The Factor Influence Customer Intention to Use

Cashless Payment System:

A Case Study of QR Code Payment System in Bangkok, Thailand
Sananporn Punyaratpukdee
Graduate School of Business, Assumption University, Thailand

Rawin Vongurai
Ph.D., Graduate School of Business, Assumption University, Thailand

Abstract:

Innovation in technology has a great impact to people’s lives, it help facilitate and
simplify a business to be more effective. Thai Government currently supports a cashless society
and QR Code technology is one of the tools which is easy, fast, safe, and convenience that does
not require additional and costly equipment or device which can enhance idea of cashless
society. This research has studied on the factors that influence intention to use QR code payment
system. The target population is people who have banking application and live in Bangkok area
in Thailand. Non-probability convenience and snowball sampling are the method used on data
collecting process. To analyze the data, Simple Linear Regression, Multiple Linear Regression
and One-way ANOVA have been applied. The result in this research paper show that perceived
usefulness, perceived risk and perceived ease of use are significantly influence intention to use
QR code payment system. Beside, self-efficacy and perceived risk also significantly influence
perceived usefulness of using QR code payment system as well as self-efficacy has significantly
influence on perceived ease of use of QR code payment system.

Keywords: QR Code, QR Code payment, cashless payment system, technology acceptance

model, self-efficacy, perceived risk, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, intention to use

1
1. Introduction
QR Code is one of the mobile payment systems as tools to enhance cashless society. QR
Code payment is one of the tools that can help reach the goal. QR code stands for Quick
Response code as a matrix barcode; it runs by retrieving information after scanning through
application on Smartphone (Elizabeth Berndt-Morris & Kari Chrenka, 2014). QR Code is high
capacity encoding of data with small print out size, Ashford (2010) said that easy way to present
content at point of need is by using QR code that can store enough data. To use QR code as
payment tools, merchant has to have the print out QR code that contain bank account number
provided from bank and user has to have a smartphone with camera and banking application that
QR code payment system available. When making a payment, user scans the QR code, type in
the amount that they want to transfer, the process is secured since the security code is required to
allow the transaction (SCB, 2018).

At present, Thai government is promoting a cashless society policy as a believe that it

would benefit all stakeholders such as government, merchant and customer and stimulate
business transaction (Aseantoday, 2018). Bank of Thailand (BOT) has approved five commercial
banks operating in Thailand to introduce QR code e-payment service as a choice for payment
transaction without extra device or service fee (Nationmultimedia, 2018). China is one of the
countries that widely and successfully adopted QR code payment with a famous cashless
payment system called WeChat pay and Alipay (Yang, 2017) as the attempt to cut down a fraud,
facilitate business transaction and catchup with technology movement. Number of Chinese user
using mobile payment in 2016 reached to 38 trillion Chinese yuan which is more than half of
nation’s GDP (South China Morning Post, 2018).

The research aims to study the factor influencing user intention to use QR code payment
system in Bangkok, Thailand. The factor investigating are perceived risk, perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness and self-efficacy, also a different intention to use QR code payment system
among age group.

2
2. Review of Literature

Self-Efficacy (SE)

Self-efficacy can be defined as one’s judgement or beliefs on the capabilities to execute

action required to manage the anticipated situation (Bandura, 1994). User behavior is affected
from self-efficacy or self-ability whether they choose to perform in form of the level of effort
they put and amount of time they would like to use to overcome a task (Bandura, 1986). Self-
Efficacy also influence a tension of individual that directly related to perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use of trying new technology (Hansan, 2007).

Perceived Usefulness (PU)

Perceived usefulness is one of the factors in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM);
Davis (1989) stated that perceiving level of new technology whether that new technology can
improve their performance has an impact on user’s new technology adoption which can be
referred as perceived usefulness. A study of factor influencing mobile payment using intention
has mentioned that perceived usefulness has high impact influencing intention to adopt Mobile
payment (Kim & Lee, 2010) which can also be referred to other technology adoption as well.

Perceived Risk (PR)

Perceived risk is a set of uncertainties consumers facing when purchasing a product or

using a service regarding to its consequences of usage (Duoc, Li, and Hong, 2006). From a
theoretical theory from Lim (2003) mentioned that consumer that face undesirable and other
uncertainty consequence after their decision, action or purchase, they would perceived it as a risk
they have to take. Risk that customer perceived can be in several aspects such as psychological,
time, physical, social and financial, it subjective to each individual expectation (Greatorex &
Mitchell, 1994). For the study, risk may be perceived as a chance that customer data might be
stolen while transmitting a transaction.

