Sustainability 09 02233 v2

sustainability
Article
Examining Trust and Risk in Mobile Money
Acceptance in Uganda
Ronald Baganzi ID
and Antonio K. W. Lau *
School of Management, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-2-961-9376
Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 1 December 2017; Published: 3 December 2017
Abstract: Mobile money adoption can contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals in
Uganda but the factors affecting its sustainable adoption remain largely unknown. This paper
explores the extent to which mobile money users’ trust and risk perceptions affect mobile money
services adoption of in Uganda. A survey was conducted with 438 mobile money users from Uganda
and data was analyzed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).
From the results, we obtained new empirical evidence for applying trust and risk perceptions for
analyzing mobile money acceptance. We found that mobile money users rely on the structural
soundness of mobile money services providers and their ability to provide mobile money services
with low perceived risk. Performance expectancy, perceived risk and structural assurance significantly
influenced behavioral intention to adopt mobile money. Trust belief did not significantly influence
behavioral intention. These results help us to understand and promote mobile banking services in
underdeveloped countries, which is of practical and scientific interests. We finally provide practical
implications for mobile money services providers, commercial banks and central banks in Africa.
Keywords: mobile money; sustainable adoption; trust; risk; self-efficacy; mobile money users; Uganda
1. Introduction
In 2015, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by member states of the
United Nations (UN) to: fight injustice and inequality, end poverty and combat climate change
by 2030 [1] (p. 4). To achieve SDGs, mobile technology is essential because it provides a platform for
improving social and economic development, as it provides access to applications that address social
challenges faced by vulnerable people and enables new innovations [2] (p. 1) for building societies
that are environmentally sustainable [1] (p. 4). The mobile industry has made significant progress
against SDGs through increased connectivity and information access by enabling mobile money to
contribute to productivity and poverty eradication [1] (p. 4). Sending and receiving monetary value is
possible using mobile money transfer on the mobile phone [3,4]. This has resulted in mobile money
users’ convenience and flexibility as they are able to transact anytime, anywhere [5–7]. However,
the growth of mobile money innovations comes with concern over security and risks [8,9]. As mobile
money services continue to gain widespread consumer adoption, there is a growing concern about
the risk and trust in the application [8,10]. We, therefore, posit that mobile money users’ risk and
trust perceptions may influence the acceptance of mobile money services [7,9,11]. On the other hand,
much as some researchers have picked serious interest in studying the acceptance of information
technology (IT) applications [12–14], a few scholars have researched on mobile money adoption in
poor countries [2,7,11,15,16]. Therefore, the dearth of research on understanding implications of trust
and risk on the acceptance of mobile money in Uganda makes it worthwhile to study.
Uganda is one of the countries in East Africa, a region that has been at the forefront of mobile
money revolution in Africa in the past six years [17]. It is anticipated that the financial services sector
Sustainability 2017, 9, 2233; doi:10.3390/su9122233 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 2233 2 of 22
will be transformed in the coming decades by information technologies, especially mobile money [17].
Mobile money transactions across borders will be more relevant than today because of the East African
Common Market, which will enable free services trading [18]. Mobile money transfer is an IT-driven
development that has had a positive impact on financial inclusion of poor citizens [2,7,15,16] and has
helped central banks from a regulatory point of view [16,19]. Achieving financial inclusion is a big
step towards attaining sustainable economic development in poor countries [1,6]. Mobile money has
transformed accessibility to financial services in East Africa [19]. It has improved welfare of people
by positively impacting on household income [2]. Remittances received contribute to income directly,
thereby reducing risk and liquidity constraints [2]. This has promoted agricultural commercialization,
rural development and poverty reduction [2]. The number of people with mobile money accounts
far exceeds those with bank accounts in East Africa [17]. Registered mobile money users in Uganda
increased from 17.9 Million to 19.8 Million between 2014 and 2015, as accounts in banks remained
at 5 Million [20]. However, this growing adoption of mobile money raises consumer protection
concerns [10]. These include agent fraud; inappropriate disclosure of charges; system downtime;
and agent liquidity issues [10]. The rate of mobile money adoption in East African countries also
differs [11]. For example, Kenya has a higher adoption rate than Uganda or Tanzania [2]. It is noted
that while M-Pesa (M stands for mobile; Pesa refers to money in Swahili [2,4]) has accelerated financial
inclusion to millions of unbanked Kenyans, Uganda lags behind in its mobile money adoption rate [2].
Therefore, since it is unclear how Ugandan mobile money users perceive the technology
application, the objective of our study is to contribute to the mobile money literature on exploring
the risk and trust perceptions associated with the acceptance of mobile money services in Uganda.
We develop a model for explaining how trust plays a critical role in users’ behavioral intention to
adopt mobile money services. We posit that mobile money users’ risk perception should be studied
alongside trust in mobile money applications. We, therefore, ask the research question: How do
trust and risk perceptions of Ugandan mobile money users influence the sustainable adoption of
mobile money? We specifically examine three personal trait constructs like self-efficacy, trust belief
and structural assurance [21]. Kim et al. [22] found perceived risk to have an impact on behavioral
intention towards e-payments systems, so we use perceived risk as a construct to study mobile
money adoption. In practices, this study will help mobile money services providers, commercial
banks and central banks to understand how mobile money users would perceive mobile money
application. This will enable them to assess trust and reduce risk perceptions towards its eventual
sustainable adoption. Central banks may use this research result to improve their public policies
like mobile money customer protection. Analysis of mobile money usage, which is a substitute for
some banking services, may also help commercial banks come up with counter-measures for retaining
customers. The mobile money services providers can also refer to this study for developing strategies
for mass adoption.
In the next part of this paper, we review mobile money adoption related literature, followed
by a discussion of the conceptual framework and hypotheses development. These are followed by
the research methodology, which involves data analysis using SmartPLS 2.0M3 structural equation
modelling (SEM). We conclude the study with discussions of the results, contributions, limitations and
future study suggestions.
2. Literature Review
We review the mobile money technological developments and discuss prior studies related to
mobile money services adoption in East Africa. We point out the best examples of mobile money,
which are M-Pesa and Mobile Telephone Networks (MTN) mobile money. The two have led the mobile
money services revolution in East Africa.
2.1. Mobile Money

Mobile money is a service for transferring money that is mobile phone-based [15]. It uses IT
tools and channels that are non-banking for extending financial services to subscribers who cannot be
reached by banks [15]. Mobile money services accelerate the speed of money transfer as funds move
in electronic instead of the physical form [23]. To transfer money, a mobile phone user registers with
a mobile money agent and then deposits cash [6]. This cash is shown as e-money in an e-wallet on the
sender’s SIM card [23]. The e-money can be sent to the receiver’s phone. The e-money balance can be
converted back into cash by the receiver on visiting an agent [23].
2.2. Mobile Money Adoption in East Africa

