Skip to main content

2022代写程式收费Customers’Risk Perceptions of Electronic Payment Systems 客户

By August 22, 2022essay代写

2022代写程式收费Customers’Risk Perceptions of Electronic Payment Systems 客户

2022代写程式收费Customers’Risk Perceptions of Electronic Payment Systems 客户

Customers’Risk Perceptions of Electronic Payment Systems 客户对电子支付系统的风险观察论文

IntroductionTechnological development has led to the gradualinstallation of various electronic fund transfer systems(EFTS) worldwide. While many other Western countriesare still experimenting with a nationwide electronic fundtransfer at point-of-sale (EFTPoS) system, Hong Kongwas among the first in the world to introduce a single fullscaleoperational EFTPoS system (commonly known asEasy Pay System in Hong Kong and the two terms will beused interchangeably in this article). The system issupported by all banks issuing automatic teller machine(ATM) cards in Hong Kong and is viewed as analternative payment method to other conventional retailpayment methods such as cash and credit card. Thevendor of the EPS service asserts that the serviceprovides potential benefits of more flexible, convenient,fast and secure services to the consumers.However, despite the huge amount of resources investedand the potential benefits, it does not guarantee thatEFTPoS can follow the same success story of the ATMsin the territory. The adoption rate of EPS service byconsumers as a substitute for cash and credit cardpayment is relatively slow. Currently, about 85 per cent ofretail purchases are paid by cash and 10 per cent by creditcards (Kwok, 1993). Only a few per cent of potentialEFTPoS users (i.e. ATM cardholders) have ever used theeasy pay system (EPS) service. One reason for such lowusage of EFTPoS is that consumers may perceiveEFTPoS has a higher level of “risk” than other traditionalpayment methods.The objective of this study is to gain more insight into thereasons why ATM cardholders accept or reject EFTPoSand how they view the risk of EFTPoS when compared tocredit cards and cash. Earlier related empirical studies onEFTS usage mainly focused on issues such asdemographic and psychographic profile of ATM users(e.g. Ho et al., 1989; Wiley and Richard, 1974), and users’prior experience of using other new financial services andits relationship with EFTS adoption (e.g. Swinyard andGhee, 1987). Yet very few studies have reported on howcustomer motivations, fears and behaviours areassociated with specific EFTS services such as EFTPoS.This study makes use of a concept in consumer behaviourand perceived risk to study the differences of consumers’risk perceptions among alternative payment methods. Italso examines whether the amount of purchase has aneffect on the level of perceived risk of alternative paymentmethods and whether users of EFTPoS perceive the riskof EFTPoS differently from non-users.The authors believe that EFTPoS adoption has its#p#分页标题#e#common theoretical foundations internationally, and asHong Kong is one of the most advanced users of bankingtechnology in Asia, the results in Hong Kong would besomewhat typical of many other industrialized countries.The findings should be useful in enhancing ourknowledge about users’ needs and concerns of EFTPoSand in improving the EFTPoS vendor’s promotionalefforts. The discussions should be of considerable interestto bank marketers, information technology planners,retailers, general consumers and researchers who areinterested in the further development of electronic fundtransfer systems.Development of EFTPoS in Hong KongThe greatest boost in local EFTS came from thewidespread use of ATMs in Hong Kong. Hong KongComparisons between traditional forms of paymentand electronic systems with their inherent perceivedrisks by customers are detailed.Customers’RiskPerceptions ofElectronicPaymentSystemsInternational Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 8, 1994, pp. 26-38© MCB University Press Limited, 0265-2323Simon S.M. Ho and Victor T.F. NgCUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 27ranked fourth in the world in terms of ATMs per 10,000people and ranked 13th in terms of cards per 10,000people in 1985 (Ho, 1991). With over 2,000 ATMs in HongKong serving about 3.5 million ATM cardholders(including 1.5 million credit cards), and with dailytransactions for each ATM amounting to 1,000 per daywhile the international average is just 7,000 per month,Hong Kong probably boasts the highest ATM usage ratein the world (Ho, 1991).Apparently the rapid adoption of credit cards and ATMsprovided some evidence that consumers in Hong Kongcould accept other new electronic banking ideas easily.The introduction of another new but similar electronicbanking service seems to be a logical development; hencethe launch of EFTPoS. An EFTPoS system allows acustomer to pay for goods and services at the merchant’slocation by transferring funds from the customer’s bankaccount to the shop’s account immediately. Any ATMcardholder with a personal identification number (PIN)can effect an EFTPoS transaction without any prearrangementswith the bank. For credit card holders,credit card checking and over-credit limit referral can alsobe accepted by the same EFTPoS terminal. In principle,in shops which accept credit cards and EFTPoS,shoppers are offered the choice of purchase on cash, creditor online payment with no payment charge.Such retail EFTPoS systems have been tried in countriessuch as France, Canada, the USA, the UK, Belgium andHolland. Nevertheless, only a few systems in these#p#分页标题#e#countries appear to have achieved a sufficient level ofusage to justify its set-up costs. The FarEast is also verymuch in the forefront of developments (Astbury, 1985). In1985 a UK computing services company built twoEFTPoS networks, one in Bangkok and the other inSingapore which supports over 1,000 terminals. A similarsystem on a larger scale, i.e. the Easy Pay System, waslaunched almost simultaneously in Hong Kong.Developed mainly by the Hong Kong Association ofBanks in conjunction with the Hong Kong Bank, the localEPS is managed by the Electronic Payment Services Co.