Chen 2022

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol.
12, Issue 1 1
Exploring the Impact of Perceived Risk on

User’s Mobile Payment Adoption
Chun-Lung Chen*
Ph.D. Program in Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan
Wen-Hsiang Lai
Department of Marketing, Feng Chia University, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
The actual adoption rate of mobile payment in Taiwan is lower than expected. In order to
understand the impact of perceived risk on users’ mobile payment adoption, this study
identified five main factors and eighteen sub-factors through a literature review and an
expert questionnaire and then used an AHP questionnaire to find out the decision weights
of these factors. The weights of the five main factors from high to low are perceived
usefulness, perceived ease of use, facilitating conditions, perceived risk, and social
influence. The top six sub-factors are system stability, convenience, transaction speed,
user interface, transaction flexibility, and system performance, which belong to perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use, respectively. In addition, this study adopts Fuzzy
AHP to analyze the moderate impact of perceived risk on other main factors. The results
show that when the importance of perceived usefulness reaches medium to high and
perceived ease of use reaches a high level, the negative impact of perceived risk can be
more effectively reduced. Therefore, this study suggests that service providers should
strengthen the most important sub-factors of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use to reduce the negative impact and increase the adoption rate of mobile payment
services.
Keywords: Mobile payment adoption; Perceived risk; Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Received 12 December 2021 | Revised 6 March 2022 | Accepted 17 May 2022.
1. INTRODUCTION
The rapid development of information technology in the past ten years has driven the
growth of the global digital economy and human beings have gradually entered a digital
society. Ford and Khan (2019) addressed that payment in a digital society will be mainly
carried out through mobile devices. In addition, the potential use of mobile payment is
Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

ISSN: 2304-1013 (Online); 2304-1269 (CDROM); 2414-6722 (Print)
Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol. 12, Issue 1 2
huge and it is receiving global attention as an alternative to cash payment (Liébana-

Cabanillas, Japutra, Molinillo, Singh, and Sinha, 2020). Mobile payment is a digital
payment method that uses mobile devices such as smartphones and personal digital
assistants (PDA) with wireless capabilities. This transaction method can replace cash,
physical credit cards, or checks to pay for various goods or services. Using mobile
payment services has many direct benefits for consumers and businesses. Consumers can
use mobile payment services to enjoy fast mobile payment services and convenient
payment methods. For merchants, mobile payment services are expected to increase
transaction volume, reduce transaction costs and increase customer loyalty (Slade,
Williams, and Dwivedi, 2013). Despite these benefits, mobile payment services still face
challenges in consumer adoption and use (Kaur, Dhir, Singh, Sahu, and Almotairi, 2020).
In order to accelerate the popularization of electronic payments, the Taiwan
government has listed the promotion of mobile payment as one of its important policies
and has set the goal of reaching 90% of mobile payment penetration by 2025. However,
according to the National Development Council’s (NDC Taiwan, 2020) report, the
penetration rate of mobile payment based on population statistics only reached 37.7%.
This report also pointed out that the penetration rate of mobile payment in Taiwan may
be affected by system problems and users' concerns about information security. Lin, Lin
and Ding (2020) addressed that the actual adoption rate of Taiwan's mobile payment was
lower than expected, which means that Taiwan's mobile payment services still have a lot
of room for growth. Slade et al. (2013) and Williams (2021) pointed out that consumers'
perceived risk will have a negative impact on the intention of using mobile payment. In
other words, various risk considerations are a major obstacle for consumers to adopting
mobile shopping and mobile payment (Gros, 2016; Madan and Yadav, 2018). In order to
understand the impact of perceived risk on consumers' adoption of mobile payment
services and to further identify the key factors that can increase the penetration rate of
mobile payment in Taiwan, this research used a literature review and expert
questionnaires to identify key factors and applied AHP analysis to find the decision
weights of these factors. In addition, this study uses Fuzzy AHP to analyze the moderate
impact of perceived risk on other factors. The results of this study can be used as a
strategic reference for mobile payment companies and the Taiwan government in
promoting mobile payment services.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Mobile payment
Mobile payment is one of the modern technological revolutions and it has a dominant
market position in both developing and developed countries (Humbani and Wiese, 2019).

In addition, mobile payment is an innovative form of technology that replaces traditional

cash payment (Shao, Zhang, Li, and Guo, 2019). Kim, Mirusmonov and Lee (2010)
defined this service as any payment method that uses mobile devices and wireless
technology to initiate, authorize and confirm the exchange of financial value in exchange
for goods and services. Lu, Yang, Chau and Cao (2011) pointed out that mobile payment
is a combination of multiple mobile technologies, which can provide consumers with the
ability to complete financial transactions. In general, a consumer can set up credit cards,
prepaid accounts, or bank account information in the payment applications (apps) of a
mobile device in advance. After that, the consumer can use the mobile device to pay for
various goods or services without using cash or a physical credit card.
2.2 Influential factors of Mobile Payment

