CONSUMER PREFERENCE: A STUDY OF MOBILE DIGITAL WALLET

By

Anas Olateju Oyewole

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Science

CAPITOL TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY

December 2018

© 2018 by Anas Olateju Oyewole

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 Consumer Preference: A Study of Digital Mobile Wallet

By

Anas Olateju Oyewole

Approved:

William H. Butler, D.Sc. Chair

Ray A. Letteer, D.Sc. Committee Member

Emily B. Darraj, D.Sc. Committee Member

Accepted and Signed:

William H. Butler, DSc Date

Ray Letteer, DSc Date

Emily Darraj, DSc Date

Helen G. Barker, DM Date

CAO, VP Academic Affairs

Capitol Technology University

 ABSTRACT

Mobile digital wallet has been revolving around the world. However, factors are

influencing the adoption and use of mobile wallet. The purpose of the qualitative

phenomenological study was to examine the perceptions of the use of mobile wallet among the

users in Toronto, Canada.

Participants of this study included 17 individuals who have embraced and utilized a

mobile wallet for different transactions. Their perceptions about the security mechanism and

motivation for adoption allows for a deeper understanding of their experiences during and after

the adoption. Most available researches have been mainly focussing on users’ initial adoption

and the usage of mobile payment, whereas postadoption usage has not been fully investigated,

therefore, this research tries to close the gap.

Amazon Mechanical Turks (MTurks) was used to recruit the participants while Skype®

technology was used to conduct the online interviews. The unified theory of acceptance and use

of technology (UTAUT) model was used to describe the perception of the users and NVivo 12 ®

software was used to analyse the transcribed data from the open-ended interviews. The findings

identified the factors that influence the adoption and continuance use of mobile wallet.

The six themes emerged from the analysis are Consumers’ Mindset, Motivations for

Adoption, Challenges in Mobile Wallet Enrollment, Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison,

Consumer’s Security Perceptions, and Consumer’s Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Transactions.

The findings from this study may benefit consumers, device manufacturers, and mobile wallet

application, vendors. Future research is recommended to replicate the study using a quantitative

methodology, however, in a different setting with a larger sample of older adults as participants.
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to the Highest God for giving me the gift of life, crowned me

with unmerited favor. Also, to my children Einstein, Lovette and Winnie for their perseverance

and endurance during my study.

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I want to express my appreciation to the people who are instrumentals for the completion

of this research work. My dissertation Chair - Dr. William H. Butler, who provided guidance and

support in making this research work a worthwhile. His unrelenting advice and guidance have

made this research a success. Dr. Ray Letteer and Dr. Emily Darraj for accepting to serve in my

committee and for their helpful feedback and valuable instruction during the conduct of this

research. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Michael Fain, Director of Doctoral learning who never

got tired of my frequent requests and inquiries. It is a wonderful experience meeting and

knowing you.

I wish to thank all the management and academic staff of Capitol Technology University

for establishing unparalleled pedagogy for the academic program that always provides first class

results. It is my joy to be identified and associated with this quality from this great citadel of

academic excellence.

I want to thank my family for enduring the hard times of not getting the required attention

when needed. I say thank you to Einstein, Lovette, and Winnie for growing so quickly to be

independent whenever I’m out of the country for the pursuit of this program. This

acknowledgement will not be complete without expressing my appreciation to my wife Dr.

(Mrs.) Omosalewa Adetutu Oyewole, MBChB (Ogun), FWACP, FESPE, for her tranquility and;

for giving me wonderful and understanding kids, also to my friends are special

acknowledgements, Mr. & Mrs. Ayodele Okpoye for their unrelenting support at all times. Mr.

Emmanuel Bolajoko and Mrs. Joyce Daniel in Baltimore Maryland for being receptive during

my stay in the USA. May God bless you all.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
CONSUMER PREFERENCE: A STUDY OF MOBILE DIGITAL WALLET iii

ABSTRACT v

DEDICATION vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT vii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 2

Problem Statement 6

The Purpose of the Study 8

Significance of the Study 9

Nature of Study 10

Research Questions 13

Conceptual or Theoretical Framework 14

Definition of Terms 16

Assumptions 18

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations 18

Scope 19
 Limitations 19

Delimitations 19

Summary 20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 22

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, Journals Researched 22

Historical Overview 23

Current Findings 25

Analysis 27

Research Method and Design 27

Instruments and Data Analysis 29

Data Analysis Protocol and Relationship with other Studies 31

Alternative Viewpoints 34

Mobile Payment Technologies 36

Mobile Wallet 38

Threats and Countermeasures 43

Summary 45

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 47

Research Method and Design Appropriateness 47

Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale 51

Validity 56

Data Analysis 57
 Summary 59

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 61

Pilot Study 61

Interviews 63

Researcher 63

Participants 64

Participants’ Characteristics 67

Participants’ Responses 70

Data Analysis Process 97

Categories and Theme Development 100

Theme 1: Consumers’ Mindset (RQ1a) 101

Theme 2: Motivations for Adoption (RQ1b) 102

Theme 3: Challenges in Mobile Wallet Enrollment (RQ1c) 103

Theme 4: Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison (RQ1d) 105

Summary 114

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 115

Discussion 116

Significance of the Study to the Payment Ecosystem 123

Limitations of the Study 126

Recommendations for Future Studies 126

Summary 127

REFERENCES 129
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY MAP 148

APPENDIX B: LITERATURE SEARCH 149

APPENDIX C: LITERATURE MAPPING 150

APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS 151

APPENDIX E: RESEARCH AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 153

APPENDIX F: PHENOMENOLOGY STUDY CONSENT FORM 155

Consent Form 155

APPENDIX G: AUTO CODING SCREENSHOT 159

APPENDIX H: NVIVO WORD FREQUENCY QUERY 160

APPENDIX I: CASES CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY 162

 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Security Issues and Countermeasures 44

Table 3. Pilot Study Results 63

Table 4 Participant Demographics 67

Table 5. NVivo Results (Top Results) 98

Table 6. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Mindsets (RQ1a) 101

Table 7. Participants statement and Theme for Motivations for Adoption (RQ1b) 103

Table 8. Participants statement and Theme for Mobile Wallet Enrollment (RQ1c) 104

Table 9.Participants statement and Theme for Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison (RQ1d)

......................................................................................................................................... 105

Table 10. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)108

Table 11. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)109

Table 12. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)110

Table 13. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile Wallet

Transactions (RQ1f) 111

Table 14. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile

Wallet Transactions (RQ1f) 112

Table 15. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile

Wallet Transactions (RQ1f) 113

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Growth in mobile commerce. Reprinted from an introduction to mobile payments.

............................................................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Steps for mobile transaction Source: Teju Oyewole 43

 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Card payments, both in-store and online are increasingly pervasive due to technology

advancement and global communication, albeit with business opportunities, new threats for

financial services are on the rise due to modern technologies (Simic, 2005, Al-Furiah & Al-

Braheem, 2009). Electronic payment systems, including credit-debit systems, have become a

standard for most transactions based on their characteristics of trust, reliability, security, ease of

use, and flexibility; however, security remains a challenge and leaves consumers vulnerable to

security risks (George, Lennard & Scribbins, 2013, Simic, 2005).

Given the advantages of electronic payments, several studies considered security as a

concern, which modern technologies, including mobile devices, seek to enhance (Harris,

Brookshire, & Chin, 2016, Rathore, 2016). New technologies are evolving to present alternative

payment methods which aim to reduce the opportunity for (Washington, 2016) and possibly

increase the ease of payment (George, Lennard & Scribbins, 2013). Many techniques and

innovations have been suggested to address the growing security concerns; however, each has its

own pushbacks (Zojaji, Atani, & Monadjemi, 2016). Mobile devices with contactless

technologies are among the innovations with goals to deliver ease of use and enhance security

during financial transactions for goods and services (Oliveira, Thomas, Baptista & Campos,

2016). Digital wallets, as a subset of mobile payments, allow an individual to handle multiple

monetary and identification tasks (Rathore, 2016).

Xin, Techatassanasoontorn, & Tan (2015) described mobile payment as a method of

conducting a payment process through mobile devices. Xin et al. (2015) claimed consumers

could be vulnerable to attack in the payment ecosystem which could affect the willingness to

adopt the payment technology. The factors affecting this willingness formed the bases for
consumers’ trust in mobile payment adoption. Xin et al (2015) examined consumers’ uncertainty

about mobile technology, service providers, and vendors; it would not be credible to assume a

priori that only the factors mentioned above can affect the adoption of the mobile wallet.

Similarly, Swilley (2010) initiated a study to understand consumers’ perception of

adopting new technology including a mobile wallet. The study analyzed the influence of

consumers’ perceived risk; the study further demonstrated that security and privacy have

significant impacts on the adoption of the mobile wallet. Yang, Liu, Li & Yu (2015) argued that

perceived information asymmetry, technology and regulatory uncertainty, and service

intangibility are the factors influencing consumers’ adoption of the mobile wallet. Perception

appears multiple times in the previous studies; however, there are a number of factors that affect

a consumer’s intention of adopting the mobile wallet. This study focuses on an individual’s

perceived usefulness of the mobile digital wallet from cybersecurity point of view.

Chapter 1 of this study contains the background of the problem of adopting mobile digital

wallet as an alternative payment method. The discussion also covers the statement of the purpose

and the significance of the study, which highlights how the research results will benefit

consumers, providers, original equipment manufacturers, application developers and the eco-

system. This chapter presents the conceptual framework guiding the design of the

phenomenology theory, the scope of the study, assumptions and limitations. Throughout the

course of this study, focus will be on the design method and methodology to ensure a substantive

result.

Background of the Study

The broad use of mobile devices is feeding consumers’ appetite for innovation beyond

communication by introducing alternate payment methods (Almuairfi,Veeraraghavan,

Chilamkurti, & Park, 2014) for making purchases. Mobile devices have been used extensively

for multichannel purposes including the exploitation of other mobile-specific functionalities

which have led to the increase in adoption of the devices for mobile commerce. Figure 1, below

shows the growth in mobile commerce.

Figure 1. Growth in mobile commerce. Reprinted from an introduction to mobile

payments: Market drivers, applications, and inhibitors by M. Sherman, 2014, Proceedings of the

1st International Conference on Mobile Software Engineering and Systems, p.72. Copyright.

The figure 1 above showed the progressive adoption of mobile commerce using mobile

devices; 2011 experienced $14 Billion dollars sales in retail which is about 7% of retail

ecommerce. Subsequently, in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the growth has been steady with

11%, 15%, 18%, 21% and 24% respectively. According to Sherman (2014) the projection in the

graph is an indication of continues adoption of the mobile device as an underlying technology for

mobile commerce.

Mobile commerce is a set of commercial activities that take place through mobile

devices. Hillman, Neustaedter, Oduor, and Pang (2014) referred to mobile commerce as an

activity to which the mobile payment service belongs. Given the statistics of mobile payment

usage, Sherman (2014) reported that the growth could reach or exceed $1.3 trillion as of 2017.
Furthermore, the approximately 38% increase in the worldwide gross domestic product (GDP)

from 2010 to 2020 is a strong indicator of an increase in mobile payments (Sherman, 2014).

The emergence of new mobile payment takes the payment methodology a step further by

developing the mobile digital wallet that allows consumers to store multiple credit cards and

make purchases by authenticating and swiping the mobile device across the payment sensor

(French, & Reuters, 2012). The mobile wallet technology is increasing as a popular payment

method (Rose, 2012;Toma, 2012), and there are expectations of further growth according to the

study conducted in Japan and South Korea (Shufelt, 2013). Zhou (2013) confirmed that many

organizations are venturing to mobile payment to promote their goods and services. In addition,

Trichur (2014) argued executives of major banks in Canada are expecting to adopt the mobile

digital wallet to stimulate more spending and attract more customers.

The new payment device is expected to grow with technological innovations of the

wireless network and mobile devices (Swilley, 2010). However, due to the high volume of users’

data, an appreciable amount of money is being lost because of security breaches in mobile

devices and applications (Stiakakis, Georgiadis, & Andronoudi, 2016). The security breaches

continue to increase due to users’ lack of awareness and education about mobile payment

security and ultimately influence the adoption (Stiakakis et al., 2016).

Davis (2016) argued mobile devices increase productivity, efficiency, and customer

services; however, there are hindrances characterized by lack of privacy protection and user’s

anonymity that affect the acceptance of the mobile payment from the consumers’ perspectives

(Almuairfi, Veeraraghavan, Chilamkurti, & Park, 2014). Another study by Xin,

Techatassanasoontorn & Tan (2015), to understand the trust facilitation in the mobile payment

adoption, argued that consumers’ confidence is developed through five dimensions including
characteristics derived from mobile service providers, mobile payment vendor, mobile

technology, culture and trust disposition. While identifying the antecedent of trust, the study

focused on the initial trust of mobile payment that can influence the consumer to adopt the new

technology.

In addition, a study conducted to understand consumers’ perception of a new technology,

specifically mobile wallet, showed negative attitudes toward the adoption of the device (Swilley,

2010). Swilley (2010) suggested in her study that consumers decided not to acknowledge the

usefulness of the mobile wallet based on their perceived risk of losing the stored data including

credit card and other information stored in a single device. Swilley further argued that perceived

security and privacy presented concerns in adopting the mobile digital wallet.

Two years later Toma (2012) recommended that a mobile payment must be easy to use,

interoperable and with other payment platforms and anonymous to influence consumers’

attitudes. He suggested the ease of use and interoperability would establish customers’ trust to

adopt the digital payment method. Toma further suggested an improvement in security and

privacy would positively influence the consumers’ trust. Toma analyzed the result of the study

based on the perceived risk and perceived security.

In contrast, Harper (2014) argued 75% of respondents in his study of mobile contactless

technology’s impact on businesses are willing to adopt mobile payment. The study examined the

customers’ perception of the security in mobile payment technology. Harper also argued some

consumers entertain fears based on what they read or heard in the news media about breaches of

personal and financial data. This study was generally based on perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use. The review of Chapter 2 will further identify the gap in the literature to
understand the security usefulness experienced by the users after adopting the mobile wallet as

an alternative payment method.

Problem Statement

The general problem is the scale of payment card fraud is creating fear and loss of

confidence in card payment systems (Murdoch, & Anderson, 2014, March; Zojaji, Atani, &

Monadjemi, 2016). The traditional payment cards compromise has great economic impacts on

consumers and there is a need for a more secured payment method (Stiakakis, Georgiadis, &

Andronoudi, 2016). As a result, Washington (2016) suggested an alternative payment method to

reduce the attack opportunities and possibly increase the ease of payment (George, Lennard &

Scribbins, 2013).

As previously described, various payment methods have experienced rapid innovations

through various enablers including near field commuincation (NFC), quick response code,

mobile wallet, short message services (SMS) transactions, and wristband pay introduced by

Barclaycard in the UK (De Kerviler, Demoulin, & Zidda, 2016; Zhou, 2015). These referenced

alternative payment methods seek to either improve “ease of use” and/or offer enhancement in

the security mechanism of mobile payment devices(Harris, Brookshire, & Chin, 2016; Rathore,

2016; Sullivan, 2008; Oyewole, El-Maude, Abba, & Onuh, 2013).

The benefits of new technology, however, introduced new methods of fraud and theft that

could hinder the adoption of mobile payments (Kellermann, 2002). According to Kang, Mun, &

Johnson (2015), 79% of mobile device users in the U.S. utilized the retail specific applications to

check prices, reviews, product discounts and carry out transactions. Several studies have

investigated consumers’ perception before adopting the mobile wallet in which case, such
perceptions may not be a priori for understanding the experience from a cybersecurity

standpoint.

The specific problem, however, is users are unaware of the security capability used in

mobile digital wallet as an alternitve payment method to credit cards (Mathiowetz, 2014; Zhou,

2015). De Kerviler, Demoulin, & Zidda (2016) argued that the adoption rate for mobile

payments seem to be much lower relative to the other functions performed with mobile device.

Similarly, Zhou (2015) argued that mobile payment rate adoption is 38.9% compared to 87.1%

for mobile instant messages. Zhou (2015) and other several researchers suggested that an

“individual’s perceived usefulness” (p. 56), or insecurity including financial risk, may influence

adoption of the mobile payment system (Swilley, 2010; Yang, Liu, Li & Yu, 2015).

In another study conducted by Xin, Techatassanasoontorn, & Tan (2015) in Aukland,

New Zealand, it was argued that the level of trust in mobile payment influences a potential

consumer’s decision to adopt the payment method. The previously noted studies utilized

participants with no experience with mobile payment in China and New Zealand (Xin,

Techatassanasoontorn, & Tan, 2015; Yang, Liu, Li & Yu, 2015). Xin et al. and Yang et al.

(2015) focused attention on consumers’ perception before the adoption of the mobile wallet;

however, such perceptions may be too narrow to understand the breath of the reason customers

will adopt, or continue to adopt, the mobile digital wallet. During the literature review in this

study, only few studies were identified to examine consumer experience from cybersecurity

stand points after the adoption of the mobile wallet with a focus on the geographical area of

Toronto in Canada. In addition, French (2012) confirmed the reduction in the use of traditional

physical wallet in place of a digital wallet in Toronto is still many years away. Considering the
slow adoption rate, there is a need to further investigate the reason customers will continuously

adopt mobile wallet with consideration of security capabilities in the mobile digital wallet.

The qualitative research method employed for this study will be based on the human-

focused approach required to understand and interpret people's experiences and their worlds

(Given, 2016; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The study will explore qualitative phenomenology to

understand users’ security experiences of the mobile digital wallet. The researcher will collect

data from interviews with Toronto retail shoppers through open-ended interviews, observations,

and documentations (Creswell, 2012; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Salkind, 2012). The researcher

will focus on the participants’ experiences and establish meaning from the experiences (Merriem

& Tisdell, 2015). The general target population for this study is the mobile digital wallet users

among the Toronto retail shoppers who used a mobile wallet for transactions in Toronto, Canada.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study is to understand the cybersecurity

perception of the end users of mobile digital wallet. The survey method is proposed to

understand users’ lived experiences with the mobile digital wallet after adoption. The qualitative

constructivist approach gave meaning to the participants’ beliefs and values (Creswell, 2012;

Schein, 2014).

The constructivism will help to study the context utilizing open-ended online interviews

in identifying and understanding consumers’ secured experience about the mobile digital wallet

(Given, 2016). The constructivist design of phenomenology will be explored with a systematic

approach to provide an in-depth description of the participants’ experience of using mobile

digital wallet security and consequently to help generate meaning to the collected data (Creswell,

2012; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The independent variables are the cybersecurity experiences of
the Toronto shoppers using the mobile digital wallet while the dependent variable is the adoption

rate of mobile digital wallet. The target population for this phenomenology study is the

population that previous literatures have not considered before now -- the users of a mobile

digital wallet who have experienced the payment method in Toronto, Canada.

Significance of the Study

This study will attempt to present users’ cybersecurity experiences after the adoption of

the mobile digital wallet as an alternative payment for shopping. The significance of this

research is to understand the security factors that can influence consumers’ attitudes toward the

use of mobile digital wallet (Swilley, 2010). According to Murdoch and Anderson (2014), the

implementation of the mobile wallet may be flawed even if the security protocol is strongly

designed; and users may be dishonest or develop doubts about the integrity of the components of

the mobile wallet. Previous research demonstrated that individuals’ general evaluation had a

connection between the risk and benefits of using a product, which could lead to doubts about

the integrity of the mobile wallet (de Kerviler, Demoulin, & Zidda, 2016). The substantive result

from this qualitative study is an extension to understanding the consumers’ trust in mobile

payments (Xin, Techatassanasoontorn & Tan, 2015).

The intent of the study is to provide useful information to consumers regarding the

adoption and secure enrollment in the mobile wallet. The study is also designed to contribute

information to consumers to enhance technologies for the usability and security of the mobile

wallet. In addition, the study is intended to identify whether the use of the mobile wallet is

productive for customers and identifies the outcome measures for saving time during payment

transactions (Oliveira, Thomas, Baptista, & Campos, 2016). Further, the significance of the

prescribed study seeks to provide useful information to the device manufacturers (Xin,
Techatassanasoontorn & Tan, 2015) to improve mobile device security architecture (Murdoch, &

Anderson, 2014).

The phenomenological design in this study is to gather information for evaluation

through the interview questions. The intent of the interview questions is to measure the

perceptions and understand participants’ lived experience of security capability in the mobile

digital wallet. Previous research focused on perception before the adoption of the new

technology (Swilley, 2010; Xin, Techatassanasoontorn & Tan, 2015; Yang, Liu, Li & Yu,

2015), and this study focuses on the lived experience after the adoption. Finally, this study is

designed to contribute to the existing literature of users’ perception and preferences about the

mobile digital wallet in Korea and the U.S. (Shin, Lee & Odom, 2014).

Nature of Study

This study will utilize phenomenological study to understand the customers’ perception

of mobile payment. Qualitative researchers seek to understand the interpretation people give to

their experiences and the meaning they attribute to such experiences (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

Creswell (2013) stated the qualitative research approach is appropriate to understand a

phenomenon. The qualitative phenomenological approach is suitable to understand the affective

and human experiences as applicable to mobile payment under study (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

In addition to selecting the phenomenological study, the researcher will require

identifying the appropriate data collection method to substantiate the claim made on made on

participants’ experience and interpretation for the study. Merriem & Tisdell (2015) identified the

interview as primary means for data collection. However, the researcher will isolate his

viewpoints and assumptions to avoid biases during the study (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). For this

study, the researcher will select online interview using Skype as means for data collection form
the participants. Thus, document, interview, and audiovisual data are forms of artifacts for

qualitative study (Creswell, 2013). The researcher will organize the collected artifacts themes for

further analysis to present the essence of the phenomenon of mobile payment (Merriem &

Tisdell, 2015).

This study will use a phenomenological study to understand the customers’ perception of

mobile payment. Qualitative researchers seek to understand the interpretation people give to their

experiences and the meaning they attribute to such experiences (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

Creswell (2013) stated the qualitative research approach is appropriate to understand a

phenomenon. The qualitative phenomenological approach is suitable to understand the affective

and human experiences as applicable to mobile payment under study (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

In addition to selecting the phenomenological study, the researcher will require

identifying the appropriate data collection method to substantiate the claim made on made on

participants’ experience and interpretation for the study. Merriem & Tisdell (2015) identified the

interview as primary means for data collection. However, the researcher will isolate his

viewpoints and assumptions to avoid biases during the study (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). For this

study, the researcher selected online interview using Skype as means for data collection form the

participants. Thus, document, interview, and audiovisual data are forms of artifacts for

qualitative study (Creswell, 2013). The researcher will organize the collected artifacts themes for

further analysis to present the essence of the phenomenon of mobile payment (Merriem &

Tisdell, 2015).

Overview of Research Method

The nature of the prescribed study is to address the research questions that will be

explored utilizing a qualitative research design (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). There are different
qualitative research designs including historical, descriptive, ethnography, case study,

phenomenological, and grounded theory (Given, 2016). The major commonality of these designs

is the focus on generating meaning and understanding from data collections (Merriem & Tisdell,

2015). This study includes a collection and analysis of qualitative data from the participants to

address the research question: What are the lived experiences of consumers after the adoption of

mobile digital wallet?

Overview of Design Appropriateness

The qualitative phenomenological design is an appropriate design methodology to

understand consumers’ lived cybersecurity experience of the mobile digital wallet by collecting

and analyzing the data obtained from participants (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The analyses

techniques in phenomenology, including the epoché, which is to isolate researcher’s experiences

with the phenomenon, while the phenomenological reduction will redirect the research to the

participants experiences (Creswell, 2012; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Salkind, 2012). The adopted

method will help to define the essence of consumers’ lived experiences and the basic structures

in order to understand consumers’ experiences from a cybersecurity viewpoint (Creswell, 2012;

Salkind, 2012). Further, the method will help compare data segments using the horizontalization

method to gain a full understanding of the participants’ experiences (Creswell, 2012, Merriem &

Tisdell, 2015).

Researchers hold four philosophical worldviews that explain and guide their steps during

the research work. The posts positivist worldview holds the ideas of causes and effects by

developing the hypotheses and validating the hypotheses using the experimental and non-

experimental designs (Creswell, 2012, 2014). The transformative worldviews, on the other hand,

focus on social context issues such as racism (Creswell, 2014). This design focuses on
transformative worldviews including narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory,

ethnography, and case study (Salkind, 2012). Pragmatic worldviews explore qualitative and

quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2012). The researchers holding the pragmatic view utilized

the convergent, explanatory and exploratory sequential design to collect data from participants

(Creswell, 2014).

However, for the purpose of the prescribed study, constructivist worldviews are

appropriate to gain an understanding of the participants’ experiences with the mobile digital

wallet. Despite the stated differences in philosophical worldviews, the similarities in worldviews

in qualitative research discover how participants understand security capabilities in mobile

digital wallet through interviews, stories, observations, documents and reports (Merriem &

Tisdell, 2015). Chapter 3 will discuss in more detail the design appropriateness for this study.

Research Questions

The broad research question: What are the lived experiences of consumers after the

adoption of the mobile digital wallet? This research question seeks to guide the study in

understanding consumer’s security experience of mobile digital wallet adoption (Adeyeye,

2015). The main research question attempts to provide a conceptual basis for the study by

utilizing guided sub-questions (Adeyeye, 2015; Cathro, 2015). In addition, the broad questions

will help the researcher explore the common phenomenon regarding the mobile digital wallet

(Creswell, 2013).

The following sub-questions will guide the study to answer the central research question

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015):

RQ1a: What are the thoughts of consumer when they know about mobile wallet?

RQ1b: What motivates the consumer to use mobile payment transactions?

 RQ1c: Which actions need to be taken to use the mobile wallet as a payment method?

RQ1d: How do mobile wallets compare to the traditional physical wallet?

RQ1e: What is the security capability of the mobile digital wallet?

RQ1f: How do consumers describe their experience of a payment transaction?

These research questions will be further tailored with other sub-questions to address the

main research question. The study will utilize synchronous skype online interviews with

unstructured questionnaires for the participants (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The study data will

focus on the cybersecurity experience of using the mobile digital wallet. The participants’

responses to the questions will help provide answers to the six stated questions.

The first question will address the factors that influenced the participants’ adoption of the

mobile digital wallet. The subsequent questions will address what areas of the digital wallet are

useful and how the participants feel about their data. Chapter 3 will discuss in detail how the

study design will address the three questions.

Conceptual or Theoretical Framework

Previous studies examined the factors influencing customers’ initial decision to adopt

mobile wallet (Xin,Techatassanasoontorn & Tan, 2015; Yang, Liu, Li & Yu , 2015). According

to the study conducted by Xin et al., 62.1% of participants in Asia, Europe, and Maori, indicated

their experiences with mobile banking. However, the studies left a gap in consumers’

cybersecurity experience about the mobile digital wallet in Toronto, Canada. The developed

research questions will help to understand the consumers’ experience after the adoption of the

mobile wallet, and this study will draw upon the conceptual framework of Unified Theory of

Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2016; Venkatesh,

Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).