3
Perceived Ease of use (PE)

From Davis’s study (1989) mentioned about factor influence user to use or not use new
technology is up to believe if the technology is easy to use or not, if the technology is too hard to
use, user might not adopt it even they perceived its usefulness, the factor can simply put as a
perceive ease of use. Guriting and Ndubisi (2006) discovered a significant relationship between
perceived ease of use and behavioral intention using online banking and e-payment service in
Malaysia.

3. Research Framework

The framework using in this research is adopted from a theoretical framework from
research of customer acceptance of cashless payment system in hospitality industry (Ahmet,
2016) to find impact and relationship of customer’s acceptance on cashless payment in case of
QR code payment in Thailand. The investigated factors consist of self-efficacy, perceived
usefulness, perceived risk, perceived ease of use and intention to use. The Hypotheses in
this research are,

H1: Self Efficacy (H1a), Perceived risk (H1b) and Perceived ease of use (H1c) have significant
influence on Perceived Usefulness of QR Code payment System

H2: Self Efficacy has significant influence to Perceived Ease of Use of QR Code payment
System

H3: Perceived Usefulness (H3a), Perceived Risk (H3b) and Perceived Ease of Use (H3c) have
significant influence to intention to use of QR Code payment System

H4: There is a significant mean different among Age on Intention to Use QR Code payment
System

4
Figure 1: conceptual Framework (developed by the researcher of this study)
Age
-Below 20
-21-35
-36-50
Perceived H3b
H1a -More than 50
Usefulness (PU)
Self-Efficacy
(SE)
H4
H2

H1b Intention to use QR

Perceived Risk Code Payment
(PR) System (IU)
H3a H1c
H3c
Perceived
Ease of use (PE)

Research Methodology

Examining the four hypotheses, researcher uses quantitative approach with non-
probability method collecting data from both offline and online questionnaire for analysis. The
respondents are selected by convenience sampling technique and snowball technique. There are
3 part in questionnaire which are screening question, Likert scale and demographic. Five-Point
Likert scale is used with range mentioned, 5 as ‘Strongly Agree’ and 1 as ‘Strongly Disagree’ to
measure the hypotheses. Also, we use other case studies, news, research paper, preference book
and journal a related to the subject as secondary data.

Measurement of Variables

The target respondents for this research are Thais who live in Bangkok area having a
mobile banking application.

Population and sample

Questionnaire both online and offline are reached to 449 respondents living in Bangkok,
Thailand using non-probability convenience sampling and snowball technique with a screen
question asking ‘do you have a mobile application’, only 400 respondents were qualified.

5
Reliability test

To test the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, a pilot test was used by
distributing 30 questionnaires to 30 different respondents regardless of being out target customer
or not, and Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient is also used to determine if the questionnaire is reliable
and all question for each variables are valid as the Cronbach value is greater than 0.7 (Cronbach,
1951) as show in table 1.

Variable Cronbach's Alpha Number of items

Self-Efficacy 0.895 6
Perceived Usefulness 0.783 4
Perceived Ease of Use 0.953 3
Perceived Risk 0.783 4
Intention to Use 0.987 3
Table 1: Consistency of Scale Test (N=30)

4. Result and Discussion

We analyze the data using statistical analysis software finding impact, relationship and
difference between dependent variable and independent variable. The statistical method using in
the research are simple linear regression, multiple linear regression and one way Anova.

Demographic Analysis

Demographic factors that we conducted as a description of basis information of 400

respondents who have a mobile banking application detail as follow,

Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender
Male 192 48.0%
Female 208 52.0%
Age
Below 20 98 24.5%
21-35 106 26.5%
36-50 102 25.5%
More than 50 94 23.5%

6
 Frequency Percentage (%)
Education
Below Bachelor Degree 123 30.8%
Bachelor Degree 168 42.0%
Higher than Bachelor Degree 109 27.2%
Occupation
Office Worker 159 39.8%
Entrepreneur 68 17.0%
Student 115 28.7%
Freelance 31 7.8%
Unemployed 4 1.0%
Others 23 5.7%
Income
Below 15,000 THB 102 25.4%
15,001-30,000 THB 62 15.5%
30,001-45,000 THB 67 16.8%
45,001-60,000 THB 78 19.5%
More than 60,000 THB 91 22.8%
Table 2: Demographic Information of respondents (N=400)

Table 2 represents demographic information of 400 respondents who have a mobile

banking application, the number of male and female respondent are 48% and 52% respectively.
Similar percentage respondent for age below 20 years old for 24.5%, 21-35 years old 26.5%, 36-
50 years old 25.5% and more than 50 years old 23.5%. The majority of the respondents finishes a
bachelor degree for 42% follow by below bachelor for 30.8% and higher than bachelor degree
for 27.3%. Most of the respondents currently work as an office worker foe 39.8% follow by
student, entrepreneur, freelance and unemployed for 28.7%, 17%, 7.8% and 1% respectively, we
also have others occupation such as doctor, housewife, and government officer for 5.8% . The
respondents earning lower than 15,000 THB is the majority.