Most of the research on mobile payment attempts to develop a research model to capture
user behaviors based on the structure of the existing technology adoption framework (Pal,
De’, Herath, & Rao, 2019). UTAUT and TAM are the most commonly used models
(Flavian, Guinalíu, and Lu, 2020; Pal et al., 2019) and have been verified in many mobile
payment service adoption environments (Khalilzadeh, Ozturk, and Bilgihan, 2017; Park,
Ahn, Thavisay, and Ren, 2019). TAM is one of the earliest and most influential research
models to explain IT adoption behaviors of users (Davis, 1989). Many studies have
proved the effectiveness of TAM in IT adoption behavior research (Ramos de Luna,
Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-Fernández, and Muñoz-Leiva, 2019) and it is widely used
in general information system research (Kim et al., 2010). TAM is an early attempt at
applying psychological factors to information systems and computer adoption. The model
believes that the usefulness and ease of use perceived by an individual are the attitude
factors that determine the adoption of a particular technology and thus determine the
usage intention that leads to the adoption of the technology (Davis, 1989). Venkatesh et
al. (2003) synthesized some elements of eight behavioral intention models in the field of
technology acceptance, including TAM and then proposed the UTAUT model. The
purpose of UTAUT is to explain the user's intention to use the information system and its
subsequent use behavior. The theory believes that four key constructs (performance
expectations, effort expectations, social influence and facilitating conditions) are the
direct determinants of usage intentions and behaviors. The perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness in TAM are renamed as effort expectations and performance
expectations in UTAUT (Pal et al., 2019).
Some mobile payment adoption studies also consider combining multiple classic
models in the construction and development process. Shin (2010) pointed out that
combining UTAUT and TAM models will be able to better explain the acceptance and

use of mobile payment services. Among the many research constructs of mobile payment
adoption behaviors, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness are the most
frequently used constructs, followed by perceived risk and social influence (Pal et al.,
2019). In order to explore the impact of perceived risk on consumers' adoption of mobile
payment, this study reviewed the mobile payment literature and adopted the perceived
ease of use, perceived usefulness, social influence, facilitating condition and perceived
risk as the research framework.
2.2.1 Perceived risk

In the past research on mobile payment, perceived risk has always been the main factor
in the adoption and use of mobile payment (Pal et al., 2019). It is also an important
concept that cannot be ignored (Rakhi & Mala, 2014). Mobile payment services are
becoming more and more popular because they provide users with convenient transaction
methods. However, in the era of increasingly rampant cybercrime, mobile payment
transactions may have the risk of financial and data loss. Therefore, understanding how
risks affect users’ intentions to use mobile payment has become critical (Pal, Herath, De,
and Rao, 2020). Park, Amendah, Lee and Hyun (2019) defined perceived risk as users’
security concerns in the process of mobile payment transactions. Shao et al. (2019)
pointed out that mobile payment users are prone to financial and privacy theft, as well as
financial losses due to transaction failures and security failures. In the related research on
perceived risk and mobile shopping, Thakur (2016), Chopdar and Sivakumar (2019)
conceptualized the structure of perceived risk as security risk, privacy risk and financial
risk.
Pal et al. (2020) defined security risk as a risk caused by lack of adequate security
mechanisms or vulnerabilities in security mechanisms. When consumers adopt mobile
payment services, they care about whether they have sufficient identity verification and
security protection mechanisms in the transaction process to ensure that the transaction
process is carried out in a safe state. Pal et al. (2020) pointed out that although mobile
payment services can provide various security layers, including biometric passwords,
regular updates of applications with the latest security features, adequate notifications and
failure support, there is a huge gap in the security measures of most mobile applications,
which leads to risks in transactions. The National Development Council (NDC Taiwan,
2020) pointed out that the penetration rate of mobile payment in Taiwan may be affected
by users' security concerns.
Privacy risk is defined as personal loss due to the use of mobile payment that may
expose personal information (Rana, Luthra, and Rao, 2018). Further, mobile payment is
a behavior of payment through mobile devices. The transaction process may send relevant

financial information including credit card number, bank account, transaction amount,
transaction time, etc., which all involve user privacy (Roca, Garcia, and de la Vega, 2008).
In addition, consumers store personal information on various mobile payment application
platforms, which increases the risk of hackers’ attacks and frauds (Humbani & Wiese,
2019). Gao, Waechter and Bai (2015) found that privacy and security issues have a
negative impact on the trust and satisfaction of mobile shoppers.
Pal et al. (2020) defined financial risk as a risk of potential monetary loss due to
malfunctions, theft and transaction issues. In other words, financial risks include possible
actual financial losses caused by the leakage of bank account numbers, passwords and
credit card information. It also includes the possibility of financial losses caused by
transaction failures and errors (de Kerviler, Demoulin, and Zidda, 2016). Meanwhile, due
to the increasing number of mobile malware attacks in recent years, financial risk has
become one of the most concerning factors in perceived risk. Pal et al. (2020) pointed out
that risk is a strong negative influence on the intention of use and it is necessary to take
good security measures to prevent financial risks.
2.2.2 Perceived usefulness

Perceived usefulness is defined as the degree to which a person believes that adopting the
system will improve his/her work performance (David, 1989). Many studies have shown
that when users find that mobile payment systems are useful for their transaction needs
or financial problems, they will use mobile payment systems (Kim et al., 2010). The
biggest advantage of mobile payment over traditional payment methods is its convenience
because consumers can use their portable mobile devices to complete payments, which
highlights the usefulness of this technology (Flavian et al., 2020; Shao et al., 2019). Kim
et al. (2010) addressed that convenience has a positive impact on users' perception of the
usefulness of mobile payment and it is considered to be one of the most important factors
for users to adopt mobile payment services (Gao & Waechter, 2017; Kaur et al., 2020).
Transaction speed is another important factor for consumers to adopt mobile payment
(Dahlberg, Mallat, Ondrus, and Zmijewska, 2008). Mobile payment is an alternative to
many payment methods. When consumers use mobile payment services, they can increase
transaction speed and save time. Therefore, the increase in transaction speed makes
consumers perceive that mobile payment is useful (Khalilzadeh et al., 2017; Schierz,
Schilke, and Wirtz, 2010). Another advantage of mobile payment is that consumers have
more transaction flexibility. That is, when consumers use mobile payment, they can
choose different payment sources in advance, including different credit cards, debit cards,
or bank accounts. In addition, consumers can also choose different mobile payment
service platforms. Therefore, the transaction flexibility of mobile payment allows

consumers to perceive the usefulness of mobile payment (Schierz et al., 2010). Flavian et
al. (2020) pointed out that when people believe that technology can improve or bring
benefits to daily life, they will find this technology useful. Hygiene is another major factor
in adopting mobile payment because mobile payment is a contactless transaction method,
which avoids direct contact between people (Rafdinal and Senalasari, 2021). Therefore,
consumers may appreciate the benefits of hygiene and safety and realize that mobile
payment is useful.
2.2.3 Perceived ease of use

