Chawla & Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

International Journal of Bank Marketing
Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

study
Deepak Chawla, Himanshu Joshi,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Deepak Chawla, Himanshu Joshi, (2019) "Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet
in India – An empirical study", International Journal of Bank Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJBM-09-2018-0256
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Nottingham Trent University At 22:21 19 June 2019 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2018-0256
Downloaded on: 19 June 2019, At: 22:21 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 128 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:226873 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm
Mobile wallet
Consumer attitude and intention to in India
adopt mobile wallet in India – An
empirical study
Deepak Chawla and Himanshu Joshi
International Management Institute, New Delhi, India
Received 25 September 2018
Revised 18 January 2019
1 April 2019
Abstract 4 April 2019
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the factors that influence a consumer’s Accepted 17 April 2019
attitude and intention to use mobile wallets using a sample representative of Indian users.
Design/methodology/approach – A multidisciplinary model is proposed, building on the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and
other relevant research on factors, which influence technology adoption. A synthesis of review of literature
on factors influencing technology adoption besides two focus group discussions (FGD) was used as
a design a pilot instrument. A nationwide primary survey was conducted using the questionnaire.
Convenience sampling was used to select the respondents. In total, 744 respondents participated
in the survey, and 17 hypotheses were formulated and PLS-SEM was used to estimate and test the
hypothesized model.
Findings – The results show that factors like perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness
(PU), trust, security, facilitating conditions and lifestyle compatibility have a significant impact on the
consumer attitude and intention to use mobile wallets. Of the proposed 17 hypotheses, 15 were
accepted. Ease of use significantly influenced usefulness and trust, whereas PU significantly
influenced trust, attitude and intention. Security and trust were found to be play an important role in
determining trust.
Research limitations/implications – This study examines the perception of students and working
professional from large Indian cities. A larger representative sample encompassing balanced
representation from urban and rural India could enhance the scope and widen the application of the
results across larger target groups. This study analyzes data at a specific point in time. Considering the
rapidly changing rate of adoption of mobile wallets, a longitudinal study could, therefore, be conducted.
Furthermore, the possibility of including other antecedents like relative advantage, perceived benefits,
personal innovativeness among other factors, which have not been addressed here can be explored. Also,
additional research can help examine the role of demographics in adoption of mobile wallets including its
moderating effect.
Practical implications – As security and trust emerged as important constructs for acceptance of mobile
wallets, there is a need for developing an integrated robust, reliable and secure infrastructure. A joint think
tank involving key stakeholders (financial institutions, mobile wallet providers, government, security
experts, etc.) should propose guidelines to ensure safe and secure transactions. The findings have
managerial implications, which can guide companies offering mobile wallets to enhance usage and
adoption of such services.
Originality/value – Mobile wallets have provided newer digital payment avenues to consumers while
offering companies and marketers greater opportunities to market their products and services, online.
However, not much is reported about the adoption of mobile wallets in India. The study is perhaps the first in
India to examine the adoption of mobile wallets using a larger sample in comparison to earlier studies.
The study proposes and validates additional constructs, which were not present in the original model.
Keywords India, Adoption, Attitude, Banking
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
1.1 What is a mobile wallet?
Mobile wallets are the digital equivalent of a physical wallet. Whenever a purchase of a
product or service is made, the user simply takes money out their wallet and makes a International Journal of Bank
Marketing
payment. Likewise, in the case of a mobile wallet, one can preload a certain amount of © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-2323
money through a credit card, a debit card, or internet banking that can be used to make DOI 10.1108/IJBM-09-2018-0256
IJBM online and offline payments. Mobile wallets then can be used to transact through
multi-channels like consumer to consumer, consumer to business, consumer to machine and
consumer to online (Shin, 2009).
Mobile wallets are classified as prepaid instruments (PPI) by the Reserve Bank of India.
There are three types of mobile wallets in India, namely, closed PPI, semi-closed PPI and
open PPI. Closed PPI wallets are issued by companies to buy goods and services only from
that company. A closed wallet does not permit cash withdrawal or redemption.
Semi-closed PPI can be used to buy goods and services from merchants that have a
contract with the issuer to accept payment. Open PPI wallets can be used to buy goods
and services, withdraw cash at ATM’s or banks, and transfer funds. These services can
only be jointly launched with a bank. The Government of India has also introduced a
mobile wallet called Bharat Interface for Money (BHIM) to encourage its citizens to use
digital payments.
Concepts like mobile banking and mobile money are precursors to mobile wallet. Mobile
banking refers to a system that allow a customer to conduct financial transactions in his/her
bank account through a mobile device. Services include deposits, withdrawals, account
transfer, bill payment, and balance inquiry. Mobile money refers to a range of services that
can be offered through a mobile phone like mobile money transfer (MMT), mobile payments
and mobile banking. Mobile wallet can be seen as an extension of mobile banking and
mobile money wherein users can store their personal information along with details of
various payment methods. A mobile wallet can be viewed as a repository of all information
related to a customer that is required for mobile transactions. Similarly, an e-wallet can be
seen as a broader concept wherein the money can be stored digitally and payments can be
made either through a desktop, laptop or a smartphone.
1.2 State of mobile wallet in India

According to Statista (2018), the number of mobile phone users in India could reach almost
813.2m by 2021. Anticipating the potential of this platform, a number of players have
introduced various payment services called mobile wallets. According to Penser Consulting
(2017), demonetization in India has led to a significant increase in the use of mobile wallets in
India. According to their findings, 38 percent of wallet users in India transferred money and
31 percent did recharge for bill payments, whereas the remaining 31 percent spent wallet
funds on e-commerce, travel, movie tickets, etc. As per estimates from the 2017 Consumer
Payments Insight Survey (GlobalData, 2018), India is one of the top markets globally in
terms of mobile wallet adoption. It has been projected that the total mobile wallet
transactions in India would reach INR800bn in 2017, a growth of 113 percent over the
previous year. As far as India is concerned, its mobile wallet industry is projected to grow to
$4.4bn by 2022 with a projection of a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 148 percent
over five years (Capgemini’s World Payment Report, 2017).
A number of studies exists that discuss the adoption of technology for online payments.
Mobile wallets, being a relatively new concept, have gained researchers’ attention but not
much empirical work has been done on this. The study addresses two research questions.
Firstly, it attempts to identify the factors, which influence user attitude and motivate them
to adopt mobile wallet. How do the constructs of two popular models for technology
adoption, i.e. TAM and UTAUT, explain the adoption of mobile wallet services in India?
Second, does the integration of the constructs from these models improve the explanation of
attitude and intention concerning mobile wallet adoption? A research model and various
hypotheses have been proposed to predict user attitude and intention for adopting a mobile
wallet. The model is empirically examined using PLS-SEM to assess the empirical strengths
of the relationship and the explanatory power of the model. The findings of the study and its
implications for academicians and practitioners are discussed.
This paper is organized as follows. The second section provides a literature review on Mobile wallet
mobile wallets and the factors that influence user attitude and intention to adopt mobile in India
wallet. The third section proposes the research model and formulation of hypotheses. This is
followed by the fourth section, which discusses the research methodology. Section 5
presents the analysis of data and findings. The penultimate Section 6 discusses results and
conclusion. The last section presents implications for academicians and practitioners,
limitations of the study and scope for future research.
2. Review of literature
2.1 Theories on technology acceptance
Although mobile wallets are gaining popularity, a key question is whether this platform
will be able to transform the way consumers make payments. Although there is no doubt
that a mobile wallet offers tremendous opportunities for merchants and companies, the
adoption rates are low if we include the rural population. More than 70 percent of the
Indian population resides in the rural area and over 90 percent of people in rural India
have not undertaken any digital transactions. Infrastructure hurdles like affordability of
smartphones and poor internet connectivity are key user concerns. Other than
infrastructure challenges, there are psychological factors that need to be addressed.
The concept of a cashless economy is very new to rural India, as cash is the primary
medium for transactions. Low literacy rates also adversely influence the adoption rate.
Furthermore, there are concerns related to security and privacy of data. Although mobile
wallets provide a hassle-free method to carry and transfer money, it also raises concerns
about personal and confidential data being stored on a phone. This poses a great risk if the
phone is lost or stolen.
2.2 The TAM and UTAUT model

The technology acceptance model (TAM) is regarded as the most robust, parsimonious
and influential model in innovations acceptance behavior (Davis et al., 1989; Pavlou, 2003)
that addresses the issue of how users come to accept and use a technology. It is considered
one of the best frameworks to understand technology-related adoptions (Belanche et al.,
2012). The model is based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA) that suggests that an
individual’s behavior intention results in actual behavior, which is influenced by his/her
subjective norm and attitude that, in turn, is influenced by individual beliefs (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). Overall, the TAM has been empirically proven successful in predicting
about 40 percent of a systems use (Legris et al., 2003). Pikkarainen et al. (2004) proposed a
model consisting of six factors, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU),
perceived enjoyment, information on online banking, security and privacy and quality of
internet connection to study acceptance of online banking. Teo et al. (2008) extended the
TAM framework with subjective norms and facilitating conditions (FC) as external
variables. Geo et al. (2017) have combined TAM and Theory of Planned Behavior to
examine adoption of mobile banking services in Pakistan. According to Shin (2009), there
is a growing trend for researchers to extend the TAM with additional variables and if
modified appropriately, it is the most effective tool to investigate factors related to usage
and adoption. Shaw (2014) in a study involving mobile wallet users from Canada proposed
an extended TAM model by using additional constructs like trust, security, lifestyle
compatibility (LC) and FC. Muñoz-Leiva et al. (2017) developed a TAM that integrates the
innovation diffusion theory, perceived risk and trust in the classic TAM model to explain
user acceptance of mobile banking applications. Matemba and Li (2017) extended the
capabilities of TAM to predict the acceptance levels of the people-to-people (P2P) services
of the WeChat wallet in South Africa.
IJBM Venkatesh et al. (2003) proposed a model called the unified theory of acceptance and use
of technology (UTAUT), which aimed to explain user intentions to use an information
system and their subsequent behavior. The model suggests that four core constructs
(performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and FC) are direct
determinants of behavioral intention and ultimately user behavior. Shin (2009) used the
UTAUT model along with constructs of security, trust, social influence and self-efficacy.
UTAUT has been proposed as an extension of TAM, and its validity in explaining
technology acceptance has been demonstrated by earlier studies. Martins et al. (2014)
developed a conceptual model by combining UTAUT with perceived risk to explain the
behavioral intention and usage behavior of internet banking in Portugal.
As evident from the above discussion, various studies have been carried out using TAM
and UTAUT to explain consumers’ intention and the adoption of various technologies like
online commerce (Zhang et al., 2006), bank technology (Wan et al., 2005), internet banking
(Akinci et al., 2004), mobile banking (Amin et al., 2006; Shin, 2009; Lee et al., 2010), online
learning (Cheung and Lee, 2012), mobile coupons (Liu et al., 2015), mobile money (Chauhan,
2015), etc. However, as summarized in Table I, there are few studies that look at the adoption
of mobile wallet. The variables included in the models are not exhaustive to study attitude
and intention. For example, studies in this area have not adequately discussed important
factors like trust, security, LC, FC, etc., to explain adoption. Given the expected exponential
growth in the mobile wallet payment market in India, it is imperative to study the factors
concerning the attitude and intention of consumers.
There are few empirical studies that incorporate the influence of variables like FC and LC
on both attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallets. In the Indian context, the first study
examines the causal relationship between antecedents to consumer preference and attitude
(Singh et al., 2017); the second one examines the influence of antecedent on intention (Madan
and Yadav, 2016). This study is novel in the sense that it examines the influence on both
attitude and intention. Thus, it aims to re-examine factors and propose new perspectives
governing the attitudes and intentions of consumers’ toward mobile wallet adoption. The
motivation for selecting attributes from TAM and UTAUT is that both these models have
been extensively used in explaining the adoption of diverse types of innovations. As the use
of mobile wallets is a technology-led innovation platform, this study draws established
dimensions and relationships from these theories and attempts to explore if the
relationships also hold true in the case of mobile wallets.
The objective of this paper is, thus, to address the existing gap in research, by proposing
a model that includes relevant variables, which enhance the ability to explain the adoption
of mobile wallets.
3. Hypotheses formulation and research model

