The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1468-4527.htm

Antecedents of
Exploring the antecedents of mobile
mobile payment service usage payment
service usage
Perspectives based on cost–benefit theory,
perceived value, and social influences 299
Kuan-Yu Lin Received 20 May 2018
Department of Information Technology, Revised 30 March 2019
Accepted 19 November 2019
Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan
Yi-Ting Wang
Department of Applied Foreign Languages,
Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan, and
Travis K. Huang
Department of Information Management,
Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – The number of smartphone users has increased with the maturity of mobile networks, which has
not only led to a new lifestyle but has also facilitated the development of mobile application services.
Smartphones are regarded as essential communication devices. Currently, diverse groups of people are
considering using mobile payment services. Thus, the motives for using mobile payment as well as individual
motives for continuing usage are of great research interest. The purpose of this paper is to examine the
behavioral motivations underlying individual intentions to continue using mobile payment.
Design/methodology/approach – To explore the factors affecting the intention to use mobile payment
services, this study constructed a theoretical framework based on cost-benefit theory that also considers
social influences to form an integrated research model that explains the intentions of individuals to use mobile
payment services. Online questionnaires were used to evaluate individuals with experience using
mobile payment services. A total of 302 questionnaires were collected. Structural equation modeling was
employed to assess the relationships among factors included in the research model.
Findings – Perceived value, social norms and social self-image played crucial roles in the intention to use
mobile payment services. Furthermore, perceived benefits (relative advantage and service compatibility) and
perceived costs (security risks and perceived fees) determined users’ perceived value. Social self-image
positively affected users’ perceived value; in the context of a mobile-oriented information system, the ability of
a mobile payment service to satisfy a user’s demands with respect to social self-image influenced the user’s
perceived value of using such services.
Originality/value – This study contributes to a theoretical understanding of factors that explain users’
intention to use mobile payment services.
Keywords Perceived value, Mobile payment, Cost-benefit theory, Social influences
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Smartphones and fully developed mobile networks have not only introduced new lifestyles
centered on mobile devices but also boosted the development of other mobile services such
as mobile payment. Smartphones are crucial to daily communication (Koo et al., 2015).
People have expressed growing interest in mobile payment (MIC, 2018), which enables
consumers to use a mobile device (such as a smartphone) to send non-cash financial
instruments through a specific transfer technology, device or network coupled with Online Information Review
verification processes (e.g. wireless application protocol, unstructured supplementary Vol. 44 No. 1, 2020
pp. 299-318
service data, short messaging services and general packet radio service). After the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1468-4527
transaction has been completed, goods or services can be obtained at a brick-and-mortar DOI 10.1108/OIR-05-2018-0175
OIR location (Oliveira et al., 2016). The payment is completed using mobile devices. In the
44,1 absence of cash, checks or credit cards, consumers can use mobile devices to pay digitally
for goods and services acquired at brick-and-mortar locations (Cao et al., 2018). According to
a Statistia (2018) survey, there were 721m mobile payment users worldwide in 2017, and this
number is expected to reach 1,115m in 2021. Mobile payment revenue is predicted to
increase from $450bn (2015) to $780bn in 2017 and to $1,080bn in 2019. Both the number of
300 users and the market size have increased annually. Nielsen (2014) discovered that mobile
payment users most commonly used payment service applications for dining (49 percent),
entertainment (43 percent), shopping (39 percent), bill payment (36 percent), traffic
(36 percent) and leasing (19 percent). Approximately 40 percent of users expressed the
intention to use mobile payment as their primary form of consumption thereafter. The use of
mobile payment services has attracted public attention, and the market for mobile payment
services is potentially lucrative. Understanding the factors that promote the use of mobile
payment services is essential to the providers of mobile payment services. This study
examined the factors that affect user acceptance of mobile payment services.
According to cost-benefit theory, when adopting an information system, users consider
the effort or financial expenditure required in addition to the benefits of the system
(Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017). After comparing the costs and benefits, users can perceive
value, which further affects their intention to use the information system (Kim et al., 2007;
Lin and Lu, 2015). Zeithaml (1988) defined perceived value as an assessment of the total
effects of a product or service on consumers who have decided to purchase the product or
service after evaluating its costs and benefits. Therefore, perceived value is specific to the
product or service (Cocosila and Igonor, 2015; Zeithaml, 1988). The analysis of product and
service attributes (both positive and negative) leads to a clearer understanding of the
formation of consumer-perceived value (Kim et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2016).
This study regards mobile payment as having both positive and negative characteristics.
Positive characteristics include convenience in terms of time and accessibility; compared
with offline payments (e.g. using cash or credit cards), users can quickly pay and provide
purchase information records with smartphones. Additionally, mobile payment
demonstrates service compatibility, meaning that users can interact with one another in
the same manner as they would when utilizing offline payment services. Regarding negative
characteristics, Tan et al. (2014) stated that the perceived cost of using mobile payment
services includes both currency and non-monetary costs. Scholars (Lu et al., 2011; Tan et al.,
2014) have noted that when using mobile payment services, the monetary costs that users
incur include access and transaction fees, and the non-monetary costs include perceived
risks, such as those to personal information, privacy and security. This study suggests that
the attributes of these mobile payment services are related to the framework proposed by
Rogers (1995) for perceived characteristics of innovation, which includes relative advantage,
compatibility and complexity. This study investigated the service attributes of mobile value
based on perceived innovation characteristics.
Social influences are among the key factors affecting the behaviors of information
technology (IT) users (Arrieta et al., 2019; Baptista and Oliveira, 2015; Hsu and Lu, 2004;
Lin and Lu, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Proposed theories posit that
social influences are crucial to determining the behavioral intentions of individuals. For
example, the theory of reasoned action contends that an individual’s behavioral intentions
are affected by social norms and attitude (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Research related to
information systems (Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lee, 2009; Lu and Lee, 2010; Yang et al., 2012) has
also demonstrated that the intention to use IT is affected by social norms. By adopting the
perspective of innovation diffusion to study mobile payment services, Liébana-Cabanillas
et al. (2014) discovered that in addition to personal decision patterns and technology
features, social influences (e.g. social self-image) affect an individual’s decision to use IT.
Accordingly, this study combines cost-benefit theory, perceived value and social influences Antecedents of
to propose a research model for explaining user motivations for adopting mobile payment mobile
systems. This study answers the following research questions: payment
RQ1. What are the cost-benefit characteristics of mobile payment systems in relation to service usage
perceived value?
RQ2. What is the key factor influencing user intention to adopt mobile payment systems?
301

2. Literature review
2.1 Cost-benefit theory
Cost-benefit evaluation is an approach whereby people pursue maximum benefits and
minimum costs when making behavioral decisions (Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017;
Yang et al., 2016). Several studies (Kim et al., 2007; Hsiao, 2011; Lin and Lu, 2015) have
suggested that individuals develop a sense of perceived value after comparing the benefits
and costs associated with purchasing a product or service. When making decisions that
involve action, individuals consider the relevant costs (monetary and non-monetary).
After comparing the benefits and costs, a perception of value develops in relation to
the service or product, and the resulting value perception affects the willingness to use the
service or product (Yang et al., 2016). The willingness to adopt information systems is
influenced by cost-benefit comparisons, and the most favorable information system is used
(Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015; Lu et al., 2011).