Dahlberg, Guo and Ondrus (2015) pointed out that perceived ease of use is the most
important and widely used factor in evaluating the adoption rate of mobile payment.
Perceived ease of use is the degree to which a person believes that using a particular
system would be free of effort (Davis, 1989). It is considered to be the most important
construct that influences users’ decisions to adopt new technology (Ramos de Luna et al.,
2019). Kim et al. (2010) pointed out that in order to avoid the poor usage rate of mobile
payment, the system should be easy to learn and easy to use. Today, most mobile payment
platforms in Taiwan use payment apps on mobile devices for payment operations.
Therefore, the user experience of mobile payment apps also reflects consumers'
awareness of the ease of use of the mobile payment system.
The user's perceived ease of use in the mobile payment system contains many factors.
For example, are mobile payment systems and applications easy to learn (Khalilzadeh et
al., 2017)? Can users operate the mobile payment system clearly and easily (Khalilzadeh
et al., 2017; Schierz et al., 2010)? In other words, the user interface of mobile payment
systems and apps should be simple and easy to use. The operation process needs to be
smooth and does not require too many skills. These factors will affect the user's decision
whether to adopt or continue to use mobile payment services. Moreover, when consumers
feel that mobile payment is easy to use and does not require much effort, they have higher
expectations for obtaining the required performance (Venkatesh et al., 2012). In addition,
The National Development Council (NDC Taiwan, 2020) and MIC (2020) pointed out
that the stability of mobile payment platforms is an important factor affecting the adoption
of mobile payment by Taiwanese consumers.
2.2.4 Social influence

Social influence is defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that important
others believe he or she should use the new system (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Koenig-
Lewis, Marquet, Palmer and Zhao (2015) pointed out that mobile payment users are very
sensitive to social influence and will consider their friends' expectations of their use of

the technology. Enterprises and technology providers observe that users' use and
satisfaction with technology affect others. In other words, user recommendations will
motivate or discourage other users from trying new technologies. Moreover,
recommending technology to others is an upcoming trend and of great interest to users
(Singh et al., 2020). Khalilzadeh et al. (2017) pointed out that if more friends use mobile
payment, people are more likely to use mobile payment. In other words, the more people
adopt a new technology or product, the more consumers will be willing to adopt the
technology or product.
In the era of the digital economy, social media has been used to promote products
and services in different industries (Alalwan, Rana, Dwivedi, and Algharabat, 2017;
Kapoor, Tamilmani, Rana, Patil, Dwivedi, & Nerur, 2018). Consumers also interact with
others and exchange opinions through social media to decide whether to use or stop using
the application (Chopdar & Sivakumar, 2019). In addition, advertising on social media
has a positive impact on consumer product adoption (Alalwan, 2018; Syawaluddin, Joni,
and Erwin, 2019). On the other hand, mobile app stores and websites provide ratings and
comments functions. Consumers can learn about other consumers' feedback on the
application and the service through these ratings and comments (Malik, Shakshuki, and
Yoo, 2020; Tavakoli, Zhao, Heydari, and Nenadić, 2018). Therefore, other consumers'
comments on an app may influence the adoption decision of potential users.
2.2.5 Facilitating conditions

Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an
organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). In the mobile environment, the concept of facilitating conditions
is regarded as a key determinant for the use of mobile services and plays an important
role in the adoption of mobile payment by consumers (Molina-Castillo et al., 2020).
Chopdar and Sivakumar (2019) confirmed that the availability of infrastructure and
resources will positively affect users' intention to use mobile shopping applications.
In the past ten years, Taiwan's mobile network infrastructure and signal coverage were
quite complete and it was common for people to use mobile phones to access the Internet
through 4G mobile networks. Therefore, in recent years, the development of mobile
payment providers has focused on increasing the penetration rate of stores and the
integration of financial institutions. Mobile payment services involve many stakeholders,
including financial institutions, mobile payment providers, merchants and consumers
(Johnson, Kiser, Washington, and Torres, 2018). If the integration of these stakeholders
is higher, the quality of mobile payment services will be better. Therefore, the more
financial institutions and stores participating in mobile payment services, the greater the

convenience it will bring to consumers. Mobile payment can use many different
technologies, such as Near Field Communication (NFC), QR code, SMS, etc. (Ramos de
Luna et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2020). Therefore, the more types of technologies supported
by the mobile payment platform, the more beneficial to consumers. Similarly, the types
of transactions provided by each mobile payment platform may be different. Therefore,
the more types of transactions supported by mobile payment platforms, the more
convenient for consumers. These facilitating conditions will also increase consumers'
willingness to adopt mobile payment.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research framework
This study uses the modified Delphi method to identify key factors and confirm their
importance. This method has two stages. In the first stage, this study disclosed five main
factors and nineteen sub-factors through a literature review. The operational definitions
of main factors and sub-factors are shown in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. In the
second stage, this study takes an expert survey to confirm the importance of factors. Adler
and Ziglio (1996) stated that when using the Delphi method, it is sufficient to invite 10 to
15 experts with continuous experiences in the research topic. This study invites 15 experts
with continuous mobile payment experiences to participate in the survey. The fields of
experts are mainly related to mobile payment industries, including information,
telecommunications, financial industries, etc. The detailed background information of
experts is shown in Table 3. After two rounds of expert questionnaires, the "advertising"
factor was excluded. Based on this result, this study established the research framework
of AHP (Figure 1).
3.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in 1971. It’s
mainly used in uncertain situations and decision-making problems with multiple
evaluation criteria. The Analytic Hierarchy Process compares the factors in pairs and
establishes a pairwise comparison matrix to obtain the weight of each factor. Saaty (1980)
suggested using consistency index (C.I.) and consistency ratio (C.R.) to test the
consistency of the matrix. Higher consistency means that the value of the matrix is
acceptable. Generally, when C.R.≦0.1 and C.I.≦0.1 are set, the consistency test is
considered passed. In addition, AHP surveys can be conducted with small samples.
Melillo and Pecchia (2016) indicated that a sample size of 19 is acceptable in an AHP
survey.
This study constructed an AHP questionnaire based on the research framework

