Resistance of facial recognition payment service: a mixed method approach

Abstract

Purpose Sellers view facial recognition mobile payment services (FRMPS) as a convenient and cost-saving way to receive immediate payments from customers. For consumers, however, these biometric identification technologies raise issues of usability as well as privacy, so FRMPS are not always preferable. This study uses the stressor–strain–outcome (S–S–O) framework to illuminate the underlying mechanism of FRMPS resistance, thereby addressing the paucity of research on users' negative attitudes toward FRMPS. Design/methodology/approach Drawing from the stressor–strain–outcome (S–S–O) framework, the purpose of this study is to illuminate the underlying mechanism of FRMPS resistance. To this end, they invited 566 password authentication users who had refused to use FRMPS to complete online survey questionnaires. Findings The findings enrich the understanding of FRMPS resistance and show that stressors (i.e. system feature overload, information overload, technological uncertainty, privacy concern and perceived risk) aggravate the strain (i.e. technostress), which then leads to users’ resistance behaviors and negative word of mouth. Originality/value Advances in payment methods have profoundly changed consumers’ consumption and payment habits. Understanding FRMPS resistance can provide marketers with strategies for dealing with this negative impact. This study theoretically confirms the S–S–O paradigm in the FRMPS setting and advances it by proposing thorough explanations of the major stressors that consumers face. Building on their findings, the authors suggest ways service providers can eliminate the stressors, thereby reducing consumers’ fear and preventing resistance or negative word-of-mouth behaviors. This study has valuable implications for both scholars and practitioners.

Investigating the dark side of mobile bookkeeping applications: a moderated-mediation approach

“…Consistent with the previous study (Lee and pan, 2022), in other contexts, results suggested that technostress plays an essential role in framing customers’ resistance intention. If customers perceive barriers to using mobile bookkeeping applications, they tend to trigger technostress among users and ultimately represent resistance to the platform.…”

“…Thirdly, in addition to the barriers, the findings indicate that technostress and self-efficacy have significantly affected user resistance. The mediating effect of technostress and the moderating effect of self-efficacy has been rarely examined in the literature (Lee and Pan, 2022; Henkens et al , 2021). Therefore, the present study contributes significantly to the literature by providing new variables used as mediators and moderators in the mobile bookkeeping application resistance context.…”

“…Furthermore, the risk and usage barrier scale were borrowed from Kaur et al (2021). The technostress and resistance scale were obtained from Lee and Pan (2022). Finally, self-efficacy was operationalised using the scale adopted from Henkens et al (2021).…”

“…For example, Tarafdar and Gordon (2007) highlighted perceived technostress as a difficulty that people face due to their inability to deal with information technology, thus, resulting in adoption resistance. Previous literature on different contexts indicates that while dealing with negative emotions, users tend to develop resistance behaviour toward an innovation (Cao et al, 2020;Lee and Pan, 2022). Resistance is defined as "a process that happens during adoption and relates to a user's determination to maintain the present state and resistance to acknowledge changes" (Ram and Sheth, 1989).…”

“…Technostress comprises five dimensions of stress: overload, complexity, uncertainty, invasion and insecurity (Califf et al, 2020). Also, technostress and technophobia can reduce technology adoption and user satisfaction which results in technology resistance behaviour (Lee and Pan, 2022). Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed as follows: 2.4 Moderating effect of self-efficacy Self-efficacy is defined as an individual's positive belief about their capabilities to perform a particular task (Bandura, 1977).…”