Users’ Evaluation of a New Web Browser Payment Interface for Facilitating the Use of Multiple Payment Systems
<p>A holistic framework for the assessment of user satisfaction of payment interface supporting multiple payment options.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>The screenshot of the current payment interface (offered by the GCWB).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Sequence diagram schema.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>The screenshot of the current payment interface and the new proposed payment interface.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>The screenshot detailing the payment process using the new proposed payment interface.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Electronic Payment System (EPS)
2.2. Mobile Payment System (MPS)
2.3. Adoption Theory of (M)EPS
3. Theory and Hypotheses Development
3.1. Theory Development
3.2. User Satisfaction
3.3. Research Model and Hypothesis Development
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Design of a New Payment Interface
4.1.1. Current Payment Interface Offred by GCWB
4.1.2. New Payment Interface Proposed in Our Study
4.2. Survey Design and Content
4.3. Data Collection Method
5. Results
5.1. Demographics
5.2. Cross Tabulation to Compare the User Satisfaction between the Current/New Payment Interface
5.3. Cross Tabulation to Test Independence and Relationship between Variables
5.4. Cross-Analysis—Relationship between Usage Satisfaction of the Interface and Respondents Supported Three or More Payment Systems
5.5. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
6. Discussion, Implications, Limitations, and Future Research
6.1. Discussion of Findings
6.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications
6.3. Limitations and Future Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
* 1. Gender |
* 2. Age |
* 3. Location |
* 4. Education Level |
* 5. How often do you buy products/services online? |
* 6. What kind of payment systems have you used to make payments? Select multiple if applicable. |
* 7. What kind of payment systems preferred to make payments? Select multiple if applicable. |
* 8. What were the most important factors when selecting your preferred payment method? Select multiple if applicable |
* 9. Comparing the CURRENT and the NEW user interface; How satisfied are you with the following statements? |
* 10. How well does this NEW user interface meet your preferences and needs? |
* 11. What do you find best about this proposed NEW user interface? Select multiple if applicable |
* 12. How likely is it that you would recommend this NEW interface to a friend or colleague? |
* 13. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns? |
References
- Chen, K.-H.; Chang, F.-H.; Chen, Y.-L.; Chen, P.-M. The Relationships between Corporate Credibility, Service Convenience, and Consumers’ Use Intentions: Toward Ticketing Apps for Low-Cost Carriers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tounekti, O.; Ruiz-Martinez, A.; Gómez, A.F. Users supporting multiple (mobile) electronic payment systems in online purchases: An empirical study of their payment transaction preferences. IEEE Access 2019, 8, 735–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkhowaiter, W.A. Digital payment and banking adoption research in Gulf countries: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53, 102102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Luna, I.R.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. Mobile payment is not all the same: The adoption of mobile payment systems depending on the technology applied. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 931–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chawla, D.; Joshi, H. Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India–An empirical study. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Baptista, G.; Campos, F. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morosan, C.; DeFranco, A. It’s about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 53, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandrasekhar, U.; Nandagopal, R. Mobile payment usage intent in an Indian context: An exploratory study. Asian J. Inf. Technol. 2016, 15, 542–552. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, X.; Zhang, K.Z.; Chen, C.; Cheung, C.M.; Lee, M.K. Transition from web to mobile payment services: The triple effects of status quo inertia. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 50, 310–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chun, S.-H. E-Commerce Liability and Security Breaches in Mobile Payment for e-Business Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verkijika, S.F. An affective response model for understanding the acceptance of mobile payment systems. