流量卡,java免费视频教程,菜籽油价格
terminals. Therefore improvement in the coverage of EFTPoS terminals is important. The EPS vendor could consider developing an incentive scheme (e.g. absorbing most of the installation costs and reducing commission charges) which could induce more shops to install EPS terminals. At the time of writing, the VISA card network is experimenting with the new international Electron debit cards which can be accepted by the original VISA credit card machines (Kwok, 1993). Without necessitating the installation of extra EFTPOS terminals, and with a lower commission charge than ATM cards, it is expected that more shops in the future will be willing to accept EFTPoS transactions. Regarding the higher financial risk of EFTPoS, it is noted that laws in many countries are weak in coping with the pace of technological advances and the complexity of legal issues of EFTS. The introduction of EFTPoS increases the law makers’ burden, as demands for legal recognition of electronic payments will need to be accommodated on top of the existing concerns over electronic fraud, theft, viruses, privacy, confidentiality and security. A more active role should be played by the Government as a regulator which would include making and revising EFTS laws and regulations, monitoring, Small purchase Large purchase Risk Cash Credit EFTPoS t-value p-value Cash Credit EFTPoS t-value p-value 4.13 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 0.254 1.92 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 level Note: The figures in the first three columns under each purchase situation are the mean scores of the responses to the particular risk dimension of each payment method (1 = strongly agree, 6 = strongly disagree) Table II. Difference of Perceived Risk among Alternative Payments Methods CUSTOMERS’ RISK PERCEPTIONS OF ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SYSTEMS 33 educating and mediating and arbitrating in cases of disputes. Overall, there is little difference between small purchases |
