Content uploaded by Serena Hillman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Serena Hillman on Dec 31, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
User Challenges and Successes with
Mobile Payment Services in North America
Serena Hillman, Carman Neustaedter, Erick Oduor and Carolyn Pang
School of Interactive Arts and Technology, Simon Fraser University
250-13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
shillman@sfu.ca, carman_neustaedter@sfu.ca, eoduor@sfu.ca, and carolyn_pang@sfu.ca
ABSTRACT
Mobile payment services have recently emerged in North
America where users pay for items using their smartphones.
Yet we have little understanding of how people are making
use of them and what successes and challenges they have
experienced. As a result, we conducted a diary and
interview study of user behaviors, motivations, and first
impressions of mobile payment services in North America
in order to understand how to best design for mobile
payment experiences. Participants used a variety of
services, including Google Wallet, Amazon Payments,
LevelUp, Square and company apps geared towards
payments (e.g., Starbucks). Our findings show that users
experience challenges related to mental model
development, pre-purchase anxiety and trust issues, despite
enjoying the gamification, ease-of-use, and support for
routine purchases with mobile payments. This suggests
designing a better mobile payment experience through the
incorporation of users’ routines and behaviors, gamification
and trust mechanism development.
Author Keywords
mobile payment services, Google Wallet, LevelUp, Square,
PayPal, ubiquitous commerce, eCommerce, mCommerce,
gamification
ACM Classification Keywords
H.5.2 [User Interfaces]: User-Centered Design
INTRODUCTION
It is now possible to pay for items in North America
(United States and Canada) using smartphones via a variety
of mobile payment services. This includes carrier billing
(e.g., Text2Pay), near-field communications (e.g., Google
Wallet), closed loop mobile payments (e.g., Starbucks app),
and card readers (e.g., Square). With the recent addition of
large online players (Google and Amazon), as well as more
traditional payment entities (MasterCard and PayPal), and
some well-developed startups (e.g., LevelUp and Square),
expectations for a societal shift towards ubiquitous
commerce—eCommerce activities occurring from virtually
any location—is both high and deemed of “critical
importance” [16] for the future of mobile and electronic
commerce.
While a number of studies have looked at mobile payment
services in developing countries [7], and even developed
countries in Europe [16,17] and Asia [11], this past body of
work has not focused on the North American market and
smartphones. These past studies were also focused on SMS-
centric mobile payments, rather than smartphone-based
payment. Mobile payment services have just started to
become available on smartphones in North America;
therefore, collecting empirical data on their usage prior to
the last couple of years was not possible.
Our research fills this gap with a study of existing and new
mobile payment users in North America. We wanted to
understand the experience from the perspective of those
who had already adopted and integrated mobile payments
into their purchasing routines, as well as those who were
using it for the first time. The former allows us to
understand those who have had relative success with mobile
payments, while the latter allows us to understand first
impressions and the people who may choose to not adopt
the technology for longer term usage. We focused on
uncovering the challenges and successes they faced. We
also specifically explored trust concerns as they have been
cited as a major barrier to the adoption of eCommerce [16].
Our findings showed that designing mobile payment
services around routines and habits aids in a positive user
experience. Users also appreciate gamification aspects
associated with mobile payments and find that transactions
create a socially cohesive experience, despite pre-purchase
anxiety. Our results also revealed that mobile payments are
not without their problems. Some users currently lack the
mental model needed to see a clear benefit for mobile
payments. Moreover, from a trust perspective, we saw that
trust levels between vendor and user are notably worse for
mobile payments than that reported for mCommerce
activities and that trust mechanisms in this area need to be
developed further. Together, this suggests design directions
to increase the adoption of mobile payments by users while
lessening usability and trust concerns.
RELATED WORK
There exists a variety of research on mCommerce, mobile
payment services, and trust in eCommerce. We discuss
research in these key areas to inform and situate our study.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
MobileHCI '14, September 23 - 26 2014, Toronto, ON, Canada
Copyright 2014 ACM 978-1-4503-3004-6/14/09$15.00.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628389
2
mCommerce and Mobile Payment
eCommerce has traditionally been viewed as a stationary
act, performed at desktop computers in offices, homes, or
other locations. Within this space lies mobile commerce
(mCommerce): commerce activities occurring on a mobile
device. Mobile payment services have been classified as a
subset of mCommerce and a form of eCommerce [17]. The
definition of mobile payment services has varied to include
payment over any mobile communication device [21] to a
more focused definition around just payments on mobile
phones [6]. In our study, we adopt the later definition,
similar to that of Schierz et al. [17]: “all payments for
goods, services and bills authorized, initiated or realized”
[17] using a mobile phone. Thus, mobile payments include
paying for items in a store using a mobile device, as well as
paying bills or transferring money using smartphone apps.
The former takes place in a physical store like traditional
commerce and the latter could take place in any location.
While seemingly valuable, there have been noted
shortcomings when comparing mobile payment growth in
North America to its expectations [20]. Lack of adoption
has been blamed on poor usability [20], social and cultural
ideologies [12], and mobile technology limitations [10].
There have also been some studies that look specifically at
mobile payments, yet none have focused on North
American usage or smartphones. Instead, studies have
focused on earlier versions of mobile payments (using
SMS) in industrialized countries in Europe. First, Schierz
et al. [17] analyzed mobile payment usage in Germany
based on the Technology Adoption Model. This model
explains that the adoption of technologies is based on the
perceived usefulness and ease-of-use of the technology
[1,3]. Findings show that perceived ease of use,
compatibility, security, and usefulness, along with
individual mobility positively affected users’ attitudes
towards mobile payments.
