Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

[Link]

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Digital payments and consumer experience in India: a survey based

empirical study
Sudiksha Shree1 · Bhanu Pratap2 · Rajas Saroy2 · Sarat Dhal2

Received: 16 October 2020 / Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published online: 5 January 2021
© Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology 2021

Abstract
Propelled by recent policy initiatives and technological developments, India’s digital payment system is a promising success
story in the making. At the same time, the data also points towards an increasing usage of cash. While aggregate country-level
data can indicate overall preferences of citizens, we use a novel online survey-based dataset to understand how factors such as
‘perception’ and ‘trust’ in digital payments, and experience with online frauds, affect the payment behaviour of consumers.
While demographic factors like age, gender and income are relevant factors which determine this choice, we find compelling
evidence that a person’s usage of digital payment methods is influenced by her perception of these instruments, as well as
her trust in the overall payments framework and banking system in general. We find that the degree to which past-experience
with online fraud deters usage of digital payments varies with the purpose of the transaction.

Keywords Cash usage · Payment systems · Digital payments · Logistic regression

JEL Classification E42 · C31

1 Introduction fast over long distances with minimum transaction cost. Evi-
dently, to suit these needs the payment systems are being
The consensus around the origin and the forms of ancient digitised globally. Cash, however, remains a crucial part of
money has kept changing over the course of recorded his- the trade. Therefore, the discourse on the current age pay-
tory. But, what has not changed over the years is what money ment system revolves around cash vs digital transactions.
does; broadly, it facilitates trade in goods and services as While cash might seem convenient as it’s ingrained in
medium of exchange and acts as a credible store of value. our habits and is still readily accepted at more places, digi-
Modern day trade demands massive payments to be settled tal payments offer convenience by saving time and labour.
There are further issues with cash use. While it provides a
suitablealternative to aid the informal or parallel economy
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not [3, 21], digital payment offers itself as a desirable tool for
necessarily reflect the views of the Reserve Bank of India.
institutions to fix this problem of traceability. In fact, gov-
* Sarat Dhal ernments around the world have taken drastic measures at
scdhal@[Link] huge costs to clear markets of ‘black money’. Research in the
Sudiksha Shree behavioural sciences conveys that people experience higher
sudi175@[Link] ‘pain of paying’ when paying in cash than digitally, and this
Bhanu Pratap contributes to deferred payments [17, 19, 20]. While cash
bhanupratap@[Link] may not seem to impose any direct transactional cost like
Rajas Saroy digital money, it is still costly for both governments and end-

around 6 million hours and ₹91 million to access cash, while

rajassaroy@[Link] users. A 2014 study found out that residents of Delhi spent

together spent about ₹210 billion towards currency related

1
Mumbai School of Economics and Public Policy, University the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and commercial banks
of Mumbai, Mumbai, India
2
Department of Economic and Policy Research, Reserve Bank operating expenses in the same year. But on the other hand,
of India, Mumbai, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

there are also huge implicit costs to digitise the existing sys- exercise a mix of cash and digital options, and the effect of
tems and nudge people to change [14]. psychological factors like perception and trust.
In the last decade, India has rapidly digitised its payment There is a dearth of studies and data covering the behav-
systems and promises huge potential in the area. Digital ioural aspects at individual level that have an impact on
payments recorded an increase of 46.5% in total volume in choice of payment behaviour in the Indian economy. Given
FY19 on top of an increase of 60.6% in FY18. The Uni- the massive heterogeneity of our population, different sam-
fied Payments Interface (UPI), a payment system that was ples might produce disparate results. The High-Level Com-
launched in 2016, has surpassed the milestone of a billion mittee on Deepening Digital Payments [15] recommended
transactions per month. The progress in digitisation has that there should be periodic surveys to gauge user expe-
been driven by a healthy mix of technological innovation, rience and attitude towards digital payments. The present
policy interventions, and expansion and strengthening of study, is a small step towards filling the research gap in the
existing infrastructure on the supply side, coupled with an context of such analysis.
increasing proportion of the population adopting financial Our key findings point towards a significant impact of
and digital instruments on the demand side. The govern- perception of the payment system on how people choose
ment of India and the RBI have been working in synergy to pay. Not only does a positive perception motivate peo-
to push for policy and regulatory reforms. Enablers such ple to go ‘digital’, but a relatively negative outlook on cash
as Jan Dhan accounts, Aadhaar and penetration of mobiles, also has a similar impact. This finding is important in light
and policies like Demonetisation and Goods and Services of increasing cash use at the macroeconomic level in the
Tax have brought people closer to technology and banks. country. Another significant factor is confidence in the pay-
Recently, NEFT (National Electronic Funds Transfer) was ment system. Respondents who trust the service providers
made operational for 24 h on all days of the week, and RTGS and regulators seem to have a greater likelihood of paying
(Real Time Gross Settlement) is expected to follow soon. digitally. We find inconsistent behaviour when studying the
The launch of UPI, along with already available digital pay- impact of experience of digital payment fraud on choice of
ment modes like NEFT, IMPS, cards and Prepaid Payment payment tool. The impact that experiencing such a fraud
Instruments (PPIs) has increased the options available to has on the choice to pay digitally differs according to the
the consumer. The number of PoS (point of sale) terminals purpose of the transaction. The remainder of the study is
have also increased by about 40 lakhs in the last five years. presented in five sections pertaining to existing literature,
PoS terminals and lightweight acceptance infrastructure data and methodology, sample summary statistics, empirical
such as QR codes have boosted Card/PPI based payments. findings and conclusion and policy implications.
Additional payment systems such as Bharat Bill Payment
System (BBPS), National Electronic Toll Collection (NETC)
system, RuPay cards and AePS have also boosted digital 2 Related literature
payments and the intent to incorporate modern-day tech-
nologies such as tokenisation and contactless payments will The terms digital transaction, electronic transactions, paper-
further the progress. less transaction or cashless transaction are almost used
Despite this progress, cash use still seems to be on the interchangeably in common parlance. The RBI Ombuds-
uptick in India. Our paper seeks to highlight the important man Scheme for Digital Transactions (2019) defines digital
factors at the individual level, which influence the con- transactions as “a payment transaction in a seamless system
sumer’s decisions to use cash or digital payment. While it effected without the need for cash at least in one of the two
is critical to push for technological innovations and policy legs, if not in both. This includes transactions made through
reforms, it is also imperative to understand the aspects that digital/electronic modes wherein both the originator and the
motivate or hinder the adoption of these technologies by the beneficiary use digital/electronic medium to send or receive
end-user. A recent survey [5], on the readiness of consumers money”. However, in our paper, a digital transaction is one
towards adoption of newer payment technologies, ranked where the payer and payee both use digital modes of payment.
India second out of 27 economies on the FinTech adoption Policies in many parts of the world are being designed
Index. Research conducted at the individual consumer level in favour of non-cash payments because of the various
can provide an insight to understand how certain aspects are problems that cash poses. Cash fuels the parallel or black
at play while making a payment decision. To this end, we economy, therefore, phasing it out might solve this prob-
use a comprehensive and multidimensional online survey lem, especially with large denomination notes [20]. The cost
which addresses many hitherto untouched dimensions of this of printing, destroying and other cash related operational
topic, such as the difference in digital spending over vari- expenses in India are estimated at 1.7% of GDP [23]. Cash,
ous expenditure categories (groceries, e-commerce, utility however, remains a significant part of all the transactions in
bills, etc.), the choice of consumers to go purely digital or most countries [6].