This section details the formulation of the hypotheses for the study based on constructs and
relationships from the theories of technology adoption like TAM and UTAUT. It is expected
that the general causalities established in these two models would be applicable in the
context of mobile wallets.
As discussed earlier, the two fundamental constructs in TAM are PEOU and PU. PEOU
deals with how easy it is to learn and use a system, whereas PU focuses on whether the user
believes that the system would enhance his/her performance (Davis, 1989). In the case of
mobile wallets, we define PEOU as the degree to which the user believes that the effort
required to learn and use mobile wallets would be minimum. Similarly, PU is defined as the
belief that using mobile wallet would enhance user performance. This could be in terms of
increased effectiveness, enhancing output with less effort and time. Revels et al. (2010) in the
context of Australian m-services users found that PEOU is a strong predictor of PU. Amin
et al. (2014) found that PEOU has a positive relationship with PU with respect to mobile
Dimensions studied
Source Adaptation based on PU/PE PEOU/EE Security Trust Social influence/LC Self-efficacy FC Attitude Intention Moderation
Shin (2009) TAM, UTAUT | | | | | | | | Gender, age,

income
Shaw (2014) TAM | | | | |
Madan and UTAUT | | | | | |
Yadav (2016)
Singh et al. (2017) UTAUT | | | | |
Patel and Patel (2018) TAM | | | | |
Sharma et al. (2018) Interpretive Structural | |
Modelling
Notes: LC, lifestyle compatibility; FC, facilitating conditions; PU, perceived usefulness; PE, performance expectancy; PEOU, perceived ease of use; EE, effort expectancy
Mobile wallet
in India
research studies on
mobile wallet
Summary of past
Table I.
IJBM website usage in Malaysia. Previous studies have explained the effect of PEOU on PU
(Davis, 1989; Adams et al., 1992; Szajna, 1996; Lederer et al., 2000; Moon and Kim, 2001;
Gefen and Straub, 2003).
Like PEOU and PU, trust is crucial in case of online transactions. A key to creating online
trust is making the platform easy to use and navigate. In the case of e-commerce, an easy to
understand website significantly reduces misunderstandings of the users thereby
facilitating transparency across the transactional process (Flavián et al., 2006). In the
context of mobile wallets, well explained and easy to understand processes like payment,
recharge and transfers help in building trust. According to Gefen et al. (2003), PEOU should
also increase trust through the perception that the e-vendor is investing in the relationship
and in doing so signals a commitment to the relationship. PEOU has been hypothesized to
have a positive influence on trust in e-commerce as the former helps promote the favorable
impression of customers on the e-vendor in the initial adoption process of an online service
(Wu and Chen, 2005). Other researchers have found that PEOU is an important predictor of
consumer trust in the context of mobile commerce (Lee and Jun, 2007; Belanche et al., 2012;
Kumar et al., 2018).
Hew et al. (2015) suggested that applications, which are easy to use, would attract
consumers to use them and thus would shape their attitudes. The effect of PEOU on attitude
has been shown in various studies (Chau and Lai, 2003). Suh and Han (2002) found that
PEOU positively and significantly influence attitude toward Internet banking. Deb and
David (2014) in their study on Indian mobile banking users found PEOU to positively and
significantly influence attitude toward mobile banking. Lin (2011) found that PEOU has a
significant effect on attitude and if customers find mobile banking easy to use, they develop
a positive attitude toward adopting it. Thus, as PEOU has been as a key determinant in
adoption of various information technology platforms, it is safe to argue that the same will
hold true in the case of mobile wallets. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. PEOU positively influences PU associated with mobile wallet.
H1b. PEOU positively affect trust with mobile wallet.
H1c. There is a positive relationship between PEOU and attitude.
The concept of trust is best explained by the commitment–trust theory of relationship
marketing proposed by Morgan and Hunt (1994) wherein trust is conceptualized as a situation
when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity. In this study,
we extend trust to the context of mobile wallets. Lee and Jun (2007) found that PU is an
important predictor of consumer trust in the context of mobile commerce. Amin et al. (2014)
conducted a study on mobile website satisfaction and showed that PU is positively related to
trust. In the case of mobile wallets, it is logical to argue that the degree to which users believe
whether the service would enhance their efficiency would positively influence the trust. Trust
could be manifested in terms of improved performance and returns.
The hypotheses originally proposed in the TAM model have been repeatedly confirmed by
earlier research studies. In a study involving internet users in Singapore, Riquelme and
Rios (2010) found that PU influences behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking. Similarly,
Mortimer et al. (2015) in a study involving mobile banking users in Thailand found that PU
positively and significantly predicts the intention to use mobile banking. Alalwan et al. (2016)
examined the role of usefulness among mobile banking users in Jordan and found that
behavioral intention is significantly influenced by PU. In the context of mobile wallet, Shaw
(2014) found that PU positively influences intention to use a mobile wallet. Similar findings
have been reported by many other researcher studies (Adams et al., 1992, Jackson et al., 1997;
Suh and Han 2002; Shin, 2010; Sharma and Govindaluri 2014; Pham and Ho, 2015; Upadhyay
and Jahanyan 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Matemba and Li, 2017).
Past studies on technology adoption have consistently shown that PU has a strong Mobile wallet
influence on attitude and intention to adopt online banking (Chong et al., 2010) and mobile in India
banking (Mohammadi, 2015). Teo et al. (2008) found that PU is an antecedent of attitude
and that it has a significant influence on attitude. Deb and David (2014) in the context of
mobile banking in India found positive relationship between PU and attitude toward
mobile banking. Several studies have demonstrated the direct relationship between PU
and attitude (Aboelmaged and Gebba, 2013; Krishanan et al., 2016). When customers
perceive clear advantages offered by mobile banking, they are more likely to have a
positive attitude and intention toward adopting mobile banking (Lin, 2011). Hence, we
propose the following hypotheses:
H2a. PU positively affects trust with mobile wallet.
H2b. PU positively affects Intention toward mobile wallet adoption.
H2c. PU positively affects attitude toward mobile wallet.