Descriptive Research and Correlation Matrix

From Pearson’s correlation coefficient is a statistical measure of the strength of a

relationship between data (Statstutor, 2018). The correlation coefficient value varies from -1 to

7
1, -1 means, strongly negative relationship and 1 means, strongly positive relationship where
0.2-0.39 means weak positive correlation , 0.40-0.59 means moderate positive correlation and
0.60-0.79 mean strong positive correlation. (Evans, 1996)

Table3: Descriptive Analysis and Correlation Matrix (N=400)

Variable Mean SD IU SE PR PE PU
IU 3.8333 0.84936 1
SE 3.9337 0.86368 0.358* 1
PR 3.3975 0.68239 0.589* 0.241* 1
PE 4.0126 0.65289 0.609* 0.262* 0.565* 1
PU 3.8194 0.72615 0.734* 0.416* 0.573* 0.616* 1
Note: *correlation is Significant at 0.05 levels (1-tailed)

From Table 3 Pearson Correlation were tested on each variables (Likert Scale with 5-
Stongly Agree and 1-Stongly Disagree), the result showed all weak, moderate and strong
positive relationship between each variables, intention to use (IU) and self-efficacy (SE) at 0.358
means weak positive correlation, intention to use and perceived risk (PR) at 0.589 means
moderate positive correlation, intention to use and perceived ease of use (PE) at 0.609 means
moderate positive correlation, perceived usefulness and self-efficacy at 0.416 means moderate
positive correlation, perceived risk and self-efficacy at 0.241 means weak positive correlation
and perceived ease of use and self-efficacy at 0.262 means weak positive correlation and
Perceived risk and perceived ease of use (PE) at 0.565 means moderate positive correlation. All
of variables tested have p-value less than 0.05 significant levels.

Inferential Analysis

To find impact, influence and significant mean different of hypothesis we set, Simple
linear regression analysis (SLR), Multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) and one-way
ANOVA analysis of variance (ANOVA) at 0.05 significant level were applied appropriately to
each hypotheses on this research together with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) to investigate a
critical multicollinearity problem in this study at VIF>5 (Ringle, Wende&Becker, 2015).

8
H1: Self Efficacy (H1a), Perceived risk (H1b) and Perceived ease of use (H1c) have significant
influence on Perceived Usefulness of QR Code payment System

Table 4: Result of Regression for H1, DV: Perceived usefulness (PU)

Standard
Variable VIF
Coefficient (β)
Self-Efficacy 0.244* 1.088
Perceived Risk 0.385* 1.507
Perceived Ease of Use 0.297* 1.490
R-Square 0.509
Adjusted R-Square 0.505
* Beta coefficient is reported with P-value less than 0.05

Table 4 showed that 𝑅 2 equal to 0.509 or 50.9% of perceived usefulness can be explained
by Self-efficacy, perceived risk and perceived ease of use at 0.05 significant levels and p’-value
of each variable are less than 0.05, so, the hypothesis is supported. The impact level or standard
coefficient of beta of each independent variable, self-efficacy, perceived risk and perceived ease
of use are 0.244, 0.385, and 0.297 respectively. All independent variable also have been tested
on multicollinearity problem through VIF and resulted on self-Efficacy at 1.088, perceived risk
at 1.507 and perceived ease of use at 1.490 means, there are no critical problem in this study.

H2: Self-Efficacy has significant influence to Perceived Ease of Use of QR Code payment
System
Table 5: Result of Regression for H1, DV: Perceived Ease of Use (PE)
Standard
Variable VIF
Coefficient (β)
Self-Efficacy 0.262* 1.00
R-Square 0.068
Adjusted R-Square 0.066
* Beta coefficient is reported with P-value less than 0.05

Table 5 showed the 𝑅 2 equal 0.068 means, 6.8% of perceived ease of use (PE) can be
explained by self-efficacy (SE). At significant level of 0.05 where the p-value of variable is less
than 0.05, Self-efficacy has positive impact on perceived ease of use with a Standard Coefficient
of beta coefficient at 0.262. VIF is equal to 1 which considered as no critical multicollinearity
problem in this research. Therefore, the hypothesis is supported

9
H3: Perceived Usefulness (H3a), Perceived Risk (H3b) and Perceived Ease of Use (H3c) have
significant influence to intention to use of QR code Payment system

Table 6: Result of Regression for H1, DV: Intention to Use QR Code Payment System

Standard
Variable VIF
Coefficient (β)
Perceive Usefulness 0.509* 1.83
Perceived Ease of use 0.187* 1.808
Perceived Risk 0.192* 1.67
R-Square 0.775
Adjusted R-Square 0.6
* Beta coefficient is reported with P-value less than 0.05