(Figure 1). The questionnaire evaluation adopted the nine-point evaluation scale proposed
by Saaty (Saaty, 1990). The respondents of this survey are 30 mobile payment users in
Taiwan, these users have more than three years of experiences in using mobile payment
continuously. Detailed background information of the respondents is shown in Table 4.
Table 1. The operation definition of five main factors.

Main factors Operational definition(reference)
Perceived risk User's security concerns in the mobile payment transaction process (Shin, 2010; Gao & Waechter, 2017;
Park et al., 2019).
Perceived usefulness The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job
performance (Davis, 1989).
Perceived ease of use The degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort (Davis,
1989).
Social influence The degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new
system (Venkatesh, 2003).
Facilitating conditions The degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to
support the use of the system (Venkatesh, 2003).
Table 2. The operation definition of nineteen sub-factors.

Main factors Sub-factors Operation definition (reference)
Consumers are concerned about the risk of personal privacy information leakage that
Privacy risk
may be caused by mobile payment (Chopdar & Sivakumar, 2019; Gros 2016).
Consumers are concerned about the risk of information security that may be caused by
Perceived risk Security risk
using mobile payment (Chopdar & Sivakumar, 2019; Gros 2016).
Consumers are concerned about the risk of financial loss that may be caused by using
Finance risk
mobile payment (Chopdar & Sivakumar, 2019; Gros 2016).
The processing speed of the mobile payment transaction process (Grover & Kar, 2020;
Transaction speed
Khalilzadeh et al., 2017; Williams, 2021).
Optional transaction method (e.g. credit card, debit card, bank account) (Rafdinal &
Transaction flexibility
Perceived Senalasari, 2021; Schierz et al., 2010; Williams, 2021).
usefulness Payment with the mobile phone is easy to use and saves time (Gao & Waechter, 2017;
Convenience
Kaur et al., 2020).
The contactless transaction process of mobile payment is hygienic (Khanra et al., 2021;
Hygienic
Rafdinal & Senalasari, 2021; Williams, 2021).
The ease of use of the user interface of the mobile payment app (Shao et al., 2019;
User interface
Tavakoli et al., 2018).
The performance and response speed of mobile payment systems and apps (Johnson et
System performance
Perceived ease al., 2018; Tavakoli et al., 2018).
of use The stability of the mobile payment system and apps (Grover & Kar, 2020; MIC, 2020;
System stability
Tavakoli et al., 2018).
Customer service quality of mobile payment service providers. (Liébana-Cabanillas et
Customer service
al., 2019; Raman & Aashish, 2021).
The degree of influence of advertising media on consumers' adoption of mobile
Advertising
payment (Alalwan, 2018; Syawaluddin et al., 2019).
The degree of influence of relatives and friends' recommendations on consumers'
Relatives and Friends
adoption of mobile payment (Singh et al., 2020; Venkatesh et al., 2012).
Social influence
The degree of influence of social media opinions on consumers' adoption of mobile
Social media
payment (Alalwan et al., 2017; Grover & Kar, 2020; Kapoor et al., 2018).
User's rating and reviews of mobile payment apps (Chopdar & Sivakumar, 2019;
App's ratings and reviews
Grover & Kar, 2020; Malik et al., 2020).
The number of financial institutions that support mobile payment and the payment tools
Integration
that can be integrated (Johnson et al., 2018; MIC, 2020).
Types of transactions that can be paid by mobile payment (Johnson et al., 2018; Shao
Payment types
Facilitating et al., 2019).
conditions The number of merchants supporting mobile payment (Johnson et al., 2018; MIC,
Merchant penetration rate
2020).
The payment technology is used for mobile payment (e.g. QR code, NFC, SMS)
Payment technology
(Johnson et al., 2018; Ramos de Luna et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2020).

Table 3. The interview experts' background.

No. Expert's Industry Age Gender Experience Title Education level
1 Information industry 46-50 Male 5 years Senior Manager Master's degree
2 Information industry 46-50 Male 2 years Senior Engineer Bachelor's degree
3 Information industry 41-45 Male 5 years Consultant Master's degree
4 Information industry 36-40 Male 2 years Senior Engineer Bachelor's degree
5 Telecommunications 41-45 Male 5 years Senior Engineer Master's degree
6 Telecommunications 41-45 Male 5 years Senior Engineer Master's degree
7 Financial industry 31-35 Male 5 years Section Manager Master's degree
8 Investment industry 55- Male 5 years CEO Master's degree
9 Government 31-35 Female 5 years Engineer Master's degree
10 Education 31-35 Female 5 years Teacher Master's degree
11 Manufacturing 36-40 Female 5 years Manager Doctor's degree
12 Service industry 41-45 Male 5 years CEO Master's degree
13 Insurance industry 31-35 Female 2 years Specialist Bachelor's degree
14 Insurance industry 46-50 Female 2 years Director Master's degree
15 Medical industry 55- Female 5 years Director Master's degree
Figure 1. The research framework of AHP in this study
Table 4. The background of the respondents of the AHP survey.