Perceived security (PS) is defined as the extent to which a user believes that using a
particular online payment channel will be secure. Enck et al. (2009) defined PS as a
consumer’s feeling that his/her personal credentials will not be viewed, stored, or
manipulated by unauthorized users when undertaking online transactions. In e-commerce
and online shopping studies, security is a signiﬁcant determinant of trust (Flavián and
Guinalíu, 2006; Roca et al., 2009; Kim et al., 2011). According to Shin (2009), it is important to
establish measures of PS and its relationship to trust in the mobile context. According to
Flavián and Guinalíu (2006), the development of trust is particularly influenced by the
security perceived by consumers regarding the handling of their private data. Mukherjee
and Nath (2007) identified that the privacy and security features of the website along with
shared values are the key antecedents of trust, which, in turn, positively influences the
behavioral intentions of customers. Kumar et al. (2018) in a recent study involving M-wallet
use in India found that PS has a significant effect on trust.
PS positively affect behavioral intentions (Flavián and Guinalíu, 2006; Mukherjee and
Nath, 2007; Shin, 2009). As mobile wallets involve storage and transfers of personal and
financial information, they raise greater security concerns than conventional payment
methods. Security has been examined as a key determinant to online shopping intention,
and various research studies have found a positive influence on the intention to purchase
online (Yousafzai et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2008). Thakur and Srivastava (2013) in their study in
the Indian context reported security and privacy issues as significant deterrents in adoption
of mobile commerce. Patel and Patel (2018) examined the adoption of internet banking
services in India and found that the intention to use internet banking is positively influenced
by perceived security.
In the context of online shopping, the positive relationship between security and
attitude has been shown by many authors (O’Cass and Fenech, 2003; Vijayasarathy, 2004).
It is logical to believe that higher the perceived security, the higher the trust in the
technology platform, which would translate into a positive attitude toward adoption. It is
likely that this phenomenon also holds true in the case of mobile wallets. Hence, this leads
to the following hypotheses:
H3a. PS has a positive effect on trust toward mobile wallet.
H3b. PS has a positive effect on the intention to use a mobile wallet.
H3c. PS positively influences user attitude toward mobile wallet.
FC are defined as the factors in the environment that make an act easy to accomplish
(Thompson et al., 1991). For example, in an IS(expand abbreviation) environment, provision
IJBM of support for the use of personal computers may be one such facilitating condition that can
influence system utilization. According to Teo et al. (2008), FC refers to factors that are
present in the environment that exerts an influence over a person desire to perform a task.
Agarwal et al. (2009) believed that FC consists of organizational and technical infrastructure
to support use of the system.
Lin (2011) believed that in the context of mobile banking, users develop knowledge-
based trust based on the ability of the stakeholders (banks, telecom companies and
financial institutions) to provide competent service ensuring integrity of user data and
transactions, which, in turn, influences attitude and behavioral intention. These
institutions play an important role in creating a facilitating environment that, in turn,
instills confidence in the user and shapes their attitude. Therefore, FC is likely to affect
attitude to adopt a mobile wallet.
Furthermore, Karjaluoto et al. (2002) found that prior computer experience, prior
technology experience and personal banking experience influences attitude toward online
banking. These factors facilitate adoption of technology. In the context of mobile wallets, FC
like availability and affordability of smartphones and internet connection require
knowledge about mobile phones, security, and privacy laws to determine the adoption of
mobile wallets. Yang (2010) also claims a direct positive impact of FC on behavioral
intentions. Shaw (2014) proposed that personal word of mouth and virtual word of mouth
are channels of informal learning that influence intention to use a mobile wallet. The
availability of informal learning sources for seeking information is also FC. Therefore, based
on the discussion above, we posit the following hypotheses:
H4a. FC enhances PU related to mobile wallet.
H4b. FC positively influences attitude toward mobile wallet.
H4c. FC positively influences intention toward mobile wallet.
According to Benamati et al. (2010), trust often includes three dimensions: ability, integrity
and benevolence. Ability means that mobile service providers have enough knowledge and
skills to fulfill their tasks; integrity means that mobile service providers keep their promises;
and benevolence means that mobile service providers will be concerned with the interests of
users, not just their own interests. A number of past studies have shown a positive
relationship between trust and attitude (Agag and El-Masry, 2016). Suh and Han (2002) in a
study on Korean Internet users found trust to positively and significantly impact the
customer’s attitude and intention toward Internet banking. Thakur (2013) in a study
involving Indian mobile customers found that trust and satisfaction have a positive
influence on customer loyalty.
While acknowledging the increasing importance of trust in mobile commerce
(Misra and Wickamasinghe, 2004; Hong and Cha, 2013; Zhou, 2011; Shaw, 2014), trust is
hypothesized as an antecedent variable that influences user intention to use a mobile
wallet. In fact, the more trust perceived by consumers, the more likely their intention to
buy (Han and Windsor, 2011; Hajli, 2014). Gu et al. (2009) found the path from trust to
behavioral intention in their integrated model to be positively and significantly associated.
Bashir and Madhavaiah (2014) found trust to significantly influence intention to use
internet banking among young Indian consumers. Kumar et al. (2017) in a study
conducted among management students in India found that trust propensity was
significantly associated with the intention to use mobile banking. According to Shin
(2009), trust is even more critical when it comes to mobile wallets given the possible risks
of being hacked. Trust is most important, as the nature of transactions are personal,
sensitive and confidential (Heijden et al., 2003). In addition, initial trust can help mitigate
perceived uncertainty and risk and promote usage intention (Zhou, 2011). Kumar et al.
(2018) in a study involving mobile wallets found that trust affects M-wallet continuance Mobile wallet
intention positively. A synthesis of the above findings results in our next two hypotheses: in India
H5a. Trust has a positive effect on attitude.
H5b. Trust has a positive effect on intention.
For adoption of a product, service or idea, consumers go through a process of knowledge,
persuasion, decision and confirmation (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). LC can be defined as a
natural alignment of lifestyle choices and values between two individuals. In case of technology
adoption, this definition can be extended to include computer and mobile devices and the other
stakeholders operating in the environment. Social influence is defined as the degree to which an
individual perceives that it is important that others should believe he or she uses the new system
(Agarwal et al., 2009). Social norms explained in terms of external (friends, peer group, and
superior) and internal (family and relatives) influence lifestyle that, in turn, determines the
adoption behavior (Riquelme and Rios, 2010). Deb and David (2014) found the relationship
between social influence (approval from friends and family) and attitude toward mobile banking
to be positive. Social influence is also found to significantly and positively influence intention to
use internet banking (Bashir and Madhavaiah, 2014). Lin (2011) found that LC can be explained
in terms of the degree to which mobile banking is aligned to their values, experiences, lifestyle
and preferences. In another study by Mohammadi (2015) in Iran, the results revealed that LC
was the main factor affecting user attitude toward use of mobile banking.
Harrison (2015) suggested that LC had the strongest effect on behavioral intention.
Muñoz-Leiva et al. (2017) used social image in their external TAM model. They believe that
due to uncertainties associated with innovations, users seek advice from others, which are
feelings of respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, social connection, etc. It is believed
that LC is critical for any new technology adoption as users like to associate themselves
with like-minded company who use similar technology platforms. This compatibility offers
the social image among their peer community. This mutual confirmation for admiration and
respect from peer community helps in deriving a positive attitude the innovation. Singh and
Srivastava (2014) found that LC is a significant determinant in explaining the intention to
adopt mobile banking among Indian customers.
H6a. LC positively influences attitude toward mobile wallet.
H6b. LC positively influences intention toward mobile wallet.
According to the TRA developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), the behavioral intention can be
explained by the attitude toward behavior that is defined as an individual positive and negative
feelings about behaving in a particular way. Furthermore, in TAM proposed by Davis (1989)
behavioral intention can be explained by attitude toward a system. Lin (2011) found a significant
and positive linkage from attitude to behavioral intention to explain adoption or continued
usage of mobile banking. Deb and David (2014) empirically established the positive influence of
attitude on behavioral intention. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H7. Attitude has a positive effect on intention to adopt mobile wallet.
Figure 1 summarizes our proposed model and hypotheses.
The proposed research model incorporates the major constructs of the TAM and
UTAUT model and other constructs to understand mobile wallet adoption. In the
subsequent section, we discuss the research methodology.
4. Research methodology
4.1 Qualitative data collection
Two focus groups, the first consisting of working executives (six males and four females)
and the second consisting of students (five males and seven females) were conducted to
IJBM H5b
H1b TRUST
Intention
Perceived
Ease of Use H5a
(PEOU) H1c
H2a H3b H6b
H3a
H1a H7
H2b
Perceived H2c
Usefulness
(PU) H3c Attitude
SECURITY
H4c
Figure 1. H6a
Proposed conceptual H4a
model with Facilitating H4b Lifestyle
hypotheses Conditions (FC)

Compatibility (LC)
understand the awareness and usage of mobile wallet. Both convenience and purposive
(judgmental) sampling were used to select respondents for focus group discussions (FGD).
The discussion also covered factors that could influence the attitude and behavioral
intention to use mobile wallet. An FGD guide was prepared for the purpose. The data of
qualitative research were analyzed using content analysis and the various statements
identified were grouped into different constructs. The steps that were used to examine the
qualitative information were understanding the data collected; focusing on the analysis;
categorizing the information; identifying relationship within and between constructs and
conceptualizing the themes together (Powell and Renner, 2003).
Using these inputs and the outcome of the literature review, a questionnaire in English
language was prepared for the purpose. The questionnaire had three sections: Section 1
comprised of questions on payment options used by respondent for online shopping, the
knowledge and usage of mobile wallet, relative importance of factors in using mobile wallet
and the various mobile wallets available for payment. Next, Section 2 comprised of various
items for the constructs like attitude, intention, FC, LC, PEOU, PU, security and trust.
Finally, Section 3 had questions on demographic variables like gender, age, marital status,
education, occupation, household income, etc. The content validity of the instrument was
established by getting the instrument vetted through three academicians and two
professionals from the industry. Some of the statement in Section 2 were deleted because of
duplication, some were re-worded and a few were added.
4.2 Survey data

A pilot survey was conducted with 15 respondents (ten students and five working
executives) seeking their feedback on clarity, comprehensive and completeness of the
statements. Based on the inputs received, three questions were reworded to improve their
clarity and understanding. The reliability of the scale items was tested by computing
Cronbach’s α values for each dimension and it was found that all the values were more than
0.7, which was satisfactory.
Both physical and online surveys were used for data collection. A screening question
identified respondents who were aware of mobile wallets. In total, 750 respondents filled the
survey out of which six were those who had never heard about mobile wallet. As our study
focused on mobile wallet awareness and perception, it was decided to omit the six responses.
The remaining 744 responses are used for subsequent analysis. Convenience and purposive
(judgmental) sampling was used to select the respondents. Out of the 744 responses, 358
responses were collected through online surveys, whereas 386 were collected physically. Mobile wallet
For offline survey, the authors visited three management institutes and five companies to get in India
the perspective of students and professionals. For online survey, the authors sent the link of
online survey to various alumni of the institute as well as their peers in academia and industry.
To ensure that the two methods of data collection do not bias the results, 20 respondents from
each method were randomly selected and the average scores for various constructs were
computed and compared using a t-test. As the difference in the average score was insignificant,
it could be inferred that the two methods of survey did not introduce any bias in the results.
The partial least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to estimate
and test the hypothesized model. The minimum sample size for a PLS model should be at
least ten times the largest number of inner model paths directed at a particular construct in
the inner model (Barclay et al., 1995). In the present case, the sample size was 744, which was
more than the minimum required size of 60 (Hair et al., 2017). Furthermore, the reason for
choosing PLS is that it requires no distributional assumptions, whereas SEM assumes a
normal distribution for the data. In addition, research supporting the claim for PLS having
greater efficacy at small sample size is inadvertently misleading as it has focused on
accuracy rather than statistical significance (Goodhue et al., 2006).
The PLS-SEM is a multivariate technique and is being used in various functional areas of
management such as accounting (Lee et al., 2011), marketing (Hair et al., 2012), operations
management (Peng and Lai, 2012), etc. PLS-SEM is useful for predictive purposes and in
exploratory research. The technique is very widely used by researchers when the data are
non-normal and sample size is small (Reinartz et al., 2009).
5. Sample profile
The respondents profile comprises of 493 (66.3 percent) males and 251 (33.7 percent)
females. The majority of the respondents were in the age group of 18–24 (45 percent) and
25–34 (43.5 percent) year olds. In our sample, 88.5 percent of the respondents were in the age
group of 18–35 years, which is above the Indian average of 67 percent (Statista, 2018) but is
representative of a younger population, which is actively using mobile phone and wallets.
In the sample, there were 410 (55.1 percent) students and 234 (31.5) working professionals,
whereas 68 (9.1 percent) were self-employed or had their own business.
Furthermore, 330 (44.4 percent) had incomes of less than 3 lakhs, 130 (17.5 percent) had
income between 3 and 7 lakhs, 119 (16 percent) respondents earned between 7 to 12 lakhs
and the remaining 165 (22.2) percent had income of 12 lakhs or more. The number of
graduates was 405 (54.4 percent), whereas 333 (44.8 percent) were postgraduates and above
as their qualification. A majority of the respondents were having a household size of four
persons (43.8 percent), whereas around 17.7and 16 percent had a household size of three
person and five persons in that order. Out of the 744 respondents, 549 (73.8 percent) were
single, whereas the remaining 195 (26.2 percent) were married.
With respect to their online behavior, all of the respondents had experienced online
shopping and used all modes of payment (see Table II) for online purchases. Cash on
Mode Frequency (n) Percentage (%)a
Internet banking 364 48.9