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2020, 39, 100905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nykvist, C.; Larsson, M.; Sodhro, A.H.; Gurtov, A. A lightweight portable intrusion detection communication system for auditing applications. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 2020, 33, e4327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sodhro, A.H.; Pirbhulal, S.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Lohano, S.; Sodhro, G.H.; Luo, Z. 5G-based transmission power control mechanism in fog computing for Internet of Things devices. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sodhro, A.H.; Pirbhulal, S.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Lohano, S.; Sodhro, G.H.; Luo, Z. Review of technology adoption frameworks in mobile commerce. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 122, 888–895. [Google Scholar]
- Shankar, A.; Datta, B. Factors affecting mobile payment adoption intention: An Indian perspective. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2018, 19, S72–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chhonker, M.S.; Verma, D.; Kar, A.K.; Grover, P. m-commerce technology adoption. Bottom Line 2018, 31, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tounekti, O.; Ruiz-Martínez, A.; Skarmeta-Gómez, A.F. An evolution analysis of electronic payment systems and mobile payment systems characteristics. J. Curr. Issues Media Telecommun. 2017, 9, 219–252. [Google Scholar]
- Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Molinillo, S.; Ruiz-Montañez, M. To use or not to use, that is the question: Analysis of the determining factors for using NFC mobile payment systems in public transportation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 139, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, C. Michael Hand, indoctrination and the inculcation of belief. J. Philos. Educ. 2004, 38, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berthon, P.R.; Pitt, L.F.; Plangger, K.; Shapiro, D. Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy. Bus. Horiz. 2012, 55, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Williams, M.D. Evaluating alternative theoretical models for examining citizen centric adoption of e-government. Transform. Gov. Peopleprocess Policy 2013, 7, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahlberg, T.; Mallat, N.; Ondrus, J.; Zmijewska, A. Past, present and future of mobile payments research: A literature review. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2008, 7, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Statista. Mobile POS Payments. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/331/100/mobile-pospayments/worldwide#market-users (accessed on 10 May 2020).
- Statista. Most Popular Mobile Payment Apps in Finland in 2016. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/745892/most-popular-mobile-payment-apps-in-finland/ (accessed on 3 January 2018).
- Pham, T.T.; Ho, J.C. The effects of product-related, personal-related factors and attractiveness of alternatives on consumer adoption of NFC-based mobile payments. Technol. Soc. 2015, 43, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leong, L.Y.; Hew, T.S.; Tan, G.W.; Ooi, K.B. Predicting the determinants of the NFC-enabled mobile credit card acceptance: A neural networks approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 5604–5620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, P.D.; Lander, E.S.; Zhang, F. Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 2014, 157, 1262–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wixom, B.H.; Todd, P.A. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patil, P.; Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Raghavan, V. Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, C.; Madden, A.; Alfes, K.; Fletcher, L. The meaning, antecedents and outcomes of employee engagement: A narrative synthesis. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2017, 19, 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 1977, 84, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; ACM The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 15–23. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brown, S.A.; Venkatesh, V. Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 399–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz-Martínez, A.; Tounekti, O.; Skarmeta, A.F. Electronic payment frameworks. In Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Digital Marketing and Entrepreneurship; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 205–218. [Google Scholar]