Table 6 showed the 𝑅 2 equal 0.775 means, 77.5% of Intention to Use can be explained by
Perceive Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and Perceived Risk. At 0.05 significant levels and
the p-value of each variable are less than 0.05, therefore the hypothesis is supported. The
influence on Intention to use where the strongest impact comes from Perceived Usefulness at
0.509 Standard Coefficient of beta follow by Perceived Risk at 0.192 Standard Coefficient of and
Perceived Ease of use at 0.187 Standard Coefficient of beta. VIF less than 5 shows no critical
multicollinearity problem on Perceive Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and Perceived Risk
with the value of 1.83, 1.808 and 1.67 respectively.

H4: There is a significant mean different among Age on Intention to Use of QR code payment
system
Table 7: One way ANOVA test result, DV: Intention to Use QR Code Payment System
Sum of Mean
Age df F Sig
Square Square
Between Group 3.505 3 1.168 1.627 0.183
Within Group 284.338 396 0.718
Total 287.843 399

From Table 7, One-way ANOVA was run to test the mean different among age group,
the analysis of variance resulted that the effect intention to use QR code payment system among
age group was not significant because P-value is more than 0.05 means, there is no significant
mean different among age group. Therefore the hypothesis is not supported, F(3,396) = 1.627,
p=0.183.

10
5. Conclusion and Recommendation

The research study explained the factor influenced intention to use QR code payment
system of 400 respondents in Bangkok, Thailand. The independent variables for H1 are Self
Efficacy (H1a), Perceived risk (H1b) and Perceived ease of use (H1c) to Perceived Usefulness of
QR Code payment System while independent variable for H2 is Self-efficacy to Perceived Ease
of Use of QR Code payment System, follow by independent variables for H3 which are,
Perceived Usefulness (H3a), Perceived Risk (H3b) and Perceived Ease of Use (H3c) to intention
to use of QR Code payment System and lastly, independent variable is age to intention to use of
QR Code payment System. The result shows a positive significant influence from self-efficacy
and perceived risk to perceived usefulness where perceived risk has most influence to perceived
usefulness, follow by perceived ease of use and self-efficacy. Self-Efficacy has positively
significant influence on perceived ease of use. Lastly, Perceived risk, perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use have positively significant influence on intention to use QR code payment
where perceived usefulness has most influence to intention to use QR code payment system,
follow by perceived risk and perceived ease of use. Nevertheless, there is no significant mean
different among age group to intention to use QR code payment system.

As this research paper examine the factor related and influence on intention to use QR
code payment system such as self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, perceived risk, perceived
usefulness and age group. The research provide key influent factor that encourage the usage of
QR code payment system tested from 400 respondents. As the most influencing factor to
intention to use QR code payment system is the target user should perceive a usefulness of using
the payment system, the related parties should make the system and application fast enough to
finish each transaction within few steps where user can save time and other costs, for example,
from Liguo, Lou and Joon study (2017) shows that, outcome of using QR code payment increase
tourist customer satisfaction in tourism industry as it is a world-wide standard that complete
payment within few confirmation on mobile phone, it facilitates a tourism from getting confused
with currency different or needed of carry a lot of cash. Nautiyal (2017) said to make any
payment, merchant does not required to have specific or additional device to read for send the
request to bank for transection allowance. Both user and merchant can transfer the money
without worrying if any detail might be wrong without any additional cost such as card reader

11
device needed. For perceived risk which is the second large impact to intention to use QR code
payment system, the system itself has sufficient security as QR code is the intermediate
connecting user account to merchant account, before making any transfer, it required user to
utilize authentically authorization with biometric such as finger scan or numeric passcode (SCB,
2018), so, related parties should promote and publicize that payment through QR code system
via banking application is safe and easy. To enhance the usage of QR code payment, the system
also should be easy to use, self-efficacy is one factor that helps improve a perceived ease of use.
From the research question, we found that the user will be more confident if someone showing
them how to use QR code payment system or the application showing some instruction. QR code
payment system mainly has few steps to complete the transaction, Nautiyal (2017) mentioned,
QR code payment system can be a quick way to skip the step where a payer has to enter details,
user can capture the information such as merchant’s account number from scanning QR code,
and it reduces mistyping that might occur.

To conclude, the concerned parties such as government bank of Thailand, commercial

bank should first; government and bank of Thailand should have support on research and
development to support cashless society policy and develop the bridge of using single QR code
(Standardized QR Code) applied to all banks. Second, related parties should educate the
usefulness of using QR code payment system by communicate the benefit of doing the
transaction via QR code payment against cash payment such as QR code payment helps save
time, save cost that related to point of sale, and increase the efficiency with its quick completion
of transactions. Third, make sure the risk of using QR code payment such as a chance that
personal data being stolen should not happen. Fourth, the banking application should be easy to
use with instruction and detail, for example, the user can smoothly scan the QR code via banking
application with user friendly application interface. Lastly, target user should be educated on
how to use the application and QR code payment system by showing them how to use the
application for example, using a presenter showing a step-by-step payment via QR code payment
system for those who don’t yet have experience using QR code payment.