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 3

While reading into data on the macro-level can give us actual usage of those accounts [7]. Central banks also play
a broad idea of people’s overall preferences, data at the a pivotal role in ensuring safety, integrity and stability of
individual level gives us an insight into how certain factors the payments system. Experience of online fraud can shape
impact the choices/decisions consumers make regarding the beliefs of perception and trust and can have a direct impact
mode of payment. Following this line of thought, several on payment behaviour. Media coverage of these incidents is
studies have analysed such issues at the level of the con- shown to affect card payment [11]. The direction, strength
sumers. They reveal that the choice of payment method is and frequency of media coverage affected debit card use.
impacted by a host of consumer-specific and technological Few studies show that people simply use digital modes of
factors. Transaction size has a significant impact on what payment because they have exhausted their stock of cash
mode of payment people choose. A cross- country compari- in hand. It is called ‘cash first’ or ‘cash-burning’ and is
son of payment diary survey data of seven countries showed perceived to be an optimal policy by the consumer [1].
that cash was the preferred mode of payment for smallest Some studies also point that people still pay in cash simply
50% and largest 25% of transactions [2]. In another study, because it is difficult to grow out of habits [9].
social marginal costs were computed for various instruments
for small and large transaction sizes and it was found that for
larger transaction sizes, there were significant differences in 3 Survey data and empirical methodology
cost for electronic vs non-electronic payments [8]. Studies
show that demographic characteristics also play a significant For the purpose of this study, primary data is collected using
role in how people choose to pay. It was found that better a structured questionnaire circulated online (Appendix 1).
education and higher income lead to lower cash use com- Following snowball sampling, the survey was shared on
pared to non-cash modes. Certain categories of age show a various social media platforms for better reach. The ques-
stronger preference for digital payments Bagnall et al. [2]. tionnaire was drafted in English and Hindi, to both expand
Consumer perceptions on safety/risk, convenience/ease and diversify the sample. It consists of 28 questions that are
of use, anonymity and costs have been shown to affect pay- divided into seven sections viz. demographics, access to and
ment systems adoption significantly. Png and Tan [16] show usage of technology, awareness of different modes of digital
that concerns about privacy emerged as one of the main payment, preference and perception on cash and digital pay-
psychological factors causing a bias towards cash for retail ment systems, spending habits, experience related to fraud,
transactions. Kahn et al. [10] show that business in the unor- and feedback on awareness campaigns.
ganised economy was attributed to transactions that could be Our study broadly aims to understand the impact of user
made in cash and did not reveal the agent’s identity. Bagnall perception, trust in payment systems, and experience of
et al. [2] analysed data from cross-country consumer diary online fraud on the choice of mode of payment. For regres-
surveys and found that consumers who rated cash high on sion analysis, mode of payment is taken as the dependent
‘ease of use’ ended up using it more. In a study assessing variable and the independent variable is added to a baseline
payment perception of Dutch consumers, non-price param- model according to the hypothesis being tested. Firstly, a
eters such as ‘acceptance’, ‘convenience’, ‘transaction speed’ baseline model is obtained for all five types of purchases—
and ‘safety’ were used to gauge the perception of payment grocery, utilities, online shopping, durables, and gold. These
instruments used at PoS terminals [9]. Several studies have transactions range from low to high value transactions. The
used the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to show responses recorded for different types of purchases have the
‘perceived usefulness’ and ‘perceived ease of use’ have a following three alternatives:
significant impact on behavioural intention and thus, actual
use of electronic payment systems [12, 18]. • Always pay in cash,
Perceived trust in the payment system is shown to have • Always pay digitally, and
a positive effect on the usage of digital modes of payment • Sometimes pay in cash and sometimes digitally.
[13]. While the central bank and banks are traditional
regulators and service providers of payments systems Since the dependent variable is categorical and has more
respectively, non-banks have also emerged as new players than two categories, a multinomial logistic regression is best
in the framework. A recent empirical study conducted by suited for regression analysis. A multinomial logit model is
the Monetary Authority of Singapore [16] found that trust an extension of logit model, with more than two categories,
in banks impacts the nature of the transaction. A cross- in no particular order. Maximum likelihood estimation is
country analysis shows that residents in countries that used to obtain the parameters of the model.
reported lower trust in banks preferred cash for making Let the model have j = 1, 2 …, J categories for the
transactions. In some cases, while an increase in trust can dependent variable y, and X be the matrix of independent
lead to the opening of accounts, it might not translate to variables. In a multinomial logit model, we estimate a set of

13
4 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

coefficients βj = (β1, β2…, βJ) corresponding to each outcome categorical independent variables. The dependent variable
j. Setting j = 1 as the reference or base category (i.e., β1 = 0), is coded as:
we have:
• y = 0 for cash (reference)
1
Pr (y = 1�X) = ∑J � � for j = 1 • y = 1 for digital payments
1 + j=2 exp xi 𝛽j • y = 2 for sometimes cash and sometimes digital payments

The following multinomial logistic model is estimated:

[ ]
Pr (y = 1|X)
ln =𝛽01 + 𝛽11 genderi + 𝛽21 agei + 𝛽31 educationi
Pr (y = 0|X)
+ 𝛽41 incomei + 𝛽51 occupationi + 𝛽61 placeofresidencei

[ ]
Pr (y = 2|X)
ln =𝛽02 + 𝛽12 genderi + 𝛽22 agei + 𝛽32 educationi
Pr (y = 0|X)
+ 𝛽42 incomei + 𝛽52 occupationi + 𝛽62 placeofresidencei