The best example of mobile money in East Africa is M-Pesa in Kenya, which was launched in 2007
by Safaricom [23]. Mobile money has helped bring 194,000 Kenyans out of poverty [1]. In 2008,
Vodacom launched M-Pesa while Zantel launched Z-Pesa in Tanzania [19]. MTN mobile money in
Uganda was launched in 2009 with at least 1000 users. Since its launch, several other players like Airtel
money, M-cash, Ezee-money, M-Sente and Orange money have also joined the Ugandan market [19].
Micropay is the latest entrant to the Ugandan mobile money market, bringing the number of service
providers to seven [24]. This has increased the number of registered mobile money users to at least
21.6 million [24].
Mobile money is already providing a partial substitute for bank retail services payments and could
challenge banks’ dominance in other services like deposits [17]. Ssonko and Tait [16] found mobile
money to complement rather than substitute bank account ownership. Currently, it enables users to
carry out the following services: Western Union money transfer; utility bill payments; tax remittances;
fuel payments at petrol stations; school fees payments; bulk salary payments; mobile phone-based
Treasury bonds; and mobile money loans [5]. Transfers across borders using M-Pesa hit 17 billion
Kenya shillings ever since the service was introduced [25]. Kenya rolled out the mobile phone-based
T-bond—the M-Akiba bond—through the mobile money platform [26]. Mobile money loans are in
the form of M-Shwari in Kenya, M-Pawa in Tanzania and MoKash in Uganda. Rwanda uses Tigo
Cash, MTN mobile money and Airtel money. The adoption of mobile money has resulted in economic
activities and labor demand which have created employment opportunities in East Africa [2]. This has
contributed to the Sustainable Development Goals.
The literature associated with mobile banking offers valuable insight into mobile money adoption
because in both cases users face e-payment systems but there are some differences in the way customers
perceive their value [15,27]. Kim et al. [22] investigated factors influencing the acceptance of ICT
applications like mobile money. Their results found trust and risk as important factors. Their study
also provides ground for other constructs like attitude, perceived usefulness and self-efficacy,
which influence mobile money adoption.
To explain mobile money adoption, we identified the determinant factors based on the diffusion of
innovation model [28], Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [29], the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB) [30] and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [31]. Based on TPB,
users’ adoption of mobile money is explained by their intentions [15,32]. The intentions are a function
of subjective norms, attitude and perceived behavioral control [30,33]. Mobile money user intention for
transactional services is of practical and scientific interest. TAM has been praised over the years for its
contribution towards the understanding of consumer behavior [34]. The model was studied because it
was found that the factors determining adoption intention of m-payment and m-banking are applicable
to mobile money context [11]. According to Lu et al. [35], TAM is a powerful framework that explains
the different factors that influence customers’ behavioral intention to use mobile-based services.
Extended TAM was used by Ssonko and Tait [16] in the mobile money services context in Uganda
to determine the effect of mobile money adoption on financial inclusion. Chauhan [7] integrated
trust in TAM to study how the poor citizens of India accept mobile money. Lee et al. [36] included
perceived risk and trust in the TAM to establish their impact on behavioral intention. Their results
found perceived usefulness and trust to affect behavioral intention, trust mediated the impact of
perceived risk on behavioral intention. Therefore, we extend this study by examining the two factors
(trust and risk) further.
3. Conceptual Framework
Sustainability 2017, 9, 2233 and Hypothesis Development 4 of 22
To examine
3. Conceptualhow trust and
Framework risk perceptions
and Hypothesis Developmentaffect mobile money acceptance in Uganda,
we developed To aexamine
modelhow as trust
shown and in
riskFigure 1. The
perceptions affectmodel
mobile was
moneyused because
acceptance its constructs
in Uganda, we can
be used developed
to explain howastrust
a model shownand risk 1.perceptions
in Figure The model wasof e-money
used because itsadopters
constructs affect theirto adoption
can be used
behavior.explain
In ourhow trust we
model, and considered
risk perceptions
sixofconstructs:
e-money adopters affect their
performance adoption behavior.
expectancy, In ourassurance,
structural
model, we considered six constructs: performance expectancy, structural assurance, perceived risk,
perceived risk, trust belief, self-efficacy and behavioral intention. Past studies have also used at least
trust belief, self-efficacy and behavioral intention. Past studies have also used at least one of these
one of these constructs
constructs to studytouser
study userbehavior
adoption adoption behavior [13,15,21,29,36–41].
[13,15,21,29,36–41].
Figure 1. Research model.

Figure 1. Research model.
3.1. The Relevance of Trust in Mobile Money
3.1. The Relevance of Trust
Even though in Mobileinnovation
a technology Money may have many benefits, lack of trust in it can affect its use [7].
Trust in a mobile-based payment system depends on the amount of users’ control, reliability, security
Evenand though a technology
the reputation innovation
of the entity in charge ofmay have[42].
the system many Withbenefits, lackthreat
the increasing of trust in it can affect its
of cybercrimes
use [7]. Trust
and the possibility of remotely hacking customers’ phones [9,43] trust is a vital factor in financialreliability,
in a mobile-based payment system depends on the amount of users’ control,
exchange
security and the relationships
reputationwhere of thethere are unknown
entity in charge risks
of[9,40]. There is no
the system guarantee
[42]. Withthatthemobile money threat of
increasing
services providers will not take advantage of mobile money users. Therefore, mobile money users face
cybercrimes and the possibility of remotely hacking customers’ phones [9,43] trust is a vital factor
this situation and can reduce their perceptions to risk by relying on trust [9]. The risk may emanate
in financial
fromexchange
the technicalrelationships where there are
capability of telecommunication unknown
companies and therisks [9,40]. of
vulnerability There
mobileismoney
no guarantee
that mobile money[44].
applications services providers
Some mobile moneywill notillegally
agents take advantage of mobile
hold money intended money
for money users.[8].Therefore,
transfers
Cases of users
mobile money mobile face
money fraud
this have increased
situation recently,
and can with some
reduce theiremployees
perceptions of telecommunication
to risk by relying on
trust [9]. companies
The risk allegedly
may emanateconniving to defraud their employers [45]. MTN Uganda lost billions to fraud on
from the technical capability of telecommunication companies and
its mobile money platform [45].
the vulnerability of mobile money applications [44]. Some mobile money agents illegally hold money
intended3.2.forMeaning
moneyof transfers [8].Money
Trust in Mobile Cases of mobile money fraud have increased recently, with some
employees ofTrust telecommunication
is the user’s relative companies allegedly
confidence in the conniving
mobile service [46]. It to defraud
is the their
willingness byemployers
mobile [45].
MTN Uganda moneylostusersbillions to fraud
to be vulnerable on its
based mobilemoney
on mobile money platform
services [45].future behavior [47]. Based
providers’
3.2. Meaning of Trust in Mobile Money

Trust is the user’s relative confidence in the mobile service [46]. It is the willingness by mobile
money users to be vulnerable based on mobile money services providers’ future behavior [47].
Based on McKnight and Chervany’s [48] trust topology, we examine the dimensions of trust: structural
assurance (SA) and trust belief (TB).
The trust perception about mobile money services providers refers to structural assurance [49].
Structural assurance helps to reduce mobile money users’ perceived risk. Mobile money transactions
are uncertain and vulnerable and therefore entail potential risk [50]. Trust belief is based on the
perception that the mobile money services providers’ trustworthiness consists of beliefs about
competence, integrity and benevolence [37,51]. Trust is crucial because it reduces users’ fears and
worries about mobile money transactions [9,50]. Trust in mobile money encompasses three key
dimensions: ability, benevolence and integrity [52]. Ability means that mobile money services
providers possess the necessary experience and knowledge to fulfil their tasks [40] (p. 337). Integrity
implies the mobile money services providers stick to their promises [40] (p. 337). Benevolence means
the mobile money services providers are concerned about the interests of mobile money users and not
only their expected benefits [40] (p. 337).
3.3. Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

Consumer adoption of mobile technologies is affected by security concerns and the possibility of
remotely hacking customers’ mobile phones [9,43]. Perceived risk is defined as a belief that unexpected
events may occur [53]. It is the possibility that the mobile money user might incur financial losses or
lose personal information as a result of using mobile transactions [46]. It measures beliefs of uncertainty
about possible negative consequences [54]. Mobile money and internet banking are prone to similar
risks [55]. The perceived risk of using mobile money is assumed to be larger than that of using internet
banking [56]. The largest potential risk facing mobile money is probably an operational risk and central
banks are concerned about its potential disruptive impact on the payments system [57]. Perceived risk
has been found by past studies as a significant factor influencing adoption intention towards mobile
payments [37,39,58,59].
3.4. Self-Efficacy and Mobile Money

Self-efficacy is a person’s belief in what they can do using their skills and capabilities, or how
difficult or easy it would be to carry out a behavior [42]. It is the confidence that a mobile money user
possesses in using mobile money application [46]. Duane et al. [42] discussed mobile self-efficacy (MSE),
which measures users’ confidence in mastering mobile applications. Our study focuses on establishing
whether mobile money users have the ability and skills to execute mobile money services. Therefore,
mobile money self-efficacy is the users’ judgement of their capability to use mobile money application.
Luo et al. [21] found self-efficacy to be positively related to structural assurance. Self-efficacy was
found to have effects on mobile services adoption [60]. Therefore, potential mobile money users with
high self-efficacy level will have high trust perception towards the mobile money services providers.
We thus hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Self-efficacy positively impacts structural assurance.
3.5. Self-Efficacy and Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

Mobile money requires some level of user competence to complete transactions successfully.
Self-efficacy reduces the perceived risk in mobile money. The level of self-efficacy is directly related
to the users’ ability to execute mobile money transactions [61]. Mobile money users with a high
self-efficacy level will anticipate lower loss from adverse circumstances such as transaction errors or
mobile money fraud [21]. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Self-efficacy negatively impacts perceived risk in mobile money.