Attributes Characteristics Frequency Ratio (%)
3 years 19 63.33%
M-Payment experience 5 years 8 26.67%
above 5 years 3 10.00%
21-25 years 7 23.33%
26-30 years 5 16.67%
31-35 years 8 26.67%
Age
36-40 years 7 23.33%
41-45 years 1 3.33%
46-50 years 2 6.67%
Male 17 56.67%
Gender
Female 13 43.33%
Senior high school 1 3.33%
Educational level Bachelor's degree 26 86.67%
Master's degree 3 10.00%

3.3 Fuzzy set theory

The term fuzzy logic arose during the development of fuzzy set theory by Zadeh (1965).
Laarhoven and Pedrycz (1983) used the concept of Fuzzy Theory to solve the problems
of subjectivity, imprecision and ambiguity in the pairwise comparison of matrix values in
traditional AHP. The method is to use the membership function to express the relative
importance of the two factors. Li and Sun (2020) pointed out that Fuzzy AHP is widely
regarded as one of the effective techniques for analyzing the weight distribution of
decision factors and sub-factors. Therefore, this study adopts the Fuzzy AHP to further
explore moderate effects among the factors of mobile payment adoption.
This study refers to the fuzzy rule-based procedures of Ly et al. (2018) and uses the
MATLAB fuzzy toolbox to configure the inference system, membership function and IF-
THEN rules described by Mamdani, as shown in Figure 2. In addition, this study uses
high (H), medium-high (MH), medium-middle (MM), medium-low (ML) and low (L)
values as input and output criteria to construct the IF-THEN rules. For example, IF-THEN
rules involving mobile payment adoption decisions must include each combination of the
5 main factors of perceived risk (PR), perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use
(PEOU), facilitating conditions (FC) and social influence (SI). Since each factor has five
values, there are 5x5x5x5x5=3125 rules, as shown in Table 5.
Range(Y) Linguistic terms values Abbr.

2.6<Y<=3 High 3 H
2.2<Y<=2.6 Moderate-High 2.5 MH
1.8<Y<=2.2 Moderate Middle 2 MM
1.4<Y<=1.8 Moderate Low 1.5 ML
1.4<Y<=1.4 Low 1 L
Figure 2. Membership function and output interval ranges.
Table 5. An example of fuzzy rule-based calculations

PU PEOU FC PR SI Output Linguistic
Rules Scenario
(w=0.333) (w=0.321) (w=0.142) (w=0.127) (w=0.077) value term
1 if H H H H H 3.00 H
2 if H H H H MH 2.96 H
3 if H H H H MM 2.92 H
… if
125 if H H L L L 2.31 MH
… if
3125 if L L L L L 1.00 L
4. RESULT ANALYSIS
4.1 AHP analysis

This study conducted a questionnaire survey on 30 mobile payment users in Taiwan and
used AHP statistical software Expert Choice 2000 and Excel to analyze the main factors,
the local weight and global weight of the sub-factors. The analysis results are shown in
Table 6. The main weight (Mw) of the main factors from high to low are perceived
usefulness (Mw=0.333), perceived ease of use (Mw=0.321), facilitating conditions
(Mw=0.142), perceived risk (Mw=0.127) and social influence (Mw= 0.077). The results
of the analysis show that the perceived risk weight is only ranked 4th, although experts
generally agree that it’s a necessary factor. On the other hand, the global weights (Gw) of
perceived risk sub-factors are privacy risk (Gw=0.0504) ranked 8th, financial risk
(Gw=0.0467) ranked 9th and security risk (Gw=0.0298) ranked only 14th. In addition,
the top six sub-factors are system stability (Gw=0.1233), convenience (Gw=0.1162),
transaction speed (Gw=0.0992), user interface (Gw=0.0889), transaction flexibility
(Gw=0.0839) and system performance (Gw=0.0732). It is worth noting that the top six
sub-factors belong to the factors of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
Table 6. AHP weights and the ranking of main factors and sub-factors.
Main Main Local Local Global Global
Main factors Sub-factors
weight(Mw ) ranking weight(Lw ) ranking weight(Gw ) ranking
Privacy 0.397 1 0.0504 8
Perceived risk 0.127 4 Security 0.235 3 0.0298 14
Finance 0.368 2 0.0467 9
Transaction speed 0.298 2 0.0992 3
Transaction flexibility 0.252 3 0.0839 5
Perceived usefulness 0.333 1
Convenience 0.349 1 0.1162 2
Hygienic 0.101 4 0.0336 12
User interface 0.277 2 0.0889 4
System performance 0.228 3 0.0732 6
Perceived ease of use 0.321 2
System stability 0.384 1 0.1233 1
Customer service 0.111 4 0.0356 11
Relatives and Friends 0.247 3 0.0190 17
Social influence 0.077 5 Social media 0.390 1 0.0300 13
App's ratings and reviews 0.363 2 0.0280 16
Integration 0.201 3 0.0285 15
Payment types 0.281 2 0.0399 10
Facilitating Conditions 0.142 3
Merchant penetration rate 0.402 1 0.0571 7
Payment technology 0.116 4 0.0165 18
C.I.(0.003)<0.1, C.R.(0.003)<0.1
4.2 Fuzzy AHP analysis