Second, and the closest study to our own in terms of its
findings, Mallat [16] explored mobile payments in Finland
in 2002 when they were based solely on SMS (direct
billing). Results showed that users found mobile payments
faster and more convenient than cash; mobile payments
were most compatible with small value payments; and
complexities around the use of the systems along with a
lack of large merchant acceptance were barriers to adoption
[16]. Users also described issues with trust where they had
feelings of “vagueness” and “perceived lack of control.”
Users were also concerned about trust in network reliability
and having their phone accessed if it was hacked, lost, or
stolen [16]. While valuable, we caution that this study
focused on feature-phones, not smartphones. Technology
and culture have also dramatically changed since 2002.
Mobile payment services have also been studied in non-
industrialized countries. In Kenya M-Pesa has seen
tremendous success reporting 19 million subscribed users,
which accounts for two-thirds of the entire adult population
[19]. China has also found some success with Alipay [18]
and GCash has had well documented success in the
Philippines [1]. Use for these systems is often fueled by
users’ lack of trust in their local country’s banking systems
along with a range of other social and cultural motivators
[7,16,17]. Hinman and Matovu [7] investigated
opportunities and challenges around mobile-based finances
in rural Uganda. Their study found that users had a strong
affinity to fixed assets, lacked access to capital, did not
understand how mobile payments worked, and, overall,
were confused by the mental model used to interact with the
service [7]. Unlike developed nations, Ugandans lacked the
reference point of transferring funds from person-to-person
[7].
Together, the related research on mobile payment services
shows a mixture of challenges and successes for the
technology. Yet this past research does not explore mobile
payments in North America using smartphone technology
to understand how present day technology affects shopping
behaviors and how to best design for such experiences. This
is the focus of our study.
eCommerce Trust
In order to build trust in eCommerce environments, one
usually relies on trust mechanisms such as third-party
certifications and user-to-user relationships [5,10]. Even
still, trust has historically been a major obstacle for the
success of eCommerce [15,16]. The notion that users are
vulnerable and likely to expose themselves during an online
purchase is often a main concern [5]. Thus, past research
has shown that the level of trust established in the user-
vendor relationship dictates if a transaction will occur and
to what scope [15]. Past work has shown that not only does
trust play a key role in the adoption of new technologies
and the initial trust with a new vendor; it also results in
repeat purchases and continued relationships [5].
Moving from traditional eCommerce on computers to
mCommerce on mobile devices, we see that trust is less of a
concern for users. Hillman et al. [8] studied shopping and
purchasing on mobile phones (not mobile payment
services) and found that mCommerce users had few trust
concerns while making transactions on their mobile devices
over the Internet. They found this was because trust was
built through: direct brand awareness; the ‘app’ approval
process; and, purchase recommendations by friends and
family. Within this, brand played the most significant role
in trust for mobile commerce activity.
Turning to mobile payments in North America, we do not
see any study of the trust issues that users face or the ways
in which such concerns might be mitigated. While part of
mCommerce, mobile payments present a mixed-context. On
one hand, they are different than mobile shopping activities
because they can be performed in a retail store, the same as
traditional shopping. Yet they can also be performed
outside of a store from nearly any location as a form of bill
payment or money transfer online. This mixed-context
3
brings into question the legitimacy of eCommerce trust
models for understanding mobile payment services as well
as mCommerce trust models. Our study addresses this topic
by exploring the trust issues that users face with mobile
payments.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The goal of our study was to understand how people use
mobile payments in North America and what successes and
challenges they faced. We explored this from the
perspective of new and existing mobile payment users.
Participants
We recruited 21 participants (11 female) through postings
on online forums and word of mouth. Ages ranged from 21
to 49, with a median age of 27. All participants lived in
major metropolitan cities in North America (Canada and the
United States). Occupations of participants varied heavily,
e.g., engineer, graphic designer, social worker, student, web
developer. Participants had average to expert technical
abilities and all owned a smartphone. About half of the
participants used an iPhone, while the other half used an
Android device.
We purposely chose to investigate two groups of
participants: existing users and new users. This allowed us
to understand the experience from the perspective of those
who have had relative success with mobile payments,
leading to their repeated usage or long term adoption, as
well as the first impressions of new users who may or may
not choose to adopt the technology for longer term usage.
Based on their own descriptions, we classified eleven users
as existing users and ten participants as new users who had
never tried a mobile payment service prior to the study.
The amount of experience that existing users had in using
mobile payments varied between two weeks and four years
with a median of ~6 months. Existing users used mobile
payments on average twice a week.
Method
Our study method varied depending on whether a
participant was an existing or new user of mobile payment
services.
Method 1: Existing Users
Existing users participated in a semi-structured interview
that focused on their past and current experiences with
mobile payment systems. Interview questions were based
on understanding the participant’s specific instances of use
and why they used the services the way they did. Sample
questions included: What mobile payment services have
you used? When was the first time you used a mobile
payment service and why? When was the last item you
purchased using a mobile payment and why did you choose
this payment method over another? What time of day was
the purchase made and why? Interviews usually lasted
between thirty and sixty minutes.
Method 2: New Users
After the data collection of Method 1 was complete, ten
new users, who had not used mobile payments before were
asked to complete an e-diary over a two-week period while
trying out any mobile payment service(s) of their choosing.
The diary method was chosen specifically to capture the
user’s experience in-the-moment over the first two weeks of
use. This method has been used in similar studies [8,9].
