Time perspective and continuance intention to use mobile commerce: The dual role of perceived risk and security

k came from the study of Featherman and Pavlou (2003) and Kim et al. (2005). While financial risk and performance risk measurement were adopted from Kim et al. (2005), privacy risk, time risk, psychological risk, and social risk were adopted from Featherman and Pavlou (2003). This is acceptable because both Kim et al. (2005) and Featherman and Pavlou (2003) used the same definitions of financial and performance risks that were derived from Grewal, Gotlieb and Marmorstein (1994). Also, it seems that items used to measure financial and performance risk in Kim et al. (2005) were less complicated than the one of Featherman and Pavlou (2003), and thus were easier for respondents to answer. Finally, both studies were conducted in an online context and thus, the measurement can be adopted to investigate consumers’ perceived risk in mobile commerce context (Chen, 2013, Park and Tussyadiah, 2016) in a developing country (Hanafizadeh et al., 2014, Malaquias and Hwang, 2016) such as Vietnam (Khoi et al., 2018, Phong et al., 2018). The multi-dimensional construct of perceived security was used from Hartono et al. (2014). Furthermore, while the perceived risk was conceptualized and operationalized as a reflective-reflective second-order construct (Park and Tussyadiah, 2016), perceived security was conceptualized and operationalized as a reflective-formative second-order construct (Hartono et al., 2014). This operationalization is expected to provide a deeper and broader understanding of risk vs security perception. Continuance intention to use mobile commerce construct included three items from Chong (2015). To adapt these adopted measurements into a mobile context in a developing country like Vietnam, items were first simplified in order to make respondents feel easier to respond and thus, increase response rate and validation. Also, because previous measurement focus on e-services and purchase airlien ticket online, each item was modified to concentrate on mobile commerce rather than general e-services or online shopping. For example, an original item measuring privacy risk of Featherman and Pavlou (2003, p. 471) is ‘What are the chances that using an XXXX will cause you to lose control over the privacy of your payment information?’ was modified to ‘Using mobile commerce, I will lose control over my payment information’. An original item measuring financial risk of Kim et al. (2005, p. 41) is “Purchasing airline tickets over the Web would be an inappropriate way to spend my money” was adapted to “Mobile commerce would be an inappropriate way to spend my money”. Regarding consideration of future consequences, Strathman et al. (1994) have developed a scale of 12 items measuring consideration of future consequences – Immediate and consideration of future consequences - Future. Based on this scale, Joireman et al. (2012) have added two items generating a scale of fourteen items measuring consideration of future consequences – immediate and consideration of future consequences - future (seven items for each sub-construct). In this study, we borrowed the CFC scale from Strathman et al. (1994) and Joireman et al. (2012) and this scale was justified for the specific domain as mobile commerce context as some previous studies done (Olsen and Tuu, 2017). This justification is believed to increase the predictive ability of CFC (e.g., Pozolotina and Olsen, 2019). Accordingly, respondents were asked to think about mobile commerce and to rate these items. For example, an item measuring CFC-Immediate should be ‘I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself’. Similarly, an item measuring CFC-Future should be ‘I consider how mobile commerce’s benefits might be in the future, and try to archive those benefits with my day-to-day of using mobile commerce.’. The full measurement items are presented in Table 4-1. Table 41: Constructs measurement Constructs and indicators Sources CFC-Immediate (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994) I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself (CFCI1) My mobile commerce activities are only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions (CFCI2) My convenience is a big factor in my mobile commerce activities (CFCI3) I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems of mobile commerce activities because I think the problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level (CFCI4) I think that sacrificing mobile commerce activities now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time (CFCI5) I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later date (CFCI6) Since my day-to-day mobile commerce activities have specific outcomes, it is more important to me than mobile commerce activities that have distant outcomes (CFCI7) CFC-Future I consider how mobile commerce’s benefits might be in the future, and try to archive those benefits with my day-to-day of using mobile commerce (CFCF1) Often, I engage in a mobile commerce activity in order to achieve outcomes that may not result for many years (CFCF2) I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being of using mobile commerce activities in order to achieve future outcomes (CFCF3) I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes of mobile commerce activities seriously even if the negative outcome will not occur for many years (CFCF4) I think it is more important to make a mobile commerce decision with important distant consequences than a mobile commerce decision with less important immediate consequences (CFCF5) When I make a mobile commerce decision, I think about how it might affect me in the future (CFCF6) My mobile commerce activities are generally influenced by future consequences (CFCF7) Financial Risk (FR) Featherman and Pavlou (2003), Kim et al. (2005) Mobile commerce would be an inappropriate way to spend my money (FR1) The money I would make on mobile commerce would not be wise (FR2) I will not get my money’s worth from mobile commerce (FR3) Mobile commerce would not provide value for the money I spent (FR4) Performance Risk (PER) I worry mobile commerce will not perform as they are supposed to (PER1) I worry mobile commerce will not provide the level of benefits as I expect (PER2) A lot of risks would be involved with purchasing items on mobile commerce (PER3) I am not confident about mobile commerce vendors to perform as expected (PER4) Privacy Risk (PrR) Using mobile commerce, I will lose control over my payment information (PrR1) Using mobile commerce, my personal information would be used without my knowledge (PrR2) Internet criminals might take control of my account if I use mobile commerce (PrR3) Psychological Risk (PSR) Mobile commerce will not fit in well with my self-image or self-concept (PSR1) The usage of mobile commerce would lead to a psychological loss for me (PSR2) Social Risk (SR) Mobile commerce will negatively affect the way others think of you (SR1) Using mobile commerce would lead to a social loss for me (SR2) Time Risk (TR) Using mobile commerce, I will lose time switching to a different payment method (TR1) Using mobile commerce, I will waste a lot of time fixing payments errors (TR2) Mobile commerce could lead to inefficient use of my time (TR3) Mobile commerce will take too much time or be a waste of time (TR4) Perceived Confidentiality (PC) Hartono et al. (2014) Someone uses my mobile commerce ID to read my transactional informationR (PC1) Someone uses my mobile commerce ID to make order R (PC1) Someone steals my mobile commerce ID R (PC1) Perceived Integrity (PI) The site transmits my transactional information accurately (PI1) My transactional information is alteredR (PI2) The site records my transactional information incorrectlyR (PI3) Perceived Availability (PA) I cannot order due to system failureR (PA1) I cannot order due to database failureR (PA2) I cannot order due to network failureR (PA3) Perceived Non-Repudiation (PNR) The site uses a digital signature (PNR1) The legislation backs up the digital signature (PNR2) The identity of this site is trustworthy (PNR3) Continuance intention to use mobile commerce (BI) Chong (2015) I intend to increase my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC1) I intend to continue my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC2) I will strongly recommend others to use mobile commerce (UMC3) Note: R: reversed item (Source: author’s summarization) The survey questionnaire was originally developed in English. Since the study’s correspondents were Vietnamese consumers, the original questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese by a language instructor. To ensure that the translation and wording used in the Vietnamese version were consistent with the original, this Vietnamese version was translated back into English and the two English versions of the questionnaire were compared. Based on the results, we made some minor modifications. The second part aims at collecting demographic information such as gender, age, occupation, income. Although we do not use demographic information for further analysis (e.g., multi-group analysis), we use these variables as control variables in our research model. Cronbach’s Alpha testing results The testing results show that the Cronbach’s Alpha of all constructs was greater than 0.7 and all corrected item-total correlations were greater than 0.3. Therefore, all items were used in the questionnaire of the main study. Table 42: Cronbach's Alpha testing results Constructs and indicators Item-total correlation If item deleted CFC-Immediate (α = 0.87) (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994) I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself (CFCI1) 0.70 0.84 My mobile commerce activities are only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions (CFCI2) 0.69 0.84 My convenience is a big factor in my mobile commerce activities (CFCI3) 0.81 0.82 I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems of mobile commerce activities because I think the problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level (CFCI4) 0.49 0.87 I think that sacrificing mobile commerce activities now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time (CFCI5) 0.60 0.85 I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later date (CFCI6) 0.58 0.86 Since my day-to-day mobile commerce activities have specific outcomes, it is more important to me than mobile commerce activities that have distant outcomes (CFCI7) 0.62 0.85 CFC-Future (α = 0.85) (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994) I consider how mobile commerce’s benefits might be in the future, and try to archive those benefits with my day-to-day of using mobile commerce (CFCF1) 0.73 0.81 Often, I engage in a mobile commerce activity in order to achieve outcomes that may not result for many years (CFCF2) 0.61 0.83 I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being of using mobile commerce activities in order to achieve future outcomes (CFCF3) 0.60 0.83 I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes of mobile commerce activities seriously even if the negative outcome will not occur for many years (CFCF4) 0.34 0.87 I think it is more important to make a mobile commerce decision with important distant consequences than a mobile commerce decision with less important immediate consequences (CFCF5) 0.83 0.79 When I make a mobile commerce decision, I think about how it might affect me in the future (CFCF6) 0.68 0.82 My mobile commerce activities is generally influenced by future consequences (CFCF7) 0.55 0.84 Financial Risk (FR) (α = 0.82) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) Mobile commerce would be an inappropriate way to spend my money (FR1) 0.69 0.76 The money I would make on mobile commerce would not be wise (FR2) 0.80 0.72 I will not get my money’s worth from mobile commerce (FR3) 0.63 0.82 Mobile commerce would not provide value for the money I spent (FR4) 0.56 0.81 Performance Risk (PER) (α = 0.72) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) I worry mobile commerce will not perform as they are supposed to (PER1) 0.58 0.63 I worry mobile commerce will not provide the level of benefits as I expect (PER2) 0.37 0.75 A lot of risks would be involved with purchasing items on mobile commerce (PER3) 0.58 0.63 I am not confident about mobile commerce vendors to perform as expected (PER4) 0.57 0.63 Privacy Risk (PrR) (α = 0.82) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) Using mobile commerce, I will lose control over my payment information (PrR1) 0.52 0.89 Using mobile commerce, my personal information would be used without my knowledge (PrR2) 0.72 0.71 Internet criminals might take control of my account if I use mobile commerce (PrR3) 0.83 0.58 Psychological Risk (PSR) (α = 0.78) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) Mobile commerce will not fit in well with my self-image or self-concept (PSR1) 0.70 - The usage of mobile commerce would lead to a psychological loss for me (PSR2) 0.70 - Social Risk (SR) (α = 0.89) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) Mobile commerce will negatively affect the way others think of you (SR1) 0.82 - Using mobile commerce would lead to a social loss for me (SR2) 0.82 - Time Risk (TR) (α = 0.84) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) Using mobile commerce, I will lose time switching to a different payment method (TR1) 0.79 0.74 Using mobile commerce, I will waste a lot of time fixing payments errors (TR2) 0.65 0.80 Mobile commerce could lead to inefficient use of my time (TR3) 0.57 0.83 Mobile commerce will take too much time or be a waste of time (TR4) 0.68 0.79 Perceived Confidentiality (PC) (α = 0.84) (Hartono et al., 2014) Someone uses my mobile commerce ID to read my transactional informationR (PC1) 0.71 0.77 Someone uses my mobile commerce ID to make order R (PC1) 0.66 0.81 Someone steals my mobile commerce ID R (PC1) 0.73 0.75 Perceived Integrity (PI) (α = 0.76) (Hartono et al., 2014) The site transmits my transactional information accurately (PI1) 0.53 0.76 My transactional information is alteredR (PI2) 0.75 0.53 The site records my transactional information incorrectlyR (PI3) 0.53 0.76 Perceived Availability (PA) (α = 0.76) (Hartono et al., 2014) I cannot order due to system failureR (PA1) 0.51 0.78 I cannot order due to database failureR (PA2) 0.69 0.57 I cannot order due to network failureR (PA3) 0.62 0.67 Perceived Non-Repudiation (PNR) (α = 0.83) (Hartono et al., 2014) The site uses