(HK) Ltd (EPSCO) on behalf of 32 banks issuing ATMcards. The system enables authorized banks to connecttheir computers to a shared network of EFTPoS terminalsat shops, through a PoS central switching computer. Bymid-1993, about 2,500 merchants were participating inthe EPS system, with over 4,800 terminals installed. LikeATM services, the huge population, the compact society,the lack of red-tape interference in the use of telecommunications,and the close co-operation between allmajor banks contributed to making Hong Kong one of thefirst to establish a nationwide cashless shopping system.Study groups from other countries have visited HongKong to learn how EPS functions (Asian Finance, 1984).The notion of cashless shopping seems to hold severaladvantages for banks, retailers and shoppers alike. WithEFTPoS, transaction paperwork for banks is reduced to aminimum and banks will get less fraud and fewerdelinquent accounts because of bad cheques and creditcards. Many EFTPoS vendors also expect a return ontheir investment and believe the convenient service wouldbe accepted by customers without financial incentives.From a retailer’s point of view, EFTPoS would reducepaperwork, guarantee payment, require less cash fordaily transactions and have no need for verification ofcustomer signatures. According to a survey by Marti andZeilinger (1982), the transaction time for EFTPoS (usuallyunder 30 seconds) is faster than that for cheques andcredit cards. Detailed accounting and inventory data canalso be recorded instantly, thus allowing the merchant tomaximize the efficiency of the salesforce, increase controlover inventories and monitor the characteristics of thestore’s clientele (Ho, 1992).Certainly, the EFTPoS system also offers some potentialadvantages and convenience to customers. Customers canhave direct access to their bank accounts at retailers’counters and therefore have no need to carry largeamounts of cash. By using debit cards, they will not haveto risk over-reaching their credit limit each time theypurchase or require cash from an ATM. It is also expected#p#分页标题#e#that with EFTPoS, consumers will get better and speediercashier services. However, in comparison to credit cards,there is also the disadvantage that their accounts aredebited immediately.Despite the potential benefits offered by EFTPoS and theextensive promotion efforts made, the Easy Pay Systemunfortunately does not seem to share the same successfulexperience of its forerunners – credit cards and ATMs.The technology used in EFTPoS systems is not new.Some pilot experiments conducted overseas failed, whileothers achieved a marginal measure of success. Theadoption rate of the EPS services remains relatively slowand only 5 per cent of the total ATM card transaction inthe local JETCO ATM network were through EPS in 1992.Also, some high-volume, low-margin retailers refuse toadopt EPS because of its high transactions costs andunjustifiable return in terms of increase of sales. Overall,the worldwide spread of cashless shopping is still quiteslow (Aoki, 1986; Fitzgerald, 1988; Friis, 1985; Kuroda,1987; Sowton, 1989).The Far East is inthe forefront ofdevelopments28 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8According to Ho (1985; 1991), some potential problems orbarriers to EFTPoS adoption include: consumers’inherent resistance to change, loss of benefit of credit cardfloat, unavailability of service when needed, fears ofinvasion of personal privacy, potential plastic card fraudand errors, lack of provision of leverage against amerchant or vendor in case of a dispute, and lack ofadequate consumer awareness, education andparticipation. It may be for some of these reasons thatmany customers have a high perceived risk of the serviceand therefore seem rather reluctant to use EFTPoS.Review of Literature on EFTS AdoptionTo gain more insight into why the target customersaccept or reject EFTPoS as an alternative paymentmethod, it is useful to review some earlier studies oncustomers’ acceptance of different payment methods.Fitzgerald (1988) conducted a survey on behalf of thePayment Systems Education Association in the USA.The survey notes that consumers still favour cash andcheques for nearly all kinds of purchases. The findingsindicate that 70 per cent of the 1,007 respondentsregularly used cash to pay for purchases up to US$50. Forpurchases over US$50, 42 per cent preferred to usepersonal cheques, 35 per cent chose cash and 21 per centchose credit cards, and less than 1 per cent of therespondents preferred to use debit cards for purchases.Earlier empirical studies with a focus on EFTPoS usageare rare due to the newness of the system. Earlier studieson EFTS (mainly ATM) and credit card usage werebasically centred on issues such as demographic and#p#分页标题#e#psychographic profiles of ATM users and non-users(Barow, 1982; Murphy, 1983; Wiley and Richard, 1974);attitudes towards credit cards and bank cards (Etzel,1974; Mears and McCarty, 1978; Porter et al., 1979; Yiuand Kwoen, 1987); users’ prior experience of using othernon-bank cards and its relationship with EFTS adoption(Awh and Waters, 1974; Mandel, 1972; Swinyard andGhee, 1987); and the impact of information exposure onthe probability of EFTS adoption (Horne and Martin,1981; Vinson and McVandon, 1978).The research by Horne and Martin (1981) and Ho et al.(1989) were among the few studies on consumers’adoption of EFTPoS. Horne and Martin’s study alsoexamined the demographic characteristics, perceivedattributes and certain related behavioural dimensions.The results showed that demographic variables could notdifferentiate potential users from non-users. However,certain previous behaviour, especially the use of an ATM,did promote the adoption of EFTPoS. Also, consumers’perceptions of the service’s attributes were related toprobability of use. From a list of 11 recognized attributes,“Enjoyment of Using”, “Easing of Personal Routine”, and“Time Savings” all varied directly with willingness to usethe EFTPoS, while “Financial Risk” and “Cost of Using”have an indirect relationship. Similar to earlier studies onATM users, Ho et al.’s (1989) study on demographiccharacteristics of the EPS users in Hong Kong alsoshowed that EPS adopters tend to be younger, bettereducated and with higher income.The widely used concept to explain the consumeradoption of new banking technology is the “diffusion ofinnovations” framework. Rogers’ (1983) work on diffusionof innovations showed that it takes time for innovationsto diffuse within a population of consumers. Before alarge number of people begin to use a product or service,a relatively small group of people, known as innovatorsor early adopters, will try it and be satisfied with it. Thesepeople will influence others to use the same product orservice. The demographic user profile of ATM andEFTPoS adopters has been found to match with theconcept of “diffusion of innovations” in the earlier studiesof ATM and EFTPoS users (see e.g. Barow, 1982; Ho et al.,1989; Mears and McCarty, 1978; Murphy, 1983). Yet veryfew studies have reported on how customer motivations,fears and behaviours are associated with the use ofdifferent payment methods, particularly EFTPoS. Thecurrent study will make use of a concept in consumerbehaviour and perceived risk – to study the differences ofconsumers’ risk perception among alternative payment#p#分页标题#e#methods.A Theoretical Model of Consumers’ RiskPerceptionBauer (1964) first introduced the perceived risk concept toconsumer behaviour research in order to explain suchphenomena as information seeking, brand loyalty,opinion leaders, reference groups and pre-purchasedeliberations. He asserted that consumer behaviourinvolves risk in the sense that any action of a consumermay lead to unpleasant consequences. Since then, anumber of consumer behaviour researches wereconducted on perceived risk (see e.g. Cox, 1967;Gemunden, 1985; Peter and Ryan, 1976).There are two basic approaches used to define or measurethe concept of perceived