Abstract

This study explores the central perceptions of consumers influencing the decision to use contactless payment instruments. Aim is to define a customer core group narrowed down by several variables and to find a basis for a purposeful communication of advantages of the new payment process, as investment into this technology bears the risk of total loss if the customer group is declining acceptance and the image of a company might be excessively damaged. External variables in context with the usage of social online media and participation in customer loyalty programs have been selected to clarify possible impact. These factors offer comprehensive explanation and help interpreting mechanisms within the decision making process for acceptance of the payment technology. Data were collected in a survey with n = 1,294 customers in a major city in Northern Germany. Results are displayed in a technology acceptance model, using structural equation modelling and regression analysis. The study is not limited on mobile payment instruments in the traditional context respectively involving a mobile phone. On the contrary this analysis is made on the belief that any device can be enabled for contactless payment processes, such as traditional items like credit or debit cards. Customers shopping online have a higher perceived usefulness an customers participating in loyalty programs tend to understand the argument of the ease of use of the technology more than their counterparts.

Keywords:

Contactless payment, credit card, mobile payment, RFID, TAM, technology acceptance,

References

1. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., 50: 179-211.
   CrossRef    
2. Awad, N.F. and M. Krishnan, 2006. The personalization privacy paradox: An empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quart., 30: 13-28.
   
3. Bagozzi, R.P., 1981. Attitudes, intentions and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 41: 607-627.
   CrossRef    
4. Browne, M.W. and R. Cudeck, 1993. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. In: Bollen, K.A. and J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, Sage, CA, pp: 136-162.
   
5. Carter, S., 2005. The 'contactless' opportunity. Card Technol. Today, 17: 10-11.
   CrossRef    
6. Chau, P.Y.K. and S. Poon, 2003. Octopus: An e-cash payment system success story. Commun. ACM, 46: 129-133.
   CrossRef    
7. Chen, L.D., 2008. A model of consumer acceptance of mobile payment. Int. J. Mob. Commun., 6: 32-52.
   CrossRef    
8. Cimiotti, G. and A. Martin, 2008. Das Kartengesch�ft: zwischen Convenience, Effizienz und Profitabilit�t. Frankfurt am Main, Knapp.
   
9. Cohen, J., P. Cohen, G. West and L. Aiken, 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.
   
10. Comscore_Inc., 2011. Smartphones gewinnen an Fahrtwind in Deutschland. Hamburg, (Accessed on: June 2, 2012).
    Direct Link
11. Dahlberg, T., N. Mallat, J. Ondrus and A. Zmijewska, 2008. Past, present and future of mobile payments research: A literature review. Electron. Commer. R. A., 7: 165-181.
    CrossRef    
12. Davis, F.D., 1986. A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts.
    
13. Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Massachusetts.
    
14. FTD, 2012. German Banks Want to Wean the Cash. In: Frankfurt, A.M. (Ed.), Financial Times. Deutschland. (Accessed on: June 2, 2012).
    Direct Link
15. Grote, J.H., D. Keizer, D. Kenzler, P. Kenzler, C. Meinel, M. Schnjakin and L. Zoth, 2010. Vom Client zur APP, Ideenkatalog zur Zukunft der Software der Personalausweisnutzung. Bundesministerium des Innern, Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
    
16. Hogan, M., 2009. Age Differences in Technophobia: An Irish Study. Information Systems Development. Springer, US.
    
17. Holvast, J., 2009. History of privacy. IFIP Adv. Inform. Commun. Technol., 298: 13-42.
    CrossRef    
18. Jones, H. and J.H. Soltren, 2005. Facebook: Threats to Privacy. MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (Accessed on: August 13, 2011).
    Direct Link
19. J�reskog, K.G. and D. S�rbom, 1982. Recent developments in structural equation modeling. J. Marketing Res., 19: 404-416.
    CrossRef    
20. Lacmanovic, I., B. Radulovic and D. Lacmanovic, 2010. Contactless payment systems based on RFID technology. Proceedings of the 33rd International Convention (MIPRO), pp: 1114-1119.
    
21. Legris, P., J. Ingham and P. Collerette, 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Inform. Manage., 40: 191-204.
    CrossRef    
22. Nosko, A., E. Wood and S. Molema, 2010. All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of FACEBOOK. Comput. Hum. Behav., 26: 406-418.
    CrossRef    
23. Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York.
    
24. Ondrus, J. and Y. Pigneur, 2006. Towards a holistic analysis of mobile payments: A multiple perspectives approach. Electron. Commer. R. A., 5: 246-257./> CrossRef    
25. Pousttchi, K., 2003. Conditions for Acceptance and Usage of Mobile Payment Procedures. In: Giaglis, G.M., H. Werthner, V. Tschammer and K. Foeschl (Eds.), Proceeding of the Second International Conference on Mobile Business (mBusiness 2003), Vienna.
    
26. Rankl, W., W. Effing and K. Cox, 2003. Smart Card Handbook. Wiley, Chichester.
    CrossRef    
27. Schwintowski, H.P. and F.A. Sch�fer, 2004. Bankrecht: Commercial Banking, Investment Banking. Carl Heymann, Koln.
    PMid:15652323    
28. Smart Card Alliance, 2007. Proximity Mobile Payments: Leveraging NFC and the Contactless Financial Payments Infrastructure. A Smart Card Alliance Contactless Payments Council White Paper, Publication No.: CPC-07002.
    
29. Steiger, J.H., 1990. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivar. Behav. Res., 25: 173-180.
    CrossRef    PMid:26794479    
30. Venkatesh, V. and F.D. Davis, 1996. A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decis. Sci., 27: 451-481.
    CrossRef    

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.