This study is conducted in pre-state of introducing mobile payment technology, even the
respondent has banking application on their mobile phone but only few respondents has direct
experiences using the QR code payment system, therefore, the further study should conduct with

12
real intention to use from actual user in order to have more precise and accurate result to develop
the factor influence intention to use QR code payment system. This research is specify scope the
study only a respondent living in Bangkok area while the government cashless payment policy
implied with whole nation of Thailand, so, for further study, country scale research is
recommended, together with the test on mean different among each parts in Thailand for
intention to use QR code payment system.

13
 Reference

Ahmet, B. O. (2016). Customer acceptance of cashless payment system in the hospitality

industry, Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Floruda, USA.

ASEANtoday (2018). Thailand could go cashless within three years.

Retrieved from: Thailand could go cashless within three years

Ashford, R. (2010), “QR codes and academic libraries: reaching mobile users”, College &
Research Libraries News, Vol. 71 No. 10, pp. 526-530.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1986), “Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Prentice-Hall”, Eaglewood

Cliffs, New Jersey.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,
16(3), 297-334. 13.

Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.

Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A. and Deng, X. (1998), “Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease-
of-use instruments for decision making: a confirmatory and multi-group invariance
analysis”, Decision Science, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 839-69.

Duoc, L., Hong, L. and Li, T. (2006), “The Perceived Risk and The Consumer Decision Making
Process”, Kristianstad University.

Evan, J, D. (1996). “Straightforward statistics for the behavioral science”. Pacific Grove,
CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Greatorex, M. and Mitchell, V.W. (1994), “Modeling consumer risk reduction preferences from
perceived loss data”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 669-85.

14
Guriting, P. and Ndubisi, N.O. (2006), “Borneo online banking: evaluating customer perceptions
and behavioral intention”, Management Research News, Vol. 29 Nos 1/2, pp. 6-15.

Hasan, B. (2007), “Examining the effects of computer self-efficacy and system complexity on
technology acceptance”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp.
76-88.

Kesharwani, A. and Bisht, S.S. (2012), “The impact of trust and perceived risk on internet
banking adoption in India: an extension of technology acceptance model”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 303-322.

Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010), “An empirical examination of factors influencing
the intention to use mobile payment”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp.
310-322

Liguo, L., Zilu T., and Joon, K. (2017) “Tourist Satisfaction Enhancement Using Mobile QR
Code Payment: An Empirical Investigation”, Sustainability 2017, 9, 1186

Lim, N. (2003), “Consumers’ perceived risk: sources versus consequences”, Electronic

Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 216-228.

Limsamarnphu, N. (2018), “Nationwide e-payment to push cashless society goal”,

Nationmultimedia. Retrieved from:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/business/30335150

Nautiyal, A. (2018), “Decoding QR Codes: Are they useful for merchant payments in emerging”
markets. Retrieved from:
https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/programme/mobile-money/decoding-qr-
codes-are-they-useful-for-merchant-payments-in-emerging-markets/

Ringle, C, M, Wende, S. and Becker, Jan-Michael. (2015). “SmartPLS 3 Bönningstedt:

SmartPLS”. Retrieved from: http://www.smartpls.com

SCB (2018). “How to use QR code payment via SCB Easy”, Retrieved from
http://www.scb.co.th/easypay/

15
South China Morning Post. (2018), “The rise of the QR code and how it has forever changed
China’s social habits”. Retrieved from:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2095576/rise-qr-code-and-how-it-has-
forever-changed-chinas-social-habits

Statstutor. (2018). Accessed 23 MAR 2018.

Retrieved from: http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pdf

Yang , W. (2017). “ANALYSIS ON ONLINE PAYMENT SYSTEMS OF E-COMMERCE”,

Business Information Technology, Oulu University of Applied Sciences.

16
 Appendix

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 10:55:39
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 30
File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data for all
variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=SE1 SE2 SE3
SE4 SE5 SE6
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.01
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

17
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.895 6

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
SE1 21.5000 9.155 .795 .864
SE2 21.7667 8.323 .974 .832
SE3 21.0333 11.689 .650 .897
SE4 21.2667 11.030 .611 .894
SE5 21.7667 8.323 .974 .832
SE6 21.8333 9.592 .510 .924

RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PU1 PU2 PU3 PU4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.