To gain insight into the impact of perceived risk on consumer adoption of mobile
payments, this study uses Fuzzy AHP and MATLAB R2022a software to explore the
moderate impact between factors. Firstly, this study analyzes the influence of sub-factors
on perceived risk. Secondly, it analyzes the mediating effect between perceived risk and
each main factor. The 3D fuzzy surface analysis and observations among the sub-factors

of perceived risk are shown in Table 7. The moderate influence analysis between
perceived risk and each main factor is presented in Tables 8 and Table 9.
Table 7. 3D fuzzy surfaces analyses of perceived risk sub-factors.
Privacy risk vs. Security risk Security risk vs. Finance risk Privacy risk vs. Finance risk
˙ Privacy risk has a higher impact ˙ Finance risk has a higher impact ˙ Privacy risk has a higher impact
on perceived risk than security on perceived risk than security on perceived risk than finance
risk. risk. risk.
˙ When privacy risk is compared ˙ When security risk is compared ˙ When privacy risk is compared
with security risk, it is clear with finance risk, it is clear that with finance risk, it is clear
that the impact of the two on the impact of the two on that the impact of the two on
perceived risk is positively perceived risk is positively perceived risk is positively
correlated. correlated. correlated.
˙ Implication: Privacy risk and ˙ Implication: Finance risk and ˙ Implication: Privacy risk and
security risk have additive security risk have additive Finance risk have additive
effects on perceived risk. effects on perceived risk. effects on perceived risk.
Table 8. 3D fuzzy surfaces analyses of main factors (I).

Perceived risk vs. Perceived usefulness Perceived risk vs. Perceived ease of use
˙ Perceived usefulness has a significantly greater ˙ Perceived ease of use has a higher impact on
impact on decision-making than perceived risk. decision-making than perceived risk.
˙ When perceived risk increases from L to MM ˙ When perceived risk increases from L to MM
level, the impact of perceived usefulness on level, the impact of perceived ease of use on
decision-making increases relatively. When the decision-making increases relatively.
perceived usefulness reaches above MM, the ˙ When perceived ease of use above MM, the
effect of perceived risk above MM on decision effect of perceived risk above MM on
changes little. When the perceived usefulness decision-making changes little.
reaches above MH, perceived risk has little ˙ When the perceived ease of use above MH, the
effect on decision-making. impact of perceived risk above the ML level
˙ Implications: As the importance of perceived risk on the decision-making changes little.
increases, the impact of perceived usefulness on ˙ Implications: Perceived risk from medium-low
decision decreases (Note 1). However, when the to medium-high levels reduces the impact of
importance of perceived usefulness reached a perceived ease of use on the decision (Note 1).
moderate level, the impact of perceived risk However, when the perceived ease of use
above moderate did not change much in the reaches a high level, the impact of perceived
decision. When perceived usefulness reaches a risk above the medium-low level on the
high level, perceived risk has little impact on decision no longer increases.
decision-making.

Table 9. 3D fuzzy surfaces analyses of main factors (II).

Perceived risk vs. Facilitating conditions Perceived risk vs. Social influence
˙ When perceived risk is compared with facilitating ˙ When perceived risk is compared with social
condition, facilitating condition increases the influence, it is clear that perceived risk and
influence on decision-making from the L level social influence the decision at the beginning.
and perceived risk increases the influence on However, the influence on decision-making is
decision-making from the ML level. However, only elevated to MH level if both are above MH
the influence on decision-making rose to the level.
MH level only when the perceived risk was ˙ Implications: Perceived risk is a negative factor
above the MM level and the facilitating that will relatively weaken the impact of social
conditions was above the MH level. influence on decision-making.
˙ Implications: perceived risk from ML to MH will
relatively weaken (note1) the impact of
facilitating conditions on the decision.
However, under high facilitating conditions, the
impact of high perceived risk on decision-
making does not change much.
(Note1: perceived risk is a negative factor)
5. CONCLUSIONS
In recent years, the popularity of mobile devices has led to the growth of mobile payment
services. However, mobile payment still has challenges in consumer adoption and use.
Many studies have found that perceived risk is a significant negative factor preventing
users from adopting mobile payments. In order to understand the impact of perceived risk
on consumers' adoption of mobile payment services and to further identify the key factors
that can increase the penetration rate of mobile payment in Taiwan, this research used a
literature review and expert questionnaires to identify five main factors and eighteen sub-
factors, then applied AHP analysis to find the decision weights of these factors. In addition,
this study uses Fuzzy AHP to analyze the moderate impact of perceived risk on other
factors.
This study found that the users' decision weights on the main factors from high to
low are the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, facilitating conditions, perceived
risk and social influence. The top six sub-factors are system stability, convenience,
transaction speed, user interface, transaction flexibility and system performance. These
sub-factors belong to the factors of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use,
respectively. These decision-making behaviors may be related to the native use of mobile

payment. Because mobile payment is an alternative to traditional transaction methods,

users often compare mobile payment with traditional payment methods. Therefore,
alternatives should first be useful. Second, the user interface needs to be easy to use. Third,
the facilitating conditions need to be sufficient. Perceived risk with a weight of 0.127 has
the fourth highest impact on user decisions and its sub-factor privacy risk has the greatest
impact on perceived risk. Therefore, in order to reduce users' concerns about mobile
payment adoption, Taiwanese mobile payment service providers should strengthen the
protection mechanism for users' privacy information.
To gain insight into the moderate impact of perceived risk on other main factors, this
study conducted a Fuzzy AHP on three sub-factors of perceived risk and found that every
two sub-factors had a significant additive effect on perceived risk. However, perceived
risk is a negative factor, so higher importance of perceived risk may reduce the impact of
another main factor on decision-making. On the other hand, the impact analysis between
perceived risk and other main factors shows that perceived risk and each main factor have
different degrees of additive influence on adoption decisions. In other words, when the
weight of the main factor is higher, the additive influence of these two factors on the
decision is greater. But two points are worth noting: 1. When the importance of perceived
usefulness reaches a medium level, the effect of perceived risk above medium on adoption
decisions does not change much. Furthermore, perceived risk has little effect on adoption
decisions when perceived usefulness reaches a high level. 2. When the perceived ease of
use reaches a high level, the impact of perceived risk above the medium-low level on the
decision no longer increases. In other words, if mobile payment service providers enhance
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, they can more effectively offset the
negative impact of perceived risk. Therefore, this study suggests that mobile payment
providers should strengthen the most important sub-factors of perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use to reduce the negative impact of perceived risk and increase the
adoption of mobile payment services. The results of this study can provide a reference for
the government and mobile payment providers in the promotion and business strategies
of mobile payment services.
REFERENCES
[1] Adler, M. and Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: the Delphi method and its
application to social policy and public health. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
[2] Alalwan, A. A. (2018). Investigating the impact of social media advertising
features on customer purchase intention. International Journal of Information
Management, 42, 65-77.