a digital signature (PNR1) 0.74 0.75 The legislation backs up the digital signature (PNR2) 0.79 0.67 The identity of this site is trustworthy (PNR3) 0.62 0.86 Continuance intention (BI) (α = 0.93) (Chong, 2015) I intend to increase my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC1) 0.90 0.88 I intend to continue my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC2) 0.83 0.93 I will strongly recommend others to use mobile commerce (UMC3) 0.88 0.88 (Source: author’s calculation) Furthermore, based on the comments of two university lecturers, the Vietnamese version of the questionnaire was slightly modified to better fit with the Vietnamese style. More specifically, among three items measuring perceived integrity, the first item was not reversed while the two remaining items were reversed. This can cause Vietnamese respondents confused and thus, all three items are reversed in the Vietnamese version of the questionnaire. Also, because the phrase ‘mobile commerce ID’ can make respondents hard to understand, we replace this phrase with the phrase ‘mobile commerce account’ in the Vietnam questionnaire. Finally, three items measuring perceived non-repudiation were slightly modified by replacing the word ‘site’ with ‘mobile commerce site’ in order to emphasize on mobile commerce perception. All other items remained unchanged. The 48 items used in the final questionnaire are presented in Table 4-3. Table 43: Final items of the questionnaire No. Constructs and indicators Notation CFC-Immediate (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994) 1 I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself (CFCI1) CFCI1 2 My mobile commerce activities are only influenced by the immediate (i.e., a matter of days or weeks) outcomes of my actions (CFCI2) CFCI2 3 My convenience is a big factor in my mobile commerce activities (CFCI3) CFCI3 4 I generally ignore warnings about possible future problems of mobile commerce activities because I think the problems will be resolved before they reach crisis level (CFCI4) CFCI4 5 I think that sacrificing mobile commerce activities now is usually unnecessary since future outcomes can be dealt with at a later time (CFCI5) CFCI5 6 I only use mobile commerce to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring that I will take care of future problems that may occur at a later date (CFCI6) CFCI6 7 Since my day-to-day mobile commerce activities have specific outcomes, it is more important to me than mobile commerce activities that have distant outcomes (CFCI7) CFCI7 CFC-Future (Joireman et al., 2012, Strathman et al., 1994) 8 I consider how mobile commerce’s benefits might be in the future, and try to archive those benefits with my day-to-day of using mobile commerce (CFCF1) CFCF1 9 Often, I engage in a mobile commerce activity in order to achieve outcomes that may not result for many years (CFCF2) CFCF2 10 I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being of using mobile commerce activities in order to achieve future outcomes (CFCF3) CFCF3 11 I think it is important to take warnings about negative outcomes of mobile commerce activities seriously even if the negative outcome will not occur for many years (CFCF4) CFCF4 12 I think it is more important to make a mobile commerce decision with important distant consequences than a mobile commerce decision with less important immediate consequences (CFCF5) CFCF5 13 When I make a mobile commerce decision, I think about how it might affect me in the future (CFCF6) CFCF6 14 My mobile commerce activities is generally influenced by future consequences (CFCF7) CFCF7 Financial Risk (FR) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 15 Mobile commerce would be an inappropriate way to spend my money (FR1) FR1 16 The money I would make on mobile commerce would not be wise (FR2) FR2 17 I will not get my money’s worth from mobile commerce (FR3) FR3 18 Mobile commerce would not provide value for the money I spent (FR4) FR4 Performance Risk (PER) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 19 I worry mobile commerce will not perform as they are supposed to (PER1) PER1 20 I worry mobile commerce will not provide the level of benefits as I expect (PER2) PER2 21 A lot of risks would be involved with purchasing items on mobile commerce (PER3) PER3 22 I am not confident about mobile commerce vendors to perform as expected (PER4) PER4 Privacy Risk (PrR) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 23 Using mobile commerce, I will lose control over my payment information (PrR1) PR1 24 Using mobile commerce, my personal information would be used without my knowledge (PrR2) PR2 25 Internet criminals might take control of my account if I use mobile commerce (PrR3) PR3 Psychological Risk (PSR) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 26 Mobile commerce will not fit in well with my self-image