“Consumer’s Resistance to

Innovation”
A study based on Digital
Payment/Fintech Solutions in India

(Mater thesis for the purpose of PhD admission)

Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 3
2. Research Questions ........................................................................................................................ 4
3. Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Understanding theoretical framework ................................................................................... 4
3.2 Formulation of Hypothesis...................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Data Collection, Survey design and Sampling ......................................................................... 7
3.4 Analysis of Data ....................................................................................................................... 7
4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Annex ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Abstract

Indian consumers are conservative by nature. Till 2014, the digital payment footprint in India was
less than 4% in urban areas and less than 1% in rural areas. There were certain inhibitions against
digital payments and cash was the primary mode of retail payment with over 97% retail
transactions done in cash and cash equivalents. Post 2014, penetration of smartphones,
availability of internet at affordable price and government policies opened the door for
innovative payment solutions. By 2017 the economy witnessed a growing demand for Peer-to-
peer (P2P) payments, e-commerce or utility bill payments platforms and other innovative
payment solutions. The development of digital infrastructure in India stands out by providing a
strong technological ecosystem for the digital payments industry. The sector refers to electronic
consumer transactions- which include payment for goods and services that are made over the
internet, mobile payment at Point-of-Sale (POS), and Peer to Peer (P2P) transfer between private
users. Till 2015 the sector was dominated by few major companies such as Paytm, Freecharge,
Mobikwik, PayUMoney etc. In line with planned reforms, the Government has pushed India to
adopt cashless transactions giving the digital sector a significant boost. The sector has
experienced an unprecedented growth in Nov’16 when the government demonetized high
currency bills (INR 500/1000) which represented 86 percent India’s cash in circulation. There was
an acute cash crunch because of which a significant population tried adopting new payment
solutions (mostly mobile wallets). In fact, the acceptance of these innovative payment solutions
and mobile wallets also increased manifold as many of the retailers and online players started
accepting various modes of payments post demonetization. Seeing the new era of opportunity,
many Indian banks and also foreign players invested significantly which resulted in plethora of
payment service providers, (e.g. Airtel Money, Axis bank LIME, Vodafone MPesa, Idea money,
State Bank buddy, PhonePe, Samsung Pay) by end of 2017.
While the digital payment landscape in India will most likely continue to grow in coming years
boosted by increased used of smartphones, affordable internet and government policies, the
biggest challenge will be to change the mindset of both customers and sellers. While trust, safety,
data security, lack of internet savviness etc. can be some of the known factors which can result
in inhibition of accepting digital payment as a preferred mode of transaction, many little known
factors related to consumer psychology and consumer’s resistance might play a key role in
adoption of new payment solutions. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse the
relationship between consumers' resistance and different innovation and consumers'
characteristics. Thereafter, important factors are identified that mainly affect/determine
consumers' resistance to digital payment solutions.

The growth of digital payment solution in India during the period 2013-17 is a “radical
innovation” or “disruption”. Any form of radical innovation faces significantly more consumer
resistance as compared to “incremental innovation” which by its natural process gives time to
people for adoption (Garcia et al., 2007, Heiskanen et al. 2007). Therefore, consumer adoption
and evolution make a significant difference in overall success of the innovation. Consumer
resistance can inhibit and/or postpone the spread of digital payments and thus has important
implications for the management of digital payment firms, policymakers and end users. Hence
studying the factors affecting consumer resistance to digital payment can provide useful
information that affects consumer behaviour towards innovation. In this paper we will
empirically examine different consumer characteristics and innovation characteristics that play a
role in consumer resistance to innovation and will try to identify critical factors in relation to
resistance towards digital payment solutions in India.

1. Literature Review

It is important to understand the theoretical framework behind “consumer resistance” which has
been presented in many research, with a focus on consumer resistance specific to technology
innovations. Consumers' resistance to innovation has been defined as “The resistance offered by
consumers to an innovation, either because it poses potential changes from a satisfactory status
quo or because it conflicts with their belief structure.” (Ram & Sheth, 1989, p. 6). Although in
past, many technology innovations provided extensive benefits and improved functionalities,
researchers found that consumers were not favourable about some of these innovations
resulting in failure. While studies have been done to analyse the results of such failures and often
the traditional 4Ps (Price, Product, Place, Promotion) of marketing have been made responsible
for such failure, a more in depth analysis focusing on consumer psychology may surface
“consumer resistance” as one of the key reason for innovation failure.