Credit card 302 40.6
Debit card 482 64.8 Table II.
Cash on delivery 483 64.9 Modes of payment
Mobile wallet 347 46.6 used for online
Note: aPercentage exceeds 100 percent due to multiplicity of responses shopping
IJBM delivery and debit card payments seem to be the preferred mode of payment. According to
Nielsen’s Global Connected Commerce Survey (2016), Cash on delivery still remains the
preferred mode of payment in India with about 83 percent consumers in India said they had
used cash on delivery for buying products from online stores in the past six months.
The average number of years for which these respondents have been using a
smartphone is 4.74 years. Furthermore, these respondents have been shopping online
on average for the past 3.88 years. The 744 respondents who shop online use different
types of internet connections. It is evident from Table III that a majority of the
respondents use mobile internet package (prepaid and postpaid), whereas a small
percentage use fixed line internet.
In order to determine the awareness levels among respondents about mobile wallets, two
questions were used. The first question was aimed at identifying whether the user had
heard about mobile wallet and, if yes, is currently using it or discontinued using it. The
sample comprised of 228 (30.6 percent) respondents who had heard but never used mobile
wallet, 457 (61.4 percent) respondents were currently using mobile wallet, and 59
(7.9 percent) had stopped using mobile wallet.
In the next question, the respondents were given a list of seven statements wherein they
were asked to indicate the correctness of the statements with respect to mobile wallets. The
seven statements were as follows: mobile wallets can be used to pay online transactions;
mobile wallet takes longer time to process than credit/debit card; authentication is done
every time you add money to mobile wallet; mobile wallet can be used to send money to
another person; payments made through mobile wallets incur transaction fee; for
transactions through mobile wallet, you require an OTP and Paytm, Airtel Money, Oxigen
and Mobikwik are mobile wallets. It is seen that almost 69 percent of the respondents were
able to identify five or more statements correctly out of the seven questions on mobile wallet.
The questionnaire then probed if they could rank the various factors, which influence
mobile wallet adoption. The six factors in order of importance were security, convenience,
efficiency, LC, provision for storing electronic documents and tech savvy.
An attempt was made to identify the various mobile wallets and their degree of usage by
the respondents. The results are summarized in Table IV. It is evident that Paytm,
Freecharge, Airtel Money, MobiKwik and PayUMoney seem to be the most heard about
mobile wallets. With respect to the wallets currently being used by respondents, Paytm,
Freecharge, PayUMoney, MobiKwik, Airtel Money, Citrus Pay, ICICI pockets, etc., seems to
be the most frequently used mobile wallet in the same order.
6. Estimation of measurement and structural model

The items in the various constructs were subjected to measurement model using SmartPLS
3.0. The measurement model showing the items, mean values (M), standard deviation (SD)
and factor loadings is given in Table AI. The internal consistency was examined using
Cronbach’s α. It was found (see Table V ) that the values of all the constructs exceed the
minimum required value of 0.7 (Lin and Huang, 2008). The measurement model was
assessed by computing the values of convergent and discriminant validity. For convergent
Type of Connection Frequency (n) Percentage (%)a
Mobile internet package (prepaid) 371 49.9

Table III. Mobile internet package (prepaid) 281 37.8
Type of Internet Fixed line internet 164 22
Connection Note: aPercentage exceeds 100 percent due to multiplicity of responses
Mobile wallet services Never heard Heard but never used Currently using Stopped using now
Mobile wallet
in India
Paytm 2 (0.3%) 149 (20%) 541 (72.7%) 52 (7.0%)
Oxigen 121 (16.3%) 511 (68.7%) 73 (9.8%) 39 (5.2%)
MobiKwik 47 (6.3%) 429 (57.7%) 186 (25%) 82 (11%)
PayUMoney 67 (9%) 420 (56.5%) 188 (25.3%) 69 (9.3%)
Vodafone M-pesa 143 (19.2%) 528 (71.0%) 55 (7.4%) 18 (2.4%)
mRupee 257 (34.5%) 449 (60.3%) 25 (3.4%) 13 (1.7%)
Idea Money 196 (26.3%) 509 (68.4%) 27 (3.6%) 12 (1.6%)
Airtel Money 46 (6.2%) 545 (73.3%) 117 (15.7%) 36 (4.8%)
Reliance Jio Wallet 296 (39.8%) 418 (56.2%) 18 (2.4%) 12 (1.6%)
Citrus Pay 189 (25.4%) 393 (52.8%) 117 (15.7%) 45 (6.0%)
Freecharge 41 (5.5%) 254 (34.1%) 338 (45.4%) 111 (14.9%)
Momoe 534 (71.8%) 188 (25.3%) 15 (2.0%) 7 (0.9%)
Ruplee wallet 473 (63.6%) 241 (32.4%) 18 (2.4%) 12 (1.6%)
ICICI pockets 257 (34.5%) 389 (52.3%) 78 (10.5%) 20 (2.7%)

State Bank Buddy 316 (42.5%) 358 (48.1%) 57 (7.7%) 13 (1.7%)
Chillr 483 (64.9%) 226 (30.4%) 22 (3.0%) 13 (1.7%)
Citi Masterpass 494 (66.4%) 231 (31.0%) 13 (1.7%) 6 (0.8%) Table IV.
Lime 509 (68.4%) 215 (28.9%) 13 (1.7%) 7 (0.9%) Frequency
HDFC Payzapp 337 (45.3%) 340 (45.7%) 55 (7.4%) 12 (1.6%) distribution of various
Pingpay 524 (70.4%) 204 (27.4%) 12 (1.6%) 4 (0.5%) mobile wallet
Average
variance
Composite extracted
Constructs Cronbach’s α reliability (AVE) ATT FC INT LC PEOU PU SEC TR
ATT 0.926 0.944 0.772 0.879

FC 0.753 0.844 0.576 0.531 0.759
INT 0.879 0.917 0.734 0.772 0.534 0.856
LC 0.877 0.911 0.673 0.729 0.586 0.735 0.820
PEOU 0.840 0.887 0.612 0.582 0.475 0.530 0.548 0.782
PU 0.904 0.926 0.676 0.689 0.407 0.638 0.631 0.659 0.822
SEC 0.856 0.897 0.637 0.672 0.418 0.619 0.589 0.504 0.559 0.798
TR 0.889 0.915 0.643 0.655 0.444 0.642 0.614 0.509 0.537 0.779 0.802 Table V.
Notes: Diagonal values are squared roots of AVE; off-diagonal values are the estimates of the inter-correlation Convergent and
between the latent constructs discriminant validity
validity, the values of composite reliability (CR) should be at least 0.7 and the average
variance extracted (AVE) should be at least 0.5 (Zhang et al., 2014).
The discriminant validity is satisfied if the square root of the AVE for each construct is
higher than the correlation coefficient with other constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Liao et al., 2006). Note that the diagonal elements, which are in bold in the above matrix, are
the square root of the AVE and the off-diagonal elements are the simple correlation
coefficient between the corresponding constructs. In this study, both CR and AVE for each
construct was greater than 0.7 and 0.5, respectively (Table V ).
The second criterion for discriminant validity is cross-loadings, where the indicator
loadings on its own construct is higher than the cross loading on any other construct
(Chin, 1998). This condition is also satisfied in the present case (see Table VI). The third
method of verifying discriminant validity is by using the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT) criterion. The discriminating validity is established since in the present case, the
HTMT value is below 0.9 between any two reflective constructs (Henseler et al., 2015).
IJBM ATT FC INT LC PEOU PU SEC TR
ATT1 0.873 0.460 0.672 0.645 0.509 0.614 0.604 0.568

ATT2 0.888 0.490 0.677 0.616 0.539 0.602 0.585 0.558
ATT3 0.903 0.442 0.704 0.661 0.520 0.628 0.604 0.586
ATT4 0.866 0.453 0.672 0.641 0.487 0.613 0.556 0.574
ATT5 0.864 0.487 0.666 0.637 0.503 0.567 0.603 0.593
FC1 0.390 0.754 0.380 0.442 0.333 0.297 0.295 0.301
FC2 0.429 0.805 0.417 0.479 0.342 0.335 0.329 0.371
FC4 0.459 0.803 0.457 0.454 0.459 0.350 0.367 0.353
FC5 0.317 0.665 0.358 0.405 0.290 0.241 0.267 0.322
INT1 0.674 0.463 0.867 0.662 0.462 0.531 0.534 0.576
INT2 0.550 0.413 0.803 0.550 0.392 0.491 0.443 0.462
INT3 0.710 0.496 0.889 0.663 0.494 0.579 0.575 0.586
INT4 0.696 0.453 0.865 0.636 0.459 0.580 0.558 0.565
LC1 0.619 0.509 0.624 0.856 0.451 0.539 0.501 0.530

LC2 0.696 0.564 0.701 0.895 0.534 0.607 0.545 0.544
LC3 0.638 0.524 0.662 0.869 0.507 0.557 0.475 0.507
LC4 0.521 0.389 0.526 0.757 0.373 0.455 0.430 0.460
LC5 0.486 0.390 0.470 0.710 0.351 0.399 0.466 0.480
PEOU2 0.366 0.331 0.294 0.306 0.656 0.366 0.321 0.342
PEOU3 0.408 0.447 0.368 0.372 0.739 0.402 0.358 0.364
PEOU4 0.488 0.352 0.452 0.453 0.834 0.587 0.426 0.442
PEOU5 0.474 0.370 0.424 0.482 0.814 0.566 0.410 0.395
PEOU6 0.520 0.379 0.501 0.497 0.851 0.606 0.442 0.438
PU1 0.547 0.326 0.506 0.505 0.624 0.815 0.423 0.423
PU2 0.548 0.355 0.514 0.494 0.570 0.795 0.417 0.373
PU3 0.555 0.342 0.518 0.515 0.525 0.856 0.447 0.431
PU5 0.633 0.352 0.562 0.571 0.561 0.847 0.483 0.453
PU6 0.535 0.296 0.502 0.498 0.468 0.795 0.529 0.495
PU7 0.575 0.334 0.543 0.526 0.502 0.825 0.459 0.476
S1 0.607 0.408 0.553 0.548 0.462 0.493 0.763 0.609
S3 0.524 0.303 0.471 0.464 0.417 0.434 0.844 0.667
S4 0.491 0.275 0.440 0.418 0.325 0.415 0.711 0.520
S5 0.561 0.381 0.540 0.503 0.458 0.492 0.874 0.690
S6 0.487 0.284 0.455 0.404 0.328 0.383 0.789 0.611
T1 0.632 0.405 0.596 0.539 0.472 0.483 0.757 0.807
T2 0.466 0.281 0.463 0.444 0.383 0.403 0.614 0.801
T3 0.522 0.348 0.515 0.486 0.374 0.434 0.617 0.844
Table VI. T4 0.572 0.394 0.545 0.530 0.453 0.477 0.637 0.850
Measurement model T5 0.459 0.367 0.494 0.483 0.385 0.391 0.538 0.743
cross loadings T6 0.467 0.328 0.452 0.460 0.363 0.376 0.550 0.762
Next, the structural model was estimated by applying the bootstrapping technique
(Vinzi et al., 2010) that is a resampling technique that draws a large number of subsamples,
say 5,000 from the original data. This resulted in estimating the path coefficients and their
two-tailed significance. The model is depicted in Figure 2.
6.1 Evaluation of the structural model

The path coefficients and their significance are presented in Table VII. It is seen that out of
the 17 hypotheses proposed, 15 are supported. Two of the hypotheses, namely, PEOU
impacts attitude (H1c) and security influences intention (H3b) have a desired positive impact
but are insignificant. It is seen that PEOU has a positive and significant impact on PU and
trust thereby supporting H1a and H1b. PU is found to have a significant and positive
impact on trust, intention and attitude thereby supporting H2a–H2c. The construct security
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Mobile wallet
PEOU2
0.656
0.807 0.801
0.844 0.850 0.743 0.762
in India
PEOU3
0.739
0.834 0.112
0.629
PEOU4 0.814
PEOU5 0.851
PEOU
TR
0.131 INT1
PEOU6
0.602 0.867 INT2