or self-concept (PSR1) PSR1 27 The usage of mobile commerce would lead to a psychological loss for me (PSR2) PSR2 Social Risk (SR) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 28 Mobile commerce will negatively affect the way others think of you (SR1) SR1 29 Using mobile commerce would lead to a social loss for me (SR2) SR2 Time Risk (TR) (Featherman and Pavlou, 2003, Kim et al., 2005) 30 Using mobile commerce, I will lose time switching to a different payment method (TR1) TR1 31 Using mobile commerce, I will waste a lot of time fixing payments errors (TR2) TR2 32 Mobile commerce could lead to inefficient use of my time (TR3) TR3 33 Mobile commerce will take too much time or be a waste of time (TR4) TR4 Perceived Confidentiality (PC) (Hartono et al., 2014) 34 Someone uses my mobile commerce account to read my transactional informationR (PC1) PC1 35 Someone uses my mobile commerce account to make order R (PC1) PC2 36 Someone steals my mobile commerce account R (PC1) PC3 Perceived Integrity (PI) (Hartono et al., 2014) 37 The site transmits my transactional information accurately (PI1) PI1 38 My transactional information is alteredR (PI2) PI2 39 The site records my transactional information incorrectlyR (PI3) PI3 Perceived Availability (PA) (Hartono et al., 2014) 40 I cannot order due to system failure PA1 41 I cannot order due to database failure PA2 42 I cannot order due to network failure PA3 Perceived Non-Repudiation (PNR) (Hartono et al., 2014) 43 This mobile commerce site uses a digital signature PNR1 44 The legislation backs up the digital signature PNR2 45 The identity of this mobile commerce site is trustworthy PNR3 Continuance intention to use mobile commerce (BI) (Chong, 2015) 46 I intend to increase my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC1) UMC1 47 I intend to continue my use of mobile commerce in the future (UMC2) UMC2 48 I will strongly recommend others to use mobile commerce (UMC3) UMC3 (Source: author’s summarization) The full questionnaire (Vietnamese version) is presented in Appendix A. The main study Data collection A survey was developed to collect data, which in turn, was used to evaluate the measurement scales and test the proposed hypotheses. This questionnaire was pre-tested with thirty students and two university lecturers whose main research areas are electronic commerce and Internet technologies. Based on the pilot testing results, we developed the final version of questionnaire that included three parts: Introduction of aims and purposes, main content to ask for consumer perception about mobile commerce, and demographic information section that includes age, gender, occupation and income (Hair, Celsi, Ortinau and Bush, 2008). Since we investigated consumers’ continuance intention to use mobile commerce, it was necessary that respondents should have a mobile phone, use mobile internet services (e.g., 4G) and have used mobile commerce before. Therefore, customers of the three biggest communication service providers (VNPT, Mobifone, and Viettel) in Nha Trang. A screening question (Have you ever used your mobile devices to conduct transactions before?) was asked to ensure that respondents have used mobile commerce before. Self-administered surveys at stores were conducted, and incentive gifts (i.e., prepaid phone cards) were offered to increase the response rate. This study selects Nha Trang city as a field to collect data. This is because Nha Trang is the economic and political center of Khanh Hoa province, which is considered as one of the most fastest-growing areas regarding electronic commerce (Vietnam E-Commerce Association, 2019). According to Vietnam E-Business Index 2019 Report by Vietnam E-Commerce Association (2019), Khanh Hoa was the city with the ninth-largest domain name (3,791 domains “.vn” and had a ratio of 322 populations/1 ".vn"). Also, according to this report, Khanh Hoa has ranked 13/54 provinces that had a strong investment in human resource and information technology infrastructure. More importantly, Khanh Hoa was also among provinces that had a high point of B2C transaction index with 52.4 points (average B2C transaction index in the whole country was 45.7 points) and a high level of E-Business index (ranked 14 with 42.7 points). Furthermore, the People's Committee of Khanh Hoa province has developed strategies to encourage consumers using the form of online shopping and non-cash payment. This also includes encouraging businesses continuing fostering online services, such as hotel and travel reservations, online airline/train tickets purchase. The strategy has also focused on applying QR in online payment or online promotion, electronic tax declaration, supporting a quick connection between producers, sellers, and buyers. Thus, we expected that this strategy not only fosters and promotes E-Business application among businesses but al