2.2 Perceived value

The formation of a value perception in the customer’s mind is the result of a total utility
assessment of the product or service based on the results of the cognitive comparison
(Zeithaml, 1988). The context may affect a customer’s perceived value (Cocosila and Igonor,
2015). The most common definition of value is a specific quality or price or the consequence
of a decision (Zeithaml, 1988). However, Bolton and Drew (1991) indicated that defining
value as a measure of quality and price was too simple. Measuring the value perceived by
customers using only one item leads to insufficient validity (Chang and Wang, 2011;
Hsiao, 2011; Chen and Lin, 2015; Lin and Lu, 2015; Xu and Yao, 2015) and does not reflect the
general belief elaborated in the literature that perceived value reflects the relationship
between costs and benefits (Cocosila and Igonor, 2015; Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017).
Moreover, numerous scholars (Hsiao, 2011; Kim et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al.,
2016) have used cost-benefit theory to extend the measurement constructs of perceived
value according to specific situations. Kim et al. (2007) measured perceived value using
perceived usefulness, perceived entertainment, perceived ease of use of technology and
perceived fees to investigate the effect of usage intention on the adoption of mobile network
services. Their study reported that perceived usefulness, perceived entertainment, perceived
ease of use of technology and perceived fees all predicted perceived value and that
perceived value further affected behavior. Lin and Lu (2015) explored the effect of perceived
value on the use of mobile technology by considering mobile convenience, service
compatibility, security risk and cognitive effort. The study revealed that these four
dimensions all affect perceived value.
Relevant literature indicates that various dimensions affect purchase decisions depending
on the situation as well as the product or service. Value is a constant belief that determines an
individual’s preferences (Chen and Lin, 2015; Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017). Additionally,
perceived value affects personal attitudes and behavior (Chang and Wang, 2011; Hsiao et al.,
2016; Tankovic and Benazic, 2018; Xu and Yao, 2015; Zhao et al., 2019). Scholars have
suggested that perceived value has a direct and significant influence on the behavioral
OIR intentions of consumers (Chen and Lin, 2015; Hsu et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2007; Tankovic and
44,1 Benazic, 2018; Xu and Yao, 2015; Yang et al., 2016). Therefore, this study considered the
characteristics of mobile commerce to examine the effect of the perceived value of mobile
payment services on the willingness of consumers to use such services.

2.3 Social influences

302 Social influences (i.e. external social factors that affect behavior) can be divided into the
categories of social norms (Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al., 2012) and social
self-image (Chun et al., 2012; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014). Researchers have asserted that
social norms are references used by individuals when deciding whether they should engage in
a behavior (Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al., 2012). Several studies (Arrieta et al.,
2019; Chun et al., 2012; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2016)
have claimed that when engaging in a behavior, an individual is affected by social norms
shaped by reference persons such as colleagues, friends and schoolmates. That is, individuals
consider the behavioral expectations of key reference persons and tend to adopt behaviors that
meet those expectations.
Rosenberg (1979) stated that self-image is an integration of personal thinking and
emotions that can be considered to reflect a person’s individuality. Solomon (1999) proposed
that self-image is the faith that individuals have in the qualities they possess and their
methods for evaluating them. To McCaffrey (2003), self-image refers to the subjective
images that individuals have of themselves, including their appearance, social status and
personal characteristics. Studies have demonstrated that self-image is related to the
tendency to use IT (Badrinarayanan et al., 2014; Kang et al., 2009; Kleijnen et al., 2005).
Researchers (Chun et al., 2012; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014) studying self-image have
discovered that social self-image affects individuals’ decisions to use IT. That is, when
individuals perceive the approval of IT use from social groups, their use intentions increase;
this is particularly true for the intention to use innovative information technologies (such as
mobile payment services) (Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014). When individuals perceive that
IT use increases recognition or enhances their social image, they are more likely to use the
technology (Chun et al., 2012; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014). Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2014)
asserted that social self-image affects the decision to use mobile payment services. For the
aforementioned reasons, this study considered social norms and social self-image as
constructs of social influence.

3. Research model and hypotheses

Figure 1 illustrates the proposed research model, which is an extension of cost-benefit theory
(Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2016) that was adapted by incorporating the
dimension of social influence (Arrieta et al., 2019; Baptista and Oliveira, 2015; Hsu and
Lu, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Perceived value refers
to the compensatory trade-off between received benefits and costs incurred (Cocosila and
Igonor, 2015; Hernandez-Ortega et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2007; Kleijnen et al., 2007; Zeithaml et al.,
1988). Our model reflects the understanding that perceived value and social influence are
crucial determinants of the usage of mobile payment services. Both perceived benefits and
perceived costs positively affect the perceived value of mobile payment services. In explaining
the product or service adoption process in relation to the perceived characteristics of
innovation, Rogers (1995) argued that the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
observability and trialability are characteristics that influence an individual’s perception of
technology. IT-related studies, however, have indicated that only three of these characteristics
(namely relative advantage, compatibility and complexity) exhibited consistent correlations
with product or service adoption (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Kleijnen et al., 2007). Thus, these
 Antecedents of
Social norms
mobile
Relative Cost benefit theory
H4b payment
advantage
H4a
service usage
Social self-image
Service H1a
H5a
compatibility H5b 303
H1b
Intention to use
Perceived value H3
mobile payment
H2a
Security
risk
H2b

Perceived
Figure 1.
fee Research model

three variables were used in the present study for predicting the perceived benefits and
perceived costs of mobile payment services.
For the aspect of perceived benefits, relative advantage and compatibility were used as
measurement constructs in the current study. First, the most salient feature of a mobile
value-added service is its accessibility at any time and from any location. Based on research
conducted by Lu et al. (2011), the present study compares mobile payment with offline
payment with respect to aspects such as convenience, efficiency and efficacy to evaluate the
relative advantage of mobile payment. Second, service compatibility demonstrated
equivalence to the compatibility construct proposed by Rogers (1995) with respect to
similarities in mobile value-added service and consumer service demands (Kleijnen et al.,
2007; Lin and Lu, 2015). Regarding perceived cost, complexity has a negative effect on
innovation diffusion (Rogers, 1995). Complexity refers to the relative difficulty of
comprehending and utilizing perceived innovation. From the perspective of consumers,
disregarding or sacrificing consumer needs during the transaction process could influence
their assessment of perceived value (Kim et al., 2007; Yu et al., 2016; Zeithaml, 1988),
which corresponds to the perceived cost incurred by the consumer for the transaction.
Some scholars (Kim et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2016) have contended that perceived cost
includes both monetary and non-monetary costs. Accordingly, security risk and perceived
cost were used in this study as the cost factors for the use of mobile payment services.
For the social influence factor, social norms and social self-image were used as measurement
constructs. In the context of IT usage, research on social norms suggests that an individual’s
willingness to use IT is influenced by important reference persons (Liébana-Cabanillas et al.,
2014; Oliveira et al., 2016), whereas that on social self-image stresses that the improvement in
self-image based on the opinions of people in a reference group promotes an individual’s usage
intention (Chun et al., 2012; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014). The definitions and hypotheses for
all constructs used in the model are discussed in the following subsections.