3.6. Performance Expectancy of Mobile Money

The UTAUT model composed by Venkatesh et al. [29] integrates several constructs across
competing models. Based on UTAUT, mobile money usage intention can be predicted by performance
expectancy (PE), effort expectancy and social influence [14,29,62]. The degree of ease of use of mobile
money application refers to effort expectancy [13]. The construct is similar TAM’s perceived ease of
use [59] (p. 862). Social influence is about the subjective influence of surrounding factors like friends’
opinions on mobile money users’ behavior [63]. The degree to which using mobile money application
provides benefits to users to perform activities is referred to as performance expectancy [14,29,41].
This construct is similar to TAM’s perceived usefulness [47]. A positive relationship exists between
effort expectancy and performance expectancy [29]. When mobile money users feel that the application
is easy to use, their expectation towards its performance increases. Several scholars researched
and found that performance expectancy is positively related to behavioral intention [13,14,21,29,62].
Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Self-efficacy is positively related to performance expectancy of mobile money.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). Performance expectancy positively impacts behavioral intention to adopt mobile money.
3.7. Performance Expectancy and Perceived Risk of Mobile Money

Performance expectancy refers to the users’ understanding of the advantages that accrue from
using technological innovations that result in better outcomes [64]. The extent mobile money
users believe the innovation will help them attain their targets is part of their expectations about
performance [65]. Therefore, performance expectancy is measured based on how useful mobile money
users perceive the application to be in helping them to attain their job performance goals [29]. Perceived
risk is negatively related to the performance expectancy of a new mobile money system [66]. Likely
loss related to perceived risk exist in mobile money, which is beyond the control of mobile money
users. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 5 (H5). Perceived risk negatively impacts performance expectancy of mobile money.
3.8. Trust Belief and Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

Trust is an important factor which reduces users’ perceived risk of transactions [67]. Therefore,
it is considered as a mechanism for reducing perceived risk in mobile money. Trust belief is based
on the perception that the mobile money services providers’ trustworthiness consists of beliefs about
competence, integrity and benevolence [37]. It helps in explaining how mobile money users overcome
their perceived risk and engage in mobile transactions [68]. Lee et al. [36] found trust to mediate the
impact of perceived risk on behavioral intention.
Potential mobile money users may not be sure of the technical capability of mobile money services
providers to provide services. Trust belief towards mobile money services providers is relied on by the
users to assess the potential risks involved in mobile money services [21]. Mobile money users who
believe in the competence, benevolence and integrity of mobile money services providers are likely to
overcome their risk perceptions towards mobile money [21]. Therefore, the stronger the trust a mobile
money user has in mobile money services providers, the lower the risk they anticipate in adopting
mobile money. We, therefore, hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 6 (H6). Trust belief will negatively impact perceived risk in mobile money.
3.9. Structural Assurance, Perceived Risk and Behavioral Intention towards Mobile Money
Structural assurance refers to the availability of legal structures, technological structures and other
payment security measures to ensure that mobile money transactions are successfully completed by
mobile money services providers [15,49]. Jack and Suri [69] emphasized risk sharing and transaction
costs in the Kenyan mobile services context. McKnight et al. [40] researched about structural assurance
as a form of institution-based trust which affects behavioral intention. Zhu and Chen [70] found trust
as a key mediating variable in ensuring fairness of services and customer satisfaction in an online
banking context. Zhou [71] emphasized that initial trust in mobile-based transactions can be ensured
through structural assurance.
Mobile money transactions raise security concerns among users [8]. Just like trust belief, structural
assurance helps to alleviate mobile money users’ perceived risk. Mobile money services providers
can draft customer services policies and promise customers to relay structural assurance information
to mobile money users [21]. Mobile money users rely on the structural soundness of mobile money
services providers and their ability to provide mobile money services with low perceived risk.
Therefore, we posit that:
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Structural assurance is negatively related to perceived risk in mobile money.
Hypothesis 8 (H8). Structural assurance positively impacts behavioral intention towards mobile money.
3.10. Performance Expectancy and Trust Belief in Mobile Money

Perceived risk is negatively related to the performance expectancy of a mobile money system [66].
Trust belief mitigates this risk and enhances mobile money users’ expected performance of mobile
money [37]. In circumstances where mobile money services providers are unreliable, mobile money
users may suffer losses. So, there is no incentive expected from using the services of mobile money
services providers. The existing trust belief in mobile money services providers serves as a basis for
potential mobile money users to anticipate whether the services can be conducted successfully and
will be of benefit to them. Therefore, we posit that:
Hypothesis 9 (H9). Trust belief is positively related to performance expectancy of mobile money.
3.11. Behavioral Intention and Trust/Risk Beliefs in Mobile Money

Behavioral intention (BI) refers to a user’s intentions to perform certain behaviors [72].
The construct was developed from the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) and has been used in various technology acceptance studies [7,12,13,15,21,29,41].
Behavioral intention leads to actual behavior based on TRA [73]. Technology use is determined
by behavioral intention and facilitating conditions based the UTAUT [29]. Trust and risk beliefs are
important determinants of mobile money users’ behavioral intention to conduct risky activities [21,40].
Mobile money users’ willingness to engage in mobile money transactions depends on their level of
trust [58,67]. Trust belief and risk beliefs significantly influence mobile money users’ intention to
release personal information via mobile transactions [21,74]. Trusting intentions refer to the mobile
money users’ willingness to depend on mobile money services providers [40] (p. 337). Trusting
beliefs refer to the confident mobile money user perception that mobile money services providers have
attributes beneficial to them [40] (p. 337). There exists an association between trusting intentions and
trusting beliefs [40].
Mobile money users with favorable trust perceptions towards their mobile money services
providers are likely to try the services [21]. Those whose risk beliefs towards mobile money is high
will be skeptical for fear of losing their sensitive information or incurring losses and will be reluctant
to try mobile money services [21]. Mobile money users’ behavioral intention to adopt the service is
therefore influenced by higher trust belief towards a mobile money services provider and lower risk
perception towards mobile money. Therefore, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 10 (H10). Trust belief positively impacts behavioral intention to adopt mobile money.
Hypothesis 11 (H11). Perceived risk is negatively related to behavioral intention to adopt mobile money.
4. Research Methodology
This research is built based on data from a survey of mobile money users in Uganda. We contacted
520 participants in a face-to-face interview by convenience sampling. The data were collected by
the authors with the support of research assistants who were trained prior to going to the field.
Participation was on a voluntary basis. Before each interview, study objectives were explained to
participants. We promised respondents to treat collected data confidentially and only use it for research
purposes. Respondents were requested for verbally informed consent to participate.
4.1. Design of the Study and Sampling Distribution

To examine the proposed model, we used a survey research methodology. A questionnaire
was designed with a range of questions intended to measure the various constructs under study.
A field survey was conducted by interviewing mobile money agents in Kampala, the capital city of
Uganda, from 5 June to 30 June 2017. Kampala is the busiest and most populous district with the
highest number of mobile money agents [16]. The estimated accessible population of Kampala is
1,578,133 people [16] (p.35). The suburbs of Kampala surveyed include; Nakawa, Nakasero, Ntinda,
Bukoto, Kamwokya, Kyebando, Mulago, Wandegeya, Makerere, Mengo, Old Kampala, Kampala road,
Garden city, Nakulabye, Bwaise and Kawempe.
The sample size for this study is based on the formula suggested by Nduneseokwu et al. [32] (p. 6);
S = Z2 × p × 1 − p/(margin of error)2 (1)
where S is the sample size, Z is the Z score at 95% level of confidence, p is the standard deviation
which is normally 0.5, margin o f error relates to confidence interval (±5%). As recommended by
Nduneseokwu et al. [32], we determine the sample size for an infinite population at Z = 1.96 and 95%
confidence level, which results in 384 as sample size. Nduneseokwu et al. [32] further suggested an
adjustment to the population (1,578,133) of Kampala city, to obtain an adjusted population size by
using the following formula:
Sadjusted = (S)/1 + [(S − 1)/population] (2)
The results of the adjusted sample size suggest that we need a minimum of 384 valid responses.
Ssonko and Tait [16] (p. 36) estimated the minimum sample size to be 400 valid responses for
Kampala city.
The field survey was selected as the most effective way to gather perception data from
Ugandan mobile money agents who are experienced in transacting using mobile money
application because a large number of respondents could be reached and their responses
collected. Nduneseokwu et al. [32] (p. 6) and Chuchird et al. [75] (p. 2) used field surveys for data
collection. Also, because the level of internet connection in Uganda is still poor, the field survey was
the most appropriate way of reaching respondents as compared to an online survey. A cross-sectional
survey was used because of its advantages such as low cost involved in implementation as well as the
relatively low demand placed on respondents [76].
The questionnaire consisted of two sections; demographic information and measures of variables
under study. Out of the contacted 520 mobile money agents, 500 accepted to attempt our questionnaires.
Registered mobile money agents operate small kiosks along the streets and in busy trading centers
in the suburbs of Kampala. Explanations were done where the agents required clarifications. All the
500 questionnaires were received back from the respondents for examination [77] (p. 48). We used
these respondents as a representative sample because they were legally registered and had the mobile
money experience required for our study.
4.2. Measurement Development