� � The parameter βkj is a vector of β0j, β1j … βkj where j

exp X𝛽j (j = 0, 1, 2) is the category of dependent variable and there
Pr (y = j�X) = � � for j > 1
∑J
1 + j=2 exp xi 𝛽j are K + 1 (k = 0, 1, …, K) independent variables. Since cash
is the reference category, βk0 is set to 0. Therefore, βk1 and
The parameters of the model are reported in terms of βk2 are respective log odds relative to the reference category.
odds or log odds. Given any two possible categories for the Since, all the independent variables are categorical, they
dependent variable: are coded as dummy variables. The reference categories for
each of the independent variable in the baseline model are
Pr (y = m|X) ( ( )) mentioned in the first column of Table 1 below.
= exp X 𝛽m − 𝛽n
Pr (y = n|X) Next, we add four additional independent variables of
interest to the baseline model one by one, to observe the
[ ] impact of perception (of both cash and digital payment
Pr (y = m|X) ( )
ln
Pr (y = n|X)
= Ωm∶n (X) = X 𝛽m − 𝛽n modes separately), confidence in the payment system and
fraud experience on the choice to pay digitally.
where (βm − βn) is the effect of X on log of odds of m versus The perception of cash and digital modes of payment
n. To get parameters of other categories of the outcome, they is recorded for four parameters- cost, convenience, safety
are similarly compared to the common reference category. and privacy/anonymity on a three-point Likert scale with
For our study, cash usage is taken as the reference category. the alternatives ‘bad’ (0), ‘okay’ (1) and ‘good’ (2). The
We begin by creating a baseline logistic regression model by mean score for perception is computed as the simple aver-
taking demographic characteristics such as gender, age, edu- age of parameter-wise scores for cash and digital pay-
cation, family income, occupation, and place of residence as ments. Confidence in payment systems is measured on the

Table 1  Demographic variables

Variables Category-1 (baseline) Category-2 Category-3 Category-4 Category-5

Gender Female Male Transgender

Age ≤ 25 26–45 > 45
Education Completed 12th standard Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree
Family income < 2.5 lakhs 2,50,000–5,00,000 5,00,001–10,00,000 10,00,001–25,00,000 > 25 lakhs
Occupation Salaried Self-employed Retired Student Others
Place of residence Tier-3 (z) Tier-1 (x) Tier-2 (y)

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 5

parameters- trust in the RBI, trust in your payment service • I have been a victim to digital payment frauds.
providers (e.g. FinTechs) and trust in stability and integ- • I have received such calls/mails/texts but carefully
rity of your bank. A five-point Likert scale is to measure avoided them.
responses, ranging from strongly agree (0) to strongly disa- • I have not received such calls/mail/texts but know some-
gree (4). The mean score is computed as a simple average one personally who has been a victim.
of the four parameters. Online fraud experience is quantified • I have not received such calls/mail/texts and do not know
based on familiarity with such incidents. The respondents anyone personally who has been a victim.
were asked to choose from following alternatives-

Chart 1
Gender Age category

118
194 Below 25
Male 275
26-45
Female
446 Above 45
247

Education Family Income

Below 2,50,000
34 Completed 63 37
12th Standard 101 2,50,000-
271 5,00,000
Bachelor's
degree 229 5,00,001-
335 10,00,000
Master's 210
degree 10,00,001-
25,00,000

Occupation Salaried
Place of residence
30 22
Self-employed Others
126 52
Rered No response
184
Tier 1
356 Student 143
296 Tier 2

32 Tier 3
Others
38

Demographic characteristic of the sample

Chart 1  Demographic characteristic of the sample

13
6 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

4 Sample summary statistics did not report the incident, especially if they had not faced
any losses.
A snapshot of our sample of 640 respondents is given in
Chart 1. The respondents are mostly male and educated.
Most of them are either salaried employees, working in the 5 Multinomial regression model: results
government or private sector. This may be due to the online and analysis
nature of the survey, and circulation limited to the social
circles of the authors, which occurred due to the enforce- The baseline model (Appendix 3) provides insights on the
ment of the COVID-19 induced nationwide lockdown in effect of demographics on the choice of mode of payment.
India during the survey period. Responses were received
from twenty states of India. The corresponding districts were 5.1 Effect of demographics on mode of payment
divided into three tiers according to the HRA (Housing Rent
Allowance) classification by the Department of Expenditure, Males are more likely to use digital modes of transaction
Government of India. as compared to their female counterparts for both purely
The responses are summarised in Appendix 2. Awareness digital or a combination of cash and digital instruments.
as well as usage regarding various digital payment instru- With respect to age, there is pressing evidence in the case
ments were high in the sample. It is important to keep this in of online shopping that older individuals are less likely
mind while interpreting how payment behaviour is affected to pay digitally. While the coefficients are not statistically
by other variables. Our respondents, being from the rela- significant for other kinds of purchases, their signs support
tively well-off sections of society, were much more aware this general observation. Education is also seen to have an
and comfortable with cards and UPI, rather than AEPS and enabling effect on people when it comes to going digital.
USSD code-based payments. Digital mode was preferred for The tendency to avoid paying solely with cash for groceries
online shopping, paying utility bills, and purchasing dura- and utilities dwindles with an increase in the level of edu-
bles (mostly medium to high value transactions). A combi- cation of the respondent. Income levels have a statistically
nation of cash and digital modes was preferred for purchases significant, positive impact when it comes to online shop-
of grocery and gold, which are starkly different in terms ping and gold purchases through the exclusively digital pay-
of transaction value. Being solely dependent on cash was ment route. Lower income groups may prefer paying using
relatively less preferable for all purposes. cash on delivery. Occupation and place of residence have
The perception of cash and digital payments are recorded a significant impact on choice of mode of payment for mid
on four parameters viz., ‘convenience’, ‘cost of payment’, and high-value transactions. Homemakers, unemployed and
‘safety’, and ‘privacy/anonymity’. It is observed that on self-employed respondents are least likely to pay digitally.
an average, digital payments perform better than cash on For place of residence, respondents living in Tier-1 cities are
all four fronts. Confidence in digital payment systems is more likely to pay digitally.
assessed on four parameters, with regards to banks (pref- In general, our results point out that more affluent and
erence for depositing money in a bank, as well as trust in privileged groups are still more likely to go digital, com-
one’s own bank), the central bank and in other participants pared to disadvantaged groups. Hence, while efforts to
like payment aggregators. Respondents seemed more con- expand relevant infrastructure and nudge behavioural change
fident in the RBI and banks, as compared to other service are welcome, an upliftment of the general standard of living
providers. of the public, education and urbanisation may also be impor-
Technical issues, followed by low acceptance and lack tant ways to promote digitisation of payments.
of trust were identified as the major hindrances with digital
payments. The experience of online fraud is divided into 5.2 Experience of online fraud
four categories based on their potential intensity of impact
of the fraud. Out of 630 respondents that answered the ques- The experience of digital payment fraud is measured on a
tion, 532 have had some experience of online fraud. Out of scale of four, with ‘0’ implying ‘I have been a victim of
411 respondents who had experienced the incident person- digital payment fraud, which is the highest possible impact
ally, a majority (279) reported no change in the nature of of fraud on a person. At the other end, ‘3’ stands for ‘nei-
payments and only 26 mentioned that either they had com- ther experienced digital payments fraud nor know anyone
pletely switched to cash or had reduced the use of digital who has been a victim’. The baseline model is augmented
mode of transaction. Respondents were also asked if they with these additional categorical variables, and the results
reported the incident to the concerned authority after they are presented in Table 2. The reference category for the
experienced the fraud personally. Most of the respondents four fraud indicator variables is the response ‘3’, i.e., the
respondent has neither been a victim of digital payment