3.1 Perceived benefits

3.1.1 Relative advantage. Perceived benefit has a positive effect on perceived value
(Chang and Wang, 2011; Kim et al., 2007; Yang et al., 2016). Perceived benefit refers to the
consumer’s belief in the advantages of using a product or service. Specifically, it refers to
the benefit obtained from a product or service (Chang and Wang, 2011; Kleijnen et al., 2007;
Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al., 2016).
OIR Rogers (1995) implied that relative advantages are the favorable properties or benefits of
44,1 a new product or service; if users believe that a new product or service has more benefits
(e.g. convenience) than existing products or services, then they perceive the new product or
service as having relative advantage (Lin and Lu, 2015; Lu et al., 2011). Lin and Lu (2015)
investigated mobile commerce in relation to services offering limited-time and
unlimited-time convenience. Kim and Hwang (2010) indicated that mobile devices such as
304 smartphones allow users to collect information and conduct transactions at any time and at
any location. Through the convenience that smartphones provide, users obtain the value of
mobile value-added services through timely and effective service delivery (Kleijnen et al.,
2007; Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al., 2016). Wang (2014) further argued that the convenience
provided by mobile technology positively affects perceived value. This implies that users
can use mobile payment services through smartphones to quickly, easily and efficiently
complete the payment process; thus, consumers may access information and services as well
as have their individual needs met when moving between locations, which may lead to
increases in perceived value. Therefore, this study proposed the following hypothesis:
H1a. Relative advantage positively affects users’ perceived value.
3.1.2 Service compatibility. Compatibility is the degree of compliance with the demand for
mobile value-added services and consumer services (Kleijnen et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015).
Rogers (1995) defined compatibility as the degree to which users’ sense of value, experiences
and needs for innovative products or services align with those of existing products or
services. An example of compatibility in a mobile service is when users experience the same
service functionality that they would experience offline when accessing community sites by
using computers or smartphones (Lin and Lu, 2015). Meuter et al. (2005) defined
compatibility as the degree to which a product is consistent with a consumer’s values
and lifestyle. The concept of compatibility has also been applied to mobile technology
(Kleijnen et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015). According to Kleijnen et al. (2007), consumers use
mobile value-added services to meet their specific service needs and the ability of mobile
value-added services to meet these requirements is the degree of service compatibility.
For example, consumers can use mobile payment to perform transactions on their
smartphones in a manner similar to using cash or credit cards. In other words, when users
perceive mobile payment services as functioning in the same manner as cash or physical
cards, their service needs are satisfied and their perceived consumption value is increased.
Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1b. Service compatibility positively affects users’ perceived value.

3.2 Perceived costs

3.2.1 Security risk. Studies have reported that wireless network users are concerned that their
personal information may be leaked, and this concern generates doubt regarding the safety of
using mobile networks (Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2016). According to a study conducted by
Oliveira et al. (2016), safety is the primary concern for users of mobile payment services,
mainly because of fears that using such services would lead to the leaking of personal
information or consumption records, credit card fraud, repetitive charges or smartphone theft.
Therefore, smartphone users also express concerns regarding security risks, such as personal
privacy and data leakage, when using smartphones to make payments (Cao et al., 2018).
Among individuals using smartphones as payment instruments, greater perceived risk of
personal information leakage leads to worse evaluations of services provided by mobile
payment services. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H2a. Security risk negatively affects users’ perceived value.
3.2.2 Perceived fees. Merriam-Webster (2012) defines fees as “payments made or collected Antecedents of
for services.” A perceived fee is the cost of a customer’s payment for a product or service mobile
(Kim et al., 2007), which is a concept that reflects the substitution of money for value.
Scholars (Kim et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2011) have proposed that perceived fees are monetary
payment
costs, such as those incurred during a transaction. In other words, a buyer considers various service usage
aspects of the cost associated with a transaction. Several studies (Hsiao, 2011; Lu et al., 2011;
MIC, 2018; Yang et al., 2016) have revealed that perceived fees negatively affect perceived 305
value. When using mobile payment, consumers may be required to pay derived fees such as
transaction fees in addition to the cost of the product or service (Lu et al., 2011; MIC, 2018).
This study suggests that the higher the perceived fees are, the greater the cost perceived by
consumers; this may result in a lower perceived value of mobile payment services. This
study proposed the following hypothesis:
H2b. Perceived fees negatively affect users’ perceived value.

3.3 Perceived value

Kim et al. (2007) defined perceived value as the assessment of the total utility of a product or
service driving consumer behaviors regarding information systems. Regarding cost
effectiveness, potential benefits and costs are the determining factors influencing the
behavioral intentions of consumers (Kim et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2011; Tankovic and Benazic,
2018; Yang et al., 2016). A user evaluates the difference between the benefits (e.g. relative
advantage and compatibility) and necessary costs (e.g. perceived risks and perceived costs)
of a product or service when assessing its total value (Yang et al., 2012); comparing benefits
and costs leads to the formation of a perception of value, which then determines whether the
consumer will use the product or service. Recent studies have reported that the perceptions
users have positively affect their behavioral intentions (Hsiao, 2011; Hsu et al., 2015;
Kim and Han, 2011; Kim et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015; Yang et al., 2016). Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis:
H3. Perceived value positively influences users’ intention to use mobile payment.