18
Reliability

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 10:57:09
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 30
File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data for all
variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PU1 PU2 PU3
PU4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.01
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

19
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.783 4

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
PU1 13.5000 3.431 .033 .953
PU2 12.1667 1.799 .855 .571
PU3 12.1667 1.592 .923 .516
PU4 12.0667 2.409 .743 .676

RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PE1 PE2 PE3
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.

20
Reliability

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 10:57:58
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 30
File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data for all
variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PE1 PE2 PE3
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

21
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.953 3

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
PE1 8.6333 1.895 .971 .878
PE2 8.5667 2.461 .909 .942
PE3 8.4667 2.051 .860 .969

RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.

22
Reliability

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 10:58:21
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 30
File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data for all
variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=PR1 PR2 PR3
PR4
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

23
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.783 4

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
PR1 11.6667 3.747 .436 .800
PR2 11.4333 3.426 .542 .753
PR3 11.7000 3.114 .713 .669
PR4 11.8000 2.648 .693 .673

RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=IU1 IU2 IU3
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.

24
Reliability

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 10:59:01
Comments
Input Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 30
File
Matrix Input
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data for all
variables in the procedure.
Syntax RELIABILITY
/VARIABLES=IU1 IU2 IU3
/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES')
ALL
/MODEL=ALPHA
/SUMMARY=TOTAL.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.00
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

25
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 30 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.987 3

Item-Total Statistics
Cronbach's
Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item
Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted
IU1 8.5333 2.395 .986 .973
IU2 8.5000 2.397 .966 .986
IU3 8.5667 2.185 .972 .985

26
Frequencies

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 21:41:04
Comments
Input Data /Users/Admin/Desktop/IR/IR.z
sav
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 400
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on all
cases with valid data.
Syntax FREQUENCIES
VARIABLES=Gender Age
Education Occuoation Income
/STATISTICS=MEAN
/ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.01
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

Statistics
Gender Age Education Occuoation Income
N Valid 400 400 400 400 400
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 1.5200 2.4800 1.9650 2.3050 2.9850

27
Frequency Table

Gender
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Male 192 48.0 48.0 48.0
Female 208 52.0 52.0 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Age
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Below 20 98 24.5 24.5 24.5
21-35 106 26.5 26.5 51.0
36-50 102 25.5 25.5 76.5
More than 50 94 23.5 23.5 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Education
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Below Bachelor Degree 123 30.8 30.8 30.8
Bachelor Degree 168 42.0 42.0 72.8
Higher than Bachelor Degree 109 27.3 27.3 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

Occupation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Office Worker 159 39.8 39.8 39.8
Entrepreneur 68 17.0 17.0 56.8
Student 115 28.7 28.7 85.5
Freelance 31 7.8 7.8 93.3
Unemployed 4 1.0 1.0 94.3
Others 23 5.8 5.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

28
 Income
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Below 15,000 THB 102 25.5 25.5 25.5
15,001-30,000 THB 62 15.5 15.5 41.0
30,001-45,000 THB 67 16.8 16.8 57.8
45,001-60,000 THB 78 19.5 19.5 77.3
More than 60,000 THB 91 22.8 22.8 100.0
Total 400 100.0 100.0

29
Regression for H1

Notes
Output Created 20-MAR-2018 08:41:46
Comments
Input Data /Users/Admin/Desktop/IR/IR.z
sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 400
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
variable used.
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS
R ANOVA COLLIN TOL ZPP
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT PU
/METHOD=ENTER SE PE
PR.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Memory Required 3696 bytes
Additional Memory Required 0 bytes
for Residual Plots

30
 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
PU 3.8194 .72615 400
SE 3.9337 .86368 400
PE 4.0126 .65289 400
PR 3.3975 .68239 400

Correlations
PU SE PE PR
Pearson Correlation PU 1.000 .416 .616 .573
SE .416 1.000 .262 .241
PE .616 .262 1.000 .565
PR .573 .241 .565 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) PU . .000 .000 .000
SE .000 . .000 .000
PE .000 .000 . .000
PR .000 .000 .000 .
N PU 400 400 400 400
SE 400 400 400 400
PE 400 400 400 400
PR 400 400 400 400

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
b
1 PR, SE, PE . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: PU
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .713 .509 .505 .51082

a. Predictors: (Constant), PR, SE, PE

31
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 107.055 3 35.685 136.755 .000b
Residual 103.333 396 .261
Total 210.387 399

a. Dependent Variable: PU
b. Predictors: (Constant), PR, SE, PE

Coefficientsa

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Std. Zero-
Model B Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part
1 (Constant) .222 .181 1.226 .221
SE .205 .031 .244 6.637 .000 .416 .316 .234
PE .428 .048 .385 8.899 .000 .616 .408 .313
PR .316 .046 .297 6.907 .000 .573 .328 .243