risk. The uncertaintyconsequencesapproach measures perceived risk as afunction of the uncertainty of the purchase outcomes (inIt takes time forinnovations todiffuseCUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 29terms of subjective probability) and the consequencesassociated with unfavourable purchase outcomes.However, this multiplicative approach to defining risk,which is based on prior work in economics and statisticaldecision theory, had been viewed as inappropriate inconsumer behaviour research (Bettman, 1975; Sjoberg,1980; Stone and Gronhaug, 1993).In contrast, the risk-component approach identifies andmeasures the several basic dimensions of the overallperceived risk in buying behaviour (e.g. financial risk,performance risk, physical risk, psychological risk, socialrisk and time-loss risk). The relative importance of thevarious risk dimensions need not necessarily be the sameacross purchase decisions, as some risk aspects will bemore prevalent in some purchase situations than inothers. Several studies have also proved that the five orsix major dimensions of perceived risk can account for asubstantial fraction of overall perceived risk (Assael,1987; Stem et al., 1977; Stone and Gronhaug, 1993).The overall perceived risk can therefore be predicted bycombining several functionally independent dimensionsof risk. This research therefore uses the risk-componentapproach to measure the amount of risk of differentdimensions perceived by consumers when they are usingalternative payment methods.Roselius (1971) analysed four types of loss, i.e.:(1) ego loss;(2) hazard loss;(3) money loss and time loss; and(4) how consumers try to reduce each kind of loss.He found that consumers associated different types andamounts of loss with different payment situations. Jacobyand Kaplan (1972) studied five kinds of risk, i.e.:(1) financial;(2) performance;(3) physical;(4) psychological and social risk; and(5) how consumers associate the risks with each of 12#p#分页标题#e#different products.Psychological risk refers to how the consumer perceiveshimself after making a wrong purchase, and social riskrefers to the consumer’s perception of how others willreact to his purchase. They concluded that these fivedimensions can predict overall perceived risk fairlyaccurately but noted that time loss should probably beincluded in their research. Other researchers have alsosuggested that time is an important risk dimension(George et al., 1984).Zikmund (1973) empirically investigated the nature anddimensionality of risk for three product classes, i.e.:(1) personal stationery;(2) metal lawn furniture; and(3) colour television sets.These ranged from low to high in overall perceived risk.He concluded that:the results of the study provide considerable evidence thatperceived risk should be treated multi-dimensionally andwith regard to the specific product (service) class. Theempirical approach to recovering the principal riskdimensions of several product classes indicates that both thedimensionality and nature of risk components vary byproduct as the evaluative dimensions change. This impliesthat the marketer would gain more useful information onwhy a product (service) is perceived to be risky and,therefore, be in a better position to reduce consumers’ riskperception.The current study attempted to use the perceived riskmodel to explain the adoption of EFTPoS. Thedimensions of perceived risk selected in the current studyfollows the model developed by Peter and Tarpey (1975)in which the construct was “depicted not only as amultiplicative function of probability of loss andimportance of loss but also as an additive model of thevarious facets of risk”. This model is selected because itemploys the operational definitions of risk that are usedby Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) and it also included timerisk as one of the risk dimensions. However, in the currentstudy, since the respondents cannot distinguish betweenpsychological and social risks in the pre-test (to bediscussed in the next section), these two risks are groupedunder the same category of psychological risk in order tofacilitate respondents’ understanding and hence improvethe reliability of the findings.In this study, risk is defined as a subjective expectation ofloss or negative consequences in buying behaviour (Peterand Ryan, 1976). Based on Jacoby and Kaplan (1972) andRoselius (1971), the respective definitions of the fiveselected risk dimensions are as follows:(1) Physical risk. The risk of loss of cash/cards orpotential injury to the consumer (e.g. getting hurtif one is robbed). Loss of cards may cause inconvenience#p#分页标题#e#but not necessarily lead to financial loss.(2) Performance risk. The risk that a specific paymentmethod cannot be used to complete a transactionwhen needed due to refusal of acceptance oradditional charges asked by the retailer.(3) Psychological risk. The risk that the use of aspecific payment method will lower the self-imageof the consumer or the perceived image of theconsumer from others’ viewpoint.(4) Financial risk. The risk that using a paymentalternative will lead to financial loss. Financial lossmeans that the consumer cannot get a refund whenneeded or is not able to reverse the transaction or30 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8to stop payment after discovering the mistake.However, it does not include the loss of credit floatwhen using cash or EFTPoS.(5) Time-loss risk. The risk that a specific paymentmethod will take up more time to complete atransaction than paying by other means. It doesnot include the time spent after use of EFTPoS (e.g.checking extra payment items in account statements)as these are rather minimal and controllable.Based on the risk dimensions discussed above, thefollowing research questions will be investigated in thecurrent study:(1) Does the relative importance ranking of the fiverisk dimensions differ among the three alternativepayment methods?(2) For each risk dimension, does the level ofperceived risk differ among the three alternativepayment methods?(3) For each risk dimension of alternative paymentmethods, do large purchases have a higher level ofperceived risk than small purchases?