- Schunter, M.; Waidner, M.; Whinnett, D. The SEMPER framework for secure electronic commerce. Wirtschaftsinformatik 1999, 41, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacoste, G.; Pfitzmann, B.; Steiner, M.; Waidner, M. The payment framework. In SEMPER-Secure Electronic Marketplace for Europe; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 185–211. [Google Scholar]
- Meng, B.; Zhang, H. An electronic commerce system prototype and its implementations. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT’05), Wuhan, China, 21 September 2005; IEEE: Piscataway Township, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 966–970. [Google Scholar]
- Dulai, T.; Jaskó, S.; Tarnay, K. IOTP and Payments Protocols. In Research and Development in E-Business through Service-Oriented Solutions; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2013; pp. 20–56. [Google Scholar]
- Ruiz-Martínez, A.; Reverte, Ó.C.; Gómez-Skarmeta, A.F. Payment frameworks for the purchase of electronic products and services. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2012, 34, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Lal, B.; Williams, M.D.; Clement, M. Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system: Towards a unified view. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 19, 549–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: A meta-analytic evaluation of UTAUT2. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musa, A.; Khan, H.U.; AlShare, K.A. Factors influence consumers’ adoption of mobile payment devices in Qatar. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2015, 13, 670–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, P. The affective response model: A theoretical framework of affective concepts and their relationships in the ICT context. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 247–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y. Modelling continued use of information systems from a forward-looking perspective: Antecedents and consequences of hope and anticipated regret. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kar, A.K. What affects usage satisfaction in mobile payments? Modelling user generated content to develop the “digital service usage satisfaction model”. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. The moderating effect of experience in the adoption of mobile payment tools in Virtual Social Networks: The m-Payment Acceptance Model in Virtual Social Networks (MPAM-VSN). Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 151–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayashi, F. Mobile payments: What’s in it for consumers? Econ. Rev. Fed. Reserve Bank Kans. City 2012, 97, 35–36. [Google Scholar]
- Montazemi, A.R.; Qahri-Saremi, H. Factors affecting adoption of online banking: A meta-analytic structural equation modeling study. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 210–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mir, U.B.; Kar, A.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Gupta, M.P.; Sharma, R.S. Realizing digital identity in government: Prioritizing design and implementation objectives for Aadhaar in India. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, R.; Kar, A.K. Demonetization and its impact on the Indian economy–insights from social media analytics. In Proceedings of the Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society, Delhi, India, 21–23 November 2017; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 363–374. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, L.; Waechter, K.A. Examining the role of initial trust in user adoption of mobile payment services: An empirical investigation. Inf. Syst. Front. 2017, 19, 525–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albashrawi, M.; Motiwalla, L. Privacy and personalization in continued usage intention of mobile banking: An integrative perspective. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 1031–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meskaran, F.; Ismail, Z.; Shanmugam, B. Online purchase intention: Effects of trust and security perception. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2013, 7, 307–315. [Google Scholar]
