A mixed methods empirical exploration of UK consumer perceptions of trust, risk and usefulness of mobile payments

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore UK consumer perceptions of trust, risk and perceived usefulness of mobile payments through the use of sequential mixed methods. Design/methodology/approach A post-positivist philosophy is used with a social constructionist ontology with a questionnaire as the first survey instrument using an empirical sequential mixed methods approach. Summary quantitative analysis of the questionnaire data is undertaken followed by semi-structured interviews that produce qualitative data on which content analysis is undertaken to assess and explore UK consumer perspectives. The technology acceptance model is used as the underlying framework on which a conceptual model is developed. Findings UK consumers have significant risk and trust concerns with mobile payments, although these concerns can be overcome when clear consumer benefits are identified whilst bank supported mobile payments have an increased level of trust compared to new market entrants and other established companies. Furthermore, perceived trust positively influences perceived usefulness and mitigates perceived risk, whilst perceived risk negatively influences perceived usefulness. In addition, perceived usefulness significantly and positively influences UK consumer attitude which can lead to adoption. Research limitations/implications Whilst 120 completed questionnaire responses are received, only 101 questionnaires are used for analysis. In addition, ten semi-structured interviews are undertaken using a purposeful sample to minimise any imbalance (Oakley, 1981) which increases the reliability of the research findings (Hackley, 2003). This mobile payments research does not have a statistically secure universalisation of the findings, which negates the application of these research findings to other groups and to different social settings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Practical implications Mobile payment organisations will need to focus on identifying the specific benefits of mobile payments to UK consumers as mitigating risk and increasing trust do not compensate for the absence of usefulness. Social implications UK consumers indicate a lack of awareness of existing contactless payment guarantees provided by UK banks, although these payment guarantees significantly increase UK consumer trust. Originality/value Both quantitative and qualitative empirical data are obtained on UK consumer perspectives of risk, trust and perceived usefulness of mobile payments using sequential mixed methods.

Trust in Courier Services as a Determinant of Service Quality

“…con rmed that in the case of online services, trust was affected by the perceived ease of use and directly affected the perceived usefulness [90]. The perceived trust, among other factors, was identi ed by Hampshire as a key predictor of the perceived usefulness of mobile payment systems [116]. In the adopted model, trust in service was understood as a construct having a more technological character, so the questions were focused on technological solutions offered by a courier service provider.…”

Mixed Methods in Finance Research

“…Hence, it is important to identify the nature of the research problem/questions at the first phase. Six of the eight sample studies (Brav et al, 2005;Chithambo & Tauringana, 2017;Davila & Foster, 2007;Englund & Gerdin, 2015;Hampshire, 2017;Tauringana & Chithambo, 2016) indicated in Table 1 have not clearly emphasized the rationale of the selected mixed method. The lack of identification of the rationale for mixed method study has been identified as the second research gap of the mixed method studies conducted in the finance discipline.…”

“…On the other hand, if the researcher has quantitative leanings, he will give priority to the quantitative phase if not otherwise. For instance, Hampshire (2017), Tauringana and Chithambo (2016), Davila and Foster (2007), Graham et al (2005), and Brav, Graham, Harvey, and Michaely (2005) conducted their finance-based studies assigning priority to the quantitative phase. We on the other hand argue that if there are no indicators to measure a concept or phenomenon, the qualitative design (e.g., in-depth interviews) takes priority followed by the developed indicators with a quantitative design (e.g., survey).…”

“…The summary analysis stated in Table 1 indicates that none of the studies have explicitly identified the mixed method research design except Buckley (2015). Hampshire (2017) identified his design as a sequential exploratory design even though the study should have been categorized as a "sequential explanatory design" where a quantitative approach is followed by a qualitative phase. Further, some of the studies (e.g., Graham, Harvey, & Rajgopal, 2005) didn't identify their studies as mixed method research.…”

“…It is useful when researchers show a strong quantitative intention. For instance, six of the eight sample studies (Brav et al, 2005;Buckley, 2015;Davila & Foster, 2007;Graham et al, 2005;Hampshire, 2017;Tauringana & Chithambo, 2016) followed a sequential explanatory design even though they were unable to explicitly term it as a sequential explanatory or quantitativephenomenology design. Hence, it could be categorized as the most common mixed method design in the finance discipline, though Mayoh and Onwuegbuzie (2015) assert that "there are fewer studies using this methodological sequence" in a qualitatively weighted discipline.…”