DEGREE PROJECT REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BANKING & FINANCE MASTER OF SCIENCE, 30 CREDITS, SECOND LEVEL STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2018 WHY DOES CASH STILL EXIST? A STUDY INTO THE DETERMINANTS OF CASH USAGE OSCAR ASPLUND & OTHON TZOBRAS TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRACTION MANAGEMENT ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & FINANCE
76
Embed
WHY DOES CASH STILL EXIST?kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1228098/FULLTEXT01.pdf · why does cash still exist? a study into the determinants of cash usage oscar asplund & othon
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DEGREE PROJECT REAL ESTATE & CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT BANKING & FINANCE MASTER OF SCIENCE, 30 CREDITS, SECOND LEVEL STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2018
WHY DOES CASH STILL EXIST? A STUDY INTO THE DETERMINANTS OF CASH USAGE OSCAR ASPLUND & OTHON TZOBRAS
TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND CONSTRACTION MANAGEMENT
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING & FINANCE
Master of Science Thesis Title Why Does Cash Still Exist? Author(s) Oscar Asplund & Othon Tzobras Department Master Thesis number
Banking & Finance TRITA-ABE-MBT-18178
Supervisor Kent Eriksson Keywords Cash, Cashless, Society, Banking, Finance,
Behavioral Economis, Big Data, SPSS, Bank, Finans, Kontanter, Kontantlös, Factor Analysis, Principal Component Analysis
Abstract
With non-cash transactions on the rise and the debate about the future cashless society is raging, cash is still being used around the world with varying degrees. This thesis studies the behavioral determinants of consumers with regard to cash usage. The current research have found several determinants of consumer behavior and this study aims at combining the existing knowledge into one model that might explain peoples’ payment medium behaviors. The method chosen in this thesis was to do a factor analysis in order to validate the hypothesized model. The obtained data-set was analyzed by using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24.0.0.0. To start with the data was deemed to be suitable after checking the adequacy of our data set through a KMO and Bartlett’s test and further by looking at the MSA table where the variables score quite high indicating that the data is suitable. Secondly the results from the factor analysis indicated that there are eight components extracted with some components being uncorrelated but the majority of extracted components from the output being correlated. Finally we found that our theoretical model holds but we recommend further research to be conducted on how locations determine cash usage. Moreover, we noted that some components into the socio-demographic groups are uncorrelated and thus we would like to recommend further research into the statistical validity of the model.
Acknowledgement Firstly we would like to take this opportunity and thank our thesis supervisor Kent Eriksson of KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Banking & Finance. We always felt welcome to discuss ideas and challenges throughout the entire process of writing our thesis as well as giving us good tips so we kept on the right track. We also want to thank Per Håkansson at White Rock Associates (our external supervisor) for helping us gain access to the extensive data used in this master’s thesis. Thanks to his help and guidance the thesis could be realized. Another thank you must be extended to Johannes Bäckman at Loomis AB who provided us with the extensive data set, thus allowing us to make quantitative big-data analysis in order to arrive at our final result. We would also like to thanks David Mårtensson & Alexander Tchibalinefor and Nóra Gazdag and Anna Torlegård for their great inputs, moral support and for proof reading our work throughout the entire writing process.
Examensarbete Titel Varför Existerar Fortfarande Kontanter? Författare Oscar Asplund & Othon Tzobras Institution Examensarbete Master nivå
Bank & Finans TRITA-ABE-MBT-18178
Handledare Kent Eriksson Nyckelord Cash, Cashless, Society, Banking, Finance,
Behavioral Economics, Big Data, SPSS, Bank, Finans, Kontanter, Kontantlös, Factor Analysis, Principal Component Analysis
Sammanfattning Trots stadigt ökande andelen ickekontanta transaktioner kombinerat med den pågående debatten om det kontantlösa samhället så används fortfarande kontanter (i varieande utsträckning) runt om världen. Denna uppsats studerar beteendedeterminanter med hänsyn konsumenters val av olika betalningsmedel. Tidigare studier har hittat bevis för flera olika determinanter som påverkar konsumenters beteenden och denna uppsats syftar till att kombinera existerande determinanter till en modell som kan förklara konsumenters beteendemönster kring valet av olika betalningsmedier. Faktoranalys har varit den valda metoden för denna studie för att kunna validera den hypotiserad bettendemodellen. Det erhållna datasetet analyserades med hjälp av mjukvaran SPSS IBM SPSS Statistics, version 24.0.0.0. Till att börja med så ansågs datan vara passande efter lämplighetstest av det tillgängliggjorda datasetet och därefter kontrollera resultaten från KMO- och Barlettstesterna samt att undersöka resultaten från MSA-tabellen där flera variabler innehar höga värden vilket indikerade att datan var lämplig för vidare analys. Resultaten från faktoranalysen indikerar att vi erhöll totalt åtta komponenter där ett fåtal korrelerade men majoriteten av komponenterna var inte korrelerade. Till att börja med så fann vi att datan var lämplig för vidare analys. Därefter fick vi åtta extraherade komponenter vilka teoretiskt kunde härledas till vår modells hypotiserade determinanter. Till slut fann vi att vår teoretiska modell håller men vill rekommendera vidare forskning på hur specifika platser determinerar kontantanvändning. Dessutom så noterade vi att vissa komponeter inte korrelerar hos vissa sociodemografiska grupper och vi vill därför rekommendera vidare forskning för att bättre validera modellen statistiskt.