During the two weeks, participants were asked to complete
a minimum of four diary entries though we anticipated that
some people may not complete this requirement if they
simply found mobile payments too difficult to use or it did
not meet their routines. A diary entry was required for
every instance of purchasing that they attempted. The four
diary entry minimum was chosen as four was the average
number of completed transactions by existing users in
Method 1 over a two week period.
The diary entry was a web form which had fields asking the
participants for the following information: title of the
activity, date, time and location of the purchase, if they had
any trust concerns when completing this activity, why they
used a mobile payment and not cash/credit/debit, a
summary of the purchase, and their satisfaction level of the
experience. Participants were told to complete the diaries
as soon as possible after the purchase. This could be done
on their phones in the moment, or later in the evening when
at home. Participants opted to do a range of behaviors for
recording entries.
After participants completed the diary entry phase, they
participated in a semi-structured interview. During the
interview, which also took between thirty and sixty
minutes, participants were asked to review each of their
diary entries and expand and/or clarify their entries. After,
they were asked questions about the overall experience.
Existing users did not complete diary entries as we were
interested in their summative experiences across their entire
experience of using mobile payments, rather than a small
portion of time, which would have been captured by diaries.
Participants used a variety of mobile payment options.
These fell into one of four categories based on the types of
mobile payment methods available in North America:
1. Closed Loop Mobile Payments (e.g., Starbucks App): the
consumer uses an app on their smartphone to pay, typically
by scanning a barcode at the register (7 new users, 7
existing users).
2. Carrier Billing (e.g., Text2Pay): the consumer pays by
text message and the charge is added to their phone bill (1
new user, 2 existing users).
3. Card Readers (e.g., Square): these solutions allow
merchants to take payment via a card reader attached to a
smartphone or tablet (2 new users, 2 existing users).
4. Near-Field Communications (e.g., Google Wallet): the
consumer can pay at the point of sale by waving their phone
in front of a terminal (0 new users, 3 existing users).
4
As can be seen, most users focused on closed loop
payments given that they are currently more widely
available in North America. The skew of new users to
closed loop payments (e.g., Starbucks app) speaks to what
participants were comfortable using mobile payments for
and the monetary value and potential risk during the start of
their usage. Because our participants used a variety of
mobile payment services, our study reveals behaviors
across a range of mobile payment options rather than
findings specifically on any one payment solution. Despite
this diversity, our results are fairly homogenous around all
of the mobile payment services that participants used. We
also feel this allowed us to explore the mobile payment
research space as a whole, rather than a targeted study of
just one type of payment option.
Data Collection and Analysis
We collected audio recordings of all interviews, notes from
the interviews, and users’ diary text. Interview recordings
were later transcribed. All data was analyzed using open,
axial, and selective coding. Each user group was first
analyzed separately. We then reviewed the data from both
groups together to compare and contrast experiences. Our
coding revealed several main themes that relate to the
success and challenges that our participants faced when
using mobile payment services. We also found several ways
in which existing and new users differed. We outline these
differences along with our main themes in our results.
PURCHASING ACTIVITIES
Existing users reported purchasing a wide range of products
and services using mobile payments. This included: coffee,
clothes, sporting goods, electronics, furniture, extra-
curricular activities, and even school tuition. These
products ranged in price from a $2 cup of coffee to around
$3,000 for school tuition; however, the majority of items
were between $2 and $50. Some participants also told us
that they paid bills and made bank transfers to individuals
using a mobile app. While this was not about purchasing
items, it does fall in to the definition of mobile payment
services [17].
During the two weeks, new users purchased coffee, and
made bill payments and bank transfers to individuals. New
users’ product prices ranged from $2 to ~$150. Although
we asked participants to complete four diary entries over
the two weeks, participants completed an average of 2.3
entries. Three new users did not complete any transactions
even though they tried or thought about paying but did not
understand; we followed up on these instances in our
interviews. Without these three outliers, the average
number of diary entries / purchases was 3.2. This illustrates
that purchasing with mobile payments was an activity that
typically occurred a couple of times a week for the new
users. Thus, it was not a habitual or routine activity, which
is to be expected for new usage when a person is still
establishing a routine.
Within these purchase activities and experiences, our
findings revealed clear successes that participants had in
terms of mobile payments creating positive purchasing
experiences. In addition, we also saw clear challenges that
mobile payments posed for participants. Our results focus
on these two main sections.
USER SUCCESSES WITH MOBILE PAYMENT
Participants had a variety of successes using mobile
payments. These focused on routines, ease-of-use and
usefulness, gamification, regulatory avoidance, and social
perception. We describe each in turn.
Habitual Routines
First, we found that mobile payments were best for habitual
purchases—purchases that were frequent and re-occurring.
Participants who used mobile payments as a part of habitual
purchasing activities felt they worked well and they liked
them because they could easily fit in to their ‘routine.’ Half
of the existing users very clearly had a daily habitual-type
routine when using their payment service. Some understood
this explicitly while others were only tacitly aware of the
routine nature of their purchases. For example, when asked
how often P6 (existing user) used mobile payments, she
told us “everyday”. She then described the time of day and
variations based on her weekend and weekday schedule.
I rarely go to any other coffee shops [now]… I’ve just got
accustomed to Starbucks… - P6, existing user
Other existing users had similar comments on how they
liked mobile payments because they fit well into their
routine:
I have my cell phone already in my hand because I listen to a
podcast every morning, all it is pause the podcast, get coffee…
Always the same time of day… 7:45 in the morning… on my way
to work. - P4, existing user
Participants told us that using a mobile payment service
made them more loyal to a particular store. For example, P4
told us that the mobile payment process was so “easy” that
she frequented the store more often instead of going to a
variety of stores. We caution that this did not mean that
they increased the frequency in which they made purchases.
