Sample Manuscript For Reference

ELECTRONIC WALLET SERVICES AS PERCEIVED BY THE CUSTOMERS
IN CAVITE DURING THE NEW NORMAL
Juvy Z. Arcilla
Joyce Erleonor A. Reyes
An undergraduate thesis manuscript submitted to the faculty of the Department of

Management, Cavite State University, Imus City, Cavite in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Management major
in Financial Management with Contribution No. Prepared under the supervision of
Ms. Rosario Gumban, PhD.
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Before the development of technology, the Philippines’ mode of payment in
purchasing goods or services is through the use of cash. Using cash is the most
convenient method for every Filipino in paying their daily expenses like bills payment,
shopping, and even remittances (WorldBank, 2020).
As the world progress with technological advancement comes a new way of
making payments. Internet and other technological development have been changing
the way Filipinos live their lives. It enables most people to conduct different online
transactions with the help of an internet connection. Online transaction is fast
growing in the country. It is a method of buying products, payment and other online –
related activities with the use of the internet (Arreola, 2020).
Nowadays, people want to make use of their time in a most efficient and
productive way especially during this challenging situation. Filipinos are known to be
diligent about their work or to any other activities that they are engaged with; and it
would be in their favor if they can maximize their time doing such activities. In today’s
generation, where technology is growing and developing, people are fond of using
the different online services and other applications; may it be for their personal use or
for any other purposes like business transactions and bills payment. Technology and
internet connections play a major role in today’s current situation.
As the world experienced the global pandemic, most of the countries
including the Philippines have been imposed to lockdown and was subjected to
quarantine, prohibiting the Filipino people from going out of their houses. This
phenomenon has changed the way they live affecting their lifestyles, jobs,
businesses and the overall economy of the Philippines. The dependence of the
Filipino people to technological innovation has grown rapidly especially in times of
crisis, like the pandemic. According to the article of Nikkei Asia entitled “Digital
payment grows in Philippines amid covid – 19 fears” (Endo, 2020) digital payments
are fast growing in the country as consumers discard the use of cash payment in
order to avoid physical contact on worries over getting the virus. The fast growing
technologies in the country brings different opportunities to individuals and
institutions. This enables most of the Filipino people to live their lives in comfort
especially with the current situation where most of the cities in the Philippines are
under community quarantine and the people need to stay in and work from home.
During these crucial times, people conduct their businesses through the use
of digital transactions for the purpose of purchasing goods and services, bills
payment and other online – related activities. Online transaction can easily be done
by following three steps, registration, placing an order and payment. This type of
transaction has been widely used even before the occurrence of the pandemic.
According to the director of the Technology Risk and Innovation Supervision
Department at the BSP, said that the value of transactions processed by non-bank
electronic money issuers (EMIs) reached P974.1 billion from January to September
last year 235.5% higher than the P290.3 billion recorded in the same period in 2019.
This resulted from a 625.5 % jump in volume to 829.3 million from 176.8 million due
to the digital initiatives of EMIs to effectively reach their target markets amid the
COVID 19 pandemic (Agcaoili, 2021).
In purchasing goods or services or conducting any form of online transaction,
people use the e-wallet system to settle their payment online. According to the article
entitled “COVID-19 and e-wallet usage intention: A multigroup analysis between
Indonesia and Malaysia” World Health Organization (WHO) encouraged people to do
physical distancing policy which inspires them to do contactless activities, including
transaction. People are worried that the novel coronavirus can be transmitted through
physical money that drives them to shift to e-wallet. (Aji, 2020)
Cashless transaction is the method of purchasing or paying for the goods and
services without the use of physical money. (SecurionPay.com), this type of
transaction can be done through the use of mobile wallet. As defined by Techopedia,
mobile wallet is a type of payment service through which business and individuals
can receive and send money via mobile devices.
There are several local mobile wallet services that are available in the
Philippines. Among the list of best mobile wallets in the Philippines according to
Bayugo (2020), are GCash, Paymaya, Coins PH, Grab Pay, Paypal, 7/11 CLIQQ
Rewards, BanKO, Moneygment.
As the world progress with the technology development, online services will
rise and will become part of everyday lives of the people. A cashless society will soon
become normal. According to the study made by the “The Visa”, one of the countries
ready to be a cashless society is the Philippines. In fact, 70% of the Filipino has gone
cashless and the percentage of the Filipino online shoppers has increased greatly
from 71% in 2016 to 92% in 2017. (Chua, 2020). A cashless society is a concept
wherein financial transactions are conducted in an electronic form rather than doing it
physically. With the use of cashless transactions, people no longer needed to bring
cash and go outside their home to purchase product or services and other daily
activities like bills payment or banking. Life will be made easier with the different
digital technology advancement.
The researchers wanted to measure the frequency of usage of customers and
their level of and perception about e-wallet services during the New Normal.
Statement of the Problem
In general, this study will analyze and find out the customers’ frequency of
usage and their level of perception about e-wallet services during the New Normal.
Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the customers of e-wallet transaction in
terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 sex;
1.3 civil status;
1.4 educational background;
1.5 employment status;
1.6 source of income;
1.7 average monthly income; and
1.8 mobile money application used?
2. What is the perception of the customers about the services of e-wallet services
in terms of:
2.1 usability;
2.2 security;
2.3 accessibilty;
2.4 conveniece; and

2.5 reliability?
3. How frequent do the customers use e-wallet services with respect to the
following transactions:
3.1 payment of bills;
3.2 online purchases; and
3.3 remittances?
4. Is there a significant difference between the frequency of usage of customers
of various e-wallet services then they are grouped according to their
demographic profiles?
5. To what extent does the perception of the customers towards e-wallet services
influence the frequency of their usage of e-wallet services as to:
5.3 remittances?
Objectives of the Study
Generally, this study will determine and assess the customers’ frequency of
usage and their level of perception about e-wallet services during the New Normal.
1. Identify the demographic profile of the customers of cashless transactions in terms
of:
1.1 age;
1.2 sex;
1.3 civil status;
1.4 educational background;
1.5 employee status;
1.6 source of income;

1.7 average monthly income; and
1.7 mobile money application used.
2. Identify the perception of the customers about the services of e-wallet system in
terms of:
2.1 usability;
2.2 security;
2.3 accessibility;
2.4 convenience; and
2.5 reliability.
3. Identify how frequent do the customers of mobile money application use e-wallet
services with respect to the following transactions:
3.3 remittances.
4. Identify if there is a significant difference between the frequency of usage of
customers of various e-wallet services when they are grouped according to their
demographic profile.
5. Identify on what extent does the perception of the customers towards e-wallet
services influence the frequency of their usage of e-wallet services as to:
1.3 remittances.
Significance of the Study

The researchers believed that the study will be of value to the following
indvidual, group of individuals and institutions:
To the E-wallet Businesses/Companies.This study will provide them
information of customers perception and will help them create or improve their
business strategies in the operations of business.
To the Future Researchers. This study will serve as a reference to the
students who will conduct a research study about E-wallet.
To the Customers of E-wallet. This will enhance their knowledge about
cashless transactions and will serve as their guidance on how to properly use the e-
wallet system.
To the Prospective Customers. This study will serve as guidance to the
users using cashless transactions, and the benefits, advantages and disadvantages
of E-wallet services.
To Government Agencies. The study will inform agencies towards policy
formulation of e-wallet transactions.
To the Students.This study will serve as their guide and reference on
cashless transactions or e-wallet system.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The focus of this study is to measure the frequency of usage and determine
the level of perception of different customers (students, unemployed, and business
owners) in Cavite (Bacoor, Imus and Dasmarinas) using e-wallet transactions of
various mobile wallet companies in the Philippines.
Time and place of the Study

The researchers conducted the study in different areas in Cavite (Bacoor,
Imus and Dasmarinas) from September 2020 – May 2021.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the related literature is presented in relation to the study of E-
wallet services. The literature is the selection of the different documents that are
already available, which contains information, data or ideas that are relevant to the
study.
Cashless Transaction
According to Nair (2019), cashless transaction is an automated or online
operation that may take place between two people, business or organization. In the
Philippines, cash is a king, and has been for a long time. While bank transfer is the
most digital payments method across the Southeast Asian region, in the Philippines,
80% of online sellers use cash on delivery as the preferred payment method
(Devanesan, 2020).
As more people adapt the use of cashless transaction, the economy will
become a cashless society. According to the Dictionary, a cashless society is a state
in which the public purchases goods and services through credit card or electronic
funds transferral rather than with cash or checks. Living in cashless society would
mean that cash as we know it wouldn’t exist. No more walking around with a wallet
full of paper bills or collecting loose change for a rainy day (Lake, 2020). In recent
years, there has been a growing trend toward using electronic payment rather
physical cash. This trend to a cashless society is likely to be accelerated by the
Corona virus which gives an impetus to avoiding unnecessary physical transactions
(Pettinger, 2020). There are several advantages of a cashless society such as lower
risk of violent crime, lower transaction costs, and fewer issues of tax evasion.
Mobile wallets
Mobile wallet a type of payment service through which individuals can receive
and send money via mobile devices. It is a form of e-commerce model that is
designed to be used with mobile devices due to their convenience and easy access.
(Goyal, 2020). Mobile wallet is an app on your mobile devices that stores payment
information from a credit card or a debit card then allows customers to use their
device to make purchases. (Abrams, 2018). According to Raj (2019), mobile wallet
application means carrying the cash in digital method. Mobile wallet providers specify
the link to fill mobile wallet users’ debit card or credit card information for money
transaction. Mobile wallets are a very convenient device to have when you are into
cashless payments. It allows the users to install app that offers cashless payment
services that they can use in purchasing or payment transactions.
Electronic or Digital Payment
Digital payment services are forms of contactless, cashless and paperless
payment methods. Technology has allowed the world to embrace these more
convenient exchanges of payments through services like mobile apps (Caramela,
2020). The number of digital payment users is projected to grow by 5.4% in 2020.
The impact of covid 19 has further accelerated the shift in payment preferences
partly because of convenience and partly because of the advice and emphasis to
avoid physical cash where possible. Regardless of the reasoning, digital payments
are not disappearing, and are only going to increase in popularity over the years to
come (Cragg, 2020).
Electronic payments allow customers to make cashless payments for goods
and services through cards, mobile phones or the internet. It presents a number of
advantages, including cost and time savings, increased sales and reduced
transaction costs. But it is vulnerable to internet fraud and could potentially
increase business expenses (Green, 2018).
E- Wallet services
E-wallet services are services offered by the different electronic payment
system. According to Consumervoice.org, electronic payment is a sytem used by the
customers when paying for products or services by using electronic medium.
Electronic media is an efficient way to communicate to one another either by the use
of media devices and networks or social media sources like the internet. (Conell,
2015).
According to Kagan, (2020), an e-wallet or digital wallet is a software-based
system that secures users’ payment transaction. By using e-wallet, users’ can easily
and completely purchase products or services or even pay their payment obligations.
In this study, the researchers will determine if there is a significant differences
between the demographic profile of the customers of e-wallet to the services it offers.
Payment of Bills
Payment of bills is one of the services offered by electronic payment services.
These can be monthly bills, such as power bills, car payments, water bills, or card
payments. All bills and transaction can be accesed on the bill pay website and many
bill pay services offered by mobile money application (Elmblad, 2020). Paying of bills
online is safe if you choose the right bill payment services. In the Philippines, paying
of bills is something eveyone hates to do but have to and lining up at a bank or
payment center is such a hassle. They had to go to each utility company’s office like
Meralco and PLDT just to pay their bills. In the digital ages, everything can be done
online including bills payment. Customers can pay bills online anywhere and anytime
using mobile device with an internet connection (Zoleta, 2020).

Online purchases
Online shopping has been growing craze in the Philippines in the few years. A
study conducted as early as 2015 found out that 9 out of 10 filipinos preffered online
shopping. The same study found that convenience, cheaper prices and special deals
were the leading reasons for the respondents’ preference for online shopping
(Manglinong, 2018). The market has rapidly grown since then. According to
Eshopworld.com, there are at least 37.7 million e-commerce users in the country in
2018 from the 30.2 million estimated in 2016. The number is expected to rise to 53.8
million by 2022. Statista’s e-commerce outlook meanwhile estimates that there are at
least 47.3 million e-commerce users in November 2018, yielding revenue of $840
million. A report published in May 2018 found that despite its growing popularity, the
Philippines lags in terms of growth of e-commerce sales in the Southeast Asian
region. Both businesses and customers have embraced online sales as a cheaper
and more convenient way to shop, but just like anything associated with the internet,
there are benefits and dangers associated with shopping online (Morah, 2019).
Remittances
Remittances are funds transferred from migrants to their home country. They
are private savings of workers and families that are spent in the home country for the
basic necessities which drive the home economy (Radcliffe, 2019). Remittances are
money transfers made by people to another party. They can be made to satisfy the
obligation such as bill payment or an invoice when someone shops online. They are
most commonly made by one person in one country to someone in another. Most
remittances are made by foreign workers to families in their home countries (Murphy,
2020). The most common way of making a remittance is by using an electronic
payment system through a bank or money transfer service such as Western Union.
Philippines overseas’ remittances grew by 9.3% in September after failing by
4.1% in August, this rise is probably due to the rise in migrants sending savings prior
to repatriation and the temporary reopening of the economies post lock down (Mapa,
2020). Remittances from land-based migrants which comprise up to 75% of the total
while sea-based migrants posted their first increase in five months, up 6.5% as global
trade picked up after the strict lock downs in second quarter across major markets.
Convenience
Many people around the world prefer to shop online and buy products from
several brand and companies that they cannot find or are not available for purchase in
their home countries. The convenience is the biggest perk. There are no lines to wait
in or shop assistants to wait on to help you with your purchases and you can do your
shopping in minutes. Online shops give us the opportunity to shop 24/7, and also
reward us with a ‘no pollution’ shopping experience. There is no better place to buy
informational products like e-books, which are available to you instantly, as soon as
the payment goes through. Downloadable items purchased online eliminate the need
for any kind of material goods at all, as well, which helps the environment. In a survey
conducted by Rakuten Insight, about 91 percent of the female and 89 percent of the
male respondents in the Philippines stated they made e-payment transactions
because it was convenient. On the other hand, only 19 percent of the female
respondents stated it was safer than cash payments (Sanchez, 2020). Electronic
payment is very convenient for the customers. In most cases, they only need to enter
their account information. The information is then stored in a database on the retailer’s
web server (Hord, n.d).

Usability
Using online payment services became more and more common over the
past few years in Sweden. The share of Swedes who used Swish increased
significantly, starting at 19 percent in 2014 and reaching 92 percent in 2019. Swish is
a mobile payment system which operates through a Smartphone application and
allows users to transfer money immediately. Another Swedish payment solution
which got popular over the years was Klarna; it was used by 79 percent of the
respondents in the 2019 survey. Private accounts seemed to compose the
highest numbers of Swish customers in Sweden as of February 2019. In fact, nearly
seven million private accounts were registered in the evaluated period (de Best,
2020).
In India, the use of mobile payment services has witnessed a lot of growth
due to the planned and unplanned interventions in the country (Mohan and
Kar 2017). On November 8, 2016, the government of India announced the
demonetization of all larger currency notes. Further, policy changes were announced
by the service providers to promote the use of mobile payments in 2017 and 2018.
After the demonetization, there has been tremendous focus to enhance the usage of
mobile payment services in India. National initiatives like Digital India, also attempted
to contribute to the growth of mobile payments, with initiatives like targeting very high
mobile connectivity and internet penetration along with digital literacy missions for the
rural households (Joseph et al. 2017; Mukherjee et al. 2019). Similarly, with the
pandemic, COVID-19, globally mobile payment usages witnessed a significant boost
as concerns were raised that cash may become a carrier for the virus, and thereby
facilitate the spread of the pandemic. The use of e-wallet in the Philippines is fast
growing amid the COVID-19 pandemic as consumers discard the use of cash to
avoid physical contact on worries over getting the virus (Endo, 2019). Globe’s Gcash,
the nation’s largest provider of mobile money services, said the number of its
registered users soared 150% in the month from mid-March. Gcash and its main rival
PLDT’s PayMaya are in spirited marketing campaign to position them to cash in on
the “new normal” after the pandemic.
Accessibility
Accessibility is one of the major perks with digital payment, using mobile
device with internet connection, customers can now use e-wallet anytime and almost
anywhere. This is where the digital wallet flourishes and beats the cash outright in
terms of accessibility (Perreras, 2019). Using e-payment services, customers have
the opportunity to choose from a better and more products online. Online shopping is
one of the services offered by the e-payment system; it provides the consumer to
choose from many better deals not just locally but also internationally. This can also
help them to make better financial decisions because they can easily compare the
prices of the products before they purchase. (Adrian, 2018).
Security
Here are some of the security features offered by the different mobile money
application company in the Philippines that will ensure the safety and security of the
customers’ personal and financial information. Account verification, Gcash as the
nations’ largest e-wallet provider mandates users to comply with verifying their
identity as part of the Know-Your-Customer process. The app requires users to
submit documents such as valid ID’s to confirm their identity. 2 Factor
Authentications (2FA), this security features ensures that only one Gcash user has
an access to the mobile wallet and the Bio metrics Features, Gcash’s latest security
protection with fingerprint and facial recognition (The Manila Times, 2020).Data
Encryption, PayPal uses SSL encryption to ensure that the data between the
customers’ browser and their servers is secure. You can also receive a notification
when you make purchase or get paid. In Europe, the GDPR or the General Data
Protection Regulation is one of the requirements that payment processor and
merchants need to comply with in order to protect shoppers’ personal and payment
data. The regulation has taken into effect in 2018 (Cenusa, 2020).
In the Philippines, the National Payment Systems Act or the Republic Act
11127 was signed by the president Duterte on October 2018 to prevent the risks of
payment systems failing and in order to provide an environment conducive to the
sustainable growth of the economy. The NPSA authorizes the BSP to oversee the
payment systems in the Philippines (Disini, 2019).
Online payment security starts with your online payment processor. Choosing
the right payment processing partner which prioritizes security for accepting online
payments is the first step to business safety. Choosing the right online payment
processing partner, who can understand business needs and can craft an online
payment acceptance solution with security measures, is extremely important
(Lyra.com 2020).
Reliability
With the emergence of the online payment system and its phenomenal
growth, an important question arises with regards to its 'reliability'. Reliability can be
considered as a measure of performance, in a theoretical term. But the parameters
which can be used to measure reliability may vary according to the stream of science
in which the system operates. The first step would be to find the major dimensions of
the term 'reliability' and then proceed with measuring this reliability. In the study
conducted by Kundu, etal. (2015), they provided a conceptual framework of the term
'reliability' and examines customer perceptions' concerning reliability of e-payment
processes. The results show that customers perceive amendment of errors in time
and with the least intervention from their end as the greatest influence of reliability of
e-payment process. The results also revealed that reliability of e-payment processes
has a major significant influence on online purchase behavior.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The study aims to assess the service functions of electronic wallet in Cavite
(Bacoor, Imus and Dasmarinas) through users perspectives. The major objectives of
this study is to identify the demographic profile of the customers of e-wallet,
determine the frequency of usage, identify their level of perception, identify the
significant difference between the frequency of usage of customers of various e-
wallet services when they are grouped according to their demographic profile and
determine the level of perception of customers towards e-wallet services. This was
done using the input-process-output method.
Input Process Output
Demographic Profile of the