 Venkatesh et al. (2003) developed the UTAUT from eight previous models to predict the

intention and behaviors of end users of new technology. The UTAUT is considered a robust

model (Taiwo & Downe, 2013) by combining models: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)

proposed by Davis in 1989, provides a framework for researcher to understand what influences

an individual to make a decision based on the intention to engage in such behavior (Lorenzo-

Blanco, Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, Des Rosiers, Baezconde-Garbanati, & Pattarroyo, 2016).

Barnes (2014) confirmed that TRA was used to obtain an in-depth understanding of consumers’

behaviors, attitudes, and intentions toward the adoption of electronic commerce technology.

In 1985, Icek Ajzen developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to improve the

TRA by using perceived behavioral control to predict intentions and behaviors of consumers

(Sommestad, Karlzén, & Hallberg, 2015). The technology Acceptance Model (TAM) helps

researchers to understand the effect of consumers’ attitude and beliefs on consumers’ acceptance

or rejection of technology (Pires, 2015). According to Amaro (2015), John Keller’s Model of

Motivational design (MM) helps to identify the most effective method of sustaining attention,

demonstrating relevance, producing confidence and promoting satisfaction in the learning

process. In addition, the combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB) proposed by Taylor and Todd

in 1995 was used to determine the behavior by the attitude towards such behavior (Safeena,

Date, Hundewale, & Kammani, 2013).

Model of Personal Computer Utilization (MPCU) is based on constructs to explain an

individual’s belief that the use of technology can enhance their performance (Jawahar, &

Harindran, 2013). Also, Rogers (2003) introduced the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) to

determine the degree to which an individual perceives innovation as being better than a previous

technology (Jawahar, & Harindran, 2013). Bandura (1986) proposed the Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT) to determine the consequences of personal behaviors’ to be measured by the individual

esteem and sense of accomplishments (Baptista, & Oliveira, 2015).

Venkatesh et al. (2003) theorized four key constructs in UTAUT: performance

expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. The first three

constructs directly influence the users’ behavioral intentions, while this behavioral intention

combined with the facilitating conditions directly influence the user’s behavior of adopting the

mobile digital wallet (Adeyeye, 2015; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003).

As applied to this phenomenology study, it is an expectation that UTAUT constructs with the

key moderators -- gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use -- will help to explore the

perceptions and experiences of mobile digital wallet users effectively regarding their data

security (Taiwo & Downe, 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2003, Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2016).

Definition of Terms

Mobile Digital Wallet: A combination of mobile device and personal information,

including financial data with access to information as at when needed (Rose, 2012; Shin & Lee,

2014).

Mobile network operators: Service providers that connect payment devices to payment

access of a bank through a merchants authentication and authorization platform (Hamdi, 2011).

Mobile Payment: The use of mobile devices in making payment for services and goods

utilizing different payments including credit cards, micropayments and digital coins (Isaac &

Zeadally, 2014) through a mobile network (Hamdi, 2011).

Mobile Payment Application: A pre-installed software on NFC enabled devices that will

allow users to link credit cards with the mobile devices for payment (Rose, 2012).
 Merchants: Stores that receive any form of payment for goods and services (Harper,

2014).

Model of Personal Computer Utilization (MPCU): A model to measure the extent to

which individuals believe that technology can improve the outcome of their job

(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).

Motivational Model (MM): The perception that a user will like to performed an activity

for being perceived as yield a valuable outcome (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).

Near Field Communication (NFC): A wireless technology that allows responsive and

smartness exchange of small data with another similar technology within a short range of

approximately 1.6 inches. (Rose, 2012; Shin & Lee, 2014).

Point Of Sale: An interface technology that initiates a payment transaction for the

payment card (Almuairfi, Veeraraghavan, Chilamkurti, & Park, 2014).

Perceived usefulness: An extent, to which an individual agrees that technology enhances

his ability to carry out a task (Jahangir & Begun, 2008; May, 2013).

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): A theory to explain how an individual accepts the

use of information systems (Surendran, 2012).

Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA): An evaluation theory to measure individual’s positive

and negative behavior towards acceptance of technology (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, &

Davis,2003).

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A unified model

developed to assess the possibility of successful adoption of new technology and the underlying

drivers towards their adoption (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,2003).

 Assumptions

Assumptions are the necessary beliefs required to conduct a specific research even when

they are not yet validated (Simon & Goes, 2013). In this phenomenology study, the data will be

collected through text-based online interviews, unstructured open-ended interviews, observation,

and documents. It is an expectation to get the rich, thick description data that can provide

accurate interpretation (Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). Another assumption

is that interpretation of reality from the interview can produce a substantive result as a

foundation for future research (May, 2013; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). This prescribed study

requires protection of confidentiality and anonymity of participants; there is an assumption that

the participants would trust declarations of anonymity to provide honest responses to the

questions. Furthermore, there is an assumption that participants will honestly respond to the

interview questions (Moroni, Talamo & Dimitri, 2015).

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations.

The scope defines the boundaries of research, and it also specifies the operating

parameters of the studies (Simon & Goes, 2013). For the scope of this study, the researcher will

identify participants’ cybersecurity experience of using mobile payment. Thus, the scope of this

study stated the boundary with demarcation however with some obvious limitations that can

threaten the conduct of the study (Kothari, 2004). Limitations are considered as potential

weaknesses in the designs and methodology that can influence the outcome of research (Simon

& Goes, 2013). Given the above, the delimitations are the controls which the researchers can use

to guide against changes in the coverage of the study and limit the boundaries of research (Simon

& Goes, 2013). Researchers can use delimitations to control the limitations introduced during the

study.
 Scope

The scope defines the boundaries of research, and it also specifies the operating

parameters of the studies (Simon & Goes, 2013). Thus, the scope of this study will be to identify

the cybersecurity experiences of users who have adopted and made transaction payments using

the mobile digital wallet. Participants are expected to have installed and enrolled in the mobile

digital payment and made transactions payment using the digital wallet. The objective of this

study is to interview only the mobile digital wallet users who satisfy the above criteria in the

Toronto, Canada geographical location.

Limitations

Limitations are considered as the constraints that are out of the researchers controls and

could influnce the outcome of the study (Simon and Goes, 2013). Though, in this qualitative

phenomenology study, the researcher cannot be certain of the adequacy of sample size as this is a

potential weakness as confirmed by Creswell (2012) because of the small number of participants,

this may not represent the real population. Generalizability is another limitation in this

qualitative study because of the variables in the environmental data settings including the

targeted population located in Toronto, Canada. Participant interviews can also introduce

limitations because the anonymity protection can make the responses repudiated without

validation. In addition to the above limitations, refusal to participate in the interview by the

potential participants selected after passing the qualifying test can affect the outcome of the study

due to the fear of compromise to their privacy and identify.

Delimitations

The delimitations are the attributes that manifested from the limitations in the boundary

of a study characterized by the omission or addition made when the researchers are developing
the study plan (Simon and Goes, 2013). To control the limitation of anonymity and

confidentiality, the researcher will utilize a third-party Amazon mechanical Turk to recruit

participants and conduct the online interview for anonymity of response. Additionally, the

informed consent will inform the potential participants about their confidentiality and anonymity

protections. The researcher will utilize only the participants with experiences of the mobile

digital wallet in this study to obtain information on the presented questions.

To address the delimitation that may be introduced by the weakness of the sample size,

the researcher will follow the theoretical saturation during the data-gathering phase (Creswell &

Poth, 2017; Creswell, 2012). For guidance, Creswell (2014) suggested an approximate sample

size between three and ten for the phenomenology study (p.239). However, for this prescribed

phenomenology study, a sample size of 15 participants is considered appropriate to gain a deeper

understanding of the participants’ cybersecurity experiences (Creswell, 2014). Although the

generalizability is not always guaranteed in a qualitative study; the rich, detailed description will

help in transferring the result of the study to another setting outside the targeted population

located in Toronto, Canada. (Kamau, 2015; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

Summary

This chapter presented the general problem of the mobile digital wallet receiving a slow

adoption rate (Zhou, 2015) due to the individual’s perceived usefulness and or insecurity (Yang,

Liu, Li & Yu, 2015). The general problem lead to the specific problem of limited studies on how

the experienced users perceived the security capability of mobile digital wallet after adoption.

This chapter also presented the research question to understand the consumers’ cybersecurity

experience of the mobile digital wallet. The introductory chapter also established the purpose

statement of this study. To understand the users’ cybersecurity experience, the chapter
introduced the qualitative phenomenology with text-based online interviews for data collection

utilizing Skype. The chapter described the UTAUT as a conceptual framework to understand the

users’ experience.

Chapter 2 will present detailed literature review relevant to this study. The literature

review chapter will highlight the genesis of the problem statement from previous research. The

research literature will explore multiple sources for both forward and backward searches.

Furthermore, the historical review to understand the contributing factors and current findings

will be discussed. The chapter will also present the research methods and design that will be

used in this study. The chapter will also discuss population, sampling and data collection

procedure in the study.

 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The research focused on the general topic of consumer preference, with a focus on the

mobile digital wallet. Furthermore, the research addressed the specific problem of not knowing

the consumers’ lived experiences and perception towards the adoption of a mobile digital wallet.

This chapter discusses the theories in the literature on the digital wallet that represent the

foundation for this study. In addition, this literature review examines the gaps existing in the

previous studies of identifying the consumers’ perception of the mobile digital wallet.

Furthermore, this literature review discusses the need to bridge the identified gaps and

contributes to the body of knowledge within the payment ecosystems.

The literature study started with the search for the general topics and continued down to

the specific problem statement. The objective was to identify and describe the experience of

consumers during and after the adoption of a mobile digital wallet. Appendix B summarizes the

list of the literature searches conducted for this study.

The described study will use the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit the

participants for the online survey, taken from the population of mobile digital wallet users in

Toronto, Canada. The literature review also examines the populations in previous studies on the

perception of mobile payment methods. Similarly, Appendix E presents a summary of the

questions about the users’ experiences or perceptions during the use of the mobile digital wallet

as a payment method.

Title Searches, Articles, Research Documents, Journals Researched

The research literature for this study started with germane literature from multiple

databases, including the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) digital library, IEEE

Computer Society, ProQuest dissertation database from the Virtual library of Capitol Technology
University, Google™ Scholar, and ProQuest dissertations & Theses (PQDT) Open. Further

literature was acquired from conference proceedings and peer-reviewed professional

journals. The resources were queried with relevant search terms and phrases, including

mobile wallet, digital wallet security, mobile payment, mobile wallet security, consumers’

perception, authentication in a mobile wallet, mobile wallet adoption, security mechanism in

a mobile wallet, and secure transactions.

These studies did not directly address the same purpose; however, they are relevant to the

current study. Advanced search modes were also used to search by keyword, author, date, and

title to streamline the queries towards specification (Levy & Ellis, 2006). In addition, backward

searches were used to review references stated in the articles that had originated from previous

search queries. Similarly, the forward searches helped to identify more articles that contain

references to the articles originated from the keyword search (Levy & Ellis, 2006). Furthermore,

the literature research in this study was not based on the chronology of studies; rather, it was

based on the concept of effective and high-quality reviews (Webster & Watson, 2002).

Historical Overview

The literature review for this review included the factors contributing to consumers’

attitudes towards the adoption of mobile payment (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016), while the purpose of

the current review was to understand the cybersecurity perception of the end users of mobile

digital wallets. The review covers key topics that are relevant to the consumers’ perception of the

payment methods, focusing on security using the various keyword searches.

The literature review started with the focus on mobile payment methods and later

developed progressively to the mobile digital wallet. The concept of mobile payment is a

growing method of payment that makes use of mobile devices (Fan, Li, Jiang, Xiao, & Yang,
2017; Sherman, 2014; Swilley, 2010), with some valued advantages like convenience and ease of

use (Augsburg & Hedman, 2014; Fan, Li, Jiang, Xiao, & Yang, 2017). The review also examines

the reported research on why the mobile wallet is adopted as an alternative payment method

(Almuairfi, Veeraraghavan, Chilamkurti, & Park, 2014; Rose, 2012; Toma, 2012). The reason

for the adoption is the compromise in card payment (Murdoch & Anderson, 2014; Zojaji, Atani,

& Monadjemi, 2016). Based on the reported benefits of mobile payment, the literature reviewed

was extended to the level of adoption of the mobile payment (Blumenstock, Callen, Ghani, &

Koepke, 2015; Moroni, Talamo, & Dimitri, 2015).

Reviewing the factors affecting the adoption of the mobile wallet, the literature review

extended to the topics of the value added by services offered in mobile payment (Augsburg &

Hedman, 2014). The value of compatible and convenient added services in the digital mobile

wallet has a positive impact on the intention to adopt mobile payment methods. Subsequent

searches in the literature on this adoption showed that ease of use and perceived usefulness are

factors influencing the user’s intention to adopt new technology (Augsburg & Hedman, 2014;

Moroni, Talamo, & Dimitri, 2015).

In addition to the literature on adoption factors, the user interface also plays a

significant role in the adoption of mobile payment (De, Dey, Mankar, & Mukherjea, 2015).

The adoption rates are influenced by different factors in different geographical locations. Even

though the adoption of mobile devices is widespread across multiple countries, however,

mobile payment has not been adopted at the same rate as mobile devices have (Hampshire,

2016; Patel, 2016).

The review examines various perceptions from the consumer’s standpoint. The

perceived ease of use and usefulness have a significant influence on the user’s trust (Yan &
Yang, 2014), a literature review in the United States and Korea showed users’ perceptions,

including the sensation of security, cost, convenience, and ease of use (Patel, 2016; Shin &

Lee, 2014). Similarly, a reported review by Oliveira, Thomas, Baptista, & Campos (2016)

identified the main determinants to adopt mobile payment in Portugal, Europe, i.e.,

compatibility, perceived technology security, performance, innovativeness, and social

influence. Several studies have identified the perceived security risk, ease of use, and privacy

as common barriers towards the users’ adoption of mobile payment (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016;

Harris, Brookshire, & Chin, 2016; Huh et al., 2017; Rathore, 2016; Sherman, 2014; Yan &

Yang, 2014; Zhong, Dhir, Nieminen, Hämäläinen, & Laine, 2013).

Current Findings

The discussion below provides a detailed review of selected studies with a focus on the

perceived security, ease of use, trust, and privacy in a mobile wallet environment. Aydin and

Burnaz (2016) examined the factors contributing to consumer attitude development towards the

use of mobile payment solutions. The survey method was used to collect data from two different

groups of participants: users and non-users of mobile payment systems (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016).

Findings showed that ease of use and usefulness are more important than security concerns from

the consumers’ perspectives (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016). The authors concluded that there were

significant differences in the constructs used to measure the perceptions between users and non-

users of mobile payment systems.

In the review by Harris, Brookshire, and Chin (2016), the problem was that no previous

studies had investigated the installation of mobile applications. The purpose of the review as

stated by Harris et al. was to explore the factors influencing consumers of mobile devices before

installing a mobile application. A quantitative method was utilized; an online survey was used to
measure users’ perceptions of downloading mobile applications (Harris et al., 2016). The authors

claimed that significant antecedents of perceived security and familiarity were retained to create

a new research model. The results showed that consumers with perceived security have greater

trust. Harris et al. concluded that the new research model showed that familiarity is more

powerful than perceived security in determining the consumers’ trust.

Rathore (2016) stated in his review that finding a lost physical wallet is extremely hard

and the purpose of the research was to understand the various factors that can affect a user’s

decision to adopt a digital wallet. Rathore used a quantitative method to conduct the research;

online structured questionnaires were sent to the participants for data collection. Results of the

review showed that the major concerns to the users are security and safety of their funds

(Rathore, 2016). The author concluded with the claim that users are adopting digital wallets at an

incredibly rapid pace.

In the review by Huh et al. (2017), the authors claimed there are problems of security

concerns and misconceptions about tap-and-pay solutions. The purpose of their review was to

investigate why people use or do not use mobile tap-and-pay (Huh et al., 2017). In-person

interviews using developed questionnaires and online surveys using Amazon MTurk were used

to conduct the quantitative research (Huh et al., 2017). The authors claimed that usability is the

top reason for using tap-and-pay among the users, while the top reason for non-users is the

security misconception that storing credit card information on the mobile device is less secure

than the physical wallet. Finally, Huh et al. concluded that the people who are more

knowledgeable about the security protections in the tap-and-pay solutions are more likely to

adopt the new technology.

 Analysis

Research Method and Design

Research methods are the methods the researchers propose for their studies to collect,

analyse and interpret their data (Creswell,2014). However, before the collection of research data,

the researcher could adopt a reasecrh design to direct a study. Research designs are approaches

explored by the researcher to seek a method of procedure in a study (Creswell, 2014).

In the studies by Aydin and Burnaz, (2016), Harris et al. (2016), Rathore (2016), and Huh

et al. (2017), different research methods and designs were explored to address the objectives of

individual studies. Aydin and Burnaz (2016) examined the factors influencing the payment

consumers towards the adoption of the mobile wallet. Aydin and Burnaz (2016) also utilized

non- experimental descriptive designs to address the research problem of mobile payment

adoption, and the authors developed hypotheses to test the relationship between various

constructs. Similarly, in the review by Huh et al. (2017), the non-experimental descriptive design

was utilized to address the lack of strategies for improving adoption rates of mobile payment

solutions. Huh et al. (2017) developed questionnaires and hypotheses to address the research

problem.

While Aydin and Burnaz (2016) and Huh et al. (2017) focused on the adoption of the

mobile wallet, the review by Harris, Brookshire, and Chin (2016) tried to investigate factors

influencing mobile device users to install mobile applications. Harris et al. (2016) utilized a

quantitative method of a trust-based decision model with the introduction of extra constructs and

developed hypotheses to understand the factors affecting the decision of mobile device users to

install mobile applications. In the review by Rathore (2016), the quantitative methodology was

used to understand various factors that affect payment customers in the adoption of mobile wallet

technology. Rathore (2016) utilized a structured questionnaire to collect data, whereas in the
studies by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), Huh et al. (2016), and Harris et al. (2017) hypotheses were

developed and tested for the research purposes.

Population in the literature

Aydin and Burnaz (2016) claimed that the targeted population of their studies were

54,000 registered downloaders of mobile payment applications from a network operator in

Turkey. The targeted population was the users of a particular network service provider; however,

the selection of the network service provider was based on convenience without any clear details

of selection criteria, which can lead the reader to have little faith in the selection method.

Furthermore, Aydin and Burnaz (2016) claimed the users’ database was contacted to get

participants; however, no clear details of maintaining and following ethical standards were

mentioned.

Similarly, in the review by Harris et al. (2016), the targeted population was not diverse as

it focused only on the students in a southeastern public university in the United States. Limiting

the population to university students threatens the generalizability of the review, and this

suggests that Harris et al. believed students are the main users of mobile apps, thus the prescribed

study seeks to focus on wider consumer’s and users of mobile payment. The online survey

instrument, according to Harris et al. (2016), was designed specifically for the review; however,

there was no supporting argument for the selection of the online survey. Evans and Mathur

(2005) identified an online survey with weaknesses including a skewed attribute of not

representing the general population, impersonation, privacy, and security.

Conversely, in the review by Huh et al. (2017), the use of Amazon MTurk suggested that

there is an element of diversity in the population; the research populations included 36

participants for in-person interviews and 860 participants for Amazon MTurks (Huh et al., 2017).

However, Huh et al. (2017) did not provide clear details of the characteristics and qualification
of the workers before they were recruited to complete the survey in the Amazon Turk. This

limitation can present little faith in the review; Paolacci, Chandler, and Ipeirotis (2010) did

indeed claim there are concerns about the quality of data collected from participants through

Amazon Turk. Huh et al. (2017) failed to give an account of how the quality of the collected data

was ensured in the review.

Rathore (2016) claimed that 132 respondents completed the questionnaire, but the claim

has a few weaknesses in that the participants’ selection process and the characteristics of the

participants were not mentioned (see Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). Rathore

(2016) claimed the research methodology was quantitative and used analysis of variance

(ANOVA) for statistical analysis. The described statistical technique is explicit, and the tables

and figures are easy to understand. In conclusion, the review’s design is clear, and the research

method is appropriate to address the research problem.

Instruments and Data Analysis

The studies by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), Harris et al. (2016), Rathore (2016), and Huh et

al. (2017) utilized relatively similar online survey instruments and different statistical techniques

to analyze their respective data. In the studies by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), Harris et al. (2016),

and Rathore (2016), Likert scales were used as the survey instruments to collect data from

participants, with various statistical analyses. Aydin and Burnaz (2016) utilized partial least-

square structure equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to identify non-normality in the data and

subsequently detected kurtosis and skewness. Also, validity and reliability were measured using

composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha (CA) (Aydin & Burnaz, 2016). The authors

evaluated the validity with the average variance extracted (AVE) and the result indicated a

discriminant validity of above 0.5, while the internal consistency was even above 0.7.
 Similarly, Harris et al. (2016) utilized partial least-square (PLS) to analyze the data, and

CA, composite reliabilities, and the AVE were evaluated. The results ranged from 0.6–0.9.

While the review appears credible, the methods still need to be tested in a more diverse

environment with larger sample size. Conversely, in the review by Rathore (2016), after the

collection of data using the Likert scale, ANOVA was used to identify significant differences

between the age group and the mode of payment and also to evaluate the occupation and mode of

payment. The analysis showed there was no significant difference between age and mode of

payment; however, there was a significant difference between occupation and mode of payment

(Rathore, 2016). The consistency in collected data was not guaranteed, as the author did not

mention sample distribution between female respondents and male respondents.

On the other hand, Huh et al. (2017) collected data via an in-person interview of 36

participants and 860 participants through Amazon MTurks. Chi-square was used to calculate the

usage proportion between Apple Pay and Android Pay, and the results indicated 36% of the

participants were Apple Pay users while 21% were Android Pay users (Huh et al., 2017).

Furthermore, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to test the statistical confidence of the reasons

for using, not suing, and stopping using the Apple or Android Pay (Huh et al., 2017). Also,

Pearson’s correlation was used to analyze the correlation between the participants’ understanding

of security and the adoption rate of the mobile tap-and-pay (Huh et al., 2017). The results

showed that security is the most important concern for not using the mobile wallet among the

users while security misconception is the most concern for non-users (Huh et al., (2017).

Generalizability

The generalizability of the review by Hu et al. (2017) is fairly possible as the surveys

were conducted by targeting a general audience through Amazon Turks (Huh et al., 2017). In
addition, a recent review by Paolacci, Chandler, and Ipeirotis (2010) confirmed that Amazon

Turk solves some concerns such as subject anonymity. However, Huh et al. failed to give an

account of some other concerns in MTurk, such as the quality of data that the respondents

provided and how the data were controlled (see Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010).

Conversely, in the review by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), generalizability was not guaranteed as

the users of the selected mobile network operator in Turkey completed the surveys. However, the

stratified random sample can be generalized to the selected population of 54,000 subscribers of a

telecom operator.

Harris et al. (2016) demonstrated a good sample size of 128 participants. The review

appears credible, though the methods need to be tested in a more diverse environment with larger

sample size. Moreover, a larger sample would have been better for data analysis to strengthen the

insignificant relationships among the constructs to become significant. Similarly, in the review

by Rathore (2016), the power of the review needs to be increased by obtaining a larger sample

size for internal validity. Also re-testing of the method is encouraged in a variety of settings.

Additionally, Rathore (2016) claimed that surveys were sent out to the 132 recipients; however,

no targeted population was mentioned, and perhaps the surveys were returned based on

volunteering. Not mentioning a targeted population suggests a convenient sampling method was

used, which can introduce bias and thus threatens generalizability of the review (see Marshall,

1996).

Data Analysis Protocol and Relationship with other Studies

A data protocol analysis in the review by Aydin and Burnaz (2016) involved a careful

screening of surveys of low quality among the 1305 questionnaires collected (Aydin & Burnaz,

2016). A path analysis was conducted after the statistics had been examined (Aydin & Burnaz,
2016). The authors evaluated and achieved the convergent validity of the model using AVE. The

authors demonstrated the validity analysis for the construct and discriminated between the

samples from both users and non-users of mobile wallets. The results were clearly presented in

similar tables, showing the hypotheses and path analyses for the two groups (users and non-

users).

Furthermore, a statistical pair test was used to explore the dissimilarities between the two

groups, users, and non-users. The results, clearly reported in the table, revealed that there was a

significant difference (P < 0.005), as supported by Crewell (2014). Aydin and Burnaz (2016)

demonstrated that the chosen design was appropriate to address the mobile wallet adoption

problem. In the same manner as the data protocol analysis by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), Harris

et al. (2016) used partial least-square analysis to review the surveys collected on the ten

constructs in the review. The surveys measured the perceptions of users before installing mobile

applications. The hypothesized relationship and their significance were tested, and variability of

0.504 was found (Harris et al., 2016). Therefore, the authors developed a reduced model that

included only the relationship that was of statistical significance: antecedents of trust and

perceived risk.

Subsequently, the familiarity construct in the statistical data analysis revealed a P-value

of 0.001, while the control group showed a P-value of 0.05 (Harris et al., 2016). These results

show that familiarity with a specific application could influence users to install an application

more often than the control group. The results, shown in a table, clearly indicated that CA ranged

from 0.674 to 0.950, composite liabilities ranged from 0.269 to 0.950, and the AVE ranged from

0.651 to 0.842. Hence, the results showed correlations in the measurement of constructs.
 In comparison to Harris et al. (2016), who found high values of variability in the early

analysis, Rathore (2016) utilized ANOVA for data analysis. In the early stages of their analysis,

they found statistically significant results. Rathore (2016) claimed there was no significant

difference between the various age groups and the modes of payment, including debit cards,

credit cards, online payment, and digital wallets. The results of the ANOVA, clearly presented in

a table, revealed a P-value of 0.059. Rathore (2016) also conducted an analysis of online

payment by subjects with various occupations, and the results, clearly presented in a table,

revealed a P-value of 0.05. The data analyses have been consistent with the variables used in the

review, and there was evidence of statistically significant differences between the dependent and

independent variables.

Finally, in the review by Huh et al. (2017), the data were collected using two different

instruments: in-person interviews and Amazon MTurks. Huh et al. (2017) conducted a thematic

analysis (codes) on the collected data from the interviews, which were conducted by two

separate researchers, and there were 78 unique codes. Huh et al. (2016) identified 28 common

codes, from which the results showed 25 out of 36 participants understood the authentication

mechanism in mobile payment. However, 10 participants understood the transaction security,

while seven understood the protection of the card (Hu et al., 2017). To address the

generalizability of the review, Huh et al. (2017) utilized Amazon Turk to repeat the data

collection for the review.