Instead, it meant they opted for the same store each day as
opposed to competitor stores. For example, if they
purchased coffee once a day before using a mobile
payment, they would continue to purchase coffee once a
day. However, now they would avoid stores that did not
offer the mobile payment solution.
Three new users also reported that they had a habitual
routine for using mobile payments. For example, P12 also
found it easy to integrate mobile payments into her daily
routine and commented on how surprised she was that it
was so easy to integrate:
I think how quickly I became accustomed to doing it. I just don’t
even think about it anymore, [it’s] just how I pay for things now. -
P12, new user
5
Five existing users and three new users had more of a semi-
habitual routine. While their purchases were not daily and
at a particular time of day, these users reported that they
made purchases at the same place in certain time intervals
for re-occurring purchases. For example, this included
utility bill payments, purchases of coffee a couple of times
a week, or tuition payments for school that were paid once
each term.
Moreover, participants suggested that the best services for
mobile payments were heavily related to transactions that
were frequent and routine, such as gas purchases, bill
payments, and groceries. For example, P6, an existing user,
told us that she wished she could use mobile payments for
gasoline purchases, because she filled up her car every few
days or so. P4, also an existing user, and P12, a new user,
had similar thoughts around grocery store purchases as
well:
I wish gas stations and grocery stores accepted mobile payment. -
P4, existing user
If my grocery store had it, that would be great. I would be
reluctant to use an app like that in a place that I am not a regular
patron. - P12, new user
Participants also expressed disappointment when they tried
to find ways to use mobile payments to pay their recurring
monthly bills. For example, P18, a new user, was unhappy
that her power company did not have a mobile payment
app:
Another thing that was really surprising for me was that there was
no app for paying your hydro bill because… [this is] important for
me. - P18, new user
Ease-of-Use and Usefulness
When asked about the benefits of using mobile payments,
all participants mentioned ease-of-use, with no bias toward
any particular type of mobile payment service. When asked
to elaborate, responses mostly included two key elements:
The process was easy and faster than other payment
methods. For example, P17, a new user, described how the
mobility and shortcut to make a bill payment allowed him
to multi-task while in a university class:
It was nice to actually be able to take care of [paying my bills]…
when it popped into my head I wasn’t doing anything and I was
able to [pay some bills], so I just pulled out my phone and did it.
Which was kind of a new thing for me and I actually really liked
that. It felt very productive too, to get something like that done; I
felt like I accomplished something in class today. - P17, new user
Second, and somewhat surprisingly, mobile payments made
it so payment methods were more often ready-at-hand and
available when needed at a store. For example, a number of
existing users mentioned that they often forgot their wallets
but never their phones. In fact, these participants described
paying by phone as a more natural process than using their
wallet.
You always have your cell phone; I mean you forget your wallet
nowadays way more than you do your cell phone. It is just easier
to use. A lot of people have it in their pocket and it’s just right
there as opposed to … trying to get your wallet and everything
and so it just makes everything easier, one little device. - P4,
existing user
It was just easier to have my phone out than take my wallet out
and find a card. - P2, existing user
Gamification and Entertainment
Many mobile payment services that are designed as
smartphone apps provide gamification elements where a
user can score points, level-up, and receive rewards for
purchases. The majority of users mentioned that they
enjoyed the gamification of the mobile payment service
they used. In fact, they would often describe the experience
of purchasing as “more entertaining” and “funner” because
of the gamification.
For example, P12, a new user, described how much she
enjoyed seeing the stars from the Starbucks app “dropping
in the cup,” indicating she was getting closer to a free drink.
This “elevated” the transactional experience compared to
paying by credit card or cash. In this case, Starbucks has
taken a desired action, buying Starbucks coffee, which is
not normally game related and attached a game mechanism
around collecting stars for rewards with every purchase.
LevelUp also uses similar game mechanics, and while they
are light and simple, it clearly had an added benefit for
users. Some users also mentioned gamification as a loyalty
draw for them. In the example below, P11, a new user,
discusses his first gamification experience through mobile
payment:
I think it is cool to be able to use my phone to [participate in
gamification]… I am probably more inclined to go to the deli that
accepts LevelUp than other delis in my neighborhood… more for
the gamification… - P11, new user
Two existing users also mentioned that gamification had a
significant role in their positive user experience of mobile
payment service. This was even after a year of usage.
Specifically, P4 and P10 said that collecting and using
loyalty programs made the shopping experience more
interesting than using cash or a credit card for payment.
Social Perception
Participants generally felt positive about the social
perception of using mobile payments. First, they talked
about the positive aspects of being watched by other people
when they were using a mobile payment service in a store.
Participants often described how they felt “cool” using
mobile payments because it was a new technology and not
everybody was using it.
Second, they felt that mobile payments allowed them to
make payments faster (than debit or credit) which helped
the lineup move faster. They felt that this, in turn, eased any
social tensions created by impatient employees or
customers. This is despite whether others were actually
impatient or not.
6
[Other store patrons] like it because the line moves faster you can
see they are impatient if you are looking for cash or a lot of extra
steps for [the employee] to key in a credit card purchase. - P21,
existing user
Third, participants described that they were sometimes even
engaged in a positive discussion around mobile payments
with friends or customers during or after purchases.
Existing users also described how many of their friends
used mobile payment services and they felt they were
becoming popular because it was a “topic of discussion”
within their work or school environments. In order for them
to appear like they were part of their community, they felt
they should be able to comment on the new technology.