Respondents
• age
• sex
• civil status
• educational
attainment
• monthly income
• employment Status
E-WALLET SERVICES
• average monthly
income AS PERCEIVED BY
• survey
frequency of usage THE CUSTOMERS IN
questionnaire
CAVITE DURING THE
• payment of bills; • t-test of difference
• online purchases; NEW NORMAL
• remittances
level of perception
• usability;
• security;
• accessibility;
• convenience and
• reliability;
Figure 2.Conceptual Framework showing the effectiveness of Electronic Wallet

Services as Perceived by the Customers in Cavite During the New Normal.
Definition of Terms
To fully understand the study and its purposes, below were the terms defined
by the researchers based on their understanding.
Accessibility - Is the ability of any system to be access easily for the benefit
of the users.
Cashless transaction – These are payments that can be done without the
use of cash through the use of electronic devices.
Convenience – The ability to perform something with a little amount of time
and effort.
E payment – It is a system that allows a customer or a user to transact or
conduct a payment process using a phone or any other gadget that can access with
the internet connection.
E-wallet services – Are digital services offered by the different e-wallet
company for the use of the customers for purchasing goods and services, bills
payment or even remittances.
Mobile devices – Are any equipment or gadget that can connect to the
internet used by a person.
Mobile wallet – Refers to the payment services that you can perform via
mobile device.
Money transfer – Is the manner of sending money in payment.
New Normal - Is the condition where the accustomed lifestyle of the people
changes due to a crisis or occurence of disastrous events.
Online services – Are the information or services provided via the internet.
Online transaction – Is the method of conducting payment or money transfer
through the use of mobile devices.

Perception – Is the way of seeing things based on your own point of view.
Reliability – Is the possibility of a system to perform its intended function to
be used by the user.
Security – Is a safety measure taken to ensure the protection of the
customers towards unneccessary activities.
Usability – The action of using something or the state of being used.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the manner of the research of the study, including the
research design, hypotheses, sources of data, participants of the study, sampling
technique, data gathering, research instruments, and the statistical treatment of the
data. These variables are analyzed using statistical techniques to validate the
assumption of the researchers on the E-wallet services as perceived by the
customers in different areas in Cavite (Bacoor, Imus and Dasmarinas).
Research Design
Research design is the framework of research methods and techniques
chosen by a researcher. The design allows the researcher to hone in on research
methods that are suitable for the subject matter and set up their studies for success.
The main objective of this study was to measure the frequency of usage of
the customers, determine their level of and perception about e-wallet services .To
attain this objective, the researchers chose the causal-comparative design to have a
better analysis of the study.
In the analyzation of data for this study, the researchers used the causal-
comparative design. A causal-comparative design is a research design that seeks to
find out the cause-effect relationship between the dependent and independent
variables. This research design is used by the researchers’ to determine the
correlation or the cause and reason for certain differences that exist in a group of
individuals when there is already an action that occurred. The researchers’ goal is to
assess and determine if there’s a significant difference between the demographic
profile of a group of respondents by comparing them according to their frequency of
usage of various e-wallet services.

Hypotheses
The researchers will answer the following hypotheses:
Ho1:There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequency of usage of
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to age.
Ho2: There is no significant difference between the customer’sfrequencyof usage of
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to sex.
Ho3: There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequency of usage of
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to civil status.
Ho4: There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequency of usage of
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to educational
background.
Ho5: There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequencyof usage of
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to employment status.
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to average monthly
income.
e-wallet services for payment of bills when grouped according to mobile money
application used.
Ho8:There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequency of usage of
e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to age.
e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to sex.

Ho10: There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequencyof usage
of e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to civil status.
Ho11: There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequency of usage
of e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to educational
background.
of e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to employment
status.
Ho13: There is no significant difference between the customer’sfrequency of usage
of e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to average
monthly income.
of e-wallet services for online purchases when grouped according to mobile money
application used.
Ho15:There is no significant difference between the customer’s frequencyof usage of
e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to age.
Ho16: There is no significant difference between the customer’sfrequency of usage
of e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to sex.
of e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to civil status.
of e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to educational
background.
e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to employment status.
e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to average monthly
income.
of e-wallet services for remittances when grouped according to mobile money
application used.
Ho22: The perception of the customers towards e-wallet services was not influenced
by their usage as to payment of bills.
Ho23:The perception of the customers towards e-wallet services was not influenced
by their usage as to online purchases.
Ho24:The perception of the customers towards e-wallet services was not influenced
by their usage as to remittances.
Sources of Data
The study used primary data from the survey conducted through survey
questionnaire form and answered by its respondents. The secondary data where
mostly gathered from the different websites on the internet like Google and other
reseach websites.
Participants of the Study
The participants in this study was composed of different individuals (students,
unemployed, and business owners) who are using cashless transactions or the E-
wallet services who are residing in Cavite (Bacoor, Imus and Dasmarinas). The
respondents’ demographic profile included the sex, age, civil status, educational
background, employment status, average monthly income and mobile money
application used by the respondents. The researchers conducted the survey through
a questionnaire form in the province of Cavite. The survey is required to be answered
by at least 150 respondents with the age starting from 18 years old to 50 years old.
Sampling Technique
For this study, the researchers used the purposive sampling technique. A
purposive sampling tecnique is also referred as judgmental, selective or expert
sample, from the word "purpose" the researchers' sample is chosen based on the
goals of the study. The researchers chose the respondents by distributing the survey
questionnaire to the potential respondents who are 18 to 50 years old and lives in
Cavite (mostly from Bacoor, Imus and Dasmarinas). The researchers' have more
control over the sampling technique. The respondents can be selected based on their
knowledge and expertise on the study being conducted or when they satisfy the traits
or the condition set by the researchers.
Data Gathering
The acquisition of data was taken from the survey questionnaire online
crafted by the researchers.
The researchers conducted the survey through the use of social media
platform like FaceBook, Instagram, Twitter and the Google form since it is the most
convenient means nowadays due to the pandemic. The survey was answered by 150
respondents. The researchers then classified and tabulated the results from the
data collected.
Research Instruments
The type of research instrument used in this study is a survey questionnaire
consisting of three parts. The part 1-A of the survey deals with the respondents’
demographic profile consisting of the sex, age, civil status, educational background,
employment status, average monthly income and mobile money application used of
the respondent, with 8 questions. The part 1-B of the survey was consists of the
freqency of usage of the E-wallet services with 11 questions, and the second part is
the level of perception of the customers of E-wallet consisting of 15 questions with a
total of 34 questionnaires.
In the validation of survey questionnaires, the researchers distributed their
questionnaire to their thesis adviser and to the statistician for them to check the
questionnaires and gave the researchers advice for the benefit of the said data.
These will screen the precision, consistency and comprehensiveness
The researchers used the likert scale to measure the level of perception of
the customers of E-wallet services in Cavite during the new normal. Likert scale is a
five (or seven) point scale which is used to allow the individual to express how much
they agree or disagree with a particular statement (McLeod, 2019). It is an ordinal
scale with an interval answer option and is desoigned to measure peoples’ attitudes,
opinions, or perception. Subjects choose from a range of possible responses to a
specific question or statement; responses typically include strongly agree, agree,
neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. Often, the categories of response is coded
numerically, in which case the numerical values must be defines for that specific
study such as 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree and so on. Jamieson, (2017).
Likert Scale on the Perception of the Customers on E-wallet Services
Description Point
Strongly Agree 5
Agree 4
Neutral 3
Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 1
Statistical Treatment of Data
The researchers used the following statistical treatment to precisely and
accurately interpret the data as well as the answer to the questions cited in the
statement of the problem and the assumption of the researchers about the study.
The data gathered in this study was subjected to the following statistical
treatment:
Frequency and Percentage Distribution. A percentage frequency
distribution is a display of data that specifies the percentage of observations that
exist for each data point or grouping of data points. It is a particularly useful method
of expressing the relative frequency of survey responses and other data. Many times,
percentage frequency distributions are displayed as tables or as bar graphs or pie
charts (Lavrakas, 2008).
The Demographic Profile of the participants of the study will be determined by
using the formula of the frequency and percentage distribution.
Formula:
𝑓
𝑃= × 100
𝑛
Where:
P=Percentage of the respondent’s response
F= Frequency of the response
N= total Number of respondents
Mean. Is the average of the numbers; a central value of a set of numbers.
This formula will be used by the researchers to analyze the level of perception of the
customers of E-wallet services in selected areas of Cavite.
Formula:
Where:
x̅ = sample mean
Σ = sum of
X = the mid-interval value of each class
n = the total frequency
Standard Deviation. It is a measure of how far each observed value is from
the mean. It also tells you how spread the data is. Ilola, (2018).
The rearchers will use the formula of standard deviation to determine the level of
perception of customers of E-wallet services in Cavite during the new normal.
Formula:
Where:
s = standard deviation sample

Σ = sum of the individual
X = individual value in the data set
x̅ = sample mean
n = (the number of X values) number of data points in the set
Independent Samples t-test. The inependent t-test (also called the unpaired
sample t test) is used to compare the means of two sets of data (Glen, S. 2015).
Formula:
The t-test statistic value to test whether the means are different can be calculated as
follow:
S2 is an estimator of the common variance of the two samples. It can be calculated
as follow:
Once t-test statistic value is determined, you have to read in t test
table the critical value of Student’s t distribution corresponding to the significance
level alpha of your choice (5%). The degrees of freedom (df) used in this test are:
One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Is a statistical test used to
analyze the difference between the means of more than teo groups. (Bevans, 2020).
One-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to show the difference
between two or more means or components through significant tests. It also shows
us a way to make multiple comparisons of several population means. The Anova test
is performed by comparing two types of variation, the variation between the sample
means, as well as the variation within each of the samples.
Formula:
Where:
F = is the variance ratio for the overall test,
MST = is the mean square due to treatments/groups (between groups),
MSE = is the mean square due to error (within groups, residual mean
square),
Yij= is an observation,
Ti = is a group total,
G = is the grand total of all observations,
ni = is the number in group i and
n = is the total number of observations.
Multiple Regression Analysis. Multiple regression generally explains the
relationship between multiple independent or predictor variables and one dependent
or criterion variable. A dependent variable is modeled as a function of several
independent variables with corresponding coefficients, along with the constant term.
Multiple regression requires two or more predictor variables, and this is why it is
called multiple regression.
Formula:
y = mx1+ mx2 + mx3 + b
The multiple regression equation explained above takes the following form:
Where:
Y= the dependent variable of the regression
M= slope of the regression
X1=first independent variable of the regression
The x2=second independent variable of the regression
The x3=third independent variable of the regression
B= constant
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data.
It contains the textual and tabular presentation of data, quantitative analysis of data,
and interpretation of data in the light of relevant literature.
Table 1: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ age
Age Frequency Percent
18 to 29 years old 123 83.7%
30 to 39 years old 18 12.2%
40 to 49 years old 3 2.0%
50 years old and above 3 2.0%
Total 147 100.0%
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents’

age. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 123 (83.7%) have
ages ranging from 18 to 29 years old. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 3 (2.0%) are found to be either 40 to 49 years old or 50
years old and above.
Table 2: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ sex
Sex Frequency Percent
Male 57 38.8%
Female 90 61.2%
Total 147 100.0%

sex. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 90 (61.2%) are
female respondents. On the other hand, the remaining 57 (38.8%) respondents are
male.
Table 3: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ civil status
Civil Status Frequency Percent
Single 121 82.3%
Married 23 15.6%
Widowed 2 1.4%
Separated 1 0.7%
Total 147 100.0%

civil status. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 121 (82.3%)
are single. On the other hand, the lowest number of respondents, a frequency of 1
(0.7%) is found to be separated.
Table 4: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ educational background
Educational Background Frequency Percent
Secondary 11 7.5%
Tertiary 41 27.9%
Vocational Courses 14 9.5%
Graduate Studies 81 55.1%
Total 147 100.0%

educational background. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of
81 (55.1%) are those under graduate studies. On the other hand, the lowest number
of respondents, a frequency of 11 (7.5%) are found to have attained up to secondary
degree.
Table 5: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ employment status
Employment Status Frequency Percent
Employed 52 35.4%
Self-employed 30 20.4%
Unemployed 65 44.2%
Total 147 100.0%

employment status. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 65
(44.2%) are unemployed. On the other hand, the lowest number of respondents, a
frequency of 30 (20.4%) are found to be self-employed.
Table 6: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ average monthly income
Income Frequency Percent
Less than 10,000 pesos 79 53.7%
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos 35 23.8%
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos 15 10.2%
30,001.00 pesos and above 18 12.2%
Total 147 100.0%

average monthly income. Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of
79 (53.7%) obtains an average monthly income less than 10,000 pesos. On the other
hand, the lowest number of respondents, a frequency of 15 (10.2%) receive an
average monthly income ranging from 20,001.00 to 30,000/00 pesos.
Table 7: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ most used mobile money
application
Application Frequency Percent
Gcash 93 63.3%
PayMaya 13 8.8%
PayPal 25 17.0%
Coins.ph 1 0.7%
BanKo 7 4.8%
Moneygment 2 1.4%
7/11 CLIQQ 4 2.7%
Others 2 1.4%
Total 147 100.0%

most used mobile money application. Results show that most of the respondents, a
frequency of 93 (63.3%) are using GCash as their primary mobile money application.
On the other hand, the lowest number of respondents, a frequency of 1 (0.7%) is
using Coins.ph as primary mobile money application.
Table 8: Frequency distribution table of the unemployed respondents’ source of

income
Source of Income Frequency Percent
Personal income from 9 13.8%

investments
Shared income with the family 34 52.3%
Income from business 22 33.8%
Total 65 100.0%
Table 8 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the unemployed
respondents’ sources of income. Results show that most of the unemployed
respondents, a frequency of 34 (52.3%) are those who shares income with their
family. On the other hand, the lowest number of unemployed respondents, a
frequency of 9 (13.8%) is receiving personal income from investments.
Table 9: Frequency distribution table of the respondents’ usage of mobile money