3.4 Social influences

3.4.1 Social norms. Norms influence individuals who seek the acceptance of others by
leading to the modification of their attitudes or behaviors (Perkins and Berkowitz, 1986).
Social norms are usually formed among group members, where individuals change their
perceptions and behaviors to comply with social expectations or a certain group norm
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Social norms refer to the social pressures felt by an individual
regarding whether a certain behavior would be approved by others in a group (Ajzen, 1985).
First proposed by Perkins and Berkowitz (1986), social norms are investigated by
researchers aiming to understand social environments and interpersonal influences (such as
peers). When individuals comply with the expectations of others to gain recognition, the
influence of social norms mainly originates from friends, schoolmates and colleagues
(Arrieta et al., 2019; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2015). Research has revealed that social
norms positively affect the intention to use information systems (Baptista and Oliveira,
2015; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lee, 2009; Oliveira et al., 2016). Chun et al. (2012) discovered that
social self-images are affected by social norms, that is, when users’ adoption of IT leads to
approval from reference persons or others in their surrounding social group, the social
self-images of the users are improved. We inferred that the intention to use mobile payment
is influenced by reference persons such as colleagues, friends, and schoolmates and that
OIR social groups or reference persons also affect the social self-images of users. We thus
44,1 propose the following hypotheses:
H4a. Social norms influence the intention to use mobile payment.
H4b. Social norms influence the user’s social self-image.
3.4.2 Social self-image. Social self-image refers to the subjective perceptions individuals
306 have of how they are perceived by others in their social group (e.g. recognition or status)
(Chun et al., 2012; Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2014). Chun et al. (2012) stated that when
advanced information technologies (e.g. smartphones) are used by others in an individual’s
social network, the social self-images of the users are enhanced. Lu et al. (2011) discovered
that when people who use mobile payment services subsequently receive approval from
others in their social group, their intention to use the service increases. Researchers have
also proposed that social self-image influences perceived value and that recognition from
social groups increases perceived value (Badrinarayanan et al., 2014; Chun et al., 2012). In
other words, the value of mobile payment perceived by individuals should increase with
recognition from their social group. We thus propose the following additional hypotheses:
H5a. Social self-image positively influences the intention to use mobile payment.
H5b. Social self-image positively influences the value perceived by users.

4. Research method
4.1 Measurement instruments
The research model comprised seven factors. Each factor was measured with multiple
items. To ensure validity, most of the items selected for the constructs were adapted from
other studies. The items were modified to fit the context of mobile payment. Relative
advantage was assessed based on the scale proposed by Lu et al. (2011). Service
compatibility was adapted from Kleijnen et al. (2007). Security risk was measured with the
three-item scale developed by Lee (2009). Items for measuring perceived fees were adapted
from those used by Luarn and Lin (2005). Perceived value was measured using four items
adapted from those used by Kim et al. (2007), and measures of social norms were adapted
from a study by Lin and Lu (2015). Measures of social self-image were adapted from those
used by Chun et al. (2012). Finally, measures of intention to use mobile payment were
developed based on research by Davis (1989). All items were measured on a five-point
Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Both a pretest and pilot test were conducted to validate the instrument. The pretest
involved five respondents with more than two years of experience of using mobile payment
systems. Respondents were asked to comment on the length of the instrument, the format
and the wording of the scales. The pilot test was conducted on 108 mobile payment users to
validate the instrument. Based on feedback from respondents, several questionnaire items
were modified to more clearly reflect the purpose of the survey. The content validity of the
instrument was confirmed. The final items in each scale are listed in Appendix.

4.2 Data collection and participant demographics

This study explored the factors affecting the intention to use mobile payment services. The
targeted participants were users of O’Pay, Taiwan’s most popular mobile payment service.
Research conducted by FSC in August 2018 revealed that of all 2.83m mobile payment users,
764,000 were O’Pay users, establishing its ranking as first among all mobile payment platforms.
The diverse payment services provided by O’Pay (e.g. credit card transactions, buddy
transfer, value storing, supermarket transactions, payment of medical and public utilities fees)
have led the company to quickly attract a multitude of users. Furthermore, the compatibility of Antecedents of
O’Pay with various operating systems (e.g. iOS and Android) has contributed to its popularity mobile
among users of all smartphone brands; by contrast, Google Pay is limited only to Android payment
smartphones with built-in near-field communication functionality and Apple Pay supports
only iPhones with built-in near-field communication functionality. We therefore selected O’Pay service usage
as the research subject.
Empirical data were collected through an online questionnaire. Invitation messages 307
were posted on popular mobile payment forums over a four-week period. To ensure
comprehensive capture of the dynamic trust transfer process, all respondents were informed
that they should have experience using O’Pay mobile payment. Furthermore, to encourage
participation, respondents were informed that they had a 20 percent chance of winning a
prize by completing the questionnaire. To avoid duplicate responses, the respondent
identities were confirmed using the e-mail and internet protocol addresses obtained when
the questionnaires were received.
A total of 367 online questionnaires were collected. After excluding responses from
29 respondents without O’Pay experience and 36 questionnaires with invalid or duplicate
answers, the total number of valid questionnaires was 302, indicating a valid return rate of
82.3 percent. Overall, 50.3 percent of the respondents were women and 49.7 percent were
men. Most of the respondents (50.7 percent) were aged 26–35 years. The demographic
profile of the sample is presented in Table I.

5. Data analysis and results

Structural equation modeling (SEM) was selected as the approach for analyzing the
collected data. According to Bollen (1989), SEM is a powerful second-generation
multivariate technique for analyzing causal models with an estimation of two
components of a causal model: measurement and structural models. The measurement
model was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis to test the reliability and validity of
the constructs. Finally, the structural model was used to examine the significance and
directionality of the relationships between constructs.

Demographic Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 152 50.3

Female 150 49.7
Age (years) o18 7 2.3
19–25 36 11.9
26–35 153 50.7
36–45 87 28.8
W45 19 6.3
Education level High school or under 39 12.9
College/university 172 57
Graduate degree 91 30.1
Occupation Student 54 17.9
Office worker 208 68.9
Self-employment 13 4.3
Home makers 27 8.9
Monthly income (TWD) o20,000 53 17.5
20,001–40,000 128 42.4
40,001–60,001 94 31.1
W60,001 27 8.9 Table I.
Mobile payment usage frequency 1–2 times a week 76 25.2 Demographic
3–5 times a week 178 58.9 characteristics of
About once a day 48 15.9 respondents
OIR 5.1 Measurement model
44,1 To further examine the measurement model, we adopted SEM software AMOS 21.0 to
conduct a confirmatory factor analysis. Hair et al. (1998) suggested that most model-fit
indices should reach accepted standards before model fitness judgments are made. The
results for all of the model-fit indices exhibited an adequate fit to the collected data by
exceeding the recommended values: χ2/df ¼ 1.05, GFI ¼ 0.94, AGFI ¼ 0.93, NFI ¼ 0.95,
308 CFI ¼ 0.99, and RMSEA ¼ 0.012 (see Table II).
The reliability and validity tests performed on the questionnaire included internal
consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity tests. Internal
consistency reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s α, composite reliability (CR) and
average variance extracted (AVE). As indicated in Table III, Cronbach’s α ranged from

Recommended Suggested Measurement Structural Structural model

Fit indices value by authors model model (full) (subgroups)