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 7

Table 2  Experience of Online fraud

Reference category: Cash
Grocery Utilities Durables Online shopping Gold

I have been a victim (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0

I have been a victim (DP) − 1.416** (0.720) 1.781 (1.094) 0.515 (0.873) − 0.515 (0.822) − 0.337 (0.563)
I have been a victim (Both DP and Cash) − 0.578 (0.501) 1.927* (1.114) 1.454* (0.837) 0.086 (0.791) − 0.243 (0.508)
Have experienced but avoided (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0
Have experienced but avoided (DP) − 0.588 (0.479) 0.167 (0.418) 0.475 (0.440) 0.225 (0.553) 0.557 (0.398)
Have experienced but avoided (Both Cash and DP) − 0.336 (0.353) 0.088 (0.452) 0.185 (0.434) − 0.166 (0.541) 0.254 (0.370)
Have not experienced but know (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0
Have not experienced but know (DP) − 1.062* (0.546) − 0.216 (0.470) 0.515 (0.514) 0.601 (0.656) 0.444 (0.469)
Have not experienced but know (Both Cash and DP) − 0.922** (0.390) 0.012 (0.505) 0.281 (0.511) 0.040 (0.645) 0.446 (0.430)
Do not know anyone 0 0 0 0 0
Observations 547 543 511 542 459
R2 0.153 0.109 0.139 0.142 0.087
Log Likelihood − 447.944 − 435.269 − 411.958 − 415.276 − 444.381
LR Test (df = 38) 162.420*** 106.162*** 132.754*** 137.598*** 84.907***

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

fraud, nor do they know of someone who has. Our paper or anonymity concerns about the payment, and safety of
highlights that frauds have differential impact based on the payment. The scores range from 0 (bad) to 2 (good). The
purpose of the transaction. For grocery payments, experi- total score is computed by taking an average of all the four
encing such frauds, first hand or otherwise, seems to demo- parameters. The total score is a continuous variable and is
tivate people from using digital payment modes, but there added to the baseline model. The resultant coefficient is
is no such evidence for other types of transactions. In fact, reported in log odds. As is evident from Table 3, perception
respondents preferred using a mix of digital payments and of cash has a strong and significant impact on which mode
cash for utilities and durables even if they had previously of payment is chosen by the respondent. As the perception of
fallen prey to such frauds. It may be easier for consumers to cash improves, the likelihood of paying digitally decreases
switch to cash for grocery purchase, as compared to settling across all purchase categories. The reference alternative for
utility bills or buying durables. payment is taken as payments made only/ always in cash,
implying no (zero) relation with perception of cash. As per-
5.3 Perception of cash vs digital payments ception improves the likelihood decreases most for grocery
(low-value payment) and online payments and least for pay-
Perception of cash is scored on four parameters- cost of ments made for purchasing gold followed by durables, both
payment through cash, convenience of payment, privacy high-value payments.

Table 3  Perception of cash

Reference alternative (Cash)
Grocery Utilities Durables Online shopping Gold

Perception of cash (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0

Perception of cash (DP) − 1.663*** (0.364) − 1.141*** (0.341) − 1.359*** (0.397) − 2.150*** (0.465) − 0.907*** (0.314)
Perception of cash (Both − 0.926*** (0.285) − 0.356 (0.359) − 0.762* (0.390) − 1.281*** (0.456) − 0.546* (0.300)
cash and DP)
Observations 525 522 497 520 451
R2 0.168 0.123 0.140 0.167 0.090
Log Likelihood − 422.114 − 408.150 − 399.130 − 384.794 − 435.351
LR Test (df = 34) 170.334*** 114.290*** 130.397*** 154.060*** 85.768***

DP digital payments
*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

13
8 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

Table 4  Perception of digital payments

Reference alternative (Cash)
Grocery Utilities Durables Online shopping Gold

Perception of DP (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0
Perception of DP (DP) 2.609*** (0.437) 1.321*** (0.370) 1.099** (0.429) 1.665*** (0.494) 0.757** (0.342)
Perception of DP (Both cash 1.167*** (0.315) 0.729* (0.400) 0.737* (0.433) 1.159** (0.497) 0.307 (0.331)
and DP)
Observations 532 528 499 526 454
R2 0.186 0.115 0.129 0.142 0.085
Log Likelihood − 418.490 − 416.908 − 405.154 − 400.593 − 440.790
LR Test (df = 34) 191.235*** 108.487*** 120.389*** 132.798*** 81.532***

On the flip side, we also consider the total score for per- ‘4’, which stands for ‘strongly disagree’ implying extreme
ception of digital payments, which is calculated similar to lack of confidence in the payment system. The total score
that for cash above. The coefficients (Table 4) are positive is computed by taking an average of scores obtained on all
and statistically significant, implying that as perception the parameters. As expected, a deterioration in consumer
improves, so does the likelihood of paying digitally. Here confidence in digital payment systems (or an increase in the
also, the reference alternative is using only cash. In terms of ‘lack of trust’ score) worsens the likelihood of paying digi-
magnitude, the perception variables seem to affect grocery tally (Table 5).
spends the most and gold spends the least. It can be inferred At the end of the survey, respondents were also asked to
that a positive outlook on digital payment modes motivates give their feedback on digital payments. This gives us an
the respondent to pay digitally. However, digital payments indication of overall sentiments and main concerns of con-
still have a long way to go if they are to prove themselves as sumers towards digital payments. In Chart 2, a ‘wordcloud’
good substitutes to the cheapness, convenience and privacy based on 50 most frequently occurring words in the feedback
of cash use. Another observation from the above results is highlights that consumers favour the ‘convenience’ offered
that high-value payments (gold and durables) are relatively by digital payment methods and have an overall positive
less affected by perception of modes of payment, when com- sentiment towards such technology-based inventions.
pared to low- value payments (grocery).