applications in payment of electric bills
Frequency Frequency Percent
1 to 3 times a year 47 32.0%
Never 29 19.7%
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in payment of electric bills. Results show that
most of the respondents, a frequency of 47 (32.0%) uses mobile money application
to pay electric bills 1 to 3 times a year. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 7 (4.8%) uses mobile money application to pay electric
bills 7 to 9 times a year. There are also 29 (19.7%) respondents who never used
mobile money application in the payment of electric bills.
applications in payment of water bills
Never 34 23.1%
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in payment of water bills. Results show that
to pay water bills 1 to 3 times a year. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 4 (2.7%) uses mobile money application to pay water
mobile money application in the payment of water bills.
applications in payment of telephone bills
Never 41 27.9%
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in payment of telephone bills. Results show that
to pay telephone bills 1 to 3 times a year. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 8 (5.4%) uses mobile money application to pay
telephone bills 7 to 9 times a year. There are also 41 (27.9%) respondents who never
used mobile money application in the payment of telephone bills.
applications in payment of internet bills
Never 22 15.0%
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in payment of internet bills. Results show that
to pay internet bills 10 to 12 times a year. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 10 (6.8%) uses mobile money application to pay internet
mobile money application in the payment of internet bills.
applications in purchasing grocery and food supplies
1 to 3 times a month 95 64.6%
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in purchasing grocery and food supplies. Results
show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 95 (64.6%) uses mobile money
application to purchase grocery and food supplies 1 to 3 times a month. On the other
hand, the lowest number of respondents, a frequency of 8 (5.4%) uses mobile money
application to purchase grocery and food supplies 7 to 9 times a month.
applications in purchasing cosmetics and clothing
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in purchasing cosmetics and clothing. Results
application to purchase cosmetics and clothing 1 to 3 times a month. On the other
application to purchase cosmetics and clothing either 7 to 9 times a month or 10 to
12 times a month.
applications in purchasing home and hardware supplies
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in purchasing home and hardware supplies.
Results show that most of the respondents, a frequency of 108 (73.5%) uses mobile
money application to purchase home and hardware supplies 1 to 3 times a month.
On the other hand, the lowest number of respondents, a frequency of 4 (2.7%) uses
mobile money application to purchase home and hardware supplies 7 to 9 times a
month.
applications in purchasing mobile load
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in purchasing mobile load. Results show that
to purchase mobile load 1 to 3 times a month. On the other hand, the lowest number
of respondents, a frequency of 3 (2.0%) uses mobile money application to purchase
mobile load 10 to 12 times a month.
applications in purchasing movies and recreations
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in purchasing movies and recreations. Results
application to purchase movies and recreations 1 to 3 times a month. On the other
application to purchase movies and recreations 7 to 9 times a month.
applications in sending money
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in sending money. Results show that most of the
respondents, a frequency of 81 (55.1%) uses mobile money application to send
money 1 to 3 times a month. On the other hand, the lowest number of respondents, a
frequency of 11 (7.5%) uses mobile money application to send money 7 to 9 times a
month.
applications in receiving money
1 to 3 times a month 84 57.1
Total 147 100.0%

usage of mobile money applications in receiving money. Results show that most of
the respondents, a frequency of 84 (57.1%) uses mobile money application to
receive money 1 to 3 times a month. On the other hand, the lowest number of
respondents, a frequency of 10 (6.8%) uses mobile money application to sending
money 10 to 12 times a month.
Table 20: Descriptive statistics on the perception of the respondents towards mobile
money applications in terms of its usability
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean
Deviation Interpretation
I prefer using mobile money application since it

allows me to remotely pay my bills (water bill, 4.27 1.024 Very Satisfactory
electricity bill, internet bill etc.)

allows me to remotely pay for products I am 4.30 0.989 Very Satisfactory
purchasing.
I prefer using mobile money application

because it allows me to send and/or receive 4.41 0.912 Very Satisfactory
money to and from my relatives and friends.
Weighted Mean 4.33 0.908 Very Satisfactory
Verbal Interpretation:
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
3.50 – 4.49 = Very Satisfactory
2.50 – 3.49 = Satisfactory
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor
Table 20 shows the descriptive statistics on the perception of the respondents

towards mobile money applications in terms of its usability. The computed weighted
mean is 4.33 with a standard deviation of 0.908. This suggests that, generally, the
respondents see mobile money applications to have very satisfactory usability.
Among the indicators provided, the highest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application because it allows me to send
and/or receive money to and from my relatives and friends” (mean = 4.41, SD =
0.912). On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 1, “I prefer using mobile money application since it allows me to remotely pay
my bills (water bill, electricity bill, internet bill etc.)” (mean = 4.27, SD = 1.024).
money applications in terms of its security
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean

because of its security features that keeps me 3.91 0.936 Very Satisfactory
safe from any fraud of theft.
I prefer using mobile money application with a

security feature that can be updated to keep 4.07 0.892 Very Satisfactory
my account safe and secured.

because of its encryption feature which 4.04 0.898 Very Satisfactory
protects my personal and financial information.
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor

towards mobile money applications in terms of its security. The computed weighted
respondents see mobile money applications to have very satisfactory security.
number 2, “I prefer using mobile money application with a security feature that can be
updated to keep my account safe and secured” (mean = 4.07, SD = 0.892). On the
other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator number 1, “I prefer
using mobile money application because of its security features that keeps me safe
from any fraud of theft” (mean = 3.91, SD = 0.936).
money applications in terms of its convenience
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean

is more convenient than carrying a big amount 4.34 0.940 Very Satisfactory
of cash or cheques.

offers me an easier access for purchasing daily 4.37 0.854 Very Satisfactory
necessities (e.g. food).

because I can make transactions with minimal 4.37 0.829 Very Satisfactory
effort and transport.
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor

towards mobile money applications in terms of its convenience. The computed
weighted mean is 4.36 with a standard deviation of 0.792. This suggests that,
generally, the respondents see mobile money applications to have very satisfactory
convenience. Among the indicators provided, the highest computed mean is
observed at indicator number 2, “I prefer using mobile money application since it
offers me an easier access for purchasing daily necessities (e.g. food)” (mean =
4.37, SD = 0.854) and indicator number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application
because I can make transactions with minimal effort and transport” (mean = 4.37, SD
= 0.829). On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 1, “I prefer using mobile money application since it is more convenient than
carrying a big amount of cash or cheques” (mean = 4.34, SD = 0.940).
money applications in terms of its accessibility
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean
I prefer using mobile money application since

offers a variety of choices of transactions for 4.25 0.898 Very Satisfactory
customers.

because it can be easily accessed using only 4.30 0.839 Very Satisfactory
the internet or mobile data.

because it can be easily accessed with any 4.41 0.858 Very Satisfactory
device like Smartphone, tablet, laptop etc.
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor

towards mobile money applications in terms of its accessibility. The computed
weighted mean is 4.32 with a standard deviation of 0.788. This suggests that,
generally, the respondents see mobile money applications to have very satisfactory
accessibility. Among the indicators provided, the highest computed mean is observed
at indicator number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application because it can be
easily accessed with any device like Smartphone, tablet, laptop etc.” (mean = 4.41,
SD = 0.858). On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 1, “I prefer using mobile money application since offers a variety of choices
of transactions for customers” (mean = 4.25, SD = 0.898).
money applications in terms of its reliability
Standard Verbal
Indicators Mean
I prefer using mobile money application due to

4.03 0.906 Very Satisfactory
its smooth and outstanding performance.

because it is quick in obtaining a solution to 4.01 0.899 Very Satisfactory
problems encountered by customers like me.
I prefer using mobile money application since

the companies offering it put valuable efforts in 4.13 0.830 Very Satisfactory
managing the overall operation of the system.
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor

towards mobile money applications in terms of its reliability. The computed weighted
respondents see mobile money applications to have very satisfactory reliability.
number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application since the companies offering it
put valuable efforts in managing the overall operation of the system” (mean = 4.06,
SD = 0.825). On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 2, “I prefer using mobile money application because it is quick in obtaining a
solution to problems encountered by customers like me” (mean = 4.01, SD = 0.899).
Table 25: Summary of descriptive statistics on the perception of the respondents
towards mobile money applications across all areas
Weighted Standard Verbal

Area
Mean Deviation Interpretation
Usability 4.33 0.908 Very Satisfactory
Security 4.01 0.833 Very Satisfactory
Convenience 4.36 0.792 Very Satisfactory
Accessibility 4.32 0.788 Very Satisfactory
Reliability 4.06 0.825 Very Satisfactory
GRAND MEAN 4.21 0.555 Very Satisfactory
4.50 – 5.00 = Excellent
1.50 – 2.49 = Fair
1.00 – 1.49 = Poor
Table 25 shows the summary of descriptive statistics on the perception of the

respondents towards mobile money applications across all areas. The computed
grand mean is 4.21 with a standard deviation of 0.555. This suggests that in general,
the respondents perceive mobile money applications to be very satisfactory. The
highest weighted mean is observed at convenience (mean = 4.36, SD = 0.792). On
the other hand, the lowest weighted mean is observed at security (mean = 4.01, SD
= 0.833)
Table 26: Test of difference between the frequency of respondents’ use of mobile
money applications across their age groups
Usage X2 Statistic p-value Effect Size
Payment of Electric Bills

30.686** 0.002 0.267
(df = 12)
Payment of Water Bills

22.921* 0.028 0.228
(df = 12)
Payment of Telephone Bills

18.882 0.091 0.207
(df = 12)
Payment of Internet Bills

14.022 0.299 0.178
(df = 12)
Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies

18.153* 0.033 0.203
(df = 9)
Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing

10.105 0.342 0.151
(df = 9)
Purchasing of Home and Hardware

Supplies 38.731** < 0.01 0.296
(df = 9)
Purchasing of Mobile Loads

7.108 0.626 0.127
(df = 9)
Purchasing of Movies and Recreations

22.561** 0.007 0.226
(df = 9)
Sending Money
5.018 0.833 0.107
(df = 9)
Receiving Money
5.416 0.797 0.111
(df = 9)
*p-value is significant at p < 0.05

**p-value is highly significant at p < 0.01
Table 26 shows the test of difference between the frequency of respondents’
use of mobile money applications across their age groups. Chi-Square Test of
Independence was used and the following results are obtained:
Age and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is 30.686 with its
associated probability value of 0.002. This suggests that there is a highly significant
difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for
payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their ages. Furthermore,
the computed effect size is 0.267 which, according to Cohen (1988), indicates a
small effect.
Age and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is 22.921 with its
associated probability value of 0.028. This suggests that there is a significant
payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their ages. Furthermore,
small effect.
Age and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic is 18.882 with its
associated probability value of 0.091. This suggests that there is no significant
payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their ages.
Age and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is 14.022 with its
payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their ages.
Age and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The computed statistic is

18.153 with its associated probability value of 0.033. This suggests that there is a
significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications
for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they are grouped according to their
ages. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.203 which, according to Cohen
(1988), indicates a small effect.
Age and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The computed statistic is 10.105

with its associated probability value of 0.342. This suggests that there is no
for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are grouped according to their
ages.
Age and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The computed statistic is

38.731 with its associated probability value less than 0.01. This suggests that there is
a highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money
applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they are grouped
according to their ages. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.296 which,
according to Cohen (1988), indicates a small effect.
Age and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic is 7.108 with its
purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their ages.
Age and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The computed statistic is 22.561

with its associated probability value of 0.007. This suggests that there is a highly
for purchasing of movies and recreations when they are grouped according to their
ages. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.226 which, according to Cohen
Age and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 5.018 with its associated
probability value of 0.833. This suggests that there is no significant difference
between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for sending money
when they are grouped according to their ages.
Age and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 5.416 with its associated
between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for receiving money
when they are grouped according to their ages.
money applications across their sexes

2.281 0.684 0.125
(df = 4)

2.760 0.599 0.137
(df = 4)

4.079 0.395 0.167
(df = 4)

4.686 0.321 0.179
(df = 4)

1.901 0.593 0.114
(df = 3)

5.514 0.138 0.194
(df = 3)

Supplies 1.184 0.757 0.090
(df = 3)

0.453 0.929 0.055
(df = 3)

2.472 0.480 0.130
(df = 3)
Sending Money
2.266 0.519 0.124
(df = 3)
Receiving Money
2.863 0.413 0.140
(df = 3)

use of mobile money applications across their sexes. Chi-Square Test of
Sex and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is 2.281 with its
payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is 2.760 with its associated
between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for payment of water
bills when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic is 4.079 with its
payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is 4.686 with its
payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The computed statistic is

1.901 with its associated probability value of 0.593. This suggests that there is no
for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they are grouped according to their
sexes.
Sex and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The computed statistic is 5.514

for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are grouped according to their
sexes.
Sex and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The computed statistic is

for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they are grouped according to
their sexes.
Sex and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic is 0.453 with its
purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The computed statistic is 2.472

sexes.
Sex and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 2.266 with its associated
when they are grouped according to their sexes.
Sex and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 2.863 with its associated
between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for receiving money
when they are grouped according to their sexes.
money applications across their civil status

24.712* 0.016 0.237
(df = 12)

22.554* 0.032 0.226
(df = 12)

24.504* 0.017 0.236
(df = 12)

17.727 0.124 0.200
(df = 12)

20.976* 0.013 0.218
(df = 9)

23.602** 0.005 0.231
(df = 9)

Supplies 33.673** < 0.01 0.276
(df = 9)

5.042 0.831 0.107
(df = 9)

12.487 0.187 0.168
(df = 9)
Sending Money
9.255 0.414 0.145
(df = 9)
Receiving Money
7.678 0.567 0.132
(df = 9)

use of mobile money applications across their civil status. Chi-Square Test of
Civil Status and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is 24.712 with its
payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.237 which, according to Cohen (1988),
indicates a small effect.
Civil Status and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is 22.554 with its
payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Civil Status and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic is 24.504 with
its associated probability value of 0.017. This suggests that there is a significant
payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Civil Status and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is 17.727 with its
payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Civil Status and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The computed

statistic is 20.976 with its associated probability value of 0.013. This suggests that
there is a significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money
applications for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they are grouped
according to their sexes. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.218 which,
Civil Status and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The computed statistic is

highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money
applications for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are grouped
according to their civil status. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.231 which,
Civil Status and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The computed

statistic is 33.673 with its associated probability value less than 0.01. This suggests
that there is a highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile
money applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they are
grouped according to their civil status. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.276
which, according to Cohen (1988), indicates a small effect.
Civil Status and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic is 5.042 with
its associated probability value of 0.831. This suggests that there is no significant
purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Civil Status and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The computed statistic is

civil status.
Civil Status and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 9.255 with its associated
when they are grouped according to their civil status.
Civil Status and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 7.678 with its
receiving money when they are grouped according to their civil status.
money applications across their educational background

23.638* 0.023 0.232
(df = 12)

30.407** 0.002 0.263
(df = 12)

18.753 0.095 0.206
(df = 12)

25.072* 0.014 0.238
(df = 12)

18.800* 0.027 0.206
(df = 9)

18.171* 0.033 0.203
(df = 9)

Supplies 12.140 0.206 0.166
(df = 9)

10.705 0.296 0.156
(df = 9)

28.698** 0.001 0.255
(df = 9)
Sending Money
22.721** 0.007 0.227
(df = 9)
Receiving Money
14.803 0.096 0.183
(df = 9)

use of mobile money applications across their educational background. Chi-Square
Test of Independence was used and the following results are obtained:
Educational Background and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is

for payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their educational
background. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.232 which, according to
Cohen (1988), indicates a small effect.
Educational Background and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is

applications for payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their
educational background. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.263 which,
Educational Background and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic

is 18.753 with its associated probability value of 0.095. This suggests that there is no
for payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their educational
background.
Educational Background and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is

for payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their educational
Educational Background and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The

computed statistic is 18.800 with its associated probability value of 0.027. This
suggests that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ usage of
mobile money applications for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they
are grouped according to their educational background. Furthermore, the computed
effect size is 0.206 which, according to Cohen (1988), indicates a small effect.
Educational Background and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The

suggests that there is a significant difference between the respondents’ usage of
mobile money applications for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are
grouped according to their educational background. Furthermore, the computed
Educational Background and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The

suggests that there is no significant difference between the respondents’ usage of
mobile money applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they
are grouped according to their educational background.
Educational Background and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic
for purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their educational
background.
Educational Background and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The

suggests that there is a highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage
of mobile money applications for purchasing of movies and recreations when they
are grouped according to their educational background. Furthermore, the computed
Educational Background and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 22.721

for sending money when they are grouped according to their educational
Educational Background and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 14.803

for receiving money when they are grouped according to their educational
background.
money applications across their employment status

26.622** 0.001 0.301
(df = 8)

22.243** 0.004 0.275
(df = 8)

14.907 0.061 0.225
(df = 8)

26.660** 0.001 0.301
(df = 8)

11.624 0.071 0.199
(df = 6)

7.582 0.270 0.161
(df = 6)

Supplies 7.499 0.277 0.160
(df = 6)

3.495 0.745 0.109
(df = 6)

5.467 0.485 0.136
(df = 6)
Sending Money
7.276 0.296 0.157
(df = 6)
Receiving Money
9.870 0.130 0.183
(df = 6)

use of mobile money applications across their employment status. Chi-Square Test
of Independence was used and the following results are obtained:
Employment Status and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is

applications for payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their
employment status. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.301 which, according
to Cohen (1988), indicates a medium effect.
Employment Status and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is 22.243

for payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their employment
status. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.275 which, according to Cohen
Employment Status and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic is

for payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their employment
status.
Employment Status and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is

applications for payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their
employment status. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.301 which, according
to Cohen (1988), indicates a medium effect.
Employment Status and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The

mobile money applications for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they
are grouped according to their employment status.
Employment Status and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The computed

there is no significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money
applications for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are grouped
according to their employment status.
Employment Status and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The

mobile money applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they
are grouped according to their employment status.
Employment Status and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic is
for purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their employment
status.
Employment Status and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The computed

applications for purchasing of movies and recreations when they are grouped
according to their employment status.
Employment Status and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 7.276 with its
difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for sending
money when they are grouped according to their employment status.
Employment Status and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 9.870 with its
receiving money when they are grouped according to their employment status.
money applications across their monthly income

