Mobile Payment

Case Study MSMR

Group E

The summary procedure

The data was composed by 22 variables on the survey and 184 observations. The sample was composed by men and women from 20 to 64 years old.

Variable Label N Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum

1 UI1 I intend to use my smartphone in-store for paying for my purchases 184 3.6141304 2.0876992 1.0000000 7.0000000
2 UI2 I plan to use my smartphone in-store for paying for my purchases 184 3.5163043 2.0959903 1.0000000 7.0000000
3 UI3 I will use my smartphone the next time I am at this shopping stage 184 3.7010870 2.1406293 1.0000000 7.0000000
4 Conv1 Using my smartphone would allow me to save time during my shopping 184 4.4021739 1.9449235 1.0000000 7.0000000
5 Conv2 Using my smartphone would make my shopping less time consuming 184 4.1739130 1.8968406 1.0000000 7.0000000
6 Conv3 Using my smartphone would be a convenient way to do shopping 184 4.3043478 1.9090760 1.0000000 7.0000000
7 Pleasure1 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be enjoyable 184 3.8695652 1.9345430 1.0000000 7.0000000
8 Pleasure2 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be entertaining 184 3.6847826 1.8755216 1.0000000 7.0000000
9 Pleasure3 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be fun 184 3.8260870 1.9367524 1.0000000 7.0000000
10 Eco1 Using my smartphone would allow me to do my shopping at a lower financial cost 184 3.3641304 1.9313396 1.0000000 7.0000000
11 Eco2 Using my smartphone would allow me to save money 184 3.5760870 1.9930683 1.0000000 7.0000000
12 Eco3 Using my smartphone would allow me to take advantage of promotional offers 184 4.2554348 1.8831937 1.0000000 7.0000000
13 RiskPriv1 Using my smartphone would make me lose control over my privacy 184 4.8315217 1.8194114 1.0000000 7.0000000
14 RiskPriv2 Using my smartphone would lead to a loss of privacy because my personal data could be used without my permission 184 4.6847826 1.7859766 1.0000000 7.0000000
15 RiskPriv3 Using my smartphone would expose me to the risk of internet hackers taking control of my personal data 184 5.0271739 1.7600052 1.0000000 7.0000000
16 RiskFin1 Using my smartphone would lead to potential fraud of my bank account 184 5.1413043 1.7467004 1.0000000 7.0000000
17 RiskFin2 Using my smartphone would subject my bank account to financial risks 184 5.0706522 1.7147409 1.0000000 7.0000000
18 Sexp1 I have a great deal of experience with using a smartphone for doing shopping 184 3.8097826 2.0517118 1.0000000 7.0000000
19 Sexp2 I have used very frequently in the past a smartphone for doing shopping 184 3.4836957 2.1219013 1.0000000 7.0000000
20 Sexp3 I am not familiar for the different functionalities of smartphones for doing shopping 184 3.8858696 2.0144332 1.0000000 7.0000000
21 Sexp4 I frequently update my knowledge about the functionalities of smartphones for doing shopping 184 3.4945652 1.9917790 1.0000000 7.0000000
22 Sexp5 I do not feel very confident in using a smartphone for doing shopping 184 3.9619565 1.9735044 1.0000000 7.0000000

USAGE INTENTIONS PERCEIVED BENEFITS PERCEIVED RISKS SHOPPING EXPERIENCE

 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

After running the EFA, 6 factors were retained by the proportion criterion. We repeated this sequence six times before there were not items correlated with more than
one factor. Consequently, the following variables, were eliminated: UI1, UI2, UI3, Eco1, ECO3, Conv2 and Conv3. To be able to eliminate these variables, we had
completed the following steps:

- Drop variables if Kaisers measure of sampling adequacy were <0.5

- Drop variables if factor loading in the rotated factor pattern table were <0.5
- Drop variables if cross loading were >0.4

Because of all of that was mentioned above and for further analysis, our data was composed by 15 variables and 184 observations.

Kaiser's Measure of Sampling Adequacy: Overall MSA = 0.86374910

Conv1 Pleasure1 Pleasure2 Pleasure3 Eco2 RiskPriv1 RiskPriv2 RiskPriv3 RiskFin1 RiskFin2 Sexp1 Sexp2 Sexp3 Sexp4 Sexp5
0.9025177 0.8323609 0.8625027 0.7857834 0.8909448 0.8118296 0.8039040 0.8632385 0.8382182 0.8307415 0.9084831 0.9193496 0.9102959 0.9079271 0.8802072

The Kaisers measure of sampling adequacy shows that all variables are > 0.5 so the sampling is adequate.

