Table 1 Operational definitions for all the variables.
From: Enablers and disablers for contactless payment acceptance among Malaysian adults
Factors | Model/references | Definition |
|---|---|---|
Perceived usefulness | UTAUT2 (Performance expectancy) | Degree to which a person believes that using contactless payment would enhance his/her job performance |
Perceived ease of use | UTAUT2 (Effort expectancy) | The extent to which using contactless payment is easy. |
Innovativeness | TRI 2.0 | Inclination of an individual to try out new contactless payment |
Optimism | TRI 2.0 | Positive view of contactless payment technology and a belief that it offers people increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in their lives |
Compatibility | Yang et al. (2021); Humbani and Wiese (2017); TĂĽrker et al. (2022) | Consistency between contactless payment technology and its values, experiences, and the needs of potential adopters. |
Status symbol | (Sen, 2020; Dhingra et al., 2020; Rathika, Mitrapriya, 2018; Shekhar et al., 2020) | The extent to which using contactless payment is deemed a status symbol |
Enjoyment | UTAUT 2 (Hedonic motivation) | The extent to which using contactless payment is considered fun |
Lack of awareness | The lack of knowledge pertaining to contactless payment technologies, including benefits | |
Perceived insecurity | TRI 2.0 | Perceived insecurity is the degree to which people believe it will lead to adverse outcomes, including money loss, fraud, or identity theft |
Discomfort | TRI 2.0 | Perceived lack of control over contactless payment and a feeling of being overwhelmed by it |
Contactless payment acceptance | Own | The level of propensity in accepting contactless payment technologies. |