5.4 Trust in payment system 6 Conclusion

Besides their perception of payment modes, respondents While governments, regulators and service-providers are
were also asked about their trust or confidence in the pay- working in synergy to enhance the electronic payments
ment system as a whole, which was measured on four param- systems and related infrastructure, it makes sense to study
eters. A five-point Likert scale is used, with ‘0’ or ‘strongly how these options are perceived by the end-user. The key
agree’ implying high confidence in the payment system and policy recommendation from our study is that incorporating

Table 5  Trust in the payment system

Reference alternative = cash
Grocery Utilities Durables Online shopping Gold

Lack of trust (Cash) 0 0 0 0 0

Lack of trust (DP) − 1.104*** (0.279) − 0.568** (0.240) − 1.182*** (0.262) − 1.101*** (0.294) − 0.741*** (0.225)
Lack of trust (Both − 0.462** (0.191) − 0.165 (0.255) − 0.434* (0.246) − 0.593** (0.286) − 0.424** (0.207)
Cash and DP)
Observations 531 529 501 527 448
R2 0.156 0.107 0.157 0.160 0.094
Log Likelihood − 433.684 − 425.970 − 396.993 − 397.368 − 431.058
LR Test (df = 34) 159.771*** 102.351*** 147.846*** 150.876*** 89.540***

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 9

Chart 2  Textual analysis on

feedback

feedback and gauging public perception can further catalyse pay digitally differs according to the purpose of the transac-
digitisation. We observe through our study that perception of tion. Also, we cannot ignore the role played by demographic
digital payment instruments affects the payment behaviour factors in better digital payment adoption. Digital payments
of an individual. Digital payments were not only driven by adoption is expected to increase in line with the overall soci-
a positive outlook on digital payments but also a negative oeconomic development of the population.
outlook on cash. Contrary to popular belief, customers were While our collected data is from a geographically diverse
seen to be willing to discount online fraud experience in set of respondents, it is still limited to a certain part of the
the face of higher convenience offered by digital payment population. The data has been collected during a country-
modes. The impact of experiencing fraud on the choice to wide lockdown and therefore could only include respondents

13
10 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

who were willing to fill the survey online (English or Hindi). future, surveys like these could be taken up with a broader
Thus, most of the respondents were already digitally literate, sample and in a more structured manner, as things gradually
educated and economically sound when compared to the return to normal.
population. This is one of the major limitations of the study.
Further, since responses were collected in extraordinary cir-
cumstances of nationwide lockdown, they may be biased in Appendix 1
the sense that these were times when many were compelled
to pay digitally for fear of contracting COVID-19. Also,
e-commerce and technology firms (with higher acceptance
of digital payments) had stepped up their services, filling in Survey on consumer experience
the vacuum created by closure of brick and mortar stores. and perception about digital modes
Various central banks around the world conduct payment of payments: questionnaire
diary surveys to gauge useful variables at the individual
level and observe their impact on payment behaviour. In the See Appendix Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Table 6  A. Demographics

Question number Question Coded option

A_1(S1) Gender 0. Female

1. Male
2. Other
A_2 Age 0. Below 18
(S2) 1. 18–25
2. 26–45
3. 46–60
4. Above 60
A_3 Education 0. Never attended school
(S3) 1. Completed 5th standard
2. Completed 10th standard
3. Completed 12th standard
4. Bachelor’s degree
5. Master’s/[Link]/PhD
A_4 FAMILY income (Yearly, Rupees) 0. Below 2,50,000
(S4) 1. 2,50,000–5,00,000
2. 5,00,001–10,00,000
3. 10,00,001–25,00,000
4. 25,00,001–50,00,000
5. Above 50,00,000
A_5 Occupation 0. Salaried Employee (Private sector)
(S5) 1. Salaried Employee (Government or Public sector)
2. Self-employed/Business owner
3. Daily worker/Daily wage earner
4. Retired person
5. Student
6. Home maker
7. Unemployed (looking for a job)
A_6 Place of residence (district, for maximum part of the 1. Metropolitan: 10 lakh and above
(S6) last 12 months) 2. Urban: 1 lakh and above and less than 10 lakh
3. Semi-Urban: 10,000 and above and less than 1
lakh
4. Rural: population less than 10,000
A_6_2
House Rent Allowance (HRA) classification by
Ministry of Expenditure
x list of cities
y list of cities
z list of cities/towns that do not fall under x or y
(According to Census, 2011)

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 11

Table 7  B. Access to and usage of technology (mobile phone, computer and internet)
Question number Question Sub-question Options

B_1 Please tick the checkboxes that best B_1_1_1 (Access) and B_1_1_2 0. I have access to/not comfortable using
(S9) apply to you. (Please note: You can (Comfort) 1. I have access to/comfortable using
be comfortable using what you do not Basic phone
have access to) B_1_2_1 (Access) and B_1_2_2
(Comfort)
Smartphone
B_1_3_1 (Access) and B_1_3_2
(Comfort)
Computer/Laptop
B_1_4_1 (Access)
Internet connectivity
(BAD quality)
B_1_5_1 (Access)
Internet connectivity
(GOOD quality)

Table 8  C. Awareness on different modes of digital payments, risks related and savings/investment instruments

Question number Question Sub-question Options

C_1 Which of these Digital payments are you C_1_1 0. Not Aware
(S7) AWARE of? Credit/debit cards 1. Aware
C_1_2
Point of Sale (Usually a handheld device to
insert card at point of sale)
C_1_3
UPI (Unified payments interface)
C_1_4
Internet banking (NEFT, RTGS, IMPS)
C_1_5
Mobile banking (NEFT, RTGS, IMPS
through mobile app of your service
provider)
C_1_6
Pre-paid cards (Gift cards, travel cards,
Sodexo, Bank pre-paid cards etc.)
C_1_7
Mobile wallets (PayTM, PhonePe etc.)
C_1_8
AEPS (Aadhar enabled payments system,
payment requires Aadhaar Card, finger-
print etc.)
C_1_9
*99#/ USSD (Unstructured Supplementary
Service data)