“Consumer characteristics” (psychological characteristics of consumer) and “Innovation

Characteristics” (outcome and effect of innovation) are two absolutely important parameters for
consumer adoption (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, W. Robert, 1998). Sheth (1981) researched
psychology of innovation resistance and proposed two psychological constructs which are very
useful in understanding the psychology of innovation resistance. These two constructs are
“habit/behaviour towards existing products” and “perceived risk” of switching to new product.
In similar lines, extending Seth’s constructs, He et al. (2006) carried out a research on consumer
resistance to online e-payment and found that “compatibility” and “relative advantage” are
positively and “complexity” is negatively related to consumer adoption. A more focused research
on acceptance of mobile banking among more matured consumers Laukkanen et al. (2007)
pointed out various innovation characteristics factors such as cost v/s perceived value, perceived
risk, usage etc. Another important model which has been referenced in many researches is
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) which states that willingness to use a new technology
product is determined by “Perceived Usefulness (PU)” and “Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU)”,
“Perceived Risk” and “Self Efficacy”.

One of the limitation of the existing literatures on consumer resistance is, while there is a number
of literature on theoretical aspects of resistance, very few studies have empirically examined
consumers’ psychology that can make good understanding of innovation resistance. Hence this
empirical study of consumer resistance based on consumer characteristics and innovation
characteristics can reveal some of the inherent factors that are responsible for such resistance.
This study can be useful for marketer/firms in digital payment industry to better predict
consumer’s reaction with new products and help them to minimize the risk of consumer
resistance. Also in broader context, the findings from this study can be extrapolated to analyse
overall consumer resistance towards innovation.

2. Research Questions

1) What are the underlying “innovation characteristics” and “consumer characteristics” factors
that lead to consumer resistance to digital payment?
2) Out of those “innovation characteristics” and “consumer characteristics” factors- what is the
relative importance.
3) What is the inter-relationship among the innovation & consumer characteristics factors?

3. Research Methodology

3.1 Understanding theoretical framework

Any innovation creates some degree of potential changes from the existing status quo and some
deviation from the existing belief structure (Ram & Sheth 1989). Acceptance of a new product
largely depends on stability and the satisfaction level of the existing status quo. Also Acceptance
is dependent on various aspects like interpersonal factors (e.g. self-efficacy), external factors (e.g.
maturity of the market), usage of the product and familiarity, perceived value, perceived risk,
image and traditional or cultural barriers. Based on this, Ram & Sheth (1989) classified four type
of barriers a) Usage barrier- when the innovation is not in sync or compatible with consumers’
existing behaviour, practice, habits and maturity level. b) Value barrier- perceived benefit over
the cost of the product. c) Risk barrier- Perceived risk of product (e.g. unable to use, product
failure etc.). d) Traditional Barrier- Change in habits, change in cultural and belief system e) Image
Barrier- associated with innovation like the brand, country of manufacture/origin etc.
 Non acceptance (or resistance) of the product leads to three scenarios- rejection, postponement
and opposition. (Szmigin & Foxall, 1998, Mirella et al., 2009). On the other hand, “Acceptance”
of the product may not necessarily lead to willingness to use or buy due to various reasons. In
Ram’s model (1989) the underlying factors of innovation characteristics were relative advantage,
compatibility, perceived risk, complexity, and expectation of better product whereas the
underlying factors for consumer characteristics were perception, motivation, value orientation,
beliefs, previous experience of using similar innovative products, education, age income etc.

TAM Model (David, 1989), which is specific to consumer resistance to technology innovation can
be considered as subset of Rams model. According to TAM, the intention to use a new technology
is effected by the PU (Perceived Usefulness) and PEOU (Perceived Ease of Use) for the specific
technology. Yang (2005), Yui Chi et al. (2007), and Amin (2008) applied TAM model to examine
the effect of consumers’ characteristics factors on their attitude towards mobile commerce,
online banking etc. Another interesting study by Roberts and Pick (2004) used the TAM model in
conjunction with factors like reliability, data security, infrastructure (web connectivity, speed,
access etc.), technology and product suitability etc.