(4) For each risk dimension, do EFTPoS users have alower level of perceived risk about EFTPoSpayment than non-users?Altogether, this study will involve a combination of fivedimensions of perceived risk: three alternative paymentmethods (cash, credit card and EFTPoS) and twopurchasing amounts (small and large).Research Method and DesignDesign of QuestionnaireThe research instrument, with both English and Chineseversions, consists of a self-administered closed-endstructured questionnaire which is divided into three parts(see Appendix). The first part is used to collect generalinformation about the usage of ATM card and EPSservices. The second part is concerned with therespondents’ perceived risk associated with the use ofcash, credit card and EPS under two different purchasesituations. This part is further divided into two sub-parts:the first sub-part deals only with the small purchasesituation and the second sub-part deals with the largepurchase situation. Each sub-part is further divided inthree sections, with each section containing the same set#p#分页标题#e#of ten risk perception question items for each type ofpayment method, i.e. cash, credit card and EFTPoS.The ten items, which were developed from previousstudies, cover the five dimensions of perceived risk,namely, physical risk (items 1 and 6), performance risk(items 2 and 7), financial risk (items 3 and 8),psychological risk (items 4 and 9) and time loss risk(items 5 and 10). For each risk dimension, one of the twoitems will be a positive statement and the other a negativestatement.The negative statements were used to ensure reliability ofthe data collected and their results will be re-coded andadded to those of positive statements to find the averagescore. For each of the 60 (five risk dimensions ´ two items´ three payment methods ´ two purchase amounts)items, all respondents were asked to rate on a six-pointbipolar scale whether they would agree or disagree withthe statement made. The third part is designed to obtaindemographic data from the respondents such as age, sex,marital status, education, annual personal income,position and type of business involved.The two products chosen in this research are clothing and20-inch television sets which act as examples of smallpurchase and large purchase respectively. The criterion inchoosing these two products is mainly based on the dollarvalue of the two products and their common availabilityin department stores. The average value of clothing (notfashion) in a department store is about HK$300-$500(about US$38-$64). The value of HK$300 amounts toabout 5 per cent of the average monthly income of HongKong young people (around HK$6,000), who are the targetfor this research. On the other hand, the average sum of a20-inch television set is about HK$3,000 (about US$385)which will be about 50 per cent of the monthly income ofyoung people in Hong Kong.Sample Chosen and Pre-testing of QuestionnaireAs Ho et al. (1989) found that EFTPoS users tend to beyounger and better educated, the target group of thisstudy was therefore focused on consumers who werebetween the ages of 20 and 30. As it was not possible toobtain a list of all cardholders in Hong Kong, aconvenience sampling method was therefore employedand respondents were selected in department stores andfast-food restaurants located in high traffic areas. In orderto avoid bias in timing, interviews were conducted atdifferent times of the day and on Monday, Wednesday andFriday.Two separate pre-tests of the questionnaire wereconducted during the initial phase of the survey. Eachpre-test consisted of six respondents who were chosenrandomly from the MBA student population in theChinese University of Hong Kong. The first pre-test was#p#分页标题#e#used to collect comments and suggestions on the contentsof the questionnaire. Any missing items identified by theEFTPoS users tend to beyounger and bettereducatedCUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 31respondents were then incorporated into the second pretest.The second pre-test was used to test the respondents’understanding of the questions. Any misleading andunclear questions were revised and re-tested on the nextrespondent. The coefficient alpha of all risk dimensions inthe pre-tested questionnaire were better than 0.6, whichindicates that they all met reasonable standards ofinternal consistency and reliability (Nunnally, 1970).Two preliminary questions were asked verbally in orderto qualify the respondents. The two questions were “Doyou carry any ATM card or credit card?” and “Are youunder the age of 30?” If the answers to the two questionswere “yes” then the respondents would be asked to fill inthe self-administered questionnaire. Before therespondents started to fill in the pre-tested questionnaire,the definitions of EPS and ATM given at the front page ofthe questionnaire were repeated to make sure therespondents understood the meanings.Response Rate and Respondents’ ProfileA total of 200 questionnaires were distributed and 184 ofthem were returned showing a response rate of 92 percent. Such a high response rate was mainly due to the factthat the questionnaires were collected right after therespondents completed the forms. From the returnedquestionnaires, seven of them were incomplete and werediscarded, producing a total of 177 usable questionnaires(89 per cent of the total questionnaires distributed). Thedemographic profile of the respondents, such as sex,personal income, marital status, education level andposition held are shown in Table I.Research FindingsRelative Importance Ranking of Five Risk DimensionsSince the relative ranking of the five risk dimensions ofsmall purchases is similar to large purchases, the averagescore of large and small purchase was used to comparethe relative importance of risk dimensions among thethree payment methods. The average scores for small andlarge purchase for the five dimensions of perceived riskfor the three alternative payment methods are shown inFigure 1.To confirm that consumers have significant differences inperceived risk among the five risk dimensions for eachpayment method, matched-pairs t-tests were conductedamong each pair of risk perception dimensions (alpha =0.05). The results can be summarized as follows (=indicates no significant difference, and > stands forsignificantly higher):#p#分页标题#e#CashPhysical risk = Financial risk > Time loss risk >Psychological risk > Performance risk.Characteristics %SexMale 50.3Female 49.7StatusEPS users 28.8EPS non-users 71.2Marital statusMarried 15.8Single 84.2Yearly incomeLess than HK$50,000 1.7HK$50,001-HK$100,000 70.1HK$100,001-HK$150,00 23.7HK$150,001-HK$200,00 4.5EducationSecondary school 37.9Matriculation 44.1Polytechnic/technical institute 13.6University 4.5JobClerk, white collar 48.6Worker, blue collar 20.9Professional (e.g. accountant, solicitor, etc.) 6.8Technical (e.g. engineer, programmer, etc.) 9.6Middle/senior management 14.1Table I. Demographic Profiles of Respondents(Sample Size = 177)1 2 3 4 5 6PhysicalriskLow High1 2 3 4 5 6Performancerisk1 2 3 4 5 6Financialrisk1 2 3 4 5 6Psychologicalrisk1 2 3 4 5 6Time lossriskCash paymentCredit card paymentElectronic funds transfer at point of sale (EFTPoS)Figure 1. Comparison of Perceived Risk for AlternativePayment Methods32 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8Credit cardPerformance risk = Time loss risk > Financial risk >Physical risk > Psychological risk.EFTPoSFinancial risk = Performance risk > Time loss risk >Psychological risk > Physical risk.Overall, the following observations can be made:(1) All three payment methods have relatively lowpsychological risk. The respondents feel nodifference in self-image by using any one of thethree alternatives.(2) EFTPoS has lowest physical risk, credit card haslowest psychological risk and highest time lossrisk, while cash has highest physical risk andlowest performance risk.