There was this discussion in the community I am in. It definitely
prompted [my mobile payment usage] in that sense… I know a lot
of techies… the community would be, I guess, the geek or techie
community. - P3, existing user
Regulatory Avoidance
A number of participants also mentioned that they used a
form of mobile payment service to get around regulatory
restrictions from banks. Some examples included credit
limitations, much like pre-paid visas (e.g., PayPal);
ordering gaming licenses from countries that did not accept
the user’s local credit card information; making payments
from consumer to consumer or small businesses; and,
charities collecting payments without a POS terminal from
a bank (e.g., Square). For example, P1, an existing user,
told us he used Square for his business so he did not have to
set up a merchant account at a bank. Being able to accept
credit cards as a small business altered the way he sells
merchandise. He described how mobile payment services
have allowed him to accept credit cards and thus expand his
business.
It is well known that the poor trust relations and fear
between banks and patrons have helped drive the success of
mobile payment services in developing countries [7]. While
North American bank systems do not have the same level of
mistrust, our participants still used mobile payment services
to avoid bank charges and regulations; however, the
reported types of charges and regulations were specific to
North America.
USER CHALLENGES WITH MOBILE PAYMENTS
Naturally, like any new technology, users also experienced
challenges with mobile payment services. In this section,
we present the challenges that users faced, which focused
on a lack of payment options around their routines, usability
issues, pre-purchase anxiety, and trust issues.
New Users’ Routines and a Lack of Benefits
For new users, the value of routines for using mobile
payments was still high. Yet not all had a purchasing
routine that mapped well to using a mobile payment
service. For this reason, four new users did not enjoy the
service, while an additional three new users did not make
purchases. For example, P19 explains how mobile
payments did not fit his purchasing routines:
The Starbucks one is nice, it sounds quite cool but I don’t use-- I
don’t buy Starbucks often enough to use it. - P19, new user
This quote speaks to the fact that mobile payments are
currently only available in a small number of instances and
stores within North America. As an example, it also
illustrates that people who use Starbucks can easily use
mobile payments because Starbucks has a payment app. Yet
people who drink coffee at another location that does not
support mobile payments will not have the same
opportunities to use the payment method. This suggests
that, over time, if more stores adopt mobile payment
services as a payment option, the practices of new users
might be different. Until this point, new users may not see
the point of using a store “once in a while” simply so they
can use a mobile payment option; indeed, this is what our
participants told us.
Many new users also told us that they did not see the
benefits in using mobile payments instead of a credit card,
despite understanding how to use mobile payment options.
That is, the mobile payment service seemed to offer the
same benefits as a credit card to them, e.g., payment
without cash. Yet they were already able to do this with a
debit or credit card. Some participants told us in their final
interview that they felt they would not use mobile payment
services in the near future unless their routines changed.
I think [I would maybe use mobile payments in the future] because
it could become more popular and we are moving towards that,
maybe when my friends and family start using it and when it
becomes a norm. – P19, new user
This illustrates that people are often fairly engrained within
their current payment methods. It suggests that unless there
is a larger societal shift in payment options and usage that
some people simply will not change their practices.
Mental Model Development & Usability Issues
Mental models often help shape behavior and explain a
person’s thought process on how something works [4].
Some participants within the new user group, described
how they just could not understand how paying with their
phone worked or how to start the process. For example,
P16, a new user, explained during the interview that she had
a complete lack of knowledge around what direction to
proceed to even start the study. She said she did not know
what apps to look for or download. As a technically
engaged individual this was shocking for her. She told us:
I didn’t know, like when I agreed to do it, I didn’t know what apps
to download, I didn’t even know what to look for. - P16, new user
Other users made specific comments around not having the
“mental model” to see their smart phone as a payment
source. P20, a new user, was surprised that payment over a
phone was even possible. While P17, a new user told us “it
never even occurred” to him to use his cell phone to make a
purchase. For him the thought of doing something serious
like making a payment on the same device he uses to make
“stupid text messages” from seemed unheard of. In his
7
mind, the mental model for what a cell phone does did not
include paying for items.
Participants also complained about a lack of adequate
feedback with mobile payment services. Many participants
indicated they did not know how much they were being
charged before or during the transaction. This was true for a
number of payment methods (e.g., Starbucks app and
Square). For example, P11, a new user, talks about the
delay in being notified how much he spent at a local deli:
A few minutes later you get a message on your phone saying you
just used LevelUp and the amount was X so it’s just for the split
second when they punch in the number they put in and then they
charge your phone [you don’t know how much you are being
charged]. - P11, new user
A common theme across mobile payment services was a
lack of visual or audio indicators for feedback around
transactional information. Users felt it was unclear when a
transaction went through as there was little indication,
leaving them unsure if the transaction was complete. In
addition to lack of social cues from the employees, this lead
to participants being concerned that they might have been
charged twice.
Pre-purchasing Anxiety
A common trend for both user groups was pre-purchase
anxiety, despite the previously reported positive social
perceptions associated with mobile payments. Before
participants made a purchase, they often tried to get their
phones ready and were nervous that the phone would not be
ready to be scanned when it was their turn in line. They
harbored anxiety that the phone would turn to screen saver
mode, and then require a password to be entered, or the
barcode would not be ready to be scanned. Participants told
us that this could cause a longer wait for people in lines,
confusing discussions with store clerks, feelings of
inadequacy in not being able to know how to use the
technology, or the need to switch to another payment form.