Roger’s model (1983) proposes five innovation characteristics which were used by He et al.
(2006). The model proposed five innovation characteristics (Relative Advantage, Compatibility,
Complexity, Trialability & Observability. He et al. (2006) used Roger‟s model to examine factors
affecting consumers' adoption, and found that compatibility and relative advantage are
positively and complexity is negatively related to consumers' adoption of Online E-payment.

In this study we have used all the above theoretical models and based on the same, we will study
following factors with respect to consumer resistance to digital payments.

# Parameter Reference Variable

1 Perceived Usefulness TAM Model Relative
advantage (RA)
2 Perceived Ease of Use TAM Model Complexity (C )
3 Perceived Ease of Use TAM Model Self-efficacy (SE)
4 Innovation Characteristics-Usage Ram & Sheth Compatibility (CP)
Barrier
5 Innovation Characteristics -Risk Barrier Ram & Sheth Perceived risk (PR)
6 Innovation Characteristics -Image Ram & Sheth Perceived image
barrier (PI)
7 Consumer Characteristics- Motivation Ram & Sheth Motivation (M)
8 Consumer Characteristics -Attitude Ram & Sheth Attitude towards
towards existing products existing products
(AT)
Table 1: Factors impacting Consumer Resistance

1. Relative Advantage: Relative advantage is the degree by which the innovation is considered as
being better/superior than its predecessor (Tornatzky & Klein 1982; Holak & Lehmann 1990). An
example of relative advantage could be how digital mode of utility bill payment (e.g. Mobile
Wallet, UPI) is better/worse than traditional methods (e.g. by cash, cheque, wire transfer etc.).
This can be perceived in the form of economic benefit, social benefit, time saved etc.
2. Compatibility: Compatibility is the degree to which prospective consumers believe that the new
product fits with their socio-cultural norms or is consistent with existing values, past experiences,
 style, behaviour patterns, and needs (Dunphy & Herbig, 1995, Holak & Lehmann, 1990). If the
product is not compatible- there is a higher perceived risk and there is also a higher chance of
resistance.
3. Complexity: Complexity is the degree to which innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to
use, comprehend (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971, p. 154). In general, higher the complexity higher
the initial resistance and lower the initial innovation diffusion. Complexity can also have a
correlation with relative advantage in some cases as lower the complexity, higher the chances
that consumer will perceive it as less superior than others. However, this correlation can be
argued with specific examples in which “complexity” is viewed as a sign of superior quality and
hence better relative advantage.
4. Perceived Risk: Perceived risk refers to consumer’s subjective perception of uncertainty, loss, or
adverse consequences (Rahman 2015). Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) proposed five types of
perceived risks: financial risks, performance risks, physical risk, psychological risk and social risk.
Another scholar, Peter and Tarpey (1975), added the sixth risk, time risk. Perceived risk is
considered as one of the biggest factors in digital payment innovation as in general consumers
are sensitive about financial security of their hard earned money. On the other hand, in today’s
digital world data confidentiality is also a threat for digital payment industry. In general, higher
the perceived risk higher the consumer resistance.