Huh et al. (2017) tested the relationship in user perception between the following

changes in variables: less secure and slower, less private and slower, more private and faster,

and less convenient and more convenient, and the results showed the P-values of various

correlations were less than 0.05 (Huh et al. 2017). The significance test of these variables thus

demonstrated
that there was a consistent pattern in the observation rather than chance (Creswell, 2014).

Furthermore, the research hypotheses were testable, the accuracy was reflected in the result, and,

finally, the tables and charts summarized the research results.

Alternative Viewpoints

Aydin and Burnaz (2016) outlined the logical steps, and the process of data collection

and analysis was presented in tables. Despite a few flaws in the review, Aydin and Burnaz

(2016) contributed significantly to a theoretical understanding of the attitude of mobile wallet

users. Similarly, Harris et al. (2016) demonstrated the appropriateness of the chosen quantitative

method and design, to understand the factors that influence a consumer before installing a

mobile application. The research model was created, and the significant antecedents were tested

using statistical techniques.

The analytical method adopted by Rathore (2016) reflected a correspondence to the

quantitative design used to review the various factors that affect mobile device to adopt a digital

wallet. The review evidently contributed significantly to the payment ecosystem’s body of

knowledge. Huh et al. (2016) conducted a statistical analysis, the results of which were clearly

presented. Questions were worded as full statements; the readability was accurate and easy to

understand. Evidently, the review contributed to the understanding of security concerns and

misconceptions of users about the mobile wallet.

Despite the large sample size and the random sampling, Aydin and Burnaz (2016)

confirmed one of the basic limitations in their review was that the research was conducted in

only one country. The authors’ statements supported previoius observations in the review

section. The selection of a single network operator was another limitation of the review, and it

was recommended to conduct similar research using various network operators in different
countries. Equally recommended in the review by Harris et al. (2016) is the larger sample size to

investigate the insignificant relationships among the constructs and to ensure diversity in the

review.

Additionally, the introduction of new constructs, application characteristics, and

desensitization, can introduce weak items in the coeffients for factor models known as loadings.

However, a slight adjustment to the reliability measures is recommended. Harris et al. suggested

that privacy and security antecedents should be divided and investigated separately in future

research. Rathore (2016) recommended in his review that awareness through marketing and

promotion should be encouraged to inform and educate the non-users and consumers of mobile

wallets better about the benefits of simplifying their purchases. However, Rathore recommended

no future work about his review. Similarly, in the review by Huh et al. (2017), it was

recommended that increased awareness of security protection and convenience of payment being

offered by the tap-and-pay systems could improve the adoption rates of the new technology.Thus

Huh et al. (2017) recommended that future research should review how the awareness and

education of non-users about the security protection of tap-and-pay methods will affect their

decision to adopt the new technology.

As stated above, the recommendation requires further examination, and the knowledge

gap identified on the awareness of security mechanisms for mobile wallets deserves further

investigation. In addition, the review noted that initial adoption of mobile payment had received

much attention from researchers, with limited research on the continued use of such technology

(Chen & Li, 2017). The limitation of not investigating the motives for continued use presents

another gap, since users may develop fear and discontinue the use of the application.
 The adoption of mobile payment methods is largely based on previous experiences or on

what other users say about the payment method (Harper, 2014). It is possible that some users do

not understand what security and convenience the payment method could offer when compared

to old payment methods. However, the users’ apprehension and perceived risk of data leakage or

theft could be determined through research (Harper, 2014). Furthermore, some researchers have

investigated the security in mobile devices and applications from technological perspectives;

however, the behavioral research that focused on such security perspectives is very limited (Tu,

Yuan, & Archer, 2014). Thus, it is of importance to investigate the perception of mobile wallet

users of the security mechanism in the mobile wallet payment system.

For the current review, the research questions called for the selection of a unified theory

of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model. The UTAUT framework helps

researchers to identify the factors affecting the adoption of a mobile wallet within the context of

trust and risk constructs (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Chapter three, on methodology, elaborates

more on the model and its applicability in the development of questionnaires. Thus, before

investigating the participant’s experience of the security mechanism, it is important to review

the mobile payment technologies and their key security features.

Mobile Payment Technologies

Mobile payment is a fast transaction that occurs between users’ mobile devices and the

merchant’s point of sales devices through contactless technology (Gannamaneni, Ondrus, &

Lyytinen, 2015; Sung, Youn, Kong, & Ryou, 2015). According to Sung et al. (2015), mobile

devices enable people to digitalize their lives. Thus it is of importance to identify the mobile

device as a key stakeholder in mobile payment technology (Dahlberg, Guo, & Ondrus, 2015).
 Mobile payment has been largely developed based on four types of technology: short

message services (SMS), wireless application protocol (WAP), near-field communication (NFC),

and quick response (QR). The SMS-based payment is a method that allows the user to pass a

transaction bill to the mobile service provider via SMS (Ozcan & Santos, 2015). The SMS-based

transaction does not require user registration and as such constitutes an acceptable technology

with users of different devices, including Apple- and Android-based mobile devices (Shen &

Yazdanifard, 2015). The SMS-based mobile payment is commonly acceptable. However, the

method can still open the customers to vulnerability for identity theft, and complex customer

billing systems can be a hindrance (Rammal, 2014).

In the NFC-based transaction, NFC-enabled hardware is embedded or installed in the

mobile devices, which allows the devices to communicate with merchants’ NFC-enabled reader

within a wireless short range (Chen & Li, 2017). It is important to mention that NFC payment

relies mostly on the mobile network operators. However, NFC credit cards seamlessly work

without internet connectivity, which is similar to the Apple pay or Android payment method

(Huang, 2017).

In the case of QR-based payment, the technology allows the merchant to auto-fill

necessary billing information, including merchant ID, phone number, and payable amount, that

the customers will otherwise have to fill in manually in order to complete a transaction (De, Dey,

Mankar, & Mukherjea, 2015; Chen & Li, 2017). Mobile device users must install QR code

recognition software. Several payment applications, such as WeChat and Alipay, are embedded

in the QR code programs (Huang, 2017). The user can use the mobile device camera to scan the

QR code displayed by the merchants, and the users manually type the amount to be paid to

complete a transaction (Chen & Li, 2017).

 Another payment technology is WAP, which allows users to make a payment via either a

mobile browser or specialized apps (Chen & Li, 2017). The former requires the customer to

submit payment details through the mobile browser on the device, while the latter allows the user

to complete the transaction via the mobile payment application installed on their devices. In the

specialized WAP-type app, the users are required to download and install the mobile payment

application, developed by a bank or another financial service organization (Akinyokun &

Teague, 2017).

To make a payment using the WAP technology, users are required to link their bank

account with the app, and if the card issuer has approved the card, the user will be able to make a

payment through a transaction using the app on the device (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017). The

mainly adopted mobile payment applications, including Android pay, Samsung pay, and Apple

pay, are NFC-enabled and are also known as mobile wallets (Ondrus, 2015). The mobile wallets

emulate the contactless payment card functionalities, where the NFC chip is embedded within

the mobile device (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017).

Mobile Wallet

The mobile payment application shows a transaction environment with a user interface

that requires little intervention from the users. In other words, it provides the users with great

convenience and freedom from temporal constraints. However, risks associated with different

players in the technology are numerous, such as information hijacking in the mobile network,

and virus and Trojan horse infections in the devices remain concerns to the users (Chandra et al.,

2010). According to Stiakakis, Georgiadis, & Andronoudi, (2016), proper anti-virus software

may be reliable to prevent and/or remove viruses and Trojan horses in the mobile device;
however, the design challenges of the small-sized devices can impede the effectiveness of anti-

virus update (Stiakakis et al., 2016).

In addressing the stated concerns, developers and original equipment manufacturers

(OEMs) have invested considerably on the alternative measure to mitigate the emerging security

issues in the device architecture and solutions (Rhee, Won, Jang, Chae, & Park, 2013; Stiakakis

et al., 2016; Zhou, 2014). The device manufacturers, such as Apple (Heggestuen, 2015) and

Samsung (Choi & Lee, 2016), incorporated some capabilities and features including security and

applications that deliver the digital wallet and mobile payment promises. To understand the

security in the mobile payment system, it is important to analyze the security architecture of

mobile devices and to consider the advancement from simple communication functions to more

miniature computer-like devices (Rose, 2012).

According to Sung et al. (2015), the user authentication mechanism in the mobile device

seeks to address the security risk, including the case a device is stolen. If the device falls into the

wrong hands, criminals can gain access to the data stored on the device and subsequently carry

out software attacks, physical attacks, or even both (Trewin, Swart, Koved, & Singh, 2016). The

success of most mobile payment methods includes the security functionalities that address the

consumers’ security concerns; therefore, securing the device is the first step in facilitating

payment through the three main security areas: operating systems, secure elements, and a trusted

execution environment (Stiakakis, Georgiadis, & Andronoudi, 2016).

Operating System

Every mobile device requires operating systems to run its services and application

programs, making the OS the soul of mobile devices (Li, Wang, Wu, Jiang, & Liu, 2012). The

operating systems combine the features of personal computer and other features, including NFC
(Okediran, Arulogun, Ganiyu, & Oyeleye, 2014). The current platforms of mobile operating

systems are Apple’s iOS, Google Android Microsoft Windows, BlackBerry OS, Symbian OS,

and FireFox OS (La Polla, Martinelli, & Sgandurra, 2013; Krishna, & Devarakonda, 2015;

Okediran, Arulogun, Ganiyu, & Oyeleye, 2014). However, they all possess architecture

commonalities, which include user experiences, security design, power management, and design

openness (Li, Wang, Wu, Jiang, & Liu, 2012).

The security mechanism in the OS and the application environment is considered very

low due to the direct accessibility to memory, which serves as an attack vector to steal sensitive

information on the device (Zhang, Bai, Hao, & Zhang, 2017). Every OS has its architecture;

however, most of them have Linux as the base kernel working at an abstraction layer to separate

the hardware from the rest of the software stack (Krishna & Devarakonda, 2015). In addition to

the Linux kernel base OS, application programming interfaces (APIs) are mostly written in the C

programming language, and applications are written in Java, but also run in the Dalvik virtual

machine (DVM), which brings some security features to the device (Okediran, Arulogun,

Ganiyu, & Oyeleye, 2014).

Secure element

The introduction of NFC, by Nokia in 2004, which seeks to allow centralized storage of

payment applications, loyalty, and other access rights, caused a security concern (Reveilhac &

Pasquet, 2009). The secure element (SE) architecture was introduced, upon which NFC

ecosystems could be implemented (Ondrus, 2015; Reveilhac & Pasquet, 2009). The SE is made

up of hardware, software, interfaces, and protocols, which offer a tamper-proof environment to

secure users’ sensitive information and applications (Reveilhac & Pasquet, 2009).
 The SE contains the basic operating systems, the CPU, the memory, and functions like

the chip on the smart card that is embedded in the device (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017).

Conversely, the Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC) is a removable card inserted in mobile

devices to store multiple data and executable applications securely (Madlmayr, Langer, Kantner,

& Scharinger, 2008; Reveilhac & Pasquet, 2009). For security reasons, mobile device

manufacturers can embed the SE and only grant permission to third parties to host their

customized application in the SE (Reveilhac & Pasquet, 2009).

Trusted execution environment

Another secure area is the main processor of a mobile device, which allows for

the secure operations of applications without affecting other external applications from running

(Seibel, LaFlamme, Koschara, Schumak, & Debate, 2017). Furthermore, TEE ensures the

security of stored sensitive data and also processes and protects the data in an isolated and trusted

environment (Rolfe, 2015). Also, it allows the execution of authorized trusted applications to be

run in isolation without security compromises with other trusted applications. The TEE runs on

higher resources, such as the processor, and the memory capacity compares to the SE (Rolfe,

2015). Security resources and services including storage and trusted user interface (TUI) are

accessible to trusted applications, such as mobile wallets, using the APIs.

However, consumers could encounter some hindrances when installing mobile wallet

applications in the SE. Some device manufacturers may not support SEs built on microSDs that

are issued by banks (Unsworth, 2012). Also, a mobile device manufacturer can have the SE

embedded in their device, which contains a UICC provided by the mobile network operator

(Unsworth, 2012). Conversely, device manufacturers, such as Apple and Samsung, are the

service providers for their respective mobile wallet applications, which are preinstalled on the
SE, embedded in the device. Some other mobile wallet application, such as Google Pay, which is

not a mobile phone manufacturer, developed a host card emulation (HCE), which allows the

NFC transaction to be re-directed to the mobile application instead of the SE (Pannifer, Clark, &

Birch, 2014). According to Alliance (2014), HCE enables card issuers to deliver a secure NFC

payment transaction on Android devices (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017).

Tokenization

Tokenization secures the transfer of data to and from the HCE, TEE, normal operating

systems, and through the entire transaction process (Penttilä, Siira, & Tihinen, 2016).

Tokenization is a secure technology that substitutes the payment cards’ sensitive authentication

data, including expiry date, the CVV, and PAN, with arbitrary alternative numbers (Akinyokun

& Teague, 2017; Alliance, 2015; Choi & Lee, 2016; Ortiz-Yepes, 2014). Payment industry

participants can create their token services based on the EMVCo standard to reinforce security at

every point of the payment transaction (Alliance, 2015). The EMV offers a framework for the

payment tokenization to ensure the Token Service Providers (TSPs) follow the security and

uniform interoperability compliance format in token generation (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017).

How it works

Firstly, users must link their bankcards to the mobile application “wallet” during

enrollment (Huang, 2017). To make a transaction, the user will need to verify his/her identities

using the Touch ID in the case of Apple Pay, while FIDO biometric is used in Samsung Pay for

security technology (Huang, 2017). Kreyer, Pousttchi and Turowski's review 2007 (as cited in

Shen and Yazdanifard 2015) found that risk of authorization; authentication and confidentiality

are among the main concerns for consumers. In the quest for more alternative solutions to
address the users’ concerns, the mobile transaction requires strong authentication techniques to

maintain security and isolate viruses (Stiakakis et al., 2016).

When a user authorizes the payment, the wallet sends the card payment information to

the merchant in the form of a one-use encrypted transaction ID, also known as a token (Stokes,

2014). The merchant’s payment device will decrypt the token in order to get the private key of

the payment card and later forward the private key to the payment provider for validation. The

merchant system sends the transaction alerts to the acquirer, after which the same information is

sent to the card issuer and finally to the issuing bank (Akinyokun & Teague, 2017). According to

Stokes (2014), the security in the transaction depends on how well the token is protected and

stored. The order confirmation is sent to the user’s device to complete and validate the

transaction (Huang, 2017). The below figure 2 represents the transaction steps.

Mobile application Payment card PIN verification Card reader contact

• • • •
User initiates the mobile User selectes the payment card of Users verifies identity in the U
Application choice from the list of card added payment application using the s
on the device PIN e
r
s

g
e
t
s

m
o
b
i
l
e

d
e
v
i
c
e

i
n

c
l
o
s m c
e e a
w
r r
i
c d
c t
h
o h
a
n n r
t t e
t
a ' a
h
c s d
e
t e
r

Figure 2 Steps for mobile transaction Source: Teju Oyewole. Reprinted with permission

Threats and Countermeasures

Kakish & Shah (2016) claimed NFC enables mobile wallets, including Apple Pay and

Samsung Pay, to be not easily susceptible to attacks because of the embedded security

mechanism and proximity to the card readers. However, the chain of activity in the mobile

payment transaction process is still prone to threats associated with those activities (Jesen,

Gouda, & Qiu, 2016). Refer to table 1 for common security issues in mobile payment; the attack

surface and their relevant countermeasures. The identified security issues in the figure 3 below
can materialize and inhibit the security of the payment process. Thus it is important to mention

that the threats in the transaction process are not exhaustive.

Table 1

Table 1 Security Issues and Countermeasures

Vulnerabilit Threat Countermeasures

y
Relay attacks on An adversary can sniff One-time token replaces the

data transfer from or intercept the primary account number

mobile device to payment information (PAN) and is not re-useable

merchant device during the transaction (Jesen, Gouda, & Qiu, 2016;

(Akinyokun & Kakish &

Teague, 2017). Shah, 2016).

Mobile payment An adversary can sniff The assumption that the

enrollment payment card mobile wallet will offer strong

information during identification for the device

enrollment. and the account information

that will correspond to the

information kept by the bank

(Akinyokun & Teague, 2017;

Kakish & Shah,

2016).
User’s Criminal can access the The assumption that users will

security financial information generate strong authentication,

awareness through the mobile such as biometric, for their

wallet application on a mobile application (Akinyokun

stolen or &

lost device before the Teague, 2017).

 information is The assumption that users will

remotely deleted. deploy mobile device

management applications that

can perform a remote wipe and

act as a device locator, in case

of device

loss.

Summary

The mobile wallet is a new payment technology that is heading towards a promising

future in the payment ecosystem; however, it encounters challenges for some reasons, including

security and privacy issues (Bezovski, 2016). This literature review analyzed the general studies

of mobile wallets from the consumers’ perspectives and also the rational for the acceptance and

adoption of the mobile wallet. The in-depth reviews of the relevant literature reveal the gap in

previous studies to examine the security mechanism from the consumers’ perception.

The germane literature was selected from various databases as to why the mobile wallet

was an alternative to the traditional physical payment card (Almuairfi, Veeraraghavan,

Chilamkurti, & Park, 2014; Rose, 2012). Adoption factors were examined, and different factors

are typical for different countries (Shin & Lee, 2014), which evidently shows that security,

privacy, and ease of use are the common factors (Yan & Yang, 2014; Zhong, Dhir, Nieminen,

Hämäläinen, & Laine, 2013). Huh et al. (2017) investigated the consumers’ understanding of the

authentication mechanism in mobile wallets; however, mobile wallet security goes beyond

authentication. In order to address the research question related to the users’ understanding of the

security mechanism in the mobile wallet, the process of adoption will be examined through the

lenses of the UTAUT model.

 It is revealed in this literature review that security features in the mobile payment are

embedded both in the mobile devices and in mobile applications. Moreover, the potential threats

and countermeasures, which make many users consider the payment method as unsecure, were

reviewed. The next chapter will analyze the research methodology and the appropriateness of the

adopted method, the research population, reliability, validity of the research design and

generalizability. Chapter 3 will present the research methodology for this study.
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS

The phenomenology inquiries in this research are to uncover the meanings of

cybersecurity experiences of mobile digital wallet consumers. The method seeks to gain the

consumers’ experience of using mobile digital wallets through the consumers themselves as a

source of data (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). In order to collect the consumers’ data and generate

meaning, the phenomenological approach will help to build an essence from participants’

experience with the goal of constructing a rich description of a common phenomenon in mobile

digital wallet security capability (Creswell, 2013; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

A thorough review of the literature on the adoption of mobile digital wallets revealed a

gap in the areas of location and cybersecurity experience; therefore, this review will contribute to

the existing literature of users’ perception and preferences about mobile digital wallets (Shin,

Lee, & Odom, 2014). In addition, the review can provide information that could be useful to

consumers, mobile service providers, mobile payment vendors, and device manufacturers. This

chapter will discuss the research methods and design approriateness in more detail as to why the

phenomenological study is adopted. Futhermore, the population of the study, the sampling

method, and the collection of data will be discussed in more detail. The internal and external

validity of the prescribed study will also be highlighted in this chapter.

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

Prior to starting a research review, the philosophical worldview influences researchers’

ideas to adopt a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methodology and guide their actions towards

the conduct of research (Creswell, 2014). The commonly used worldviews are post-positivism,

transformism, pragmatism, and constructivism (Creswell, 2013). The post-positivist worldview

holds the ideas of cause and effect, validated through experimental and non-experimental designs

of quantitative methodology (Creswell, 2014, 2012).

The transformative worldviews, however, hold assumptions based on social context

issues, such as injustice and racism (Creswell, 2014). The transformative worldview is applicable

for mixed-method studies with, designs including narrative, phenomenological, grounded-theory,

ethnographic, and case review (Creswell, 2013; Salkind, 2012). Pragmatic worldviews hold the

beliefs in both qualitative and quantitative approaches (Creswell, 2012). The researchers with

pragmatic worldviews inquire data from participants by utilizing convergent, exploratory, and

explanatory sequential approach (Creswell, 2014).

The constructivist worldviews hold an assumption to understand the

world within which individuals live (Creswell, 2013). Constructivism is mostly an approach to

qualitative methodology to address the complexity of study from various views of consumers

and understand their cybersecurity experiences regarding the mobile wallet (Salkind, 2012;

Schein, 2014). There are various qualitative designs, including historical qualitative research for

understanding the meaning of events experienced by people (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015, pp. 23–

40). The historical qualitative is applicable to the development of an understanding how daily

activity is shared with other people chronologically, while ethnography strives to understand the

cultures and challenges in a specific environment by putting the researchers in the same

environment as participants (Creswell, 2012).

The case review, however, is used to gain an understanding of a boundary, for example a

person or an event. In case studies, the researchers describe the individuals and the settings under

review (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The grounded theory seeks to build a theory from processes

and actions to identify how things are changing over a period of time (Corbin & Strauss, 2015;
Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The major commonality of all these designs is their focus on

generating meanings and understandings from data collections (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

As stated in Chapter 1, this study is a qualitative study of phenomenological design and

seeks to understand knowledge of people and their lived experiences, events and phenomena

(Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Creswell, 2012). The qualitative phenomenological is an appropriate

design to address consumers’ cybersecurity experience of mobile digital wallets due to the

possibility of developing a theory (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A number of studies explored the

phenomenology design to understand the meaning people give to their lived experiences (Glaser,

1978, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2011). The phenomenological approach helps researchers to obtain

deeper information and better perception through the interviews with and observations of the

participants. Furthermore, the phenomenological approach is suitable to review the feelings

experienced by people with the goal to compare the experience from different people and to

analyze the security essence of common phenomena (Creswell, 2012; Winterhalder, 2017).

The phenomenological approach is suitable to review the feelings experienced by people

with the goal to compare the experience from different people and to analyze the security

essence of common phenomena involved in mobile digital wallets (Creswell, 2012). Creswell

(2013) characterized a survey design with the goal of generalizing the attitude and behaviors

from the sample to the entire population. Furthermore, the rapid collection of data and

understanding the common denomination of a large population from a selected sample are

advantageous.

The prescribed study requires similar survey design characteristics in that the users’

cybersecurity experience of mobile digital wallets is identified through interviews as a mean of

data collection. Considering the data collection method of using synchronous online Skype
technology, a pilot review will be conducted to improve research questions and establish the

content validity (Creswell, 2013). Generalizing the behavior may not be possible without

expressing the setting of the sample selected from the Toronto mobile users’ population; see the

population and sample sections below for further discussion on the sample size. Creswell (2013)

suggested a six-step towards conducting a credible research, thus Appendix A presents a similar

methodology map adopted for the current review.

Research Questions

Chapter 1 discussed the research question to understand the participants’ security

experiences with mobile digital wallets. The literature review in Chapter 2 has indicated a gap in

the study of mobile digital wallets. Hence, the research question is developed to bridge the

literature gap on participants’ cybersecurity experience with mobile digital wallets in Toronto,

Canada. The focus of the current study is to contribute to the bodies of knowledge in the

payment ecosystems, including consumers, mobile service providers, mobile payment vendors,

and device manufacturers (Xin, Techatassanasoontorn, & Tan, 2015).

The main research question is stated as, what is the consumers’ motivation behind the

adoption of a mobile digital wallet? The main research question will guide the study towards

understanding the consumer’s security issues behind mobile digital wallet adoption (Adeyeye,

2015). The main research question will also provide a conceptual basis upon which the

subquestions (Adeyeye, 2015; Cathro, 2015) will be developed. The following closely related

questions will guide the study towards the answer to the main research question (Merriem &

Tisdell, 2015):

1. What are the thoughts of consumer when they know about mobile wallet?

2. What motivates the consumer to use mobile payment transactions?

 3. What is the process for enrolling in the mobile wallet as a payment method?

4. How do mobile wallets compare to the traditional physical wallet?

5. What is the security capability of the mobile digital wallet?

6. How do consumers describe their experience of a payment transaction?

The study will provide and analyze the valuable data to understand the essence of the

adoption of mobile digital wallets (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale

Identification of population is a key component of research design and requires the

researcher to know the characteristics of the population before selecting a sample from the

population (Creswell, 2013). For this study, the specific population is the mobile payment user,

and the selected sample seeks to represent the true proportion within the selected population.

Also, the homogenous sampling method is selected for this study with the common phenomenon

of cybersecurity in mobile payment.

Population

Many groups of people use a mobile digital wallet as an alternative payment method;

however, the target population for this qualitative phenomenological review will be the users of

the mobile digital wallet in Toronto, Canada. According to Srigley (2012), general merchant

stores provide wide arrays of goods and services to the Canadian residents across social

stratifications and geographical locations, including Toronto. For the customers’ convenience,

merchant stores make available different payment methods for products and services (Harper,

2014). The merchant stores, however, participate in various payment methods, not only for the

customers’ convenience but also for the growth of the business (Xinyan, Wei, & Tingjie, 2009).

For the purpose of this phenomenological study, the researcher will focus on the customers with
payment experience using a mobile digital wallet in Toronto, Canada as defined in the standards

in Chapter 1, as also having downloaded and installed a payment application. Toronto is

considered a world city due to its diverse ethnicity and the destination of choice for over 40% of

new immigrants to Canada (Wang & Lo, 2007).

Sampling

The selection process of research participants is a step towards obtaining the

analysis sample (Creswell, 2013; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The two basic sampling methods are

probability and purposeful samplings (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). However, for the purpose of

this phenomenological study, in which the researcher sought to employ homogenous sampling

methods, a subset of purposeful sampling will be used to select the participants (Patton, 2001).

The homogenous sampling will help in the selection of individuals with similar background and

cybersecurity experiences with mobile digital wallets (Patton, 2001).

Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk) will be used to recruit the participants for the online

interviews. The Mturk is a crowdsourcing that allows individuals to create an account as a

worker in order to take on human intelligence tasks (HITs) for the usual pay of several dollars

(Shank, 2016). For the homogeneity of the sampling, the researcher will recruit the participants

based on the set common criteria and qualification parameters (Manga, 2016). The country of

location of participants is a default option in Mturk; however, the city is included in the

demographic questions.

The participants’ approval rate of HITs will also be considered, and their experience with

the mobile digital wallet will be included in the demographic questions (Manga, 2016;

Silberman, 2015). The demographic questions to be included in the Mturk HITs are age, gender,

education level, type of devices in use, type of application use on the devices, province of
residence, and city of residence (Shank, 2016) (see Appendix D). The quality is a concern for the

purpose of this prescribed study, thus; only the participants who passed the quality control tests

will be invited to complete the second online synchronous interviews on Skype.

