Viva-Voce Presentation

ACCEPTANCE AND USAGE OF DIGITAL

PAYMENTS:
A STUDY WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO RURAL
AREAS OF HARYANA

Research Supervisor Research Scholar

Prof. Leena Singh Anchal Gulia
198570588
Outline of the presentation as per the chapters of
the thesis

I. Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Research Methodology
IV. Data Analysis and Interpretations
V. Conclusion and Implications
Introduction
• When an economy strives towards being cashless, it does not mean that cash
would totally vanish, rather it means less-cash economy.

• Cash was the king in India for the longest of time, when majority of the
transactions in the economy were conducted in cash and cheques were the
only substitute of cash until 1980s.

• After that payment systems started changing slowly, but in the last few years,
prevalence of cash has been diminishing and digital payments have been
undergoing a revolution.
• Digital payments have seen tremendous growth in India in recent years and
demonetization & COVID19 have acted as a catalyst in this process.

• Today, majority of digital payments recorded in India are of small token

value, showing a significant change in the behavioral aspects of Indian
people who have always relied on cash for buying small things (Press
Information Bureau, 2023).

• According to the ACI Worldwide Report 2024, India accounts for around
49% of global real-time payment transactions as of 2023 (PIB, 2024).
Reserve Bank of India (2019) has defined digital payments as:

Digital Transaction means a payment transaction in a seamless system effected

without the need for cash at least in one of the two legs, if not in both. This
includes transactions made through digital/electronic modes wherein both the
originator and the beneficiary use digital/electronic medium to send or receive
money. (p. 19)
 Institutions

Institute for
Development National
and Research Payments
in Banking Corporation of India Post
Technology India (NPCI) Payments Bank
(IDRBT) 1996 2008 (IPPB) 2017

Clearing Indian
Corporation of Financial
India Limited Technology
(CCIL) 2001 and Allied
Services
(IFTAS) 2016
 Infrastructure

Magnetic
Ink NACH
Character Indian (National
Recognition Financial National Automated
Technology Network Financial Clearing Bharat
(MICR) (INFINET) Switch House) Connect
mid 1980s late 1990s (NFS) 2004 2016 2018

Electronic Structured NETC BHIM

Clearing Financial (National Aadhaar
Service Messaging Electronic Pay 2017
(ECS) early System Toll
1990s (SFMS) Collection)
2001 2016
 Fin-Techs

Pine Labs Mobiwik Razorpay PhonePe

1998 2009 2013 2015

Bill Desk Paytm Google BharatPe

2000 2010 Pay 2015 2018
 Instruments

Debit & Mobile UPI

Credit Wallets Lite,
cards Mobile around UPI123
(late RTGS Banking 2013 Pay
1980s) 2004 2008 onwards 2022

Internet NEFT IMPS UPI and

Banking 2005 2010 AePS
late 2016
1996
Digital Payment Transactions (Volume in crore)

18807
Volume of Transactions (in

13462
crore)

8839

5554
4572
3134
2071

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Note. Adapted from DigiDhan Dashboard and Reserve Bank of

India Data.
Digital Payment Index
500
465.33
445.5
450 418.8
395.6
400 377.5
349.3
350
304.1
300 270.6
250
207.8 217.7
200 173.5
153.5
150
100
Mar-19 Sep-19 Mar-20 Sep-20 Mar-21 Sep-21 Mar-22 Sep-22 Mar-23 Sep-23 Mar-24 Sep-24

Note. Adapted from Reserve Bank of India, 2024, (

[Link]
[Link]
) and
Parameters involved and the weightage given to each are as follows:

 Payment Enablers (25%)

 Payment Performance (45%)

 Payment Infrastructure: Supply side factors (15%)

 Payment Infrastructure: Demand side factors (10%)

 Consumer Centricity (5%)

State wise Per Capita Digital Payments
Unified Payments Interface: A Game Changer in Indian Digital Payments
Ecosystem

• UPI has become synonyms to digital payments due its simplicity, easy
accessibility and wide range of features.

• 13096.04 crores transactions i.e. almost 70% of total digital payments in 2023-24.

• 77 mobile applications, over 550 banks included in its framework.

• There are approximately 45.2 crores active users of UPI and approximately 34
crores QR codes installed at various locations by merchants.
UPI transactions volume (in crore) over the years

14000
13096.04
12000

10000
8324.04
8000

6000
4596.63
4000
2232.96
2000 535.19 1251.76
1.786 91.3
0
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24

Note. Adapted from DigiDhan Dashboard, by Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, 2024 (
[Link]
 Major Initiatives which have fueled Digital Payments in India

• Launch of Aadhaar Kehta Hai

• Incorporation of NPCI • Business Correspondent Model

• Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana • DigiDhan

(PMJDY) • DigiShala

• Digital Payments Awareness & • Zero Merchant Discount Rate

Literacy Initiatives (PMGDISHA, E-
• Village Adoption Programme (VAP)
Baat, Har Payment Digital, RBI
Rationale of the study

• India is one of the fastest digitizing countries.

• Mobile operators in India are covering almost every inch of the land.

• More than 820 million active users out of which 442 million are from rural
areas (Roy, 2024).

• 700 million smartphone users in the country which means more than 50%
population use smartphones in the country and out of these 425 million
(60%) are from rural areas (Gupta & Sachdeva, 2023).
Rationale of the study

• Currently, India is the leader in terms of digital payments with 46% share in
total digital transaction in the world.

• A total of 188.07 billion digital transactions were processed in the year 2023-
24. And in the month of August 2024, NPCI processed 14.96 billion UPI
transactions alone (NPCI, 2024).

• In the recent times, over 0.3 billion/30 crore individual consumers and
around 5 crore merchants use digital payments (Bishoyi, 2024).
Rationale of the study

• Around 54% of total active internet users and 60% of total smartphone users
belong to rural areas, despite this phenomenal digital growth, adoption of
digital payments in India is mostly limited to the urban counterparts.

• Only 1/3rd of total digital payment users is estimated to be from rural areas
(Singh, 2024).