To ensure valid and reliable measures, the instruments used were based on past research and
modified to suit mobile money research context. Three items of McKnight et al. [40] were used
to measure structural assurance (SA). Three items of Gefen et al. [37] were used to measure trust
belief (TB). Three items of Venkatesh et al. [29] were used to measure self-efficacy (SE). Performance
expectancy (PE) was measured by three items [29]. Behavioral intention (BI) was measured using
three items [29]. Perceived risk (PR) was measured using seven items developed for mobile money
context with reference to Chen et al. [38], Featherman and Pavlou [66] and Jacoby and Kaplan [39].
Five-point Likert scales were applied in measuring all the constructs. Table 1 shows the resulting
questionnaire items used for the study. A pre-test of all items was done with academic experts and
graduate students to ensure that their meaning and understanding was clear. Five control variables for
prediction intention towards mobile money services were included in the study. They are; age, gender,
the level of education, mobile money usage experience and mobile money services provider preference.
5. Data Analysis and Results
5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Out of the 500 responses, we removed 62 invalid responses due to missing data, inconsistent
answers and outliers [77] (p. 50). This resulted in 438 valid responses for analysis. Given that the
minimum acceptable sample size is 384 valid responses, 438 valid responses represent an acceptable
sample size. The sample descriptive statistics are as shown in Table 2. Of the 438 respondents:
53% were female and 47% were male; 276 were 18–30 years old, 117 were 31–40 years old while 81 were
over 40 years of age. Among the entire respondents, 19% of them had mobile money experience of
less than 1 year, while 62% had 1–5 years and 18 % had 6–10 years’ experience. Of the respondents,
46% preferred using MTN mobile money, 43% preferred Airtel money, 4% preferred Orange money,
4% preferred Ezee-money, 2% preferred M-Sente and 1% preferred M-Cash. Further analysis of
the level of education of respondents revealed that 8% had primary school education, 55% had
secondary school education, 36% had University education and 1% were postgraduates. The sample
is appropriate for testing the instruments as educated people are enthusiastic to adopt new mobile
money technologies [41].
5.2. Analysis of Results

We used a two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing [78] for data analysis.
Step one involves the measurement model analysis, while step two tests the structural relationships
among latent constructs [78]. SmartPLS 2.0M3 (SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany), a Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM) application [79], helped in examining the testing of hypotheses, structural
model and measurement model [33] (p. 10) because of the following reasons. Firstly, as suggested by
Chin and Newsted [80], the PLS method places fewer restrictions on the measurement scales, residual
distribution and sample size and is therefore suitable for our explorative study. Secondly, the data are
non-normal in most consumer behavior studies and PLS is not bound by the normality assumption [81]
that is required in covariance-based SEM [82]. Thirdly, the estimates of mediation effects provided by
PLS are accurate and the approach accounts for measurement errors [83]. Fourthly, PLS allows the
indicators to vary by contributing to the latent variables composite score and does not require equality
of weights for all indicators [84]. Finally, PLS provides an alternative method to test theory [12,82].
Table 1. Questionnaire items used in the study.
Construct Item Code Survey Statement Likert Scale Source

MM has enough safeguards to make me feel comfortable using it to Strongly Disagree/
SA1
transact personal business. Strongly Agree
I feel assured of the legal and technological structure of MM to
Structural assurance (SA) SA2 McKnight et al. [40]
protect me from financial losses.
I feel confident that encryption and other technological advances of
SA3
MM make it safe for me to do business there.
Based on my experience with MM service providers in the past, Strongly Disagree/
TB1
I know they are honest. Strongly Agree
Based on my experience with MM service providers in the past,
Trust belief (TB) TB2 Gefen et al. [37]
I know they care about customers.
Based on my experience with MM service providers in the past,
TB3
I know they are not opportunistic.
I could complete a job or task using MM application if there was no Strongly Disagree/
SE1
one around to tell me what to do. Strongly Agree
I could complete a job or task using MM application if I could call
Self-efficacy (SE) SE2 Venkatesh et al. [29]
someone for help if I got stuck.
I could complete a job using MM application if I had a lot of time to
SE3
complete the task for which the application was provided.
Strongly Disagree/
PE1 Using MM enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly.
Strongly Agree
Performance expectancy (PE) PE2 Using MM increases my productivity. Venkatesh et al. [29]
PE3 If I use MM, I will increase my chances of getting a pay rise.
Strongly Disagree/
BI1 I intend to use MM in the next 3 months.
Strongly Agree
Behavioral intention (BI) BI2 I predict I would use MM in the next 6 months. Venkatesh et al. [29]
BI3 I plan to use MM in the next 12 months.
Table 1. Cont.
Construct Item Code Survey Statement Likert Scale Source

PR1 What are the chances that you stand to lose money if you use MM? Low/high chance
What is the likelihood that there will be something wrong with the
PR2 Low/high risk
performance of MM?
What are the chances that using MM will cause you to lose control
PR3 Improbable/probable
over the privacy of your payment information?
Chen et al. [38];
Usage of MM would lead to a psychological loss for me because it Featherman and
PR4 Improbable/probable
would not fit in well with my self-image or self-concept Pavlou [66]; Jacoby
Perceived risk (PR)
What are the chances that using MM will negatively affect the way and Kaplan [39]
PR5 Low/high risk
others think of you?
If you had begun to use MM, what are the chances that you will lose
PR6 time due to having to switch to a different payment method like Low/high loss
using Banks?
On the whole, considering all sorts of factors combined, about how
PR7 Not risky at all/very risky
risky would you say it would be to sign up for and use MM?
Notes: Mobile money (MM).
Table 2. Respondent demographic profile.
Measure Items Frequency Percentage

Male 208 47.49
Gender
Female 230 52.51
18–30 276 63.01
31–40 117 26.71
Age
41–50 40 9.13
51–60 5 1.14
Less than 1 year 84 19.18
1–5 years 273 62.33
Mobile Money experience
6–10 years 77 17.58
More than 10 years 4 0.91
Airtel Money 188 42.92
Orange Money 16 3.65
MTN Mobile Money 203 46.35
MM Service provider preference
M-Sente 11 2.51
Ezee-Money 16 3.65
M-Cash 4 0.91
Primary School 34 7.76
Secondary School 241 55.02
Level of Education
University Degree 157 35.84
Postgraduate (Masters) 6 1.37
5.3. Measurement Model
5.3.1. Reliability
Measurement model assessment was done using reliability, which involves indicator reliability
and internal consistency reliability [42]. The internal consistency reliability was tested using
composite reliability (CR) values. All the values in the second column of Table 3 are greater than 0.7,
which satisfies Bagozzi and Yi’s [85] commonly acceptable level. The indicators individual reliability
is based on the fact that latent variable variance explains at least 50% of the indicator [42]. Loadings of
the manifest variable should be 0.7 or higher [86]. From Table 4, the magnitude of all indicators is 0.7
or more as required. We, therefore, concluded that all indicators are reliable based on the two tests.
Table 3. Reliability and inter-construct correlations.
Constructs CR AVE BI PE PR SA SE TB
Behavioral Intention (BI) 0.9130 0.7793 0.8828
Performance Expectancy (PE) 0.8606 0.6737 0.3926 0.8208
Perceived Risk (PR) 0.7675 0.5241 −0.3009 −0.2026 0.7239
Structural Assurance (SA) 0.8713 0.6939 0.1815 0.1470 −0.1845 0.8330
Self-Efficacy (SE) 0.7476 0.6012 −0.1269 −0.2049 −0.0904 −0.0987 0.7754
Trust Belief (TB) 0.8629 0.7601 0.0328 −0.1047 −0.2221 0.2585 0.2449 0.8718
Note: Values on the diagonal represent the square root of the AVE of constructs.
Table 4. Matrix of loadings and cross-loadings.
BI PE PR SA SE TB
BI1 0.9215 0.3731 −0.3150 0.2001 −0.1493 0.0924
BI2 0.9551 0.3802 −0.2820 0.1841 −0.1319 0.0240
BI3 0.7592 0.2726 −0.1782 0.0710 −0.0302 −0.0601
PE1 0.2775 0.7581 −0.0930 0.1413 −0.2219 −0.1805
Table 4. Cont.
BI PE PR SA SE TB
PE2 0.2956 0.8290 −0.1563 0.1350 −0.1333 0.0200
PE3 0.3797 0.8712 −0.2331 0.0947 −0.1521 −0.0883
PR1 −0.1945 −0.1974 0.7016 −0.2201 0.0433 −0.0486
PR2 −0.2236 −0.0656 0.7479 −0.1407 −0.1788 −0.2548
PR7 −0.2342 −0.1861 0.7216 −0.0454 −0.0464 −0.1660
SA1 0.0667 0.0144 −0.1718 0.7503 −0.0408 0.2962
SA2 0.1271 0.0705 −0.1725 0.8770 −0.0909 0.2248
SA3 0.2284 0.2373 −0.1295 0.8659 −0.1028 0.1607
SE1 −0.1588 −0.2019 −0.0163 −0.1212 0.8720 0.2363
SE2 −0.0110 −0.1008 −0.1556 −0.0120 0.6649 0.1281
TB1 0.0871 −0.0659 −0.2474 0.2473 0.1542 0.9402
TB2 −0.0734 −0.1412 −0.1088 0.1985 0.3301 0.7976
5.3.2. Validity
To examine the validity of reflective constructs, discriminant validity and convergent validity
is used. Assessment of convergent validity is based on Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values
as evaluation criterion [77]. As shown in the third column of Table 3, all AVE of constructs were
0.50 or more in line with the threshold suggested by Fornell and Larcker [87]. This indicates that
convergent validity is sufficient, implying that each latent variable explained more than 50% of their
indicator’s variance on average. From Table 3, the square root of the AVE from each construct exceeds
the correlation between the construct and other constructs in the model [80].
The patterns of the inter indicators of a construct with other constructs represent discriminant
validity [42]. The examination of cross-factor loadings in Table 4 shows appropriate discriminant
validity, as the loading of every indicator on the assigned construct exceeds its loading on other
constructs [83]. Therefore, the discriminant validity of the research constructs is acceptable. SE3, TB3,
PR3, PR4, PR5 and PR6 were eliminated from the analysis as their magnitude was found below 0.7 [81].
5.4. Structural Model