13
12 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

Table 8  (continued)
Question number Question Sub-question Options
C_2 C_2_1 These options are coded as
(S23) Never share OTP/PIN/passwords of bank C_2_1
accounts or cards with friends/family/ 1. Correct
unknown sources (a) SAFE
C_2_2 0. Not Correct
Share your bank account number when (b) NOT SAFE, (c) Do not know
RBI (Reserve Bank of India) calls/mails (d) No response
you C_2_2
C_2_3 1. Correct
Never change your PIN/passwords of your (b) NOT SAFE
bank accounts/cards/wallets 0. Not correct
(a) SAFE
(c) Do not know
(d) No response
C_2_3
1. Correct
(b) NOT SAFE
0. Not correct
(a) SAFE
(c) Do not know
(d) No response
C_2_4
Total
score = C_2_1 + C_2_2 + C_2_3
C_3 Which of these do you save/ invest in? C_3_1_1–C_3_1_5 C_3_x_1—Invests/saves in the
(S27) What advantages do they give you? Bank savings account instrument
Choose savings/ investment options that C_3_2_1–C_3_2_5 (has clicked on atleast one of the
you use and click on the checkboxes Bank fixed deposit other columns)
accordingly C_3_3_1–C_3_3_5 C_3_x_2—My money is safe here
Stocks/Equity C_3_x_3—I can get high returns
C_3_4_1–C_3_4_5 C_3_x_4—I can withdraw money
Mutual funds anytime
C_3_5_1–C_3_5_5 C_3_x_5—I do not know the
Insurance advantages
C_3_6_1–C_3_6_5 For all the columns-
Provident fund 1. Checked the box
C_3_7_1–C_3_7_5 0. Has not checked the box
NSC (National savings certificate)/KVP
(Kisan Vikas Patra)
C_3_8_1–C_3_8_5
Government bond
C_3_9_1–C_3_9_5
Real estate
C_3_10_1–C_3_10_5
Gold

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 13

Table 9  D. Preference and perception on cash and digital payment systems
Question number Question Sub-question Options

D_1 On a scale of 0 to 2, rate CASH D_1_1 0. Bad

(S17) Convenience 1. Okay
D_1_2 2. Good
Less Costly 99. No response
D_1_3
Privacy/Anonymity
D_1_4
Safe/Secure
D_2 On a scale of 0 to 2, rate DIGITAL PAYMENTS D_2_1 0. Bad
(S18) Convenience 1. Okay
D_2_2 2. Good
Less Costly 99. No response
D_2_3
Privacy/Anonymity
D_2_4
Safe/Secure
D_3 What are the main HURDLES in the adoption and usage of D_3_1
(S19) digital payments for you? (Choose a maximum of 5) Technological problems
Poor internet connectivity
lack of devices (proper phone/
computer)
D_3_2
Discomfort using technology
I am not comfortable using
mobile phone/computer
I get overwhelmed with the
number of apps and websites
providing the service
D_3_3
transaction cost is high
D_3_4
lack of trust in online payments
(unsafe, risky, declined transac-
tion)
D_3_5
the KYC process is difficult to
get done
D_3_6
language is a barrier
D_3_7
It is not accepted everywhere
D_3_8
I do not relate to any of the above
statements
Other
No response
D_3_9
I have no problems
D_4 Choose your best response to the following statements D_4_1 0. Strongly
(S16) It is safer to deposit money in a agree
bank than keeping it at home 1. Agree
D_4_2 2. Neither agree
I have confidence in my bank(s) nor disagree
D_4_3 3. Disagree
I trust service providers of my 4. Strongly
e-wallet/mobile app (other than disagree
banks) 99. No response
D_4_4
I have confidence in the Reserve
Bank of India

13
14 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

Table 10  E. Behavioural aspects/habits of spending

Question number Questions Sub-questions Options

E_1 How do you receive your SALARY/ Directly in my account/e-wallet

(S10) MONEY for your expenses? Through CHEQUE
In CASH
Both Cash and Cheque
Cash/Cheque and also in my account/e-
wallet
99. No response
E_2 Have you used the following? E_2_4 More than once (Regularly/monthly etc.)
(S8) Internet banking (NEFT, RTGS, IMPS) Only once
E_2_5 Has not used
Mobile banking (NEFT, RTGS, IMPS
through mobile app of your service
provider)
E_2_6
Pre-paid cards (Gift cards, travel cards,
Sodexo, Bank pre-paid cards etc.)
E_2_7
Mobile wallets (PayTM, PhonePe etc.)
E_2_8
AEPS (Aadhar enabled payments sys-
tem, payment requires Aadhaar Card,
fingerprint etc.)
E_2_9
USSD (Unstructured Supplementary
Service data)/*99#
E_3 What do you use to PAY for the fol- E_3_1 0. Cash/Cash on delivery
(S11) lowing? Grocery 1. Digital
E_3_2 2. Payments
Other consumables (clothes, footwear, 3. Both
stationery) 99. No response
E_3_3
Online Shopping, Ordering food online
E_3_4
Utilities (Electricity, gas etc.)
E_3_5
Hotels/Restaurants
E_3_6
Durables(Microwave, TV etc.)
E_3_7
Petrol pump/Taxi
E_3_8
Financial Transactions (banks, insur-
ance, mutual funds, stocks)
E_3_9
Gold
E_4 In the last 1–3 months, has your usage/ 0. I have completely switched to digital
(S12) DEPENDENCE on DIGITAL PAY- payments
MENTS changed? 1. It has increased
2. It has decreased
3. It has not changed
99. No response
E_5 If your usage/dependence has 0. Does not apply to me
(S13) INCREASED, would it REMAIN 1. Yes, the increase is permanent
THE SAME after COVID-19 recedes? 2. No, I will go back to using cash more
3. Do not know
99. No response

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 15

Table 10  (continued)
Question number Questions Sub-questions Options

E_6 If your usage/ dependence on digital 0. Does not apply to me

(S14) payments has increased then, what is 1. I cannot access cash through ATMs
the MAIN REASON? 2. I fear contracting the virus through
bank notes
3. I feel digital payments are more
convenient
4. Others
99. No response
E_7 How is your online buying experience E_7_1 0. Unsatisfactory
(S15) of goods and services on the follow- Quality of Goods 1. Satisfactory
ing aspects? E_7_2 99. No response
Refund of Goods
E_7_3
Customer service

Table 11  F. Experience related to fraud

Question number Question Options

F_1 What is your experience with Digital payments FRAUD 0. I have been a VICTIM to digital payment frauds
(S20) (On-call fraudsters, phishing etc.)? 1. I have RECEIVED such calls/mails/texts but carefully
AVOIDED it
2. I HAVE NOT received such calls/mail/texts but know
someone PERSONALLY who has been a victim
3. I HAVE NOT received such calls/mail/texts and DO NOT
know anyone PERSONALLY who has been a victim
99. No response
F_2 If you have been a victim or carefully avoided the fraud, then 0. Does not apply to me
(S21) was the case reported to the concerned authority? 1. No, I did not report it
2. Yes, I reported it
99. No response
F_3 If you have AVOIDED or been a VICTIM to such a fraud, 0. It does not apply to me
(S22) then have you REDUCED your digital payments usage? 1. YES, I have completely switched to cash/cheque
2. YES, I have reduced the use of digital payments
3. NO, It has not affected the use of digital payments but I am
more careful now
99. No response