18.112 0.112 0.203
(df = 12)

15.314 0.225 0.186
(df = 12)

50.354** < 0.01 0.338
(df = 12)

26.859** 0.008 0.247
(df = 12)

16.416 0.059 0.193
(df = 9)

30.853** < 0.01 0.265
(df = 9)

Supplies 20.980* 0.013 0.218
(df = 9)

11.177 0.264 0.159
(df = 9)

9.692 0.376 0.148
(df = 9)
Sending Money
13.469 0.143 0.175
(df = 9)
Receiving Money
30.528** < 0.01 0.263
(df = 9)

use of mobile money applications across their monthly income. Chi-Square Test of
Monthly Income and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed statistic is 18.112

for payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their monthly
income.
Monthly Income and Payment of Water Bills.The computed statistic is 15.314 with
its associated probability value of 0.225. This suggests that there is no significant
payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their monthly income.
Monthly Income and Payment of Telephone Bills.The computed statistic is 50.354

with its associated probability value less than 0.01. This suggests that there is a
applications for payment of telephone bills when they are grouped according to their
monthly income. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.338 which, according to
Cohen (1988), indicates a medium effect.
Monthly Income and Payment of Internet Bills.The computed statistic is 26.859

for payment of internet bills when they are grouped according to their monthly
income. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.247 which, according to Cohen
Monthly Income and Purchasing of Grocery and Food Supplies.The computed

applications for purchasing of grocery and food supplies when they are grouped
according to their monthly income.
Monthly Income and Purchasing of Cosmetics and Clothing.The computed

statistic is 30.853 with its associated probability value less than 0.01. This suggests
that there is a highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile
money applications for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when they are grouped
according to their monthly income. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.265
Monthly Income and Purchasing of Home and Hardware Supplies.The computed

there is a significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money
applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies when they are grouped
according to their monthly income. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.218
Monthly Income and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The computed statistic is
for purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped according to their monthly
income.
Monthly Income and Purchasing of Movies and Recreations.The computed

applications for purchasing of movies and recreations when they are grouped
according to their monthly income.
Monthly Income and Sending Money.The computed statistic is 13.496 with its
difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for sending
money when they are grouped according to their monthly income.
Monthly Income and Receiving Money.The computed statistic is 30.528 with its
associated probability value less than 0,01. This suggests that there is a highly
for receiving money when they are grouped according to their monthly income.
money applications across their preferred mobile money application

40.682 0.057 0.263
(df = 28)

37.462 0.109 0.252
(df = 28)

32.488 0.255 0.235
(df = 28)

40.958 0.054 0.264
(df = 28)

24.698 0.260 0.237
(df = 21)

38.786* 0.010 0.297
(df = 21)

Supplies 20.537 0.487 0.216
(df = 21)

18.079 0.644 0.202
(df = 21)

41.273** 0.005 0.306
(df = 21)
Sending Money
27.656 0.150 0.250
(df = 21)
Receiving Money
43.530** 0.003 0.314
(df = 21)

use of mobile money applications across their preferred mobile money application.
Chi-Square Test of Independence was used and the following results are obtained:
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Payment of Electric Bills.The computed

applications for payment of electric bills when they are grouped according to their
preferred mobile money application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Payment of Water Bills.The computed

applications for payment of water bills when they are grouped according to their
preferred mobile money application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Payment of Telephone Bills.The

mobile money applications for payment of telephone bills when they are grouped
according to their preferred mobile money application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Payment of Internet Bills.The

mobile money applications for payment of internet bills when they are grouped
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Grocery and Food

Supplies.The computed statistic is 24.698 with its associated probability value of
0.260. This suggests that there is no significant difference between the respondents’
usage of mobile money applications for purchasing of grocery and food supplies
when they are grouped according to their preferred mobile money application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Cosmetics and

Clothing.The computed statistic is 38.786 with its associated probability value of
0.010. This suggests that there is a significant difference between the respondents’
usage of mobile money applications for purchasing of cosmetics and clothing when
they are grouped according to their preferred mobile money application. Furthermore,
small effect.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Home and Hardware

Supplies.The computed statistic is 20.537 with its associated probability value of
0.487. This suggests that there is no significant difference between the respondents’
usage of mobile money applications for purchasing of home and hardware supplies
when they are grouped according to their preferred mobile money application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Mobile Loads.The

mobile money applications for purchasing of mobile loads when they are grouped
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Movies and

Recreations.The computed statistic is 41.273 with its associated probability value of
0.005. This suggests that there is a highly significant difference between the
respondents’ usage of mobile money applications for purchasing of movies and
recreations when they are grouped according to their preferred mobile money
application. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.306 which, according to
Cohen (1988), indicates a medium effect.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Sending Money.The computed statistic

for sending money when they are grouped according to their preferred mobile money
application.
Preferred Mobile Money Application and Receiving Money.The computed

there is a highly significant difference between the respondents’ usage of mobile
money applications for receiving money when they are grouped according to their
preferred mobile money application. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.314
which, according to Cohen (1988), indicates a medium effect.
Table 33: Test of relationship between the respondents’ perception and frequency of
using mobile money applications

17.891* 0.022 0.247
(df = 8)

11.498 0.175 0.198
(df = 8)

11.497 0.175 0.198
(df = 8)

8.696 0.369 0.172
(df = 8)

4.697 0.583 0.126
(df = 6)

5.755 0.451 0.140
(df = 6)

Supplies 6.666 0.353 0.151
(df = 6)

7.821 0.252 0.163
(df = 6)

6.419 0.378 0.148
(df = 6)
Sending Money
14.508* 0.024 0.222
(df = 6)
Receiving Money
10.987 0.089 0.193
(df = 6)

Table 33 shows the test of relationship between the respondents’ perception
and frequency of using mobile money applications. Chi-Square Test of Independence
was used and the following results are obtained:
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Payment of Electric

Bills.The computed statistic is 17.891 with its associated probability value of 0.022.
This suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile money
applications significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile money application
for payment of electric bills. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.247 and
according to Cohen (1988), this is a small effect.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Payment of Water Bills.The

suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile money applications
does not significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile money application for
payment of water bills.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Payment of Telephone

applications does not significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile money
application for payment of telephone bills.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Payment of Internet

application for payment of internet bills.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Grocery and

Food Supplies.The computed statistic is 4.697 with its associated probability value
of 0.583. This suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile money
application for purchasing grocery and food supplies.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Cosmetics

and Clothing.The computed statistic is 5.755 with its associated probability value of
0.451. This suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile money
application for purchasing cosmetics and clothing.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Home and

Hardware Supplies.The computed statistic is 6.666 with its associated probability
value of 0.353. This suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile
money applications does not significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile
money application for purchasing of home and hardware supplies
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Mobile

Loads.The computed statistic is 7.821 with its associated probability value of 0.252.
application for purchasing of mobile loads
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Purchasing of Movies and

Recreations.The computed statistic is 6.419 with its associated probability value of
0.378. This suggests that the perception of the respondents towards mobile money
application for purchasing of movie and recreations
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Sending Money.The

significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile money application for sending
money. Furthermore, the computed effect size is 0.222 and according to Cohen
(1988), this is a small effect.
Perception towards Mobile Money Application and Receiving Money.The

does not significantly affect the frequency of their use of mobile money application for
receiving money.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This part cited the researchers’ interpretation about the perception of the
customers on e-wallet in Cavite based on the results and findings of the study. The
reseachers will also provide an analysation on the results.
Summary
This chapter presented the summary of objectives and methodology, the
salient findings, the conclusions drawn from the findings, and the recommendations.
The researchers focused on the perception of the customers about e-wallet in Cavite.
Primarily, the study identifies the demographic profile of the customers, the frequency
of usage and the level of perception.
The study generated the following findings:
1. In the demographic profile of the respondents, in terms of age (years), age bracket
18-29 has the highest frequency of 123 equivalent to 83.7% on the other hand, the
lowest number of respondents with a frequency of 3 equivalent to 2.0% are found to
be either 40 to 49 years old or 50 years old and above. In terms of sex, fermale
respondents has the highest frequency of 90 equivalent to 61.2% and the remaining
57 equivalent to 38.8% respondents are male. In terms of civil status, single has the
highest frequency of 121 equivalent to 82.3% while separated is the lowest with a
frequency of 1 equivalent to 0.7%. In terms of educational background, graduate
studies have the highest frequency of 81 equivalent to 55.1% and the lowest is under
secondary with a frequency of 11 equivalent to 7.5%. In terms of employment status,
unemployed has the highest frequency of 65 equivalent to 44.2% and self-employed
has the lowest frequency of 30 equivalent to 20.4%. In terms of average monthly
income, less than 10,000 pesos has the highest frequency of 79 equivalent to 53.7%
on the other hand 20,001 to 30,000 pesos has the lowest frequency of 15 equivalent
to 10.2%. In terms of most used mobile money application, GCash has the highest
frequency of 93 equivalent to 63.3% and Coins.ph has the lowest frequency of 1
equivalent to 0.7%. In terms of source of income for unemployed respondents,
shared income with the family has the highest frequency of 34 equivalent to 52.3%
and personal income from investments has the lowest frequency of 9 equivalent to
13.8%.
2. On the assessment of the frequency of usage of the respondents in terms of
payment of bills, under payment of electricity bills 1 to 3 times a year has the highest
frequency of 47 equivalent to 32.0% and 7 to 9 times a year has the lowest frequency
of 7 equivalent to 4.8%. There are also 29 (19.7%) respondents who never used
mobile money application in the payment of electric bills. In terms of payment of
water bills, 1 to 3 times a year has the highest frequency of 52 equialent to 35.4%
and the lowest is 7 to 9 times a year with a frequency of 4 equivalent to 2.7%. There
are also 34 (23.1%) respondents who never used mobile money application in the
payment of water bills. In terms of payment of telephone bills, 1 to 3 times a year has
the highest frequency of 47 equivalent to 32.0% and 7 to 9 times a year has the
lowest frequency of 8 equivalent to 5.4%. There are also 41 (27.9%) respondents
who never used mobile money application in the payment of telephone bills. In terms
of payment of internet bills, 10 to 12 times a year has the highest frequency of 56
equivalent to 38.1% and 7 to 9 times a year has the lowest frequency of 10
equivalent to 6.8%. There are also 22 (15.0%) respondents who never used mobile
money application in the payment of internet bills. In terms of online purchases under
grocery and food supplies, 1 to 3 times a month has the highest frequency of 95
equivalent to 64.6% and 7 to 9 times a month has the lowest frequency of 8
equivalent to 5.4%. In terms of purchaing of cosmetics and clothing, 1 to 3 times a
month has the highest frequency of 104 equivalent to 70.7% on the other hand, the
lowest frequency of 8 equivalent to 5.4% are found to be either 7 to 9 times a month
or 10 to 12 times a month. In terms of purchasing of home and hardware supplies, 1
to 3 times a month has the highest frequency of 108 equivalent to 73.5% and 7 to 9
times a month has the lowest frequency of 4 equivalent to 2.7%. In terms of
purchasing of mobile load, 1 to 3 times a month has the highest frequency of 81
equivalent to 55.1% and 10 to 12 times a month has the lowest frequency of 3
eqivalent to 2.0%. In terms of purchasing of movies and recreation, 1 to 3 times a
month has the highest frequency of 109 equivalent to 74.1% and 7 to 9 times a
month has the lowest frequency of 7 equivalent to 4.8%. In terms of remittances
under sending of money, 1 to 3 times a month has the highest frequency of 81
equivalent to 55.1% and 7 to 9 times a month has the lowest frequancy of 11
equivalent to 7.5%. In terms of receiving of money, 1 to 3 times a month has the
highest frequency of 84 equivalent to 57.1% and 10 to 12 times a month has the
lowest frequency of 10 equivalent to 6.8%.
3. On the assessment of the level of perception of the respondents in terms of
usability among the indicators provided, , the highest computed mean is observed at
indicator number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application because it allows me to
send and/or receive money to and from my relatives and friends” (mean = 4.41, SD =
0.912) which means Very Satisfactory .On the other hand, the lowest computed
mean is observed at indicator number 1, “I prefer using mobile money application
since it allows me to remotely pay my bills (water bill, electricity bill, internet bill etc.)”
(mean = 4.27, SD = 1.024) which means Poor. In terms of security among the
indicators provided, the highest computed mean is observed at indicator number 2, “I
prefer using mobile money application with a security feature that can be updated to
keep my account safe and secured” (mean = 4.07, SD = 0.892) which meas very
satisfactory. On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 1, “I prefer using mobile money application because of its security features
that keeps me safe from any fraud of theft” (mean = 3.91, SD = 0.936) which means
Poor. In terms of convenience among the indicators provided, the highest computed
since it offers me an easier access for purchasing daily necessities (e.g. food)”
(mean = 4.37, SD = 0.854) and indicator number 3, “I prefer using mobile money
application because I can make transactions with minimal effort and transport”
(mean = 4.37, SD = 0.829) which means Very Satisfactory. On the other hand, the
lowest computed mean is observed at indicator number 1, “I prefer using mobile
money application since it is more convenient than carrying a big amount of cash or
cheques” (mean = 4.34, SD = 0.940) which means Poor. In terms of accessibility
among the indicators provided, the highest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 3, “I prefer using mobile money application because it can be easily
accessed with any device like Smartphone, tablet, laptop etc.” (mean = 4.41, SD =
0.858) which means Very Satisfactory. On the other hand, the lowest computed
since offers a variety of choices of transactions for customers” (mean = 4.25, SD =
0.898) which means Poor. In terms of reliability among the indicators provided, the
highest computed mean is observed at indicator number 3, “I prefer using mobile
money application since the companies offering it put valuable efforts in managing
the overall operation of the system” (mean = 4.06, SD = 0.825) which means Vey
Satisfactory. On the other hand, the lowest computed mean is observed at indicator
number 2, “I prefer using mobile money application because it is quick in obtaining a
solution to problems encountered by customers like me” (mean = 4.01, SD = 0.899)
which means Poor.Table 25 shows the summary of descriptive statistics on the
perception of the respondents towards mobile money applications across all areas.
The computed grand mean is 4.21 with a standard deviation of 0.555. This suggests
that in general, the respondents perceive mobile money applications to be very
satisfactory. The highest weighted mean is observed at convenience (mean = 4.36,