(3) The five dimensions of perceived risk for creditcard vary in a similar pattern as the EFTPoS. Bothcredit card and EFTPoS have low physical andpsychological risk but are high in the remainingrisk dimensions.(4) The relative importance ranking of the five riskdimensions is different among the three alternativepayment methods.Comparison of Each Risk Dimension among AlternativePayment MethodsThe t-test results of the comparison of different riskdimensions among alternative payment methods areshown in Table II.It can be seen that the higher performance risk ofEFTPoS, particularly in large purchases, works againstits acceptance. Consumers prefer to use cash because theyconsider that cash has universal acceptance at allpurchase situations. Currently only a small number ofshops have installed the additional expensive EPS#p#分页标题#e#terminals. Therefore improvement in the coverage ofEFTPoS terminals is important. The EPS vendor couldconsider developing an incentive scheme (e.g. absorbingmost of the installation costs and reducing commissioncharges) which could induce more shops to install EPSterminals. At the time of writing, the VISA card networkis experimenting with the new international Electrondebit cards which can be accepted by the original VISAcredit card machines (Kwok, 1993). Without necessitatingthe installation of extra EFTPOS terminals, and with alower commission charge than ATM cards, it is expectedthat more shops in the future will be willing to acceptEFTPoS transactions.Regarding the higher financial risk of EFTPoS, it is notedthat laws in many countries are weak in coping with thepace of technological advances and the complexity oflegal issues of EFTS. The introduction of EFTPoSincreases the law makers’ burden, as demands for legalrecognition of electronic payments will need to beaccommodated on top of the existing concerns overelectronic fraud, theft, viruses, privacy, confidentialityand security. A more active role should be played by theGovernment as a regulator which would include makingand revising EFTS laws and regulations, monitoring,Small purchase Large purchaseRisk Cash Credit EFTPoS t-value p-value Cash Credit EFTPoS t-value p-value4.13 3.18 9.66 0.000* 4.55 3.19 13.69 0.000*Physical 4.13 3.19 8.82 0.000* 4.55 3.13 13.56 0.000*3.18 3.19 –0.15 0.877 3.19 3.13 1.14 0.2541.92 4.09 –19.16 0.000* 2.05 3.84 –15.56 0.000*Performance 1.92 4.13 –19.57 0.000* 2.05 4.01 –1.99 0.000*4.09 4.13 -0.60 0.553 3.84 4.01 –16.62 0.048*3.24 2.81 5.63 0.000* 3.14 2.84 3.84 0.000*Psychological 3.24 3.46 –3.34 0.001* 3.14 3.33 –2.84 0.005*2.81 3.46 –8.61 0.000* 2.84 3.33 –7.42 0.000*4.20 3.54 5.86 0.000* 4.41 3.58 7.20 0.000*Financial 4.20 4.20 –0.03 0.975 4.41 4.09 3.86 0.000*3.54 4.20 –7.35 0.000* 3.58 4.09 –6.36 0.000*3.28 3.94 –7.28 0.000* 3.44 3.96 –6.13 0.000*Time loss 3.28 3.61 –3.81 0.000* 3.44 3.68 –2.87 0.025*3.94 3.61 4.60 0.000* 3.96 3.68 3.52 0.001** The difference was significant at the 0.05 level, with most at the 0.001 levelNote: The figures in the first three columns under each purchase situation are the mean scores of the responses to the particularrisk dimension of each payment method (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)Table II. Difference of Perceived Risk among Alternative Payments MethodsCUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 33educating and mediating and arbitrating in cases ofdisputes.Overall, there is little difference between small purchases#p#分页标题#e#and large purchases in terms of the relative risk amongthe three payment methods. The findings support thegeneral hypothesis that, for most risk dimensions, thelevel of perceived risk is significantly different among thethree alternative payment methods. Also, it furtherconfirms that credit card payment and EFTPoS paymenthave similar risk profiles, while EFTPoS is seen by therespondents to be very different from cash payment interms of the risk profile.Impact of Size of PurchaseThe comparison of physical risk between small and largepurchase by the use of three alternative paymentmethods is given in Table III.In general, for cash payments, physical risk, financial riskand time loss risk are significantly higher when thetransaction amount is larger. For credit card payments,performance risk is higher for the small purchase.Similarly, for EFTPoS payments, performance risk insmall purchases is higher than that in large purchases,while psychological risk for small purchases is howeverlower than that for large purchases. Similar variationsdue to difference in purchase amount for performancerisk for EFTPoS and credit card further confirms the ideathat consumers view these two methods of payment as aclose substitute for one another.One can conclude that the amount of purchase has a moresignificant effect on the perceived risk of cash paymentthan other payment methods. The impact on theperceived risk of credit card and EFTPoS payment aresmall except in the dimension of performance risk. Smallpurchase by credit card and EFTPoS payment havehigher performance risk because such methods ofpayment are less acceptable to retailers.EFTPoS Users versus Non-usersThe current EFTPoS users are believed to be largely theearly adopters of this innovative payment method, andthe trial use of the EFTPoS service should lower the levelof perceived risk in the mind of the users. To test thishypothesis, the respondents were divided into twogroups, the user group and non-user group, and theircomparative risk perception of EFTPoS payments weretested. It was hypothesized that, for each risk dimension,EFTPoS users have a lower level of perceived risk aboutEFTPoS payment than non-users. Respondents’ answersto the question “On average, how many times do you useEPS services in a month?” was used to divide therespondents into two groups, i.e. user group and non-usergroup. The answer “0” was treated as EFTPoS non-usersand the answer not equal to “0” was treated as EFTPoSusers. As a result, there were 51 users and 116 non-usersof EFTPOS in the sample. Grouped t-tests on the meandifference of perceived risk dimensions between these two#p#分页标题#e#groups were conducted.The comparison of risk perception between users andnon-users under both large and small transactions isgiven in Table IV. Under the small purchase situations,there is no significant difference between users’ and nonusers’perceived risk of EFTPoS services. The onlyexception is non-users’ perceived psychological riskwhich is higher than that of EFTPoS users. Overall, nonusersthink that using EFTPoS services may affect theirown image and status and so prefer to use other methodsof payment.Cash Credit EFTPoSRisk Small Large t-value p-value Small Large t-value p-value Small Large t-value p-valuePhysical 4.13 4.55 –5.00 0.000* 3.18 3.20 –0.19 0.852 3.19 3.13 1.13 0.260Performance 1.92 2.05 –1.62 0.106 4.09 3.84 4.15 0.000* 4.13 4.01 2.07 0.040*Psychological 3.24 3.14 1.4 0.164 2.81 2.84 –0.52 0.606 3.46 3.33 2.66 0.009*Financial 4.20 4.41 –2.25 0.026* 3.54 3.58 –0.64 0.524 4.20 4.09 1.31 0.192Time