PU1 0.087
0.803
0.683 0.889 INT3
PU2 0.674 0.044 0.108
0.865
0.815
0.105 INT4
PU3 0.795
INT
0.856
S1 0.364
0.446 0.208
0.847 ATT1
PU5 0.795 0.763 0.261 0.873 ATT2

0.825 PU
S3 0.888
PU6 0.844
0.205 0.073 0.681 0.903 ATT3
0.711
S4 0.874 0.866
PU7
0.121 0.864 ATT4
0. SEC
S5 ATT
0.296 ATT5
0.096
S6
Figure 2.
0.754 0.805
FC
0.803 0.665
0.856 0.895
LC
0.869 0.757 0.710 Path coefficients and
their significance
FC1 FC2 FC4 FC5 LC1 LC2 LC3 LC4 LC5
Original Sample t-statistics Supported/

Hypotheses Relationship sample (O) mean (M) SD (|O/STDEV|) p-values rejected
H1a PEOU → PU 0.602 0.602 0.031 19.130 0.000 Supported

H1b PEOU → TR 0.112 0.111 0.035 3.216 0.001 Supported
H1c PEOU → ATT 0.044 0.045 0.037 1.198 0.116 Rejected
H2a PU → TR 0.087 0.088 0.039 2.236 0.013 Supported
H2b PU → INT 0.105 0.105 0.036 2.917 0.002 Supported
H2c PU → ATT 0.261 0.262 0.041 6.433 0.000 Supported
H3a SEC → TR 0.674 0.674 0.029 23.319 0.000 Supported
H3b SEC → INT 0.028 0.028 0.040 0.701 0.242 Rejected
H3c SEC → ATT 0.205 0.204 0.034 6.062 0.000 Supported
H4a FC → PU 0.121 0.121 0.038 3.203 0.001 Supported
H4b FC → ATT 0.096 0.096 0.030 3.243 0.001 Supported
H4c FC → INT 0.073 0.075 0.036 2.038 0.021 Supported
H5a TR → ATT 0.108 0.108 0.042 2.587 0.005 Supported
H5b TR → INT 0.131 0.132 0.045 2.905 0.002 Supported Table VII.
H6a LC → ATT 0.296 0.295 0.041 7.276 0.000 Supported Summary of
H6b LC → INT 0.264 0.263 0.047 5.631 0.000 Supported structural
H7 ATT → INT 0.364 0.362 0.047 7.687 0.000 Supported model results
has a positive and significant impact on trust and attitude thereby supporting H3a and H3c.
The construct FC is found to have a significant and positive impact on PU, attitude and
intention thereby supporting H4a–H4c. The construct trust has a positive and significant
impact on both the construct, namely, attitude and intention thereby supporting H5a and
H5b. The construct LC has a significant and direct bearing on attitude and intention. This
supports H6a and H6b. The last hypothesis (H7), viz., attitude, influences intention
positively and significantly is also supported.
The SmartPLS algorithm calculated R2 measures for each endogenous construct. The
four endogenous constructs, namely, attitude, intention, PU and trust, have R2 values of
0.681, 0.683, 0.446 and 0.629, respectively, suggesting satisfactory predictive accuracy of the
structural model. The corresponding adjusted R2 values were 0.678, 0.680, 0.444 and 0.628
for attitude, intention, PU and trust, which were quite satisfactory.
IJBM To examine the problem of multi-collinearity of the inner model, the variance inflation
factor (VIF) was computed for the four endogenous constructs. It was found that VIF varied
from 1.625 to 2.862, 1.587 to 3.123, 1.291 to 1.292 and 1.526 to 1.856 for attitude, intention, PU
and trust, respectively. These values are below the threshold value 3.33 (Diamantopoulos
and Siguaw, 2006). Therefore, there is a minimal concern about the problem of
multi-collinearity in the present research. This is further corroborated by computing the
value of tolerance that is the inverse of VIF. Lower the VIF, higher will be the tolerance.
The minimum and maximum values of tolerance are 0 and 1, respectively. The values of
tolerance for attitude varies between 0.349 and 0.615; between 0.320 and 0.630 for intention;
0.773 for PU; and between 0.496 and 0.655 for trust. All of these values are within acceptable
limits (Gujarati et al., 2017).
The predictive relevance of structural model was tested by calculating cross-validated
redundancy (Q2). The blindfolding technique was used to calculate Stone Geisser Q2 value
with on omission distance of 7 to evaluate cross-validate the predictive relevance of
the structural model (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974). The smaller the difference between the
predicted and original value, higher is the value of Q2 and thus higher is the predictive
accuracy of the model. The value of Q2 greater than zero indicates satisfactory accuracy.
In our case, the values of Q2 equals 0.491, 0.470, 0.281 and 0.374, respectively, for attitude,
intention, PU and trust.
The effect size f² (Cohen, 1988) and relative prediction relevance q² for each of the
endogenous constructs were computed by using the following formulae:
h i
R2 ðincluded Þ R2 ðexcludedÞ
f2 ¼ h i ;
1 R2 ðincludedÞ
where R² (included ) refers to the value of R² when all the relevant exogenous latent
variables are included and R² (excluded) is the value when a particular exogenous latent
variable is excluded. The f² values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 present small, medium and large
effects (Cohen, 1988), respectively.
The relative impact of predictive relevance was computed by using q² effect size
as follows:
h i
Q2 ðincluded Þ Q2 ðexcludedÞ
q2 ¼ h i :
1 Q2 ðincludedÞ
The q² values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 indicate that an exogenous construct has a small,
medium or large predictive relevance for a certain endogenous variance (Hair et al., 2017).
In this paper, f² and q² values for the endogenous constructs, attitude, intention, PU and
Trust were computed and presented in Tables VIII–XI. It is seen that for the endogenous
Path R2 f2 Q2 q2
All constructs included 0.683 0.491

FC excluded FC → ATT 0.018 0.488 0.006
LC excluded LC → ATT 0.114 0.465 0.051
Table VIII. PEOU excluded PEOU → ATT 0.003 0.491 0.000
f² and q² values for PU excluded PU → ATT 0.094 0.470 0.041
the endogenous SEC excluded SEC → ATT 0.047 0.481 0.020
variable Attitude TR excluded TR → ATT 0.013 0.489 0.004
construct attitude, the exogenous constructs LC, PU and security have a small size effect as Mobile wallet
their f² values are between 0.02 and 0.15, whereas FC, PEOU, and trust do not have any in India
significant effect size as the values of f² are below 0.02 in all such cases. In the case of
relative predictive relevance as given by q², it is seen that LC, PU, and security have a small
effect, whereas the remaining exogenous construct namely FC, PEOU and TR have
insignificant effect on the relative predictive relevance.
With respect to the endogenous constructs intention, it is seen that only attitude and LC
have a small effect size as their f² values lie between 0.02 and 0.15, whereas the remaining
exogenous constructs viz., FC, PU, security and trust do not have any significant effect size
on the endogenous construct as the f² values are below 0.02. The same is true about the
relative predictive relevance as given by q², it is seen that for attitude and LC they have a
small effect size, whereas for the remaining exogenous constructs, namely, FC, PU, security
and trust, the effect size was insignificant.
Regarding the endogenous construct, PU, the exogenous construct PEOU had
a large effect size as the f² values was 0.506, whereas FC had a small effect size as f²
value was 0.02. In the case of q² (predictive relevance), PEOU had a medium effect
size as q² value was 0.245, whereas FC did not have any significant effect size as the q²
value was 0.010.
Lastly, with respect to the last endogenous construct trust, security had a large effect size
as its f² value was 0.804, whereas PEOU and PU had an insignificant effect size as the f²
values were below 0.02. With regard to the relative predictive relevance, security had a
medium effect size as q² value was 0.283, whereas PEOU and PU had no significant impact
on the relative predictive relevance for the endogenous construct, trust. This is because all
q² values were below 0.02.
Path R2 f2 Q2 q2
All constructs included 0.681 0.47

ATT excluded ATT → INT 0.134 0.441 0.055
FC excluded FC → INT 0.011 0.468 0.004 Table IX.
LC excluded LC → INT 0.082 0.452 0.034 f² and q² values for
PU excluded PU → INT 0.017 0.466 0.008 the endogenous
SEC excluded SEC → INT 0.001 0.470 0.000 variable behavioral
TR excluded TR → INT 0.019 0.466 0.008 intention
Path R2 f2 Q2 q2 Table X.
f² and q² values
All constructs included 0.446 0.281 for the endogenous
FC excluded FC → PU 0.020 0.274 0.010 variable perceived
PEOU excluded PEOU → PU 0.506 0.105 0.245 usefulness
Path R2 f2 Q2 q2
All constructs included 0.629 0.374 Table XI.