Following are the definitions of the perceived risk dimensions (Jacoby & Kaplan 1972;
Hirunyawipada & Paswan 2006; Dholakia, 2001; Ram, 1989; Kuisma, Laukkanen & Hiltunen
2007).
a) Financial risk captures the financially negative outcomes for consumers after they adopt new
products. It is also called the fear of economic loss.
b) Performance risk concerns with the belief that the new product / innovation will not perform
as anticipated. It is also called the fear of performance uncertainty.
c) Physical risk is the perception that products will be physically harmful to adopters.
d) Time risk relates to the perception that the adoption and the use of the product will take too
much time (see e.g. Roselius 1971).
e) Social risk has to do with the negative responses from consumer’s social network. Ram called
it “the fear of social ostracism or ridicule”.
f) Psychological risk is the fear of psychological discomfort. The nervousness arising from the
anticipated post-purchase emotions such as frustration, disappointments, worry, and regret.
5. Motivation: As per Herzberg theory (1959), motivation can be extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic
motivation involves performing an activity for achieving other goals i.e. to gain other valued
outcomes rather than the activity itself (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992).
In general, both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations have an impact on consumer resistance,
Higher the motivation, lower the resistance.
6. Attitude towards existing products: This factor is quite generic and dependant on culture, social
values, tradition, norms & beliefs, economy etc. Customers satisfied with existing product are
unlikely to move to new innovative product and will show a stronger resistance. A classic example
in Indian context could be introduction of smartphone to elder generation. A significant portion
of elderly people showed a very strong resistance to smartphone because they were satisfied
with the existing features of non-smartphones. Consumers with strong favourable attitude
 toward existing products resist innovative products and continue using their existing products
until they fail to function (Wang et al., 2008).
7. Self-Efficacy: In simple terms self-efficacy is individual’s perception about his/her own capability
to use the product. Self-efficacy refers confidence in one’s ability and competence to manage
and perform the course of action required to perform a desired outcome. Self-efficacy is a
function of many parameters including personal interest, education, past similar experience etc.
In general, lower the self-efficacy higher the chances of resistance in case of innovative products.
Ellen et al. (1991) empirically verified that self-efficacy is also a factor that affects resistance to
technological innovations.

3.2 Formulation of Hypothesis

1. Lower the relative advantage higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.
2. Lower the compatibility higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.
3. Higher the complexity higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.
4. Higher the perceived risk higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.
5. Lower the motivation higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.
6. Higher the consumer’s preference to existing mode of payments, higher the consumer
resistance to use digital payment.
7. Higher the self-efficacy higher the consumer resistance to use digital payment.

3.3 Data Collection, Survey design and Sampling

Both primary and secondary data were collected for this research. Sources of secondary data
were books, articles, journals, online reports on digital payments by various companies etc. Since
aim of this research was to analyse the different factors impacting consumers’ resistance to
innovative digital payment solutions it was important to collect primary data. A survey
questionnaire was designed to capture various factors impacting consumers’ resistance to digital
payment.

A non-probability sampling method was chosen to reduce the cost and effort and with the
limitation of generalizing the outcomes. Among different methods of non-probability sampling,
convenience sampling was chosen as preferred method. A survey was designed and rolled out
in pilot mode to 40 students, professors & support staffs from university to get an initial
feedback. Based on their feedback, some of the questions were rephrased, some of the questions
were eliminated and replaced with others etc. All the responses were measured in Likert scale of
1-5 (where 5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree). Post that, the
final survey questionnaire was administered to 160 respondents. These respondents were across
different age groups (>15 and <70) and chosen by sending the emails to them requesting to
complete the questionnaire and forward to relevant people who can also answer the survey.