Coefficientsa
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
SE .919 1.088
PE .664 1.507
PR .671 1.490

a. Dependent Variable: PU

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Condition Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) SE PE PR
1 1 3.935 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .035 10.602 .00 .81 .04 .18
3 .018 14.800 .52 .17 .05 .59
4 .012 18.477 .48 .01 .91 .23
a. Dependent Variable: PU

32
Regression for H2

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 22:04:07
Comments
Input Data /Users/Admin/Desktop/IR/IR.z
sav
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 400
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
variable used.
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS
R ANOVA COLLIN TOL ZPP
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT PE
/METHOD=ENTER SE.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.01
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Memory Required 2720 bytes
Additional Memory Required 0 bytes
for Residual Plots

33
 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
PE 4.0126 .65289 400
SE 3.9337 .86368 400

Correlations
PE SE
Pearson Correlation PE 1.000 .262
SE .262 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) PE . .000
SE .000 .
N PE 400 400
SE 400 400

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
b
1 SE . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: PE
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .262 .068 .066 .63094

a. Predictors: (Constant), SE

34
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.639 1 11.639 29.237 .000b
Residual 158.439 398 .398
Total 170.078 399

a. Dependent Variable: PE
b. Predictors: (Constant), SE

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Zero-
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part
1 (Constant) 3.235 .147 21.963 .000
SE .198 .037 .262 5.407 .000 .262 .262 .262

Coefficientsa
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
SE 1.000 1.000

a. Dependent Variable: PE

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index (Constant) SE
1 1 1.977 1.000 .01 .01
2 .023 9.229 .99 .99

a. Dependent Variable: PE

35
Regression for H3

Notes
Output Created 17-MAR-2018 22:06:44
Comments
Input Data /Users/Admin/Desktop/IR/IR.z
sav
Active Dataset DataSet0
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 400
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics are based on cases
with no missing values for any
variable used.
Syntax REGRESSION
/DESCRIPTIVES MEAN
STDDEV CORR SIG N
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS
R ANOVA COLLIN TOL ZPP
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)
POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT IU
/METHOD=ENTER PU PE
PR.
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.01
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00
Memory Required 3696 bytes
Additional Memory Required 0 bytes
for Residual Plots

36
 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
IU 3.8333 .84936 400
PU 3.8194 .72615 400
PE 4.0126 .65289 400
PR 3.3975 .68239 400

Correlations
IU PU PE PR
Pearson Correlation IU 1.000 .734 .609 .589
PU .734 1.000 .616 .573
PE .609 .616 1.000 .565
PR .589 .573 .565 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) IU . .000 .000 .000
PU .000 . .000 .000
PE .000 .000 . .000
PR .000 .000 .000 .
N IU 400 400 400 400
PU 400 400 400 400
PE 400 400 400 400
PR 400 400 400 400

Variables Entered/Removeda
Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
b
1 PR, PE, PU . Enter

a. Dependent Variable: IU
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Square Estimate
a
1 .775 .600 .597 .53919

a. Predictors: (Constant), PR, PE, PU

37
 ANOVAa
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 172.717 3 57.572 198.031 .000b
Residual 115.127 396 .291
Total 287.843 399

a. Dependent Variable: IU
b. Predictors: (Constant), PR, PE, PU

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Correlations
Zero-
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. order Partial Part
1 (Constant) -.226 .179 -1.262 .208
PU .595 .050 .509 11.828 .000 .734 .511 .376
PE .243 .056 .187 4.371 .000 .609 .215 .139
PR .239 .051 .192 4.667 .000 .589 .228 .148

Coefficientsa
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
PU .546 1.832
PE .553 1.808
PR .599 1.670

a. Dependent Variable: IU

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Condition Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Index (Constant) PU PE PR
1 1 3.954 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .020 14.084 .63 .04 .01 .46
3 .016 15.944 .13 .66 .02 .51
4 .010 19.415 .24 .29 .97 .03

a. Dependent Variable: IU

38
One-way ANOVA for H4

Output Created 20-MAR-2018 08:35:52

Comments
Input Data /Users/Admin/Desktop/IR/IR.z
sav
Active Dataset DataSet1
Filter <none>
Weight <none>
Split File <none>
N of Rows in Working Data 400
File
Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values
are treated as missing.
Cases Used Statistics for each analysis
are based on cases with no
missing data for any variable
in the analysis.
Syntax ONEWAY IU BY Age
/STATISTICS
DESCRIPTIVES
HOMOGENEITY
BROWNFORSYTHE WELCH
/MISSING ANALYSIS
/POSTHOC=SCHEFFE
ALPHA(0.05).
Resources Processor Time 00:00:00.02
Elapsed Time 00:00:00.00