χ2/(df ) ⩽3 Hayduck 1.05 1.10 1.19

(1987)
Goodness of fit index (GFI) ⩾0.8 Scott (1994) 0.94 0.93 0.87
Adjusted for degrees of ⩾0.8 Scott (1994) 0.93 0.91 0.83
freedom (AGFI)
Normed fit index (NFI) ⩾0.8 Hair et al. 0.95 0.94 0.89
(1998)
Table II. Comparative fit index (CFI) ⩾0.9 Bagozzi and 0.99 0.99 0.98
Fit indices for the Yi (1988)
measurement and Root mean square error of ⩽0.08 Bagozzi and 0.012 0.018 0.025
structural models approximation (RMSEA) Yi (1988)

Construct Items Factor loadings t-statistic CR AVE Cronbach’s α

Relative advantage RA1 0.74 0.87 0.62 0.86

RA2 0.85 14.16
RA3 0.77 12.77
RA4 0.77 12.57
Service compatibility SC1 0.87 0.91 0.78 0.91
SC2 0.89 19.89
SC3 0.89 19.96
Security risk SR1 0.78 0.89 0.72 0.88
SR2 0.87 15.52
SR3 0.89 15.75
Perceived fee PF1 0.83 0.76 0.62 0.76
PF2 0.74 6.45
Perceived value PV1 0.79 0.90 0.70 0.90
PV2 0.88 17.22
PV3 0.89 17.50
PV4 0.77 14.75
Social norms SN1 0.90 0.92 0.80 0.92
SN2 0.93 24.01
SN3 0.85 20.71
Social self-image SSI1 0.85 0.91 0.78 0.91
SSI2 0.92 19.73
SSI3 0.87 18.87
Table III. Intention to use IU1 0.84 0.89 0.73 0.90
FLs, AVE, CR and IU2 0.90 18.90
Cronbach’s α values IU3 0.83 17.26
0.76 to 0.92 and CR ranged from 0.76 to 0.92; all of these values exceeded the recommended Antecedents of
score of 0.7, indicating adequate reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). mobile
Convergent validity was assessed by examining the factor loadings (FLs) for each item in payment
the measurement model, the significance level for each loading, the reliability and the AVE
for each construct. As shown in Table III, the FLs of all items in the measurement model service usage
exceeded 0.7. All AVEs and CRs exceeded 0.5 and 0.7, respectively. Thus, the scale was
determined to have adequate convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). All constructs in 309
the model had adequate reliability and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was evaluated using the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker
(1981) that the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeds the correlation between
any pair of distinct constructs. The results in Table IV indicate adequate validity. We thus
concluded that the constructs had reasonable reliability and validity.

5.2 Structural model

The path coefficients of the research model were measured using AMOS 21.0. The fit indices
for the structural model provided evidence of good model fit ( χ2/df ¼ 1.10, GFI ¼ 0.93,
AGFI ¼ 0.91, NFI ¼ 0.94, CFI ¼ 0.99 and RMSEA ¼ 0.018). Figure 2 presents the AMOS
results, which indicate the standardized path coefficients, path significance levels, and
variance explained (R2) by each path. All of our nine hypotheses were supported by the
AMOS structural model, lending overall support to our proposed model of intention to use
mobile payment. The results revealed that mobile payment behavior was predominantly
determined by perceived value (β ¼ 0.47, t ¼ 7.40, p o0.001), social norms (β ¼ 0.13, t ¼ 2.35,
p o0.05) and social self-image (β ¼ 0.18, t ¼ 3.01, po 0.01). Social norms were also
discovered to have a significant positive association with social self-image (β ¼ 0.20,
t ¼ 3.18, p o0.01). Thus, H1a, H2a and H3 were supported. The results also indicated that
perceived value was significantly affected by positive self-image (β ¼ 0.21, t ¼ 4.12,
p o0.001), relative advantage (β ¼ 0.41, t ¼ 6.52, p o0.001), service compatibility (β ¼ 0.18,
t ¼ 3.27, p o0.01), security risk (β ¼ -0.22, t ¼ -4.14, p o0.001) and perceived fees (β ¼ 0.18,
t ¼ -2.90, p o0.01). Thus, H2b, H4a, H4b, H5a and H5b were fully supported. The R2 values
for intention to use mobile payment, social self-image and perceived value were 43, 4 and
49 percent, respectively.

5.3 Differences between men and women

The acceptance analysis for new IT products often considers gender; among all personality
features (Sanchez-Franco, 2006; Venkatesh and Morris, 2000), gender yields the greatest

Construct RA SC SR PF PV SN SSI IU

RA 0.79
SC 0.22 0.88
SR −0.17 −0.21 0.82
PF 0.26 0.20 −0.06 0.79
PV 0.51 0.38 −0.32 − 0.33 0.84
SN 0.09 0.06 −0.06 0.14 0.16 0.89
SSI 0.20 0.15 −0.08 0.09 0.32 0.18 0.88
IU 0.28 0.25 −0.26 0.10 0.51 0.23 0.33 0.85
Notes: RA, relative advantage; SC, service compatibility; SR, security risk; PF, perceived fees; PV, perceived
value; SN, social norms; SSI, social self-image; and IU, intention to use. Diagonal elements (italic)
are the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) between the constructs and their measures.
Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For the verification of discriminant validity, the Table IV.
values of diagonal elements should be larger than those of off-diagonal elements Discriminant validity
OIR
Social norms
44,1
Cost benefit theory
Relative
0.20**
advantage
0.13*
Social self-image
Service 0.41***
310 compatibility
0.18**
0.21*** (R2 = 0.04)
0.18**
Intention to use
Perceived value 0.47***
mobile payment
–0.22***
Security (R2 = 0.49) (R2 = 0.33)
risk
0.18**

Perceived
fee
Figure 2.
Results of full sample
Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001

difference in the comparison of measures for perceived value and benefit

(Lin and Lu, 2011; Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). This study used an AMOS 21.0
multiple-group analysis to determine whether gender affected the causal relationships
between the model constructs in this study. The original data were separated into two
subgroups (152 men and 150 women) and tested, respectively. The fit indices for the
two subgroups were determined to be consistent with the values suggested by other
researchers ( χ2 /df ¼ 1.19, GFI ¼ 0.87, AGFI ¼ 0.83, NFI ¼ 0.89, CFI ¼ 0.98, and
RMSEA ¼ 0.025), verifying a high degree of goodness of fit between the model and the
sample data. We then examined the path coefficients of the structural model. The results
of the AMOS analysis are presented in Table V.
Among the nine hypothesized relationships, only seven path coefficients were significant
for men (SN → SSI, SSI → IU, SSI → PV, PV → IU, RA → PV, SC → PV and SR → PV ),
whereas nine paths were significant for women (SN → IU, SN → SSI, SSI → IU, SSI → PV,
PV→ IU, RA → PV, SC → PV, SR → PV and PF → PV ). These results indicated that
gender had a significant effect on the paths PV → IU, SN → SSI, RA → PV and SC → PV.
Nevertheless, social self-image and security risk were discovered to have different
effects on the intention to use mobile payment and perceived value for men and women.