• According to a survey mentioned in Annual Report of Reserve Bank of India

(2024), the diffusion of digital payment usage was less in rural areas as
compared to the national average.
Rationale of the study

• Government of India has invested large amounts of resources for the development
and deployment of digital payment systems for its citizens in the rural areas;
however, the success is ultimately dependent on the user’s acceptance.

• To ensure acceptance and usage in the rural areas, it would be essential, as an

initial step, to understand the willingness of people to adopt digital payment
systems.

• Gaining an understanding on the factors influencing acceptance and usage of

digital payments among individuals becomes important.
Scope of the study

• The scope of the study is to gain an understanding of the factors which influence
Acceptance and Usage of digital payments among rural people.

• It solely focuses on the consumer’s acceptance & usage of digital payments and
does not cover the merchant’s acceptance.

• The findings of the study will help policymakers and Fin-techs in formulating
policies & strategies by keeping in mind all those factors that come out as
significant in the study so that there is widespread acceptance & usage of digital
payments among rural people as well.
Literature
Review
 Procedure adopted for review of literature

Framing
questions,
Gap Analysis objectives,
hypotheses
Reviewing and model
relevant
Searching literature
literature on
Key terms the databases
identification
A total of around 200 articles including reports, research papers & relevant
book chapters, and newspaper articles were reviewed:

• A brief review of Technological Acceptance Theories.

• Review of studies related to factors influencing acceptance and usage of digital

payments.

• Review of digital payment studies related to demographic factors.

• Reports and newspaper articles related to digital payments.

Major Technology Acceptance Theories and their Determinants

Theories Year Determinants/Factors

Characteristics of Innovation, Adopter’s Characteristics and

Diffusion of Innovation Theory 1962
Communication Channels
Attitude, Subjective Norms, Behavioral Intention and
Theory of Reasoned Action 1975
Behavior

Social Cognitive Theory 1986 Cognitive, Environmental, and Behavioral Factors

System features, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of

Technology Adoption Model 1986
Use, Attitude, Behavioral Intention and Actual Usage

Attitude, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioral Control,

Theory of Planned Behaviour 1991
Behavioral Intention and Behaviour
 Long Term Consequences of Use, Job-Fit, Complexity,
The Model of Personal
1991 Affect, Social Factors, Facilitating Conditions and
Computing Utilization
Utilization

Extrinsic (Usefulness) & Intrinsic (Enjoyment)

The Motivation Model 1992 Motivation, Perceived Output Quality, Perceived Ease of
Use, Task Importance, Intentions and Actual Use

Unified Theory of Acceptance Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social

and Use of Technology 2003 Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Behavioral Intention
(UTAUT) and Use Behavior

Meta-UTAUT” (Unified Theory Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social

of Acceptance and Use of 2019 Influence, Facilitating Conditions, Attitude, Behavioral
Technology) Intention and Use Behavior
Important Studies on Acceptance & Usage of Digital Payments
Author, Year Findings
They explored the determinants of the Intention to use mobile
wallets among young urban users from Northeast India.
Hasan et al. (2024) Findings established the importance of factors such as
Compatibility, Perceived Value, Social Influence, and Trust on
the adoption of mobile wallets.
They conducted a study among mobile banking users of Saudi
Arabia regarding their behavior towards Quick Response Code
Yamin & Abdalatif (2024) mobile payment systems. Perceived Convenience & Usefulness
came out to be the most important factors influencing the
Attitude toward using the “QR code”.

They tried to identify factors which influence both actual usage

and future use intention of mobile payments. Findings suggest
that Knowledge regarding mobile payments, Perceived
Pal et al. (2021)
Security, and Lack of Support are some of the major
constraints that influence current actual usage as well as future
use intentions.
Author, Year Findings
Explored the factors influencing the adoption of digital
payments among semi-rural women in Delhi. One of the
highlights of the study is that they have used Actual Use as the
Manrai et al. (2021) ultimate dependent construct even in semi-rural areas, where
the adoption of digital payments is a slightly new phenomenon.
The study concludes that Effort Expectancy & Intrinsic
Motivation are the most important factors
They examined m-banking adoption among users of Agra and
the National Capital Region of India. Customer awareness,
Tiwari et al. (2021) perceived risk, and trust significantly influence the Behavioral
Intention of users, with Perceived Trust and Ease of Use being
top predictors of Intention.

They extended Meta-UTAUT to study the factors that influence

the adoption of mobile payments in India by consumers. Trust
Patil et al. (2020) came out as the strongest determinant of Attitude and Attitude
is the strongest determinant of Intention formation of using
mobile payments.
Author, Year Findings

They investigated the bottom of the pyramid people to examine

m-payment adoption. Performance Expectancy is the strongest
Hussain et al. (2019) antecedent of Intentions showing that even at the bottom of the
pyramid usefulness of a technology is more important than any
other factor.

The study strengthened the relationship between Behavioral

Intention and Actual Use. Another major finding of the study is
Sivathanu (2019) the moderating influence of Stickiness to Cash on the
relationship between Intention and Actual Usage of Digital
Payments.

They examined the drivers of mobile banking adoption in rural

areas of Tamil Nadu. Ease of Use came out as a strong
Manoharan & Shanmugam (2017) predictor of Attitude showing that the easiness of technology
also matters for rural people. Their study also concluded that
Attitude positively influences Intention.
Author, Year Findings

Their findings show that Perceived Usefulness is a very

important construct influencing Attitude & The
Deb & Agrawal (2017)
relationship between Trust and Attitude came out to be
negative in this study.

Among poor citizens, perceived usefulness and trust

significantly influence Attitudes toward using mobile
Chauhan (2015) money. Further, Attitude significantly influences the
Intention to use mobile money. Surprisingly, perceived
ease of use does not have any influence on Attitude.
Important Studies on the Role of Demographic Variables in Acceptance & Usage
of Digital Payments
Author, Year Findings
Findings suggest that gender and marital status showed no
significant influence on usage. However, income, education,
Lohana & Roy (2023)
age, and occupation have a significant impact on the usage of
digital payments.
Effect of Ease of use on Attitude towards adopting Mobile
Banking came out to be higher for women and people with less
work experience. Experience moderates the relationship
Chawla & Joshi (2020)
between Trust and Attitude where it is stronger for older and
more experienced people. Further, the effect of Efficiency on
Attitude is stronger for the higher-income group.