[3] Alalwan, A. A., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Algharabat, R. (2017). Social media
in marketing: a review and analysis of the existing literature. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(7), 1177-1190.
[4] Chopdar, P. K., & Sivakumar, V. J. (2019). Understanding continuance usage of
mobile shopping applications in India: The role of espoused cultural values and
perceived risk. Behaviour & Information Technology, 38(1), 42–64.
[5] Dahlberg, T., Guo, J., & Ondrus, J. (2015). A critical review of mobile payment
research. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 265-284.
[6] Dahlberg, T., Mallat, N., Ondrus, J., & Zmijewska, A. (2008). Past, present and
future of mobile payments research: a literature review. Electron. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 7(2), 165-181.
[7] Davis, FD. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
[8] de Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N. T.M., & Zidda, P. (2016). Adoption of instore mobile
payment: Are perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 334-344.
[9] Ford, D., & Khan, A. (2019). The Future of Commerce Payments in a Digital
Society. (ID: G00441515). Gartner Research.
[10] Flavian, C., Guinalíu, M., & Lu, Y. (2020). Mobile payments Adoption-introducing
mindfulness to better understand consumer behavior. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 38(7), 1575-1599.
[11] Gao, L., & Waechter, K. A. (2017). Examining the role of initial trust in user
adoption of mobile payment services: an empirical investigation. Information
Systems Frontiers, 19 (3), 525-548.
[12] Gao, L., Waechter, K. A., & Bai, X. (2015). Understanding consumers’ continuance
intention towards mobile purchase: A theoretical framework and empirical study –
A case of China. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 249-262.
[13] Gros, M. (2016). Impediments to Mobile Shopping Continued Usage Intention: A
Trust-Risk-Relationship. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 33, 109-119.
[14] Grover, P., & Kar, A. K. (2020). User engagement for mobile payment service
providers-introducing the social media engagement model. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 53, 101718.
[15] Humbani, M., & Wiese, M. (2019). An integrated framework for the adoption and
continuance intention to use mobile payment apps. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 37(2), 646-664.

[16] Johnson, V. L., Kiser, A., Washington, R., & Torres, R. (2018). Limitations to the
rapid adoption of m-payment services: understanding the impact of privacy risk on
m-payment services. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 111-122.
[17] Kapoor, K. K., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., Patil, P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Nerur, S.
(2018). Advances in social media research: past, present and future. Information
Systems Frontiers, 20, 531-558.
[18] Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Singh, N., Sahu, G., & Almotairi, M. (2020). An innovation
resistance theory perspective on mobile payment solutions. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 55. 102059.
[19] Khanra, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., & Joseph, R. P. (2021). Factors influencing the
adoption postponement of mobile payment services in the hospitality sector during
a pandemic. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 26-39.
[20] Khalilzadeh, J., Ozturk, A. B., & Bilgihan, A. (2017). Security-related factors in
extended UTAUT model for NFC based mobile payment in the restaurant industry.
Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 460-474.
[21] Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors
influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior,
26, 310-322.
[22] Koenig-Lewis, N., Marquet, M., Palmer, A., & Zhao, A. L. (2015). Enjoyment and
social influence: predicting mobile payment adoption. The Service Industries
Journal, 35(10), 537-554.
[23] Laarhoven, P. J. M. & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A Fuzzy Extention of Satty’s Priority
Theory. Fuzzy Sets and System, 11, 229‐241.
[24] Li, R., & Sun, T. (2020). Assessing factors for designing a successful B2C E-
Commerce website using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS-Grey methodology. Symmetry,
12(3), 363.
[25] Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Japutra, A., Molinillo, S., Singh, N., & Sinha, N. (2020).
Assessment of mobile technology use in the emerging market: Analyzing intention
to use m-payment services in India. Telecommunications Policy, 44(9), 102009.
[26] Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Molinillo, S., & Montañez, M. R. (2019). To use or not to
use, that is the question: Analysis of the determining factors for using NFC mobile
payment systems in public transportation. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 139, 266-276.
[27] Lin, W. R., Lin, C. Y., & Ding, Y. H. (2020). Factors Affecting the Behavioral
Intention to Adopt Mobile Payment: An Empirical Study in Taiwan. Mathematics,
8(10), 1851.