SD = 0.792). On the other hand, the lowest weighted mean is observed at security
(mean = 4.01, SD = 0.833)
4. On the assessment of the difference between the frequency of respondents’ use
of mobile money applications across their age groups, in terms of payment of bills
under payment of electric bills, the computed statistic is 30.686 with its associated
probability value of 0.002 and for payment of internet bills, the computed statistic is
14.022 with its associated probability value of 0.299.In terms of online purchases
under purchasing of home and hardware supplies, the computed statistic is 38.731
with its associated probability value less than 0.01 and for purchasing of mobile
loads, the computed statistic is 7.108 with its associated probability value of 0.626. In
terms of remittances under receiving money, the computed statistic is 5.416 with its
associated probability value of 0.797 and for sending money, the computed statistic
is 5.018 with its associated probability value of 0.833. On the assessment of the
difference between the frequency of respondents’ use of mobile money applications
across their sexes, in terms of payment of bills under payment of internet bills, the
computed statistic is 4.686 with its associated probability value of 0.321 and
forpayment of electric bills, the computed statistic is 2.281 with its associated
probability value of 0.684. In terms of online purchases under purchasing of
cosmetics and clothing, the computed statistic is 5.514 with its associated probability
value of 0.138 and for purchasing of mobile loads, the computed statistic is 0.453
with its associated probability value of 0.929. In terms of remittances under receiving
money, the computed statistic is 2.863 with its associated probability value of 0.413
and for sending money, the computed statistic is 2.266 with its associated probability
value of 0.519. On the assessment of difference between the frequency of
respondents’ use of mobile money applications across their civil status, in terms of
payment of bills under payment of electric bills, the computed statistic is 24.712 with
its associated probability value of 0.016 and for payment of internet bills, the
computed statistic is 17.727 with its associated probability value of 0.124.In terms of
online purchases under purchasing of home and hardware supplies, the computed
statistic is 33.673 with its associated probability value less than 0.01 and for
purchasing of mobile loads, the computed statistic is 5.042 with its associated
probability value of 0.831.In terms of sending money, the computed statistic is 9.255
with its associated probability value of 0.414. In terms of remittances under receiving
money, the computed statistic is 7.678 with its associated probability value of 0.567.
On the assessment of the difference between the frequency of respondents’ use of
mobile money applications across their educational background in terms of payment
of bills under payment of water bills, the computed statistic is 30.407 with its
associated probability value of 0.002 and for payment of telephone bills, the
computed statistic is 18.753 with its associated probability value of 0.095. In terms of
online purchases under purchasing of movies and recreations, the computed statistic
is 28.698 with its associated probability value of 0.001 and for purchasing of mobile
load, the computed statistic is 10.705 with its associated probability value of 0.296.In
terms of remittances under sending money, the computed statistic is 22.721 with its
associated probability value of 0.007 and for receiving money, the computed statistic
is 14.803 with its associated probability value of 0.096. On the assessment of
difference between the frequency of respondents’ use of mobile money applications
across their employment status, in terms of payment of bills under payment of
electric bills, the computed statistic is 26.622 with its associated probability value of
0.001 and for payment of telephone bills, the computed statistic is 14.907 with its
associated probability value of 0.061.In terms of online purchases under purchasing
of grocery and food supplies, the computed statistic is 11.624 with its associated
probability value of 0.071 and for purchasing of mobile loads, the computed statistic
is 3.495 with its associated probability value of 0.745.In terms of remittances under
receiving money, the computed statistic is 9.870 with its associated probability value
of 0.130 and for sending money, the computed statistic is 7.276 with its associated
probability value of 0.296. On the assessment of difference between the frequency of
respondents’ use of mobile money applications across their monthly income in terms
of payment of bills under payment of telephone bills, the computed statistic is 50.354
with its associated probability value less than 0.01 and for payment of water bills, the
online purchases under purchasing of cosmetics and clothing, the computed statistic
is 30.853 with its associated probability value less than 0.01 and for purchasing of
movies and recreations, the computed statistic is 9.692 with its associated probability
value of 0.376.In terms of remittances under receiving money, the computed statistic
is 30.528 with its associated probability value less than 0.01 and for sending money,
the computed statistic is 13.496 with its associated probability value of 0.143.On the
assessment of the difference between the frequency of respondents’ use of mobile
money applications across their preferred mobile money application in terms of
payment of bills under payment of internet bills, the computed statistic is 40.958 with
its associated probability value of 0.054 and for payment of telephone bills, the
online purchases under purchasing of movies and recreations, the computed statistic
is 41.273 with its associated probability value of 0.005 and for purchasing of mobile
loads, the computed statistic is 18.079 with its associated probability value of
0.644.In terms of remittances under receiving money, the computed statistic is
43.530 with its associated probability value of 0.003 and for sending money, the
computed statistic is 27.656 with its associated probability value of 0.150.
5. On the assessment of the relationship between the respondents’ perception and
frequency of using mobile money application, in terms of payment of bills under
electric bills, the computed statistic is 17.891 with its associated probability value of
0.022 and for payment of internet bills, the computed statistic is 8.696 with its
associated probability value of 0.369. In terms of online purchases under purchasing

of mobile loads, the computed statistic is 7.821 with its associated probability value of
0.252 and for purchasing of grocery and food supplies, the computed statistic is
4.697 with its associated probability value of 0.583. In terms of remittances under
sending money, the computed statistic is 14.508 with its associated probability value
of 0.024 and for receiving money the computed statistic is 10.987 with its associated
probability value of 0.089.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were formulated based on the findings of the study.
1. Most of the respondents’ age bracket is 18-29 years old, the majority are female,
the majority are single, the majority are graduate studies, the majority are
unemployed with a monthly income of less than 10,000 pesos, and the most
commonly used mobile money application is GCash. The researchers concluded that
most of the respondents’ are between the generation Z and millennial era where
people are known to be engaged in the modern world where technological
advancement is fast-growing.
2. According to the survey conducted on the frequency of usage of the customers
towards e-wallet, it stated that 74.1% of the respondents have used mobile money
application to purchase essential and non-essential goods online
(Grocery and Food Supplies, Cosmetics and Clothing, Home and Hardware
Supplies, and Movies and Recreations). The researchers’ concluded that most of the
respondents use e-wallet services due to the pandemic that is still happening in the
world and most of the people wanted to minimize their time outside the house and to
practice social distancing.
3. With an electronic wallet, people can easily purchase a product, pay their bills,
send and receive money without the effort of going outside their home. Though there
has been a difficulty about how customers grasp the right way to use e-wallet for
transactions due to their age, lack of knowledge, and no experience, it is clear that
respondents perceived mobile money applications very satisfactory. It was found that
customers used e-wallet services mainly because of its convenience. On the other
hand, some of the customers are not confident to use mobile money application
because of some security issues. E-wallet has become increasingly known and fast-
growing over time. The researchers concluded that most of the customers perceived
e-wallet services as a hassle-free mode of payment.
4. The growth of users of Smartphone and internet penetration in an area facilitated
the adoption of digital payment. It was Age level of the respondents where significant
difference is perceived by the researchers. It indicates that paying electric bills
through e-wallet services has a highly significant difference, paying water bills has a
significant difference while paying telephone and internet bills has no significant
difference at all. The usage of e-wallet services by age has been influenced by
different factors. Most young customers prefer to use the digital payment method
than the older generation for paying of electric bills as they find it more convenient
and hassle free. On the other hand, the elderly are accustomed to traditional way of
payments such as falling in lines in the provider’s offices. They perceived e-wallets
services being too trendy and they have low knowledge of the new technology, thus
the result of highly significant difference by age level. A significant difference in the
frequencies of usage of e-wallet for paying of water bills is noticeable. Most of the
people with households are not paying water bills because they are using deep wells
and younger generations depends on water providers who are extending digital
payments method. We also believe older people do not trust much e-commerce
services as they perceived it to be risky. Moreover, paying telephone and internet
bills have no significant difference because nowadays no matter what your age is,
you are using these facilities. (Ho1)

Present study has made an attempt to understand customer‘s customer’s perception
regarding e-wallet or digital payment. Modern financial system has gone through
many changes in terms of payments from traditional system to mobile money
applications. It was found that Sex factor does not have much impact nor has no
significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage of e-wallet
services for payment of various kinds of bills. ANOVA computation and Multiple
Regression Analysis supported this finding as there was no significant difference is
perceived by the respondents on the basis of sex. This study proves that no matter
what the sex is, they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for all kinds of bills
payment. (Ho2)
In the modern era, where technologies are becoming part of everyday life of every
person, digital payments have become also the new trend when it comes to paying of
goods and services. One of the focuses of this study is to determine the significant
difference between the customers usage of e-wallet services when grouped
according to their civil status. Based from the result of the study, it was found out that
there is a significant difference between the civil status of the customer for payment
of electric bills, water and telephone bills, but has no significant difference in terms of
internet bills. This is because; customers who are single have less responsibilities in
their households especially if you are still a student. On the other hand, customers
who are married have the responsibilities to shoulder not only the expenses but also
the payment of electric bills, water and telephone bills. (Ho3)
According to the result of the study in an attempt to determine the significant
difference between the customers’ frequency of usage and their educational
background, it was found out that there is a significant difference in terms of electric
bills and has a highly significant difference in terms of water bills and has no
significant difference in terms of telephone bills. (Ho3)

Present study has made an attempt to determine the significant difference between
the customers’ educational background and their frequency of usage of e-wallet
services for payment of bills. It was found out that there is a significant difference in
terms of electric bills and internet bills and has a highly significant difference in terms
of water bills and has no significant difference in terms of telephone bills at all. The
researchers then perceived that most of the customers chose to go to office
providers to pay their electric and internet bills, some chose to pay their water bills in
an accustomed way and other customers chose to pay their telephone bills through
the use of mobile money application. The researchers concluded that these result
vary because of the educational background of the customers. Customers who have
a degree in graduate studies understand more about how to use e-wallet services
and those who are under graduate studies lacks knowledge about how it works. Ho4
Having a job is a part of being an adult, moreover being an adult means
responsibilities. One of the responsibillity of being an adult especially in a typical
filipino family is to take part of the expenses in the household. In an attempt to
determine the significant diffference between the frequency of usage of e-wallet
services and their employment status, it was found out that there is an impact in
terms of paying their electric bills, water and internet bills and no significant
difference in terms of telephone bills at all. It is perceived by the reseachers that the
priorities of the customers in paying their bills are electric, water and internet billls
and the less priority is the telephone bill. A typical filipino family are prioritizing the
most important payment of bills in their daily expenses. (Ho5)
For an average wage earner, budgeting his monthly income to pay various kinds of
bills is very important. In an attempt to find out the significant difference between the
customers monthly income and their usage of e-wallet services to pay various
payment of bills, it was found out that there is no significant difference in terms of
electric and water bills and has a highly significant difference in terms of telephone
and internet bills. The researchers then perceived that an average family with a
minimum monthly income prioritizes to pay their bills in terms of electric and water
bills and those who earn above minimum wage have an extra responsibilities in
paying bills in terms of internet and telephone bills. (Ho6)
One of the focus of this study is to determine the significant difference between the
customers’ preferred mobile money application and their frequency of usage of e-
wallet services for payment of bills. It was found that mobile money application factor
does not have much impact nor has no significant difference between the customer’s
frequencies of usage of e-wallet services for payment of various kinds of bills.
ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression Analysis supported this finding as
there was no significant difference is perceived by the respondents on the basis of
mobile money application. This study proves that no matter what the mobile money
application is, they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for all kinds of bills
payment. (Ho7)
Purchasing of goods and services has made easier through the use of digital
payment method especially during this pandemic. People chose to engage in the
digital method to minimize their time outside their homes. This study has made an
attempt to determine the significant difference between the customers’ age and
frequency of usage of e-wallet services. It indicates that purchasing of grocery and
food supplies through e-wallet services has a significant difference, purchasing of
cosmetic and clothing and mobile load has no significant difference while purchasing
of home and hardware supplies and movies and recreations has a highly significant
difference. It was found out that the Age level of the respondents is where a
significant difference is perceived by the researchers. The researchers then
concluded that most customers preferred to use the e-wallet payment method for
purchasing groceries and food supplies, home and hardware supplies, and movies
and recreations as they find it hassle-free and more convenient. (Ho8)
This study has made an attempt to understand customer’s perception regarding e-
wallet services. Modern financial system has gone through many changes in terms of
paying their purchases of goods and services from paying to physical stores to using
e-wallet services. It was found that Sex factor does not have much impact nor has no
significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage of e-wallet
services for online purchases. ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression Analysis
supported this finding as there was no significant difference is perceived by the
respondents on the basis of sex. This study proves that no matter what the sex is,
they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for all kinds of online purchases. (Ho9)
difference between the cutomers’ civil status and their frequency of usage of e-wallet
services for online purchases, it was found out that purchasing of grocery and food
supplies through e-wallet services has a significant difference, highly significant
difference in terms of purchasing of cosmetics and clothing and home and hardware
supplies and has no signifcant diference in terms of purhasing of mobile load and
movies and recreation has no significant difference at all. Thus, knowledge and trust
in e-wallet services is important, the researchers then perceived that the civil status
factor affects the decisions of customers’ online in purchasing of products or
services.(Ho10)
Present study has made an attempt to determine the significant difference between
the customers’ educational background and their frequency of usage of e-wallet
services for online purchase. It was found out that there is a significant difference in
terms of purchasing of grocery and food supplies and cosmetics and clothing, no
significant difference in terms of purchasing of home and hardware supplies and
mobile load and has a highly significant difference in terms of purchasing of movies
and recreations. The researchers then perceived that some of the customers chose
to go to physical store to purchase grocery and food supplies, others chose to use e-
wallet services to purchase home and hardware supplies and mobile loads and most
of the customers chose to go to physical stores to purchase ticket for movies and
recreations. The researchers concluded that these result vary because of the
educational background of the customers. Customers who have a degree in graduate
studies understand more about how to use e-wallet services and those who are
under graduate studies lacks knowledge about how it works. Ho11
This study has made an attempt to understand the significant difference between the
customer’s employment status and their frequency of usage of e-wallet services. It
was found out that there is no impact nor significant difference on the customer’s
frequencies of usage of e-wallet services for online purchases. ANOVA computation
and Multiple Regression Analysis supported this finding as there was no significant
difference is perceived by the respondents on the basis of employment status. This
study proves that no matter what the employment status is, they will prefer to use the
e-wallet services for all kinds of online purchases. (Ho12)
difference between the cutomers’ monthly income and their frequency of usage of e-
wallet services for online purchases, it was found out that there is no significant
difference in terms of purchasing of grocery and food supplies, mobile loads and
movies and recreation and has a highly significant difference in terms of cosmetics
and clothing and has a significant differrence in terms of home and hardware
supplies. The researchers then perceived that the customers’ frequency of usage of
e-wallet services for online purchases varies on their monthly income. Most of the
customers used e-wallet to purchase grocery and food supplies, mobile loads and
movies and recreation. Others used e-wallet services to purchase cosmetics and
clothing and some used e-wallet services to purchase home and hardware supplies.
(Ho13)
Traditionally, payment of bills and purchasing a product is through cash, and sending
or receiving money from abroad is passing over the cash at an agent location and
agent itself, but as mobile money application transcends and people started to gain
attention onto it and its offered services. It is a platform that enables customers to
pay their bills, purchase products or services online, send or receive money from
family, friends, or relatives. One of the focuses of this study is to determine the
significant difference between the customer’s usage of e-wallet services when
grouped according to their preferred mobile money application and their frequency of
usage of e-wallet services for online purchases. It was found out that there is no
significant difference in terms of purchasing of grocery and food supplies, home and
hardware supplies, and mobile load, and has a significant difference in terms of
purchasing of cosmetics and clothing and has a higly significant difference in terms of
purchasing of movies and recreations. The researchers then perceived that
customers prefer to used specific mobile money application in terms of purchasing of
grocery and food supplies, home and hardware supplies, and mobile load then
different mobile money applications when purchasing of cosmetics and clothing and
movies and recreations. (Ho14)
remittances from falling in line to bayad center that offers services to using of mobile
money application. It was found that Age factor does not have much impact nor has
no significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage of e-wallet
services for remittances. ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression Analysis
respondents on the basis of age. This study proves that no matter what the age is,
they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for their remittances. (Ho15)
money application. It was found that Sex factor does not have much impact nor has
no significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage of e-wallet
services for remittances. ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression Analysis
respondents on the basis of sex. This study proves that no matter what the sex is,
they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for their remittances. (Ho16)
money application. It was found out that Civil Status factor does not have much
impact nor has no significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage
of e-wallet services for remittances. ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression
Analysis supported this finding as there was no significant difference is perceived by
the respondents on the basis of civil status. This study proves that no matter what the
civil status is, they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for their remittances. (Ho17)
Remittances is one of the services offered by e-wallet company providers. In an
attempt to understand the significant difference between the educational background

of the customers and their frequency of usage of e-wallet services for remittances. It
was found out that there is highly significant difference in terms of sending money
nad has no significant difference in terms of receiving money. The researchers then
perceived that some of the customers chose to go to bayad center and other
remittance office to send money to their family and friends and most of them prefer to
use the e-wallet services to receive money from their relatives and friends. These
result may vary according to the educational background of the customers, some
chose to go to remittance center because they can be assisted by the staffs when
sending money to their relatives and friends. On the other hand, most of the
customers use the e-wallet services when receiving money from their relatives, this is
because most of the customers have the knowledge to understand how an e-wallet
works. Ho18
Present study has made an attempt to understand customer perception regarding e-
money application. It was found that employment status factor does not have much
impact nor has no significant difference between the customer’s frequencies of usage
of e-wallet services for remittances. ANOVA computation and Multiple Regression
Analysis supported this finding as there was no significant difference is perceived by
the respondents on the basis of employment status. This study proves that no matter
what the employment is, they will prefer to use the e-wallet services for all kinds of
bills payment. (Ho19)
difference between the cutomers’ monthly income and their frequency of usage of e-
wallet services for remittances, it was found out that there is no significant difference
in terms of sending money and has a highly significant difference in terms of
receiving money. The researchers then perceived that the customers’ frequency of
usage of e-wallet services for remittances varies on their monthly income. Most of the
customers use e-wallet services in sending money to their family and friends. On the
other hand, customers chose to go to remittance center when receiving money.
These result may vary because of the service fee that is charged when sending and
receiving money. E-wallet company providers charge less in terms of sending
money, customers have patronage to this service because of tight budget, but when
receiving money, customers chose remittance center to receive money because of
the lower service fee. Ho20
Anyone who has a smartphone or any mobile device can have access to a mobile
money application and can have a mobile money account, it is a service offered by e-
wallet owners that can be used for payment of bills, online purchases, and
remittances. The study attempt to determine the significant difference between the
customer’s usage of e-wallet services when grouped according to their preferred
mobile money application and their frequency of usage of e-wallet services for
payment of bills. It was found out that sending money has no significant difference
and has a highly significant difference in terms of receiving money. The researchers
then perceived that customers prefer to used different mobile money applications
when sending money to someone and only used one specific application in terms of
receiving money. (Ho21)
5. A study was conducted in an attempt to determine the relationship between the
customers’ level of perception towards mobile money application and their frequency
of usage as to payment of bills. It was found out that the perception of the
respondents towards mobile money application does significantly affect the