Instrumentation

The researchers make observations and gather measures using instrumentation during the

course of research study (Creswell, 2013). However, the measured data and the source of those

data in this study will be the participants’ experiences. The description of participants’

experiences, such as enrollment and the process of mobile wallet transaction cannot be measured

objectively. In this study, the researcher will use the Skype technology to conduct open-ended,

semi-structure online synchronous interviews with the participants to be selected through the

custom template demographics question, published as HIT on the MTurk (Mason & Suri, 2011;

Creswell, 2013). The instrument will consist of demographic questions including sex, age,

educational level, the province and city of residence, preferred payment methods, and types of

technology relevant to the mobile devices. These demographic questions will be used as a

qualifier to select further participants in the second phase of questions.

The second-phase research questions will contain open-ended broad interview questions

with their corresponding subquestions corresponding sub-questions (see Appendix E). Each

response will be recorded using EVAER® adds-on software on Skype and will be securely

stored using disk encryption and password on computer storage for future transcription. After

the online interview, the researcher will review the responses to ensure all the sensitive

information is deleted or excluded during both the Mturk questions and the online interviews.

The Mturk documentation will not need any validation from the participants, as their personally
identifiable information will not be included in the Mturk; however, the interview participants

will be granted access to review the stored interview discussions.

Data Collection

The data collection procedure is a key component of survey design (Creswell, 2013). The

collection types include telephone, face-to-face interviews, mail, internet, and group

administration (Creswell, 2013). The interview questions are open-ended and semi-structured,

specifically designed to explore the consumers’ lived cybersecurity experiences of mobile digital

wallets (see Appendix E). Data collection through interviews is appropriate for the

phenomenological research to understand the essence of the experience of several individuals

(Creswell, 2012). For the current study, the data will be collected through an online synchronous

interview method using Skype.

Skype is a variance of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) which allows users to

communicate synchronously using voice and sound across the internet (De Felice, 2013;

Sullivan, 2012; Lee, 2016). Several studies have used Skype as a tool for data collection due to

different reasons, including cost, distance, and convenience (Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016;

Janghorban, Roudsari, & Taghipour, 2014; Sullivan, 2012). Cater (2011) confirmed face-to-face

interviews presented some constraints, such as time, costs, geographical dispersion, and

mobility; however, Skype technology has reduced the constraints associated with a face-to-face

interview (De Felice, 2013). Using Skype as a data collection tool for the current qualitative

study requires additional add-ons, such as EVAER® software for video recording (Cater, 2011;

Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016). It is important to mention that Skype will offer advantages

for data collection in this study, by providing easy accessibility to research participants compared

to face-to-face interviews (Massimi & Neustaedter, 2014).

 Skype will also offer an opportunity for finding diverse participants; even though the

participants will be confirmed to be Toronto residents, reaching out to them will be made easy

(Sullivan, 2012; Smith, 2015). Another opportunity to be offered by the synchronous online

Skype interviews is the absence of an obligation to get a specific location for the interview

(Smith, 2015). It also eliminates the need to travel to the interview location, which can be linked

to financial resources. Among the features that made Skype an appropriate tool for data

collection is the ability to chat just like an instant messenger; the feature will thus be used to send

the consent form, interview questions, and other required texts to the participants (De Felice,

2013).

Given the opportunities the Skype technology offers, there are potential ethical issues that

could impact the study, and it is necessary to address them, as required by IRB, before the field

work of data collection (Janghorban, Roudsari, & Taghipour, 2014). The researcher will submit

an IRB application to the Capitol Technology University’s IRB; the application will be reviewed,

and the study will be approved accordingly. The researcher will select the participants based on

the potential of the participants to satisfy the qualifying question known as catch trials, which

included the demographic qualifying questions in the internal HITs (see Appendix D). Amazon

will automatically collect and analyze the Turkers’ data, including the IP addresses, the name,

email address, and physical address. These collected data would, however, be considered

personally identifiable information (Mason & Suri, 2011).

Privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality of the participants will be protected in the

MTurk’s Terms of Service (ToS), and the functionality would not allow requestors (researcher)

to have direct access to the (participants’) Turkers’ personally identifiable information (PII) (Xia,

Wang, Huang, & Shah, 2017). The participants who makes the qualifying tests on Amazon
would be selected for the Skype interview and the researcher would ensure that a standard ethical

procedure is followed by sending the informed consent to address the concern about the nature of

the study, the potential risk and benefits, compensation, statement of consent, and confidentiality

(see Appendix F). In an effort to fulfill the confidentiality principle, the researcher would keep

all interview discussions on Skype with strict confidence and the researcher would also inform

the participants on the possible monitoring of the discussion and thus to avoid illegal discussions

during the interview session (Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016). Researcher would create Skype

accounts with dummy email accounts for the participants without any link to the participants’

attributes, and such accounts would be deleted after the study (Sullivan, 2012).

The researcher will transcribe the collected data on Skype during the interviews and store

them on a computer with strong password protection; the stored data would be accessible to the

participants only upon request (Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016). Further consideration

including the verification of participants’ identities, and this would be addressed by requesting

the participants to show an ID in front of the webcam so that the participants could be seen and

heard talking (Smith & Sparkes, 2013). The participants will be given an option to opt out of the

study anytime they wished; however, participants who chose to continue will require signing and

returning the consent statement form through the Skype chat or text (De Felice, 2013). Also, the

Skype online interview will contain an optional text field for the participants to write their

comments that could be of help in the study. Lastly, the researcher’s contact would be included

in the consent form, for the participants to reach out to the researcher if they so desired.

Validity

Confidence in the conduct of the research will be taken into consideration through

validity and the factors that seek to reduce the confidence level will be mitigated. The factors
including the researcher bias, data analytical errors, and methodological errors have the tendency

to affect the credibility and confidence level of the research (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The

nature of a phenomenological study is prone to researchers’ bias, if the study lacks preconception

and bias protection (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). However, bracketing of the researchers’

preconception using the epoch technique in the data analysis will mitigate the risk to validity.

Some individuals would review the design and methodology adopted for this study, and grant

approvals prior to the data collection and analysis stages.

The reliability and validity will be ensured in this study through the careful analysis of

the interview responses and proper handling of the transcripts. Furthermore, the researcher will

engage the participants to review the transcript to ensure validity. Continued auditing and

observation will be explored during data gathering and record keeping sessions furthermore;

triangulation will be ensured in all the processes of validity and reliability (Bowser, 2015;

Ladendorff, 2014).

The internal validity or credibility will be ensured by using rigor to interpret the

reality of observation and interviews of the participants (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). External

validity or transferability of this study will be achieved by using a rich, thick description of the

setting of study and interview participants (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The rich, thick description

will help in transferring the result of the study to another setting for the purpose of

generalizability (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Kamau, 2015).

Data Analysis

Qualitative research depends on text with a unique design to present the data obtained

from the data analysis (Adeyeye, 2015; Cathro, 2015; Karsten, 2013; Corbin & Strauss,

2015; Creswell, 2012; Shaw, 2014). The semi-structured and open-ended interviews help

maintain
consistency in the issues to be addressed during the interviews (Corbin & Strauss, 2015;

Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). Phenomenology seeks to describe the lived experiences of the

participants, which formed the basis to identify the essence of the security phenomenon

experienced (Creswell, 2012). The phenomenological study consists of three processes: the

epoch, the phenomenological reduction and the search for essences (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015;

Van Manen, 2014).

The first approach to the analysis in this study would be the epoch to identify and set

aside the researcher’s views. The identification of the researcher’s experiences and views would

help in bringing up the awareness of the researcher’s bias during the analysis of different views

and experiences (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The epoch approach would prevent the researcher

from participating in the HITs as a Turker and a participant in the study due to the researcher’s

knowledge on the information security. The researcher would document his prior knowledge of

information security and would ensure it did not influence the analysis of the Turkers’ or

participants’ experiences of mobile digital wallets.

The phenomenological reduction process is an approach of deconstruction and

reconstruction of analysis gathered from the participants; it would thus redirect the researcher

back to the participants’ lived experiences of mobile digital wallets in order to limit bias

(Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Van Manen, 2014). The researcher would use this approach to

identify the chunk of meanings and themes (Van Manen, 2014). The responses of the participants

to the research questions will be collated, deconstructed, and coded based on their similarities

and divergent perspectives. Coding is considered an important part of data analysis; however, it

can appear to be difficult (Corbi & Strauss, 2008).

 The reductions of individual experience would be reviewed based on the whole data set

(Van Manen, 2014). The researcher will use the reduction and analysis process to identify the

themes in individuals’ experiences relevant to the experiences in the reconstruction process. The

researcher would be able to arrive at a description of participants’ experiences of mobile digital

wallets including the background reasons that could account for their experiences (Creswell,

2013; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015).

Finally, the collected data during the reduction process would be reviewed to provide an

understanding of the participants’ experiences and to answer the research questions. The process

of understanding the meaning is termed the search for essence. The search of essence seeks to

review themes developed during the reduction process and results in a meaningful understanding

without researchers’ bias (Giorgi, 2009). The themes to be developed would also be associated

with the raw data to identify any variations. This relationship is the essence to be found, and the

researcher would focus on the gap in the review, which would help to understand the common

themes in the consumers’ experiences of the mobile wallet. The analysis of raw data using this

phenomenology approach would lead the researcher to conclude a research output (Van Manen,

2014).

Summary

In this chapter, the researcher explored phenomenological design to collect participants’

data to understand their lived experiences (Merriem & Tisdell, 2015; Creswell, 2012). The

methodology would address the research question, what is the consumers’ motivation behind

the adoption of a mobile digital wallet. In the current study, the data would be collected from a

targeted population of experienced mobile Payment users in Toronto, Canada.

 Homogenous sampling will be used in recruiting the participants through MTurk;

common criteria and qualifications including demography questions would be used to filter the

right candidates. The data collection process would be conducted using Skype, and the factors

that could undermine validity and generalizability of the research would be observed in the form

of bracketing the researcher’s bias. Furthermore, rigors would be used to interpret the

participants’ responses, and generalizability would be achieved by using rich, thick description to

transfer the result of the research to a different setting.

Data analysis for the current study will follow the three phenomenological processes, as

recognized by Merriem and Tisdell (2015) and Van Manen (2014). The approach will help in

getting the themes and generating conclusive meanings from the raw data. The Results chapter,

Chapter 4, presents the qualitative data including the recruitment and demographic data. Chapter

4 also displays the thematic data developed from the raw data and the search essence to identify

the phenomenon under review.

 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Overview

The investigation of consumers’ experiences with the mobile wallet was conducted

through synchronous interviews with the use of online technologies, including Amazon

Mechanical Turk (MTurk), Skype®, and EVAER®. The literature research in chapter 2 has

identified the gaps in the research of the mobile wallet and the need to investigate the security

perception of the consumers. The researcher considered the phenomenological research method

as appropriate for the study, as substantiated in chapters 1 and 2. An understanding of the

essence of consumers’ experiences was achieved through the analysis of the data collected from

the participants during interviews and video observations.

Pilot Study

After obtaining the approval from the Academic Review Board (ARB) to proceed with

the research field work, the researcher conducted a pilot study to establish the validity and clarity

of the interview questions and to ensure that the interview questions can produce relevant

answers the themes. The pilot study process followed the same structure outlined for the study,

i.e., sample selection, data collection, and analysis.

Five pilot participants, who were not part of the participant group, were selected using

Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and interviewed through Skype® and EVAER®. Pilot

participants were mobile wallet users, and the construct validity was established by describing

the concepts of the study before the interview began. Participants were informed of the purpose

of the pilot study, and they willingly signed the consent form designed for the study before the

commencement of the interview. The researcher spent some time with each participant to build

confidence in order to establish a free and relaxed interaction before the interview.
 To achieve quality in the pilot process, the researcher utilized the interview questions of

the study to ensure statements are explicit and easy to understand by the pilot participants. The

researcher also ensured the answers provided by the participants were read to the participants in

detail to check for any possible errors and to validate the interpretation of their responses. The

researcher ensured the participant’s points of view as regards their use of the mobile wallet and

security experience were documented. Responses to the interview questions by each participant

were tabulated. Alphanumeric codes were used instead of pseudonyms, i.e., PilotP#.

The outcomes were categorized as clear and unclear based on whether the pilot

participants had understood the interview questions well, as judged by the researcher using their

corresponding answers. The researcher concluded there were no ambiguities in the interview

questions that required further clarification or modification. However, PilotP#2 requested for

more clarifications on questions 3 and 9, which could be attributed to the researcher’s unclear

ascent, but no modification was made to the question statements. Technology settings, such as

audio and video, were reset to avoid loss of voice and ensure picture clarity during the

subsequent recordings; see Table 2 for a representation of responses and the corresponding

outcomes.
Table 2

Table 2. Pilot Study Results

Pilot Pilot Interview Questions

Participan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1
ts 0 1 2 3 4 5
PilotP#1 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
PilotP#2 C C U C C C C C U C C C C C C
PilotP#3 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
PilotP#4 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
PilotP#5 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Notes. PilotP#1= Pilot Participants with their corresponding
numbers C= Clear Question
U= Unclear Question

Interviews

The interview is the main method of data collection in the phenomenological study

(Merriem & Tisdell, 2015). The research methodology as stated in the overview of design

appropriateness section in chapter 3 was used for data collection and analysis. Thus, before the

interviews with the study participants, the research methodology design for this study required

the researcher to isolate his knowledge of and experiences with the mobile wallet by declaring

his opinion, values, assumptions, and prejudice to avoid bias. The process of isolating such bias

components is known as epoche or bracketing (Creswell, 2012; Merriem & Tisdell, 2015;

Salkind, 2012). In this study, the researcher ensured his experience was bracketed before

engaging in the interviews.

Researcher

The researcher has 20 years of work experience in Information Technology, of which 12

years have been dedicated to information security practices. The researcher genuinely believes

that the alternative payment method can provide security for the users. Hence, the researcher is

very interested in the investigation of the realization of the adoption of the mobile digital wallet

as a method of payment by the users in Toronto, Canada. The educational background of the
researcher includes a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree in physics and a Master of Science

(M.Sc.) degree in Information Technology (IT) and Strategic Innovation with management

studies, obtained in Nigeria and the United Kingdom, respectively. The researcher is currently a

doctoral student of cybersecurity at Capitol Technology University, Laurel, MD, USA.

The researcher has no prior knowledge of qualitative and quantitative research methods;

he also has no experience in data collection through interviews and data analysis beyond the

skills acquired on the job. The knowledge acquired for this research is gained by doing, reading

the recommended academic resources, and following online training for software analysis,

including NVivo12®. While the researcher observed the epoche process, the phenomenological

reduction was followed to redirect the researcher to the participants’ experiences. In performing

the phenomenological reduction, the researcher combined the meanings into themes and

categories using NVivo12® for the description of the participants’ experiences.

Participants

The crowdsourcing software Amazon Mechanical Turks (MTurks) was used to recruit the

participants in two stages: Firstly, the demographic surveys with other qualifying criteria were

developed, also known as Human Intelligent Tasks (HITs). Hypertext Markup Language

(HTML) was used to develop the demographic questionnaire in MTurk. In the first project, the

questions were stated as follows:

1. In what city do you currently reside?

2. Which of the following best describes your gender?

3. What is your age range?

4. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you

have received?
 5. Which statement best describes your current employment status?

6. Which of the following industries most closely matches the one in which you are

employed?

7. What type of mobile device platform do you PRIMARILY use?

8. In a typical day, which type of apps do you use on your digital devices (computer,

tablets, phones, etc.) most often?

9. Which payment method do you use most often when making purchases?

10. If you are qualified, would you be interested to participate in a 35–40 minutes follow-up

online Skype interview in exchange for a $15 “bonus” to your Mechanical Turk account?

After the above qualifying survey, the second HIT was created and advertised on

Amazon Mechanical Turk for the interview phase. The qualified participants were contacted

through their MTurk IDs, which are automatically linked to the participant’s survey responses.

The IDs, also known as requestor on Amazon Mechanical Turk, are anonymous to the

researcher. During the creation of the second project, the researcher included instructions for the

participants to call the researcher to agree on a time and create the anonymous Skype account.

Seventeen (n=17) qualified participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the online

synchronous interview. The participants included five pilot participants and 12 study

participants. The interviews were held on a one-by-one basis, and the dummy Skype account was

shared with the participants, with a different password after each interview.

Before the commencement of the online interviews, the researcher gave an introduction

and explained the purpose of the research. The researcher read the informed consent to the

participant and time was given to them for possible question(s) regarding the research. The
researcher confirmed their understanding of the research, and the participants were asked to sign

the informed consent forms.

The study participants were assigned an alphanumeric code, i.e., P#1, P#2…P#12. The

unique identity is a form of a pseudonym to protect participants’ privacy and ensure anonymity.

Participants were also given the opportunity to review their responses after the interview for any

potential misstatement (Creswell, 2015). The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 54 years;

eight male and four female participants were included.

The other demographics information of the participants included educational level; two

(16.7%) attended some college but held no degree, two (16.7%) held an associate degree, two

(16.7%) were high school graduates, four (33.3 %) held a Bachelor’s degree, and one (8.3%)

held a Master’s degree. Regarding occupation, seven participants (58.3%) were working in IT,

i.e., as IT support analyst, application developer, change manager, technical manager,

SharePoint manager, digital architect director, and desktop analyst. Three (25%) were students,

one (8.3%) a business administrator, and one (8.3%) a billing associate.

Participants’ mobile device types were Samsung, iPhone, and Google Nexus. Seven of

the participants (58.3%) were iPhone users while four participants (33.3%) were users of

Samsung.

One (8.3%) used Google Nexus. All the seven iPhone users were by default running iOS

while Nexus and Samsung were running Android operating systems. Further demographic

analysis revealed 66.7% of the participants had installed Apple Pay, 8.3% of participants had

installed Google Pay, 8.3% had Amex wallet, while the remaining two participants had a bank

wallet (TD 8.3% and RBC 8.3%). Participants’ demographics information is displayed in Table

4.
Table 3.

Table 3 Participant Demographics

Participan Gender Age range Educational Occupation Mobile Device Payment

t Level
(Yrs.) Device O/S Wallet
P#1 Male 25-34 Some college Desktop iPhone iOS Apple
pay
analyst
P#2 Female 18-24 Associate degree Student iPhone iOS Apple
pay
P#3 Male 45-54 Master’s degree Application Samsun Androi Amex
g d Pay
developer
P#4 Male 18-24 High school Student Samsun Androi RBC
g d
Wallet
P#5 Female 18-24 High school Student iPhone iOS Apple
pay
P#6 Male 25-34 Bachelor’s IT Analyst iPhone iOS Apple
degree pay
P#7 Male 25-34 Some college but Change Nexus Androi TD
d Wallet
no degree manager
P#8 Female 25-34 Bachelor’s Billing iPhone iOS Apple
degree pay
associate
P#9 Male 35-44 Associate degree SharePoint Samsun Androi Google
g d
manager pay
P#10 Female 25-34 Bachelor’s Business iPhone iOS Apple
degree pay
admin
P#11 Male 45-54 Some college but Technical iPhone iOS Apple
pay
no degree manager
P#12 Male 25-34 Bachelor’s Director Samsun Androi Google
degree g d
digital tech. pay

Note. P# = Research Participant with their corresponding numbers

Participants’ Characteristics

Participants’ demographic information is presented in the previous section. Their

background is important for the readers to understand whom the researcher interviewed and who

completed the survey. Furthermore, it will help the readers to understand how participants’

backgrounds have influenced their perceptions about the mobile wallet

Participant P#1 is a male with some college degree; he works as a desktop analyst in the

information technology department. He likes moving forward with technologies and has been a
regular iPhone user with multiple mobile applications including Apple Pay. He has been using

the mobile wallet since 2016, when the iPhone 6 was launched.

Participant P#2 is female and a holder of an associate degree. She is a current student in a

university in Toronto where she’s pursuing her degree in business. She is a strong advocate of

Apple products, and she uses iPhone 6 pre-installed with Apple Pay since it was launched in

2016.

Participant P#3 is a male and a Master’s degree holder; he works as an application

developer in a bank. He is a long-time user of Samsung with Android Pay pre-installed.

However, he uses the card issuer’s specific wallet Amex Pay. He mostly uses his Amex Pay for

air travel and official trip expenses.

Participant P#4 is a male with high school certificate and a current student in a university

in Toronto, where he studies data science. He is a user of Samsung 8, and he uses his bank-

specific mobile wallet application, RBC, since February 2018. He mostly uses the RBC wallet

for little purchases at university, such as coffee and sandwiches.

Participant P#5 is a female student and a high school graduate, currently in university

studying finance. She also works as a part-time customer representative in a retail store, and she

has had several encounters with customers using a mobile wallet for transactions. She is a user of

Apple Pay on her iPhone 6s since the introduction of iPhone 6 in early 2016.

Participant P#6 is a male who holds a Bachelor’s degree and works as an IT analyst in a

retail store. For his work, he attends conferences on a regular basis, where he learned about the

Apple payment solution. He later adopted Apple Pay on his iPhone 6 after it was launched in

Toronto, Canada.
 Participant P#7 is a male with some college certificates but no degree. He works as a

change manager in an IT organization, and he possesses some knowledge of technologies. He

has been following the technology closely since Google first introduced the Google Pay in their

Nexus devices, however, not yet available in Canada. Since then, he has been a user of his bank-

specific wallet, TD, with a believe that the Google Pay and TD wallet operates on same

technology. P#7 is now considering switching to Google wallet now that it has been introduced

in Toronto, Canada.

Participant P#8 is a female, who holds a Bachelor’s degree in business and works as a

billing associate in an insurance company. She is a familiar with the mobile wallet as she used

Google Pay on her Android phone before she switched to Apple Pay, when she changed her

device to iPhone 8.

Participant P#9 is a male and holds an associate degree in IT. He works as a SharePoint

manager. He has been using Google Pay on his Samsung 6 for over a year. However, he got to

know about Google Pay more than two years ago.

Participant P#10 is a female who holds a Bachelor’s degree in management. She

currently works as a business administrator. She was influenced by friends in activating and

using Apple Pay on her iPhone 6 device.

Participant P#11 is a male and has some college certificates but no degree. He is a

technical manager in an IT Operations department in retail. He possesses many years of

progressive technical knowledge and became aware of Apple Pay in a Starbucks store as a

payment method a couple of years ago. He did some research and adopted the use on his iPhone

early 2016.
 Participant P#12 is male with a Bachelor’s degree from a Toronto university. He works

as a Director of digital architecture and core services. He is a trend setter of technologic

innovation and adoption in his industry, and he has been using Samsung 6 with Google Pay for a

couple of years.

Participants’ Responses

Feelings and Motivations

The responses to the interview questions varied among the research participants. The first

question seeks to understand the participant’s thoughts and feelings upon hearing about the new

mobile wallet technology; the question was expanded to cover where and when each participant

first heared or knew about the technology. Most iPhone using participants confirmed they

became aware when the iPhone 6 was launched.

Participant #1 (P#1) described his feelings as follows: I was excited to know of the new

technology that will replace my physical credit from taking it out of pocket. He claimed the

awareness of Apple Pay came to his knowledge when he was in a mall in the Toronto area. He

stated I was in the Mall in the Apple Store to take a glimpse of the new iPhone 6 that was about

two years ago. Of special importance is the motivation behind the adoption of the mobile

wallet by P#1. He stated I guess I have been shown how it works and…. the change of moving

on with technology [laughs], a statement which demonstrates his exposure to technology.

Few of the participants claimed curiosity led them to learn more about the new

technology and what it could bring to their daily lives. P#4, who uses the RBC wallet, was

among the participants who adopted the payment method out of curiosity. According to him

When I first hear about it, I was more curios about it than anything, so I also researched more
about it online…., he also confirmed he read and learned more about it and adopted it for his first

purchase in school.

On the contrary, P#2, who uses Apple Pay as well as the TD bank wallet, was skeptical

about the new technology and full of doubt about the compatibility and security of the devices.

I was skeptical, and I may not be able to use it in all the stores and I just though it might not be

that secured because if your phone got stolen, they could steal your card information and can

cause a lot of problems. P#2 was influenced to adopt Apple Pay when the iPhone 6 was

released and she saw her friends and family using it with ease. She also added in her narrative

that she was very bad at carrying cash and she always lost her payment cards, because she

does not always carry a wallet, as she is a university student who often carries a lot of items.

She stated

….I’m not just organized and the only thing that I always keep with me is my cell phone and

having everything reliable on my phone is a big asset…and juts having one this to be worried

about is just phone.

Both P#2 and P#3 were concerned about the security, and both demonstrated a

willingness to adopt the new technology. According to P#3, it was more of a concern, concern

in the sense that how well is it secure? How can I be sure that when I lose my phone, for

example, somebody picking it up will not go on a shopping prey against my card stored in the

device? P#3 further expressed a concern beyond the physical loss of the device; for example,

when contactless payment methods were first adopted, t, it was reported that nefarious

people used card readers in an attempt to collect people’s card information.

P#3, who uses the American Express wallet AmexPay, claimed he was reluctant to

adopt the technology, and it took him a long time to decide to use the mobile wallet. He

stated, initially it was very difficult for me to get into mobile payment and as technology is
improving and
security is also improving, so over time, I decided that it is time for me to get into it. P#3

explained further that the assurance given by the card issuers regarding the refund of

unauthorized payments was one of the factors that motivated him.

Furthermore, the convenience in use and security functionalities that are built in the

new phones such as near field communication (NFC) were another motivation for P#3 to

adopt the payment method. With the mobile phones nowadays, the functionalities to turn-off

the NFC to make available for mobile payment, that’s one of the things I took into

consideration before I decided to use mobile payment. Working as a cashier in a retail store in

Toronto, P#5, who uses Apple Pay on her iPhone 6s, learned about the new technology. She

has experience with accepting different forms of payment.

She was curious to learn about the mobile wallet when customers kept asking if their

point of sale (POS) was mobile wallet-enabled. She noticed the efficiency in the transaction

process whereby the customers just tapped and go. According to her own account, the first

time I heard, I thought it was a lazy kind of doing a thing for the generations as I started to kind

of

getting more information about it and I later nursed the idea of having it on my phone……. P#5

further reiterated that the efficiency could also be to her advantage; especially when she is in

a rush, she can just tap and complete the transaction instead of inserting the card and

entering her pin.

P#6 shared his experiences learning about and adopting Apple Pay during an Apple

conference when the Apple Pay was launched. Additionally, there a lot of social awareness

about the new payment solution, which came to Canada months after being launched in the

United States. He stated, not having to carry my card around, you can forget it here and there,

and someone else can pick it up. Also I am motivated by the idea of always locking my phone. It
is
apparent in the statement by P#6 that ease of use and security were the main motivations for the

adoption of the mobile wallet. During the interview, P#6 confirmed he is a techy savvy who

follows up with innovation updates and is a loyal user of Apple products.