For example, P12’s diary had numerous entries on pre-
purchase anxiety:
I like making sure I have the screen ready -- that my screen does
not go to sleep. It has more to do with my performance anxieties
than the app or the interaction. - P12, new user
Overall, the amount of tension around using mobile
payments was far greater than participants thought they
would feel. Surprisingly, while these feelings did diminish
over time, they were still mentioned by existing users.
Trust Concerns
We found several trust concerns in relation to using mobile
payments. These included concerns about around access to
information and fragmented payment solutions.
Access to Information
First, four existing users reported having serious issues with
information access across a variety of mobile payment
systems. They were worried that other people may be able
to access their payment information or other data on their
smartphones.
For example, P10, an existing user, explained how one
mobile payment service he used was tied to his email
account. His email account was hacked, which he assumed
compromised his financial data. As a result, P10 no longer
used that particular service, but still uses other mobile
payment services.
P6, also an existing user, described a situation she had when
using a pay-by-phone parking service for metered parking.
She explained how the system was tied to her phone
number when you call in to pay and that she had just
recently had her phone number changed. The system did
not allow her to change her profile, which resulted in her
having access to someone else’s account. This, in turn, left
her with the assumption that someone had access to her
account too. She told us the situation was “worrisome.”
Another existing user reported having trust concerns over
the security of paying through a barcode displayed on his
phone. Because of this, he and his sister did a test where he
sent his sister a screenshot of the barcode and she displayed
the picture of the barcode at the store to make a purchase.
To both their surprise, the barcode scanned successfully at
the store and his sister was able to purchase.
Both user groups had trust concerns around security of
personal information that they entered over Wi-Fi or other
networks. For example, P20 had extreme concerns around
the contract he had to sign to use the Starbucks app, as well
as little understanding towards how the process would
work. He even was concerned that he might be giving the
company access to all of the data on his phone.
Issues around access to information also occurred for the
viewing of information in person. Some users had concerns
about data on their screen being visible to outsiders. For
example, P8, an existing user, told us, “It has to do with
money, it’s kind of private, so then I try not to show
anyone.” P16, a new user, told us that she was nervous
entering her credit card information on a bus.
I found [a payment app] which I could add [money] to with a
credit card… so I added $20 and paid with my card. I did it on the
bus and I think that made me a little nervous, like, can anybody
see me taking my card out? - P16, new user
Fragmented Payment Solutions
Second, some participants told us that they did not like to
leave money or personal information untouched and not
regularly used. As a result, they really disliked the idea of
creating multiple mobile payment service accounts for each
vendor that they might use. Instead, they wanted just a
single global account so they would not accidentally
mishandle their money by, perhaps, forgetting about it in an
account. They were also concerned that they may not be
able to keep track of account charges across multiple
account in cases of potential fraud. Participants specifically
told us they needed to “touch” their money often (e.g., by
8
spending small amounts with each mobile payment service)
to ease trust concerns and overall fear of money loss.
For example, P17, a new user, mentioned how he had
information saved in a PayPal account from years ago. He
expressed concern about not regularly using the account
and felt uneasy about having his information just
“languishing” there for years. This ultimately gave him a
negative feeling towards PayPal. He mistrusted PayPal as a
brand and the information that was stored with them.
Similarly, P19, a new user, also said he would not use a
system for payment unless it was accepted at nearly all of
the stores he frequented. He, too, disliked the idea of having
money in numerous places and was concerned this would
lead to a loss of money as it “just sits in an account
somewhere.”
DISCUSSION
Our findings showed a range of user practices with mobile
payment services along with clear successes and challenges
in using mobile payments. We discuss the implications of
these findings and further reflect back on our related work
section, as well as introduce new literature as a lens to
interpret key components of our findings.
Mental Model Development and Designing for Routines
First, our results illustrated clear trends around why existing
users continue to use mobile payment services long term. In
our study, all existing users perceived their mobile payment
use as easier and faster than other payment methods. They
also described how their smartphone was often a more
convenient solution to make payments than money or
credit/debit cards. Yet in contrast, our study also revealed
why some users may not adopt mobile payment services, or
why they may chose to not use them even initially. Here we
found that some new users were almost puzzled by why
people might find mobile payment services to be easier and
faster than the current payment methods they used. Our
results also found that some users lacked the mental model
of how mobile payments would work. This was a key factor
that affected the usefulness of mobile payments.
As mentioned, Hinman and Matovu [7] found similar
mental model and conceptual gaps between their users and
mobile payment use. While our participants understood the
exchange of funds for services, some did not seem to
conceptually understand payment through their
smartphones and the benefits associated with it.
Considering that Hinman and Matovu’s study was
conducted in 2002—over ten years ago—this result is
especially surprising. One would expect that the idea of
paying for items using a phone would be more commonly
understood than what we saw. Certainly as mobile payment
services become more readily available in North America,
it is likely that the issues around mental model will slowly
disappear as users get used to the idea that smartphones can
support payments.
Yet we also feel there are design directions that could help
support the uptake of mobile payment services to help
increase adoption and the usefulness of the technology.
Participants in our study very clearly found mobile
payments most valuable when they focused on routine and
habitual activities. In fact, both new and existing users
expressed this sentiment. We had expected that would be
the case for existing users but not new users. This suggests
clear benefits for mobile payment services that target
habitual or routine activities as a starting point for designs.
For example, these may include mobile payment options for
gas, groceries, and other routine purchases. Over time, as
users develop practices around habitual purchases, they
would develop a mental model of how mobile payments
work, which could then extend to understanding how
mobile payment services could be more broadly used for
other non-routine purchases. This extends past work by
Mallat [16] who suggested mobile payments are most
compatible with small value payments. We now see
additional compatibility with routine purchases.