They also checked the moderating role of Age & Gender and
found that both moderated the relationship between Attitude
Kishore & Sequeira (2016)
and Behavioral Intention of using Mobile Banking among rural
people.
Research Gaps

Empirical studies on the acceptance and use of digital payments in rural India are
very limited revolving around mobile banking only.

Very few researchers have taken the effort to study and collect data from Actual
users.

Need to understand the role of Attitude.

Lack of studies that consider the role of demographics in the acceptance & usage
of digital payments.

Lack of a comprehensive framework that can explain proper variance in the intention
and usage of digital payments among rural people.
 Research
Methodology
• The study follows ‘Descriptive Research Design’ as main aim of the study to
understand the acceptance and usage of digital payments among rural people by
hypothesizing certain relationships among different constructs.
• This design is structured and formal in nature, which follows deductive
approach, where clear theoretical framework is defined with proper
operationalization of the variables.
Research Questions

 What are the factors that influence the Attitude and Behavioral Intention of
using digital payments among rural people?
 What are the factors that influence the Actual Usage of digital payments
among rural people?
 Does Attitude act as a mediator between Performance Expectancy, Effort
Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments among rural people?
 Do gender, age, and smartphone experience have a moderating influence on
all the relationships in the theoretical model?
 Research Objectives
 Objective 1: To examine the factors that influence the Attitude and Behavioral Intention
of using Digital Payments among rural people.
 Objective 2: To examine the factors that influence the Actual Usage of Digital Payments
among rural people.
 Objective 3: To investigate the role of Attitude as a mediator between Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments among rural people.
 Objective 4: To check the moderating influence of Gender, Age & Smartphone
Experience on all the relationships in the theoretical model.
 Suitability of Meta-UTAUT as the Theoretical Framework

 Several studies in the digital payments arena (internet banking, mobile banking,
wallets etc.) have used UTAUT with some added constructs to explain the
adoption (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Gupta & Arora, 2020; Gupta et al., 2019;
Kishore & Sequeira, 2016; Pal et al., 2019).

 But there are also some limitations with just using UTAUT constructs as Gupta et
al. (2019) have pointed out that its constructs are not enough to explain variances
in the adoption of banking/financial technology.
 Dwivedi et al. (2020) points out that meta-UTAUT model has made significant
improvement and contribution in the UTAUT model by simplifying it & adding a
very important construct ‘Attitude’.

 It is very important variable which needs to be studied specifically when digital

payments adoption is in early stages as it is the case in rural India.

 Meta-UTAUT is the most advanced and suitable framework for studying digital
payments acceptance in rural India.
 Charbaji & Mikdashi (2003) have rightly stated that factors such as facilitating
conditions etc. are common for all rural people, so it is very important to add
other factors which differ among people. So, we add factors such as Trust,
Awareness and Stickiness to Cash in Meta-UTAUT.
 Constructs Definitions
Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to
which an individual believes that using digital
Performance Expectancy
payments will help him or her to attain benefits in
conducting transactions (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Effort expectancy is defined as the degree of ease
Effort Expectancy associated with the use of the digital payments
(Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Social influence is defined as the degree to which
an individual perceives that important others
Social Influence
believe he or she should use the digital payments
(Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to
which an individual believes that infrastructure
Facilitating Conditions
exists to support use of digital payments (Venkatesh
et al., 2003).
 Personal belief that a user has in the digital
payments system to carry out a transaction securely
Perceived Trust and maintain the privacy of personal information.
(Aderonke & Charles, 2010).

Attitude is an individual’s positive or negative

Attitude feelings about using digital payments (Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975).
Stickiness to Cash means using cash again & again
with increase in every subsequent usage despite
Stickiness to Cash having access to other alternatives (Hsu & Lin,
2016; Yeh et al., 2013).

Awareness means that an individual knows about

several options of digital payments, the benefits of
Awareness using them and advertisements regarding promotion
of digital payments.

Behavioral Intention represents the extent of

Behavioral Intention individuals willingness to use digital payments
((Venkatesh et al., 2003).
H1: There is a significant influence of Performance Expectancy on Attitude towards
Digital Payments.

H2: There is a significant influence of Performance Expectancy on Behavioral

Intention of using Digital Payments.

H3: There is a significant influence of Effort Expectancy on Attitude towards Digital

Payments.

H4: There is a significant influence of Effort Expectancy on Behavioral Intention of

using Digital Payments.
H5: There is a significant influence of Social Influence on Attitude towards Digital
Payments.

H6: There is a significant influence of Social Influence on Behavioral Intention of

using Digital Payments.

H7: There is a significant influence of Facilitating Conditions on Attitude toward

Digital Payments.

H8: There is a significant influence of Facilitating Conditions on Behavioral

Intention of using Digital Payments.
H9: There is a significant influence of Perceived Trust on Attitude towards Digital
Payments.

H10 There is a significant influence of Attitude on Behavioral Intention of using

Digital Payments.

H11 There is a significant influence of Stickiness to Cash on Actual Usage of Digital

Payments.

H12 There is a significant influence of Awareness on Actual Usage of Digital

Payments.
H13 There is a significant influence of Attitude on Actual Usage of Digital
Payments.

H14 There is a significant influence of Behavioral Intention on the Actual Usage of

Digital Payments.

H15 Attitude mediates the relationship between Performance Expectancy, Effort

Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Intention of
using Digital Payments.
 Performance
Expectancy
Attitude

Effort
Expectancy

Social Behavioural
Influence Intention of Actual Usage of
using digital digital payments
Theoretical Facilitating
payments
Conditions
Framework
Perceived
Trust

Moderating Influence on
Stickiness to all the relationships
cash
*Gender
*Age
Awareness
*Smartphone Experience
 Measures Explanations

Individuals who use any mode of digital payments

such as Mobile Wallets, Mobile/Internet Banking,
Target Population UPI, etc. from any gender, educational qualification,
age group, or profession residing in rural areas of
Haryana state.