P#7 uses an Android-based phone with a TD mobile wallet that was developed

specifically for the TD bank customers in Canada. He got to know about the TD app from some

tech blogs and thus stated I have sort of been enthusiastic in technology, the first thing that

captures my attention was when google lunched Nexus phone and installed NFC technology

back then and lunched a pay service in the united state. He described he has been interested in

the NFC technology since 2011 and 2012; he was patiently waiting for the Android to bring

their payment system to Canada, but unfortunately the TD app was launched before the arrival

of Android Pay, which motivated him to install the TD wallet. P#7 was also motivated by the

NFC technology and adopted the TD app to fill the gap while waiting for Android to introduce

the technology.

Participant P#8 claimed she was excited upon the arrival of the mobile technology

because I like the fact that I can just use my phone to automatically pay for things. She had

previous knowledge of Google Pay, and that gave her confidence to adopt the technology from

Apple Pay when she switched to the iPhone. P#8 was motivated by the convenience of making

payments through her mobile phone, in addition to the security offered by the Apple device.

She stated The convenience of it, and I know that Apple is very protective about customers

information, so between entering my fingerprint or password that was very comforting. I can

easily lose my wallet, but I can’t easily lose my phone.

Participant P#9 was skeptical of his data security when using the new technology.

However, he later adopted Google Pay with his Samsung 6 based on the conveniences it brings.
He explained, I was concerned about whether it would be safe and secure with my online

presence after which his confidence in the security was raised. He stated I'd used it and I find

it very convenient. Am I confident that it’s 100 percent secure? I wouldn’t say I’m that

confident, but I do believe there are enough mechanisms in place to make sure it’s okay.

Participant P#10, like other participants, felt Apple Pay brought convenience to him. He

said, I like that it’s convenient. It’s easily accessible. However, he had mixed feelings because

the technology may not be widely accepted in all industries. He expressed that I was a little

skeptical that it would be wildly accepted and if it would work and if it was safe to use. But

most times it's been pretty successful.

Participant P#11, an elderly, expressed that he was skeptical of the security reliability in

the new technology. He further expressed his concerns about being old-fashioned and catching

up with the youth in learning about the new technology. He stated in his narrative that one thing

that I thought that I was skeptical on how well it would work, and of course, on the security

side, P#11 made a unique statement regarding common purchases of household items using a

credit card: in the case the customer is not satisfied, an item can be returned; however,

consumable items cannot be returned should one change his/her mind.

He stated because I'm sort of old school, I also concerned that people are utilizing their

credit to pay for regular household goods which becomes a problem because there's no

substance to the goods that you're buying. So, if you're buying gas or you're buying a coffee and

a sandwich if you can't pay for it. If you make a purchase of a large purchase, you can always

return it. Here, you have no chance of returning it, so you’re always on the hook. When P#11

was asked about his motivation for the adoption, he stated convenience was the main

motivation,
similar to most participants. He stated I think it was just convenient. Not having to always have

the card with me. I carry my phone with me all the time anyways. So, why not have my cards in

a wallet on the phone rather than having to find my wallet and get it all the time.

Participant P#12 was excited about the convenience of having all his cards consolidated

in one device. He expressed I guess I was excited because it saved me from carrying cards

around everywhere. I had my phone on my all the time so just having everything in one place is

great, and since it’s integrated into the phone I can have easier access to it and easier to track

what is going on instead of having to carry a whole bunch of different websites. P#12 thus

confirmed that convenience was the main motivation for his adoption of the mobile wallet.

Enrollment experience

During the interview process, participants’ descriptions of the enrollment have given the

researcher an understanding of mobile wallet enrollment, regardless of the phone platform

(Android, iOS). The overwhelming majority of the participants claimed the enrollment took a

few minutes to complete and was straightforward, without any challenge. According to P#1, it

is pretty much straight forward and didn’t take more than five minutes. It asks you to put in

your credit card and your finger prints, it then activates it … very straightforward he narrated

the process that credit cards can be added either manually or automatically by taking a

photograph of the card and uploading it directly.

Similarly, P#2 confirmed the enrollment in Apple Pay is pretty simple and

straightforward, stating I just added my card in the Apple pay app, and it asked for my

authentication which is my finger tip. She compared the enrollment time with the time it takes

to make a purchase online when it is required to enter the 16-digit card number. The

enrollment
time and process have been consistent and repeatedly the same among the participants using

Apple Pay.

The enrollment process as described by P#3 is more similar to that of another wallet;

this can be attributed to his technical knowledge. P#3 first adopted Amex Pay in April 2017 and

he stated his experience as follows: with Amex Pay, the application has been built in such a

way

that your account can be managed online, so they’ve already gotten information about my

accounts and it was just a click, click, click and all you get is just a text to validate that you are

setting up your card for a mobile payment ... However, the narratives from most participants

make clear that it is a quick and straight forward enrollment.

In the case of P#4, the enrollment was fast and easy I believe you need to download the

RBC wallet app from the app store and it asks you to sing in with your RBC client card, and you

put in your password, so it downloads your information from the RBC Bank. It is important to

note that most bank wallet applications have direct links to the users’ bank details, which of

course makes it straightforward to enroll. P#4 further confirmed that he did not experience

any challenges during the enrollment period, but it was rather easy to enroll.

While P#5 shared her experiences during the enrollment process, she described some

challenges due to the process of confirmation from her bank. Nevertheless, the enrollment

process is still considered smooth. She said, there was no trouble that I had, it was just that I

went to a long way to receive a confirmation from my bank that my details can be linked with

Apple Pay. However, there was no problem with Apple Pay. Her narrative of the process was

much more detailed than that of the previous participants, giving the researcher more insight

into the full enrollment process. She said, when I opened the app, there was a symbol or icon

for
adding any type of car, so I just simply click on that… it has an option to add a credit card, debit

card, store card such as pc optimum points.

She continued, and it’s going to give you a kind of information they will need such as

card information, your location, and what kind of device, then you have to give consent to it.

An after that, it’s going to ask you if you will like to scan your card or manually enter

it,…huuummm, at that time I didn’t have my card with me, so I manually entered it. Then it

asked for details such as my name, first and last name, my address and the card number, the

security number at the back of the card and the expiry date. When asked how long it took to

complete the enrollment, P#5 claimed it took about 2 minutes; however, there could be some

delay, which depends on the card issuer, to confirm the enrollment. It could take longer than

expected during a period of high call volume to the bank.

According to the narrative by P#6, the process took about 5 minutes to enroll using his

iPhone 8. The process was quite similar to that described by P#5: … to add my credit card

information, then to verify that I am the card owner, it went to my mobile banking app but if I

don’t have the app, I need to download and call the bank to get a verification number. Because

I already have the app on my phone, I just verify from my app, and I put in my password, and I

set it up with my finger print, and that was it. P#6 later confirmed that he had not experienced

any challenge during the enrollment. P#7 has a contrary view; the first time he used the TD app

was not a good experience: The first phone that I used it didn’t work, or it was inconsistent.

P#8 also did not give an account of any challenges during the enrollment process.

She stated the delay was within normal limits for validation. Not really frustrated but I know

there had to be security questions and they just wanted to valid that it was my phone and it

was me actually adding my credit card onto my phone. As expressed by previous

participants, the
enrollment process took around five minutes, depending on the customer’s bank. Her enrollment

process was similar to that of previous participants: …type in the card number, and then, the

expiration date along with the security code or you can scan it with a picture, and it will

automatically enter the information for you. Then they would send you a verification text to the

phone number I have one file, and after I validate that, then they would confirm me to Apple Pay.

Participant P#9 claimed the enrollment was pretty straightforward and allows for easy

payment by turning on the NFC. He stated Well you have to download the application and

once you put the application in it asks for you to log in. It’s Google pay, so you have the option

of connecting to your Gmail account. I think because I've made purchases before then it was

easy to sync up my card and then you're informed that you have to turn on your NFC option on

your phone so that it can basically tap and that's it.

Participant P#10 expressed there was no challenge except the security steps to validate

the card information. He stated There are security questions going along with it and actually

entering the card. So, you had just to type in all the digits correctly. The security number, after

you enter all the information sometimes the bank would want to verify that you're the actual

authorized user on the phone, of the card. So, they'll send you a text message, or they'll call the

phone number they have on file for you to verify. P#10 claimed the verification stage by the

card issuer might, however, take some time to complete either via phone call or text. He stated

you type in all the information on the front and the back of the card. You'll get, sometimes

they’ll ask you for a text message verification or a phone call to verify that you are the

authorized user and then it’s all set.

Participant P#11 narrated his experience during the enrollment; he confirmed it took him

5 to 10 minutes, similar to other Apple users. He described the steps as follows: I opened the
Apple pay application. It asked me to scan my card using the camera. Once the card was

scanned, it gave me the image back of my card and then had me confirm that it was my card.

And then I believe it went to the issuer and asked if it was a valid card. And when that came

back from the issuer that yes, it's a valid card.

Participant P#12, on the contrary, explained he could not activate the mobile wallet on a

different phone until it was activated using an old Google account. He confirmed the enrollment

entering the card details was straightforward, as explained by previous participants. He stated

it’s connected to my Google accounts and once I sign in then you just need to take a picture of

your credit card, and it figures out the number, and you confirm it is the CVD number, it makes a

call to your back, and you sort of do a confirmation that you want to add it. P#12 made an

interesting statement of pseudo-numbers stored in the wallet that are used during a

transaction in replacement of credit card numbers. He stated that …it creates like a fake credit

card number in your wallet which is used in the transaction and that’s pretty much the end.

Perception About the Mobile and the Physical Wallet

Most participants based their opinion on the ease of use and security of the mobile wallet

compared to the physical wallet. The individual’s affinity with the mobile device defined their

perceptions of convenience and security. As most participants have not experienced any

challenge in the use of the mobile wallet, they indicated their interests in continuing the use of

the technology.

According to P#1…. you don’t have to type in the four digits, it all done through your

fingertip and pretty much easy. However, the payment card in a physical wallet is the old-

fashioned way you would have to insert, check in etc. Considering the security, P#1 claimed

security depends on different scenarios, but in his own view, the mobile wallet is more secure

in
the sense that if you leave your phone they need a password to get in. But if you have a credit

card, they can just use it on tap. So even with the phone, you can always delete all your data.

So, I think the phone is much secure.

Participant P#2 also mentioned the convenience in the use of the mobile wallet, except

a possible hindrance: I mean unless your thumb is like greasy and it doesn't catch it properly

then; then you would have to wipe it a bit and try it again with your thumb. That's the only like,

downside that I can think of. In her narrative, she claimed the hindrance is not limited to the

mobile wallet but exists when using a physical card as well. And the speed, that might slow it

down, and it even occurs with the plastic cards. Like sometimes if you hold it the wrong way it

wouldn't tap properly or if you take it away too fast. So, it's just the way you use it. Regarding

security, the majority of the participants perceived the mobile wallet to be safer. However, P#2

defined security attributes as From the skeleton, they're both just your card and linked to your

bank, and it shouldn't matter like, about the security. Like if something goes wrong with your

card and if something goes wrong with your app that uses your card, it's going to be the same

problem. Like if someone finds your pin.

Participant P#3 has a different view of the mobile wallet based on his personal

experience. He pointed out that his apprehension was not only based on payment security but also

on the physical security of a device and a physical card. I think you'll have to look at it from a

different perspective, right? Different perspective in the sense that with your mobile wallet,

there's a number of things that you’ll have to take into consideration in terms of safety He

explained that he did not perceive a significant difference in the physical security. One is how

easy is it for somebody to pick your phone and use it without your knowledge? That has

happened to me in the case where I was traveling on the train and somebody pickpocket and

took my phone. But of

course, I had to quickly call the mobile provider to let them know, and of course, they blocked

it straightaway.

So, in the same way, somebody can pickpocket me and take my physical card, and as I

said, if my physical card is got the proximity chip within it that allowed me to touch and go,

it’s the same thing. Anybody can use it and buy anything with it. But of course, both have got

limits in terms of proximity payments, both have got limits as to how much you can buy in a

single transaction.

P#3 claimed one of his apprehensions is payment security, which has been addressed by

the NFC technology; he elaborated on his perception as he stated, But the other side of security

when it comes to a mobile device is that, personally, for it to work, you need to have your Near

Field Communication, what do you call it? A Near Field Communication device is working on it.

So, what I personally would do, as somebody who is aware of security issues around, what I

normally would do is to turn it off. And when I want to use it, I'll turn my NFC on back again. I

use it, and immediately I finish using it, I turn it off. So, for me, that's the same way as using a

pin to do the transaction.

Another frequent comment by the participants was that ease of use hinges on the

tapping features, which also expose the card to unauthorized transactions; but the mobile

wallet provides some level of security to protect against unauthorized access. P#4 in his

account stated, because on the regular card, if you enable tap on it, anyone can just use it to

tap. You can give it to anybody to tap. Whereas, using the mobile app, it requires you to put in

your phone password or your fingerprint before you can make a payment.
 An interesting point emerged during the interviews, i.e., not all participants have the

tap features activated on their cards. P#5 stated, I will just speak in general because I don’t

have the tap code on my actual credit. As P#5 recounted his experience, he attributed his

acceptance of the mobile wallet to the security features, and he did not only adopt the payment

technology, but he also became an advocate of the technology.

He thus stated, ..because I keep the phone with me pretty much all the time. I usually,

even when I go to work or school, it's always in a secure place that's locked. Whereas the card,

if I was to lose it, you don't need verification. Someone could just go and tap at a store if they

have the ability to do that whereas the phone. Oh sorry, whereas the phone, it asks for security

before it uses the card. It asks for a fingerprint or a passcode to kind of ensure that you're a

trusted person with the phone

Similarly, like previous participants, P#6 revealed that a physical wallet could be

compromised, but the fingerprint and passcode will protect the mobile wallet from such

compromise. P#6 expressed that If someone got my phone, they wouldn’t be able to use my

card without my fingerprints, but if someone got my wallet, they can just walk anywhere and

tap my cards and use them.

P#7 in his own words also articulated the similarity of tap features in both wallet and

physical card, for ease of completing transactions while the authentication in the phone

makes a difference when compared to the physical card. Similarities in that ‘Tap’ works and

that it uses similar technology for the ‘Tap Payment System’ and the difference is really that

you have to sign into the phone first to use it. The fingerprint unarguably is the success of the

mobile wallet on devices, and it is a significant factor considered by many participants.

 P#8 specifically stated Apple Pay is more secure because of the thumbprint and

passcode and stated I would think my card is less safe because once that is lost then they can

go in and swipe it. It will be a little harder to get into my phone to access my credit cards since

everything requires a thumbprint or passcode so that Apple Pay would be more secure. A

significant number of participants so far considered the physical card to be less safe when

compared to the mobile digital wallet despite the differences and similarities in the

perceptions of different participants.

P#9 represents a few participants who did not experience a clear difference between

the two payment technologies. Shortly after engaging in the discussion more deeply, the

participant claimed NFC could make the mobile wallet safer. Nothing’s safer than cash in the

sense that, I guess the reality is that if you have a credit card with a tap option turned on then

it's essentially the same thing, or at least that's my view of it. So, I don't really see a big

difference between using your phone... In fact, there's probably a couple of extra layers of

security on getting into your phone and having the ability to turn off your NFC feature, so that

in a way makes it safer if you're actually using it.

However, following further discussion, P#9 expressed a positive feeling about the

security mechanisms that may exist in the technology, but he confirmed he has little or no

knowledge of it. He stated Well, my perception is that there may be. Yeah. I mean, I get what

you’re asking me. [laughs] I guess that there are mechanisms in the phone that make it safer

than the physical wallet. I'm not familiar enough with all the different ways that your phone can

be attacked that make your phone more or less secure. But, all things being equal, I guess

there's added security features to a mobile device than there is to physical cards in your wallet.
 Diverse perceptions of the physical and the mobile wallet were expressed in the

individual responses, in which a significant number of the participants, felt that using a

fingerprint or passcode makes their mobile wallet safer. The researcher thus inquired on a deeper

level about the participants’ knowledge of the security mechanisms that led them to believe the

mobile wallet is safer, regardless of the claim by Rose (2012) that a significant number of mobile

apps on smartphones are storing sensitive account information of the user in plaintext.

Participant P#10 gave insight in the reasons why the physical wallet and card can take a

longer time to complete a transaction compared to the mobile wallet, which requires only

tapping; he expressed that my card, it has a chip. So, if I go into a store that needs to use my

actual physical credit card, I'd have to insert the chip, and sometimes that takes longer versus

if I just use my phone, I can just wirelessly just pay for it way through Apple pay.

The security experience of P#11 was similar to that of previous participants. He stated,

from a security standpoint is that the clerk on the other side would never see my card if I used

my wallet from my phone. So, there's no way that they can actually validate that I'm carrying

the proper card. P#11 made another significant statement, i.e., that tap technology is similar in

time required to complete a transaction compared to traditional card payments. He stated, and

originally before tap in the chip card, you always had to insert your card and still do. Even if you

go to the traditional American places like Home Depot and Lowe's, you still need to insert your

card, and you can’t use Apple pay.

He further expressed the convenience of Apple Pay and the ability to display the

previous transaction details: there's definitely ease of convenience to use the Apple pay over the

actual card itself, but now because of tap, they’re very close. I can either tap the card or do

Apple pay.
One other benefit with Apple pays though is that it will show me my last transaction even

though it wasn’t an Apple pay transaction.

Similarly, P#12 confirmed the overview of the transaction history is a valuable feature in

Apple Pay. He claimed the transaction history gives a sense of security, as he said push

notifications I can see the history at a glance, so it gives you a better feeling of security. Another

similar statement with previous participants is that you can use both taps with most credit

cards now and that’s pretty much what the digital wallet does.

Description of Security Mechanisms

Responses from the previous interview questions led to inquiries by the researcher

about the participants’ perceptions of the security mechanisms. Participant P#1 felt safe about

the mobile wallet and stated from what I remember, and the chip was encrypted. Yeah

because I remember Apple had an issue with the government about encrypted data on their

cellphone. So

that they couldn’t get in to. So that what’s made it safe for me. If they (government) can’t do

then guess someone else at that time, hasn’t done yet.

Something that caught the attention of the researcher was the encryption statement made

by P#1; his knowledge was influenced by his role as an IT analyst in the retail industry.

Similarly, P#2 expressed his trust in security of encryption combined with the password in the

mobile device. According to P#2; I think it's as safe as the encryption scheme that the phone is

using. I mean if they, if it comes down to it, if you can break, if you break, if you can break

someone's password then, then nothing is safe. Like, it's as good as the encryption scheme used

on the device.

She further claimed encrypted information on the mobile device can be considered

safer against attacks from adversaries. Like, from hackers and stuff as well. Like, it's safer that
way
than that information on your device and having it encrypted than having like a physical card

with most of the information on it open to, for everyone to see. I think that’s why it’s better.

Consistently, participants mentioned encryption as a main security mechanism in the

mobile wallet. Participant P#3 even narrated his knowledge of security mechanisms with a

detailed analysis of the unique token generation for each individual device. So, by virtue of my

progression, I know that once you activate it, there’s a way of linking your physical card to your

mobile device and that creates a bond between them. So, you cannot use another phone on the

same card except you link them together. Which in IT word, there must be a token that’s been

generated, which is linked to your phone, which makes that phone unique to you. I mean the

same way that you have the 16 digits on your credit card. So, the same way that works is how

the information on the phone works with the card. P#3 did not have much experience with the

protection of sensitive information beyond the token generation when switching from one

device to another.

Participant P#4 narrated his knowledge of security mechanisms from the activation

period of the RBC wallet, which allows only three consecutive payments and remains in

payment mode for 50 seconds. This is a special feature that was not reported by any of the

previous participants. P#4 claimed the feature is one of the upgrades he noticed; he stated I

believe it allows you to pay without Wi-Fi now for about three times. After that, you won't be

able to pay anymore, and it lets you pay like, it turns on the payment for about 50 seconds

before it stops.

When asked about the maximum number of payments allowed with wi-fi, P#4

confirmed You could make unlimited payments with Wi-Fi, if you have access to Wi-Fi, you can

make unlimited payments. But I notice now, that if you login to the Wallet app, it can make

three
payments without Wi-Fi. Just like previous participants, the device authentication is the first

security mechanism before gaining access to the payment app. According to the P#4, You need

to put in your password. You can make the settings to allow you to use fingerprints.

Participant P#4 described having the perception of two separate layers of security when

using the RBC wallet: phone access and the wallet access. He emphatically stated let's say

somebody pick up my phone; they’ll need to use my password to get into my phone. And then

when they open the mobile app before making a payment, you need to put in a password.

Considering the statement from P#4, it is assumed that security layers are not the same across

the various mobile wallets. According to P#1 and P#2, Apple Pay has one layer of security by

authenticating to the device, after which the wallet is accessible. Similarly, the Amex wallet,

according to P#3, can be easily accessed after device authentication; It’s just a toggle switch on

and off on NFC. But of course, to be able to do that, you’ll have to log into your phone first.

Participant P#5 went a step further to express her confidence in the security

mechanisms in Apple Pay beyond the regular password authentication after certain minutes.

P#5 expressed satisfaction in another feature, i.e., remote data wipe, when a device loss is

reported. He stated: what I really like about the Apple Pay is not that, because some of the app

stores is a little bit different. If you use your password, you don't have to put it on your phone

for 15 minutes. With the Apple Pay feature, it requires you to either put in the passcode or the

fingerprint every single time you use the phone.

He further stated that if you lose your phone as well, I believe Apple Pay removes all of

your information off your cards from your phone right away. And I like that it does ask for the

fingerprint or passcode every single time. And I believe there's like three or four tries with the

passcode and if you don't get the fingerprint or the passcode, it removes the card information

as
well or locks it for security. Similarly, the common perception that is expressed by multiple

participants regarding the security mechanisms is also repeated by P#6. He stated, Just that

it needs password and fingerprint, but that’s the only security feature I know on here I don’t

understand any of the other ones.

P#7 identified encryption of data and the use of a PIN during transactions. However, the

functions of the NFC technology in the security mechanism are unclear. P#7 stated that my

understanding its secure NFC. I don’t know if it’s like a protocol similar to HTTPS or something

like that or an SSL, so the information is encrypted going from the source to the pin-pad. It

doesn’t have to carry a pin like a chip-pin you put into a pin-pad and then have to enter your pin

and then that pin-pad needs to encrypt what that number is. That part is unnecessary because

it’s really just sending the payment information; essentially, it’s just sending your unencrypted

card number to the pin-pad.

Participant P#8 is a rare advocate of Apple products, and he holds a firm trust in the

technology. Expressing his knowledge of the security mechanisms, he stated I just know Apple

works very hard to keep our information safe. P#8 strongly believes that his information is

secure with his Apple phone, thus his level of trust in his phone is higher than that in a physical

wallet. He expressed his trust as he stated I have to trust someone, unfortunately. I’d rather

trust my phone security than my hands in my wallet [laughs].

P#8’s response is a bit influenced by the researcher, who asked probing questions. It

was apparent that P#8’s passion for Apple Pay is largely attributed to the fact that P#8 is

overwhelmingly exposed to Apple technology updates and releases. She demonstrated some

knowledge about encryption and the replacement of sensitive data during a transaction. She

stated I know for electronic information unless I’m on a shared wireless server, in general, it’s

pretty
safe, but I know they sell a lot of their information on an encrypted server. I know the

information that comes off of my phone isn’t the exact information that they received like the

store receives so they probably won’t have my exact numbers, because it’s all encrypted; this is

my theory, but I’m not sure [laughs].

NFC was mentioned several times as one of the key security features, although with

different expressions of how it works. Participant P#9 confirmed he does not know how the NFC

technology secures user information on the device; he, however, reiterated that he always

turns off the NFC when not in use to secure his data. He stated I don’t know if I know how one

works over the other. What I do know is that to be safer, your best thing to do is to keep your

NFC turned off when you’re not using it so that your information, or whatever isn't being sent

out unless you're actually making a payment.

Further inquiry by the researcher about P#9’s knowledge of NFC led him to make some

comments of great importance as to why NFC should always be turned off when not in use. He

stated I mean that's the main feature of the thing is that your phone is still obviously

connecting to data and Wi-Fi and things like that. So that's another reason why the best thing

that you can do is turn it off when you're not using it. And then obviously, whatever security

you have on your phone, whether it's fingerprint ID, passwords, pins, whatever, that is also a

layer of security.

Participant P#10 expressed her understanding of the mobile wallet as being safer

compared to the physical card due to the password security. She said, … having the card on my

phone where you need to have passwords to access the card. Participant P#11 gave a different

perception of security using Apple Pay. He claimed the mobile wallet is not more secure in any

way compared to a physical card based on the transaction limit using tap.
 He stated overall, I would probably think that it might be less secure, but I'm not sure.

I've never tested to see what the limits are on Apple pay. So, whereas if you try to tap over $100

purchase, it'll force you to do a pin check, as opposed to Apple pay. I've never tried doing a

purchase of more than just under, probably, 20 or $30. So, I don’t know if there’s an actual limit

as to how much you can put on Apple pay. I would consider it if there were no limit. After a

further probe into what he considers security, he agreed with views of other participants, i.e.,

since card information saved on the phone is hidden, such a feature makes it secure. Because

you can't see the CVV on the back on Apple pay, it's probably more secure. If someone had

gotten a hold of your phone and was able to somehow get the information there because I

don't think the CVV’s there.

Similarly, as regards the transaction limit, P#12 was of the participants who perceived

the mobile wallet to be less secure because the transaction limit has not been tested. He stated

I would say assuming there are transactions that I can actually use so usually under a $100 I’d

say I would feel more secure but using the digital wallet it doesn’t give out the real card

number. So, if for some reason it was compromised it’s more easy for me just to get rid of it

without having to call credit card companies and stuff, and it also does a better job of letting

you know the transactions as they happen so if something pops up on my phone that I don’t

recognize then I can immediately stop it. If it’s a physical card then usually you have to log into

your bank site and see what is going on there which I probably only do once a month.

P#12 due to his experience in the IT industry expatiated further on the security

mechanisms. He stated, I guess I don’t fully understand how it works but it is encrypted using a

hardware chip that has to be present. It doesn’t actually use your real card number it creates

sort of a tokenized card number that’s used just for those transactions. There are transaction

limits in
place so you usually can’t go over $100 in most places. It’s really only using NFC so there’s not

too much distance that it can travel and the communication between the two is encrypted when

it’s passing the details. He claimed the security technology accorded him a sense of security

when using a mobile wallet.