Men Women
Hypothesis β t-statistics β t-statistics

H1a: RA → PV 0.47*** 5.50 0.34*** 3.69

H1b: SC → PV 0.15* 2.01 0.19* 2.18
H2a: SR → PV −0.18* −2.48 −0.26** −3.20
H2b: PF → PV 0.14ns 1.72 0.22* 2.16
H3: PV → IU 0.54*** 6.29 0.36*** 3.85
H4a SN → SSI 0.10ns 1.40 0.17* 1.98
Table V. H4b: SN → SSI 0.22* 2.54 0.18* 2.00
Results of t-tests for H5a: SSI → IU 0.21** 2.60 0.18* 1.98
multiple-group H5b: SSI → PV 0.28*** 4.13 0.19* 2.40
analysis Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
For example, SN had a stronger influence on women regarding the intention to use mobile Antecedents of
payment (t ¼ 1.98), whereas social self-image had a greater effect on men regarding mobile
perceived value and the intention to use mobile payment (t ¼ 2.60 and 4.13). All of the cost- payment
benefit factors had significant effects among men, except for perceived fees, which did not
affect perceived value. Among women, all cost-benefit factors were significantly correlated service usage
with perceived value. The results revealed that RA, service compatibility and security risk
significantly affected perceived value for both men and women. These findings provide 311
evidence that differences in gender correspond to significant differences in the effects of
cost-benefit evaluations on perceived value.

6. Discussion
This study used a framework that integrated cost-benefit theory and social influences to
investigate the factors that influence the intention to use mobile payment, and the results are
presented as follows.
Figure 2 displays the research results in relation to user demographics. Consistent
with the findings of other studies (Cocosila and Trabelsi, 2016; Yang et al., 2012, 2015),
those obtained using our structural model suggest that perceived value, social norms and
social self-image are the primary factors affecting the intention to use mobile payment.
In particular, the findings indicate that perceived value is the most influential factor
affecting mobile payment behaviors. Compared with payment transactions performed in
the physical environment, mobile payment transactions offer service features such as
efficiency, convenience, discounts and bonuses (MIC, 2017), leading users to develop
value perceptions and usage intentions. The results of this study also confirm the
views of other scholars (Lu et al., 2011; Teo et al., 2015). Mobile payment providers
should consider whether the benefits they offer outweigh the costs to attract more users
to use the system.
The results regarding social self-image are consistent with those of other studies
(Kang et al., 2009; Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012); the social self-images that individuals
form from using IT positively affect their behavioral intentions. The results of the study
indicate that the development of a positive social self-image from using mobile payment
services increases usage intention. Researchers have proposed that the intentions of
individuals to use IT is driven by the desire to gain recognition from the members of their
social groups, such as friends, schoolmates and colleagues (Baptista and Oliveira, 2015;
Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lee, 2009; Oliveira et al., 2016). The findings suggest that social norms
also influence individuals’ use of mobile payment services because such services evoke
not only task-oriented but also social-oriented feelings (Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012).
When individuals are confronted with social expectations to use mobile payment services,
they comply with these expectations to gain recognition (Yang et al., 2012). This study
inferred that individuals consider social influences (e.g. social self-image and social norms)
when deciding whether to use mobile payment services.
Both benefit dimensions of relative advantage and service compatibility were observed
to have a direct and positive effect on perceived value. Specifically, users believe mobile
payment services have advantages in terms of time and place. When compared with online
or offline payment services, mobile payment services allow users to pay more quickly and
conveniently as well as effectively manage their accounts. This, in turn, increases the user’s
perceived value (Allums, 2014). When users can purchase goods, transfer money between
accounts and pay bills using mobile payment with the same success that they would
experience in a physical environment, their perceived value of mobile payment increases.
These results are consistent with those published in relevant literature (Kleijnen et al., 2007;
Lin and Lu, 2015). The primary reason for why consumers use mobile value-added services
is to meet their specific needs for service compatibility.
OIR Regarding cost dimensions, this study assumed that both security risk and perceived
44,1 fees have a negative effect on perceived value. In terms of security risk, the findings
of the present study are consistent with those of other studies (Lu et al., 2011; MIC, 2017;
Yang et al., 2016); when using mobile payment services, users pay special attention to
security risks, such as leakage of personal data, repeat charges and smartphone theft.
Similarly, in a mobile payment setting, perceived fees negatively correlate to the perceived
312 value of using mobile payment services. Therefore, the salient negative effects of security
risk and perceived fees on intention to use mobile payment indicate that these two costs
discourage people from using mobile payment services.

7. Conclusions and implications

7.1 Implications for future research
The results of this study have several academic implications. First, this study explored the
factors contributing to the intention of individuals to use mobile payment services on the
basis of their perceived value (derived from cost-benefit theory) and added the dimension of
social influence to develop an integrated structural model. Our research models exhibited
sufficient explanatory power for predicting the intention to continue using mobile payment
services, thereby providing a novel reference for future research. Second, other studies have
discussed only how value affects the intention to use mobile services (Kim et al., 2007;
Lin and Lu, 2015); however, scholars have suggested that other factors should also be
considered in the context of information systems. Social influence can be used to interpret
and predict the behaviors of individuals regarding the use of information systems
(Baptista and Oliveira, 2015; Hsu and Lu, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2015; Oliveira et al., 2016;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). This study included the dimension of social influence to more
accurately predict the willingness of individuals to use mobile payment services. Third, this
study adopted perceived innovation characteristics to form the benefit and cost components
of the perceived value of mobile payment services; benefits included relative advantage
and service compatibility, whereas costs included security risk and perceived fees.
These factors were determinants that affected the perceived value of mobile payment
services. Finally, the research model exhibited strong explanatory power for predicting the
intention to use mobile payment services. The results of the present study can be referenced
in subsequent research.