PEOU excluded PEOU → TR 0.018 0.370 0.006 f² and q² values
PU excluded PU → TR 0.010 0.372 0.003 for the endogenous
SEC excluded SEC → TR 0.804 0.197 0.283 variable trust
IJBM 7. Summary of findings and managerial implications
In this study, 66.3 percent of respondents were males respondents and 88.5 percent were in
the age group 18–35 years. The majority of the respondents (55.1 percent) were students. Of
total, 44.4 percent had an income less than 3 lakhs per annum, whereas 22.2 percent had
income more than 12 lakhs per annum. The major modes of payment while making
purchases were cash on delivery and debit cards. Almost 50 percent of the respondents had
a prepaid internet package. One-third of the respondents (30.6 percent) out of 744 had heard
but not used mobile wallet.
The respondents were given seven statements about the various usage of
mobile, and they were asked to identify which of them were correct. It was seen
that 68.94 percent of the respondents were able to identify five or more statements
correctly, whereas the remaining could answer only one to four statements correctly in
spite of the fact that they had heard about the mobile wallet. The factors important for
adoption of mobile wallet were security, convenience, efficiency, LC, tech savvy and
provision for storing electronic documents. The top five most heard mobile wallets were
Paytm, Freecharge, Airtel Money, MobiKwik and PayUMoney, etc., whereas Paytm,
Freecharge, PayUMoney, MobiKwik and Airtel Money were currently the most used
mobile wallets.
The measurement model was estimated using Smart PLS 3.0 software. It was seen that
all the standardized loadings were above 0.70 except for one item. The conditions of
minimum AVE being greater than 0.50 and composite reliability being 0.70 were satisfied
(Henseler et al., 2009). The discriminant validity was tested using the Fornell and Larcker
(1981) method, cross-loadings and HTMT criteria in all the cases and was found to be
satisfying the required conditions.
The results of hypothesized path coefficient indicated that out of 17 hypotheses, only two
were not supported though they had the desired hypothesized direction.
With respect to H1a–H1c depicting the influence of PEOU on PU, trust and attitude, it is
seen that the first two are supported. PEOU is found to have a significant direct effect on PU
(Davis 1993). It is natural to believe that making a system easy to use should enhance its
usefulness. This result is consistent with prior research as it shows a positive relationship
between PEOU and PU ( Jun et al., 2004; Lee and Jun, 2007; Revels et al., 2010; Rezaei and
Amin, 2013). PEOU is also found to positively and significantly influence trust toward
mobile wallets. PEOU refers to user’s perception of whether performing a particular
technical task, for example, downloading a mobile wallet app and operating it would require
a mental effort. Various scholars have discussed the importance of PEOU to enhance user
trust (Gefen et al., 2003; Wu and Chen, 2005; Flavián et al., 2006; Cho et al., 2007; Li and Yeh,
2010; Belanche et al., 2012; Sollner et al., 2016). The impact of PEOU on attitude is found to be
positive but insignificant. One of the plausible reasons could be that the users perceive that
more than the ease of use, it is the usefulness of mobile wallet that influence user attitude
toward its adoption.
Consistent with past research, the present study also observed that PU has a positive and
significant influence on trust, attitude and intention in respect of mobile wallet adoption.
This is hypothesized in the form of three hypotheses, H2a–H2c. PU is found to positively
and significantly influence trust. The study validates the findings of previous research
studies in which PU is shown to have significant explanatory power in affecting customer
trust (Lee and Jun, 2007; Li and Yeh (2010); Amin et al., 2014). Furthermore, as expected and
consistent with prior research, the results show that PU is the main predictor of attitude
(Davis, 1993; Chang and Wang, 2008; Shin, 2009; Aboelmaged and Gebba, 2013; Deb and
David (2014); Krishanan et al., 2016) and intention (Teo et al., 2008; Chang and Wang, 2008;
Rezaei and Amin, 2013; Shaw, 2014; Upadhyay and Jahanyan, 2016; Sollner et al., 2016;
Alalwan et al. (2016).
Additionally, a relationship between SEC and Trust and SEC and attitude was found to be Mobile wallet
significant. However, there was no significant relationship between SEC and Intention. in India
The present study confirms the importance of security as the main predictor of trust and
attitude that supports previous research (O’Cass and Fenech, 2003; Vijayasarathy, 2004; Shin,
2009; Sollner et al., 2016). In the Indian context also, few research studies support the above
findings (Thakur and Srivastava, 2014; Madan and Yadav, 2016; Gupta and Arora, 2017).
In this study, FC was hypothesized to influence PU, attitude and intention respectively.
FC was found to significantly influence PU, attitude and intention associated with
consumers’ acceptance of mobile wallet services. This further supports H4a–H4c. This
result is consistent with the work of previous researchers who observed FC as a significant
factor in predicting adoption attitude and intention of online technologies (Karjaluoto et al.,
2002, Teo, 2010; Yang, 2010; Lin, 2011). Specifically, in the context of mobile wallets, a
number of researchers have found FC to be a significant factor in predicting behavioral
intention to adopt mobile wallet (Madan and Yadav, 2016). In the Indian context, Upadhyay
and Jahanyan (2016) referred to the importance of FC as another variable labeled as

‘structural assurance’ that refers to the existence of technological and legal institutions to
ensure payment security. Agarwal et al. (2009) found that friends or relatives have the
maximum influence on customers to use e-banking rather than advertisements or words
from bank employees. Thus, the existence of a loyal customer base who could give a positive
word of mouth could also be a facilitating condition for adoption of mobile wallets.
The importance of trust on attitude and intention was examined through H5a and H5b.
The findings show that trust emerged as a major catalyst in influencing user attitude and
intention toward adopting mobile wallets as the relationships were found to be significant.
Previous findings in the context of mobile wallets have reported similar results (Shin, 2009;
Shaw, 2014; Madan and Yadav, 2016). Trust emerged as an important factor in determining
user attitude and intention for adopting similar technologies (Suh and Han, 2002; Gu et al.,
2009; Belanche et al., 2012; Hong and Cha, 2013; Amin et al., 2014; Sollner et al., 2016).
The importance of LC on attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallets has been an
important area of research in technology adoption. The results show that LC plays an
important and significant role in shaping user attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet.
A greater LC would align the user values, experiences, personality and preferences with the
technology and result in a positive attitude and intention to adopt that technology
(Lin, 2011). Thus, mobile wallet service providers should include features, which enables a
user to experience greater compatibility feelings, leading to perceptions that the technology
is appropriate and useful.
The four endogenous constructs, namely attitude, intention, PU, and trust, had a R2 value
of 0.681, 0.683, 0.446 and 0.629, respectively. Overall, the results show that the structural
model demonstrates good predictive powers in explaining the adoption of mobile wallets.
Furthermore, the multi-collinearity of the inner model was tested using VIF, and the VIF
corresponding to each of the endogenous variable was below the threshold value of 3.33
(Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2006).
As per Ringle et al. (2012), significance alone is not an indicator of importance of a
construct. We next assessed the effect size f² of each relationship. To understand the effect
size of an exogenous construct on the four endogenous constructs, f² was computed. Using
this measure, we can gauge the impact of omitting one predictor of an endogenous construct
in terms of the change in R2 value of the construct (Sollner et al., 2016). Furthermore, we
assessed the q2 effect size of each relationship to compare the predictive relevance of the
various relationships.
The results indicate that for the endogenous construct attitude, only LC, PU and SEC had
a small effect size indicating that the exclusion of any of these constructs would lead to a
small reduction in R2. The same is true about q2 that these constructs would have a small
IJBM effect size on relative predictive relevance. Similarly, for the construct intention attitude, LC
had a small effect size given by f² indicating a small change in reduction of R2 by excluding
these constructs. The same constructs have a similar influence on q2.
PEOU had a large effect size, whereas FC had a small effect size on the endogenous
construct PU as indicated by f². With regard to relative predictive relevance, the effect size
was medium in case of exclusion of PEOU. These results indicate that PEOU is a very
important construct in explaining PU. From management point of view, the mobile wallet
companies should make mobile wallet applications easy to navigate and use.
For the last endogenous construct trust, it is seen that the exogenous construct
Security plays a very important role in explaining trust. It has a very large size effect as
indicated by f² value of 0.804. This shows that exclusion of security can drastically
diminish the explanatory power of the endogenous variable. It is also seen that it has a
medium effect on relative predictive relevance as given by q2. This shows that to predict
trust accurately, the inclusion of security construct has to be there. Our study corroborates
the findings of Shin (2009) who found that security and trust are important constructs to
validate a model of consumer acceptance of mobile wallets. Sollner et al. (2016) in their
study on information system usage reported that the largest effects were observed for the
relationships, which involved the construct trust. Managerial implications for industry
can be drawn from the findings, in terms of strategies and technologies to increase mobile
wallet security. The finding that security impacts trust indicates that vendors
should establish user trust in mobile wallet by ensuring that their expectations of safe
and secure transaction are met. This can be achieved by developing reliable, robust,
secure and transparent infrastructure for rendering mobile wallet services. Apart from
vendors, mobile wallet service providers (banks, financial institutions, insurance
companies, retailers, etc.) should educate their users about the do’s and don’ts off mobile
wallet, security features of mobile wallet and highlight how to safely transaction through
mobile wallet.
8. Limitations and scope for future research

As with all research works, this study also has a few limitations. These provide
opportunities for future research. Given that the population of mobile phone internet users
in India is more than 350m, the sample size of 744 may be disproportionate. Furthermore,
the sample primarily comprises of students and working professionals from the metros
and larger cities in India. Hence, opinions from the other cities and towns, which are away
from metro cities, could not be captured. Thus, the findings may not reflect the actual
picture of user experiences with mobile wallets across different user classes in India. As
the Government of India is promoting digital inclusion in rural and far flung cities, their
perception is of vital importance. Thus, a larger sample encompassing a balanced
representation of rural and urban users may be used to enrich the findings. Prior studies
have looked at demographic differences in the adoption of mobile banking services
(Geo et al., 2017); online shopping (Zhang et al., 2014); bank technology (Wan et al., 2005);
internet banking (Akinci et al., 2004); mobile banking (Amin et al., 2006). Thus, a
comparison based on age groups, gender, students versus professionals and user
segments would add novelty to the study.
Second, as the study employed convenience sampling, the sample may not represent
the actual population in terms of demographic characteristics. A stratified sampling or
quota sampling methods may be used to ensure a balanced true representation of
demographic variables. Furthermore, as mobile wallet penetration and adoption is rapidly
changing in India, a longitudinal study can be conducted to understand how the
perceptions, attitude and behavioral intention toward mobile wallet adoption is
undergoing a transformation.
Third, the model was tested using a single type of innovation, mobile wallet. It is difficult Mobile wallet
to determine whether the model or the results of the study would hold true for other in India
technologies like internet banking, mobile banking or tele banking. To validate the
explanatory power of the model, it may be tested on different technologies being used in the
banking industry.
This study was restricted to an analysis of six major factors that were derived from user
perceptions. There are many other important consumer-related factors like relative
advantage, perceived cost, perceived enjoyment, personal innovativeness, perceived
credibility, perceived benefits and attractiveness of mobile payment alternatives among
others. These factors could be examined to understand the user attitude and intention to
adopt mobile wallets better. It is observed that consumers often opt for mobile wallet over
payment options because of the additional benefits like discounts, cashback payments and
freebies. Hence, going forward, perceived benefit could be an important factor of study for
mobile wallet adoption. Furthermore, it may be worthwhile to compare the perception scores
on various antecedents of mobile wallet adoption vis-à-vis demographic variables. This will
help to identify the likely perception variations on factors influencing mobile wallet
adoption amongst demographic clusters.
The success and failure of any innovation not only depend on consumer-related factors
but on various elements of the ecosystem. This includes mobile wallet service providers,
technology providers, government bodies and financial institutions. Future studies may be
carried out to study the perceptions of different stakeholders operating in the ecosystem.
Lastly, as security and trust seem to affect user perception toward mobile wallet
adoption, future research involving sub-factors of security and trust may be conducted. For
example, trust can be looked from different stakeholder perspective like trust in various
parameters such as the mobile wallet service provider, the information system, the mobile
wallet user community the use of internet and in the regulator.
References
Aboelmaged, M. and Gebba, T.R. (2013), “Mobile banking adoption: an examination of technology
acceptance model and theory of planned behavior”, International Journal of Business Research
and Development, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 719-729.
Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of
information technology: a replication”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-247.
Agag, G. and El-Masry, A.A. (2016), “Understanding the determinants of hotel booking intentions
and moderating role of habit”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 54,
pp. 52-67.
Agarwal, R., Rastogi, S. and Mehrotra, A. (2009), “Customers’ perspectives regarding e-banking in an
emerging economy”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 340-351.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Akinci, S., Aksoy, S. and Atilgan, E. (2004), “Adoption of internet banking among sophisticated
consumer segments in an advanced developing country”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 212-232.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P. and Williams, M.D. (2016), “Consumers’ adoption of mobile
banking adoption in Jordan”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 118-139.
Amin, H., Hamid, M.R., Tanakinjal, G. and Lada, S. (2006), “Undergraduate attitudes and expectations
for mobile banking”, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, Vol. 11 No. 3, available at:
www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/2006-12/JIBC2.htm (accessed May 18, 2017).
IJBM Amin, M., Rezaei, S. and Abolghasemi, M. (2014), “User satisfaction with mobile websites: the impact of
perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU) and trust”, Nankai Business Review
International, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 258-274.
Barclay, D.W., Higgins, C.A. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to
causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Bashir, I. and Madhavaiah, C. (2014), “Determinants of young consumers’ intention to use internet
banking services in India”, Vision, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 153-163.
Belanche, D., Casalo, L.V. and Flavian, C. (2012), “Integrating trust and personal values into the
technology acceptance model: the case of e-government service adoption”, Cuadernos de
Economia y Direccion de la Empresa, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 192-204.
Benamati, J.S., Fuller, M.A., Serva, M.A. and Baroudi, J.A. (2010), “Clarifying the integration of trust and
TAM in e‐commerce environments: implications for systems design and management”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 380-393.
Capgemini’s World Payment Report (2017), “World’s payment report”, available at