[28] Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P. Y.K., & Cao, Y. (2011). Dynamics between the trust
transfer process and intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment
perspective. Information & Management, 48(8), 393-403.
[29] Ly, P.T.M., Lai, W. H., Hsu, C. W., & Shih, F. Y. (2018). Fuzzy AHP analysis of
Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises. Technological Forecasting & Social
Change, 136, 1-13.
[30] Madan, K., & Yadav, R. (2018). Understanding and Predicting Antecedents of
Mobile Shopping Adoption: A Developing Country Perspective. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(1), 139-162.
[31] Malik, H., Shakshuki, E. M., & Yoo, W. S. (2020). Comparing mobile apps by
identifying ‘Hot’ features. Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 659-669.
[32] Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC Taiwan). (2020), Mobile payment
survey in the second half of 2020, Retrieved from
https://mic.iii.org.tw/news.aspx?id=593 (Sept. 11, 2021).
[33] Melillo, P., & Pecchia, L. (2016). What is the appropriate sample size to run
analytic hierarchy process in a survey-based research. International Symposium on
the Analytic Hierarchy Process(ISAHP) 2016 Proceedings, 4-8.
[34] Molina-Castillo, F-J., López-Nicolás, C., Reuver, M, D. (2020). Mobile Payment:
The Hiding Impact of Learning Costs on User Intentions. Journal of Theoretical
and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 15(1), 1-10.
[35] National Development Council (NDC Taiwan). (2020). Relevant response
measures for the domestic mobile payment penetration rate that has not yet
reached the target (special report).
[36] Pal, A., De’, R., Herath, T., & Rao, H. R. (2019). A review of contextual factors
affecting mobile payment adoption and use. Journal of Banking and Financial
Technology, 3(1), 43–57.
[37] Pal, A., Herath, T., De, R., & Rao, H. R. (2020). Is the Convenience Worth the
Risk? An Investigation of Mobile Payment Usage. Information Systems Frontiers.
23, 941-961.
[38] Park, J., Ahn, J., Thavisay, T., & Ren, T. (2019). Examining the role of anxiety and
social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 47, 140-149.
[39] Park, J., Amendah, E., Lee, Y., & Hyun, H. (2019). M-payment service: interplay
of perceived risk, benefit and trust in service adoption. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 29(1), 31-43.

[40] Rafdinal, W., & Senalasari, W. (2021). Predicting the adoption of mobile payment
applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 39(6), 984-1002.
[41] Raman, P., & Aashish, K. (2021). To continue or not to continue: a structural
analysis of antecedents of mobile payment systems in India. International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 39(2), 242-271.
[42] Ramos de Luna, I., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-
Leiva, F. (2019). Mobile payment is not all the same: The adoption of mobile
payment systems depending on the technology applied. Technological Forecasting
& Social Change, 146, 931–944.
[43] Rakhi, T. & Mala, S. (2014). Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness,
perceived risk and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment
services in India. Internet Research, 24(3), 369-392.
[44] Rana, N., Luthra, S., & Rao, H. R. (2018). Developing a framework using
interpretive structural modeling for the challenges of digital financial services in
India. PACIS 2018 Proceedings, 53.
[45] Roca, J. C., Garcia, J. J., & de la Vega, J. J. (2008). The importance of perceived
trust, security and privacy in online trading systems. Information Management &
Computer Security, 17(2), 96-113.
[46] Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill.
[47] Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.
European Journal of Operation Research, 48(1), 9-26.
[48] Schierz, P. G., Schilke, O., & Wirtz, B. W. (2010). Understanding consumer
acceptance of mobile payment services: An empirical analysis. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 9(3), 209-216.
[49] Shao, Z., Zhang, L., Li, X. & Guo, Y. (2019). Antecedents of trust and continuance
intention in mobile payment platforms: the moderating effect of gender. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications, 33, 100823.
[50] Shin, D. H. (2010). Modeling the interaction of users and mobile payment system:
conceptual framework. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
26(10), 917-940.
[51] Singh, N., Sinha, N., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2020). Determining factors in the
adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: Analysis of the
effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. International Journal of
Information Management, 50, 191-205.

[52] Slade, E. L., Williams, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2013). Mobile payment adoption:
Classification and review of the extant literature. The Marketing Review, 13(2),
103-123.
[53] Syawaluddin, S., Joni, J., & Erwin, E. (2019). Influence of social media
advertising, e-marketing and product quality on the process of purchasing nature
cosmetics. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 8(5),
316-321.
[54] Tavakoli, M., Zhao, L., Heydari, A., & Nenadić, G. (2018). Extracting useful
software development information from mobile application reviews: A survey of
intelligent mining techniques and tools. Expert Systems with Applications, 113,
186-199.
[55] Thakur, R. (2016). Understanding Customer Engagement and Loyalty: A Case of
Mobile Devices for Shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 32,
151-163.
[56] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Hall, M., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D., & Walton, S. M.
(2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS
Quartely, 27(3), 425-478.
[57] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of
information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology. MIS Quartely, 36(1), 157-178.
[58] Williams, MD. (2021). Social commerce and the mobile platform: Payment and
security perceptions of potential users. Computers in Human Behavior, 115,
105557.
[59] Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control. 8(3), 338-353.


Chen 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, Vol.

Exploring the Impact of Perceived Risk on

Keywords: Mobile payment adoption; Perceived risk; Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Received 12 December 2021 | Revised 6 March 2022 | Accepted 17 May 2022.

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

huge and it is receiving global attention as an alternative to cash payment (Liébana-

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

In addition, mobile payment is an innovative form of technology that replaces traditional

2.2 Influential factors of Mobile Payment

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

2.2.1 Perceived risk

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

2.2.2 Perceived usefulness

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

2.2.3 Perceived ease of use

2.2.4 Social influence

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

2.2.5 Facilitating conditions

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

3.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Table 1. The operation definition of five main factors.

Table 2. The operation definition of nineteen sub-factors.

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Table 3. The interview experts' background.

Figure 1. The research framework of AHP in this study

Table 4. The background of the respondents of the AHP survey.

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

3.3 Fuzzy set theory

Range(Y) Linguistic terms values Abbr.

Figure 2. Membership function and output interval ranges.

Table 5. An example of fuzzy rule-based calculations

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

4.2 Fuzzy AHP analysis

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Table 8. 3D fuzzy surfaces analyses of main factors (I).

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Table 9. 3D fuzzy surfaces analyses of main factors (II).

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

payment. Because mobile payment is an alternative to traditional transaction methods,

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

Copyright  2023 GMP Press and Printing

You might also like