3.4 Analysis of Data

This paper aims to analyse the different factors which contribute to customers’ resistance to
digital payment and hence a multivariate analysis is performed through structural equation
modelling. Following a SEM, a hypothesis testing is performed and the results are estimated using
a Partial Least Square (PLS) and analysing the value and sign of coefficients. T-values are
considered with the rule of thumb that (t>2= significant), to accept or reject the null hypothesis.
 Factor
Factors Q# Variable Questions Load in
AMOS
Digital transactions
(e.g. wallet money
transfers, utility bill
payments etc.) are
Q1 Usability 0.79
easier as compared
to traditional
payment modes
(e.g. cash, cheques)
Digital transaction
platforms (mobile
wallets, credit/debit
cards) are well
integrated and
Q2 Acceptance accepted widely for 0.75
my daily needs as
compared to
traditional payment
Relative modes (e.g. cash,
Advantage cheques)
Digital transactions
offers good financial
incentives (cashback,
waiver of
Q3 Offers fees, loyalty points 0.82
etc.) as compared to
traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
It is more
fashionable and
trendy to use digital
Fashionable/ transactions as
Q4 0.59
Trendy compared to
traditional mode of
payments (e.g. cash,
cheque)
I can easily manage
digital transactions
with my digital
Compatible
infrastructure (e.g.
with my
Q5 handset, computer, 0.71
handset/compu
operating system,
ter
internet connection,
speed of connection
etc.)
Digital transactions
Compatible
suits my
Compatibility with my
Q6 lifestyle/work style 0.71
lifestyle/work
and cater to my daily
styles
needs
Compatible Digital transaction
Q7 0.69
with habits suits my habits
Digital transaction is
a good complement
to already existing
Q8 Complement 0.72
traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
 Knowledge I know how to use
Q9 0.75
about usage digital payment
I am confident of
using various digital
payment
Q10 Confidence 0.73
apps/websites and
end user
transaction process
I am comfortable to
use various digital
Self-efficacy
payment
Q11 Comfort 0.69
apps/websites and
end user transaction
process
I am aware of
different terms &
Terms & conditions of digital
Q12 0.45
Conditions transactions which I
perform/intend to
perform
It is
Intrinsic entertaining/exciting
Q13
Motivation to use digital 0.66
payments
Digital payments is
Extrinsic useful for my
Q14 0.72
Motivation occupation, fast-
paced lifestyle etc.
Digital payment is
useful for other
secondary purposes
Motivation (e.g. use wallet as
savings account, buy
Extrinsic digital gold etc.)
Q15 0.74
Motivation Note: Primary
purpose is defined as
transactional needs
(e.g. shopping, P2P
transfers, utility
payments etc.)
I intend to use digital
Q16 Intension payment in near 0.79
future
Digital payments
Usage
Q17 may be complex to 0.66
Complexity
use
Learning use of
Require skill,
digital payment need
Q18 knowledge and 0.7
skill, knowledge and
effort
Complexity effort
Digital payments
apps/websites are
Complexity to
complicated with too
Q19 understand 0.71
many features most
function
of which not useful
 Upgrading the app
regularly/
remembering user
Q20 Maintenance 0.82
credentials, updating
information etc. are
difficult
I am scared of
misuse/digital theft
Q21 Financial Risk and consequently 0.86
losing hard earned
money
I am scared of
sharing my personal
details, bank account
Q22 Data Risk 0.88
details because of
potential risk of data
theft, misuse etc.
Perceived Risk I am scared of
app/website/payme
nt system
Performance
Q23 malfunction/virus 0.87
Risk
/malware attacks
resulting in financial
loss/data loss etc.
I am scared of my
data going to wrong
Q24 Security Risk hand in case of theft 0.72
(laptop/smartphone
etc.)
I am satisfied with
traditional payments
Q25 Satisfaction with caters all me 0.86
needs reasonably
well
Attitude I do not like the idea
towards and design of digital
existing payment apps and
products websites cluttered
Concept/
Q26 with too many 0.71
Tradition
functionalities as
compared to simple
traditional payments

I will wait to use

digital payments till
Q27 Postponement 0.77
it is absolutely
necessary for me.
I will clarify my
Consumer's doubts, think again
Resistance and see how my
Q28 Postponement 0.69
(Dependent peers are doing
Variable) before using digital
payment.
 I will wait till I have 0.75
Q29 Postponement the right time and
infrastructure (e.g.
Laptop/stable
internet
connection/Smartph
one)
I will not use digital
Q30 Rejection payment it as I don’t 0.75
need it
I will not use digital
payment as I do not
Q31 Rejection want to put my 0.75
efforts in learning
how to use it.

I do not want to
keep on changing
with time, digital
payments will keep
on changing with
Resistance to every new app, 0.74
Q32
change features etc. but it is
not for me to change
and adapt so
frequently, which is
wastage of time and
effort
I do not think digital
payment is going to
sustain in long run,
Q33 Opposition hence it doesn’t 0.66
make sense for me
to spend time and
effort
I do not subscribe
the idea of digital
payments as it is one
Q34 Opposition more addition which 0.7
complicates our
lives. "Cashless
economy" is a myth.
I do not want to
spend money for
smartphone,
Q35 Opposition internet connection 0.7
etc. which are
required for digital
payment
Table 2: Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with Pilot Questionnaire

To evaluate the construct validity, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was done during the pilot
phase (40 respondents). CFA was done using AMOS software. This was done with the aim of
choosing the right variable/questions for measuring an underlying factor so that it can be
corrected before the final rollout. In below table all the factor loading are shown for each of the
variables. Where factor loading >0.65 is taken into consideration for further analysis and used in
final questionnaire.
Below are the variables which were used in the final questionnaire along with the corresponding
questions. The abbreviated forms of the variables are later on used for further analysis.

