Go Cashless: A Proposed Conceptual Framework for e-Wallet Acceptance

Abstract

Developments in digital finance help vulnerable communities access financial services, particularly in developing countries. Financial technology offers advancements to the financial industry and consumers that make their transactions less complex and more convenient. E-wallet is a great platform that will positively impact the economy and social fabric of the nation in pursuit of the government's aspirations of transforming into a cashless society, contactless payment, and digital economy. It was proven that Malaysia's emergence of financial technology has contributed to increasing improvement in Malaysia's technology productivity. In the context of the study, the level of consumer acceptance of e-wallets especially among the lower-income group in Malaysia is still low in contrast with the potential benefit of technology. If this issue persists, the country's aspiration to become a cashless nation by 2050 and to be a regional leader in the digital economy by 2025 is hard to be achieved. Since the literature examining the determinants of e-wallet acceptance among Malaysians is relatively scarce, therefore, this study aims to fill the gap without omitting the community. Thus, this study seeks to subsidize the pertinent past literature and establish a conceptual framework that determines e-wallet acceptance and further amplifies the methodology that will be used in this study. This framework is based on Technology Acceptance Model as underpinning theory and the past studies using systematic literature review with the timeline between 2017 and 2021. Findings of these activities reveal that various variables have been compiled as a component in the proposed framework which are perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, security, trust, attitude as a mediator, and ewallet acceptance. This framework can serve as a theoretical basis for future research and practice.

Preference Digital Wallet by Generation Z with the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT 2) Model Approach and Perceived Risk

“…Social influence is also the influence of environmental aspects such as comments from family, friends, and superiors on user attitudes with subjective norms that there is an organizational and technical infrastructure that supports system use including consumer knowledge, abilities, and resources, and behavioral intention describes the extent to which customers or consumers tend to use technology (Venkatesh et al, 2012). The research results by Savić and Pešterac (2019), Abdullah et al (2020), Ariffin et al (2020), Hidayat et al (2020), Piarna (2020), Sukaris and Yan Ying (2021), Hammouri et al (2023), Arora et al (2023), Anwar et al (2023), andKamis et al (2023) provide empirical evidence that social influence has a positive and significant effect on behavioral intention. H3: Social influence has a significant positive effect on behavioral intention while using digital wallets.…”

Acceptance Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Mobile Payments: QR Code Applications

“…TR in the payment system will lessen the need to comprehend, control, and monitor activity, enabling users to access services quickly and effectively without expending a lot of work on the translation of online services (Muñoz et al, 2010). Kamis et al (2022) added suppliers must be proactive in addressing consumer skepticism of electronic transactions since consumers will not use a payment system unless they feel comfortable using it. TR has been determined to have a significant influence on the acceptance of mobile payments in Malaysia (Yong et.…”

A Study of Literature and Practical Gaps in e-Wallet Acceptance: The Case of Malaysia

“…Drawing from this literature analysis, the study primarily adopts the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the foundational theory, focusing on variables like PEOU and Attitude (ATT) as mediators. Additionally, other independent variables drawn from prior research include Security (AlKubaisi and Naser, 2020;Al-Dmour et al, 2021;Wamba et al, 2021;Kamis et al, 2022), Government Intervention (Aji et al, 2020;Kennedyd et al, 2020;Liébana-Cabanillas et al, 2020;Shen et al, 2020), Social Influence (Abdullah et al, 2020;Al-Saedi et al, 2020;Kamis et al, 2023;Odoom & Kosiba, 2020;Soodan & Rana, 2020;Yang et al, 2021), and Trust (Hossain et al, 2019;Hariguna et al 2020;Singh and Srivastava, 2020;Lisana, 2021;Yang et al, 2021).…”

“…Thirdly, the research landscape has witnessed several investigations into the effect of PEOU on various facets, such as cashless payments (Subawa et al, 2021), Fintech (Abu Daqar et al, 2020, electronic payment systems (Al-Dmour et al, 2021;Alshurideh et al, 2021), mobile payment (Kennedyd et al, 2020;Liébana-Cabanillas et al, 2018;Lisana, 2021;Lu & Lu, 2020;Mew & Millan, 2021;Singh & Srivastava, 2020;Tounekti et al, 2021), m-wallets (Tran Le Na & Hien, 2021Wamba et al, 2021), and e-wallets (AlKubaisi & Naser, 2020;Duy Phuong et al, 2020;Kamis et al, 2023;Latupeirissa et al, 2020;Malik & Annuar, 2021;Munthali, George & Xuelian, 2020;Simatele & Mbedzi, 2021). However, to the best of the researchers' knowledge, limited attention has been given to investigating the direct relationship between PEOU and eWA.…”