- Kapoor, K.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Williams, M.D. Innovation adoption attributes: A review and synthesis of research findings. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2014, 17, 327–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Schaik, P.; Ling, J. Modelling user experience with web sites: Usability, hedonic value, beauty and goodness. Interact. Comput. 2008, 20, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, G.T.; Sun, C.C. Factors influencing satisfaction and loyalty in online shopping: An integrated model. Online Inf. Rev. 2009, 33, 458–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ismagilova, E.; Slade, E.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The effect of characteristics of source credibility on consumer behaviour: A meta-analysis. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Becker, L.; Jaakkola, E. Customer experience: Fundamental premises and implications for research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2020, 48, 630–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rouibah, K.; Lowry, P.B.; Hwang, Y. The effects of perceived enjoyment and perceived risks on trust formation and intentions to use online payment systems: New perspectives from an Arab country. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 19, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papa, F.; Livi, S.; Cornacchia, M.; Nicolò, E.; Sapio, B. Factors affecting the usage of payment services through digital television in Italy. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video, Tampere, Finland, 9 June 2010; pp. 209–216. [Google Scholar]
- Tsai, J.Y.; Egelman, S.; Cranor, L.; Acquisti, A. The effect of online privacy information on purchasing behavior: An experimental study. Inf. Syst. Res. 2011, 22, 254–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suh, B.; Han, I. The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 135–161. [Google Scholar]
- Deufel, P.; Kemper, J. Consumers’ Online Payment Choice in Europe: The Role of Culture and Macro-economics. In Proceedings of the Academy of Management Proceedings, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2 July 2018; Volume 2018, p. 10528. [Google Scholar]
- De Luna, I.R.; Montoro-Ríos, F.; Martínez-Fiestas, M.; Casado-Aranda, L.A. Analysis of A Mobile Payment Scenario: Key Issues and Perspectives. In Impact of Mobile Services on Business Development and E-Commerce; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 22–47. [Google Scholar]
- Borràs, J.; Moreno, A.; Valls, A. Intelligent tourism recommender systems: A survey. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 7370–7389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Items | Frequency | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 110 | 41.4 |
Female | 156 | 58.6 | |
Age (years) | <18 | 0 | 0 |
18–25 | 106 | 39.8 | |
26–35 | 109 | 41 | |
36–45 | 37 | 13.9 | |
46–55 | 7 | 2.6 | |
56–65 | 7 | 2.6 | |
>65 | 0 | 0 | |
Location | Europe | 127 | 47.7 |
Africa | 67 | 25.2 | |
Asia | 30 | 11.3 | |
America | 38 | 14.3 | |
Oceania | 4 | 1.5 | |
Education level | Primary | 5 | 1.9 |
Secondary | 53 | 19.9 | |
University | 208 | 78.2 |
Frequency | Percent | |
---|---|---|
Never | 1 | 0.4 |
Only in a sale period | 55 | 20.7 |
1–2 times per month | 121 | 45.5 |
3–4 times per month | 78 | 29.3 |
5–6 times per month | 3 | 1.1 |
≥7 times per month | 8 | 3 |
Total | 266 | 100 |
Current Payment Interface | New Payment Interface | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfied/Very satisfied | 127 | 48% | 256 | 96% |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 53 | 20% | 10 | 4% |
Very dissatisfied/dissatisfied | 86 | 32% | 0 | 0 |
Total | 266 | 100% | 266 | 100% |
Current New | Satisfied/ Very Satisfied | Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied | Very Dissatisfied/ Dissatisfied | Total | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfied/Very satisfied | 123 | 48.04% | 51 | 19.92% | 82 | 32.04% | 256 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 4 | 40% | 2 | 20% | 4 | 40% | 10 |
Very dissatisfied/dissatisfied | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Visual Interface Design | Ease of Use | Confidentiality | Payment Method Preferences | Security | Credibility | Usefulness | Privacy | Desirability | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pearson Chi-square | 14.641 | 53.873 | 34.165 | 41.843 | 38.905 | 7.082 | 33.097 | 24.782 | 15.310 |
Significance level | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Phi/Cramer’s V | 0.235 | 0.450 | 0.350 | 0.397 | 0.382 | 0.163 | 0.353 | 0.305 | 0.240 |
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied | Satisfied | Very Satisfied | Sum of Satisfied + Very Satisfied | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nb | (%) | Nb | (%) | Nb | (%) | Total | (%) | |
Security | 10 | 3.75 | 159 | 59.77 | 43 | 16.16 | 202 | 75.93 |
Confidentiality | 6 | 2.25 | 134 | 50.37 | 28 | 10.52 | 162 | 60.9 |
Ease of use | 10 | 3.75 | 166 | 62.4 | 49 | 18.42 | 215 | 80.82 |
Usefulness | 6 | 2.25 | 134 | 50.37 | 46 | 17.29 | 180 | 67.66 |
Credibility | 8 | 3 | 100 | 37.59 | 26 | 9.77 | 126 | 47.36 |
Visual interface design | 11 | 4.13 | 138 | 51.87 | 42 | 15.78 | 180 | 67.66 |
Privacy | 9 | 3.38 | 140 | 52.63 | 34 | 12.78 | 174 | 65.41 |
Payment method preferences | 4 | 1.5 | 136 | 51.12 | 58 | 21.8 | 194 | 72.93 |