To assess the predictive performance of the structural model, we run PLS algorithm and obtained
R-square values and path coefficients [79]. PLS together with the bootstrapping procedure are strong
in prediction specification [81]. Research significance was assessed with 500, 1000 and 5000 bootstrap
runs and similar results were obtained in all cases.
Structural path analysis results are as shown in Figure 2, significant relationships are shown by
the bold lines while insignificant relationships or hypotheses not supported are shown by the dotted
lines. The Table 5 and Figure 2 show the results of hypothesis testing. In Figure 2, R2 values are shown
within each construct. The model explains 10.2% of performance expectancy, 7% of the perceived risk
and 21.3% of behavioral intention.
A t-test was adopted since all the hypotheses are clearly directional [81]. Bootstrapping was
performed to compute t-statistics for each hypothesized relationship as shown in Table 5. To make
the differences become very small, 5000 bootstrapping subsamples were used [39]. Most of the
hypothesized relationships were significant, except for H1, H2 and H10. Based on path coefficients,
H4 was most significant. This implies that during mobile money adoption, mobile money users rely
on the performance expectancy of mobile money services with low perceived risk. Based on H11,
perceived risk contributes significantly to users’ behavioral intention to adopt mobile money.
Sustainability 2017, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
Figure
Figure 2. 2.Results
Results of
ofPLS
PLSanalysis.
analysis.
Table 5. Summary of hypothesis testing results.

Table 5. Summary of hypothesis testing results.
Path
Hypothesis t Values Conclusions
Coefficients (𝛃)
H1. Self-efficacy positively impacts structural Path p > 0.05
Hypothesis −0.0987 t1.4369
Values Conclusions
assurance. Coefficients (β) (Not-supported)
H2. Self-efficacy negatively impacts perceived risk in p > 0.01
H1. Self-efficacy positively impacts −0.0637 0.8043 p > 0.05
mobile money. −0.0987 1.4369 (Not-supported)
structural assurance.
H3. Self-efficacy is positively related to Performance
(Not-supported)
p < 0.05
−0.2001 3.5716
H2. Self-efficacy negatively
expectancy of mobile impacts
money. perceived −0.0637 0.8043 (Supported)p > 0.01
risk in mobile money.
H4. Performance expectancy positively impacts (Not-supported)
p < 0.01
0.3344 7.7119
H3. Self-efficacy is positively
behavioral intention to related to money.
adopt mobile (Supported)p < 0.05
− 0.2001 3.5716
PerformanceH5.expectancy
Perceived riskof mobile impacts
negatively money.performance −0.2451 5.1196
(Supported)
p < 0.01
expectancy
H4. Performance of mobile money.
expectancy positively impacts (Supported)p < 0.01
0.3344 7.7119
behavioral H6. Trust belief
intention will negatively
to adopt mobileimpact
money.perceived risk
−0.1685 2.5795
p < 0.05
(Supported)
in mobile money. (Supported)
H5. Perceived risk negatively impacts p < 0.01
H7. Structural assurance is negatively related to −0.2451 5.1196 p < 0.01
performance expectancy of mobile money.
perceived risk in mobile money.
−0.1472 2.3377 (Supported)
(Supported)
H6. Trust belief will negatively
H8. Structural impact impacts
assurance positively −0.1685 2.5795 p < 0.05 p < 0.05
perceived risk in mobile money. 0.0935 2.0437 (Supported)
behavioral intention towards mobile money. (Supported)
H7. Structural assurance
H9. Trust belief is is negatively
positively related
related to performance p < 0.05 p < 0.01
−0.1472
−0.1101 2.3377
2.0641
to perceived risk in mobile
expectancy of mobilemoney.
money. (Supported)
(Supported)
H10. assurance
H8. Structural Trust belief positively
positivelyimpacts behavioral
impacts p > 0.05 p < 0.05
0.0935−0.0045 0.0840
2.0437
behavioral intention
intentionto adopt mobile money.
towards mobile money. (Not-supported)
(Supported)
H11. Perceived risk is negatively related to behavioral p < 0.01
H9. Trust belief is positively related to −0.2169 4.0926 p < 0.05
intention to adopt mobile money. −0.1101 2.0641 (Supported)
performance expectancy of mobile money. (Supported)
H10. Trust belief positively impacts behavioral p > 0.05
−0.0045 0.0840
intention to adopt mobile money. (Not-supported)
H11. Perceived risk is negatively related to p < 0.01
−0.2169 4.0926
behavioral intention to adopt mobile money. (Supported)
6. Discussion
The study was driven by the research question: How do trust and risk perceptions of Ugandan
mobile money users influence the sustainable adoption of mobile money? It advances the literature on
adoption of mobile payments which contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals.
6.1. Findings
H1 was not supported, implying that self-efficacy does not positively impact the structural
assurance of mobile money services providers (β = −0.0987, t = 1.4369). Our study suggests that
Ugandan mobile money users’ ability to execute mobile money services is not positively related to the
structural soundness of mobile money services providers.
H2 was not supported, suggesting that self-efficacy is not negatively related to mobile money
users’ perceived risk in mobile money (β = −0.0637, t = 0.8043). Therefore, self-efficacy may not
help mobile money users to overcome their perceived risk associated with mobile money. This is
in agreement with Luo et al. [21], who came to similar findings in the case mobile banking services.
Although Ugandan mobile money users may have the necessary skill to execute mobile money
transaction (H3), this does not affect their perceived risk toward mobile money services.
H3 was supported, implying that self-efficacy is positively related to the performance expectancy
of mobile money (β = −0.2001, t = 3.5716). Therefore, mobile money requires some level of user
competence to complete transactions successfully. Our study recommends that Ugandan mobile
money users may have the required ability, knowledge and skills to adopt mobile money services.
Users’ ability to carry out mobile money services may affect their performance expectancy. We advise
mobile money services providers to build users’ self-efficacy through providing trainings, operational
manuals and videos guidance.
H4 was supported, meaning that performance expectancy of mobile money can be perceived
by Ugandan mobile money users as the most important factor for mobile money acceptance
(β = 0.3344, t = 7.7119). This finding is consistent with previous literature [13,14,21,29,62].
Our study suggests the appropriateness of employing performance expectancy in studying new
innovative technology acceptance. We advise mobile money services providers to make efforts on
spreading the massage of importance of mobile money to its users and potential users. This could be
achieved through a focused marketing strategy and mobile money user education of the applications.
H5 was supported, indicating that perceived risk can be negatively related to the performance
expectancy of mobile money (β = −0.2451, t = 5.1196). This shows that Ugandan mobile money
users’ perceived risk in mobile money can lower their expected benefits from using it. Our study
provides further support to Luo et al. [21] who came to similar findings on new innovative technology
applications. We advise mobile money services providers to emphasize risk reduction strategies in
a bid to increase users’ performance expectancy of mobile money which results in mass adoption.
H6 was supported, implying that trust belief towards mobile money services providers is
negatively related to the perceived risk in mobile money (β = −0.1685, t = 2.5795). Therefore,
due to the uncertainties in mobile money, the strong trust Ugandan mobile money users have towards
a mobile money services provider can lower the risk they anticipate in adopting mobile money.
We advise mobile money services providers to build and maintain good trust belief. This motivates
potential users to see mobile money application as a less risky platform for transacting which results
into adoption of the services.
H7 was supported, suggesting that structural assurance is negatively related to the perceived
risk in mobile money (β = −0.1472, t = 2.3377). Structural assurance helps to alleviate the users’
perceived risk of mobile money application. Ugandan mobile money users rely on the structural
soundness of mobile money services providers and their ability to provide mobile money services
with low perceived risk. We advise mobile money services providers to avail the necessary legal
and technological structures and other payment security measures to ensure that transactions are
successfully completed as doing so reduces the perceived risk of mobile money, which then results in
adoption intention.
H8 was supported, advising that structural assurance is positively related to the behavioral
intention to adopt mobile money (β = 0.0935, t = 2.0437). This finding extends more support to past
studies that concluded the same [15,40]. Therefore, mobile money services providers must establish
appropriate legal and technological structures and efficient payment security measures to ensure the
success of mobile money transactions.
H9 was supported that trust belief can be positively related to the performance expectancy
of mobile money (β = −0.1101, t = 2.0641). Therefore, the existing trust belief in mobile money
services providers can serve as the basis for potential users to anticipate whether the mobile money
services can be successfully conducted and will be of any benefit to them. We advise mobile money
services providers to build trust belief by maintain a high level of integrity, ensure honesty in all their
transactions and avoid actions that cause public distrust.
H10 was not supported that trust belief may not be positively related to the users’ behavioral
intention to adopt mobile money (β = −0.0045, t = 0.0840). This implies that the likelihood of taking
up the mobile money services on offer does not necessarily depend on the existing trust belief towards
the mobile money services providers. Our study therefore suggests that trust belief is not directly
related to mobile money behavioral intention but mitigates perceived risk (H6) and enhances users’
expected performance of mobile money (H9). This study reveals that trust belief can be a key mediating
construct for studying mobile money technology adoption.
H11 was supported that perceived risk is a significant determining factor for mobile money
adoption (β = −0.2169, t = 4.0926). This finding suggests that perceived risk can reduce potential
users’ behavioral intention to adopt mobile money, which means that users are concerned about the
vulnerabilities they face while using the application. Given the increased rates of fraud and hacking [8],
they are skeptical about using the services. Our study therefore reveals that perceived risk is a key
factor for studying mobile money technology acceptance. We advise mobile money services providers
to adopt strategies for reducing perceived risk perceptions. For example, they could reduce perceived
risk by having a financial loss protection policy and anti-fraud protection policy. They can also provide
a customer satisfaction guarantee to reduce operational risk.
6.2. Theoretical Contribution