loss 3.28 3.44 –2.06 0.041* 3.94 3.96 –0.49 0.626 3.61 3.68 –0.94 0.349* The difference was significant at the 0.05 levelNote: The figures in the first two columns under each purchase situation are the mean scores of the responses to the particularrisk dimension (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)Table III. Difference of Perceived Risk between Small and Large PurchaseMore marketing researchand consumer participationis required34 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8In large purchase situations, the risk perception of usersof financial risk and time loss risk are higher than that ofnon-users. However, psychological risk of non-usersremains higher than that of users, so there is no change inthe perception of psychological risk for non-users for anyamount of transactions. There is no significant differencebetween users and non-users in perceived physical andperformance risk of EFTPoS services.Overall, there are differences in financial risk, time lossrisk and psychological risk between the users and nonusersgroup. The users group has a significantly higherlevel of financial and time risk than the non-users group,while the non-users group perceives that EFTPoS has ahigher level of psychological risk. However, thedifferences in physical risk and performance risk betweenthe two groups are not significant. The experience ofusing EFTPoS does affect the risk perception of the usersabout EFTPoS to some extent, but instead of lowering therisk, the usage experience will increase their perceivedtime and financial risk.Concluding Discussions www.ukassignment.orgThe success of new electronic banking services is notonly the problem of technology feasibility, but also the#p#分页标题#e#problem of marketing and promotion efforts. This studyborrows the perceived risk model from consumerbehaviour and uses it as an evaluation method for newelectronic banking services. It can provide useful insightsfor the marketers of innovative electronic bankingservices by taking into account potential customers’ riskperception of the technology. This also signifies that moremarketing research and consumer participation indesigning and introducing new banking services isrequired in order to gain more user acceptance. Tocapitalize fully on the positive effects of EFTPoS (e.g. lowphysical risk), the bank marketers should launch somepromotional campaigns to alert consumers to the benefitsoffered by EFTPoS. To reduce customers’ fears andworries, it is also appropriate to consider introducingsome risk reduction techniques, e.g. endorsements by keypeople in society (reducing psychological risk), moneybackguarantee (reducing financial risk) and livedemonstration and free trial (reducing time loss risk). Tomake EFTPoS more attractive to customers, the EFTPoSvendor may consider, at least for a trial period, to allowdebit cards with standby credit facilities, i.e. transactionswould be debited from the customers’ bank accounts afterseveral days instead of immediately. The most importantstrategy is that the EFTPoS has to create its own identityas a low-risk, high-performance payment method.Many information technology products and EFTSservices have failed planners’ or suppliers’ predictions inthe past. Unfortunately, reasons for these failures haveseldom been documented in subsequent learning cycles.Research indicates that planners or suppliers haveignored or underestimated potential users’ real-life needsand concerns, i.e. the gap between theory and practice.One method to further bridge this gap between theoryand practice is to use an integrative multidisciplinaryapproach to plan EFTS. As visions are widened,communications between planners, user organizationsand the Government will be enhanced. ExploringEFTPoS within a single discipline, for example as apaperless fund transfer method (economic), a computernetworking system (technological), and a suppliercustomercommunication channel (marketing), couldeventually result in incompatibilities and conflicts.Technological excellence cannot dictate success; a goodmarketing mix, prompt service support, sufficient legalprotection and educational efforts, etc. are also relevant.As indicated by Stone and Gronhaug (1993), riskperceptions in purchases vary between people andbanking products. Further empirical studies of perceivedrisk should include both different types of subject#p#分页标题#e#samples and products. Furthermore, this study focusesonly on the present risk perception of consumers but hasnot touched upon the identification and evaluation ofvarious risk reduction methods. These issues may formanother meaningful research study in the future.Small purchase Large purchaseRisk User Non-user t-value p-value User Non-user t-value p-valuePhysical 3.18 3.20 0.11 0.915 3.16 3.12 –0.27 0.790Performance 4.15 4.13 –0.19 0.846 3.91 4.05 0.85 0.399Psychological 3.22 3.55 3.22 0.001* 3.09 3.42 2.79 0.006*Financial 4.36 4.14 –1.48 0.141 4.31 4.01 –2.18 0.031*Time loss 3.79 3.54 –1.55 0.124 4.01 3.55 –3.40 0.001** The difference was significant at the 0.05 levelNote: The figures in the first two colmuns under each payment method are the mean scores of the responses to theparticular risk dimension (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree)Table IV. Difference of EFTPoS Risk Perception between Users and Non-usersCUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 35References and Further ReadingAoki, T. (1986), “ATMs, POS and Home Banking Developmentsin Japan”, Journal of Bank Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 218-20.Asian Finance (1984), “Electronic Banking: Technology Createsa Class Apart”, 15 March, pp. 73-86.Assael, H. (1987), Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action,3rd ed., PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.Astbury, S. (1985), “Asian Banks Start Trial Run for CashlessShopping Plan”, Asian Business, August, pp. 43-5.Awh, R.Y. and Waters, D. (1974), “A Discriminant Analysis ofEconomic, Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics ofBank Charge-Card Holders: A Case Study”, Journal ofFinance, Vol. 5 No. 29, pp. 973-89.Banking World (1990), “Banking World’s Special EFTPOSReport”, June, pp. 36-9.Barow, B. (1982), “Tellers that Whine and Go Beep”, CanadianBanker and ICB Review, June, p. 14.Bauer, R.A. (1964), “Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking”,Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World, AmericanMarketing Association Proceedings, pp. 389-98.Bettman, J.R. (1975), “Information Integration in ConsumerPerception: A Comparison of two Models of ComponentConceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60,July, pp. 381-5.Cox, D.F. (Ed.) (1967), Risk Taking and Information Handling inConsumer Behavior, Division of Research, Graduate Schoolof Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston,MA.Etzel, M.J. (1974), “Using Multiple Discriminant Analysis toSegment the Consumer Credit Market”, 1974 CombinedProceedings, American Marketing Association, pp. 35-40.Fitzgerald, K. (1988), “Survey