Theme Factors Variable Questions

Digital transactions (e.g.
wallet money transfers,
utility bill payments etc.)
READV1 are easier as compared
to traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
Digital transaction
platforms (mobile
wallets, credit/debit
cards) are well
integrated and accepted
READV2
widely for my daily
Relative Advantage
needs as compared to
traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
Digital transactions
offers good financial
incentives (cashback,
waiver of
READV3 fees, loyalty points etc.)
INNOVATION as compared to
CHARATERISTICS traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
I can easily manage
digital transactions with
my digital infrastructure
(e.g. handset, computer,
COMP1
operating system,
internet connection,
speed of connection
etc.)
Digital transactions suits
my lifestyle/work style
Compatibility COMP2
and cater to my daily
needs
Digital transaction suits
COMP3
my habits
Digital transaction is a
good complement to
already existing
COMP4
traditional payment
modes (e.g. cash,
cheques)
 Learning use of digital
payment need skill,
COX1
knowledge and effort
Digital payments
apps/websites are
complicated with too
COX2
many functions/features
Complexity
most of which I do not
need.
Upgrading the app
regularly/ remembering
COX3 user credentials,
updating information
etc. are difficult
I am scared of
misuse/digital theft and
PR1
consequently losing hard
earned money
I am scared of sharing
my personal details,
PR2 bank account details
because of potential risk
of data theft, misuse etc.
I am scared of
Perceived Risk app/website/payment
system
PR3 malfunction/virus
/malware attacks
resulting in financial
loss/data loss etc.
I am scared of my data
going to wrong hand in
PR4 case of theft
(laptop/smartphone
etc.)
It is entertaining/exciting
MO1
to use digital payments
Digital payments is
useful for my
MO2
occupation, fast-paced
lifestyle etc.
Digital payment is useful
for other secondary
purposes (e.g. use wallet
Motivation
CONSUMERS' as savings account, buy
CHARACTERISTICS digital gold etc.)
MO3
Note: Primary purpose is
defined as transactional
needs (e.g. shopping,
P2P transfers, utility
payments etc.)
I intend to use digital
MO4
payment in near future
Attitude towards I am satisfied with
AT1
existing products traditional payments
 with caters all me needs
reasonably well
I do not like the idea and
design of digital
payment apps and
AT2 websites cluttered with
too many functionalities
as compared to simple
traditional payments
I know how to use digital
SE1
payment
I am confident of using
various digital payment
SE2 apps/websites and end
user
transaction process
Self-Efficacy
I am comfortable to use
various digital payment
apps/websites and end
SE3 user transaction process

I will wait to use digital

payments till it is
CR1
absolutely necessary for
me.
I will clarify my doubts,
think again and see how
CR2 my peers are doing
before using digital
payment.
I will wait till I have the
right time and
CR3 infrastructure (e.g.
Laptop/stable internet
connection/Smartphone)
I will not use digital
CR4 payment it as I don’t
need it
I will not use digital
payment as I do not
INNOVATION CR5
want to put my efforts in
RESISTANCE
learning how to use it.
I do not want to keep on
changing with time,
digital payments will
keep on changing with
every new app, features
CR6
etc. but it is not for me
to change and adapt so
frequently, which is
wastage of time and
effort
 I do not think digital
payment is going to
sustain in long run,
CR7
hence it doesn’t make
sense for me to spend
time and effort
I do not subscribe the
idea of digital payments
as it is one more
CR8 addition which
complicates our lives.
"Cashless economy" is a
myth.
I do not want to spend
money for smartphone,
CR9 internet connection etc.
which are required for
digital payment
Table 3: Questions and Variables used in Final Questionnaire

The final questionnaire was administered to 140 respondents and below are the Mean and
standard deviation for each of the parameters:

Factors N Mean Std Dev

READV 140 3.30 1.15
COMP 140 3.30 0.99
COX 140 2.90 1.07
PR 140 3.48 1.18
MO 140 3.43 1.16
AT 140 3.23 0.86
SE 140 3.45 1.19
CR 140 3.32 0.81
Table 4: Mean & Standard Deviation of Factors