13
16 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

Table 12  G. Feedback on awareness campaigns

Question number Question Sub-question Options

G_1 Most of my information regarding digital G_1_1 0. Does not come from this source
(S24) payments comes from News (Newspaper, TV, Internet 1. Comes from this source
G_1_2
Ads on Internet or TV
G_1_3
YouTube, blogs
G_1_4
Bank employees
Customer care
G_1_5
RBI’s/ NCPI’s website
Service provider’s website
G_1_6
Friends/ family
G_1_7
Others
None
No response
G_2 Can you REMEMBER/RECALL these G_2_1 0. Does not recall
(S25) commercial/ads? You may have watched/ RBI SAYS/ RBI KEHTA HAI. RBI 1. Recalls
read/listened to these (Reserve bank of India) has come up
with a series of commercials/ads under
the campaign “RBI Says” or “RBI Kehta
hai” to promote awareness on ‘Safe Digi-
tal Banking’, ‘Banking Ombudsman’,
‘Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account’,
‘Risk v/s return’, etc
G_2_2
UPI CHALEGA and ONE LIFE. ONE
RUPAY. NPCI ‘s (National Payments
Corporation of India) series of com-
mercial/ads under the campaign “UPI
Chalega” and “One Life. One Rupay”
G_2_3
INDIA PAY SAFE. Reserve Bank of
India (RBI) Governor Shaktikanta Das’
address to the nation urging citizens to
use digital payment system under the
campaign “India Pay Safe”
G_3 If you REMEMBER some/ all of the ads, G_3_1 0. Has not chosen this option
(S26) then do you think the ads were helpful? Positive feedback 1. Has chosen this option
If so, why? YES, I found the ads to be informative
YES, I have gained more trust in the bank-
ing system for proper grievance redressal
if needed
G_3_2
NO, the ads can be more informative
G_3_3
NO, I did not like the ads G_3_4
Other reasons
I do not recall these ads
No response
G_3_4
Other reasons
I do not recall these ads
No response
G_4 PLEASE, give brief feedback on digital 99. No response
(S28) payments. [The feedback can be in sen-
tences, phrases or a set of words]

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 17

Appendix 2

See Appendix Fig. 3.

Fig. 3  Data summary

(a) Instrument-wise awareness (b) Frequency of usage
700 700
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0

Internet…

Mobile…
Credit/ debit…
Internet…

Mobile…
Credit/ debit…

*99#
PoS

UPI

Pre-paid cards

AEPS
Mobile wallets
AEPS
PoS

UPI

Mobile wallets
Pre-paid cards

*99#
Number of people More than once Only once Never

(c) Major problems with digital payment systems

400
300
200
100
0

Language

everywhere
comfortable

problems
Lack of trust

KYC
Technologic

Others
Transac‰on
al problems

technology

accepted

No
using

cost

Not
Not

(d) Percentage of respondents who could recall ads by RBI/ NPCI

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
RBI Says UPI Chalega India pay safe

13
18 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

Fig. 3  (continued)
(e) Source of information on Digital Payments
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
News Ads YouTube, blogs Manual Website Friends/ Family Others
assistance

(f) Online Fraud Experience – Summary of Responses

Reported Not Didn’t Total
reported reveal
Victim of online fraud 36 11 5 52
Received such a call/ text but avoided loss 58 170 131 359
Know someone who has experienced it 121
No experience 98
Vertical sum 94 18 1 136 630

(g) Confidence in the system

Strongly agree=0, Strongly disagree=4

1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
Safer to deposit money in Confidence in banks Confidence in other service Confidence in RBI
a bank providers

(f) Perception of cash and digital payment

2.000

1.500

1.000

0.500

0.000
Convenience Less Costly Privacy/ Anonymity Safe / Secure

Cash Digital Payments

13
Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20 19

Appendix 3

See Appendix Table 13.