Orthogonal Transformation Matrix

1 2 3 4
1 0.76018 -0.12726 0.62869 0.10337
2 0.17681 0.98347 -0.02021 0.03337
3 -0.62304 0.12603 0.77014 0.05310
4 -0.05178 -0.02655 -0.10598 0.99266

Rotated Factor Pattern

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
Sexp3 I am not familiar for the different functionalities of smartphones for doing shopping 0.92034 0.03600 0.18047 0.02352
Sexp5 I do not feel very confident in using a smartphone for doing shopping 0.90544 0.00343 0.25071 0.07708
Sexp1 I have a great deal of experience with using a smartphone for doing shopping 0.89945 -0.00535 0.17923 -0.04117
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E
Rotated Factor Pattern
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
Sexp2 I have used very frequently in the past a smartphone for doing shopping 0.88659 0.00475 0.20816 -0.01253
Sexp4 I frequently update my knowledge about the functionalities of smartphones for doing shopping 0.78703 -0.02348 0.28291 0.24430
RiskFin2 Using my smartphone would subject my bank account to financial risks -0.00783 0.93127 -0.05093 0.05549
RiskPriv3 Using my smartphone would expose me to the risk of internet hackers taking control of my personal data 0.01748 0.92966 -0.06479 -0.03362
RiskFin1 Using my smartphone would lead to potential fraud of my bank account -0.00380 0.91933 -0.10048 -0.01542
RiskPriv2 Using my smartphone would lead to a loss of privacy because my personal data could be used without my permission -0.03432 0.86810 0.02998 0.05339
RiskPriv1 Using my smartphone would make me lose control over my privacy 0.04357 0.79725 -0.00666 -0.02535
Pleasure3 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be fun 0.23934 -0.12294 0.92788 -0.05885
Pleasure1 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be enjoyable 0.18385 -0.10135 0.90836 0.00341
Pleasure2 Using my smartphone for this shopping stage would be entertaining 0.24133 -0.01678 0.86055 -0.04919
Conv1 Using my smartphone would allow me to save time during my shopping 0.22565 0.02118 0.62236 0.34488
Eco2 Using my smartphone would allow me to save money 0.30175 0.04472 0.54398 0.38889

In the factor patter table, the cross loading is < 0.4 and there are not items correlated with more than one factor. The factor loading is > 0.5.

Even though 4 factors are retained by the proportion criterion, we will drop factor 4 because itis not accounted by more than one unique variable (EGO rule).

Variance Explained by Each Factor Contribution of Each Factor (Factor /15*100)

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4
4.1760629 3.9959267 3.3786068 0.3520326 27.8404193 26.6395113 22.5240453 2.346884

Final Communality Estimates: Total = 11.902629

Conv1 Pleasure1 Pleasure2 Pleasure3 Eco2 RiskPriv1 RiskPriv2 RiskPriv3 RiskFin1 RiskFin2 Sexp1 Sexp2 Sexp3 Sexp4 Sexp5
0.5576375 0.8691964 0.8014918 0.9368158 0.5402042 0.6381945 0.7585192 0.8698945 0.8555131 0.8730065 0.8428543 0.8295441 0.8814446 0.7596888 0.8886230

Errors
Conv1 Pleasure1 Pleasure2 Pleasure3 Eco2 RiskPriv1 RiskPriv2 RiskPriv3 RiskFin1 RiskFin2 Sexp1 Sexp2 Sexp3 Sexp4 Sexp5
0.4423625 0.1308036 0.1985082 0.0631842 0.4597958 0.3618055 0.2414808 0.1301055 0.1444869 0.1269935 0.1571457 0.1704559 0.1185554 0.2403112 0.111377
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E
Final Communality Estimates shows how many % each variables are explained by each factor. It means there are error (%) which is circulated by 1- Final Communality
Estimates.

Model representation

0.1571457

0.89945 Sexp1 Error

0.1704559
0.88659 Sexp2 Error

0.1185554
0.92034
Factor 1 Sexp3 Error

0.2403112
0.78703
Sexp4 Error

0.90544 0.111377
Sexp5 Error
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E

0. 3618055

0.6381945 RiskPriv1 Error

0. 2414808
0.7585192 RiskPriv2 Error

0. 1301055
Factor 2 0. 8698945
RiskPriv3 Error

0. 1444869
0. 8555131
RiskFin1 Error

0. 8730065 0. 1269935
RiskFin2 Error
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E

0. 4423625

0. 5576375 Conv1 Error

0. 1308036
0. 8691964 Pleasure1 Error

0. 1985082
Factor 3 0. 8014918
Pleasure2 Error

0. 0631842
0. 9368158
Pleasure3 Error

0. 5402042 0. 4597958
Eco2 Error
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E

Scale measurement reliability test

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha The Factor1 affected five variables: Sexp1, Sexp2, Sexp3, Sexp4 and Sexp5. We decided to rename this factor as experience
with mobile shopping.
FACTOR 1

Variables Alpha
Raw 0.959650 We can observe than the coefficient is higher than 0.7, so we can assume it is reliable.
Standardized 0.959809

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha The Factor2 affected five variables: RiskPriv1, RiskPriv2, RiskPriv3, RiskFin1 and RiskFin2. We decided to rename this factor as
FACTOR 2

perceived risks (financial and privacy) associated with mobile payment.