Experience with Transactions

This section discusses participants’ reported experiences with mobile wallet transactions.

Based on their previous experiences with transactions, they expressed the feelings of expected

accomplishments. Equally, they narrated their unexpected challenges during transactions that

might lead them to discontinue the use of the technology.

Participant P#1 stated he is very comfortable with the security and never has any fear

because as soon as you put it on my finger print that’s it. P#1 reiterated his confidence and his

expectation was met regarding the convenience. The spending behavior was also evaluated

based on the satisfaction expressed by P#1; he further explained that his previous experiences

with mobile wallet transactions had not changed his spending behavior. He expressed that It’s

same it doesn’t make me spend more. I mean you still have a budget

Similarly, P#2 expressed his satisfaction with transactions using the mobile wallet due to

the perceived security. Conversely, his spending behavior has been influenced by the new

payment technology due to the ease of use and convenience. He stated Yeah, I spend definitely

more. [laughs]. Because it's easier. It's easier just to tap and like not think about like…

Satisfaction about mobile wallet transactions by P#3 is consistent with that of previous

participants. In his own narrative he stated, I think it's much more straightforward. He further

reiterated his confidence in the security aspect of mobile payments, as he said the gates that

I need to pass through to be able to use my mobile device, one of which is to, first of all, open

my
phone. And the second thing is to enable my NFC. And once that is done, it’s just a question of

just tap it on the card payment system, and that’s it, and it generates the receipt for you. So,

it's straightforward in that way.

Participant P#4 explained the ease of use of mobile wallets influenced his spending

behavior. He stated I used to work I noticed that I spent more money using my RBC wallet

because I tried leaving the wallet at home to avoid spending. But when I have my wallet app I

can make payments anytime and anywhere I want so I noticed that I spent more. He further

explained his increase in spending was due to easy access, as he stated, it’s because I have

easier access to payment with my phone. The researcher probed to understand why P#4

stopped using the mobile wallet; he claimed I’m not working, and I’m not in it a lot, so. It

P#5 explained that, in her experience, Apple Pay transactions have a significant

influence on her spending behavior. She said, I'm usually already at the counter, but sometimes

I start to have doubts like, Do I really need this? And like, Is this really an impulsive buy, or is this

something that I really need P#5 continued by citing the ease of use as the main driver of her

spending behavior, coupled with the fact that she naturally likes shopping. I'm really into

makeup and well, I love shopping for clothes too. So, if I don't have my card with me and I do

see something I really like, and I have my phone with me, I can just tap. I would say that the

efficiency, I mean paying. Sorry. Let me just think. I know what I want to say, but I don’t think

I’m explaining it right.

Conversely, P#6, who also uses Apple Pay on an iPhone 6, claimed his spending

behaviour has remained the same as before; he stated I end up spending the same as before, it

hasn’t changed. He also expressed satisfactions in the transaction experience.

 Participant P#7 feels indifferent about the mobile wallet transaction, even though the

experience is pleasant. He stated It doesn’t really look like much of anything it’s the same as a

credit card transaction. With the transaction you hit a widget open the banking app, and you

just tap it, and then you can see in the rest of the Mobile Payment System the details of the

transaction in your online banking statement, it just goes straight to there. P#7 is one of the

participants who are exposed to technology and understands the value of the history overview

the mobile wallet can provide; he could not see much difference in the payment method.

Participant P#8 stated that she only has a hard time when the payment terminal is not

available for transactions. As an example, she told about an experience she had had at one of

the cafeterias in her work place. However, it has been a pleasant experience. She stated, in

general, it’s pretty good. My job actually has Apple Pay in our cafeteria so it’s a pretty new

feature that they have and now and then the machine goes down, and I don’t have my wallet. I

guess that’s the only inconvenience is if the machine doesn’t work and I don’t have my backup,

my actual credit card then that’s the only issue I would have. She reiterated her continued use

of the Apple without hesitation as follows: so, far I’ve had no real complaints, and I will

continue to use Apple Pay.

Participant P#9 stated he feels assured by the security features, and he expressed how

he can securely authenticate his transactions: I basically, will access my phone by fingerprint or

pin and then turn on NFC. And then make the payment and then turn it off. He claimed the

convenience trade-off is worth making for security reasons.

Participant P#10 expressed satisfaction with the transactions so far except that not all

stores accept the method. He stated, For the most part, most stores don't take it yet, but it's

slowly getting there. That's the only disadvantage. But in general, I’ve had positive experiences
when I do actually use it. More participants expressed their satisfaction with the mobile wallet,

mostly the Apple Pay users.

Participant P#11 stated he was able to just double-click on the icon and complete a

transaction in a short time: I think I can get to Apple pay by only doing one authentication and

that's just the double- click. And then use my ID or passcode after that. So, I can bring up the

Apple pay with touch ID, and then just go in with my thumbprint just by double-clicking. P#11

maintained his believe that the mobile wallet, especially Apple, still has some inherent risk:

until someone proves that they can hack the phone when I'm on it. I think there is always a risk

of compromising the phone. And because Apple was never known for their security.

Participant P#11, however, suggested the risk can be limited or mitigated if users can

get a different card for different purposes: I would think that there's always a risk. I think in my

lifetime so far; I've been hacked or hacked my credit cards at least twice. So, I think for the

normal credit card user, it's a part of doing business. I mean, all we do is we get more accounts

so that, I have an account that I just use for online. And I have an account that I use for Apple

pay so that if it gets compromised, I’m not stuck in the water for the rest of my account.

Participant P#12 expressed his convenience just like previous participants when using

Apple Pay for transactions. However, he reported about his disappointment when he wanted to

use his card for a large purchase where no chip and pin were available. He stated I think it’s

pretty much just like using any sort of tap transaction you just pull out your phone and sign into

it and you open up the wallet App and you just need to touch the machine when it prompts you

for it, and that’s pretty much the end. You immediately get back that the transaction has gone

through and you get a receipt right on the phone and it sort of lets you know what has

happened.
 He further stated that It’s pretty quick and easy and you don’t have to pull your cards

out, and you don’t have to give the cashier anything either, so you get to hold onto everything.

You have to actually sign in to use it not just throw a card over a reader so it’s very fast I think.

The only time it’s frustrating if the transaction is too high. I guess down in the States they don’t

really have pin machines that come to you, so you can’t really do it.

Spending Behavior

Participants’ spending behavior was evaluated based on a possible increase or

reduction in spending upon mobile wallet adoption. Overall, it was clear from the responses

that the majority of participants remain indifferent about the spending pattern. Participant

P#1 stated the adoption has neither increased nor reduced his spending: It’s same it doesn’t

make me spend more. I mean you still have a budget. However, on the contrary, P#2 stated

Yeah, I spend definitely more because it's easier. It's easier just to tap and like not think about

like.

When P#3 was asked if the adoption has affected his spending, he stated No, no, it hasn’t.

It hasn’t affected my spending attitude. I mean, remember I said, because there's limit on it so,

there's a limit to how much can I spend at any point in time. And at the same time, if you go to

the shop the same way you will use your credit card, a physical credit card is the same way you

will use your mobile device anyway. But of course, as a person, you just have to be mindful. I

mean, if it's a debit card and I know that I'm using my money, I'm the sort of person I don't

want to use my credit card too much. So, I'm just mindful of the fact that this is a credit card.

So, I'm mindful of how I use it or what I use it for, that sort of thing.

Participant P#4 confirmed his spending went up after he adopted the mobile wallet,

but he applied some cautionary measures and stated actually when I used to work I noticed

that I spent more money using my RBC wallet because I tried leaving the wallet at home to
avoid
spending. But when I have my wallet app I can make payments anytime and anywhere I want so I

noticed that I spent more.

In a similar fashion, P#5 claimed there was an increase in her spending due to the

convenience and because she regularly carries her device with her. She stated I'm really into

makeup and well, I love shopping for clothes too. So, if I don't have my card with me and I do

see something I really like, and I have my phone with me, I can just tap. I would say that the

efficiency, I mean paying. Sorry. Let me just think. I know what I want to say, but I don’t think

I’m explaining it right. Participant P#6 stated there were no changes in his spending behavior:

No not really I end up spending the same as before; it hasn’t changed. Similarly, P#7 stated his

spending behavior was not different.

Participant P#8 stated the mobile wallet increased her spending a little bit because I

know it’s more available and I’m like oh I don’t have the wallet I can’t buy something, but I have

my phone. Participant P#9 expressed that convenience is a major factor influencing his

spending behavior. However, the spending has not changed it doesn't. Not the spending, just

the overall convenience of using it. So, I think that my spending habits are largely the same.

Participant P#10 attributed the change in spending to the easy accessibility of the

device; she stated I'm just more likely to use my card more, and it's easily accessible versus

forgetting my wallet or not bringing it. Then I won't be forced to spending money because I

don't have my wallet. Participant P#11 similarly stated the convenience of the mobile wallet

has influenced his spending Yes. From the point of view that before, if I didn't have the cash on

me, I wouldn't have bought the item. But now because I have the convenience of having the

credit cards on me, I probably have spent more.

 Participant P#12 stated that, because of the ease of use, he has experienced a change

in his spending behavior. I mean I think it’s easier than having to pull out and tap a credit card,

so I wouldn’t think there’s been any difference. All participants were individual interviewed,

and while they provided some similar responses to some key interview questions, many

participants gave different accounts of their perceptions. The next section will present the data

analysis with the NVivo12® data analytic software.

Data Analysis Process

In this phenomenological study, interview questions were developed in line with the

research questions by utilizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)

model. The data collected from the interview were collated, deconstructed, and coded during the

data analysis stage to create an overview of the themes in the data categories and their

corresponding nodes in NVivo12®. The interviews were transcribed, and data were transferred

to the NVivo12® software for analysis.

While coding is considered a critical aspect of data analysis (Corbi & Strauss, 2008),

performing the coding manually can be complex and time consuming. However, NVivo12® is a

user-friendly data analytic program that helps to take the burden of data analysis off the

researcher’ shoulders. The software was also used to present the study findings in visualized

format and export the findings accordingly. The following steps were taken during the data

analysis stage:

Step 1: Cleaning data by transcribing the interview data and also cleaning up some

statements by the researcher for easier analysis of participants’ statements.

Step 2: Uploading the data into NVivo12® by creating a mobile wallet project in

NVivo12®. A resource folder was also created within which the transcribed data were imported.
 Step 3: Reorganizing the interview responses using the auto code function in NVivo12®.

The auto coding helped in grouping separate responses from the participants under the same

interview questions; see Appendix G for the auto coding screenshot. The Files column shows the

participant who responded to the interview questions while the References column shows the

number of times each participant mentioned the contents responding a particular question.

Step 4: Exploring data by running the “Query” command to generate a list of frequently

used words. The query helped the researcher to understand the transcribed data. Table 4 provides

a list of the top relevant results from the query.

Table 5

Table 4. NVivo Results (Top Results)

Similar Words Coun Similar Words Counts

ts
Cards, card 1148 Use, used, uses, using 1125
Phone, phones 1024 just 812
Like, liked, likely, likes 638 intqu 611
Think 436 Pay, paying 421
Secure, securing, security 409 Yes 382
Yeah 364 Tap, tap, tapping, taps 351
Wallet, wallets 338 Payment, payments 334
Apple 325 Make, makes, making 315
credit 290 Fingerprint, fingerprints 280
Know 251 One, ones 241
Mobile 239 Get, gets, getting 238
Time, times 231 App, apps 229
Thing, things 220 Bank, banking, banks 213
Work, working, workings, works 211 Need, needed, needs 208
Password, passwords 201 Actual, actually 201
Note: Refer to Appendix H for a full list of NVivo
 Step 5: Generating themes to address the research questions using anchor coding and thus

creating the nodes by labeling the research questions with the created anchor codes.

Step 6: Coding relevant information in the data by inserting the relevant information into

the nodes created. In this step the important information and statements were highlighted and

inserted into the nodes. The researcher identified the important information from the interview

questions that addressed the corresponding research subquestions.

In essence, the pertinent interview questions were used to develop the coding. The

relevant questions are listed below:

IntQue #1: Please describe your thought and feeling when you first heard about a new payment

technology – Mobile payment?

IntQue #4: What can you consider to be the main motivation for using mobile payments?

IntQue #5: What are the greatest challenges you experienced during enrollment in the mobile

wallet?

IntQue #7: Describe any similarities and differences you see between the traditional physical

wallet and digital mobile wallet.

IntQue #8: Do you consider mobile payments to be safer when compared to other payment

methods? If so why?

IntQue #9: If you consider mobile payment safer, how can you describe the security mechanism?

IntQue #10: Please describe your experience in mobile wallet transaction.

The next stage in the analysis process was the development of code and themes which

were later used to assign meaning to the processed data and to determine the perceptions of the

phenomenon.
 Categories and Theme Development

The researcher created nodes from the interview responses by the participants. The nodes

were created based on the research questions and the corresponding responses. The researcher

examined the relevant statements from participants’ responses to each research subquestion, i.e.,

RQ1a through RQ1f, and the textual data were analyzed to identify relevant connections and

ideas that are common between the participants. The researcher formulated the themes, also

known as nodes, in NVivo12®, and the following six anchor codes were assigned as labels to the

research questions:

1. Consumers’ mindset (RQ1a)

2. Motivations for adoption (RQ1b)

3. Challenges in mobile wallet enrollment (RQ1c)

4. Physical and mobile wallet comparisons (RQ1d)

5. Consumers’ security perception (RQ1e)

6. Consumers’ perception of mobile wallet transaction (RQ1f)

The nodes are also known as containers in NVivo12®. After creating the nodes, the

coding was performed by highlighting and inserting relevant information from the participants’

responses into the created nodes or containers. The process of selecting or using phrases to

capture the meaning in the data and inserting such data in the developed themes or nodes is

known as themeing the data (Saldana, 2015)

The researcher ensured the nodes were created in a manner that reflected the adopted

conceptual framework, the UTAUT. Additionally, node creation helped the researcher to

categorize participants’ perceptions about the mobile wallet. Cases and characteristics were

organized in a case node to connect all the participants’ demographic information to their
respective interview responses. NVivo® software refers to each participant and each response as

a case, and the characteristics are attributes of the participants.

Another unit of analysis, called node classification, was created, within which the

participants’ demographic attributes or variables were organized to analyze individual

participants’ data. The demographic attributes in this study are gender, age range, educational

level, occupation, mobile device, device OS, and payment wallet. Appendix I provides the case

classification summary as generated by NVivo12®.

The next sections outline the evidence from the participants’ statements as regards the

different themes.

Theme 1: Consumers’ Mindset (RQ1a)

A majority of the participants (58%) expressed their skepticism about the technology,

while 42% were excited about the new technology. Despite the skepticism of 42% of the

participants, they expressed it was the technology advancement that stimulated them to move in

the same direction. Participants’ statements demonstrating their feelings and thoughts about the

mobile wallet are highlighted in Table 6.

Table 6

Table 5. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Mindsets (RQ1a)

Participants’ Response Theme

● I felt excited moving forward with technology (P#1)

● I was skeptical of it. I didn't think that anyone would be

using it. (P#2)

● The concern, in a sense that how is it secure (P#3) Consumers’

Mindset
● I was more curious than anything (P#4)
 Participants’ Response Theme

● Nice to hear about it (P#5)

● I thought it was a pretty cool feature (P#6)

● It sounded cool. I’ve been sort of interested in the

technology (P#7)

● I can just use my phone to automatically pay for things (P#8)

● I was concerned about whether it would be safe and

secure (P#9)

● I was a little skeptical that it would be wildly accepted (P#10)

● Skeptical on how well it would work and of course on

the security (P#11)

● I was excited because it saved me from carrying

cards everywhere (P#12)

Overall, the responses demonstrate participants were excited and courageous to try the

new payment technology despite the skeptical mindsets.

Theme 2: Motivations for Adoption (RQ1b)

All participants expressed their motivations using different words, such as convenience,

efficiency, security, and assurance. However, five of the 12 participants (41.7%) claimed they

adopted the technology due to its convenience, while two other participants (16.7%) explained

security was their main motivation. Other contributing factor is curiosity about the new

technology. Participants’ statements demonstrating their motivations for adoption of the mobile

wallet are provided in Table 7.

Table 7

Table 6. Participants statement and Theme for Motivations for Adoption (RQ1b)

Participants’ Response Theme

● Change of that was moving forward with technology (P#1)

● It's easy to just carry your phone instead of a wallet and a

phone (P#2)

● More of the assurance and the convenience of using (P#3)

Motivations
● It was more of a curiosity (P#4
for Adoption
● And also, just the efficiency, just the efficiency (P#5)

● I like the idea that it’s on my phone and it’s always locked (P#6)

● I actually feel it’s more secure than using a credit (P#7)

● The convenience of it and I know that Apple is very protective

(P#8)

● Convenience. You know, just not having to have a wallet

on you(P#9)

● I just like how it can be accessible right through my phone (P#10)

● I can keep them all in one place on my phone (P#12)

Theme 3: Challenges in Mobile Wallet Enrollment (RQ1c)

After running the word frequency query in NVivo12®, several words that appear relevant

to the theme of challenges in mobile wallet enrollment showed an appreciable number of counts.

Among these words, we find: confirm, problem, straightforward, getting, and needed. These

words were explored to understand their usages in participants’ statements. It was clear that
problem and straightforward were the two words that addressed the challenges according to

the participants’ statements.

Two of 12 (16.7%) participants expressed there was no problem during the enrollment,

and three (25%) participants claimed the enrollment was straightforward. A few participants

claimed it was easy and smooth. One participant mentioned the challenge that the technology is

not widely accepted in all stores. Participants’ statements demonstrating challenges they

experienced are highlighted in Table 8.

Table 8

Table 7. Participants statement and Theme for Mobile Wallet Enrollment (RQ1c)

Participants’ Response Theme

● Pretty straightforward no challenge. That's very easy to use

(P#1).

● Actually, it was pretty smooth for me (P#2). Mobile

● I don’t think there’s any challenge at all (P#3). Wallet

● I noticed that I wasn't able to use it without data (P#4). Enrollment

● There were no troubles that I had (P#5).

● The process took less than five minutes and fast (P#6).

● Pretty easy on the TD App except it was inconsistent (P#7).

● Not a lot of stores initially took it (P#8).

● It was pretty straightforward (P#9)

● As far as enrolling then I guess there's not really any

challenges (P#10).

● I found that very easy(P#11)

 Participants’ Response Theme

● It was pretty straight forward but the biggest problem was some

things didn’t seem to support it yet (P#12)

Theme 4: Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison (RQ1d)

Almost all participants (11/12, 91.7%) stated they preferred making transactions via the

mobile wallet than using a physical card. Mostly, security was also expressed by eight (66.7%)

participants as a factor stimulating the use of a mobile wallet. However, two (16.7%) participants

expressed their concerns about the transaction limit. Participants’ statements are presented in

Table 9.

Table 9

Table 8.Participants statement and Theme for Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison (RQ1d)

Participants’ Response Them

e
● Because everything out there I mean you have to insert the card.

This one just goes on top and then within seconds or circle comes

up. If you put your finger in and it all (P#1).

● In terms of use, it's just going to places and if they don't offer

Apple Pay then it's not convenient compared to when every other Physical and
Mobile
place uses a card to like to authenticate (P#2) Wallet
Comparison
Participants’ Response Theme

● You can buy anything to any amount provided you have

that amount of money in credit, I mean. But with the mobile

device they've placed a limit as to how much you can spend

(P#3).

● If you need to make a huge payment of anything about $100 or

more, you can use your physical card. But when you're using the

wallet app you won't be able to make payments of those such

(P#4).

● Sometimes I might just quickly run into the store and kind of

leave my wallet in the car. Whereas, my phone is usually with

me at all times (P#5).

● It’s just a Tap functionality it works the same way but other

than that I feel like the phone is more secure because if

someone picked up my card they can tap it (P#6).

● Tap’ works and that it uses similar technology for the ‘Tap

Payment System’ and the difference is really that you have to

sign into the phone first in order to use it.(P#7).

● Every time I use my card I know get notified that I’ve used it so

with Apple Pay I can look at the transaction right on my phone to

say

that I’d used it. (P#8).

● It's pretty easy to just make sure that NFC is turned on and

then that’s– it’s convenient that way. It's more likely that I'm

going to leave my wallet behind than I'm going to leave my

phone behind
(P#9).
 Participants’ Response Theme

● I'd have to insert the chip and sometimes that takes longer

versus if I just use my phone I can just wirelessly just pay for it

way through Apple pay (P#10).

● There's definitely an ease of convenience to use the Apple pay

over the actual card itself, but now because of tap they’re very

close. I can either tap the card or do Apple pay (P#11).

● The only difference there is that on the digital wallet side you

have way better tracking when it’s been used. With push

notifications I can see the history at a glance, so it gives you a

better feeling of

security (P#12).

Theme 5: Consumer’s Security Perceptions (RQ1e)

Participants were asked to describe their perceptions of the security mechanisms in the

mobile wallet; 10 (83.3%) of the participant’s responses were mostly positive, four (33.3%) were

mostly negative (however with some overlapping positive perceptions), and three (25%) had

mixed feelings about mobile wallet security.

According to Venkatesh and Bala (2008), positive and negative perceptions are the

characteristics to measure the participants’ adoption of a technology. The positive perception

node contains a high degree of the participants’ perceptions of the use of the mobile wallet

according to the UTAUT. The negative perception node contains participants with less favorable

perceptions of the mobile wallet according to the UTAUT. However, some participants

expressed a mixed perception, which represented some level of neutral perceptions.

 Subtheme: Positive. An overwhelming majority of participants with positive perceptions

revealed their knowledge of the security components embedded in the mobile wallet. The

participants’ perceived security is increasing despite the fact many participants claimed they did

not fully understand how it works. The positive perception of the security mechanisms is

expressed in the individual statements in Table 10.

Table 10

Table 9. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)

Participants’ Response Subtheme:

Positive
● The chip was encrypted. Yeah because I remember Apple had

an issue with the government about encrypted data on their

cellphone (P#1).

● I think it's as safe as the encryption scheme that the

Consume
phone is using (P#2).
rs’
● Being able to use my fingerprint, iris, or my face to log into
Security
my phone(P#3).
Perceptio
● It requires you to put in your phone password or your
ns
fingerprint before you can make a payment (P#4).

● It asks for a fingerprint or a passcode to kind of ensure

that you're a trusted person with the phone (P#5.

● Just that it needs password and fingerprint but that’s the

only security feature (P#6).

● An SSL, so the information is encrypted going from the source

to

the pin-pad (P#7).

 Participants’ Response Subtheme:
Positive
● Encryption I’m sure is key though (P#8).

● And then obviously, whatever security you have on your

phone, whether it's fingerprint ID, passwords, pins,

whatever, that is

also a layer of security (P#9).

Subtheme: Negative. Participants with mostly negative perceptions expressed

confidence in the efficiency. However, they hold the perception that the mobile wallet is in no

way safer than the physical wallet.

The negative perception of the security mechanisms is expressed in the individual

statements in Table 11.

Table 11

Table 10. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)

Participants’ Response Subthe

me:
Negativ
e
● I think if your phone is hacked, that could also be like not

safe. A hacker could get access to your card information.

that's one big factor that like I wouldn't (P#2).

● Nothing’s safer than cash in the sense that, I guess the reality Consume

is that if you have a credit card with a tap option turned on rs’

then it's essentially the same thing, or at least that's my view of Security

it. (P#9). Perceptio

● No, not really secure to me (P#10). ns

● I would probably think that it might be less secure(P#11)

 Subtheme: Mixed. Three of the participants with mixed perceptions of the security

mechanisms in the mobile wallet stated that the security is not significantly different compared

to that of old payment methods. They claimed the glitches and issues are just a trade-off because

the technology is still new.

The mixed perception of the security mechanisms is expressed in the individual

statements in Table 12.

Table 12

Table 11. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Security Perceptions (RQ1e)

Participants’ Response Subtheme: Mixed

● I think it's pretty much the same (P#1)

● I think they're both the same thing, I think [laughs 00:24:55] Consume

they both have their security flaws (P#2). rs’

● It's about the same. Although again, I don't know all the Security

workings behind the scene, but yeah, I feel like it's about the Perceptio

same (P#9) ns

Theme 6: Consumer’s Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Transactions (RQ1f)

This question focuses on the participants’ perceptions of mobile wallet transactions and is

directly tied to the main research question “What are the lived experiences of consumers after the

adoption of the mobile digital wallet?”, with reference to the conceptual framework of the

UTAUT model.

Based on the satisfaction they experienced, 10 (83.3%) of the participants described their

perceptions of the mobile transactions as positive; two (16.7%) participants described their

perceptions as both negative and mixed.

 Subtheme: Positive. A significant number of participants, i.e., 10 of 12, considered the

lived experience of the mobile transaction to be satisfactory, based on their different

perspectives. The perceptions of the mobile wallet are expressed in individual comments in

Table 13.

Table 13

Table 12. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile Wallet

Transactions (RQ1f)

Participants’ Response Subtheme:

Positive
● This one just goes on top and then within seconds or

circle comes up. If you put your finger in and it all done

(P#1)

● It's easier just to tap and like not think about like (P#2)

● I think it's much more straightforward (P#3)

● I turn on the NFC and I open the payments, so I can tap, Perception

using my phone (P#4). s of

● So, if I don't have my card with me and I do see something I Mobile

really like, and I have my phone with me, I can just tap. I Wallet
would say that the efficiency (P#5). Transactio
● I use Apple Pay instead of reaching for my wallet. If I’m ns
paying for anything and there’s tap available, I use my

phone or my watch (P#6)

● In general, it’s pretty good(P#8).

● I will access my phone by fingerprint or pin and then turn
on NFC. And then make the payment and then turn it off
(P#9).
 Participants’ Response Subtheme:
Positive
● But in general, I’ve had positive experiences when I do

actually use it (P#10).

● It’s pretty quick and easy and you don’t have to pull your

cards out (P#12)

Subtheme: Negative. The two participants with a negative perception had had different

experiences. P#11 did not express confidence in the security of his Apple device, while P#12

voiced that high transaction volumes are always a concern. Table 14 states the comments from

each participant.

Table 14

Table 13. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile Wallet

Transactions (RQ1f)

Participants’ Response Subthe

me:
Negativ
e
● And because Apple was never known for their security. I
Perception
would think that there's always a risk (P#11). s of
Mobile
● The only time it’s frustrating if the transaction is too high. Wallet
Transactio
I guess down in the States they don’t really have pin ns

machines

that come to you, so you can’t really do it (P#12).

Subtheme: Mixed. Two of the 12 participants (16.7%) had mixed feeling about the

transactions. One participant claimed the transaction is quick and straightforward. However, his
concern is similar to that of participants with a negative perception of higher transaction

volumes. The second participant expressed that his experience is much like that with traditional

credit card transactions, without significant differences. The mixed perceptions of the mobile

wallet are presented in Table 15.