www.worldpaymentsreport.com/ (accessed July 28, 2017).
Chang, H.H. and Wang, I.C. (2008), “An investigation of user communication behavior in computer
mediated environments”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 2336-2356.
Chau, P.Y.K. and Lai, V.S.K. (2003), “An empirical investigation of the determinants of user acceptance
of internet banking”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 123-145.
Chauhan, S. (2015), “Acceptance of mobile money by poor citizens of India: integrating trust into the
technology acceptance model”, Info, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 58-68.
Cheung, C.M.K. and Lee, M.K.O. (2012), “Antecedents and consequences of user satisfaction with an
e-learning portal”, International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 373-380.
Chin, W.W. (1998), The Partial Least Squares Approach To Structural Equation Modeling, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cho, D., Kwon, H.J. and Lee, H. (2007), “Analysis of trust in Internet and mobile commerce adoption”,
40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, January 3–6,
pp. 50-50, doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2007.76.
Chong, A.Y.-L., Ooi, K.-B., Lin, B. and Tan, B.-I. (2010), “Online banking adoption: an empirical
analysis”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 267-287.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F.D. (1993), “User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 475-487.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Deb, M. and David, E.L. (2014), “An empirical examination of customers’ adoption of m-banking in
India”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 475-494.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282.
Enck, W., Ongtang, M. and McDaniel, P. (2009), “On lightweight mobile phone application
certification”, Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications
Security, Chicago, IL, November 9–13, pp. 235-245, doi: 10.1145/1653662.1653691.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2006), “Consumer trust, perceived security and privacy policy: three basic Mobile wallet
elements of loyalty to a web site”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 5, in India
pp. 601-620.
Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M. and Gurrea, R. (2006), “The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and
consumer trust on website loyalty”, Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
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.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2003), “Managing user trust in B2C e-services”, E-service Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2,
pp. 7-24.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Detmar, W., Straub and D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an
integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.
Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Geo, R.G., Shaikh, A.A. and Karjaluoto, H. (2017), “Mobile banking services adoption in Pakistan: are
there gender differences?”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 1090-1114.
GlobalData (2018), “Mobile wallet is gradually displacing cash in India”, available at: www.globaldata.
com/mobile-wallet-gradually-displacing-cash-india-says-globaldata/ (accessed July 29, 2017).
Goodhue, D., Lewis, W. and Thomson, R. (2006), “PLS, small sample size, and statistical power in mis
research”, available at: www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2006/2507/08/250780202b.
pdf (accessed December 15, 2018).
Gu, J.-C., Lee, S.-C. and Suh, Y.-H. (2009), “Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 11605-11616.
Gujarati, D., Porter, D. and Gunasekar, S. (2017), Basic Econometrics, 5th ed., McGraw Hill Education,
New Delhi.
Gupta, A. and Arora, N. (2017), “Consumer adoption of m-banking: a behavioral reasoning theory
perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 733-747.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2 nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oakes, CA.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hajli, N. (2014), “A study of the impact of social media on consumers”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 387-404.
Han, B. and Windsor, J. (2011), “User’s willingness to pay on social network sites”, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 31-40.
Harrison, D. (2015), “Mobile banking acceptance among young con summers in Germany: an empirical
analysis (Doctoral dissertation)”, BI Norwegian Business School, available at: https://repositorio.
ucp.pt/handle/10400.14/19962 (accessed September 12, 2018).
Heijden, H.V., Verhagen, T. and Creemers, M. (2003), “Understanding online purchase intentions:
contribution from technology and trust perspectives”, European Journal of Information Systems,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Rudolf, R.S. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P. N. (Eds), New Challenges to
International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing Vol. 20), Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, pp. 277-319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hew, J.-J., Lee, V.-H., Ooi, K.-B. and Wei, J. (2015), “What catalyses mobile apps usage intention: an
empirical analysis”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 7, pp. 1269-1291.
IJBM Hong, I.B. and Cha, H.S. (2013), “The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting
purchase intention”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 927-939.
Jackson, C., Chow, S. and Robert, A. (1997), “Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to
use an is”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 357-389.
Jun, M., Yang, Z. and Kim, D. (2004), “Customers’ perceptions of online retailing service quality and
their satisfaction”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 817-840.
Karjaluoto, H., Mattila, M. and Pento, T. (2002), “Factors underlying attitude formation towards online
banking in Finland”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 261-272.
Kim, D.J., Steinfield, C. and Lai, Y.- (2008), “Revisiting the role of web assurance seals in
business-to-consumer electronic commerce”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 1000-1015.
Kim, M.-J., Chung, N. and Lee, C.-K. (2011), “The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce:
shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea”, Tourism Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 256-265.
Krishanan, D., Khin, A.A.A.A., Teng, K.L.L. and Chinna, K. (2016), “Consumers’ perceived interactivity
& intention to use mobile banking in structural equation modeling”, International Review of
Management and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 883-890.
Kumar, A., Adlakaha, A. and Mukherjee, K. (2018), “The effect of perceived security and grievance
redressal on continuance intention to use M-wallets in a developing country”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1170-1189.
Kumar, V.V., Lall, A. and Mane, T. (2017), “Extending the TAM model: intention of management
students to use mobile banking: evidence from India”, Global Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 238-249.
Lederer, A.L., Maupin, D.J., Sena, M.P. and Zhuang, Y. (2000), “The technology acceptance model and
the World Wide Web”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 269-282.
Lee, H.-J., Cho, H.J., Xu, W. and Fairhurst, A. (2010), “The Influence of consumer traits and
demographics on intention to use retail self-service checkouts”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 46-58.
Lee, L., Petter, S., Fayard, D. and Robinson, S. (2011), “On the use of partial least squares path modeling
in accounting research”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 305-328.
Lee, M. and Turban, E. (2001), “A trust model for consumer internet shopping”, International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75-91.
Lee, T.M. and Jun, J.K. (2007), “Contextual perceived value? Investigating the role of contextual
marketing for customer relationship management in a mobile commerce context”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 798-814.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), “Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 191-204.
Li, Y.-M. and Yeh, Y.-S. (2010), “Increasing trust in mobile commerce through design aesthetics”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 673-684.
Liao, C., Palvia, P. and Lin, H.-N. (2006), “The roles of habit and web site quality in e-commerce”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 469-483.
Lin, H.-F. (2011), “An empirical investigation of mobile banking adoption: the effect of innovation
attributes and knowledge-based trust”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 252-260.
Lin, T.-C. and Huang, C.-C. (2008), “Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents:
an integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit”, Information Management,
Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 410-417.
Liu, F., Zhao, X., Chau, P.Y.K. and Tang, Q. (2015), “Roles of perceived value and individual Mobile wallet
differences in the acceptance of mobile coupon applications”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, in India
pp. 471-495.
Madan, K. and Yadav, R. (2016), “Behavioural intention to adopt mobile wallet: a developing country
perspective”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 227-244.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T. and Popovič, A. (2014), “Understanding the Internet banking adoption: a
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Matemba, E. and Li, G. (2017), “Consumers’ willingness to adopt and use WeChat wallet: an empirical
study in South Africa”, Technology in Society, Vol. 53, pp. 55-68.
Misra, S.K. and Wickamasinghe, N. (2004), “Security of a mobile transaction: a trust model”, Electronic
Commerce Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 359-372.
Mohammadi, H. (2015), “A study of mobile banking usage in Iran”, International Journal of Bank