frequency of usage in terms of electric bills and does not significantly affect in terms
of water, telephone and internet bills. The researchers then perceived that some of
the customers’ perception towards mobile money application affects their decision
when using e-wallet services to pay their electric bills and most of the respondent’s
perception towards mobile money application does not affect their usage of e-wallet
services when paying other kinds of bills. The customers’ perception in using e-wallet
services was influenced by the different factors such as usability, security,
convenience, accessibility and reliability.
Present study has made an attempt to understand customer perception regarding e-
online purchases from paying to physical stores to using e-wallet services. It was
found that the level of perception of the respondents towards mobile money
application does not significantly affect the frequency of usage as to online
purchases. Multiple Regression Analysis supported this finding. The researchers
then concluded that the perception of the customers in terms of usability, security,
convenience, accessibility and reliability towards e-wallet services does not affect
their frequency of usage in terms of online purchases. This proves that no matter
what negative feedback or review about e-wallet services, customers still prefer to
use this kind of payment for purchasing goods and services online.
In an attempt to determine the level of perception of the respondents towards mobile
money application and their frequency of usage, it was found that the level of
perception of the respondents towards mobile money application does signficantly
affect their frequency of usage in terms of sending money and does not significantly
affect in terms of receiving money. The researchers then perceived that some of the
customers is hesitant to use e-wallet services when sending money to their family
and friends it is because the service charge in some mobile money application is
costly. On the other hand, customers chose to use e-wallet services when receiving
money from their family and friends because of lower service fee.
Recommendation
In light of the findings and conclusions are drawn, the researchers have
aimed and posted recommendations:
1. Based from the results of the study, among the indicators provided, security has
the lowest computed mean (4.01) which means the respondents does not fully trust
the security policy of a particular E-wallet company. The researchers recommend for
the E-wallet company providers to improve their policy when it comes to security.
They can add a security feature like the Biometric Authentication to their system
which can verify the users’ identity through unique biological traits such as retinas,
irises, voices, facial characteristics and finger prints. This system can store this
biometric data in order to access their account. Biometric authentication is generally
more secure than traditional forms of multi-factor authentication (Nicolls, 2019).
2. For future researchers’ further study may be conducted, it is highly recommended
to look further about the other services (hotel and flight booking, pay insurance
premiums, pay taxes and government contribution and QR scan to pay in physical
stores) offered by the E-wallet company provider since this study is limited to only
three services (payment of bills, online purchases, and remittances). These other e-
wallet services like paying taxes and government contribution are also part of
everyday life of the Filipino people that’s why it would be very easy for them if they
can pay their responsibility as tax payers in an efficient and convenient way.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrams, S. (2020). What you need to know about mobile wallet. Retrieved October
14, 2020 from https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-
money/articles/2018-03-16/what-you-need-to-know-about-mobile-
wallets
Adrian, M. (2018). Is the Philippines Ready to go Cashless? Retrieved December 3,

2020 from https://www.imoney.ph/articles/cashless-payment-
philippines/
Agcaoili. L, (2021). E-wallet transactions more than triple. Retrieved May 8, 2021
fromhttps://www.philstar.com/business/2021/02/15/2077717/e-wallet-
transactions-more-triple
Aji et al., (2020). COVID-19 and e-wallet usage intention: A multi-group analysis
between Indonesia and Malaysia. Retrieved May 5, 2021 from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full
Ali, Z., & Bhaskar, S. B. (2016). Basic statistical tools in research and data analysis.
Retrieved December 5, 2020 from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
Arreola, R.H, (2020). The “New Normal” of Increased Online Business Transactions
and Revisiting Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 55-2013.
Retrieved May 6, 2021 from
https://home.kpmg/ph/en/home/insights/2020/07/the-new-normal-of-
increased-online-business-transactions.html
Bayugo, J.E. (2020). 8 best mobile E wallet in the Philippines. Retrieved September
15, 2020 From: https://grit.ph/mobile-wallets/
Bevans, R. (2020). An Introduction to the one-way ANOVA. Retrieved December 4,

2020 from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/one-way-anova
Blaney, B. (n.d.) “Should You Get an E-Wallet?” Retrieved March 1, 2021 from
https://tipalti.com/should-you-get-an-ewallet
Business Research Methodology, (n.d). Purposive Sampling. Retrieved December 3,

2020 from https://research-methodology.net/sampling-in-primary-data-
collection/purposive-sampling/
Caramela, S. (2020). “5 Trending Digital Methods, Is your business ready for them?”
Business.com. Retrieved November 21, 2020 from
https://www.business.com/articles/4-trending-digital-payment-
methods-is-your-business-ready-for-them/
Cragg, J. (2020). What is the Future of Digital Payments? Finextra. Retrieved

November 19, 2020 from
https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/19402/what-is-the-future-
Of-digital-payments
Cenusa, S. (2020). Are online payment safe, and how can we make them secure?
Retrieved November 27, 2020 from https://blog.2checkout.com/how-
secure-are-online-payments/
Conell, C.X. (2015). What is Electronic Media? Retrieved November 27, 2020 from
https://www.skillmaker.edu.au/what-is-electronic-media/
Chua, P. (2020). “Filipinos are ready to go cashless according to the study.”

Retrieved September 13, 2020 from https://www.msn.com/en-
ph/money/topstories/filipinos-are-ready-to-go-cashless-according-
tostudy/
De Best, R. (2020). Usage of digital payment services in Sweden. Retrieved on

https://www.statista.com/statistics/551015/sweden-usage-of-online-
payment services/
Devanesan, J. (2020). “The Philippines is going cashless – finally.” Retrieved

November 22, 2020 from https://techwireasia.com/2020/07/digital-
payments-are-finally-soaring-in-the-philippines/
Dictionary. Cashless society. Retrieved October 12, 2020 from

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cashless-society
Discover PhDs, (2020). What is a Research Instrument? Retrieved December 5,

2020 from https://www.discoverphds.com/blog/research-instrument
Elmblad, S.(2020). Is it safe to pay bills through an online bill payer? Retrieved
November 26, 2020 from https://www.thebalance.com/is-online-bill-
pay-safe-1294251
Endo, J. (2019). “Digital payment grows in Philippines amid covid – 19 fears.”

Retrieved September 11, 2020 from
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Digital-payment-grows-in-
Philippines-amid-COVID-19-fears
Expert Commentator, (2020). “Convenience is driving e-commerce growth and

influencing Consumers’ decision.” Retrieved November 27, 2020 from
https://www.smartinsights.com/ecommerce/customer-experience-
examples/convenience-is-driving-e-commerce-growth-and-influencing-
consumer-decisions/
Goyal, S. (2020). “What is mobile wallet and how does it work?” Retrieved October
14, 2020 From https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/what-
is-mobile-wallet-and-how-does-it-work
Guides library, (2020). “What are Research Instruments?” Retrieved November 16,
2020 from https://guides.library.duq.edu/researchinstruments
Green, A. (2020). Advantages and Disadvantages of E-payment. Retrieved

November 26, 2020 From https://bizfluent.com/info-8188352-
advantages-disadvantages-epayment.html
Glen, S. (2015). Independent Sample t-test (Unpaired Samples). Retrieved

December 5, 2020 From
https://www.statisticshowto.com/independent-samples-t-test/
Higley, D. (2020). “Digital payments option and how to accept them.” QuickBooks.
Retrieved November 18, 2020 from
https://www.finextra.com/blogposting/19402/what-is-the-future-of-
digital-payments
Hord, J. (n.d). How Electronic payment works. Retrieved November 26, 2020 from
https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/online-
banking/electronic-payment2.htm
Ilola, E. (2018). “A beginners’ guide to standard deviation and standard error.”

https://s4be.cochrane.org/blog/2018/09/26/a-
beginners-guide-to-standard-deviation-and-standard-error/
Jamieson, S. (n.d). Likert Scale. Retrieved November 17, 2020 from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Likert-Scale
Kar, A.K. (2020). What Affects Usage Satisfaction in Mobile Payments? Retrieved
November 26, 2020 from https://link.springer.com/article/
Keelery, S. (2020). Frequency of e-payment service usage India 2020. Retrieved

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106573/india-frequency-of-e-
payment-transactions-by-gender/
Lake, R. (2020). “Everything you need to know about going cashless.” Retrieved
October 12, 2020 from https://www.chime.com/blog/top-benefits-of-
going-cashless/
Lyra.com, (2020). What is payment security? Learn how you can keep your
Payments Secured – For Merchants. Retrieved December 3, 2020
from https://www.lyra.com/in/payment-security/
Mapa, N. (2020). Philippines’ remittances grew by 9.3% despite second lockdown.

https://think.ing.com/snaps/philippines-remittance-defy-expectations-
anew-post-9.3-expansion-in-september
McLeod, S. (2019). Likert Scale Definition, Examples and Analysis. Simply
Psychology. Retrieved November 17, 2020 from
https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html
Morah, C. (2019). Shopping Online: convenience, bargains and a few scams.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/08/buy-sell-online.asp
Murphy, C. B. (2020). Remittance. Retrieved November 27, 2020 from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/remittance.asp
Nair, V. (2016). Eschewing Cash: The Challenges of Cashless Transactions in the

Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 33(3), 387-397.
Retrieved November 22, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/
Nicolls, D. (2019). “What is Biometric Authentication?” Retrieved May 9, 2021 from

https://www.jumio.com/what-is-biometric-authentication
Nyxone, (2017). Importance of e-commerce and online shopping and why to sell
online. Retrieved November 27, 2020 from
https://medium.com/@nyxonedigital/importance-of-e-commerce-and-
online-shopping-and-why-to-sell-online
Openknowledge.WorldBank.org, (2020). Philippines digital Economy Report 2020

A Better Normal under Covid-19- Digitalizing the Philippines Economy
Now. Retrieved May 6, 2021 from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34606
Perreras, S. (2019). Philippines Fintech Mobile Wallet Payments are fragmented:
Pay over Sound Technology “The Great Bridge”. Retrieved December
3, 2020 from https://medium.com/@sparky_50548/philippines-fintech-
mobile-wallet-payments-are-fragmented-pay-over-sound-technology-
the-great
Pierce, Rod. (8 Mar 2019). "Mean Definition (Illustrated Mathematics Dictionary)".

Math Is Fun. Retrieved 22 Nov 2020 from
http://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/mean.html
Pettinger, T. (2020). “Pros and cons of a cashless society.” Retrieved October 12,
2020 from
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/164246/economics/pros-and-
cons-of-a-cashless-society/
Question Pro. (n.d). Research Design: Definition, Characteristics and Types.

https://www.questionpro.com/blog/research-design/
Radcliffe, B. (2019). Introduction to Remittances. Retrieved November 27, 2020 from

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/10/introduction-
remittances.asp
Sanchez, M.A. (2020). Reasons for making E-payment methods Philippines by

gender. Retrieved November 27, 2020 from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105568/philippines- reasons-for-
making-e-payment-methods-by-gender/
Sanchez, M.A. (2020). Transactions using e-payment methods Philippines 2020 by

gender. Retrieved November, 27, 2020 from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1105585/philippines-usage-e-
payment-method-by-gender/
Securion Pay. (n.d). “What is an E payment System?” Retrieved September 11, 2020
from https://securionpay.com/blog/e-payment-system/
Statistics Canada, (n.d). Frequency distribution tables. Retrieved December 4, 2020

from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/edu/power-pouvoir/ch8
Swaen, B. (2015). Conceptual Framework. Revised, (2020). Retrieved December 4,
2020 from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/conceptual-framework
The Manila Times, (2020). 5 Reasons to trust Gcash with your Online Transactions.
Retrieved December 4, 2020 from https://nordvpn.com/blog/reviewing-
paypal-security-tools/
Umali, T. (2020). “A Commitment to grow E payments in the Philippines.” OpenGov

Asia. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://opengovasia.com/a-
commitment-to-grow-e-payments-in-the-philippines/
Warrington, C. (2019). Are Online Payment Systems Accessibility Friendly?

Retrieved December 3, 2020 from
https://www.paymentsjournal.com/are-online-payment-systems-
accessibility-friendly/
APPENDICES
Frequency Table
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
18 to 29 years old 123 83.7 83.7 83.7
30 to 39 years old 18 12.2 12.2 95.9
Valid 40 to 49 years old 3 2.0 2.0 98.0
50 years old and above 3 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Sex
Percent
Male 57 38.8 38.8 38.8
Valid Female 90 61.2 61.2 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Civil Status
Percent
Single 121 82.3 82.3 82.3
Married 23 15.6 15.6 98.0
Valid Widowed 2 1.4 1.4 99.3
Separated 1 .7 .7 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Educational Background
Percent
Valid Secondary 11 7.5 7.5 7.5
Tertiary 41 27.9 27.9 35.4
Vocational Courses 14 9.5 9.5 44.9
Graduate Studies 81 55.1 55.1 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Employment Status
Percent
Employed 52 35.4 35.4 35.4
Self-employed 30 20.4 20.4 55.8
Valid
Unemployed 65 44.2 44.2 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Average Monthly Income

Percent
Less than 10,000 pesos 79 53.7 53.7 53.7
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos 35 23.8 23.8 77.6
Valid 20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos 15 10.2 10.2 87.8
30,001.00 pesos and above 18 12.2 12.2 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Mobile Money Application Used

Percent
GCash 93 63.3 63.3 63.3
Valid
PayMaya 13 8.8 8.8 72.1
PayPal 25 17.0 17.0 89.1
Coins.ph 1 .7 .7 89.8
BanKo 7 4.8 4.8 94.6
Moneygment 2 1.4 1.4 95.9
7/11 CLIQQ 4 2.7 2.7 98.6
Others 2 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Unemployed Respondents' Source of Income

Percent
Personal income from 15 10.2 10.2 10.2
investments
Shared income with the family 41 27.9 27.9 38.1
Valid
Income from business 28 19.0 19.0 57.1
Others 63 42.9 42.9 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Bar Chart
Frequency Table
Electricity Bills Payment

Percent
1 to 3 times a year 47 32.0 32.0 32.0
4 to 6 times a year 19 12.9 12.9 44.9
7 to 9 times a year 7 4.8 4.8 49.7
Valid
10 to 12 times a year 45 30.6 30.6 80.3
Never 29 19.7 19.7 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Water Bills Payment
Percent
1 to 3 times a year 52 35.4 35.4 35.4
4 to 6 times a year 14 9.5 9.5 44.9
7 to 9 times a year 4 2.7 2.7 47.6
Valid
10 to 12 times a year 43 29.3 29.3 76.9
Never 34 23.1 23.1 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Telephone BIlls Payment

Percent
1 to 3 times a year 47 32.0 32.0 32.0
4 to 6 times a year 20 13.6 13.6 45.6
7 to 9 times a year 8 5.4 5.4 51.0
Valid
10 to 12 times a year 31 21.1 21.1 72.1
Never 41 27.9 27.9 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Internet Bills Payment

Percent
1 to 3 times a year 38 25.9 25.9 25.9
4 to 6 times a year 21 14.3 14.3 40.1
7 to 9 times a year 10 6.8 6.8 46.9
Valid
10 to 12 times a year 56 38.1 38.1 85.0
Never 22 15.0 15.0 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Grocery and Food Supplies
Percent
1 to 3 times a month 95 64.6 64.6 64.6
4 to 6 times a month 28 19.0 19.0 83.7
Valid 7 to 9 times a month 8 5.4 5.4 89.1
10 to 12 times a month 16 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Cosmetics and Clothing

Percent
1 to 3 times a month 104 70.7 70.7 70.7
4 to 6 times a month 27 18.4 18.4 89.1
10 to 12 times a month 8 5.4 5.4 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Home and Hardware Supplies

Percent
1 to 3 times a month 108 73.5 73.5 73.5
4 to 6 times a month 19 12.9 12.9 86.4
10 to 12 times a month 16 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Mobile Load
Percent
1 to 3 times a month 81 55.1 55.1 55.1
4 to 6 times a month 37 25.2 25.2 80.3
10 to 12 times a month 3 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Movies and Recreations

Percent
1 to 3 times a month 109 74.1 74.1 74.1
4 to 6 times a month 11 7.5 7.5 81.6
10 to 12 times a month 20 13.6 13.6 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Sending money
Percent
1 to 3 times a month 81 55.1 55.1 55.1
4 to 6 times a month 39 26.5 26.5 81.6
10 to 12 times a month 16 10.9 10.9 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Receiving Money
Percent
1 to 3 times a month 84 57.1 57.1 57.1
4 to 6 times a month 35 23.8 23.8 81.0
10 to 12 times a month 10 6.8 6.8 100.0
Total 147 100.0 100.0
Bar Chart
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
I prefer using mobile money 147 1.00 5.00 4.2721 1.02408
application since it allows me
to remotely pay my bills (water
bill, electricity bill, internet bill
etc.)
I prefer using mobile money 147 1.00 5.00 4.2993 .98908
to remotely pay for products I
am purchasing.
application because it allows
me to send and/or receive
money to and from my
relatives and friends.
application because of its
security features that keeps
me safe from any fraud of
theft.
application with a security
feature that can be updated to
keep my account safe and
secured.
encryption feature which
protects my personal and
financial information.
application since it is more
convenient than carrying a big
amount of cash or cheques.
application since it offers me
an easier access for
purchasing daily necessities
(e.g. food).
application because I can
make transactions with
minimal effort and transport.
application since offers a
variety of choices of
transactions for customers.
application because it can be
easily accessed using only the
internet or mobile data.
easily accessed with any
device like smartphone, tablet,
laptop etc.
application due to its smooth
and outstanding performance.
application because it is quick
in obtaining a solution to
problems encountered by
customers like me.
application since the
companies offering it put
valuable efforts in managing
the overall operation of the
system.
Average - Usability 147 1.00 5.00 4.3269 .90794
Average - Security 147 1.00 5.00 4.0090 .83306
Average - Convenience 147 1.00 5.00 4.3629 .79219
Average - Accessibility 147 1.00 5.00 4.3197 .78812
Average - Reliability 147 1.33 5.00 4.0565 .82535
Grand Mean 147 2.63 5.00 4.2141 .55526
Valid N (listwise) 147
Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Age * Electricity Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstabulation

1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a 7 to 9 times a
year year year
Count 45 18 7
18 to 29 years old
Expected Count 39.3 15.9 5.9
Count 2 1 0
30 to 39 years old
Expected Count 5.8 2.3 .9
Age
Count 0 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Expected Count 1.0 .4 .1
Count 0 0 0
50 years old and above
Count 47 19 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 30.686a 12 .002
Likelihood Ratio 30.859 12 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 10.529 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 147
a. 13 cells (65.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .14.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .457 .002
Nominal by Nominal Cramer's V .264 .002
Contingency Coefficient .416 .002
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Water Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Water Bills Payment Crosstabulation

Water Bills Payment
year year year
Count 49 12 4
18 to 29 years old
Count 3 2 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 0 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 0 0 0
Count 52 14 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 22.921 12 .028
count is .08.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .395 .028
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Telephone BIlls Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosstabulation
year year year
Count 42 16 5
18 to 29 years old
Count 2 4 3
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 2 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 1 0 0
Count 47 20 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Linear-by-Linear Association .076 1 .783
count is .16.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .358 .091
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Internet Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Internet Bills Payment Crosstabulation

year year year
Count 35 17 10
18 to 29 years old
Count 1 3 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 1 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Expected Count .8 .4 .2
Count 1 1 0
Count 38 21 10
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .20.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .309 .299
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Grocery and Food 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Supplies
Age * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 85 18 8
18 to 29 years old
Count 7 8 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 1 2 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 2 0 0
Count 95 28 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .16.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .351 .033
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Cosmetics and Clothing 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulation
month month month
Count 91 18 8
18 to 29 years old
Count 9 7 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 2 1 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 2 1 0
Count 104 27 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .16.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .262 .342
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Home and Hardware 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Supplies
Age * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 98 8 4
18 to 29 years old
Count 7 9 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 0 2 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 3 0 0
Count 108 19 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .08.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .513 .000
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Mobile Load 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Mobile Load Crosstabulation
Mobile Load
month month month
Count 64 32 25
18 to 29 years old
Count 12 4 1
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 3 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 2 1 0
Count 81 37 26
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .06.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .220 .626
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Movies and Recreations 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 93 10 7
18 to 29 years old
Count 14 1 0
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 2 0 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 0 0 0
Count 109 11 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .14.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .392 .007
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Sending money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Sending money Crosstabulation

Sending money
month month month
Count 68 31 10
18 to 29 years old
Count 9 7 1
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 2 1 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 2 0 0
Count 81 39 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .22.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .185 .833
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * Receiving Money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Age * Receiving Money Crosstabulation
Receiving Money
month month month
Count 70 30 15
18 to 29 years old
Count 11 3 3
30 to 39 years old
Age
Count 1 1 0
40 to 49 years old
Count 2 1 0
Count 84 35 18
Total
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
a
count is .20.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .192 .797
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Electricity Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstabulation

1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a 7 to 9 times a 10 to 12 times a
year year year year
Count 18 8 3 20
Male
Expected Count 18.2 7.4 2.7 17.4
Sex
Count 29 11 4 25
Female
Expected Count 28.8 11.6 4.3 27.6
Count 47 19 7 45
Total
Expected Count 47.0 19.0 7.0 45.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 2.71.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .125 .684
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Water Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Water Bills Payment Crosstabulation

Water Bills Payment
year year year year
Count 19 6 2 20
Male
Sex
Count 33 8 2 23
Female
Count 52 14 4 43
Total
Expected Count 52.0 14.0 4.0 43.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 1.55.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .137 .599
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Telephone BIlls Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosstabulation

year year year year
Count 16 11 4 13
Male
Sex
Count 31 9 4 18
Female
Expected Count 28.8 12.2 4.9 19.0
Count 47 20 8 31
Total
Expected Count 47.0 20.0 8.0 31.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 3.10.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .167 .395
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Internet Bills Payment 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Internet Bills Payment Crosstabulation
year year year year
Count 14 11 6 18
Male
Sex
Count 24 10 4 38
Female
Expected Count 23.3 12.9 6.1 34.3
Count 38 21 10 56
Total
Expected Count 38.0 21.0 10.0 56.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 3.88.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .179 .321
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Grocery and Food 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Supplies
Sex * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulation

month month month month
Count 37 12 4 4
Male
Sex
Count 58 16 4 12
Female
Count 95 28 8 16
Total
Expected Count 95.0 28.0 8.0 16.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 3.10.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .114 .593
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Cosmetics and Clothing 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulation

Count 45 7 1 4
Male
Sex
Count 59 20 7 4
Female
Count 104 27 8 8
Total
Expected Count 104.0 27.0 8.0 8.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 3.10.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .194 .138
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Home and Hardware 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Supplies
Sex * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabulation
Count 44 6 2 5
Male
Sex
Count 64 13 2 11
Female
Count 108 19 4 16
Total
Expected Count 108.0 19.0 4.0 16.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.55.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .090 .757
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Mobile Load 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Mobile Load Crosstabulation

Mobile Load
Count 30 16 10 1
Male
Expected Count 31.4 14.3 10.1 1.2
Sex
Count 51 21 16 2
Female
Expected Count 49.6 22.7 15.9 1.8
Count 81 37 26 3
Total
Expected Count 81.0 37.0 26.0 3.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .453a 3 .929
Likelihood Ratio .450 3 .930
count is 1.16.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .055 .929
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Movies and Recreations 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulation

Count 46 4 2 5
Male
Sex
Count 63 7 5 15
Female
Count 109 11 7 20
Total
Expected Count 109.0 11.0 7.0 20.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 2.71.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .130 .480
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Sending money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Sending money Crosstabulation

Sending money
Count 28 19 4 6
Male
Sex
Count 53 20 7 10
Female
Count 81 39 11 16
Total
Expected Count 81.0 39.0 11.0 16.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 4.27.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .124 .519
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sex * Receiving Money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Sex * Receiving Money Crosstabulation

Receiving Money
Count 33 13 5 6
Male
Sex
Count 51 22 13 4
Female
Expected Count 51.4 21.4 11.0 6.1
Count 84 35 18 10
Total
Expected Count 84.0 35.0 18.0 10.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 3.88.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .140 .413
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Electricity Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Civil Status * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstabulation
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a 7 to 9 times a 10 to 1
year year year y
Count 43 17 6
Single
Count 4 1 1
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 0 0
Widowed
Count 0 1 0
Separated
Count 47 19 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .410 .016
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Water Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Civil Status * Water Bills Payment Crosstabulation

Water Bills Payment
year year year y
Count 48 11 3
Single
Count 4 2 1
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 0 0
Widowed
Count 0 1 0
Separated
Count 52 14 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .03.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .392 .032
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Telephone BIlls 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Civil Status * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosstabulation

year year year y
Count 41 17 3
Single
Count 6 3 5
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 0 0
Widowed
Count 0 0 0
Separated
Count 47 20 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .408 .017
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Internet Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Civil Status * Internet Bills Payment Crosstabulation
year year year y
Count 35 17 7
Single
Count 2 3 3
Married
Civil Status
Count 1 0 0
Widowed
Count 0 1 0
Separated
Count 38 21 10
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .347 .124
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Grocery and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Food Supplies
Civil Status * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulation

month month month m
Count 84 16 7
Single
Count 10 11 1
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 1 0
Widowed
Count 1 0 0
Separated
Count 95 28 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .378 .013
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Cosmetics and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Clothing
Civil Status * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulation

month month month m
Count 92 14 8
Single
Count 11 11 0
Married
Civil Status
Count 1 1 0
Widowed
Count 0 1 0
Separated
Count 104 27 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .401 .005
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Home and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Hardware Supplies
Civil Status * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabulation
month month month m
Count 96 7 4
Single
Count 10 11 0
Married
Civil Status
Count 1 1 0
Widowed
Count 1 0 0
Separated
Count 108 19 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .03.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .479 .000
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Mobile Load 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Civil Status * Mobile Load Crosstabulation

Mobile Load
month month month m
Count 63 31 24
Single
Count 15 6 2
Married
Civil Status
Count 2 0 0
Widowed
Count 1 0 0
Separated
Count 81 37 26
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .02.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .185 .831
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Movies and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Recreations
Civil Status * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulation

month month month m
Count 89 10 7
Single
Count 19 0 0
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 1 0
Widowed
Count 1 0 0
Separated
Count 109 11 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .291 .187
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Sending money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Civil Status * Sending money Crosstabulation
Sending money
month month month m
Count 69 29 9
Single
Count 12 8 2
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 1 0
Widowed
Count 0 1 0
Separated
Count 81 39 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .251 .414
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Civil Status * Receiving Money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Civil Status * Receiving Money Crosstabulation

Receiving Money
month month month m
Count 72 27 15
Single
Count 11 7 2
Married
Civil Status
Count 0 1 1
Widowed
Count 1 0 0
Separated
Count 84 35 18
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .229 .567
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Educational Background * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstab
Electri
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a
year year
Count 3 1
Secondary
Expected Count 3.5 1.4
Count 19 7
Tertiary
Count 2 1
Vocational Courses
Count 23 10
Graduate Studies
Count 47 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .52.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .401 .023
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Water Bills Payment
Educational Background * Water Bills Payment Crosstabu

Wate
year year
Count 3 0
Secondary
Count 17 8
Tertiary
Count 2 1
Vocational Courses
Count 30 5
Graduate Studies
Count 52 14
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .30.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .455 .002
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Telephone BIlls Payment Crossta
Teleph
year year
Count 4 2
Secondary
Count 17 4
Tertiary
Count 3 4
Vocational Courses
Count 23 10
Graduate Studies
Count 47 20
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .60.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .357 .095
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Internet Bills Payment Crosstab

Intern
year year
Count 4 3
Secondary
Count 17 7
Tertiary
Count 3 0
Vocational Courses
Count 14 11
Graduate Studies
Count 38 21
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .75.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .413 .014
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulati
Grocery and Fo
month month
Count 3 2
Secondary
Count 31 5
Tertiary
Count 10 2
Vocational Courses
Count 51 19
Graduate Studies
Count 95 28
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .60.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .358 .027
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulatio

Cosmetics an
month month
Count 5 2
Secondary
Count 29 9
Tertiary
Count 11 1
Vocational Courses
Count 59 15
Graduate Studies
Count 104 27
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .60.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .352 .033
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabula
Home and Hardw
month month
Count 8 0
Secondary
Count 33 3
Tertiary
Count 12 0
Vocational Courses
Count 55 16
Graduate Studies
Count 108 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .30.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .287 .206
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Mobile Load
Educational Background * Mobile Load Crosstabulation

Mobile
month month
Count 7 3
Secondary
Count 16 14
Tertiary
Count 9 2
Vocational Courses
Count 49 18
Graduate Studies
Count 81 37
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .22.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .270 .296
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Educational Background * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulatio
Movies and R
month month
Count 2 1
Secondary
Expected Count 8.2 .8
Count 30 3
Tertiary
Count 11 0
Vocational Courses
Count 66 7
Graduate Studies
Count 109 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .52.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .442 .001
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sending money
Educational Background * Sending money Crosstabulation

Sending m
month month
Count 4 2
Secondary
Count 22 10
Tertiary
Count 12 1
Vocational Courses
Count 43 26
Graduate Studies
Count 81 39
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .393 .007
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Receiving Money
Educational Background * Receiving Money Crosstabulation
Receiving
month month
Count 4 2
Secondary
Count 20 14
Tertiary
Count 12 2
Vocational Courses
Count 48 17
Graduate Studies
Count 84 35
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .75.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .317 .096
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Electricity 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Bills Payment
Employment Status * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstabulation

Electricity Bills Pay
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a 7 to 9 time
year year year
Count 12 5
Employed
Count 5 7
Employment Status Self-employed
Count 30 7
Unemployed
Count 47 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.43.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .426 .001
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Water 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Bills Payment
Employment Status * Water Bills Payment Crosstabulation
Water Bills Paym
year year year
Count 17 3
Employed
Count 6 5
Count 29 6
Unemployed
Count 52 14
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .389 .004
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Employment Status * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosstabulation

Telephone BIlls Pa
year year year
Count 13 8
Employed
Count 10 7
Count 24 5
Unemployed
Count 47 20
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 1.63.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .318 .061
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Internet 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Bills Payment
Employment Status * Internet Bills Payment Crosstabulation

Internet Bills Paym
year year year
Count 7 5
Employed
Count 6 7
Count 25 9
Unemployed
Count 38 21
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 2.04.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .426 .001
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Grocery 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
and Food Supplies
Employment Status * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulation
month month month
Count 28 14
Employed
Count 18 9
Count 49 5
Unemployed
Count 95 28
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.63.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .281 .071
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Employment Status * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 37 9
Employed
Count 18 10
Count 49 8
Unemployed
Count 104 27
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 1.63.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .227 .270
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Home 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
and Hardware Supplies
Employment Status * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabulation

Home and Hardware Supplie
month month month
Count 34 9
Employed
Count 20 6
Count 54 4
Unemployed
Count 108 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .226 .277
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Mobile 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Load
Employment Status * Mobile Load Crosstabulation
Mobile Load
month month month
Count 28 11
Employed
Count 19 7
Count 34 19
Unemployed
Count 81 37
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .61.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .154 .745
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Movies 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
and Recreations
Employment Status * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 41 2
Employed
Count 23 4
Count 45 5
Unemployed
Count 109 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is 1.43.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .193 .485
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Sending 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
money
Employment Status * Sending money Crosstabulation

Sending money
month month month
Count 28 17
Employed
Count 16 8
Count 37 14
Unemployed
Count 81 39
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 2.24.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .222 .296
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Employment Status * Receiving 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Money
Employment Status * Receiving Money Crosstabulation
Receiving Money
month month month
Count 35 7
Employed
Count 13 11
Count 36 17
Unemployed
Count 84 35
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 2.04.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .259 .130
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Average Monthly Income * Electricity Bills Payment Cros
year
Count 31
Less than 10,000 pesos
Expected Count 25.3
Count 9
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 11.2
Count 3
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 4.8
Count 4
30,001.00 pesos and above
Expected Count 5.8
Count 47
Total
Expected Count 47.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
count is .71.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .351 .112
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Water Bills Payment
Average Monthly Income * Water Bills Payment Crosst
year
Count 31
Expected Count 27.9
Count 12
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 12.4
Count 3
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 5.3
Count 6
Expected Count 6.4
Count 52
Total
Expected Count 52.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .41.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .323 .225
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Telephone BIlls Payment Cros
year
Count 27
Expected Count 25.3
Count 11
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 11.2
Count 8
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 4.8
Count 1
Expected Count 5.8
Count 47
Total
Expected Count 47.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .585 .000
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Internet Bills Payment Cross
year
Count 24
Expected Count 20.4
Count 10
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 9.0
Count 3
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 3.9
Count 1
Expected Count 4.7
Count 38
Total
Expected Count 38.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.02.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .427 .008
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstab

Grocery
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times
month month
Count 59
Expected Count 51.1
Count 21
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 22.6
Count 6
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 9.7
Count 9
Expected Count 11.6
Count 95
Total
Expected Count 95.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .334 .059
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabul
Cosm
month month
Count 61
Expected Count 55.9
Count 29
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 24.8
Count 9
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 10.6
Count 5
Expected Count 12.7
Count 104
Total
Expected Count 104.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .82.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .458 .000
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstab

Home an
month month
Count 64
Expected Count 58.0
Count 26
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 25.7
Count 10
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 11.0
Count 8
Expected Count 13.2
Count 108
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .41.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .378 .013
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Mobile Load
Average Monthly Income * Mobile Load Crosstabulation
month month
Count 41
Expected Count 43.5
Count 19
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 19.3
Count 12
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 8.3
Count 9
Expected Count 9.9
Count 81
Total
Expected Count 81.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .31.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .276 .264
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Average Monthly Income * Movies and Recreations Crosstabul
Movie
month month
Count 60
Expected Count 58.6
Count 24
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 26.0
Count 10
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 11.1
Count 15
Expected Count 13.3
Count 109
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .71.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .257 .376
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Sending money
Average Monthly Income * Sending money Crosstabulation

S
month month
Count 48
Expected Count 43.5
Count 20
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 19.3
Count 7
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 8.3
Count 6
Expected Count 9.9
Count 81
Total
Expected Count 81.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.12.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .303 .143
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Receiving Money
Average Monthly Income * Receiving Money Crosstabulatio