Variables Alpha
Raw 0.947646 We can observe than the coefficient is higher than 0.7, so we can assume it is reliable.
Standardized 0.948157

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha The Factor3 affected five variables: Conv1, Eco2, Pleasure1, Pleasure2 and Pleasure3. We decided to rename this factor as
perceived benefits (save money, save time and pleasure).
FACTOR 3

Variables Alpha
Raw 0.905598 We can observe than the coefficient is higher than 0.7, so we can assume it is reliable.
Standardized 0.906421

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha As the intention to use the smartphones for m-payment is unidimensional and reliable, we can compute the aggregation
measure of the construct from the item scores. Therefore, we took the average score across the items (Usage1, Usage2 and
USE (UI)

Variables Alpha
Usage3) to compute variables of intention to use smartphones for m-payment.
Raw 0.905598
Standardized 0.906421
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E

Regression analysis to test the hypotheses

Testing the Hypotheses

As age and gender might influence the shopping activities and use of the technology, we put age and gender as Independent Variables (IVs).

As the intention to use smartphone for m-payment is unidimensional and reliable, we can compute the aggregation measure of the construct from the item scores.
Therefore, we took the average score across the items (Usage1, 2 ,3) to compute variables of intention to use smartphones for m-payment.

Moreover, according to factor analysis:

Ei: Experience with mobile shopping (Sexp1, Sexp2, Sexp3, Sexp4 and Sexp5);
Ri: Perceived (Risk RiskPriv1, RiskPriv2, RiskPriv3, RiskFin1 and RiskFin2); and
Bi: Perceived Benefits (Conv1, Eco2, Pleasure1, Pleasure2 and Pleasure3).

As these factors are unidimensional and reliable, we can compute the aggregation measure of the construct from the item scores. Therefore, we took the average
score across the items of each factors to compute variables of experience with mobile shopping, perceived risk and perceived benefits

Therefore, the formula would be:

() = 1 + 2 + 3 1 + 4 2 + 5 + 6 + 7

Consequently, we had to run a correlation analysis to investigate potential multicollinearity issues. This process has shown us the following correlations between IVs:
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 184
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0
Ui Age G1 G2 Ei Ri Bi
Ui 1.00000 0.05339 0.05445 -0.05445 0.41532 -0.27230 0.79038
Intention to use in-store m-payment 0.4716 0.4629 0.4629 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001
Age 0.05339 1.00000 -0.00025 0.00025 -0.00158 0.06033 -0.02312
Age 0.4716 0.9973 0.9973 0.9830 0.4160 0.7554
G1 0.05445 -0.00025 1.00000 -1.00000 0.14706 0.04148 0.03494
Men 0.4629 0.9973 <.0001 0.0464 0.5761 0.6377
G2 -0.05445 0.00025 -1.00000 1.00000 -0.14706 -0.04148 -0.03494
Women 0.4629 0.9973 <.0001 0.0464 0.5761 0.6377
Ei 0.41532 -0.00158 0.14706 -0.14706 1.00000 -0.00270 0.48877
Experience with mobile shopping <.0001 0.9830 0.0464 0.0464 0.9710 <.0001
Ri -0.27230 0.06033 0.04148 -0.04148 -0.00270 1.00000 -0.07562
Perceived Risk 0.0002 0.4160 0.5761 0.5761 0.9710 0.3076
Bi 0.79038 -0.02312 0.03494 -0.03494 0.48877 -0.07562 1.00000
Perceived Benefits <.0001 0.7554 0.6377 0.6377 <.0001 0.3076

We can see that Ei and Bi are highly correlated to most of IVs where as other IVs are less correlated each other. As it is better to have small correlation between IVs
(<0.4), we can assume that variables experience and perceived benefits might not be good IVs while other IVs should be good variables to explain variable intention
to use.

From the Regression Model, we got this formula (G2 is deleted as it is opposite of G1)

() = . 35 + 0.02 + 0.12 1 + 0.04 0.28 + 0.94

Therefore, following variables are positively/negatively correlated to intention to use:

Age: positive Gender: positive to men Experience: positive Risk: negative Benefits: positive
 Mobile Payment
Case Study MSMR
Group E
Moreover, from p-value, we can see only risk and benefit variables are significantly coefficient.

From this result, we can assume that H1-3 are correct but as for the H3, the correlation between experience and intention to use are not significant.

From the standardized estimate, we can see that the benefit variables are the most important.

According to r-square score, we can see the almost 68 % of the intention of use are explained by selected variables.

Recommendations to the retailer

As the intention to use smartphone for m-payment is highly correlated to the factors of risk and perceived benefits, we would recommend to the retailer to emphasize
on the economic benefits, convenience and pleasure that can attain the customer. By accomplishing this task, the clients should be feel motivated enough to use the
system, making shopper concentrates in these factors instead of worrying about risks they might have when they install m-payment.

Therefore, the retailer should have sales representatives well educated and capable of explaining the system accurately and with an strong accent in the fully
comprehension of the perceived benefits and the safety of using the m-payment system. In addition to this, retailers may consider to provide a meeting section or
organize different events to provide further detailed information about the benefits and safety of the m-system to maximize the beneficial image and minimize the
risky image of m-payment.