The above data shows respondents have good Self Efficacy which means that they are confident
of using digital payment products. This is also supported by lower complexity score (2.9) which
means most of the respondents feel that using digital payment solutions are not really very
difficult to use. Attitude towards existing products mean score is moderately favourable (3.2)
which also justify the moderate consumer resistance score (3.06). This may be interpreted in a
way that significant number of respondents are open to try new innovative products in digital
payment space. This is also justified by higher relative advantage and higher motivation scores.
Perceived risk score is considerably higher (3.48) which show that although people perceive the
digital payment proposition risky, still most of them are open to it.
 Diagram 1: Data Analysis-Output from Smart PLS Software

Diagram 2: Data Analysis-Tabular Output from Smart PLS Software

Factors Hypothesis Beta T Value Significance

Relative Advantage H1 -0.252 3.293 Significant
Compatibility H2 -0.152 0.888 Non-significant
Complexity H3 0.200 2.701 Significant
Perceived Risk H4 0.330 4.048 Significant
Motivation H5 -0.180 2.436 Significant
Attitude towards existing
products H6 -0.043 0.518 Non-significant
Self-efficacy H7 -0.212 2.491 Significant
Table 5: Results of Hypothesis Testing
The above output from Smart PLS shows that all the hypothesis are significant other than
“Compatibility” and “Attitude towards existing products. Rest all hypothesis has significantly high T
value>2 and they are supported by data. The support for relative advantage (H1) is expected as people
will show less resistance to digital payment when they feel the advantage of using digital payment is
significantly higher than traditional modes of payments. This finding is in line with Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) with factor of Perceived Usefulness (PU) where PU in concept is very similar
to relative advantage. Also the data shows that most of the respondents responded with a view that
digital payment is easy to use (READV1=0.627) and have additional advantage of various
offers/cashbacks (READV3=0.63) which reward them financially as compared to traditional mode of
payments.

We can also see a good support for “Complexity (H3)” and “Perceived Risk (H4)” with T values 2.7 and
4.04 respectively which means Higher the complexity and perceived risk, higher the consumer
resistance. This finding is also in line with Yiu Chi et al., 2007 and Laukkanen et al., 2007 which shows
that complexity and perceived risk are positively related to consumer resistance.

Motivation is also a significant factor which significantly reduces the consumer resistance. Motivation
(H5) is also supported as a significant factor for consumer resistance in our empirical study.
Respondents who have shown strong motivation have shown less resistance to use digital payment
solutions. It is also interesting to see that more than extrinsic motivation, the intrinsic motivation
(MO1= 0.787) played a major role to overcome consumer resistance. A significantly large respondents
have mentioned that they find these kind of digital payments solutions interesting and engaging and
they intend to use it in future as well.

Also we can see Self efficacy (H7) is strongly supported by empirical data collected. The mean score of
self-efficacy was considerably high which showed that a large number of respondents are confident,
comfortable to use digital payment and they also have the necessary know how on usage of these
payment apps/websites.

The empirical data do not conform Compatibility (H2) as significant factor for consumer resistance due
to low T value<2, although it showed a negative relation with consumer resistance which means higher
the compatibility, lower the consumer resistance. This is in line with previous empirical research in
support of TAM, however in most of the empirical research it has emerged as one of the major factor
influencing consumer resistance which is not the case in our study. One of the reason why in this study
“Compatibility” did not come as a significant factor is with the enhancements of technology and its
affordability, most of the people have smartphones/laptops and other devices which support digital
payment platforms. Also most of the digital payment platforms do not need heavy system
requirements and hence the platforms are compatible with most of the device/internet connections.
So the “Compatibility” factor was more of a common factor in all the responses and as a result did not
come as a significant contributor for consumer resistance.

Finally, the hypothesized factors in the model represents almost 39% of variation in consumer
resistance (Coefficient of determination i.e. R2= 0.385).
 4. Conclusion

Out of all the Innovation Characteristics factors (Relative advantage, complexity, compatibility,
perceived risk), other than compatibility, rest of the three factors are significant for determining the
consumer resistance. Relative advantage is negatively related to consumer resistance whereas
complexity is positively related to consumer resistance. Perceived Risk is also strongly supported by
data showing strong relationship with consumer resistance. Compatibility did not show up as a
significant factor for consumer resistance to digital payments but it showed a negative trend (higher
the compatibility lower the consumer resistance).

