Consumers’ perceived value and use intention of cashless payment in the physical distancing context: evidence from an Asian emerging market

Abstract

PurposeCOVID-19 and its measures such as physical distancing have shifted consumer payment behaviors toward cashless payment. Physical distancing is likely to remain a norm for some time to come and will be relevant in any future pandemics. This study aims to examine the impact of consumers’ perceived value of cashless payment on their use intention in the physical distancing context, with the mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of trust propensity.Design/methodology/approachThis study used a survey method to obtain data from 690 consumers in an Asian emerging market, i.e. Vietnam. The data were analyzed using different statistical methods, including structural equation modeling.FindingsResults show that perceived value of cashless payment positively affects use intention, and this effect is mediated by psychological safety. Furthermore, trust propensity has a positive moderating effect on the link between perceived value and psychological safety.Practical implicationsThis study’s findings provide implications for retailers and other stakeholders in implementing and promoting cashless payment systems, especially in the physical distancing context.Originality/valueThis study is among the first attempt to explain the relationships between consumers’ perceptions, feelings of psychological safety and use intention toward cashless payment in the physical distancing context. The study’s findings may also be relevant to any future pandemics.

Evaluating the Impact of E-Service Quality on Customer Intention to Use Video Teller Machine Services

“…Notably, COVID-19 has further encouraged firms to adopt and implement digital transformation [7]. The pandemic also accelerated the growth of e-banking and digital payment services [8][9][10], while traditional banking has been strongly affected. Specifically, consumers' health concerns and restrictions such as lockdown and physical distancing have driven them towards e-banking adoption and usage, which is considered safer and more convenient compared to traditional banking services [11].…”

Promoting fintech: driving developing country consumers’ mobile wallet use through gamification and trust

“…This study significantly contributes to the existing literature by employing the TCT model to examine consumers' continuation usage intentions of m-wallets, thereby shedding new light on this research domain (Abdul-Halim et al, 2022;Liao et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2023). For instance, as the results show that independent variables such as confirmation and perceived usefulness explain 26% of the variance in satisfaction, then perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived effectiveness of gamification explained 39% of the variance in attitude, and confirmation and perceived ease of use explained a 36% variance in perceived usefulness.…”

Towards a post-pandemic tourism recovery: An empirical study on the behavioural intention of using contactless payment and Covid-19 vaccination in Vietnam

“…Huang et al (2020) also explained that an individual's fear of infection risk could make his/her select a specific health protective behaviour. In accordance with the protection motivation theory, contactless payment suits the no-contact guidelines and is deemed to be an effective instrument to perform the joint goals of avoiding disease infection and making transactions (Wang, Nguyen, Jiang, Nguyen, & Saleem, 2022). Considering the contactless payment context, this study hypothesized that a high degree of Covid-19 risk perception during tourists' travel would positively influence their behavioural intention to employ contactless payment: H5a: Affective risk perception has a significant positive influence on behavioural intention H5b: Cognitive risk perception has a significant positive influence on behavioural intention Perceived benefit is translated into the perceived efficiency of the availability of protective measures against the potential risks (Janz & Becker, 1984).…”