Table 13  Regression Table for Baseline Model

Baseline model
Grocery Utilities Durables Online shopping Gold

Intercept (DP) − 17.214 (1,785.172) − 0.399 (0.919) − 0.312 (1.027) − 0.511 (1.187) − 2.089* (1.07)
Intercept (Both) 0.566 (0.691) 0.557 (0.891) 1.495* (0.903) 1.490 (1.018) − 0.019 (0.817)
Female 0 0 0 0 0
Male (DP) 1.073*** (0.381) 1.043*** (0.322) − 0.004 (0.352) 0.824* (0.430) 0.238 (0.305)
Male (Both) 0.535** (0.252) 0.916*** (0.348) 0.093 (0.350) 0.242 (0.421) 0.585** (0.291)
Below 25 0 0 0 0 0
26–45 (DP) 0.837 (0.513) − 0.359 (0.486) 0.632 (0.521) 0.447 (0.646) 0.492 (0.469)
26–45 (Both) 0.149 (0.387) − 0.582 (0.521) − 0.142 (0.531) 0.562 (0.651) − 0.067 (0.442)
Above 46 (DP) 0.186 (0.641) − 0.484 (0.640) 0.963 (0.779) − 1.354** (0.690) − 0.253 (0.567)
Above 46 (Both) − 0.088 (0.504) − 0.360 (0.685) 0.715 (0.786) − 1.312* (0.703) − 0.305 (0.543)
Completed 12th 0 0 0 0 0
Bachelors (DP) 15.921 (1,785.172) 1.216** (0.558) 0.679 (0.682) 1.266 (0.819) 0.500 (0.704)
Bachelors (Both) 0.914** (0.451) 1.181** (0.578) 0.224 (0.568) 0.709 (0.702) 1.066* (0.619)
Masters (DP) 16.607 1.503** (0.607) 0.990 (0.721) 0.526 (0.837) 0.315 (0.726)
(1,785.172)
Masters (Both) 1.241** (0.489) 1.546** (0.635) 0.218 (0.622) − 0.489 (0.728) 0.916 (0.647)
Below 2.5 lakhs 0 0 0 0 0
2.5–5 lakhs (DP) 0.449 (0.921) − 0.465 (0.736) 0.122 (0.698) 1.555* (0.848) 0.812 (0.878)
2.5–5 lakhs (Both) − 0.331 (0.486) − 1.098 (0.705) − 0.252 (0.618) 0.434 (0.728) − 0.355 (0.561)
5–10 lakhs (DP) − 0.343 (0.899) − 0.117 (0.710) 0.563 (0.679) 1.521* (0.824) 1.425* (0.852)
5–10 lakhs (Both) − 0.191 (0.461) − 1.320* (0.687) 0.011 (0.605) 0.577 (0.707) − 0.234 (0.546)
10−25 lakhs (DP) 1.034 (0.891) 0.368 (0.727) 1.003 (0.704) 2.021** (0.842) 2.229*** (0.855)
10–25 lakhs (both) 0.434 (0.481) − 1.233* (0.714) 0.066 (0.642) 0.529 (0.733) − 0.203 (0.564)
Above 25 lakhs (DP) 1.426 (1.000) 1.054 (0.911) 1.065 (0.842) 3.016*** (1.103) 2.351** (0.948)
Above 25 lakhs (both) 0.986 (0.603) − 0.148 (0.905) − 0.010 (0.804) 1.564 (1.025) 0.447 (0.696)
occupation 1:1 (DP) − 2.155*** (0.669) − 1.077* (0.609) − 1.398** (0.644) − 1.880*** (0.675) − 0.177 (0.567)
occupation 1:2 (Both) − 1.425*** (0.462) − 0.439 (0.623) − 1.148* (0.650) − 0.517 (0.651) − 0.991* (0.579)
Occupation 2:1 0.092 (0.786) − 0.654 (0.730) 15.237 (2,130.428) − 0.567 (0.716) 1.497* (0.882)
Occupation 2:2 − 0.071 (0.691) − 0.651 (0.802) 14.740 (2,130.428) 0.185 (0.748) 0.477 (0.893)
Occupation 3:1 − 1.997*** (0.596) − 0.711 (0.483) − 1.189** (0.524) − 1.156* (0.634) − 0.373 (0.473) (0.473)
Occupation 3:2 − 0.984*** (0.374) − 0.368 (0.512) − 0.905* (0.522) 0.149 (0.628) − 0.749* (0.433)
Occupation 4:1 − 2.490** (1.111) − 0.225 (0.692) − 2.160*** (0.633) − 0.948 (0.788) 0.917 (0.703)
Occupation 4:2 − 1.171** (0.510) − 0.801 (0.817) − 2.562*** (0.715) − 0.516 (0.791) − 0.572 (0.753)
Location x (DP) 0.101 (0.430) 1.283*** (0.374) 1.261*** (0.411) 0.305 (0.520) 0.529 (0.360)
Location x (Both) − 0.625** (0.311) 0.102 (0.399) 0.058 (0.401) − 0.349 (0.512) − 0.233 (0.332)
Location y (DP) − 0.129 (0.489) − 0.073 (0.367) 0.600 (0.438) − 0.184 (0.539) 0.127 (0.411)
Location y (Both) − 0.480 (0.337) − 0.303 (0.382) 0.072 (0.418) − 0.636 (0.526) 0.142 (0.368)
Observations 553 549 516 548 464
R2 0.146 0.106 0.130 0.134 0.082
Log Likelihood 4 − 457.22 − 443.032 − 421.363 − 425.130 − 452.345
LR Test (df = 32) 156.388*** 104.989*** 126.056*** 131.533*** 80.589***

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

13
20 Journal of Banking and Financial Technology (2021) 5:1–20

References 13. Maqableh M (2015) Perceived trust and payment methods: an

empirical study of MarkaVIP company. Int J Commun Netw Syst
Sci 8(11):409
1. Arango-Arango CA, Bouhdaoui Y, Bounie D, Eschelbach M,
14. Mazzotta B, Chakravorti, B, Bijapurkar R, Shukla R, Ramesha K,
Hernandez L (2018) Cash remains top-of-wallet! International
Bapat D, Roy D (2019). The Cost of Cash in India. The Institute
evidence from payment diaries. Econ Model 69:38–48
for Business in the Global Context
2. Bagnall J, Bounie D, Huynh KP, Kosse A, Schmidt T, Schuh SD,
15. Nilekani N (2019) Report of the High Level Committee on Deep-
Stix H (2014) Consumer cash usage: a cross-country comparison
ening of Digital Payments, Reserve Bank of India
with payment diary survey data. Int J Cent Bank (46)
16. Png I, Tan C (2019) Privacy, Trust in Banks and Use of Cash,
3. Cagan P (1958) The Demand for Currency Relative to the Total
Macroeconomic Review Volume XIX Issue 1 April 2020, Mon-
Money Supply. J Political Econ 66(4):302–328
etary Authority of Singapore (ISSN 0219-8908)
4. Chen A, Zeltmann S, Griffin K, Ota M, Ozeki R (2020) Demo-
17. Prelec D, Loewenstein G (1998) The red and the black: Mental
graphic background, perceptions, and e-payment usage among
accounting of savings and debt. Market Sci 17(1):4–28
young Japanese. Glob J Bus Discip 4(1):4
18. Ozturk AB (2016) Customer acceptance of cashless payment sys-
5. Ernst and Young (EY) (2019) EY Global FinTech Adoption Index
tems in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contem-
2019.
porary Hospitality Management
6. European Central Bank (2018) Econ Bull (6)
19. Rick SI (2018) Tightwads and spendthrifts: An interdisciplinary
7. Galiani S, Gertler P, Ahumada CN (2020) Trust and Saving in
review. Financ Plan Rev 1(1–2):e1010. https​://[Link]/10.1002/
Financial Institutions (No. w26809). Natl Bur Econ Res
cfp2.1010
8. Garcia-Swartz DD, Hahn RW, Layne-Farrar A (2006) The move
20. Rogoff K (2015) Costs and benefits to phasing out paper currency.
toward a cashless society: a closer look at payment instrument
NBER Macroecon Annu 29(1):445–456
economics. Rev Netw Econ 5(2)
21. Tanzi V (1983) The Underground Economy in the United States:
9. Jonker N (2007) Payment instruments as perceived by consumers–
Estimates and Implications. Staff Papers—International Monetary
results from a household survey. De Economist 155(3):271–303
Fund 30(2):283–305
10. Kahn CM, McAndrews J, Roberds W (2005) Money is privacy.
22. Vinitha K, Vasantha S (2017) Influence of demographic variables
Int Econ Rev 46(2):377–399
on usage of e-payment system. Int J Mech Eng Technol (IJMET)
11. Kosse A (2013) Do newspaper articles on card fraud affect debit
8:265–276
card usage? J Bank Finance 37(12):5382–5391
23. VISA (2016) Accelerating the growth of digital payments in India:
12. Lai PC (2017) Security as an extension to TAM model: Con-
a five-year outlook
sumers’ intention to use a single platform E-Payment. Asia-Pac J
Manage Res Innov 13(3–4):110–119

13