On the other hand, Consumer Characteristics factors (Motivation, Self-Efficacy, Attitude towards
existing products), motivation and self-efficacy was supported by data both having negative relation
with consumers’ resistance. Attitude towards existing products showed a negative relationship with
consumer resistance which means if consumer has a favourable attitude towards he/she is more likely
resist the new product. However, from data, attitude towards existing product was not a significant
contributor to consumers’ resistance.

Out of all the innovation characteristics factors, Relative advantage and perceived risk emerged as
strongest determinant of consumers’ resistance. This finding is in line with previous findings from
different empirical studies of TAM model and other associated studies related to technology adaption
(Dunphy & Herbig, 1995; Park & Chen, 2007; Laukkanen et al., 2014, etc). Out of all the consumer
characteristics factors, Self-efficacy emerged as major contributor for consumer resistance with
negative relation.

As an extension of this research, further research can be done on specific age groups, geographies to
analyse demographics related factors (e.g. age, education, culture, socio-economic conditions etc.)
impacting consumers’ resistance. This research identifies the critical factors contributing to consumer
resistance in digital payment space, but similar research can be done for other innovative products in
order to generalize the findings in broader innovation resistance landscape.

5. Annex

1. Rahman, Muhammad Sabbir. "An Empirical Study on Revealing the Factors Influencing Online Shopping
Inention among Malaysia Consumers'" Journal of Human and Social Science Research 1.1 (2013): 9-18.
Web. 9 May 2015.
2. Jacob Jacoby and Leon B. Kaplan (1972),"the Components of Perceived Risk", in SV - Proceedings of the
Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, eds. M. Venkatesan, Chicago, IL :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 382-393.
3. Richard H. Evans (1982),"Measuring Perceived Risk: a Replication and an Application of Equity theory",
in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 09, eds. Andrew Mitchell, Ann Abor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research, Pages: 550-555.
4. Dunphy, Steven & A. Herbig, Paul. (1995). Acceptance of innovations: The customer is the key! The
Journal of High Technology Management Research. 6. 193-209. 10.1016/1047-8310(95)90014-4.
5. Yangil Park, Jengchung V. Chen, (2007) "Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of
smartphone", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 107 Issue: 9, pp.1349-
1365, https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710834009
6. Chi Shing Yiu, Kevin Grant David Edgar (2007) “Factors affecting the adoption of Internet Banking in
Hong Kong-implications for the banking sector: International Journal of Information Management: The
Journal for Information Professionals, Vol-27 Issue 5, Oct 2007, Pages: 336-351
7. Minttu Laukkanen, Samuli Patala (2014), “ANALYSING BARRIERS TO SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL
INNOVATIONS: INNOVATION SYSTEMS APPROACH”, International Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol 18 No 06
8. Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T. & Hiltunen, M. (2007). Mapping the reasons for resistance to Internet
banking: A means-end approach. International Journal of Information Management, 27, 75-75.
9. Wang, G., Dou, W. & Zhou, N. (2008). Consumption attitudes and adoption of new consumer
products: a contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 238-254“
10. Ellen, P. S. & Bearden, W. O. (1991). Resistance to technological innovations: An examination of. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 297-308.
11. Bagozzi, R. P., & Kyu-Hyun, L. (1999). Consumer Resistance to, and Acceptance of, Innovations.
Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 218-226.
12. Dunphy, S. & Herbig, P. A. (1995). Acceptance of innovations: The customer is the key! The Journal of
High Technology Management Research, 6, 193-209.
13. He, F. & Peter, M. (2007). Decision factors for the adoption of an online Payment system by customers.
International Journal of E-Business Research.
14. He, Q., Duan, Y., Fu, Z. & Li, D. (2006). An Innovation Adoption Study of Online E-Payment in Chinese
Companies. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 4, 48-69.
15. Ram, S. (1987). A model of innovation resistance. Advances in Consumer Research. 14, 208-213.
16. Ram, S. (1989). Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance-An empirical test.
The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 6, 20-34.
17. Ram, S. & Sheth, N.J. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovation: The marketing problem and its
solution. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 6(2). 5-14