Re
month month
Count 50
Expected Count 45.1
Count 21
10,001.00 to 20,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 20.0
Count 7
20,001.00 to 30,000.00 pesos
Expected Count 8.6
Count 6
Expected Count 10.3
Count 84
Total
Expected Count 84.0
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is 1.02.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .456 .000
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Mobile Money Application Used 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
* Electricity Bills Payment
Mobile Money Application Used * Electricity Bills Payment Crossta
Electricity B
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a year 7 to 9
year
Count 38 13
GCash
Count 2 0
PayMaya
Count 4 4
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Expected Count .3 .1
Count 1 1
BanKo
Count 0 0
Moneygment
Count 0 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 47 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .526 .057
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Water Bills Payment
Mobile Money Application Used * Water Bills Payment Crosstab
Water Bills
year
Count 41 9
GCash
Count 1 0
PayMaya
Count 5 3
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 3 1
BanKo
Count 0 0
Moneygment
Count 0 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 52 14
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .03.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .505 .109
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Telephone BIlls Payment
Mobile Money Application Used * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosst
Telephone B
year
Count 36 11
Gcash
Count 2 1
PayMaya
Count 4 6
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 2 1
BanKo
Count 0 0
Moneygment
Count 1 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 47 20
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .470 .255
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Internet Bills Payment
Mobile Money Application Used * Internet Bills Payment Crosstab
Internet Bil
year
Count 28 13
GCash
Count 2 1
PayMaya
Count 3 5
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 1 1
BanKo
Count 1 0
Moneygment
Count 1 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 38 21
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .528 .054
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Grocery and Food Supplies
Mobile Money Application Used * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabula
Grocery and Food Su
1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a 7 to
month month
Count 65 15
Gcash
Count 7 5
PayMaya
Count 13 7
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 5 0
BanKo
Count 1 0
Moneygment
Count 3 0
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 1 1
Others
Count 95 28
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .410 .260
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Cosmetics and Clothing
Mobile Money Application Used * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulatio
Cosmetics and Clo
month month
Count 69 13
Gcash
Count 13 0
PayMaya
Count 10 11
PayPal
Count 1 0
Coins.ph
Count 5 2
BanKo
Count 1 1
Moneygment
Count 4 0
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 1 0
Others
Count 104 27
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
a. 26 cells (81.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .514 .010
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Home and Hardware Supplies
Mobile Money Application Used * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabula
Home and Hardware S
month month
Count 72 9
Gcash
Count 10 2
PayMaya
Count 13 7
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 6 1
BanKo
Count 2 0
Moneygment
Count 3 0
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 108 19
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .03.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .374 .487
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Mobile Load
Mobile Money Application Used * Mobile Load Crosstabulation
Mobile Load
month month
Count 47 20
Gcash
Count 9 3
PayMaya
Count 12 11
PayPal
Count 1 0
Coins.ph
Count 5 2
BanKo
Count 2 0
Moneygment
Count 3 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 81 37
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .02.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .351 .644
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Movies and Recreations
Mobile Money Application Used * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulatio
Movies and Recrea
month month
Count 73 9
Gcash
Count 11 0
PayMaya
Count 14 2
PayPal
Count 0 0
Coins.ph
Count 5 0
BanKo
Count 1 0
Moneygment
Count 4 0
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 1 0
Others
Count 109 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .05.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .530 .005
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Sending money
Mobile Money Application Used * Sending money Crosstabulation
Sending money
month month
Count 52 26
Gcash
Count 9 2
PayMaya
Count 13 7
PayPal
Count 1 0
Coins.ph
Count 4 2
BanKo
Count 0 1
Moneygment
Count 0 1
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 2 0
Others
Count 81 39
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .434 .150
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
* Receiving Money
Mobile Money Application Used * Receiving Money Crosstabulation
Receiving Mone
month month
Count 55 24
Gcash
Count 11 1
PayMaya
Count 15 4
PayPal
Count 1 0
Coins.ph
Count 1 3
BanKo
Count 1 1
Moneygment
Count 0 2
7/11 CLIQQ
Count 0 0
Others
Count 84 35
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
count is .07.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .544 .003
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Electricity Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Grand Mean * Electricity Bills Payment Crosstabulation

1 to 3 times a 4 to 6 times a year 7 to 9 times a yea
year
Count 11 13 3
Excellent
Count 5 0 1
Grand Mean Satisfactory
Count 31 6 3
Very Satisfactory
Count 47 19 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
a. 7 cells (46.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is .62.
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .349 .022
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Water Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Grand Mean * Water Bills Payment Crosstabulation
Water Bills Payment
year
Count 17 9 2
Excellent
Count 4 1 0
Count 31 4 2
Very Satisfactory
Count 52 14 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .280 .175
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Telephone BIlls 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Grand Mean * Telephone BIlls Payment Crosstabulation

Telephone BIlls Paymen
year
Count 16 9 4
Excellent
Count 3 2 0
Count 28 9 4
Very Satisfactory
Count 47 20 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .280 .175
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Internet Bills 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Payment
Grand Mean * Internet Bills Payment Crosstabulation

year
Count 9 8 3
Excellent
Count 4 2 0
Count 25 11 7
Very Satisfactory
Count 38 21 10
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .243 .369
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Grocery and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Food Supplies
Grand Mean * Grocery and Food Supplies Crosstabulation
month month month
Count 36 10 4
Excellent
Count 8 2 0
Count 51 16 4
Very Satisfactory
Count 95 28 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .179 .583
Crosstabs
[DataSet0] D:\Thesis\E-payment\Data - Actual.sav

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Cosmetics and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Clothing
Grand Mean * Cosmetics and Clothing Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 37 10 3
Excellent
Count 10 0 1
Count 57 17 4
Very Satisfactory
Count 104 27 8
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .198 .451
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Home and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Hardware Supplies
Grand Mean * Home and Hardware Supplies Crosstabulation

month month month
Count 40 9 1
Excellent
Count 11 0 1
Count 57 10 2
Very Satisfactory
Count 108 19 4
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .213 .353
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Mobile Load 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Grand Mean * Mobile Load Crosstabulation

Mobile Load
month month month
Grand Mean Excellent Count 27 14 11
Count 4 6 2
Satisfactory
Count 50 17 13
Very Satisfactory
Count 81 37 26
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .231 .252
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Movies and 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Recreations
Grand Mean * Movies and Recreations Crosstabulation
month month month
Count 42 3 4
Excellent
Count 11 0 0
Count 56 8 3
Very Satisfactory
Count 109 11 7
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .209 .378
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Sending money 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Grand Mean * Sending money Crosstabulation

Sending money
month month month
Count 34 13 4
Excellent
Count 5 3 0
Count 42 23 7
Very Satisfactory
Count 81 39 11
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .314 .024
Crosstabs

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Grand Mean * Receiving 147 100.0% 0 0.0% 147 100.0%
Money
Grand Mean * Receiving Money Crosstabulation

Receiving Money
month month month
Count 36 11 6
Excellent
Count 7 5 0
Count 41 19 12
Very Satisfactory
Count 84 35 18
Total
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a
Symmetric Measures
Value Approx. Sig.
Phi .273 .089
Reliability
Scale: Usability

N %
Valid 39 100.0
Cases Excludeda 0 .0
Total 39 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
Based on
Standardized Items
.817 .828 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
I prefer using mobile money 4.4359 .75376 39
application since it allows me to
remotely pay my bills (water bill,
remotely pay for products I am
purchasing.
application because it allows me
to send and/or receive money to
and from my relatives and
friends.
Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

I prefer using I prefer using I prefer using
mobile money mobile money mobile money
application since it application since it application
allows me to allows me to because it allows
remotely pay my remotely pay for me to send and/or
bills (water bill, products I am receive money to
electricity bill, purchasing. and from my
internet bill etc.) relatives and
friends.
I prefer using mobile money 1.000 .631 .637
I prefer using mobile money .631 1.000 .579
purchasing.
I prefer using mobile money .637 .579 1.000
friends.
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Item Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Squared Multiple Cr
Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Correlation if
I prefer using mobile money 9.2051 1.009 .713 .509
purchasing.
friends.
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.6410 2.657 1.63010 3
Reliability
Scale: Security
N %
Valid 39 100.0
Total 39 100.0
procedure.
Based on
Standardized Items
.846 .859 3
Item Statistics
security features that keeps me
secured.

application application with a application
because of its security feature because of its
security features that can be encryption feature
that keeps me updated to keep which protects my
safe from any my account safe personal and
fraud of theft. and secured. financial
information.
secured.
secured.
Scale Statistics
11.7692 4.603 2.14552 3
Reliability
Scale: Convenience
N %
Valid 39 100.0
Total 39 100.0
procedure.
Based on
Standardized Items
.686 .705 3
Item Statistics
application since it offers me an
easier access for purchasing
daily necessities (e.g. food).
application because I can make
transactions with minimal effort
and transport.
application since it application since it application
is more convenient offers me an because I can
than carrying a big easier access for make transactions
amount of cash or purchasing daily with minimal effort
cheques. necessities (e.g. and transport.
food).
and transport.
and transport.
Scale Statistics
13.6667 2.386 1.54466 3
Reliability
Scale: Accessibility
N %
Valid 39 100.0
Total 39 100.0
procedure.
Based on
Standardized Items
.861 .867 3
Item Statistics
application since offers a variety
of choices of transactions for
customers.
easily accessed with any device
like smartphone, tablet, laptop
etc.
application since application application
offers a variety of because it can be because it can be
choices of easily accessed easily accessed
transactions for using only the with any device
customers. internet or mobile like smartphone,
data. tablet, laptop etc.
customers.
etc.
customers.
etc.
Scale Statistics
13.3333 2.754 1.65963 3
Reliability
Scale: Reliability

N %
Valid 39 100.0
Total 39 100.0
procedure.
Based on
Standardized Items
.843 .846 3
Item Statistics
application because it is quick in
obtaining a solution to problems
encountered by customers like
me.
application since the companies
offering it put valuable efforts in
managing the overall operation
of the system.
application due to application application since
its smooth and because it is quick the companies
outstanding in obtaining a offering it put
performance. solution to valuable efforts in
problems managing the
encountered by overall operation
customers like me. of the system.
me.
of the system.
me.
of the system.
Scale Statistics
12.3333 3.070 1.75219 3
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Imus Campus
Cavite Civic Center Palico IV, Imus, Cavite
(046) 471-66-07 / (046) 471-67-70/ (046) 686-2349 www.cvsu.edu.ph
March 22, 2021
Dear Sir/Madam:
Greetings!
We are 4th year students of BS Business Management from Cavite State University –
Imus Campus. As a requirement for the completion of our degree, weare conducting
a research entitled “ELECTRONIC WALLET SERVICES AS PERCEIVED BY THE
CUSTOMERS IN CAVITE DURING THE NEW NORMAL”. In order to gather
pertinent data for our study, we would like to ask your permission to allow us to
conduct survey. We are conducting survey among customers in the different areas of
Cavite.
Participation in the survey is entirely voluntary and rest assured that all information
will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be used for research purposes only.
The names of the respondents and other private informationwill not appear in any
thesis or publications resulting from this study unless agreed to.
Thank you very much and hoping for your favourable and kind approval on this
matter.
Respectfully yours,
Arcilla, Juvy Z.
Reyes, Joyce Erleonor A.

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Imus Campus
Cavite Civic Center Palico IV, Imus, Cavite
(046) 471-66-07 / (046) 471-67-70/ (046) 686-2349 www.cvsu.edu.ph
Respondents’ Personal Information
Part 1-A.Please respond to the following questions by placing a check (√) mark
in the space provided that corresponds to your answer or fill in the indicated
blank for the specification of your answer, if needed.
1.Name: (Optional) __________________________________________________
2.Age:
___18 – 29 years old ___40 – 49 years old

___30 – 39 years old ___50 years old and above
3.Sex:
___Male ___Female
4.Civil Status:
___Single ___Widowed
___Married ___Separated
5.Educational Background:
___Secondary ___Vocational Courses

___Tertiary ___Graduate Studies
6.Employment Status:
___Employed ___Self employed ___Unemployed
7.Average Monthly Income:

___less than ₱ 10,000.00 ___₱ 20, 001 to ₱ 30, 000.00
___₱ 10, 001.00 to ₱ 20, 000.00 ___₱ 30, 001.00 and above
Unemployed Respondents’ Source of Income
8.Source of Income
___Personal Income from Investments ___Income from Business
___Shared Income from Family
Others ____________________
9.Mobile money application most frequently used (choose only one)

___Gcash ___BanKo
___PayMaya ___Moneygment
___Paypal ___7/11 CLIQQ
___Coinsph
Others ___________________
Part 1-B. How frequent do you use mobile money application for the following
transactions? Please respond to the following questions by placing a check (√)
mark in the box provided that corresponds to your answer.
Payment of Bills
Electricity Bill
___1-3 times a month ___7-9 times a month
___4-6 times a month
Others ____________________
Water Bill
Others ____________________
Telephone Bill
Others ____________________
Internet Bill
Others ____________________
Online Purchases
Groceries and Food Supplies

Others ____________________
Others ____________________
Others ____________________
Mobile load
Others ____________________
Movie and Recreation
Others ____________________
Remittances (Sending/receiving money to or from relatives)
Others ____________________
267
PERCEPTION ON CASHLESS TRANSACTION
Part 2. Use the scale given below. Please indicate how much you agree or
disagree with each of the following statements by placing a check (√) mark in
the box provided that corresponds to your answer.
Indicators: (5) - Strongly Agree (4) - Agree (3) - Neutral (2) - Disagree (1) -
Strongly Disagree)
Usability 5 4 3 2 1
1. I prefer using mobile money

to remotely pay my bills
(water bill, electricity bill,
internet bill etc.)
to remotely pay for products I
am purchasing
application because it allows
me to send and/or receive
money to and from my
relatives and friends.
Security 5 4 3 2 1
security features that keeps
me safe from any fraud of
theft.
feature that can be updated
to keep my account safe and
secured.
268
Convenience 5 4 3 2 1
convenient than carrying a
big amount of cash or
cheques.
application since it offers me
an easier access for
purchasing daily necessities
(e.g. food)
application because I can
make transactions with
minimal effort and transport
Accessibility 5 4 3 2 1
application since offers a
variety of choices of
transactions for customers.
easily accessed using only
the internet or mobile data.
easily accessed with any
device like smartphone,
tablet, laptop etc.
Reliability 5 4 3 2 1
application because it is quick
in obtaining a solution to
problems encountered by
customers like me
application since the
companies offering it put
valuable efforts in managing
the overall operation of the
system.
269
CURRICULUM VITAE
270

Sample Manuscript For Reference

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Manuscript For Reference

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Manuscript For Reference

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ELECTRONIC WALLET SERVICES AS PERCEIVED BY THE CUSTOMERS

IN CAVITE DURING THE NEW NORMAL

An undergraduate thesis manuscript submitted to the faculty of the Department of

Background of the Study

Before the development of technology, the Philippines’ mode of payment in

shopping, and even remittances (WorldBank, 2020).

As the world progress with technological advancement comes a new way of

transactions with the help of an internet connection. Online transaction is fast

related activities with the use of the internet (Arreola, 2020).

internet connections play a major role in today’s current situation.

As the world experienced the global pandemic, most of the countries

Filipino people to technological innovation has grown rapidly especially in times of

technologies in the country brings different opportunities to individuals and

According to the director of the Technology Risk and Innovation Supervision

COVID 19 pandemic (Agcaoili, 2021).

In purchasing goods or services or conducting any form of online transaction,

entitled “COVID-19 and e-wallet usage intention: A multigroup analysis between

Indonesia and Malaysia” World Health Organization (WHO) encouraged people to do

physical distancing policy which inspires them to do contactless activities, including

physical money that drives them to shift to e-wallet. (Aji, 2020)

services without the use of physical money. (SecurionPay.com), this type of

can receive and send money via mobile devices.

Rewards, BanKO, Moneygment.

digital technology advancement.

The researchers wanted to measure the frequency of usage of customers and

Statement of the Problem

Specifically, it aims to answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the customers of e-wallet transaction in

1.3 civil status;

1.4 educational background;

1.5 employment status;

1.6 source of income;

1.7 average monthly income; and

1.8 mobile money application used?

2.4 conveniece; and

3.1 payment of bills;

3.2 online purchases; and

4. Is there a significant difference between the frequency of usage of customers

of various e-wallet services then they are grouped according to their

influence the frequency of their usage of e-wallet services as to:

5.1 payment of bills;

5.2 online purchases; and

Objectives of the Study

1. Identify the demographic profile of the customers of cashless transactions in terms

1.3 civil status;

1.4 educational background;

1.5 employee status;

1.6 source of income;

1.7 mobile money application used.

2.4 convenience; and

services with respect to the following transactions:

3.1 payment of bills;

3.2 online purchases; and

4. Identify if there is a significant difference between the frequency of usage of

services influence the frequency of their usage of e-wallet services as to:

1.1 payment of bills;

1.2 online purchases; and

Significance of the Study