7.2 Implications for practice

The results of this study have several implications for mobile payment service providers.
First, perceived value was demonstrated to have a direct and significant effect on intention
to use mobile payment services; this is consistent with the findings of other studies (Kim
et al., 2007; Lin and Lu, 2015). The value perceived by users is shaped by the functions or
services provided by mobile technology. Therefore, understanding the formation of
perceived value without analyzing the attributes (both positive and negative) of products or
services is difficult (Kim et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2016). Accordingly, if a
service provider can strengthen perceptions of its positive attributes, such as relative
advantage and service compatibility, and reduce those of negative attributes, such as
security risks and perceived fees, then it can increase its value perceived by users and thus
strengthen their intention to continue usage. Additionally, the results suggest that social
influences affect the continued use of mobile payment services. These results align with the
conclusion of Yang et al. (2012) that social influences (e.g. social norms and social self-image)
influence the use of mobile payment services. Moreover, a user’s social self-image is
improved as a consequence of receiving approval from relatives or friends for using mobile
payment services (Chun et al., 2012). This implies that social norms and social self-image
positively influence the use of payment tools such as mobile payment (Oliveira et al., 2016; Antecedents of
Yang et al., 2012) and that social self-image has a positive effect on perceived value. mobile
These results are useful for service providers because they demonstrate that in the context payment
of a mobile-oriented information system, social influences affect the intention to use mobile
payment services. service usage

8. Limitations and suggestions for future research 313

Although the findings of this study are promising and useful, this study, like all the other
studies, has its limitations. First, whether the findings can be generalized to all types of
mobile payment services is unclear. Further research is necessary to verify the
generalizability of these findings. Second, regarding the research methodology, a
quantitative statistical research model was used. Online questionnaires were used to
collect data, and information provided on the online survey was announced across a variety
of mobile payment forums. The purpose of this approach was to increase sample diversity
and avoid obtaining skewed results caused by insufficient sample attributes. Self-selection
bias, however, may result from adopting this method. Conducting a combination of
qualitative and quantitative assessments in future research may provide more
comprehensive evidence to support the findings of the present study. Third, this study
proposed two sets of antecedents that can influence mobile payment usage behaviors:
positive factors (relative advantage and service compatibility) and negative factors
(security risk and perceived fees). Nevertheless, these factors could not provide full
explanatory power for all usage attitudes and behaviors. Therefore, future studies should
include other constructs in the model (e.g. quality factors, types of mobile payment service
or trust), to provide favorable explanations and predictions of mobile-oriented user
behaviors. Finally, future studies can incorporate interference variables, such as habits or
involvement, to deepen understanding of this topic.

References
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1998), “The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness
in the acceptance of information technologies”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 557-582.
Ajzen, I. (1985), “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J.
(Eds), Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 11-39.
Allums, S. (2014), Designing Mobile Payment Experiences: Principles And Best Practices For Mobile
Commerce, Oreilly & Associates, Sebastopol, CA.
Arrieta, B.U., Peña, A.I.P. and Medina, C.M. (2019), “The moderating effect of blogger social influence
and the reader’s experience on loyalty toward the blogger”, Online Information Review,
Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 326-349, doi: 10.1108/OIR-02-2016-0049.
Badrinarayanan, V., Becerra, E.P. and Madhavaram, S. (2014), “Influence of congruity in store-attribute
dimensions and self-image on purchase intentions in online stores of multichannel retailers”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1013-1020.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of Academy
of Marking Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baptista, G. and Oliveira, T. (2015), “Understanding mobile banking: the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology combined with cultural moderators”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 418-430.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY.
Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), “A multi-stage model of customer’s assessments of service quality
and value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-384.
Cao, X., Yu, L., Liu, Z., Gong, M. and Adeel, L. (2018), “Understanding mobile payment users’
continuance intention: a trust transfer perspective”, Internet Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 456-476.
OIR Chang, H.H. and Wang, H.W. (2011), “The moderating effect of customer perceived value on online
44,1 shopping behaviour”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 333-359.
Chen, S.C. and Lin, C.P. (2015), “The impact of customer experience and perceived value on sustainable
social relationship in blogs: an empirical study”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 40-50.
Chun, H., Lee, H. and Kim, D. (2012), “The integrated model of smartphone adoption: hedonic and
314 utilitarian value perceptions of smartphones among Korean college students”, Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 473-479.
Cocosila, M. and Igonor, A. (2015), “How important is the ‘social’ in social networking? A perceived
value empirical investigation”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 366-382.
Cocosila, M. and Trabelsi, H. (2016), “An integrated value-risk investigation of contactless mobile
payments adoption”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 159-170.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice
Hall, London.
Hayduck, L.A. (1987), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, Johns Hopkings University Press,
Baltimore, MD.
Hernandez-Ortega, B., Aldas-Manzano, J., Ruiz-Mafe, C. and Sanz-Blas, S. (2017), “Perceived value of
advanced mobile messaging services: a cross-cultural comparison of Greek and Spanish users”,
Information Technology & People, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 324-355.
Hsiao, C.H., Chang, J.J. and Tang, K.Y. (2016), “Exploring the influential factors in continuance usage of
mobile social APPs: satisfaction, habit, and customer value perspectives”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 342-355.
Hsiao, K.L. (2011), “Why internet users are willing to pay for social networking services”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 770-788.
Hsu, C.L. and Lu, H.P. (2004), “Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social
influences and flow experience”, Information and Management, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 853-868.
Hsu, M.H., Chang, C.M. and Chuang, L.W. (2015), “Understanding the determinants of online repeat
purchase intention and moderating role of habit: the case of online group-buying in Taiwan”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Kang, Y.S., Hong, S. and Lee, H. (2009), “Exploring continued online service usage behavior: the roles of
self-image congruity and regret”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 111-122.
Kim, B. and Han, I. (2011), “The role of utilitarian and hedonic values and their antecedents in a mobile
data service environment”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 2311-2318.
Kim, D.J. and Hwang, Y. (2010), “A study of mobile internet user’s service quality perceptions from a
user’s utilitarian and hedonic value tendency perspectives”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 63-84.
Kim, H.W., Chan, H.C. and Gupta, S. (2007), “Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical
investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Kleijnen, M., Ruyter, K. and Andreassen, T.W. (2005), “Image congruence and the adoption of service
innovations”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 343-359.
Kleijnen, M.H.P., de Ruyter, J.C. and Wetzels, M.G.M. (2007), “An assessment of value creation in mobile
service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83
No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Koo, C., Chung, N. and Kim, H.W. (2015), “Examining explorative and exploitative uses of smartphones: Antecedents of
a user competence perspective”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 133-162. mobile
Lee, M.C. (2009), “Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and payment
TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 130-141. service usage
Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J., Sánchez-Fernández, J. and Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2014), “Role of gender on
acceptance of mobile payment”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 2, 315
pp. 220-240.
Lin, K.Y. and Lu, H.P. (2011), “Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating
network externalities and motivation theory”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 1152-1161.
Lin, K.Y. and Lu, H.P. (2015), “Predicting mobile social network acceptance based on mobile value and
social influence”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-130.
Lu, H.P. and Lee, M.R. (2010), “Demographic differences and the antecedents of blog stickiness”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P.Y.K. and Cao, Y. (2011), “Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 393-403.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.H. (2005), “Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile
banking”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 873-891.
McCaffrey, M. (2003), “Power of self-image psychology”, American Salesman, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-24.
Merriam-Webster (2012), “Fee dictionary”, available at: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fee
(accessed March 25, 2017).
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative service
delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 61-83.
MIC (2017), “Mobile payment consumer analysis survey”, available at: http://mic.iii.org.tw/AISP/
ReportS.aspx?id=CDOC20170123004 (accessed July 28, 2017).
MIC (2018), “Mobile payment development trend and application analysis”, available at: https://mic.iii.
org.tw/AISP/ReportS.aspx?id=PPT1070907-2 (accessed May 15, 2017).
Nielsen (2014), “The modern wallet: mobile payments are making life easier”, available at: www.nielsen.
com/us/en/insights/news/2014/whats-in-your-wallet-mobile-payments-are-making-life-easier.html
(accessed May 10, 2017).
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G. and Campos, F. (2016), “Mobile payment: understanding the
determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 404-414.
Perkins, H.W. and Berkowitz, A.D. (1986), “Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among
students: some research implications for campus alcohol education programming”, International
Journal of the Addictions, Vol. 21 Nos 9-10, pp. 961-976.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rosenberg, M. (1979), Conceiving the Self, Basic Book, New York, NY.
Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2006), “Exploring the influence of gender on the web usage via partial least
squares”, Behaviour & Information Technology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Solomon, R.M. (1999), Consumer Behavior: Buying Having, and Being, Prentice Hall International,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Scott, J. (1994), “The measurement of information systems effectiveness: evaluating a measuring
instrument”, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Information Systems,
Vancouver, pp. 111-128.
OIR Statistia (2018), “Number of proximity mobile payment transaction users worldwide from 2016 to 2021
44,1 (in millions)”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/557959/global-mobile-proximity-
payment-users/ (accessed February 15, 2019).
Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Chong, S.C. and Hew, T.S. (2014), “NFC mobile credit card: the next frontier of
mobile payment?”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 292-307.
Tankovic, A.C. and Benazic, D. (2018), “The perception of e-service scape and its influence on
316 perceived e-shopping value and customer loyalty”, Online Information Review, Vol. 42 No. 7,
pp. 1124-1145.
Teo, A.C., Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Hew, T.S. and Yew, K.T. (2015), “The effects of convenience and
speed in m-payment”, Industrial Management & Data, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 311-331.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social
influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Wang, C. (2014), “Antecedents and consequences of perceived value in mobile government continuance
use: an empirical research in China”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 140-147.
Xu, X. and Yao, Z. (2015), “Understanding the role of argument quality in the adoption of online
reviews: an empirical study integrating value-based decision and needs theory”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 885-902.
Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H. and Choi, M. (2016), “User acceptance of wearable devices: an extended
perspective of perceived value”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 256-269.
Yang, S., Lu, Y., Gupta, S., Cao, Y. and Zhang, R. (2012), “Mobile payment services adoption across time:
an empirical study of the effects of behavioral beliefs, social influences, and personal traits”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 129-142.
Yang, Y., Liu, Y., Li, H. and Yu, B. (2015), “Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment
acceptance”, Industrial Management & Data, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 253-269.
Yu, J., Lee, H., Ha, I. and Zo, H. (2016), “User acceptance of media tables: an examination of perceived
value”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 256-269.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model and
synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 2-22.
Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Zhou, R. and Ci, Y. (2019), “Factors influencing customers’ willingness to participate
in virtual brand community’s value co-creation: the moderating effect of customer involvement”,
Online Information Review, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 440-461, doi: 10.1108/OIR-08-2017-0232.