Moon, J. and Kim, Y. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context”, Information and
Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 192-222.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Mortimer, G., Neale, L., Hasan, S.F.E. and Dunphy, B. (2015), “Investigating the factors influencing the
adoption of m-banking: a cross cultural study”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33
No. 4, pp. 545-557.
Mukherjee, A. and Nath, P. (2007), “Role of electronic trust in online retailing: a re-examination of the
commitment-trust theory”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 1173-1202.
Muñoz-Leiva, F., Climent-Climent, S. and Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2017), “Determinants of intention to
use the mobile banking apps: an extension of the classic TAM model”, Spanish Journal of
Marketing-ESIC, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 25-38.
Nielsen’s Global Connected Commerce Survey (2016), “Cash on delivery still remains the preferred
mode of payments in India: survey”, available at: www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/cash-
on-delivery-still-remains-the-preferred-mode-of-payment-in-india-survey-3684337.html
(accessed July 28, 2018).
O’Cass, A. and Fenech, T. (2003), “Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of internet users web
retailing behaviour”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 81-94.
Patel, K.J. and Patel, H.J. (2018), “Adoption of internet banking services in Gujarat: an extension of
TAM with perceived security and social influence”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 147-169.
Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with
the technology acceptance model”, International Journal Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3,
pp. 69-103.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research: a
practical guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30
No. 6, pp. 467-480.
Penser Consulting (2017), “Mobile wallets in India”, available at: www.penser.co.uk/mobile-wallets-in-
india/ (accessed July 23, 2018).
Pham, T.T.T. and Ho, J.C. (2015), “The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and
attractiveness of alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 43, pp. 159-172.
IJBM Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H. and Pahnila, S. (2004), “Consumer acceptance of
online banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model”, Internet Research, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 224-235.
Powell, E.T. and Renner, M. (2003), Analyzing Qualitative Data, University of Wisconsin-Extension,
Madison, WI, available at: http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3658-12.pdf (accessed
November 20, 2017).
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Revels, J., Tojib, D. and Tsarenko, Y. (2010), “Understanding consumer intention to use mobile
services”, Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 74-80.
Rezaei, S. and Amin, M. (2013), “Exploring online repurchase behavioural intention of university
students in Malaysia”, Journal for Global Business Advancement, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 92-119.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D.W. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Riquelme, H.E. and Rios, R.E. (2010), “The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of mobile
banking”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 328-341.
Roca, J.C., García, J.J. and Vega, J.J.D.L.V. (2009), “The importance of perceived trust, security and
privacy in online trading systems”, Information Management & Computer Security, Vol. 17
No. Iss. 2, pp. 96-113.
Rogers, E.M. and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971), Communication of Innovation: A Cross-Cultural Approach,
2nd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Sharma, S.K. and Govindaluri, S.M. (2014), “Internet banking adoption in India: Structural equation
modeling approach”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 155-169.
Sharma, S.K., Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S. and Al-Salti, Z. (2018), “Mobile wallet inhibitors: developing a
comprehensive theory using an integrated model”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 45, pp. 52-63.
Shaw, N. (2014), “The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of mobile wallet”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 449-459.
Shin, D.-H. (2009), “Towards an understanding of the consumer acceptance of mobile wallet”,
Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 25, pp. 1343-1354.
Shin, D.-H. (2010), “Modelling the interaction of users and mobile payment system: conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 917-940.
Singh, N., Srivastava, S. and Sinha, N. (2017), “Consumer preference and satisfaction of M-wallets:
a study on North Indian consumers”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 944-965.
Singh, S. and Srivastava, R.K. (2014), “Factors Influencing the adoption of mobile banking in India”,
International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1-15.
Sollner, M., Hoffmann, A. and Leimeister, J.M. (2016), “Why different trust relationships matter
for information systems users”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 274-287.
Statista (2018), “Distribution of internet users in India in 2016 and 2020, by age group”, available at: www.
statista.com/statistics/751005/india-share-of-internet-users-by-age-group/ (accessed July 28, 2018).
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.
Suh, B. and Han, I. (2002), “Effect of trust on customer acceptance of Internet banking”, Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 247-263.
Szajna, B. (1996), “Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model”, Management
Science, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 85-92.
Teo, T. (2010), “Examining the influence of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on the intention Mobile wallet
to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling of an extended in India
technology acceptance model”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 253-262.
Teo, T., Lee, C.B. and Chai, C.S. (2008), “Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes:
applying and extending the technology acceptance model”, Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 128-143.
Thakur, R. (2013), “What keeps mobile banking customer loyal?”, International Journal of Bank
Thakur, R. and Srivastava, M. (2013), “Customer usage intention of mobile commerce in India:
an empirical study”, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 52-72.
Thakur, R. and Srivastava, M. (2014), “Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and
usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India”, Internet
Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 369-392.
Thompson, R., Higgins, C. and Howell, J. (1991), “Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of
utilization”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 125-143.
Upadhyay, P. and Jahanyan, S. (2016), “Analyzing user perspective on the factors affecting use
intention of mobile based transfer payment”, Internet Research, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 38-56.
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.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004), “Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an
augmented technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 747-762.
Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (2010), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts,
Methods and Applications, Springer Handbooks of Computational Statistics, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin and Heidelberg.
Wan, W.W.N., Luk, C.-L., Cheris and C.W.C. (2005), “Customers’ adoption of banking channels in Hong
Kong”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 255-272.
Wu, I.L. and Chen, J.L. (2005), “An extension of trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption
of online tax: an empirical study”, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, Vol. 62
No. 6, pp. 784-808.
Yang, K. (2010), “Determinants of US consumer mobile shopping services adoption: implications
for designing mobile shopping services”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 262-270.
Yousafzai, S.Y., Pallister, J.G. and Foxall, G.R. (2003), “A proposed model of e-trust for electronic
banking”, Technovation, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 847-860.
Zhang, K., Cheung, C. and Lee, M. (2014), “Examining the moderating effect of inconsistent reviews and
its gender differences on consumers’ online shopping decision”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Zhang, X., Prybutok, V.R. and Huang, A. (2006), “An empirical study of factors affecting e-service
satisfaction”, Human Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 279-291.
Zhou, T. (2011), “An empirical examination of initial trust in mobile banking”, Internet Research, Vol. 21
No. 5, pp. 527-540.
Further reading
Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2000), “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS adoption:a study
of e-commerce adoption”, Journal of AIS, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-28.
Richard Glavee-Geo, G.R., Shaikh, A.A. and Karjaluoto, H. (2017), “Mobile banking services adoption in
Pakistan: are there gender differences?”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 7,
pp. 1090-1114.
IJBM Appendix
Factor
Construct/Source Statements loadings M SD
Attitude (ATT) (adapted from Davis, I don’t think I need others help in using mobile 0.873 4.08 0.689
1989 and Venkatesh et al., 2003) wallet (ATT1)
I believe step by step navigation of mobile 0.888 4.15 0.694
wallet apps are easy to understand (ATT2)
I believe learning to use mobile wallet is 0.903 3.91 0.824
easy (ATT3)
I like the fact that payments done through 0.866 3.85 0.849
mobile wallets require minimum effort (ATT4)
I believe it is easy to transfer money through 0.863 4.00 0.763
mobile wallet as minimum steps are

required (ATT5)
Facilitating Conditions (FC) (adapted My mobile device is appropriate for using a 0.754 4.24 0.690
from Thompson et al., 1991; mobile wallet (FC1)
Venkatesh et al., 2003) The cost of purchasing a mobile device suitable 0.805 4.17 0.707
for using mobile wallet is affordable to me (FC2)
I have the knowledge necessary to use mobile 0.803 4.20 0.734
wallet (FC4)
I can easily find a person who can help me out 0.665 3.83 0.908
if I get stuck while using mobile wallet (FC5)
Intention (INT) (adapted from I would like to do transactions using mobile 0.867 4.06 0.718
Venkatesh et al., 2003) wallet in the near future (INT1)
It is very likely that I will use my smartphone 0.803 3.92 0.840
to pay at the point-of-sale (INT2)
I will frequently use Mobile Wallet in future 0.889 3.87 0.868
(INT3)
I intend to recommend others to use Mobile 0.865 3.82 0.904
Wallet (INT4)
Lifestyle Compatibility (LC) (adapted I believe that using mobile wallet will fit my 0.856 4.03 0.756
from Moore and Benbasat, 1991) lifestyle (LC1)
I believe that using mobile wallet is suitable for 0.895 4.03 0.749
me (LC2)
I believe that my mobile wallet is compatible 0.869 3.96 0.790
with the way I shop online (LC3)
I think mobile wallet is more suitable to me 0.757 3.84 0.909
since I spend more time on mobile apps than on
desktop (LC4)
Keeping a record of transactions and receipts is 0.710 3.88 0.814
my habit and I believe mobile wallet fulfills
them (LC5)
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) I believe step by step navigation of mobile 0.656 4.29 0.673
(adapted from Davis, 1989, Davis wallet apps are easy to understand (PEOU2)
et al., 1989 and Venkatesh et al., 2003) I believe learning to use mobile wallet is easy 0.739 4.33 0.684
(PEOU3)
I like the fact that payments done through 0.834 4.19 0.779
mobile wallets require minimum effort
(PEOU4)
I believe it is easy to transfer money through 0.814 4.02 0.829
Table AI. mobile wallet as minimum steps are required
Mean (M), standard (PEOU5)
deviation (SD) and
factor loadings of
items in instrument (continued )
Factor
Mobile wallet
Construct/Source Statements loadings M SD in India
Overall I think mobile wallet is very easy to use 0.851 4.21 0.741
(PEOU6)
Perceived Usefulness (PU) (adapted I think using mobile wallet would enable me to 0.815 4.08 0.790
from Davis, 1989, Davis et al., 1989 accomplish transactions more quickly (PU1)
and Venkatesh et al., 2003) I believe mobile wallet would be useful for 0.795 4.15 0.716
conducting online transactions (PU2)
I believe using mobile wallet would improve 0.856 3.94 0.857
my efficiency of online transactions (PU3)
I think using mobile wallet would make it 0.847 4.09 0.792
easier for me to make online payments. (PU5)
I believe mobile wallet improves the quality of 0.795 3.73 0.900
online transaction (PU6)
Overall, I think using a mobile wallet would 0.825 3.76 0.912

improve my performance (PU7)
Security (SEC) (adapted from Flavián I will be confident making payments through 0.763 3.89 0.874
and Guinalíu 2006) mobile wallet (S1)
I believe technology used in mobile wallet is 0.844 3.66 0.865
very secure (S3)
I believe the service has a potential to be safer 0.711 3.72 0.877
than traditional payment options such as credit
cards and cash (S4)
I believe that transactions conducted through 0.874 3.78 0.827
mobile wallet are secure (S5)
I believe the chances of losing money stored in 0.789 3.65 0.917
mobile wallet are low (S6)
Trust (TR) (adapted from Lee and I trust transactions happening through mobile 0.807 3.83 0.795
Turban, 2001, Suh and Han, 2002 and wallet (T1)
Belanche et al., 2012) I trust the business providers of mobile wallet 0.801 3.53 1.011
will not divulge any of my information to third
party (T2)
I believe mobile wallet keeps customers’ 0.844 3.68 0.857
interests best in mind (T3)
I believe mobile wallet keeps its promises and 0.850 3.71 0.828
commitments (T4)
I believe that in case of any issue the service 0.743 3.81 0.828
provider will provide me assistance (T5)
I believe that the mobile wallet service 0.762 3.76 0.791
providers follow consumer laws (T6) Table AI.
Corresponding author
Himanshu Joshi can be contacted at: himanshu@imi.edu
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

Chawla &amp; Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chawla &amp; Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chawla &amp; Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Bank Marketing

Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

1.2 State of mobile wallet in India

2.2 The TAM and UTAUT model

3. Hypotheses formulation and research model

Shin (2009) TAM, UTAUT | | | | | | | | Gender, age,

H2c. PU positively affects attitude toward mobile wallet.

hypotheses Conditions (FC)

4.2 Survey data

Mode Frequency (n) Percentage (%)a

Internet banking 364 48.9

6. Estimation of measurement and structural model

Type of Connection Frequency (n) Percentage (%)a

Mobile internet package (prepaid) 371 49.9

ICICI pockets 257 (34.5%) 389 (52.3%) 78 (10.5%) 20 (2.7%)

ATT 0.926 0.944 0.772 0.879

ATT1 0.873 0.460 0.672 0.645 0.509 0.614 0.604 0.568

LC1 0.619 0.509 0.624 0.856 0.451 0.539 0.501 0.530

6.1 Evaluation of the structural model

0.602 0.867 INT2

PU5 0.795 0.763 0.261 0.873 ATT2

Original Sample t-statistics Supported/

H1a PEOU → PU 0.602 0.602 0.031 19.130 0.000 Supported

All constructs included 0.683 0.491

All constructs included 0.681 0.47

All constructs included 0.629 0.374 Table XI.

and Jahanyan (2016) referred to the importance of FC as another variable labeled as

8. Limitations and scope for future research

Capgemini’s World Payment Report (2017), “World’s payment report”, available at

Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 733-759.

mobile wallet as minimum steps are

Overall, I think using a mobile wallet would 0.825 3.76 0.912

You might also like

Chawla & Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

Chawla & Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical

Chawla & Joshi 2019 Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India – An empirical