation of Factors Affecting and Best
Predicting the Renewed Adoption of Mobile Wallets.” Journal of Retailing and Con-
sumer Services 55:102–127.
Montazemi, Ali Reza and Hamed Qahri-Saremi. 2015. “Factors Affecting Adoption of
Online Banking: A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling Study.” Information
& Management 52(2):210–226.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Network
on Financial Education (OECD/INFE). 2011. “Measuring Financial Literacy: Core
Questionnaire in Measuring Financial Literacy: Questionnaire and Guidance Notes
for Conducting an Internationally Comparable Survey of Financial Literacy.” Paris:
OECD.
Pal, Abhipsa, Tejaswini Herath, Rahul De’, and H. Raghav Rao. 2020. “Contextual
Facilitators and Barriers Influencing the Continued Use of Mobile Payment Services

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM
in a Developing Country: Insights from Adopters in India.” Information Technology

for Development 26(2):394–420.
Patil, Pushp, Kuttimani Tamilmani, Nripendra P. Rana, and Vishnupriya Raghavan.
2020. “Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment in India: Extending
Meta-UTAUT Model with Personal Innovativeness, Anxiety, Trust, and Grievance
Redressal.” International Journal of Information Management 54:102144.
Potnis, Devendra Dilip, Aakanksha Gaur, and Jang Bahadur Singh. 2020. “Analysing Slow
Growth of Mobile Money Market in India Using a Market Separation Perspective.”
Information Technology for Development 26(2):369–393.
Qureshi, Sajda and Lotfollah Najjar. 2017. “Information and Communications Technol-
ogy Use and Income Growth: Evidence of the Multiplier Effect in Very Small Island
States.” Information Technology for Development 23(2):1–23.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. The Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. NY: The Free Press.
Rutledge, Susan L. 2010. Consumer Protection and Financial Literacy: Lessons from Nine
Country Studies. The World Bank.
Sarma, Mandira and Jesim Pais. 2011. “Financial Inclusion and Development.” Journal
of International Development 23(5):613–628.
Satz, Debra and John Ferejohn. 1994. “Rational Choice and Social Theory.” The Journal
of Philosophy 91(2):71–87.
Sen, Amartya. 1988. “The Concept of Development.” Handbook of Development
Economics 1:9–26.
Shaw, Norman. 2014. “The Mediating Influence of Trust in the Adoption of the Mobile
Wallet.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21(4):449–459.
Shin, Dong-Hee. 2009. “Towards an Understanding of the Consumer Acceptance of
Mobile Wallet.” Computers in Human Behavior 25(6):1343–1354.
Simon, Herbert A. 1955. “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice.” The Quarterly Journal
of Economics 69(1):99–118.
Singh, Nidhi, Neena Sinha, and Francisco J. Liébana-Cabanillas. 2020. “Determining
Factors in the Adoption and Recommendation of Mobile Wallet Services in India:
Analysis of the Effect of Innovativeness, Stress to Use and Social Influence.”
International Journal of Information Management 50:191–205.
Singh, Nidhi, Shalini Srivastava, and Neena Sinha. 2017. “Consumer Preference and
Satisfaction of M-Wallets: A Study on North Indian Consumers.” International
Journal of Bank Marketing 35(6):944–965.
Sivabalan, Srinivasan. 2017. “Going Cashless? Bad for Tax Cheats, Privacy, Poor.”
Bloomberg.com, July 17. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-17
/going-cashless-bad-for-tax-cheats-privacy-poor-quicktake-q-a).
Steelman, Zachary R., Bryan I. Hammer, and Moez Limayem. 2014. “Data Collection in
the Digital Age: Innovative Alternatives to Student Samples.” MIS Quarterly 38(2):
355–378.

Talwar, Shalini, Amandeep Dhir, Ashraf Khalil, Geetha Mohan, and AKM Najmul
Islam. 2020. “Point of Adoption and beyond. Initial Trust and Mobile-Payment
Continuation Intention.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 55:102086.
Taylor, Emmeline. 2016. “Mobile Payment Technologies in Retail: A Review of Poten-
tial Benefits and Risks.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
44(2):159–177.
Venkatesh, Viswanath and Fred D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.” Management
Science 46(2):186–204.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, James Y.L. Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. “Consumer Acceptance and
Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology.” MIS Quarterly 36(1):157–78.

Technology 21 (2022) 123–151
from Brill.com 02/29/2024 01:33:36PM

PGDT Article p123 - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

PGDT Article p123 - 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

PGDT Article p123 - 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perspectives on Global Development PERSPECTIVES

M-Wallet Adoption in Emerging Markets:

Giang Huong Duong

Sang Minh Nguyen

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2022 | doi:10.1163/15691497-12341621

Mobile wallet (m-wallet) refers to “a technology that needs to be installed in the

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

in phase three, m-wallet can be highly integrated as a marketing tool based

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

factors enable m-wallet adoption in the emerging market, therefore, is pro-

2.1 Literature on M-Wallet Adoption in the Emerging Markets

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

adoption and financial literacy to justify m-wallet adoption behavior. By doing

2.2 Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Figure 1 Conceptual framework on M-wallet adoption in the emerging markets

2.2.1 Beneficial Factors

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

Hypothesis 1: Perceived ease of use positively influences users’ intention to

Network externalities refer to “the greater number of merchants and consum-

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Hypothesis 3: Network externalities positively influence users’ intention

Price value refers to “consumers’ cognitive tradeoff between the perceived

Hypothesis 4: Price value positively influences users’ intention to use

2.2.2 Constraint Factors

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

Hypothesis 5: Perceived risk negatively influences users’ intention to use

2.2.3 The Role of Financial Literacy

Hypothesis 6: Financial literacy positively influences users’ intention to

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Hypothesis 7: Financial literacy negatively moderates the relationship

Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements

Intention to 1. I intend to use a mobile wallet, when the opportunity arises.

Perceived 1. Mobile wallet is easy to use.

Perceived 1. I find using mobile wallet useful in my daily life.

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements (cont.)

Network I am using mobile payment apps instead of other payment options,

Price value2,3 1. Mobile payment apps oﬀer discounts and cashback.

Perceived When I use mobile payment apps, I feel:

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

Table 1 Construct definitions and measurements (cont.)

3.2 Data Collection

Perspectives on Global Development and Technology 21 (2022) 123–151

Table 2 Descriptive data analysis

Demographic variables Frequency % Min Max Mean Std.

Gender 1-Male 129 60.3 1 2 1.40 0.490

Source: Authors’ calculations

Perspectives on Global Development andDownloaded

and comparing their demographic information. We found no respondent bias

4 Data Analysis and Results

4.1 Measurement Model

Table 3 Reliability and convergent validity assessment

Construct Items Factor Cronbach’s AVE Composite

Intention to use IU2 0.893 0.818 0.734 0.892