Table 15

Table 14. Participants statement and Theme for Consumers’ Perceptions of Mobile Wallet

Transactions (RQ1f)

Participants’ Response Subtheme: Mixed

● It doesn’t really look like much of anything it’s the same as a

credit card transaction. With the transaction you hit a widget

open the banking app and you just tap it and then you can see

in the rest of the Mobile Payment System the details of the

Perception
transaction in your online banking statement, it just goes
s of
straight to there (P#7).
Mobile
● It’s pretty quick and easy and you don’t have to pull your
Wallet
cards out and you don’t have to give the cashier anything
Transactio
either so you get to hold onto everything. You have to actually
ns
sign in to use it not just throw a card over a reader so it’s

very fast I think. The only time it’s frustrating if the

transaction is too high. I guess down in the States they don’t

really have pin machines that come

to you so you can’t really do it (P#12).

 Summary

Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the data and a presentation of the findings of the

qualitative phenomenology study, in which the perceptions of 17 mobile wallet users in Toronto,

Canada were investigated. The study utilized the conceptual framework of UTAUT to describe

the perceptions of the 17 participants, Amazon mechanical Turk (MTurk) to recruit the

participants, and Skype and EVAER for the online synchronous interviews. The participants’

interview data were recorded and transcribed, while NVivo12® software was used to analyze the

data.

Six themes were formulated during the analysis, i.e., (a) consumers’ mindset, (b)

motivations for adoption, (c) challenges in mobile wallet enrollment, (d) a comparison between

physical and mobile wallets, (e) consumers’ security perception, and (f) consumers’ perception

of mobile wallet transactions. Finally, the main research question and research subquestions were

evaluated according to the formulated themes. Chapter 5 contains an interpretation of the data

collected from the participants and presents findings of the phenomenological study on

consumers’ perception of the mobile digital wallet. Chapter 5 also presents future

recommendations and conclusions.

Lastly, the researcher documented a memo with the reasons why the nodes are important

and their relevance to the study. This chapter has focused on the acceptance of the mobile wallet

through the lived experience of the participants. The result are expanded to identify the security

problems faced by the participants and the reasons for their adoption of the mobile wallet.
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the phenomenological study was to examine the perceptions of the

users of mobile wallets. The problem statements require an understanding of the mobile wallet

users’ perceptions regarding the security capability that can accelerate the adoption of the

technology.

The purpose was to understand the cybersecurity perception of the end users of mobile

digital wallets. Despite convenience in the use of mobile wallets and potential improvements it

accorded during a transaction process, few challenges were identified after the adoption.

This chapter presents the conclusion from the study, a discussion regarding the

limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research, thereby summarizing the

dissertation. The research was a phenomenological study that utilized open-ended interviews to

collect data from participants through Skype online technology. There were 17 participants in the

research, i.e., five pilot study participants and 12 study participants. The collected interview data

were transcribed, uploaded into the NVivo12® software, and later coded and analyzed.

For the analysis, the data were organized in NVivo12® in accordance with the interview

questions and aligned with the research subquestions. The central research question was “What

are the lived experiences of consumers after the adoption of a mobile digital wallet?” The

research subquestions were developed, and labels were assigned to reflect the conceptual

framework UTAUT. The following subquestions were developed to guide the main research

question:

RQ1a: What are the thoughts of consumers when they learn about mobile wallets?

RQ1b: What motivates the consumer to use mobile payment transactions?

RQ1c: Which actions need to be taken to use the mobile wallet as a payment method?
 RQ1d: How do mobile wallets compare to the traditional physical wallet?

RQ1e: What is the security capability of the mobile digital wallet?

RQ1f: How do consumers describe their experiences with payments and transactions?

This chapter presents a discussion of the major findings from the interviews held with

five pilot participants and 12 study participants. The key findings are listed below:

a. The majority of the participants described their perceptions in mobile wallet transactions

as positive, negative, or mixed.

b. Most users of the mobile wallet in this study are between the age of 25-34

c. An overwhelming majority of the participants claimed to have a good understanding of

security mechanisms in mobile wallets.

d. All pilot and study participants indicated they used mobile wallets for transactions on a

regular basis.

e. Few participants mentioned concerns about the transaction limit when using a mobile

wallet.

f. The majority of the participants were excited to adopt the new technology.

g. All participants indicated convenience and ease of use were the main factors for adoption.

Details regarding each finding and the corresponding evidence from the participants’

statements will be discussed in the following section.

Discussion

The study aimed to understand the consumers’ perception of mobile wallet security,

which is an important factor to improve user experience (Svilar & Zupančič, 2016). Convenience

and ease of use are factors that can influence consumers to migrate to the payment method

(Stringer, 2014). The ability to provide both convenience and security when using mobile wallets
is becoming increasingly difficult. However, there must be a balance between them (Svilar &

Zupančič, 2016). Despite the existence of certain concerns, the overwhelming majority of the

participants described convenience as a top priority.

Theme 1: Consumers’ Mindset (RQ1a)

When asked to describe thoughts and feelings about the mobile wallet, the participants

expressed feelings of excitement and curiosity. Participants described the usefulness of the

mobile wallet and, at the same time, the skepticism because it is not widely accepted. Some

participants, however, perceived skepticism of security, while others were skeptical of its

interoperability. Despite the differences in perception between different consumers, the common

perception amongst all participants was the feeling of excitement. The findings suggest that

convenience largely contributes to a positive perception.

This finding is consistent with the UTAUT construct of behavioral intentions, which

suggested performance expectance contributes to the acceptance of the technology. The

overwhelming majority of the participants expressed confidence in the mobile wallet for faster

and more convenience. The response from P#10 regarding the thoughts about the mobile wallet

suggested the technology will meet his expectations. This finding seems to build on performance

expectancy, which is one of the underlying components of behavioral intention as suggested by

Venkatesh et al. (2003). As described in the literature review in chapter 2, UTAUT, the

conceptual framework utilized in this study, seems to be in harmony with the description of the

participants’ thoughts and feelings.

Theme 2: Motivations for Adoption (RQ1b)

The key points found, regarding the consumers’ thoughts and feelings about the mobile

wallet, were excitement and convenience, as expressed by the overwhelming majority of the
participants. The findings suggest that participants believed the ability to have their debit and

credit cards on the phone removed the burden of carrying their cards with them all the time. The

possibility to carry only the phone is a factor that contributes to the excitement about the mobile

wallet. The participants’ thoughts and feelings are supported by the UTAUT conceptual

framework by Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu (2016), claiming the ability to perform a specific job

has a direct influence on perceived usefulness.

The findings also suggest that convenience and ease of use are major factors for adopting

the mobile wallet. The finding is broadly in line with research by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), who

suggested that ease of use and usefulness are more important than security concerns from the

consumers’ perspectives. However, all participants showed a preference for the security of their

information when they heard of the new technology. This suggests that the finding is partially in

line with previous research by Yan and Yang (2014), who found ease of use and usefulness were

significant influences on the user’s trust.

Similarly, as described in the literature review in chapter 2, users’ perceptions are based

on the sensation of security, cost, convenience, and ease of use (Patel, 2016; Shin & Lee, 2014).

Trütsch (2016) also suggested that lack of security and perceived needs are the main factors by

which consumers may choose not to use a technology. Although the participants expressed their

concerns about the security, interestingly, none of the participants indicated a refusal to adopt the

mobile wallet. This finding converges with the research by Aydin and Burnaz (2016), in which

they showed that ease of use and usefulness are more important than security.

A statement by P#8 showed the ease of use was the main factor influencing the decision

to adopt the new technology, extending the previous study by Aydin and Burnaz (2016). Despite

the difference in research designs, Aydin and Burnaz (2016) explored nonexperimental
descriptive designs using hypotheses to address their research question about mobile wallet

adoption, utilizing a qualitative phenomenology design, by using open-ended interviews. The

results of the two studies confirm some level of correlation. Based on the literature review and

the findings from this dissertation, it is necessary to identify prevailing factors, and their levels of

priority, which influence the adoption of new technology by the participants.

Theme 3: Challenges in Mobile Wallet Enrollment (RQ1c)

Regarding the challenges experienced during enrollment, an overwhelming majority of

participants described the enrollment to be straightforward. The straightforwardness of

enrollment is characterized by many factors, such as the type of mobile wallet and the

participant’s bank. Participants communicated potential challenges during the enrollment, such

as the waiting time on the phone for the bank to authenticate or confirm the identity of the card

holder and the interoperability of the payment technology.

These findings paralleled those of Harris et al. (2016), who concluded, based on their

research model, that familiarity is more powerful than security to measure consumers’ trust of a

mobile wallet application. The frustration expressed by the participants about the interoperability

is a manifestation of a construct in the conceptual framework of UTAUT, i.e., that performance

expectance has a direct influence on the acceptance of technology (Adeyeye, 2015; Venkatesh,

Thong, & Xu, 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The findings seem to build further on the study by

Huh et al. (2016), which has been reviewed in chapter 2. The study claimed that usability is a

reason for using tap-and-pay technology. Considering the similarity of using MTurk, however,

Huh et al. (2016) employed a survey questionnaire for data collection, while this study utilized

online Skype technology to conduct the interviews.

 Theme 4: Physical and Mobile Wallet Comparison (RQ1d)

Rathore (2016) stated the challenges of finding a lost physical item are among the factors

that can affect a user’s decision to adopt a digital wallet. Of the participants in this study, 100%

prefer making their transactions using their mobile wallet instead of a physical card, due to its

ease of use without any need to insert a card, pin number, or chip. However, 16% of participants

expressed the transaction limit is a potential hindrance. When asked about the security if there

were no transaction limit, the participants explained the availability of their funds is a top

priority.

A response by P#12 suggested high-volume transactions can be difficult in a country like

the US, where pin and chip are not widely in use. This finding suggests that higher speed and

convenience of the transactions are strong motivating factors for using the mobile wallet,

consistent with findings by Huh et al. (2017) about the relationships between less secure and

slower, less private and slower, more private and faster, and less convenient and more

convenient.

Huh et al. (2017) described how awareness about security and convenience could affect

users’ decisions to adopt new technology. Based on the literature review, the findings regarding

this theme suggested that the mobile wallet has some hindrances, as it is expected (and thus

required) to have the ability to deliver services equivalent to those available with the physical

card. Stringer (2014) suggested the players in mobile payment ecosystems should have

integrated solutions to provide the full service for paying through the phone at the physical retail

outlet.
 Theme 5: Consumer’s Security Perceptions (RQ1e)

The responses to the question regarding participants’ perceptions of security mechanisms

in the mobile wallet were examined based on positive, negative, and mixed responses. Of the

participants, 83.3% described their perceptions of the security mechanisms as positive, 9% as

negative, while 7.7 % described their perceptions as mixed, although with some overlaps in the

perceptions. One of the main concepts that were applied in this study is the technology

acceptance model by Venkatesh and Bala (2008). The concept proved its relevance in the

description of the participants’ acceptance of technology based on positive, negative, and mixed

responses.

All the participants with positive perceptions expressed confidence in the security

mechanisms through the use of technologies and concepts such as a password, encryption,

tokenization, a finger print, a lock screen, a thumbprint, NFC technology, a password, HTTPS,

SSL, and pin numbers. This finding is consistent with previous research conducted by

Akinyokun and Teague (2017), who noted that users’ security awareness may facilitate the

generation of strong authentication methods, such as biometrics, for their mobile application.

Despite their lack of technical knowledge, as claimed by the participants, they asserted mobile

wallet security mechanisms protect their information.

As analyzed in the literature review, factors contributing to the success of most mobile

payment methods include the security mechanisms that address the consumers’ security concerns

in the operating systems, secure elements, and a trusted execution environment (Stiakakis,

Georgiadis, & Andronoudi, 2016).

Participants with negative or mixed perceptions described their confidence in the

efficiency. However, they hold a negative or mixed perception about the security in mobile
wallets. This finding indicates that the efficiency of the mobile wallet is of higher priority than

security. This finding is in line with previous research by Yan and Yang (2014), who found that

ease of use and usefulness are significant influences on the user’s trust. Similarly, the finding

builds on the study by Huh et al. (2017), who suggested usability is the top reason for using tap-

and-pay among the users. In addition, the data collection method in this study, MTurk, was also

used in the reseach by Huh et al. (2017), who investigated why people use or do not use mobile

tap-and-pay.

Theme 6: Consumer’s Perceptions of Mobile Wallet Transactions (RQ1f)

Understanding the participants’ perceptions of mobile wallet transactions directly

involves the UTAUT conceptual framework. An overwhelming majority of the participants

expressed their perceptions of mobile wallet transactions as positive based on a variety of

characteristics, i.e., speed and easiness, straightforwardness, efficiency, the possibility of tap-

and-pay, and regular access to the phone, more than any other aspect. The findings indicate

convenience is a good measure of user experience, and participants indicated convenience is

attained when mobile wallet transaction performance expectations are met. This finding is

consistent with those by Venkatesh et al. (2003), who described performance and efficiency

improvement as factors associated with the use of mobile transactions. This study builds on the

research that was conducted in China by Zhou (2014), who identified the factors affecting the

continuance of the usage of mobile payments.

P#6 offered a unique response regarding the use of Apple Pay wherever there is a tap.

This suggests the continued use of mobile payments is based on the trust he developed in Apple

Pay. As described in the literature review, Zhou (2014) claimed that trust influences users’

positive perceptions for future use of mobile payment. As trust directly influences perception, it
may be a reason to help decrease users’ perceived risk and increase the positive perception of the

mobile wallet.

Participant P#12 explained the ability to track transactions at a glance is a trust factor

upon which his positive perception is based. This finding is consistent with Zhou (2014), who

wrote that quality information can serve as a trust signal. Users may lose trust if wrong

information regarding their transaction balance is presented in the mobile wallet. This indicates

that trust characteristics may further build users’ trust and improve users’ experience.

Of the participants, 16.6% expressed both negative and positive perceptions. Participants

explained their perceptions of the mobile wallet transactions were negative due to the lack of

security and the transaction limit. In addition, P#11 responded that Apple has never been known

for their high security and there is always a risk. The participant showed some lack of trust in

Apple and, as Zhou (2014) claimed, trust is an important factor for a positive perception. This

participant’s perception may be improved, according to Zhou’s findings; service providers

should offer an engaging experience to users, in order to promote continued usage of mobile

payment.

Significance of the Study to the Payment Ecosystem

This study explores the experiences with the digital mobile wallet among users in

Toronto, Canada. The findings in this qualitative phenomenological study describe and aid to

understand the lived experiences of consumers after the adoption of the mobile digital wallet.

Zhou (2014) reported that the focus of the available research has been mainly on users’ initial

adoption and the usage of mobile payment, whereas postadoption usage has not been fully

investigated.
 Additionally, literature reveals that researchers have examined the security in mobile

devices and applications from technological standpoints; thus, behavioral research is seeking to

complement such security perspectives (Tu, Yuan, & Archer, 2014). To completely envelope the

entire findings, particularly in the light of variations among the participant's background. Unified

Theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) was used to examine the findings based

on the key construct of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and

facilitating conditions. These four constructs influenced the mobile wallet user’s behavior

towards an adoption. The moderators-- gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use were

also taken into consideration which allows the more compact pattern to emerge during data

analysis.

In addition, UTAUT as a model with a wide range of factors, including age and social

impact helped in giving more insight into the analysis of the participant’s data. Amongst the

determining factors in this study is the participant's age, making a reasonable difference among

the users. Most users of the mobile wallet in this study are between the age of 25-34. More

established grown-ups are not regular among the participants, maybe for not having an

enthusiasm for receiving the new technology.

A significant area to be considered within the payment ecosystem, based on the findings

in this study, is the investigation of users’ experiences in the adoption and the use of digital

mobile wallets. This may stimulate the providers to offer evidence for consumers regarding the

usability and security mechanisms in the mobile wallet.

The findings may also contribute to the identification of the productivity of the use of the

mobile wallet and present measures to increase efficiency in the payment transactions (Oliveira,

Thomas, Baptista, & Campos, 2016). The findings may provide useful information to the device
manufacturers (Xin, Techatassanasoontorn, & Tan, 2015) to improve the mobile device security

architecture (Murdoch & Anderson, 2014). Recommendations for consumers, device

manufacturers, and mobile wallet application vendors, based on the findings in this study,

include:

(a) Mobile wallet payment draws significantly from consumers’ familiarity with mobile

devices and application interfaces, given that mobile payment vendors offer an easy-to-

use and a well-designed mobile payment solution. However, mobile wallet vendors

should engage consumer by providing a client-oriented service and by introducing loyalty

offers upon completion of a transaction using the mobile wallet. Consumers need much

experience with the tap-by-device, irrespective of the devices consumers are using; they

should have a choice to set the transaction limit by themselves. Also, a security

authentication could be applied whenever there is a need to make a transaction beyond

the set limit. This recommendation addresses the findings in RQ1 through RQ1d

concerning the factors: convinience, ease of use, familairity and transaction limit.

(b) Mobile wallet vendors should develop education and awareness programs for the

potential and exisiting consumers regarding the security mechanisms in the digital mobile

wallet. The security awareness will foster a better security culture among new customers

using the mobile wallet and allow for a subsequent selection of stronger authentications.

Regarding the findings in RQe and RQ1f, it is essential that consumers be informed about

different security mechanism, and their corresponding strenghts, such as tokenization,

secure elements, trusted execution environments, and biometrics.

Limitations of the Study

This research was designed to investigate users’ experiences among the population of

Toronto, Canada. This is a phenomenological study, in which homogenous sampling methods

were used; purposeful sampling through the MTurk crowdsourcing application was utilized to

recruit participants. A small number of participants (N = 17) was used in this study, and this is

considered a limitation as it might not represent the entire population of mobile wallet users.

Furthermore, most users on MTurk are tech-savvy, limiting the generalizability of the results.

The study aimed to understand the individual experiences of mobile digital wallet users;

thus, the findings are possibly biased, as everyone’s mobile wallet transactions and experiences

are different. Another limitation was the participants’ limited available time for the interview.

Most participants agreed to participate voluntarily. However, they had limited time to devote to

the interview, as they were not interested in participating outside their working hours. This

subsequently led to a reduction in interview time.

Recommendations for Future Studies

The digital mobile wallet has been adopted progressively. However, previous researchers

have not fully identified many factors that could significantly improve adoption and continued

usage of the mobile wallet. The objective of this study was to build on previous research to close

the gap in our knowledge about users’ experiences during the postadoption period of the mobile

digital wallet by studying the lived experience of mobile wallet users’ perceptions.

The participants were selected through MTurk crowdsourcing, which suggests that

participants with knowledge about information technology participated in the study; this may

thus limit the generalizability of the results to the general population. Using a larger sample to

expand the study beyond the tech-savvy may provide in-depth characteristics of potential
participants. Furthermore, replicating the study using MTurk to conduct a quantitative study in a

different setting with a larger sample of participants may provide additional support for the

findings.

In the event of expanding this study, consideration should be given to the baby boomers

and Generation X age ranges. Such demographic attributes may provide more coverage to study

the experiences of mobile wallet users among adults. The findings from these age ranges may

help to identify possible challenges faced by the older adults and the possibility of developing

approaches required to catch up with the ever-changing technology.

Summary

This qualitative phenomenological study aimed at understanding the perceptions of

mobile wallet users in Toronto, Canada. The research was also meant to add to the previous

research and contribute further to the mobile wallet ecosystem, which includes the consumers

and the mobile wallet vendors. The research questions were developed based on the problem

statement, and the results of the findings directly answered the research questions.

The study addressed the experiences of consumers with the usability and security

mechanisms in the mobile wallet. The findings of the study led to the suggested

recommendations, which may aid in the development of a compelling experience for the mobile

wallet users. Among the suggested recommendations are the development of client-oriented

services by the mobile wallet vendors and education and awarenesss programs for users about

the security mechanisms and their potential strenghts in the protection of information. Future

research should consider the selection of participants in different settings and with different

demographic characteristics. The study also outlines some limitations, including the small
sample size and the limited interview time. Future research may expand to include older adults to

understand the challenges that they may face in catching up with new technologies.
 REFERENCES

Adeyeye, A. (2015). Health care professionals’ perception of the use of electronic medical records

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(Accession No. 10011612)

Akinyokun, N., & Teague, V. (2017). Security and Privacy Implications of NFC-enabled Contactless

Payment Systems. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Availability,

Reliability and Security (p. 47). Location: ACM. doi: 10.1145/3098954.3103161

Alliance, S. C. (2014). Host card emulation (hce) 101. A Smart Card Alliance Mobile and NFC Council

White Paper. Location: Publisher. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?

cluster=11192597588082592983&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Alliance, S. C. (2015). Technologies for Payment Fraud Prevention: EMV, Encryption, and

Tokenization. Last accessed on, 15Macrh, 2018. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=15768748530512520614&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Almuairfi, S., Veeraraghavan, P., Chilamkurti, N., & Park, D. S. (2014). Anonymous proximity mobile

payment (APMP). Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 7(4), 620–627.

doi:10.1007/s12083-012-0183-1

Amaro, D. (2014). A designed research study examining the impact of using a motivational model

for mastering the crash cart (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (Order No. 10103140). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/

1787144468?accountid=44888

Augsburg, C., & Hedman, J. (2014, August 05 - 06). Value Added Services and Adoption of Mobile

Payments. In Proceedings Of The Sixteenth International Conference On Electronic Commerce -

ICEC '14 (pages). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2617848.2617851

Aydin, G., & Burnaz, S. (2016). Adoption of mobile payment systems: A study on mobile

wallets. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 5(1), 73-92. pages.

doi:10.17261/pressacademia.2016116555

Baptista, G., & Oliveira, T. (2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance

and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50,

418–430. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024

Barnes, A. (2014). Predicting consumer intention to adopt electronic payment systems using the

theory of reasoned action (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (Order No. 3633176). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1611235723?accountid=44888

Bezovski, Z. (2016). The Future of the Mobile Payment as Electronic Payment System.

European Journal of Business and Management, 8(8), 127–132. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ISACA%E2%80%99s+2015

+Mobile+Payment+Security+Study&btnG=

Blumenstock, J., Callen, M., Ghani, T., & Koepke, L. (2015, May 15-18). Promises and pitfalls of mobile

money in Afghanistan. In Proceedings Of The Seventh International Conference On Information

And Communication Technologies And Development - ICTD '15 (p.15). New York, NY: ACM.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2737856.2738031

Cater, J. K. (2011). Skype a cost-effective method for qualitative research. Rehabilitation Counselors &

Educators Journal, 4(2), 3. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?lookup

=0&q=Skype:+A+cost+effective+method+for+qualitative+research&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Cathro, H. L. (2015). Navigate chaos: Charge Nurses and Patient safety a grounded theory study

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database.

(Accession No. 3708849)

Chen, X., & Li, S. (2017). Understanding continuance intention of mobile payment services: an

empirical study. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 57(4), 287–298. doi:

10.1080/08874417.2016.1180649

Choi, D., & Lee, Y. (2016, August). Eavesdropping One-Time Tokens Over Magnetic Secure

Transmission in Samsung Pay. Workshop on offensive technology WOOT ‘16. Retrieved from

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/woot16/woot16-paper-choi.pdf

Clark, M. (2017, Nov 20). Antelop solution’s HCE-NFC issuer wallet. Retrieved from

https://www.nfcworld.com/antelop/

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and

qualitative research. Boston, Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dahlberg, T., Guo, J., & Ondrus, J. (2015). A critical review of mobile payment research. Electronic

Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 265–284. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2015.07.006

Davis, W.A. (2016). The use of mobile communication technology after hours and its effects on work life

balance and organizational efficiency (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (Accession No. 10003793)

De, P., Dey, K., Mankar, V., & Mukherjea, S. (2015, Decemebr 17-19). An Assessment of QR Code as a

User Interface Enabler for Mobile Payment Apps on Smartphones. In Proceedings Of The 7Th

International Conference On HCI, Indiahci 2015 - Indiahci'15 (pp.81-840ages). New York, NY:

ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2835966.2835977

De Felice, D. (2013). A phenomenological study of teaching endangered languages online: Perspectives

from Nahua and Mayan educators (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (Accession No. 3554412)

de Kerviler, G., Demoulin, N. T., & Zidda, P. (2016). Adoption of in-store mobile payment: Are

perceived risk and convenience the only drivers? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,

31, 334–344. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=48017434

77071528542&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Dion, F.S. (2014). The examination of factors influencing social media usage by African American

small business owners using the UTAUT model (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3613968)

Fan, K., Li, H., Jiang, W., Xiao, C., & Yang, Y. (2017, May 12-14). U2F based secure mutual

authentication protocol for mobile payment. In Proceedings of the ACM Turing 50th

Celebration Conference-China (p. 27). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/3063955.3063982

French, C., & Reuters (2012). Widespread use of digital "wallets" to take time. Wall Street &

Technology – Online, volume number. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview

/1080598027?accountid=44888
Gannamaneni, A., Ondrus, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2015, January 5-8). A post-failure analysis of mobile

payment platforms. In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp.

1159–1168). HI, USA: IEEE.

George, M., Lennard, L., & Scribbins, K. (2013). Mobile Payments: Problem or Solution? Retrieved

from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?Cluster=1845820785004497966&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Gibson, K. J. (2015). User acceptance of new technology-based cross-domain solutions in the

department of defense: A quantitative study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (Accession No. 3706984)

Giorgi, A. P. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian

approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Given, L.M. (2016). 100 questions and answers about qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Hamdi, H. (2011). Can e-payment systems revolutionize finance of the less developed countries? The

case of mobile payment technology. Journal of economics and financial issues, 1(2), 46–53.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.login.captechu.edu:2048/docview/920865264/abstract

/30BB1ABCC31C4246PQ/1?accountid=44888

Hampshire, C. (2016). Exploring UK consumer perceptions of mobile payments using smart phones and

contactless consumer devices through an extended technology adoption model (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10627576).

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1917327090?accountid=44888

Harper, A. (2014). Case study of the impact on business and society by mobile contactless card

technology (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

(Accession No. 3646822)

Harris, M. A., Brookshire, R., & Chin, A. G. (2016). Identifying factors influencing consumers' intent to

install mobile applications. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 441.

Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1780166576?accountid=44888

Heggestuen, J. (2015, October 14). Apple pay is ringing in a new era of payment security. Retrieved

from http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-pay-is-ringing-in-a-new-era-of-payment-security-

2015-5

Hillman, S., Neustaedter, C., Oduor, E., & Pang, C. (2014, September 23-26). User challenges and

successes with mobile payment services in North America. In Proceedings of the 16th

international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services (pp.