After examining trust and risk in the adoption of mobile money in Uganda, this study can
contribute to the literature in following ways. First, this paper extends the theoretical knowledge of
mobile money adoption by adapting a TAM model with users’ trust and risk perceptions. We suggest
a conceptual model for examining mobile money users’ trust and risk perceptions and reveal several
constructs which have not been previously applied in mobile money adoption studies. We empirically
test how these constructs influence users’ decision to adopt mobile banking, e-commerce and mobile
payments. Most of these constructs have previously not been used in studies focusing on mobile
money adoption. To our best knowledge, no empirical study has previously been conducted to focus
on mobile money users’ risk and trust perceptions in Uganda. Similar models were examined in
Ghana [11] and India [7]. Thus, our study contributes to mobile money literature by showing that
trust does not directly affect behavioral intention but it mediates the effects of perceived risk and
performance expectancy which directly influence behavioral intention.
Second, our study contributes to the literature by showing how to apply personal trait factors
(i.e., self-efficacy and structural assurance) to study mobile money adoption in Uganda, which has not
been done before. This study is also the first to investigate multi-dimensional trust in the Ugandan
mobile money context as shown by the analysis of structural assurance and trust belief.
6.3. Implications for Research

Several implications for mobile money adoption research in Uganda could be generated from our
study findings. Firstly, this study found that intention to adopt mobile money in Uganda can be driven
by the performance expectancy, structural assurance and perceived risk of mobile money. The structural
soundness of services providers in providing mobile money services may lower perceived risk.
Therefore, due to the high perceived risk associated with mobile money, it is crucial to build the
technical capability, integrity and benevolence of mobile money services providers to overcome
risk perceptions. The results reveal the relevance of the adoption stage of mobile money services.
During this early stage of mobile money adoption in Uganda, mobile money users’ uncertainty about
the underlying technology in mobile money is high. A personal trait factor such as self-efficacy is
identified as a major determinant of perceived risk and indirectly influences the behavioral intention.
Multi-dimensional trust may play various roles in mobile money adoption. Structural assurance or
trust towards a mobile money platform can be a mechanism for overcoming the perceived risk of
mobile money and directly impact behavioral intention, while trust belief can also directly impact
behavioral intention. The findings of our research contribute to the understanding of Ugandan mobile
money users’ risk and trust perceptions which are useful for mobile money studies in East Africa at
large. The constructs under this study may be applied in other countries like Kenya in M-Pesa context
and Tanzania in Z-Pesa context, so as to further verify the understanding of trust and risk perception
in mobile money in Africa.
Secondly, the study of mobile money adoption can be useful to central banks in relation to financial
inclusion and improvement of the ability to transfer money, which are important to achieve sustainable
development. Mobile money adoption, if well facilitated, can help central bank authorities to attain
their target of reaching the unbanked rural populations in East Africa. Mobile money is very useful
to the poor population due to low transaction costs, the safety of money and processing speed [7].
Its success will be dictated by the rate of its sustainable adoption. Therefore, according to our study,
central banks are recommended to continue to design mobile money regulations that do not stifle the
valuable innovation. They may promote public policies such as mobile money customer protection.
This will help customers overcome their perceived risk of mobile money and encourage a sense of
security. We, therefore, advise central banks to encourage more research studies on mobile money
adoption and financial inclusion.
Lastly, our study shows that 7% of the predictive power of the model is explained by perceived
risk, which is large in comparison to other constructs under study. Central banks may not be able
to regulate this mobile money risk, as it emanates from telecommunication companies’ IT systems.
However, they can work in partnership with communications regulators to ensure that their prudential
priorities are met [44]. The few studies on mobile money adoption have focused on the TAM variables,
this has created a need for more research on perceived risk in mobile money. We, therefore, suggest
future research to explore this area.
6.4. Implications for Practice