Non-random sampling methods (Convenience and

Sampling Method
Purposive)

Data Type Primary Data

 Measures Explanations

Mode of data collection Offline (Pen & paper based)

Adapted Closed-ended Questionnaire, translated to

Hindi language and divided into two sections.
Section A catered to collecting demographic profiles
of the respondents and some information related to
the usage of digital payments.
Section B consisted of 5-point Likert scale
questions, where respondents had to choose between
strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3),
Data Collection Tool
Agree (4) and Strongly Agree (5). Final 35
statements
Performance Expectancy (4 items), Effort
Expectancy (4 items), Social Influence (3 items),
Facilitating Conditions (4 items), Perceived Trust (4
items), Stickiness to Cash (3 items), Awareness (3
items), Attitude (3 items), Behavioral Intention (3
items) and Actual Use Behavior (4 items).
Steps of developing the tool

Early
development by
Expert Translation
doing extensive Pretesting Pilot study
Reviews Process
Literature
Review
 Measures Explanations

660 [Hair et al., (2022), sample size should be ≥

Sample Size
619].

Response Rate 50%

Data Analysis Software MS Excel, SmartPLS 4

Structural Equation Modelling (Confirmatory Factor

Data Analysis Techniques Analysis, Path Analysis), Mediation Analysis and
Multigroup Analysis.
Data-Preparation Process

Selecting a
Questionnaire Preliminary
Coding Data Cleaning Data Analysis
Checking Editing
Strategy

Note. Adapted from Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (p. 425), by N. K. Malhotra, and S. Dash,
2019, Pearson Education.
Data Analysis Strategy

 The study has quantitative research design, where there is interdependence

of variables and Likert scale has been used for collecting responses.

 By keeping in mind all these factors Multivariate techniques such as

Structural Equation Modeling [Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) + Path
analysis], Mediation Analysis and Multigroup Analysis have been chosen
for Data Analysis.

 Hair et al. (2019) recommend using PLS-SEM where structural models are
complex consisting of many constructs and many relationships among them.
Data Analysis Techniques

 SEM is “a procedure for estimating a series of dependence relationships among a

set of concepts or constructs represented by multiple measured variables and
incorporated into an integrated model” (Malhotra & Dash, 2019, p. 704).

 Mediation Analysis is also a part of the structural model assessment, where the
indirect relationship between independent and dependent constructs through the
mediator is analyzed using indirect effects.

 Multigroup Analysis is a part of the structural model assessment, where data

groups are formed and then the differences in the path coefficients between these
groups are analyzed.
Data Analysis
& Findings
 Structure of Data Analysis

H1: There is a significant influence of

Performance Expectancy on Attitude
towards Digital Payments.
H2: There is a significant influence of
Objective 1 Performance Expectancy on Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments.
To examine the factors that
influence the Attitude and H3: There is a significant influence of Structural Equation Modelling
Behavioral Intention of using Effort Expectancy on Attitude towards (Confirmatory Factor Analysis &
Digital Payments among rural Digital Payments. Path Analysis) using SmartPLS 4
people.
H4: There is a significant influence of
Effort Expectancy on Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments.
H5: There is a significant influence of
Social Influence on Attitude towards
Digital Payments.
 H6: There is a significant influence of
Social Influence on Behavioral Intention
of using Digital Payments.
H7: There is a significant influence of
Objective 1 Facilitating Conditions on Attitude
towards Digital Payments.
To examine the factors that
influence the Attitude and H8: There is a significant influence of Structural Equation Modelling
Behavioral Intention of using Facilitating Conditions on Behavioral (Confirmatory Factor Analysis &
Digital Payments among rural Intention of using Digital Payments. Path Analysis) using SmartPLS 4
people.
H9: There is a significant influence of
Perceived Trust on Attitude towards
Digital Payments.
H10: There is a significant influence of
Attitude on Behavioral Intention of using
Digital Payments.
 H11: There is a significant influence of
Stickiness to Cash on Actual Usage of
Digital Payments.
H12: There is a significant influence
Objective 2
of Awareness on Actual Usage of Structural Equation
To examine the factors that Digital Payments. Modelling (Confirmatory
influence the Actual Usage of Factor Analysis & Path
H13: There is a significant influence
Digital Payments among rural Analysis) using SmartPLS 4
of Attitude on Actual Usage of Digital
people.
Payments.
H14: There is a significant influence
of Behavioral Intention on Actual
Usage of Digital Payments.
Objective 3
To investigate the role of H15: Attitude mediates the
Attitude as a mediator relationship between Performance
between Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy,
Expectancy, Effort Mediation Anlaysis using
Social Influence, Facilitating
Expectancy, Social Influence, SmartPLS 4
Conditions, and Behavioral
Facilitating Conditions, and Intention of using Digital
Behavioral Intention of using Payments.
Digital Payments among rural
people.

Objective 4
To check the moderating
influence of Gender, Age & Multigroup Analysis (MGA)
NA
Smartphone Experience on all using SmartPLS 4
the relationships in the
theoretical model.
 Demographic Profile of Respondents

Gender Distribution Respondents in different Age groups

Female Above 50 years

209 60
(32%)
40-50 years 150
30-40 years 178

Male 20-30 years 200

451
(68%) Below 20 years 72
Education Qualifications of the Respondents Occupation of the respondents

Post Graduate Housewife

10th
5% 11%
(10%)
Service Agriculture
Graduates 11% (34%)
27%

12th
(31%)

Self-employed
20%

Diploma Students
27% (25%)
 Respondents from different Income Smartphone Experience of the
groups Respondents

270 300
239

164 167
111

40 29

0-2 Lakhs 2-4 Lakhs 4-6 Lakhs Above 6 Lakhs Less than 1 1-3 years 3-5 years Above 5 years
year
 Modes of digital payments used among the respondents