Gamification and Entertainment
Our study also revealed that one of the key benefits for new
users of mobile payments over other payment methods was
the gamification and reward features. These attributes
created a more emotional and exciting experience. Given
this, we believe that gamification elements coupled with a
mobile payment service that is perceived to be useful will
entice new users to adopt mobile payment services. Thus,
gamification can act as a complementary component for
mobile payment designs.
Yet the question is whether or not such features would
continue to attract users longer term. Lindqvist et al. [13]
investigated Foursquare users and found that the
gamification element of collecting badges was a decreasing
motivator for usage over time; users had a slow decline of
participation after 200-300 days. In our case, we only had
two veteran users comment that gamification in mobile
payment services still had long term appeal after a year.
This suggests further study of the long-term effects of
gamification on mobile payments.
Social Cohesion
Part of the positive experiences we found for mobile
payment related to social cohesion. Ling [14] describes
social cohesion as a strong ‘current’ in society and strong
bonds linking individuals, which affects how we interact
with one another and what we know about each other. This
is the opposite of individualism [14]. Related to social
cohesion is the idea that people have negative attitudes
towards people using mobile phones in public situations
and locations [12,14]. That is, using one’s mobile phone in
public areas has been deemed socially rude and is often met
with negative connotation [12,14]. However, in our
findings, participants described the opposite. They felt that
the use of mobile payments created a positive experience
for people around them. They explained that this was
9
because they were using their mobile phone in socially
positive ways, which in this case was speeding up a store
line and eliminating wait times for others. Participants felt
their mobile payment activity allowed them to “help out”
fellow patrons resulting in social cohesion [14]. Of course,
there is the chance that while the purchaser thought the
experience was positive for others, it may have in fact been
unpleasant or annoying. We did not ask others present
during mobile payment purchases about what they thought
of the activity to know for sure. This suggests future work
that investigates public reactions to mobile payment usage.
Of course, negative experiences around social cohesion can
also obviously arise. As discussed in the findings, users
‘fiddle’ with their phones before use because of pre-
purchase anxiety, and this could negatively impact social
cohesion if patrons are in groups (face-to-face) when
purchasing. This also suggests design opportunities to make
mobile payments less distracting for the payee. For
example, in recent versions of Apple’s iOS software, the
phone’s camera functionality is available from a locked
screen with a single finger swipe. Payment options could
similarly be integrated in such a manner if people feel safe
with such easy access to payment options.
Mobile payments were also associated with a "coolness"
factor when one was using them. Yet once mass adoption
occurs, this coolness could easily diminish and it is not
clear what feelings people may have toward the appearance
of using the technology once this occurs.
Trust Concerns
Our findings also reported significant trust concerns
amongst both types of users—new and existing. This differs
heavily from work done in past mCommerce studies that
have focused on purchasing products over the web [8]. Past
work found that mechanisms to mitigate trust issues with
mCommerce were prevalent and came in three distinct
forms: family and friend recommendations, brand
awareness, and leveraging trusted marketplaces such as
iTunes and Google Play [8]. As a result, people did not
have trust issues with their mCommerce shopping activities.
In contrast, participants in our study did not find ways to
mitigate their trust concerns. Instead, they simply had to
“put up” with the issues, not purchase at all, or use another
payment option. This is interesting because a large portion
of transactions were done using apps from the same
marketplaces reported by Hillman et al. [8]. Thus, brand
awareness and trusted marketplaces were not enough to
mitigate many users’ trust concerns unlike other
mCommerce shopping activities. Similarly, trust created by
actually being physically present in a store was also not
always present.
What is somewhat surprising is that the same trust issues
observed by Mallat [16] over ten years ago were also
described by participants in our study. Users were still
concerned about network security, vagueness of transaction,
and lack of control. Not only were users concerned that
their mobile phone would get lost, stolen or hacked, we
were presented with stories of this actually occurring. With
these findings, addressing security and trust concerns seems
essential to mobile payment success in the future.
Of course, trust concerns could simply go away over time,
much like the mental model issues that some people have
for mobile payments. Here continued and widening usage
of mobile payments could see the easing of trust concerns.
Yet there are also possible design avenues that could help
speed up the easing of such concerns. First, many people
had trust issues that revolved around data transmission.
This suggests solutions that further enhance secure data
transmission, or mobile payment designs that let users
know that data transmission is in fact secure, if it is.
Second, we also recognize that currently mobile payment
systems do not offer the same institutional backing as one
might find with a credit card company. For example, if
fraudulent charges occur on a credit card, most credit card
companies are quick to reverse such charges. In the case of
mobile payment systems, such services may not exist or
users do not know about them. This suggests new models
for companies to provide institutional backing against
fraud, or designs that highlight such backing, if it exists.
Third, participants also reported issues around strangers
seeing one’s smartphone screen and private data while
transactions were being made. This suggests designs that
obscure such information so it is viewable only by the user.
Lastly, participants were concerned about the fragmented
nature of mobile payment solutions where one’s money
may reside in several places (e.g., PayPal, the Starbucks’s
App). This meant users could easily forget about their
balance. This suggests mobile payment designs focused
around a centralized hub that manages all transactions and
balances. Of course, this type of solution would require
partnerships between companies, which may not be
possible. Alternative solutions could look at providing
better feedback to users of balances (especially if they are
untouched for a long time), or the ability to easily move
money out of a mobile payment service if it is no longer
being used.