Desirability | 2 | 0.75 | 71 | 26.69 | 30 | 11.27 | 101 | 37.96 |
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Extremely well | 58 | 21.8 | 21.8 | 100 |
Very well | 181 | 68.0 | 68.0 | 68 |
Somewhat well | 27 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 78.2 |
Not so well | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not at all well | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Total | 266 | 100 | 100 |
Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Satisfied | 93 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 35.0 |
Very satisfied | 7 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 37.6 |
Dissatisfied | 83 | 31.2 | 31.2 | 68.8 |
Very dissatisfied | 10 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 72.6 |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 73 | 27.4 | 27.4 | 100.0 |
Total | 266 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | 0.700 | |
---|---|---|
Bartlett’s test of sphericity | Approx. chi-square | 1523.333 |
Df | 276 | |
Sig. | 0.000 |
Component | Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | |
Security | 4.166 | 17.359 | 17.359 | 4.166 | 17.359 | 17.359 |
Confidentiality | 2.787 | 11.613 | 28.971 | 2.787 | 11.613 | 28.971 |
Ease of use | 1.562 | 6.509 | 35.480 | 1.562 | 6.509 | 35.480 |
Usefulness | 1.472 | 6.132 | 41.612 | 1.472 | 6.132 | 41.612 |
Credibility | 1.273 | 5.305 | 46.916 | 1.273 | 5.305 | 46.916 |
Visual interface design | 1.147 | 4.780 | 51.697 | 1.147 | 4.780 | 51.697 |
Privacy | 1.101 | 4.587 | 56.284 | 1.101 | 4.587 | 56.284 |
Payment method preferences | 1.061 | 4.419 | 60.704 | 1.061 | 4.419 | 60.704 |
Desirability | 1.003 | 4.180 | 64.883 | 1.003 | 4.180 | 64.883 |
Kind of Payment Systems Have You Used to Make Payments | Number of Users | Percentage |
---|---|---|
One payment method | 60 | 22.55% |
Two payment methods | 62 | 23.31% |
Three or more | 144 | 54.14% |
Total | 266 | 100% |
Number | Percentage | |
---|---|---|
Very satisfied | 29 | 20.14% |
Satisfied | 110 | 76.38% |
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 5 | 3.48% |
Total | 144 | 100% |
Visual interface design | 122 | 84.72% |
Ease of use | 120 | 83.33% |
Confidentiality | 130 | 90.27% |
Payment method preferences | 135 | 93.75% |
Security | 84 | 58.33% |
Credibility | 110 | 76.38% |
Usefulness | 128 | 88.88% |
Privacy | 68 | 47.22% |
Desirability | 39 | 27.08% |
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.664 a | 0.546 | 0.529 |
Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model | B | Std. Error | Beta | ||
1(Constant) | 1.857 | 0.074 | 25.181 | 0.000 * | |
Security | 0.329 | 0.074 | 0.257 | 4.448 | 0.000 * |
Confidentiality | 0.329 | 0.074 | 0.257 | 4.448 | 0.000 * |
Ease of use | 0.232 | 0.074 | 0.181 | 3.134 | 0.002 * |
Usefulness | 0.232 | 0.074 | 0.181 | 3.134 | 0.002 * |
Credibility | 0.147 | 0.074 | 0.114 | 1.983 | 0.048 * |
Visual interface design | 0.140 | 0.074 | 0.109 | 1.895 | 0.059 * |
Privacy | 0.149 | 0.074 | 0.116 | 2.015 | 0.045 * |
Payment method preferences | 0.183 | 0.070 | 0.207 | 2.639 | 0.009 * |
Desirability | −0.107 | 0.074 | −0.084 | −1.450 | 0.148 |
Independent Variable | Hypothesis | Beta Value | p-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ease of use | H1 | 0.181 | 0.002 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Usefulness | H2 | 0.181 | 0.002 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Security | H3 | 0.257 | 0.000 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Confidentiality | H4 | 0.257 | 0.000 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Privacy | H5 | 0.116 | 0.045 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Payment method preferences | H6 | 0.207 | 0.009 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Visual interface design | H7 | 0.109 | 0.059 (p < 0.1) | Accepted |
Credibility | H8 | 0.114 | 0.048 (p ≤ 0.05) | Accepted |
Desirability | H9 | −0.084 | 0.148 (p > 0.1) | Rejected |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tounekti, O.; Ruiz-Martínez, A.; Skarmeta-Gómez, A.F. Users’ Evaluation of a New Web Browser Payment Interface for Facilitating the Use of Multiple Payment Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094711
Tounekti O, Ruiz-Martínez A, Skarmeta-Gómez AF. Users’ Evaluation of a New Web Browser Payment Interface for Facilitating the Use of Multiple Payment Systems. Sustainability. 2021; 13(9):4711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094711
Chicago/Turabian StyleTounekti, Oussama, Antonio Ruiz-Martínez, and Antonio F. Skarmeta-Gómez. 2021. "Users’ Evaluation of a New Web Browser Payment Interface for Facilitating the Use of Multiple Payment Systems" Sustainability 13, no. 9: 4711. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094711