39
 Descriptives
IU
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
Below 20 98 3.9589 0.37083 .03746 3.8845 4.0332 2.67 4.67
21-35 106 3.6983 .85281 .08283 3.5341 3.8625 1.00 5.00
36-50 102 3.8494 .97167 .09621 3.6586 4.0403 1.33 5.00
More than 94 3.8369 1.03319 .10657 3.6253 4.0485 1.00 5.00
50
Total 400 3.8333 .84936 .04247 3.7498 3.9167 1.00 5.00

Test of Homogeneity of Variances

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
IU Based on Mean 23.832 3 396 .000
Based on Median 19.847 3 396 .000
Based on Median and with 19.847 3 326.787 .000
adjusted df
Based on trimmed mean 23.977 3 396 .000

ANOVA
IU
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 3.505 3 1.168 1.627 .183
Within Groups 284.338 396 .718
Total 287.843 399

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

IU
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 2.988 3 198.693 .032
Brown-Forsythe 1.624 3 312.624 .184

40
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: IU
Scheffe
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Lower Upper
(I) Age (J) Age (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound
Below 20 21-35 .26058 .11875 .188 -.0728 .5940
36-50 .10947 .11986 .841 -.2270 .4460
More than 50 .12196 .12233 .803 -.2215 .4654
21-35 Below 20 -.26058 .11875 .188 -.5940 .0728
36-50 -.15111 .11753 .648 -.4811 .1789
More than 50 -.13861 .12005 .721 -.4757 .1984
36-50 Below 20 -.10947 .11986 .841 -.4460 .2270
21-35 .15111 .11753 .648 -.1789 .4811
More than 50 .01250 .12115 1.000 -.3276 .3526
More than Below 20 -.12196 .12233 .803 -.4654 .2215
50 21-35 .13861 .12005 .721 -.1984 .4757
36-50 -.01250 .12115 1.000 -.3526 .3276

Homogeneous Subsets
IU
a,b
Scheffe
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Age N 1
21-35 106 3.6983
More than 50 94 3.8369
36-50 102 3.8494
Below 20 98 3.9589
Sig. .195

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are

displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 99.800.
b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic
mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.

41
 This Questionnaire is developed by Assumption University student on
Professional Evening Program as part of Individual Research subject (BP6955) aiming to
gather data for analysis on Customer acceptance of cashless payment systems in case of
Quick Response Code (QR Code) payment in Thailand. Your opinions and answer will be
kept as confidential and used for this research only.

Instructions: Please put a tick  in the box in front the answer of your choice or write in the
space provided.

Screening Question
Are you using mobile banking application in your mobile phone?
Yes, I do No (End of this questionnaire, Thank you for your cooperation)

Do you live in Bangkok?

Yes, I am No (End of this questionnaire, Thank you for your cooperation)

42
Likert Scale

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree

Self-efficacy (SE) 1 2 3 4 5

I could use QR Code Payment if someone else had

helped me
I could use QR Code Payment if I could call
someone for help when I got stuck

I could use QR Code Payment if someone showed

me how to do it first

I could use QR Code Payment if I had seen

someone else using it before trying it myself

I could use QR Code Payment if I had just built-in

help facility for assistance

I could use QR Code Payment if I had only

software manuals for reference

Perceived usefulness (PU) 1 2 3 4 5

I believe payment transactions would be difficult

to perform without QR Code Payment

I believe using QR Code Payment saves me time

Overall, I find QR Code Payment useful

I believe using QR Code Payment enhances the

effectiveness of the payment process

43
 Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree Agree

Perceived ease of use (PE) 1 2 3 4 5

I believe using QR Code Payment will not make

me more confused

I believe my interaction with QR Code Payment

will be easy to understand

Overall, I believe QR Code Payment is easy to

use

Perceived risk (PR) 1 2 3 4 5

QR Code Payment would not frustrate because of

its poor performance

QR Code Payment would be effective as I think

QR Code Payment would be worth its cost

Comparing with other technologies, QR Code

Payment do not have more uncertainties

Intention to use (IU) 1 2 3 4 5

Given the chance I intend to use QR Code

Payment

Given the chance I predict that I should use QR

Code Payment

Given the chance I plan to use QR Code Payment

44
Demographic

1. Gender
Male Female

2. Age
Below 20 21 – 35
36 – 50 More than 50

3. Education
Below Bachelor Degree Bachelor Degree
Higher than Bachelor Degree

4. Occupation
Office worker Entrepreneur
Student Self-employed
Unemployed Other, please specify ______

5. Income (per month)

Below 15,000 Baht 15,001 - 30,000 Baht
30,001 - 45,000 Baht 45,001 - 60,000 Baht
More than 60,000 Baht

**********End of Questionnaire, Thank you for your cooperation**********

45