Limitations and Generalizability
Our study comes with several limitations that suggest future
research in this space. First, we note that our analysis
focused on all types of mobile payment services instead of
just one particular type. Studying a single service could
have revealed more detailed findings about that particular
service. Yet, despite this diversity in our study, we did not
see variations in responses based on any of the mobile
payment types that participants used. That said, because our
study was a qualitative study and not a quantitative
controlled study, we did not control for such variables nor
did we look for cause and effect. Therefore, we suggest
additional studies focused on specific types of mobile
payments independently.
10
Second, we studied North Americans as a group and only
from major metropolitan cities. We did not see a difference
in results from Canadians versus Americans; however,
further investigation could be conducted to compare the two
with a larger sample, especially if the countries end up
developing unique e-wallet solutions.
Third, we caution that our study did not investigate the
long-term adoption of mobile payments as might be found
in a study that lasts several months to years. Instead, we
focused on the first reactions of new users to mobile
payment services along with the experiences of existing
users who have already adopted the technology. This
suggests an additional longitudinal study to complement
our research.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, mobile payment services are in their infancy
in North America. The potential to enhance users
experience with faster and more useful transactions is
possible. There is also potential for mobile payments to aid
in social cohesion [14], which has previously been missing
in mobile use. However, user challenges with mobile
payments still exist. These include a perceived lack of need
for the technology, and issues around mental model
development and trust concerns. In order to move past these
obstacles, this paper has outlined key areas for improved
user experience: designing around users’ routines and
behaviors, trust mechanism development, and supporting
gamification and social cohesion.
REFERENCES
1. Chemonics. Mobile Phone Banking Expands into Rural
Philippines, retrieved from:
http://www.chemonics.com/OurStory/OurNews/Pages/
Mobile-phone-Banking-Expands-into-Rural-
Philippines.aspx
2. Cho, D., Kwon, H., and Lee, H., Analysis of Trust in
Internet and Mobile Commerce Adoption, 40th Annual
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
pp. 1-10. (2007).
3. Davis, F. D., Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of
Use, and User Acceptance in Information Technology,
MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), pp. 319-340. (1989).
4. Forrester, J., Counterintuitive Behavior of Social
Systems, Theory and Decision, Volume 2, Issue 2,
Springer, pp. 109 - 140. (1970).
5. Head, M. and Hassanein, "Trust in e-Commerce:
Evaluating the Impact of Third-Party Seals", Quarterly
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3(3), (2002), pp. 307-
325.
6. Henkel, J., Handygestützte bezahlverfahren [Mobile
payment]. In G. Silberer, J. Wohlfahrt, & T. Wilhelm
(Eds.), Mobile commerce (pp. 327–351). Wiesbaden,
Germany: Gabler. (2002).
7. Hinman, R., and Matovu, J., Opportunities and
Challenges for Mobile-based Financial Services in Rural
Uganda, Extended Proceedings of Computer-Human
Interaction. pp. 3925-3930. (2010)
8. Hillman, S., Neustaedter, C., Bowes, J., and Antle, A.,
Soft Trust and mCommerce Shopping Behaviors,
MobileHCI 2012. pp. 113 - 122.
9. Hillman, S., Neustaedter, C., Pang, C., and Oduor, E.,
“Shared Joy is Double Joy”: The Social Practices of
User Networks within Group Shopping Sites, CHI2013.
pp. 113 - 122.
10. Kalakota, R. and Robinson M., M-Business: The Race
to Mobility. Mcgraw-Hill Trade, pp.1-84. (2001).
11. Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., and Lee, I., An Empirical
Examination of Factors influencing the intention to use
Mobile Payment, Computer in Human Behavior Journal,
pp. 310-322, (2010).
12. Kindberg, T., Sellen, Abigail, S., and Erik Geelhoed,
Security and Trust in Mobile Interactions: A Study of
Users' Perceptions and Reasoning. UbiComp 2004:
Ubiquitous Computing. pp. 1-16. (2004).
13. Lindqvist J, Cranshaw J, Wiese J, Hong J, Zimmerman
J., I’m the Mayor of my house: examining why people
use foursquare—a social-driven location sharing
application. In: Proceedings of CHI. ACM Press, New
York, pp. 2409–2418. (2011).
14. Ling, R., New Tech, New Ties: How Mobile
Communication is Reshaping Social Cohesion,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (2008).
15. Luo, X., Trust Production and Privacy Concerns on the
Internet - A Framework Based on Relationship
Marketing & Social Exchange Theory, IMM, 31,(2002).
16. Mallat, N., Exploring Consumer Adoption of Mobile
Payment – A Qualitative Study, Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 16, pp. 413-432, (2007).
17. Ondrus, J., and Pigneur, Y., Towards a Holistic Analysis
of Mobile Payments: a Multiple Perspective Approach,
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 5 (3),
pp. 246-257, (2006).
18. Ong, J., Alipay Dominates as Online Payment in China
Top $150 Billion in Q3: Report, Retrieved from:
http://thenextweb.com/asia/2012/12/03/alipay-leads-
online-payments-in-china-after-nearly-rmb-1-trillion-in-
transactions-in-q3-2012/
19. Twomey, M., Cashless Africa: Kenya’s Smash Success
with Mobile Money, Retrieved from
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101180469, (2013).
20. Ventakesh, V. Ramesh, V., and Massey, A. P.
Understanding usability in mobile commerce.
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46(12), pp. 53-56.
(2003). Model, Information and Management 42 (5), pp.
719-729, (2005).
21. Zmijewska, A., and Lawrence, E., Implementation
Models in Mobile Payment, In Proceedings of the
IASTED International Conference, Puerto Vallarta,
(2006), pp.19-25.