We may offer useful practical implications for managers in telecommunications companies
offering mobile money services in Uganda. Firstly, we suggest that the performance expectancy of
mobile money is an important factor in adoption intention. Thus, to encourage the mobile money
adoption, mobile money services providers may show the benefits of using mobile money to potential
customers. Increased user education of MoKash, mobile money apps used in smartphones and mobile
money Western Union transfers should be able to facilitate adoption intention.
Secondly, during the adoption of mobile money services, users may have some ideas about the
benefits of technology application as a medium for transactions. Based on this study, the significance
of structural assurance may imply that an effective strategy towards helping Ugandan users to reduce
their mobile money risk perceptions is to increase their education about the mobile money application
and its security features.
Thirdly, perceived risk is a significant factor in mobile money adoption. By modelling perceived
risk with other indicators, the research shows several risk considerations that can affect the adoption of
mobile money services in Uganda. If mobile money services providers launch the services, they may
emphasize measures to counter those risk perceptions: for example, they could provide a customer
satisfaction guarantee for reducing the customer’s operational risk.
Fourthly, public policy issues pertaining to consumer protection should be developed by
government agents in order to ensure structural assurance, helping alleviate Ugandan users’ perceived
risk in the mobile money application. Central banks may regulate that mobile money services providers
need to carry out proper disclosure of their terms and conditions, like transaction fees for customer
access to financial services. A tight controlled regulatory policy focusing on transaction security and
reduction of mobile money fraud cases may increase trust.
Fifthly, according to our study, 62% of the respondents had at least one mobile money transaction
experience within the last five years. This implies that mobile money is in its infancy stage in Uganda.
63% of them were aged 18 to 30 years, which shows that the majority of Ugandan users are the youthful
generation being ambitious to learn new technologies. Of the respondents, 55% had a secondary school
education while 36% had a university education, which implies that most Ugandan users were
educated. Therefore, we advise mobile money service providers to target their services offerings
towards the age group from 18 to 30 years and the educated users who are the potential customers.
This information may be useful for companies to develop an effective marketing strategy for mobile
money adoption in Uganda.
Last but not least, mobile money has been used as a substitute for commercial bank deposits
in Uganda. By looking at the findings from the commercial banks’ perspective, executive officers
may be able to know which variables they can manipulate to compete with mobile money. Therefore,
when designing new banking services, they should be mindful of factors like customer perceived risk,
structural assurance and trust. They may also need to continue partnering with mobile money services
providers to realize synergetic benefits.
7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study countered limitations that create room for future research in the mobile money sector.
Firstly, responses that were collected using a field study which may not fully represent the entire
population. This could cause some bias towards the contacted population. Therefore, future research
involving an online survey is encouraged to cover the opinions of those mobile money users who
did not have access to the field survey. Secondly, the study was carried out in June 2017 using
cross-sectional survey. Reliability can be improved by carrying out a longitudinal analysis of over a six
month to one year period. This would cover various respondents’ opinions over a longer period of time.
Thirdly, we used a field survey questionnaire to collect the measures of the constructs under study at
the same point in time. Some common method variance may exist. More research using methods that
involves qualitative and quantitative approaches is encouraged. Fourthly, the data used for empirical
analysis was collected from respondents in Uganda who have characteristics differing from subjects in
other parts of the world. Future research could focus on the replication of a similar topic in another
part of the world like Korea, Kenya, Tanzania and India. This would aid in the assessment of the
validity of the proposed research model across different countries. Finally, other variables, like the
added value of mobile payments, the attractiveness of alternatives, a disposition to trust, perceived
ease of use, attitude, social influence, effort expectancy and innovativeness in new technologies, could
be introduced into the model and tested to view results. This will improve the explanatory power of
the model.
8. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine how trust and risk perceptions influence on the
acceptance of mobile money in Uganda. It is crucial to understand how to empower African people
to use financial services for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and mobile money is an enabler
being promoted by many African countries. Such mobile money adoption helps financial inclusion of
the unbanked and underbanked and its related economic activities can improve employment reducing
poverty and facilitating sustainable economic development. However, there are very limited studies to
understand how to encourage user participation in Africa. Thus, our study is conducted to measure
mobile money user intention for transactional services in Uganda, which can be of practical and
scientific interest in terms of sustainable development in Africa. Our study suggests that mobile
money user intention is a function of performance expectancy, perceived risk and structural assurance.
Personal trait factors like self-efficacy, trust belief and structural assurance can play a significant role in
influencing consumers’ perceptions toward mobile money acceptance.
The results suggest that perceptions towards mobile money adoption can help mobile money
services providers, commercial banks and central banks to see how customers interact with mobile
money technology, thereby enabling them to assess trust and reduce risk perceptions towards
sustainable adoption. The findings may help mobile money services providers to come up with
effective marketing strategies for encouraging customers to adopt mobile money applications.
Commercial banks are advised to come up with counter-measures like a partnership with mobile
money services providers so as to realize synergetic benefits. Central banks may need to improve their
public policies like mobile money customer protection. We hope that the findings of this study can
stimulate future research on the sustainable adoption of mobile money technologies.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the
Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5A8018136). We acknowledge the support from the Central Bank of Uganda.
We thank the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments. The views expressed in this article are those
of the authors and not necessarily the institutions affiliated with the study. The usual caveats apply.
Author Contributions: Ronald Baganzi and Antonio K.W. Lau designed and formulated the theoretical
framework; designed the questionnaire, data analysis methods and analyzed the data. Ronald Baganzi and
Antonio K.W. Lau wrote the paper. All authors contributed to reading and approving the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript and in the
decision to publish the results.
References
1. GSMA (Global System for Mobile Association). The Mobile Economy 2017; Global System for Mobile
Association: London, UK, 2017.
2. Kikulwe, E.M.; Fischer, E.; Qaim, M. Mobile Money, Smallholder Farmers, and Household Welfare in Kenya.
PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e109804. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Firpo, J. E-Money—Mobile Money—Mobile Banking—What’s the Difference? Available online: http:
//blogs.worldbank.org/psd/e-money-mobile-money-mobile-banking-what-s-the-difference (accessed on
30 June 2017).
4. Mugambi, A.; Njunge, C.; Yang, S.C. Mobile-Money Benefits and Usage: The Case of M-PESA. IT Prof. 2014,
16, 16–21. [CrossRef]
5. Bank of Uganda. Bank of Uganda Annual Report FY 2015/2016; Bank of Uganda: Kampala, Uganda, 2015.
6. Bisht, S.S.; Mishra, V. ICT-Driven Financial Inclusion Initiatives for Urban Poor in Developing Economy:
Implications for Public Policy. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 817–832. [CrossRef]
7. Chauhan, S. Acceptance of Mobile Money by Poor Citizens of India: Integrating Trust into the Technology
Acceptance Model. Info 2015, 17, 58–68. [CrossRef]
8. Kasekende, L. Bank of Uganda’s Role in Monetary Policy, Regulation and Financial Sector Development;
Bank of Uganda: Kampala, Uganda, 2014.
9. Malaquias, R.F.; Hwang, Y.-J. An Empirical Study on Trust in Mobile Banking: A Developing Country
Perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 453–461. [CrossRef]
10. Njoroge, P. Financial Inclusion in Sub-Saharan Africa; Central Bankers’ Speeches; Central Bank of Kenya:
Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
11. Tobbin, P.; Kuwornu, J.K.M. Adoption of Mobile Money Transfer Technology: Structural Equation Modeling
Approach. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 3, 59–78.
12. Adapa, S.; Roy, S.K. Consumers’ Post-Adoption Behaviour towards Internet Banking: Empirical Evidence
from Australia. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2017, 36, 1–14. [CrossRef]
13. Al-Gahtani, S.S.; Hubona, G.S.; Wang, J. Information Technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the
Acceptance and Use of IT. Inf. Manag. 2007, 44, 681–691. [CrossRef]
14. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.; Xu, X. Consumer Acceptance and User of Information Technology: Extending the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178.
15. Upadhyay, P.; Jahanyan, S. Analyzing User Perspective on the Factors Affecting Use Intention of
Mobile-Based Transfer Payment. Internet Res. 2016, 26, 38–56. [CrossRef]
16. Ssonko, G.W.; Tait, M. Effect of Mobile Money on Financial Inclusion. In Proceedings of the Southern African
Institute of Management Scientists (SAIMS) Conference, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 10–12 September 2017;
pp. 30–59.
17. Mutebile, E.T. Mobile Money and the Economy; Central Bankers’ Speeches; Bank for International Settlements:
Kampala, Uganda, 2015.
18. Mutebile, E.T. Bank of Uganda’s 50th Anniversary; Central Bankers’ Speeches; Bank for International
Settlements: Kampala, Uganda, 2016.
19. Nampewo, D.; Tinyinondi, G.A.; Kawooya, D.R.; Ssonko, G.W. Determinants of Private Sector Credit in
Uganda: The Role of Mobile Money. Financ. Innov. 2016, 2, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20. Kasekende, L. Improving Financial Literacy in Uganda; Central Bankers’ Speeches; Bank for International
Settlements: Kampala, Uganda, 2015.
21. Luo, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, J.; Shim, J.P. Examining Multi-Dimensional Trust and Multi-Faceted Risk in Initial
Acceptance of Emerging Technologies: An Empirical Study of Mobile Banking Services. Decis. Support Syst.
2010, 49, 222–234. [CrossRef]
22. Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. A Trust-Based Consumer Decision-Making Model in Electronic Commerce:
The Role of Trust, Perceived Risk, and Their Antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 44, 544–564. [CrossRef]
23. Morawczynski, O. Exploring the Usage and Impact of “transformational” mobile Financial Services: The Case
of M-PESA in Kenya. J. East. Afr. Stud. 2009, 3, 509–525. [CrossRef]
24. Bank of Uganda. Bank of Uganda Annual Supervision Report; Bank of Uganda: Kampala, Uganda, 2016.
25. Okuttah, M. Safaricom M-Pesa Transfers across Borders Hit Sh17bn. Business Daily, 4 January 2016.
26. Nwaniki, C. Kenya Plans March Rollout of Mobile Phone-Based T-Bond. Business Daily, 11 January 2016.
27. Laukkanen, T. Internet vs. Mobile Banking: Comparing Customer Value Perceptions. Bus. Process Manag. J.
2007, 13, 788–797. [CrossRef]
28. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: Glencoe, UK, 1962.
29. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward
a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
30. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes & Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice Hall: Sydney, Australia, 1985.
31. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.
MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [CrossRef]
32. Nduneseokwu, C.K.; Qu, Y.; Appolloni, A. Factors Influencing Consumers’ Intentions to Participate in
a Formal E-Waste Collection System: A Case Study of Onitsha, Nigeria. Sustainability 2017, 9, 881. [CrossRef]
33. Chung, N.-H.; Koo, C.-M.; Lee, K.-M. Assessing the Impact of Mobile Technology on Exhibition Attendees’
Unplanned Booth Visit Behaviour. Sustainability 2017, 9, 884. [CrossRef]
34. Tobbin, P. The Adoption of Transformational Mobile Banking by the Unbanked. Digiworld Econ. J. 2012, 86,
103–223.
35. Lu, J.; Yu, C.-S.; Liu, C.; Yao, J.E. Technology Acceptance Model for Wireless Internet. J. Internet Res. 2003, 13,
206–222. [CrossRef]
36. Lee, K.-S.; Lee, H.-S.; Kim, S.-Y. Factors Influencing the Adoption Behavior of Mobile Banking: A South
Korean Perspective. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 2007, 12, 92–114.
37. Gefen, D.; Karahanna, E.; Straub, D.W. Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model. MIS Q.
2003, 27, 51–90. [CrossRef]
38. Chen, Y.; Yan, X.; Fan, W.; Gordon, M. The Joint Moderating Role of Trust Propensity and Gender on
Consumers’ Online Shopping Behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 43, 272–283. [CrossRef]
39. Jacoby, J.; Kaplan, L.B. The Components of Perceived Risk. Adv. Consum. Res. 1972, 3, 382–393.
40. McKnight, D.H.; Choudhury, V.; Kacmar, C. Developing and Validating Trust Measures for E-Commerce:
An Integrative Typology. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 334–359. [CrossRef]
41. Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Baptista, G.; Campos, F. Mobile Payment: Understanding the Determinants of
Customer Adoption and Intention to Recommend the Technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 404–414.
[CrossRef]
42. Duane, A.; O’Reilly, P.; Andreev, P. Realising M-Payments: Modelling Consumers’ Willingness to M-Pay
Using Smart Phones. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 318–334. [CrossRef]
43. Federal Reserve Bank. Current Use of Mobile Banking and Payments. Available online: https://
www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/mobile-devices/2012-current-use-mobile-banking-payments.htm
(accessed on 30 June 2017).
44. Kasekende, L. Mobile Money Services—Talking Points. Available online: http://nyucted.org/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/louis-kasekende-mobile-money-uganda2.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2017).
45. Morawczynski, O. Fraud in Uganda: How Millions Were Lost to Internal Collusion. Available online: https://
www.cgap.org/blog/fraud-uganda-how-millions-were-lost-internal-collusion (accessed on 30 June 2017).
46. Al-Jabri, I.M. The Intention to Use Mobile Banking: Further Evidence from Saudi Arabia. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.
2015, 46, 23–34.
47. Zhou, T. Understanding the Determinants of Mobile Payment Continuance Usage. Ind. Manag. Data Syst.
2014, 114, 936–948. [CrossRef]
48. McKnight, D.H.; Chervany, N.L. What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships:
An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. Int. J. Electron. 2002, 6, 35–59. [CrossRef]
49. Zhou, T. An Empirical Examination of Initial Trust in Mobile Payment. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 2014, 77,
1519–1531. [CrossRef]
50. Lu, Y.; Yang, S.; Chau, P.Y.K.; Cao, Y. Dynamics between the Trust Transfer Process and Intention to Use
Mobile Payment Services: A Cross-Environment Perspective. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 393–403. [CrossRef]
51. Park, J.-K.; Gunn, F.; Han, S.-L. Multidimensional Trust Building in E-Retailing: Cross-Cultural Differences
in Trust Formation and Implications for Perceived Risk. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2012, 19, 304–312. [CrossRef]
52. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W. Consumer Trust in B2C E-Commerce and the Importance of Social Presence:
Experiments in E-Products and E-Services. Omega 2004, 32, 407–424. [CrossRef]
53. Lin, K.-M. Understanding Undergraduates’ Problems from Determinants of Facebook Continuance Intention.
Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 693–705. [CrossRef]
54. Thakur, R.; Srivastava, M. Adoption Readiness, Personal Innovativeness, Perceived Risk and Usage Intention
across Customer Groups for Mobile Payment Services in India. Internet Res. 2014, 24, 369–392. [CrossRef]
55. Lee, M.S.Y.; McGoldrick, P.J.; Keeling, K.A.; Doherty, J. Using ZMET to Explore Barriers to the Adoption of
3G Mobile Banking Services. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2003, 31, 340–348. [CrossRef]
56. Nel, J.; Boshoff, C. The Impact of Cross-Channel Cognitive Evaluations on the Continued Use Intentions of
Mobile Banking. Manag. Dyn. 2014, 23, 2–19.
57. Kasekende, L. What Role Does Financial Inclusion Play in the Policy Agenda for Inclusive Growth in
Sub-Saharan Africa? Development 2014, 57, 481–487. [CrossRef]
58. Kim, K.K.; Prabhakar, B. Initial Trust, Perceived Risk, and the Adoption of Internet Banking. Proc. ICIS 2000,
1, 537–543.
59. Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Piercy, N.C.; Williams, M.D. Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of
Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust.
Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 860–873. [CrossRef]
60. Yang, K. The Effects of Technology Self-Efficacy and Innovativeness on Consumer Mobile Data Service
Adoption between American and Korean Consumers. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2010, 22, 117–127. [CrossRef]
61. Faqih, K.M.S. Exploring the Influence of Perceived Risk and Internet Self-Efficacy on Consumer Online
Shopping Intentions: Perspective of Technology Acceptance Model. Int. Manag. Rev. 2013, 9, 67–78.
62. Zhou, T. Examining Location-Based Services Usage From the Perspectives of Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology and Privacy Risk. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 135–144.
63. López-Nicolás, C.; Molina-Castillo, F.J.; Bouwman, H. An Assessment of Advanced Mobile Services
Acceptance: Contributions from TAM and Diffusion Theory Models. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 359–364.
[CrossRef]
64. Zhou, T. Exploring Mobile User Acceptance Based on UTAUT and Contextual Offering. In Proceedings of
the International Symposium on Electronic Commerce and Security, Guangzhou, China, 3–5 August 2008;
pp. 241–245.
65. Chen, K.-Y.; Chang, M.-L. User Acceptance of “near Field Communication” Mobile Phone Service:
An Investigation Based on the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” Model. Serv. Ind. J.
2013, 33, 609–623. [CrossRef]
66. Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. Int. J.
Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [CrossRef]
67. Wang, E.S.-T.; Lin, R.-L. Perceived Quality Factors of Location-Based Apps on Trust, Perceived Privacy Risk,
and Continuous Usage Intention. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 36, 2–10. [CrossRef]
68. Jarvenpaa, S.; Tractinsky, N.; Saarinen, L. Consumer Trust in an Internet Store: A Cross-Cultural Validation.
J. Comput. Commun. 1999, 5, 1–35. [CrossRef]
69. Jack, W.; Suri, T. Risk Sharing and Transactions Costs: Evidence from Kenya’s Mobile Money Revolution.
Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 183–223. [CrossRef]
70. Zhu, Y.; Chen, H. Service Fairness and Customer Satisfaction in Internet Banking. Internet Res. 2012, 22,
482–498. [CrossRef]
71. Zhou, T. An Empirical Examination of Initial Trust in Mobile Banking. Internet Res. 2011, 21, 527–540.
[CrossRef]
72. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research;
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975.
73. Kwee-Meier, S.; Butzler, J.; Schlick, C. Development and Validation of a Technology Acceptance Model for
Safety-Enhancing, Wearable Systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 35, 394–409. [CrossRef]
74. Malhotra, N.K.; Kim, S.-S.; Agarwal, J. Internet Users’ Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct,
the Scale, and a Causal Model. Info Sys. Res. 2004, 15, 336–355. [CrossRef]
75. Chuchird, R.; Sasaki, N.; Abe, I. Influencing Factors of the Adoption of Agricultural Irrigation Technologies
and the Economic Returns: A Case Study in Chaiyaphum Province, Thailand. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1524.
[CrossRef]
76. Zikmund, W.G. Business Research Methods, 7th ed.; Thomson/South-Western: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2003.
77. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modelling (PLS-SEM); SAGE Publications, Inc.: London, UK, 2014.
78. Anderson, J.; Gerbing, D. Structural Equation Modelling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step
Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [CrossRef]
79. Park, J.-Y.; Sung, C.-S.; Im, I. Does Social Media Use Influence Entrepreneurial Opportunity? A Review of Its
Moderating Role. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1593. [CrossRef]
80. Chin, W.W.; Newsted, P.R. Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial
Least Squares. In Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research; Hoyle, R.H., Ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999.
81. Lu, J.; Wei, J.; Yu, C.-S.; Liu, C. How Do Post-Usage Factors and Espoused Cultural Values Impact Mobile
Payment Continuation? Behav. Inf. Technol. 2016, 36, 140–164. [CrossRef]
82. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International
Marketing. Adv. Int. Mark. 2009, 20, 277–319.
83. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for
Business Research; Marcoulides, G.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1998.
84. Hair, J.F.; Bill, B.; Barry, B.; Rolph, E.A. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 2009.
85. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.-J. On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94.
[CrossRef]
86. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for
Research and Practice. CAIS 2000, 4, 1–70.
87. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. J. Mark. 1981, 1, 39–50. [CrossRef]
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 09 02233 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 09 02233 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 09 02233 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Received: 30 October 2017; Accepted: 1 December 2017; Published: 3 December 2017