Says Cash and Checks Lead#p#分页标题#e#Other Payment Methods”, Savings Institutions, January,pp. 79-81.Friis, M.W. (1985), “Is POS Approaching Critical Mass?”, ABABanking Journal, September, pp. 49-51.Gemunden, H.G. (1985), “Perceived Risk and InformationSearch: A Systematic Meta-Analysis of the EmpiricalEvidence”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,Vol. 2, pp. 79-100.George, W.R., Weinberger, M., Tsou, B. and Kelly, P. (1984),“Risk Perceptions: A Re-examination of Services versusGoods”, in Klein, D. and Smith, A. (Eds), SouthernMarketing Association Proceedings, Florida AtlanticUniversity, Boca Raton, FL.Ho, S.S.M. (1985), “The Social Aspects of EFTPOS”, Hong KongComputer Journal, July, pp. 26-30.Ho, S.S.M. (1991), “Information Technology in Banking andFinance”, in Ho, R.Y.K., Scott, R.H. and Wong, K.A. (Eds),The Hong Kong Financial System , Oxford, pp. 305-37.Ho, S.S. (1992), “Information Systems as Competitive Weapons:Opportunity or Threats?”, The Hong Kong Manager,August.Ho, S.C., Chan, C.F. and Hsu, D.L. (1989), “New BankingTechnology in Hong Kong”, International Journal of BankMarketing, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 9-15.Horne, D.A. and Martin C.R. (1981), “The Non-checkingAccount Consumer and EFTS”, Marketing of Service,American Marketing Association, pp. 13-15.Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L. (1972), “The Components of PerceivedRisk”, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference forConsumer Research, pp. 382-93.Kuroda, I. (1987), “Electronic Systems Developments in RetailBanking in Japan”, World of Banking, July/August, pp. 8-10.Kwok, W.Y. (1993), “Electron Debit Cards: An AlternativePayment Method”, Hong Kong Economic Times, 28 July,p. 21.Mandell, L. (1972), Credit Card Use in the United States, Braunand Brumfield, New York, NY.Marti, J. and Zeilinger, A. (1982), Micro and Money: NewTechnology in Banking and Shopping, Policy StudiesInstitute.Mears, P. and McCarty, D.E. (1978), “An Empirical Study ofConsumers’ Perception of Bank Machines”, Journal of BankResearch, Summer, pp. 114-18.Murphy, N.B. (1983), “Determinants of ATM Activity: TheImpact of Card Base, Location, Time, on Place and System”,Journal of Bank Research, Autumn, pp. 19-23.Nunnally, J.C. (1970) Introduction to PsychologicalMeasurement, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Peter, J. P. and Ryan, M.J. (1976) “An Investigation of PerceivedRisk at the Brand Level”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 13, May, pp. 184-8.Peter, J. P. and Tarpey, L. (1975), “A Comparative Analysis ofThree Consumer Decision Strategies”, The Journal of#p#分页标题#e#Consumer Research, 1975, pp. 29-37.Porter, T.C., Swerdlow, R.A. and Staples, W.A. (1979), ”WhoUses Bank Debit Cards?”, Business Horizons, February,pp. 14-19.Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, NewYork, NY.Roselius, T. (1971), “Consumer Rankings of Risk ReductionMethods”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, pp. 56-61.Sjoberg, L. (1980), “The Risks of Risk Analysis”, ActaPsychologica, Vol. 60, July, pp. 381-5.Sowton, E. (1989), “No Big Bangs for EFTPOS”, Banker,October, pp. 116-17.Stem, D.E. Jr., Lamb, C.W. Jr. and MacLachlan, D.U. (1977),“Perceived Risk: A Synthesis”, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 312-19.Stone, R.N. and Gronhaug, K. (1993), “Perceived Risk: FurtherConsiderations for the Marketing Discipline”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 39-50.Swinyard, W.R. and Ghee, L.G. (1987), “Adoption Patterns ofNew Banking Technology in Southeast Asia”, InternationalJournal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 35-48.Vinson, D.E. and McVandon, W. (1978), “Developing a Marketfor a New EFTS Bank Service”, Journal of Marketing, April,pp. 83-6., J.B. and Richard, L.M. (1974), “Application ofDiscriminant Analysis in Formulating Promotional36 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8Strategy for Bank Credit Cards”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 2, pp. 535-44.Yiu, H.C. and Kwoen, C.F. (1987), “Motives and Barriers toCredit Card and Adoption in Hong Kong”, The Hong KongManager, March-April, pp. 16-21.Zikmund, W.G. (1973), An Empirical Investigation of theMultidimensional Nature of Perceived Risk and RelatedVariables, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Colorado,Boulder, CO.AppendixQuestionnaireWe are a team of researchers from The Chinese University ofHong Kong now undertaking a survey on how Hong Kongpeople are using electronic banking services. I would like tohave your co-operation in answering the following questions.The information collected will only be used for researchpurposes. All collected information will be treated with strictconfidentiality. Please circle the answer that you think bestdescribes your perceptions and attitudes.Definition of Terms Used:EPS stands for Easy Pay System in which you candirectly transfer money from your bank account toa retailer’s account to pay for your bill by electronicmeans.ETC/ATM stands for Electronic Teller Card/Automatic TellerMachine in which you can withdraw/transfermoney from your bank account.Part I1. How many ETC/ATM cards do you carry?#p#分页标题#e#2. How many credit cards do you carry?3. On average, how much cash do you carry for daily use?(1) below $100(2) $101-$150(3) $151-$300(4) $301-$500(5) $501-$1,000(6) $1,001-$1,500(7) above $1,5004. On average, how much do you spend for daily use?(1) below $100(2) $101-$150(3) $151-$300(4) $301-$500(5) $501-$1,000(6) $1,001-$1,500(7) above $1,500 Suppose, if you do not carry any ETC/ATM card, howmuch cash you will carry for daily use?(1) below $100(2) $101-$150(3) $151-$300(4) $301-$500(5) $501-$1,000(6) $1,001-$1,500(7) above $1,5006. What is your average amount of cash withdrawnfrom ETC/ATM machine?7. What is your average amount of cash withdrawnfrom bank tellers by going to the bank offices?8. On average, how many times do you useETC/ATM services in a month?9. On average, how many times do you use EPSservices in a month?10. On average, how many times do you go tobank offices in a month?Part IIInstructions:When you are evaluating the statements in the next threepages, please use the scale below to indicate your agreement ordisagreement with each statement:(1) strongly disagree(2) somewhat disagree(3) slightly disagree(4) slightly agree(5) somewhat agree(6) strongly agreeWhen answering questions in the next three sections, pleaseimagine that you are buying clothing (priced around $300) in adepartment store.Section A: When you use cash to purchase the clothing(Å $300), to what extend do you agree with each ofthe following statements about using cash?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree11. Cash is not likely to belost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)12. Cash payment is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)13. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)14. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)15. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)16. You may be robbed if youcarry much cash (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)CUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 3717. Some shops may not acceptcash (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)18. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)19. Using cash has a lowerstatus symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)20. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)Section B: When you use a credit card to purchase theclothing (Å $300), to what extent do you agree witheach of the following statements about using a#p#分页标题#e#credit card?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree21. A credit card is not likely tobe lost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)22. A credit card is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)23. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)24. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)25. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)26. You may be robbed if youcarry many credit cards (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)27. Some shops may not accepta credit card (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)28. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)29. Using a credit card has alower status symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)30. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)Section C: When you use EPS (electronic transfer with ETC/ATM card) to purchase the clothing (Å $300), towhat extent do you agree with each of thefollowing statements about using EPS services?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree31. ETC/ATM card is not likelyto be lost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)32. EPS payment is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)33. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)34. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)35. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)36. You may be robbed if youcarry many ETC/ATM cards (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)37. Some shops may not acceptEPS (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)38. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)39. Using EPS has a lowerstatus symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)40. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)When answering questions in the next three sections, pleaseimagine that you are buying a television set (priced around$3,000) in a department store.Section A: When you use cash to purchase the TV set(Å $3,000), to what extend do you agree with eachof the following statements about using cash?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree41. Cash is not likely to belost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)42. Cash payment is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)43. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)44. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)45. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)46. You may be robbed if youcarry much cash (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)47. Some shops may not acceptcash (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)48. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)49. Using cash has a lowerstatus symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)50. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)Section B: When you use a credit card to purchase the TV set#p#分页标题#e#(Å $3,000), to what extent do you agree with each ofthe following statements about using a credit card?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree51. A credit card is not likely tobe lost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)52. A credit card is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)53. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)54. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)55. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)56. You may be robbed if youcarry many credit cards (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)57. Some shops may not accepta credit card (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)58. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)59. Using a credit card has alower status symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)60. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)Section C: When you use EPS (electronic transfer with ETC/ATM card) to purchase the TV set (Å $3,000), towhat extent do you agree with each of thefollowing statements about using EPS services?Strongly Stronglyagree disagree61. ETC/ATM card is not likelyto be lost/stolen (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)62. EPS payment is welcomedeverywhere (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)63. It is difficult to get a refund (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)64. It is a symbol of success (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)65. You will have more time topay your bill (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)66. You may be robbed if youcarry many ETC/ATM cards (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)67. Some shops may not acceptEPS (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)68. It is easy to stop payment (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)69. Using EPS has a lowerstatus symbol (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)70. You have more time to doshopping (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1)Part III71. Sex(1) Male (2) Female72. Age73. Marital status(1) Single (2) Married (3) Separated74. Education(1) Primary school or below(2) Secondary school(3) Matriculation(4) Polytechnic/technical institute(5) Degree programme/university or above75. What is your own annual income?(1) HK$50,00 or below(2) HK$50,001-$100,000(3) HK$100,001-$150,000(4) HK$150,001-$200,000(5) HK$200,002-$250,000(6) HK$250,001 or above76. In what type of business, industry or service are youengaged?(1) Banking/finance/accountancy/insurance/real estate(2) Manufacturing(3) Wholesale/retail trading(4) Transportation/utilities/communication(5) Import/export(6) Education/academic/research(7) Architecture/engineering/construction(8) Legal(9) Medical/dental/other related professions(10) Government(11) Others77. What is your position held?(1) Clerk, white collar#p#分页标题#e#(2) Worker, blue collar(3) Professional (e.g. accountant, solicitor, etc.)(4) Technical (e.g. engineer, programmer, etc.)(5) Middle management(6) Senior management(7) Housewife(8) Others, please specify38 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BANK MARKETING 12,8Simon S.M. Ho is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Accountancy, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, HongKong and Victor T.F. Ng is a Manager with the Technology and Automation Group, Hong Kong.


Author admin

More posts by admin