AEPS
24

UPI Lite
45

Mobile/Internet Banking
238

Debit/Credit Cards
374

Mobile Walllets
525

UPI
565
 Purpose of using Digital Payments

Ticket Bookings 304

Offline Shopping 400

Online Shopping 505

Sending & Receiving Money 554

Recharge & Bill Payments 570

Duration of Digital Payments Usage among the respondents Out of all the respondents,
277 respondents
representing 42% of the
212 205
total were using digital
payments before COVID–
19 as well, whereas 58%
of them started using
97
75 digital payments during
71
COVID – 19 and after
that. COVID–19 played a
fair part in motivating
Less than 6 6 months-1 1-2 years 2-5 years More than 5 rural people to accept and
months year years
use digital payments.
Sample Adequacy & Initial Correlation

Items Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

of Sampling Adequacy (Sig. value)

N = 660 .973 .000

 Some important Multivariate Assumptions

1) Linearity
2) Unobserved Heterogeneity
Significance value of
FIMIX-PLS
Quadratic effect > 0.05
(Sarstedt et al., 2020) )
(Sarstedt et al., 2020)

3) Multicollinearity 4) Common Method Bias

VIF values ≤ 5 Harman’s single factor test
(Hair et al. 2022) <50% (22%) and VIF values
 Linearity Statistics Multicollinearity Statistics

Relationships Sig Value Constructs VIF Value

QE (PE) -> ATT 0.275

ATT -> AU 3.771
QE (PE) -> BI 0.346
ATT -> BI 2.547
QE (EE) -> ATT 0.425 AW -> AU 2.066
QE (EE) -> BI 0.182 BI -> AU 2.172

QE (SI) -> ATT 0.170 EE -> ATT 3.064

QE (SI) -> BI 0.223 EE -> BI 3.044

0.304 FC -> ATT 3.546

QE (FC) -> ATT
0.461 FC -> BI 3.702
QE (FC) -> BI
PE -> ATT 3.543
QE (PTR) -> ATT 0.298
PE -> BI 3.755
QE (ATT) -> BI 0.360
SI -> ATT 2.169
QE (BI) -> AU 0.140
SI -> BI 2.121
QE (STC) -> AU 0.343
STC -> AU 1.220
QE (AW) -> AU 0.099
PTR -> ATT 1.697
 Unobserved Heterogeneity (FIMIX-PLS)

Number of Segments

Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CAIC 3148.073 1965.219 2066.759 2141.891 2015.549 2403.162 2217.438 2514.111

AIC3 3008.814 1682.208 1639.997 1571.377 1301.283 1545.144 1215.668 1368.589

AIC4 3039.814 1745.208 1734.997 1698.377 1460.283 1736.144 1438.668 1623.589

BIC 3117.073 1902.219 1971.759 2014.891 1856.549 2212.162 1994.438 2259.111

MDL5 3922.111 3538.264 4438.811 5312.949 5985.614 7172.233 7785.516 8881.195

 Process for Structural Equation Modeling
Define the individual constructs

Develop and specify the measurement model

Assess measurement model validity

Refine measures No
and design a new Is model valid?
study
Yes
Specify the structural model

Assess structural model validity

Refine model and No

test with new data Is model valid?
Yes
Draw conclusions and make recommendations
Process of assessing measurement model

Assess Internal
Assess the Indicator Assess Convergent Assess Discriminant
Consistency
Reliability validity validity
Reliability
Items Outer loadings FC1 <- FC 0.874
ATT1 <- ATT 0.907 FC2 <- FC 0.866
ATT2 <- ATT 0.927 FC3 <- FC 0.795
ATT3 <- ATT 0.922 FC4 <- FC 0.839 Indicator
AU1 <- AU 0.876 PE1 <- PE 0.910 reliability
AU2 <- AU 0.926 PE2 <- PE 0.896
AU3 <- AU 0.913 PE3 <- PE 0.916 Hair et al. (2022)
AU4 <- AU 0.909 PE4 <- PE 0.896 recommends that indicators
AW1 <- AW 0.913
of reflective constructs
PTR1 <- PTR 0.846
should have outer loadings
AW2 <- AW 0.933 PTR2 <- PTR 0.903
above the threshold value
AW3 <- AW 0.743 PTR3 <- PTR 0.904
of 0.708.
BI1 <- BI 0.918 PTR4 <- PTR 0.890
BI2 <- BI 0.917 SI1 <- SI 0.934
BI3 <- BI 0.928 SI2 <- SI 0.940
EE1 <- EE 0.914 SI3 <- SI 0.932
EE2 <- EE 0.880 STC1 <- STC 0.900
EE3 <- EE 0.932 STC2 <- STC 0.932
EE4 <- EE 0.887 STC3 <- STC 0.898
Internal Consistency Reliability & Convergent Validity Statistics

Composite Composite
Cronbach's
Constructs reliability reliability AVE
alpha
(rho_a) (rho_c)
ATT 0.907 0.908 0.942 0.844
AU 0.927 0.928 0.948 0.821
AW 0.833 0.871 0.900 0.752
BI 0.910 0.910 0.944 0.848 Hair et al. (2022)
EE 0.925 0.926 0.947 0.816 recommends > 0.70 for
FC 0.865 0.869 0.908 0.712 reliability statistics and
PE 0.926 0.927 0.947 0.818 > 0.50 for AVE
PTR 0.909 0.915 0.936 0.785
SI 0.929 0.930 0.955 0.875
STC 0.896 0.905 0.935 0.828
Discriminant Validity Statistics