Sustainability 2017, 9, 2233; doi:10.3390/su9122233 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2.1. Mobile Money

2.2. Mobile Money Adoption in East Africa

Figure 1. Research model.

3.2. Meaning of Trust in Mobile Money

3.3. Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

3.4. Self-Efficacy and Mobile Money

Hypothesis 1 (H1). Self-efficacy positively impacts structural assurance.

3.5. Self-Efficacy and Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

Hypothesis 2 (H2). Self-efficacy negatively impacts perceived risk in mobile money.

3.6. Performance Expectancy of Mobile Money

Hypothesis 3 (H3). Self-efficacy is positively related to performance expectancy of mobile money.

3.7. Performance Expectancy and Perceived Risk of Mobile Money

3.8. Trust Belief and Perceived Risk in Mobile Money

3.10. Performance Expectancy and Trust Belief in Mobile Money

3.11. Behavioral Intention and Trust/Risk Beliefs in Mobile Money

4.1. Design of the Study and Sampling Distribution

S = Z2 × p × 1 − p/(margin of error)2 (1)

Sadjusted = (S)/1 + [(S − 1)/population] (2)

4.2. Measurement Development

5. Data Analysis and Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

5.2. Analysis of Results

Table 1. Questionnaire items used in the study.

Construct Item Code Survey Statement Likert Scale Source

Construct Item Code Survey Statement Likert Scale Source

Table 2. Respondent demographic profile.

Measure Items Frequency Percentage

5.3. Measurement Model

Table 3. Reliability and inter-construct correlations.

Table 4. Matrix of loadings and cross-loadings.

5.4. Structural Model

Table 5. Summary of hypothesis testing results.

6.2. Theoretical Contribution

6.3. Implications for Research

6.4. Implications for Practice

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

You might also like