张炬死亡现场照片,天星密语,上海房屋检测
and large purchases in terms of the relative risk among the three payment methods. The findings support the general hypothesis that, for most risk dimensions, the level of perceived risk is significantly different among the three alternative payment methods. Also, it further confirms that credit card payment and EFTPoS payment have similar risk profiles, while EFTPoS is seen by the respondents to be very different from cash payment in terms of the risk profile. Impact of Size of Purchase The comparison of physical risk between small and large purchase by the use of three alternative payment methods is given in Table III. In general, for cash payments, physical risk, financial risk and time loss risk are significantly higher when the transaction amount is larger. For credit card payments, performance risk is higher for the small purchase. Similarly, for EFTPoS payments, performance risk in small purchases is higher than that in large purchases, while psychological risk for small purchases is however lower than that for large purchases. Similar variations due to difference in purchase amount for performance risk for EFTPoS and credit card further confirms the idea that consumers view these two methods of payment as a close substitute for one another. One can conclude that the amount of purchase has a more significant effect on the perceived risk of cash payment than other payment methods. The impact on the perceived risk of credit card and EFTPoS payment are small except in the dimension of performance risk. Small purchase by credit card and EFTPoS payment have higher performance risk because such methods of payment are less acceptable to retailers. EFTPoS Users versus Non-users The current EFTPoS users are believed to be largely the early adopters of this innovative payment method, and the trial use of the EFTPoS service should lower the level of perceived risk in the mind of the users. To test this hypothesis, the respondents were divided into two groups, the user group and non-user group, and their comparative risk perception of EFTPoS payments were tested. It was hypothesized that, for each risk dimension, EFTPoS users have a lower level of perceived risk about EFTPoS payment than non-users. Respondents’ answers to the question “On average, how many times do you use EPS services in a month?” was used to divide the respondents into two groups, i.e. user group and non-user group. The answer “0” was treated as EFTPoS non-users and the answer not equal to “0” was treated as EFTPoS users. As a result, there were 51 users and 116 non-users of EFTPOS in the sample. Grouped t-tests on the mean difference of perceived risk dimensions between these two |