HTMT values
ATT AU AW BI EE FC PE PTR SI STC
ATT
AU 0.875
HTMT values (as
AW 0.772 0.791 shown in are within the
BI 0.854 0.850 0.710 threshold of 0.90 &
0.85 for respective
EE 0.741 0.768 0.773 0.767
constructs.
FC 0.814 0.839 0.840 0.841 0.847
PE 0.798 0.827 0.783 0.835 0.842 0.837
PTR 0.661 0.629 0.695 0.644 0.621 0.639 0.623
SI 0.673 0.637 0.669 0.698 0.669 0.778 0.707 0.601
STC 0.454 0.464 0.417 0.458 0.415 0.461 0.439 0.479 0.413
 Assessing the structural model relationships
Paths Beta Coefficients S.E. T statistics P values Significant?
PE -> ATT 0.287 0.056 5.101 0.000 Yes
PE -> BI 0.190 0.040 4.781 0.000 Yes
EE -> ATT 0.107 0.046 2.312 0.021 Yes
EE -> BI 0.056 0.035 1.586 0.113 No
SI -> ATT 0.091 0.040 2.291 0.022 Yes
SI -> BI 0.064 0.030 2.123 0.034 Yes Coefficients: -1 to +1
FC -> ATT 0.243 0.057 4.239 0.000 Yes p values: < 0.05
FC -> BI 0.110 0.037 2.946 0.003 Yes t statistics: > 1.96
PTR -> ATT 0.188 0.042 4.475 0.000 Yes
(Hair et al., 2022)
ATT -> BI 0.553 0.038 14.425 0.000 Yes
STC -> AU -0.053 0.024 2.187 0.029 Yes
AW -> AU 0.131 0.030 4.311 0.000 Yes
ATT -> AU 0.177 0.042 4.236 0.000 Yes
BI -> AU 0.607 0.044 13.729 0.000 Yes
Objective 1: To examine the factors that influence the Attitude and Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments among rural people.

Hypotheses Result Previous Studies

H1: There is a significant influence of
Performance Expectancy on Attitude Supported Alkhowaiter (2022), Manrai
towards Digital Payments.
et al., (2021), Chauhan
H2: There is a significant influence of (2015), Kishore & Sequeira
Performance Expectancy on Behavioral Supported (2016), George (2018)
Intention of using Digital Payments.

H3: There is a significant influence of Rehman & Ali Shaikh (2020),

Effort Expectancy on Attitude towards Supported Hussain et al. (2019), Rana et
Digital Payments.
al. (2015)
H4: There is a significant influence of
Kaur & Arora (2021),
Effort Expectancy on Behavioral Intention Not Supported
of using Digital Payments. Baptista & Oliveira (2015)
H5: There is a significant influence of Social
Influence on Attitude towards Digital Payments. Supported
Kishore & Sequeira (2016) and Al-
Qeisi et al. (2015), Lebdaoui &
H6: There is a significant influence of Social
Influence on Behavioral Intention of using Digital Supported Chetioui (2021),
Payments.

H7: There is a significant influence of Facilitating

Conditions on Attitude towards Digital Payments. Supported
Chatterjee et al. (2023), Gupta et
H8: There is a significant influence of Facilitating al. (2019)
Conditions on Behavioral Intention of using Supported
Digital Payments.

H9: There is a significant influence of Perceived Gunnoo et al. (2023), Chawla &
Trust on Attitude towards Digital Payments. Supported
Joshi (2021), Tiwari et al. (2021)

H10: There is a significant influence of Attitude

Chaveesuk et al. (2021), Kishore &
on Behavioral Intention of using Digital Supported
Payments. Sequeira (2016)
Objective 2: To study the factors that influence the Actual Usage of Digital
Payments among rural people.

Hypotheses Result Previous Studies

H11: There is a significant influence of
Stickiness to Cash on Actual Usage of Supported Sivathanu (2019)
Digital Payments.

H12: There is a significant influence of

Awareness on Actual Usage of Digital Supported Mensah & Khan (2024)
Payments.

H13: There is a significant influence of

Dwivedi et al. (2019), George
Attitude on Actual Usage of Digital Supported (2004)
Payments.

H14: There is a significant influence of Upadhyay et al. (2022),

Behavioral Intention on Actual Usage of Supported Chaveesuk et al. (2021), Patil
Digital Payments. et al. (2020)
 Mediation Analysis

Total Effects (PE -> BI) Direct Effects (PE -> BI) Indirect Effect of PE on BI
Percentile
Beta T value P value Beta T value P value Hypothesis Beta S.E. T value P value Bootstrap 95%
confidence interval
Lower Upper
0.349 6.844 0.000 0.190 4.781 0.000 PE -> ATT -> BI 0.159 0.032 4.949 0.000 0.108 0.213

Total Effects (EE -> BI) Direct Effects (EE -> BI) Indirect Effect of EE on BI

Percentile
Beta T value P value Beta T value P value Hypothesis Beta S.E. T value P value Bootstrap 95%
confidence interval

Lower Upper
0.115 2.674 0.004 0.056 1.586 0.056 EE -> ATT -> BI 0.059 0.026 2.269 0.012 0.017 0.103
 Total Effects (SI -> BI) Direct Effects (SI -> BI) Indirect Effect of SI on BI
Percentile
Beta T value P value Beta T value P value Hypothesis Beta S.E. T value P value Bootstrap 95%
confidence interval
Lower Upper
0.115 2.917 0.002 0.064 2.123 0.017 SI -> ATT -> BI 0.051 0.022 2.272 0.012 0.014 0.087

Total Effects (FC -> BI) Direct Effects (FC -> BI) Indirect Effect of FC on BI
Percentile
Beta T value P value Beta T value P value Hypothesis Beta S.E. T value P value Bootstrap 95%
confidence interval
Lower Upper
0.244 5.013 0.000 0.110 2.946 0.002 FC -> ATT -> BI 0.134 0.033 4.064 0.000 0.081 0.190
Objective 3: To investigate the role of Attitude as a mediator between Performance
Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral
Intention of using Digital Payments among rural people.

Hypotheses Result Previous Studies

H15: Attitude mediates the relationship
between Performance Expectancy, Effort
Chaveesuk et al. (2021),
Expectancy, Social Influence, Facilitating Supported
Dwivedi et al. (2019)
Conditions, and Behavioral Intention of
using Digital Payments.
 Multi-group Analysis on the basis of Gender

Relationships Difference (Male-Female) P values Significant?