Further reading
FSC (2018), “An overview of 2018 Taiwan mobile payment service”, available at: www.fsc.gov.tw/ch/
home.jsp?id=96&parentpath=0,2&mcustomize=news_view.jsp&dataserno=201810020008&
aplistdn=ou=news,ou=multisite,ou=chinese,ou=ap_root,o=fsc,c=tw&dtable=News (accessed
October 15, 2018).
Zeo, T. (2013), “An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment services”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1085-1091.

Appendix. Measurement items for the constructs

Relative advantage (RA)

• RA1: O’Pay has more advantages than online and offline forms of payment because its services
are not restricted by location or time.
• RA2: O’Pay is more convenient than online and offline forms of payment.
 • RA3: O’Pay is more efficient than online and offline forms of payment. Antecedents of
• RA4: O’Pay is more effective than online and offline forms of payment for managing mobile
payment accounts. payment
service usage
Service compatibility (SC)
• SC1: O’Pay fulfills my service needs. 317
• SC2: O’Pay is compatible with my usual method for performing service transactions.
• SC3: O’Pay fits my service preferences.

Security risk (SR)

• SR1: I would not feel totally safe providing personal or private information over the O’Pay system.
• SR2: I am anxious to use O’Pay because other people may be able to access my account.
• SR3: I would not feel secure sending sensitive information across the O’Pay system.

Perceived fees (PF)

• PF1: It would cost a lot to use O’Pay.
• PF2: There are financial barriers (e.g. having to pay for a handset or mobile credit) preventing
my use of O’Pay.

Perceived value (PV )

• PV1: O’Pay devices offer value for money.
• PV2: Considering the effort I must expend, the use of O’Pay is beneficial to me.
• PV3: Considering the time I need to spend, the use of O’Pay is worthwhile to me.
• PV4: Overall, the use of O’Pay provides me with good value.

Social norms (SN)

• SN1: My colleagues think that I should use O’Pay services.
• SN2: My classmates think that I should use O’Pay services.
• SN3: My friends think that I should use O’Pay services.

Social self-image (SSI)

• SSI1: Using O’Pay will help me to identify with social groups that I regard positively.
• SSI2: Using O’Pay will enhance my image within the social groups that I am engaged in
(e.g. school, company, or friend group).
• SSI3: Using O’Pay will improve my standing within the social groups that I am engaged in.

Intention to use (IU)

• IU1: I plan to use O’Pay in the future.
• IU2: I intend to use O’Pay in the future.
• IU3: I predict that I will use O’Pay in the future.
OIR About the authors
44,1 Kuan-Yu Lin is Associate Professor in the Department of Information Technology at Ling Tung
University, Taichung, Taiwan. She holds a PhD degree from National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology of Taiwan. Her research interests include and electronic commerce, virtual communities and
Internet marketing. Her work has been published in Internet Research, Online Information Review,
Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Behaviour & Information
Technology, and Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. Kuan-Yu Lin is the corresponding
318 author and can be contacted at: ntustmislab@gmail.com
Yi-Ting Wang is Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at
Ling Tung University, Taichung, Taiwan. She received a PhD from Indiana University Bloomington,
USA. Her main research interests are second language acquisition and sentence processing. She values
the importance of cross-disciplinary research and collaboration. Thus, she has been working in
different projects ranging from marketing strategies to cross-cultural communication. Her work has
been published in Internet Research, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Studies in
Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Research.
Travis K. Huang works as Associate Professor in the Department of Information Management at
Ling Tung University in Taiwan. His research interests include knowledge management, E-learning,
information systems implementation and human computer interaction. His research appears or is
forthcoming in such journals as International Learning Environments, Computers & Education,
Decision Support Systems, Behaviour & Information Technology and Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com