253–262). New York, NY: ACM. doi: 10.1145/2628363.2628389

Huh, J. H., Verma, S., Rayala, S. S. V., Bobba, R. B., Beznosov, K., & Kim, H. (2017). I don’t use

Apple Pay because it’s less secure. Perception of security and usability in mobile Tap-and-Pay.

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=13567318986450855211&hl

=en&as_sdt=0,5

Huang, J. (2017). How Mobile Payment Is Changing The World. Students theses, papers and projects

(computer science) 5, pages. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wou.edu/

computerscience_studentpubs/5

Iacono, V. L., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative research

interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 1–15. doi: 10.5153/sro.3952

Isaac, J. T., & Zeadally, S. (2014). Design, implementation, and performance analysis of a secure

payment protocol in a payment gateway centric model. Computing, 96(7), 587–611.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-013-0306-4

Jahangir, N., & Begun, N. (2008). The role of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, security, and
 privacy, and customer attitude to engender customer adaptation in the context of electronic

banking. African Journal of Business Management, 2(2), 32–40. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/3efc3dfa496b2d90753befdc6f828907/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar&cbl=816394

Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new generation of

online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International journal of qualitative

studies on health and well-being, 9(1), 24152. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v9.24152

Jawahar, D., & Harindran, K. N. (2013). Role of affect in the acceptance of human resource information

systems. IUP Journal of Management Research, 12(2), 54–74. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1435377363Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com

/docview/1435377363?accountid=44888.

Jensen, O., Gouda, M., & Qiu, L. (2016, January 04-07). A secure credit card protocol over NFC.

In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and

Networking (p. 32). New York, NY: ACM. Doi:10.1145/2833312.2833319

Kakish, K., & Shah, R. D. (2016). Analysis of the Risks of NFC Mobile Payment Systems.

In Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems Applied Research ISSN, Vol. 2167 (p.

1508). North Carolina, USA: ISCAP. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster

=8393532911470227721 &hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Kamau, C. W. (2015). Grounded theory study of emerging leadership model as applied to global

enterprises (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (Accession No. 3714861)

Kang, J. Y. M., Mun, J. M., & Johnson, K. K. (2015). In-store mobile usage: Downloading and usage

intention toward mobile location-based retail apps. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 210–217.
 doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.012

Kellermann, T. (2002). Mobile risk management: e-finance in the wireless environment. Journals

of Financial Sector, , 1-28. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?

cluster=4996184706715842141&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. (2nd ed.). Daryaganj, New Delhi:

New Age International.

Krishna,Y. K. S., & Devarakonda G. K. M. (2015). A survey on architecture of mobile operating

systems: Challenges and issues. International journal of research studies in computer science

and engineering, 2(3), 73–76. Retrieved from https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijrscse/v2-

i3/18.pdf

La Polla, M., Martinelli, F., & Sgandurra, D. (2013). A survey on security for mobile devices.

IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, 15(1), 446–471. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=3288773937632702444&hl =en&as_sdt=0,5

Lee, J. S. (2016). Citizens' political information behaviors during elections on twitter in South Korea:

Information worlds of opinion leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 10120674). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1806821483?accountid=44888

Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support

of information systems research. Informing Science, 9, pp.182-212. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=4239379946942475643&hl

Li, X. F., Wang, Y., Wu, J., Jiang, K., & Liu, B. W. (2012). Mobile OS architecture trends.

Intel Technology Journal, 16(4), pages. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=10621602601971939252&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
Lorenzo-Blanco, E. I., Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., Des Rosiers, S. E., Baezconde-

Garbanati, L., & Pattarroyo, M. (2016). Alcohol use among recent immigrant Latino/a youth:

acculturation, gender, and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Ethnicity & health, 21(6), 609–627.

doi:10.1080/13557858.2016.1179723

Madlmayr, G., Langer, J., Kantner, C., & Scharinger, J. (2008, March 4-7). NFC devices: Security and

privacy. In Third International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, 2008. ARES

08. (pp. 642–647). HI, USA: IEEE.

Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522–526. Retrieved

from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster= 3285584118059823284&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Massimi, M., & Neustaedter, C. (2014). Moving from talking heads to newlyweds: exploring video chat

use during major life events. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive

systems (pp. 43–52). New York, NY:ACM. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598570

May, J.L. (2013). The study of electronic medical record adoption in a medicare certified home health

agency using a grounded theory approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations and Theses Database. (Accession No. 3605534)

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Millen, D., Pinhanez, C., Kaye, J., Bianchi, S., & Vines, J. (2015, March 14-18). Collaboration and

Social Computing in Emerging Financial Services. In Proceedings Of The 18Th ACM

Conference Companion On Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing -

CSCW'15 Companion (pages). New York, NY: ACM Location: Publisher.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2685562

Moroni, A., Talamo, M., & Dimitri, A. (2015, August 24-27). Adoption factors of NFC Mobile
 Proximity Payments in Italy. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-

Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 393–399). New York, NY: ACM.

mPayments. (2016). Smart device, smart pay. Communications Today. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1782992245?accountid=44888

Murdoch, S. J., & Anderson, R. (2014). Security protocols and evidence: Where many payment systems

fail. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp. 21–32).

Location Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Okediran O. O., Arulogun O. T., Ganiyu R. A., Oyeleye C. A. (2014). Mobile operating systems and application

development platforms: A survey. International journal of advanced networking and applications,

6(1), 2195–2201. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?

cluster=15243630957762779251&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G., & Campos, F. (2016). Mobile payment: Understanding the

determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers

in Human Behavior, 61, 404–414.

Ondrus, J. (2015, August 03-05). Clashing over the NFC Secure Element for Platform Leadership in the

Mobile Payment Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Electronic

Commerce 2015 (p. 30). New York, NY: ACM.

Ortiz-Yepes, D. (2014). A critical review of the EMV Payment Tokenisation Specification.

Computer Fraud & Security, 2014(10), 5–12. doi: 10.1016/S1361-3723(14)70539-1

Oyewole, O. S., El-Maude, J. G., Abba, M., & Onuh, M. E. (2013). Electronic payment system and

economic growth: A Review of transition to cashless economy in Nigeria. International

Journal of Science Engineering Technology, 2, 913–918. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/ scholar?cluster5
Ozcan, P., & Santos, F. M. (2015). The market that never was: Turf wars and failed alliances in mobile

payments. Strategic management journal, 36(10), 1486–1512. Doi: 10.1002/smj.2292

Pannifer, S., Clark, D., & Birch, D. (2014). HCE and SIM Secure Element. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=3303474980201722362&hl =en&as_sdt=0,5

Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk.

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=2976868087255936079&hl

=en&as_sdt=0,5

Patel, R. K. (2016). Examining predictors of satisfaction with mobile payment systems among small

business users (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

(Order No. 10182886) . Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1850987572?

accountid=44888

Penttilä, M., Siira, E., & Tihinen, M. (2016). Mobile Payment Ecosystems in Transition. International

Journal of Scientific and Technical Research in Engineering, 1(6), 1–15. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=2036961057964487333&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Pires, D. E. (2015). Mobile technology in higher education: An extended technology acceptance

perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (Accession No. 3739797)

Pourghomi, P., & Ghinea, G. (2013, October 28-31). Ecosystem scenarios for cloud-based NFC

payments. In Proceedings Of The Fifth International Conference On Management Of Emergent

Digital Ecosystems - MEDES '13 (pp. 113-118).New York, NY: ACM. doi:

10.1145/2536146.2536179

Raja, J., & Seetharaman, A. (1970). E-payments: Problems and Prospects. The Journal of Internet

Banking and Commerce, 13(1), 1–17. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?

 cluster=4097415889211868496&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Rammal, K. A. (2014). U.S. Patent No. 8,682,792. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=13507141879126615950&hl=

en&as_sdt=0,5

Rathore, H. S. (2016). Adoption of digital wallet by consumers. BVIMSR’s Journal of Management

Research, 8(1), 69–75. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1789980625? accountid=44888

Reveilhac, M., & Pasquet, M. (2009, February). Promising secure element alternatives for NFC

technology. In First International Workshop on Near Field Communication, 2009. NFC'09. (pp.

75-80). HI, USA: IEEE. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster

=14090032374540451020&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Rhee, K., Won, D., Jang, S. W., Chae, S., & Park, S. (2013). Threat modeling of a mobile device

management system for secure smart work. Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 243–256.

Doi: 10.1007/s10660-013-9121-4

Rolfe, A. (2015, July 13). An introduction to the trusted execution environment for mobile services

security. Retrieved from http://www.paymentscardsandmobile.com /an-introduction-to-

the- trusted-execution-environment-for-mobile-services-security/

Rose, C. (2012). Close contact: An examination of the future of near field communications.

International Journal of Management & Information Systems (Online), 16(1), 95-99.

Safeena, R., Date, H., Hundewale, N., & Kammani, A. (2013). Combination of TAM and TPB in

Internet banking adoption. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 5(1),

146. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=1844007088320731713&hl

=en&as_sdt=0,5
Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Salkind, N. J. (2012). One hundred questions (and answers) about research methods. Thousand

OaksCalifornia: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schein, S. (2014). The ecological worldviews and post-conventional action logics of Global

sustainability leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses Database. (Accession No. 3627453)

Schreft, S. L. (2007). Risks of identity theft: Can the market protect the payment system?.

Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 92(4), 5. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=3766935648176245258&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Seibel, J., LaFlamme, K., Koschara, F., Schumak, R., & Debate, J. (2017). U.S. Patent Application No.

15/007,547. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=

12663071366267267775&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Shen, O. W., & Yazdanifard, R. (2015). Has Mobile Payment Finally Live Up to Its

Expectation in Replacing Cash and Credit? International Journal of Management,

Accounting and Economic, 2(5), 489–498.

Sherman, M. (2014, June 02-03). An introduction to mobile payments: market drivers, applications,

and inhibitors. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Mobile Software

Engineering and Systems (pp. 71–74). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2593902.2593921

Shin, S., & Lee, W. J. (2014). The effects of technology readiness and technology acceptance on NFC

mobile payment services in Korea. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(6), 1615–1625.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.login.captechu.edu:2048/docview/ 1655564860?

accountid=44888
Shufelt, T. (2013, February 18). Death of the wallet. Canadian Business, 86, 66. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1285499830?accountid=44888

Simić, D. (2005). Reducing fraud in electronic payment systems. In Proceedings for 7th Balkan

Conference on Operational Research “BACOR 05” pp.1-11. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=6876851909751681722&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and scope of the study.

Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.). Seattle, WA : Dissertation

Success, LLC.. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=

1006521982339287231&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5

Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2013). Qualitative research methods in sport, exercise and health: From

process to product. London, UK: Routledge.

Smith, M. S. (2015). A phenomenological study of critical success factors in implementing information

governance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (Accession No. 10004877)

Sommestad, T., Karlzén, H., & Hallberg, J. (2015). The sufficiency of the theory of planned behavior

for explaining information security policy compliance. Information and Computer

Security, 23(2), 200–217. Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/

1786146151?accountid=44888

Stiakakis, E., Georgiadis, C. K., & Andronoudi, A. (2016). Users’ perceptions about mobile security

breaches. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(4), 857–882. doi:

10.1007/s10257-015-0302-7
Stringer, R. (2014). Mobile wallet ecosystem, an overview and market analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.cortexmcp.com/downloads/whitepapers/Cortex-MCP-MobileWallet-Ecosystem-Q2-

2014.pdf

Stokes, N. (2014, September 24). The good, the bad & the ugly of mobile payment. Techlicious.

Retrieved from http://www.techlicious.com/tip/what-you-need-to-knowabout-paying-with-your-

smartphone/

Sullivan, J. R. (2012). Skype: An appropriate method of data collection for qualitative interviews?. The

Hilltop Review, 6(1), 10. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

referer=https://scholar.google.ca/&httpsredi r=1&article=1074&context=hilltopreview

Sung, S., Youn, C., Kong, E., & Ryou, J. (2015). User authentication using mobile phones for mobile

payment. In International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN), 2015 (pp. 51–56). Hi

USA: IEEE.

Surendran, P. (2012). Technology acceptance model: A survey of literature. International Journal of

Business and Social Research, 2(4), 175–178.

Svilar, A., & Zupančič, J. (2016). User experience with security elements in internet and mobile

banking. Organizacija, 49(4), 251-260. dOI: 10.1515/orga-2016-0022.

Swilley, E. (2010). Technology rejection: The case of the wallet phone. The Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 27(4), 304–312. doi:10.1108/07363761011052341

Taiwo, A. A., & Downe, A. G., (2013). The Theory of User Acceptance and Use of

Technology (UTAUT): A Meta-Analytic Review of Empirical Findings. Journal of Theoretical and

Applied Information Technology, 40(1), 48–58. Retrieved from

http://www.jatit.org/volumes

/Vol49No1/7Vol49No1.pdf
Thomson, S. B. (2011). Sample size and grounded theory. Journal of Administration and

Governance, 5(1), 45–52.

Toma, C. (2012). M-payments issues and concepts. Informatica economica, 16(3), 117–124. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com.login.captechu.edu:2048/docview/ 1314745990?

accountid=44888

Trewin, S., Swart, C., Koved, L., & Singh, K. (2016, May). Perceptions of Risk in Mobile Transaction.

In Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), 2016 IEEE (pp. 214–223). HI, USA: IEEE.

Trichur, R. (2014, Jul 02). CIBC aims to stay ahead of technology curve; new "two-button" visa card is

part of that push. Wall Street Journal (Online). Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1542132920?accountid=44888

Trütsch, T. (2016). The impact of mobile payment on payment choice. Financial Markets and Portfolio

Management, 30(3), 299-336. doi 10.1007/s11408-016-0272-x

Tu, Z., Yuan, Y., & Archer, N. (2014). Understanding user behaviour in coping with security threats of

mobile device loss and theft. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 12(6), 603–623.

Doi: 10.1007/s10257-015-0302-7

Unsworth, A. (2012, July 06). Specification to prevent unauthorized access to the secure element.

Retrieved from http://www.mobilepaymentsworld.com/specification-to-prevent-unauthorized-

access-to-the-secure-element/?v=3e8d115eb4b3

Unsworth, A. (2014, June 11). Contrasting HCE and SIM secure element approaches to NFC payments.

Retrieved from http://www.mobilepaymentsworld.com/contrasting-hce-sim-secure-element-

approaches-nfc-payments/?v=3e8d115eb4b3

Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on

interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/

docview/198119893?accountid=44888.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information

Technology: Toward a Unified View. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–

478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A

synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–

376. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1794948207?accountid=44888

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature

review. MIS quarterly, volume number, xiii–xxiii. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?

cluster=12005153504485981086&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

Weichelt, B. P. (2016). Health in your hand: Assessment of clinician’s readiness to adopt mhealth into

rural patient care (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Database. (Accession No. 10119483)

Xia, H., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., & Shah, A. (2017). "Our privacy needs to be protected at all costs": Crowd

Workers' privacy experiences on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the ACM on

Human-Computer Interaction, CSCW, Article 113 (pp.1-22). New York, NY: ACM.

doi:10.1145/3134748

Xin, H., Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., & Tan, F. B. (2015). Antecedents of consumer trust in mobile

payment adoption. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 55(4), 1–10. Retrieved from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1708804519?accountid=44888

Yamada, Y., Nakajima, T., & Sakamoto, M. (2016). Blockchain-LI. In Proceedings Of The 14Th
 International Conference On Advances In Mobile Computing And Multi Media - Momm '16. (pp.

203-207). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/3007120.3007151

Yan, H., Yang, Z. (2014). An Empirical Examination of User Adoption Mobile Payment. In

International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government (ICMeCG) (pp.

156–162) Location: Publisher. doi:10.1109/ICMeCG.2014.40

Yang, Y., Liu,Y., Li, H., & Yu, B. (2015). Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment acceptance.

Industrial Management & Data Systems, 115(2), 253–269. doi: 10 .1108/IMDS-08-2014-0243

Zhang, X., Bai, Y., Hao, P., & Zhang, Y. (2017, June 19-23). Poster: Securing Device Inputs for

Smartphones Using Hypervisor Based Approach. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual

International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (p. 169).New York,

NY: ACM.

Zhong, J., Dhir, A., Nieminen, M., Hämäläinen, M., & Laine, J. (2013, October 01-04). Exploring

Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payments in China. In Proceedings Of International Conference

On Making Sense Of Converging Media - Academicmindtrek '13 (p.318).New York, NY: ACM.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2523429.2523483

Zhou, T. (2014). Understanding the determinants of mobile payment continuance usage. Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 114(6), 936–948. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-02-2014-0068

Zhou, T. (2015). An empirical examination of users' switch from online payment to mobile

payment. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 11(1), 55–56.

doi:10.4018/ijthi.2015010104

Zojaji, Z., Atani, R. E., & Monadjemi, A. H., (2016). A Survey of Credit Card Fraud Detection

Techniques: Data and Technique Oriented Perspective. . arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.06439.

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=10868028055109088069&hl

 =en&as_sdt=0,5

Yan, H., & Yang, Z. (2014, October 31- November 02). An Empirical Examination of User Adoption

Mobile Payment. In 2014 International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-

Government). HI, USA: IEEE. doi:10.1109/icmecg.2014.40.

 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY MAP

Qualitative Phenomenology
Digital mobile wallet Study Contribute to the knowledge of
analysis security in mobile payment

Literature
Review Identify research gaps in digital mobile
Review of journal articles and research
works payment security and suggest better
approach

Pilot
Establish validity and Study Modify interview questions as
reliability of measurement
instrument required

Data
Recruite participants using Collection
Collect interview answers from
Amazon Mechanical Turks participants utilising Skype

Deconstruct and reconstruct collected data

D ata
Idenitfy and set aside the researchers vie w using the reduction process.
Code the data
Analysis
using epoch
Identify the chunk of meanings
Dataand themes
Interpretation andout recommendations for
Draw
Interpret the data and results Reporting
from research
future based on findings
phenomenology study
Submit final dissertation to Capitol
Discuss the emergent and potential meaning Technology University
of the themes
 APPENDIX B: LITERATURE SEARCH

Key Word Journal Articles White Papers Doctoral

Search Research Dissertation

Mobile 6 29 3 6
Payment
Digital Wallet 1 7 1 5

User’s 3 12 1 13

Perception

Security 5 18 2 5

Capability

Near Field 3 8 2 4

Communicati

on

(NFC)
Mobile 1 13 1 8
Payment

Adoption
Total 19 87 10 41

Total Reviewed (157)

APPENDIX C: LITERATURE MAPPING
 APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

Male
Gender
Female

Up to 24

25-34

35-44
Age
45-54

55-64

65 >

Country of
Residence
State / Province

Below High
School
High School

College Diploma
Educational Level
University
Degree
Master’s Degree

Doctorate Degree

Student

Self-Employee

Occupation Fully Employed

Unemployed

Other

Basic Knowledge
 Intermediate Knowledge

Advance Knowledge

Apple

Samsung
Type of Mobile Device
Blackberry

Any Android Base (Please Specify)

Text
What form of
Social Media
technology do you use
Skype
most often to
Face Time
communicate with
E-mail
important people in

your life?
Frequently use

Application Please specify

Mobile payment Yes

Experience No
 APPENDIX E: RESEARCH AND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1a: What are the thoughts Question 1: Please describe your thought and

of consumer when they know feeling when you first heard about a new payment

about mobile wallet? technology

– Mobile payment?

Question 2: Do you have a mobile payment app

or device?

Question 3: When and where did you first here or

know about mobile wallet?

RQ1b: What motivates Question 4: What can you consider to be the main

the consumer to use motivation for using mobile payments?

mobile

payment transactions?
RQ1c: Which actions need Question 5: What are the greatest challenges you

to be taken to use the experienced during enrollment in the mobile

mobile wallet as a payment wallet? Question 6: When was the first time you

method? enrolled in

the mobile wallet?

RQ1d: How do mobile Question 7: Describe any similarities and/or

wallets compare to the differences you see between the traditional

traditional physical

physical wallet? wallet and digital mobile wallet.

RQ1e: What is the security Question 8: Do you consider mobile payments to be
capability of the mobile more or less safe when compare to other
digital wallet? payment methods? If so why?
 Question 9: If you consider mobile payment safer,

how can you describe the security mechanism?

RQ1f: How do consumers Question 10: Please describe your experience

describe their experience in mobile wallet transaction

of a payment transaction? Question 11: How did the mobile payment

enrollment affect your spending attitude?

Question 12: If you had to adopt another

payment method, what would you do

differently?

Question 13: How do you maintain security of

your device?

Question 14: Please describe your knowledge of

security mechanism in mobile payment transaction?

Question 15: Is there anything you would like to

add?
 APPENDIX F: PHENOMENOLOGY STUDY CONSENT FORM

Consent Form

Following your participation in the Amazon Mechanical Turk HITs and for passing the

qualification questions, you are thus invited to participate in a research study about the mobile

digital wallet. The study is designed to understand the consumers’ experience of the security

mechanism in the mobile wallet. This form contains the “informed consent” process, which

provides a general understanding of this study before you decide to participate. Anas Olateju

Oyewole, who is a doctoral student at Capitol Technology University, Laurel, MD will be

conducting the research study.

Key Considerations:

If you give your consent to participate in the study, the below key will be put into

considerations:

● The researcher will verify your identity by holding your ID up against the camera at least

to satisfy a level of validity with relevant identity questions.

● You are required to respond to online open-ended interview questions to be conducted by

the researcher, and the interview may take approximately 35 minutes.

● You will be interviewed about your personal experience of using a mobile wallet, and

during the interview, you may freely wish to answer all or any part of the questions.

● Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you can choose to

discontinue with the interview whenever you so wish.

● You will give a verbal consent considering the nature of the online video interview while

such consent will also be requested through email.

 ● The researcher will create a special Skype account with a dummy email for the purpose

of the study and will be deleted with the collected data, after the completion of the study.

● You will have the opportunity to be interviewed at your chosen and convenient

environment, as the researcher does not have the control of physical environment for this

interview.

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

Your participation in this study is voluntary, and your decision will be respected

accordingly, irrespective of your decision outcome. However, if you decide to participate, you

still have an option to opt out of the study anytime you so wish. You also have the liberty to

answer either in part or not to answer any question you consider personal. If you decide to join

the study now, you may change your mind later to exit the study. In addition, you may also exit

from your participation at any time you feel stressed in this study and you may as well choose to

skip questions you consider to be personal.

Risk and Benefits of Being in the Study

The study does not pose any inherent risk to the participant considering the optional

nature of the interview, and the participants can discontinue. The study only offers the benefits to

understand the consumer’s experience about the security mechanism in the mobile wallet. The

understanding can assist the vendors and manufacturers to improve the mobile devices security

architecture in better delivery of services as expected by the consumers.

Compensation:

Given the nature of crowdsourcing Amazon Mechanical Turks, your participation will

earn you a financial compensation as agreed on the AMT, before the interview engagement.

Confidentiality:
 Your personally identifiable information will not be collected during this study and any

information or data collected will remain confidential. The collected data will be transcribed and

stored in a computer with a password. However, the stored data may be accessible to you upon

request. The researcher will not include any attributes that could be linked to you in the report. It

is important to note that all interview discussions will be kept in strict confidence, however;

Skype has the right and controls to record your conversation. Hence, the researcher encourages

you to abstain from any illegal discussion.

To further protect your confidentiality, the researcher has created a Skype account with a

dummy email that cannot directly link to your attributes and will be deleted upon completion of

this study. Furthermore, the physical control of the interview environment is out of the researcher

controls, and you may be unaware of a private item that can fall within the range of camera,

which can inadvertently be disclosed. Therefore, you are advised to select an appropriate

location that will not introduce a privacy concern.

Contracts and Questions:

Should you have any question during and after this interview, you may contact the

researcher via the following contact details:

Anas Olateju Oyewole, 39, Schwalm Crescent. Tottenham, Ontario. L0G1W0.

For private email: engineerteju@gmail.com.

For private discussion about your rights, please call Dr. William H. Butler On (240) 965-

2458.Who is the representative of Capitol Technology University.Laurel MD.

Statement of Consent:
 I have read the above information, and all my questions and concerns about the studies

have been addressed. I choose to participate in the study voluntarily and therefore sign the

consent form below.

Printed Name of Participant:

Date of Consent:

Participant’s Written or Electronic Signature:

Researcher’s Written or Electronic Signature:

Additionally, an electronic signature equals in validity to a written signature based on

both parties agreeing to conduct the matter electronically.

APPENDIX G: AUTO CODING SCREENSHOT
 APPENDIX H: NVIVO WORD FREQUENCY
QUERY
Similar Words Counts Similar Words
Counts
interviewee 2364 need, needed, needs 208

card, cards 1148 password, passwords, 201

use, used, uses, using 1125 actual, actually 201

phone, phones 1054 really 185

just 812 information, informed 180

like, liked, likely, likes 638 way, ways 179

intqu 611 much 178

think 436 device, devices 176

pay, paying 421 pin, pins 175

secure, securing, security 409 well 171

yes 382 number, numbers 168

yeah 364 put, putting 168

tap, tap’, tapping, taps 351 difference, differences, 151

different, differently

wallet, wallets 338 nfc 149

payment, payments 334 first 148

apple 325 turn, turned, turning, 146

make, makes, making 315 store, stores 143

credit 290 going 141

fingerprint, fingerprints 280 pretty 141

know 251 transaction, transactions 141

one, ones 241 want, wanted, wants 138

mobile 239 ask, asked, asking, asks 138

get, gets, getting 238 mean, means 136

time, times 231 physical 134

app, apps 229 maybe 130

thing, things 220 someone 129

bank, banking, banks 213 place, placed, places 128

work, working, 211 guess, guessing 121

workings, works

need, needed, needs 208 passcode 113

password, password’, 201 right 113

passwords
 APPENDIX I: CASES CLASSIFICATION
SUMMARY
Values Attribute Name: Age Range Cases
Assigned
18-24 3
25-34 6
35-44 1
45-54 2

Values Attribute Name: Device OS Cases Assigned

Android 5
IOS 7

Values Attribute Name: Cases

Educational Level Assigned
Associate Degree 2
Bachelors Degree 4
High School 2
Graduate
Masters Degree 1
Some College 1
Some College but no 2
Degree

Values Attribute Name: Gender Cases Assigned

Male 4
Female 8

Values Attribute Name: Cases Assigned

Mobile Device
IPhone 7
Nexus 1
Values Attribute Name: Occupation Cases Assigned
Application 1
Developer
Billing Associate 1
Business Admin 1
Change Manager 1
Desktop Analyst 1
Director Digital 1
Technology
IT Analyst 1
SharePoint Manager 1
Student 1
Technical Manager 1

Values Attribute Name: Cases Assigned

Payment Wallet
Amex Pay 1
Apple Pay 7
Google Pay 2
RBC Wallet 1
TD Wallet 1