PE -> ATT 0.034 0.032 Yes
PE -> BI 0.176 0.015 Yes
EE -> ATT -0.085 0.020 Yes
EE -> BI -0.270 0.000 Yes
SI -> ATT -0.024 0.007 Yes
SI -> BI -0.104 0.041 Yes
FC -> ATT -0.164 0.171 No
FC -> BI - 0.060 0.226 No
PTR -> ATT 0.031 0.033 Yes
ATT -> BI 0.077 0.162 No
STC -> AU -0.012 0.408 No
AW -> AU -0.088 0.325 No
ATT -> AU 0.015 0.303 No
BI -> AU 0.037 0.295 No
 Multi-group Analysis on the basis of Age

Relationships Difference (Below 40 – Above 40) P values Significant?

PE -> ATT 0.330 0.002 Yes
PE -> BI 0.176 0.031 Yes
EE -> ATT -0.013 0.879 No
EE -> BI 0.035 0.617 No
SI -> ATT 0.110 0.157 No
SI -> BI -0.030 0.645 No
FC -> ATT -0.127 0.026 Yes
FC -> BI -0.037 0.004 Yes
PTR -> ATT -0.125 0.108 No
ATT -> BI -0.148 0.234 No
STC -> AU 0.012 0.017 Yes
AW -> AU -0.116 0.059 No
ATT -> AU -0.063 0.464 No
BI -> AU 0.196 0.129 No
 Multi-group Analysis on the basis of Smartphone Experience
Relationships Difference (Low/Medium – High) P values Significant?
PE -> ATT -0.021 0.847 No
PE -> BI 0.027 0.734 No
EE -> ATT 0.024 0.009 Yes
EE -> BI 0.083 0.025 Yes
SI -> ATT 0.052 0.512 No
SI -> BI 0.029 0.633 No
FC -> ATT 0.015 0.046 Yes
FC -> BI 0.048 0.002 Yes
PTR -> ATT -0.003 0.975 No
ATT -> BI -0.131 0.087 No
STC -> AU -0.044 0.367 No
AW -> AU 0.120 0.084 No
ATT -> AU 0.197 0.512 No
BI -> AU 0.059 0.115 No
Objective 4: To check the moderating influence of Gender, Age & Smartphone Experience on all the
relationships in the theoretical model

Chawla & Joshi (2019), Venkatesh

Moderating influence of Gender H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 & H9 et al. (2003) and Chawla & Joshi
(2020)

Moderating influence of Age H1, H2, H7, H8 & H11 Venkatesh et al. (2012)

Moderating influence of Smartphone

H3, H4, H7 & H8
Experience
Explanatory power of model (Hair et al., 2011)

R-square R-square adjusted

ATT 0.628 0.625
BI 0.779 0.777
AU 0.787 0.777

Predictive relevance of the model (Shmueli et al., 2019)

Q² predict PLS-SEM_RMSE LM_RMSE
ATT1 0.527 0.612 0.615
ATT2 0.503 0.625 0.641
ATT3 0.535 0.588 0.593
BI1 0.574 0.581 0.576
BI2 0.528 0.614 0.609
BI3 0.580 0.577 0.580
AU1 0.527 0.620 0.619
AU2 0.582 0.579 0.587
AU3 0.534 0.625 0.634
AU4 0.544 0.603 0.608
Conclusion and
Implications
 Conclusion

 68.33% users are male as in rural areas.

 Most digital payment users (~ 68%) fall under the age of 40 years, which
shows that digital payments usage is skewed towards young people even in
rural areas. 45.5% have been using smartphone for over 5 years.

 Digital payment usage is somewhat scattered among different types of

workforces.

 77.1% of the users have turned out to be from families whose annual
income is less than 4 lakhs.
• Among all the users, 45.5% have been using smartphones for over 5 years,
so it can be said that the more experienced they are with their smartphones,
there are more chances that they would use digital payments.

 UPI (Unified Payments Interface) emerged as the most used digital

payments mode, with 85.60% people using it.

 Used for recharges and bill payments and for sending and receiving money.

 58% started using digital payments during COVID-19 or after that which
shows that this pandemic played a fair part in helping people switch towards
digital payments even in rural areas.
 Performance Expectancy is the top influencer of Attitude followed by
Facilitating Conditions, Perceived Trust, Effort Expectancy, and Social
Influence.

 Among the predictors of intention formation, Attitude is the most significant

followed by Performance Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, Effort
Expectancy & Social Influence.

 Social Influence has the lowest influence on the Attitude and Behavioral
Intention of rural people and Effort Expectancy does not have a direct
influence on the Behavioral Intention of rural users.
 When people perceive that digital payments are useful in their daily life and
there is supportive environment where they could get help whenever needed
and there is acceptance of digital payments among shopkeepers/merchants
then they have favorable attitude and intention towards using them.

 Positive Attitude plays a very important role in acceptance of digital

payments among rural people and all the factors discussed above ultimately
influence rural people’s Behavioral Intention directly and indirectly via their
Attitude. It also has some direct influence on Actual usage as well.
 The effect of Performance Expectancy on Attitude & Intention is stronger
for men and people below 40 years of age, but smartphone experience does
not moderate the relationship between these two.

 The relationship between Effort Expectancy and Attitude & Intention is

stronger for females and people with low/medium smartphone experience.
Age does not moderate the relationship between these two.

 The impact of Social Influence on Attitude & Intention is stronger for

women as compared to men, but age & smartphone experience do not
moderate the relationship.
 The influence of Facilitating Conditions on the Attitude & Intention of
people is stronger among people above 40 years of age and those with
low/medium smartphone experience, while gender does not have a
significant impact on this relationship.

 The influence of perceived Trust on Attitude is stronger for men while Age
& Smartphone experience do not moderate the relationship.

 Actual Usage of digital payments among rural people is directly influenced

by Stickiness to Cash, Awareness, their Attitude & Behavioral Intention
toward using digital payments.
• Stickiness to Cash negatively influences Actual Usage and this relationship
is stronger for young people.
 Theoretical Implications Policy Implications Implications for Fin-techs

• Policymakers should keep • Fintech organizations should

• Extended Meta-UTAUT by focusing on helping people work on making digital
realize that digital payments are payments secure and making
adding constructs such as very convenient and useful
people believe in that.
which will also help in reducing
Perceived Trust, Stickiness stickiness to Cash. • Favourable environment:
• Policymakers should amp up the encourage merchants, and
to Cash and Awareness. create helplines in the local
efforts taken to conduct training
• Ultimate dependent variable programs focusing on women languages.
and older people in rural areas. • Fintechs can collaborate
‘Actual Use Behavior’. • Awareness is the key to creating with the government to
favorable perceptions of rural create awareness regarding
• Used in rural setting, shows people regarding digital the safe usage of digital
payments usage.
diversity of UTAUT. • So, policymakers should keep
payments via plays,
focusing on campaigns
advertisements, etc. where
• Moderating Influence of highlighting convenience, safety, fake scenarios based on real
support system availability, and events can be shown so that
several variables training programs for people in people know how they have
rural areas. to play safe.
Limitations of the Study

 Non-random sampling techniques.

 Structured questionnaire only, due to time and financial constraints.

 Limited to only one state.

 The study is based on the perceptions of consumers only.

Future Scope of the Study

 Future researchers can collect data from rural areas of several other states as
well to broaden the understanding.

 Triangulation methods of data collection to understand acceptance and

usage of digital payments in rural areas as it is better to have comprehensive
views on a particular phenomenon.

 Comparative analysis on the factors influencing acceptance and usage of

digital payments of urban and rural users.

 Price Value which influence Behavioral Intention of using digital payments.

References
• Akhter, A., Al Asheq, A., Uzzal Hossain, Md., & Mobarak Karim, Md. (2020). Exploring customer intentions to adopt mobile banking services: evidence from a developing
country. Banks and Bank Systems, 15(2), 105–116. [Link]

• Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110. [Link]

• Alkhowaiter, W. A. (2022). Use and behavioural intention of m-payment in GCC countries: Extending meta-UTAUT with trust and Islamic religiosity. Journal of Innovation &
Knowledge, 7(4), 100240. [Link]

• Behl, A., & Pal, A. (2016). Analysing the Barriers towards Sustainable Financial Inclusion using Mobile Banking in Rural India. Indian Journal of Science and Technology,
9(15). [Link]

• Charbaji, A., & Mikdashi, T. (2003). A path analytic study of the attitude toward e-government in Lebanon. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in
Society, 3(1), 76–82. [Link]

• Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Khorana, S., Mikalef, P., & Sharma, A. (2023). Assessing Organizational Users’ Intentions and Behavior to AI Integrated CRM Systems: a Meta-
UTAUT Approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(4), 1299–1313. [Link]

• Chauhan, S. (2015). Acceptance of mobile money by poor citizens of India: Integrating trust into the technology acceptance model. Info, 17(3), 58–68.
[Link]

• Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2020). The moderating role of gender and age in the adoption of mobile wallet. Foresight, 22(4), 483–504. [Link]

• Deb, M., & Agrawal, A. (2017). Factors impacting the adoption of m-banking: understanding brand India’s potential for financial inclusion. Journal of Asia Business Studies,
11(1), 22–40. [Link]

• Dharurkar, N. (2024). Incentive scheme for digital payments in Interim Budget 2024. PwC.
[Link]
References
• Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a
Revised Theoretical Model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734. [Link]

• Gunnoo, L., Subadar, U. A., & Fauzel, S. (2023). The mediating effect of attitude on adoption of mobile payment services in small island developing states. The case of
Mauritius. Social Sciences and Humanities Open, 8(1). [Link]

• Gupta, K., & Arora, N. (2020). Investigating consumer intention to accept mobile payment systems through unified theory of acceptance model: An Indian perspective. South
Asian Journal of Business Studies, 9(1), 88–114. [Link]

• Gupta, K. P., Manrai, R., & Goel, U. (2019). Factors influencing adoption of payments banks by Indian customers: extending UTAUT with perceived credibility. Journal of Asia
Business Studies, 13(2), 173–195. [Link]

• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
[Link]

• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R. Springer
International Publishing. [Link]

• Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
[Link]

• Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. In European Business Review (Vol. 31, Issue 1, pp. 2–24).
Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. [Link]

• Hasan, A., Sikarwar, P., Mishra, A., Raghuwanshi, S., Singhal, A., Joshi, A., Singh, P. R., & Dixit, A. (2024). Determinants of Behavioral Intention to Use Digital Payment
among Indian Youngsters. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(2), 87. [Link]

• Hussain, M., Mollik, A. T., Johns, R., & Rahman, M. S. (2019). M-payment adoption for bottom of pyramid segment: an empirical investigation. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 37(1), 362–381. [Link]
References
• Malhotra, N., & Dash, S. (2019). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (7th ed.). Pearson.

• Mandari, H., & Chong, Y.-L. (2018). The Moderating Effects of Awareness on Antecedents of Behavioral Intention to adopt Mobile Government Services. International Journal
of E-Adoption, 10(2), 50–69. [Link]

• Manrai, R., Goel, U., & Yadav, P. D. (2021). Factors affecting adoption of digital payments by semi-rural Indian women: extension of UTAUT-2 with self-determination theory
and perceived credibility. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(6), 814–838. [Link]

• NPCI. (2024). UPI Product Statistics. NPCI. [Link]

• Patil, P. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Digital Payments Adoption: An Analysis of Literature. In Digital Nations – Smart Cities, Innovation, and Sustainability. I3E
2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 10595, pp. 61–70). Springer. [Link]

• Press Information Bureau. (2023, March 19). From Local to Global: How India’s Digital Payment Revolution is Inspiring the World. Government of India.
[Link]

• Rehman, M., Esichaikul, V., & Kamal, M. (2012). Factors influencing e‐government adoption in Pakistan. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(3), 258–282.
[Link]

• Rehman, Z. U., & Shaikh, F. A. (2020). Critical Factors Influencing the Behavioral Intention of Consumers towards Mobile Banking in Malaysia. Engineering, Technology &
Applied Science Research, 10(1), 5265–5269. [Link]

• Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Moisescu, O. I., & Radomir, L. (2020). Structural model robustness checks in PLS-SEM. Tourism Economics, 26(4), 531–
554. [Link]