Förord För det första så vill vi ta detta tillfälle och tack vår handledare Kent Eriksson vid KTH och Institutionen för Bank och Finans. Vi kände oss alltid välkomna att diskutera idéer och utmaningar genom hela uppsatsprocessen samt för det stöd och de goda tips vi fått under det senaste halvåret som vi skrivit. Vi vill också passa på att tack Per Håkansson vid White Rock Associates (vår externa handledare) för hjälpen att få tillgång till det utförliga data-set som ligger till grund för vårt arbete. Tack för ditt stöd, tips och vägledning så arbetet kunde realiseras. Vi vill även rikta ett tack till Johannes Bäckman vid Loomis AB som givit oss tillåtelse att arbeta med deras data-set som ligger till grunden för våra resultat i denna uppsats. Till sist vill vi rikta stora tack till David Mårtensson & Alexander Tchibaline samt Nóra Gazdag & Anna Torlegård för deras feedback, moraliska stöd och korrekturläsning av vårt arbete under hela processen.
5. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 2
6. MODEL ............................................................................................................................................... 8
1. BACKGROUND According to Sveriges Riksbank (2016) we can observe that cash in circulation as proportion to GDP has been decreasing steadily since the 1950s in Sweden. Another observation from the same diagram (diagram 31) show that the nominal amount (i.e. value) of cash in circulation has started to decrease in about the year 2010 and is steadily decreasing up until today. In diagram 32 (Sveriges Riksbank, 2016) show that the number of cash withdrawals, as well as their amount, has somewhat leveled out while at the same time the number of card payment transactions and their aggregate value have grown with increasing growth rates, making cash an ever-smaller method of payment in relation to aggregate consumptions and transactions amounts. Sveriges Riksbank (2016) also show, in diagram 33, that the average value of a card transaction has decreased from 700 to 322 SEK per card transaction over the period of 1998-2015. In their news article “It’s Not About The Money” by Drost & Steuer (2017) a diagram shows the difference between Germany and Sweden where in the former cash in circulation in percentage of GDP has stayed close to 8% during the last 9-7 years while it has been decreasing steadily in Sweden and is now. These differences beg the question why some countries have declining cash usage while some experience a cash usage “status quo “ in an era where the debate about the future cashless society is increasingly debated. However even in Sweden, with the increasing use of card for mass transactions, there is still a substantial sliver of cash left in society that is continuously being used. With noncash payments increasing worldwide and all eyes are on the future cashless society there is still cash in the system constantly being used. We ask ourselves the question: why is cash still around? And aim at studying the determinants that make people use cash in an increasingly digitalizing global society.
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION With declining cash use in some countries and increasing in others combined with the ongoing debate about the future of cashless society we want to contribute with the collective knowledge about different payment methods and what determines the usage of cash when the cashless society is increasingly debated.
3. PURPOSE The purpose of this thesis aims at finding:
• the determinants of consumer behavior which will impact the use of different payment methods.
• a model that might explain the determinants of cash usage. • if the model is valid. This will be done through a factor analysis.
4. LIMITATIONS The thesis will be limited to second hand web panel data carried out in 2017. The questionnaire survey was conveyed in both Sweden and Germany on cash usage preferences among consumers in the respective countries. Due to the time constraint of the master thesis we have limited our study to look at universal (i.e. overall country), age group and gender differences in our analysis.
2
5. LITERATURE REVIEW Over the last years, the development of new and innovative payment systems has led globally to the introduction of various electronic payments (Bagnall et al, 2014). The rapid growth of these electronic payments could foresee the termination of cash in the future. However, in a research conducted by the Bennet et al (2014) the usage of cash is still first on the consumer’s priority in comparison to other payment instruments such as debit or credit cards. Currency Research (2015a & 2015b) examined the statistics worldwide on cash issuance and usage and concluded that even though cash may be declining in some countries, the growth of cash is increasing by 5-8% every year. Central banks through the use of cash provide monetary stability in markets (Currency Research, 2015b). The control over the short-term interest rates makes the Central banks able to influence the levels of inflation rates and control the overall money stock in markets. Moreover, Central banks finance their expenditures by holding interest-bearing assets (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). Another significant benefit of cash usage from a government’s perspective is where central banks, through the issuing of cash, earn seigniorage (Currency Research, 2015b). Seigniorage according to Currency Research (2015b) is defined as a tax or revenue that allows governments to support their financial independence. Walsh (2017) defines seigniorage as the central’s banks authority on the cash issuance and the cash used domestically and abroad for both transactions and saving purposes. Moreover, the role of cash plays a crucial role in situations of a financial crisis (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). In times of economic crisis, cash is the only secure method of payment (Currency Research, 2015a) when other payment infrastructures might be out of order or unusable. A great example was Greece in 2015 with a sharp rise in the demand for cash. The increased amount of cash withdrawals from banks indicates that people do not trust the financial system and the only secure mean to feel safe is cash (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). Consumers have various choices of payments methods at the point of sale (POS) such as cash, debit and credit cards as well as other new and older forms of transaction mediums (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). However, cash is identified as the most common payment instrument regarding transaction volume according to Matheny, O’Brien & Wang (2016). More specifically, the consumer’s preference on payment method depends on the household income and the value of a transaction. Low-income consumers use cash more frequently than medium and higher income consumers and the cash dominates for low-value transactions. Consumers use cash for everyday expenditures as food and personal care items. Additionally, cash is considered as a primary backup payment instrument in cases where the first choice of payment instrument is not available (Bennett, O’Brian & Advincula, 2014). Although cash constitutes a strong preference of consumers in most of the transactions, in a paper conducted by Bagnall et al (2014) “A Cross-Country Comparison with Payment Diary Survey Data” the level of cash usage is determined to differ across countries. Cash is still high on the customer's preference as a payment instrument for most of the transactions but mostly for low-value transactions. In Germany and Austria more specifically the use of cash dominates for all transaction values. (Bagnall et al, 2014). From a social perspective, currency in the form of banknotes and coins provides to the public a sense of trust. Cash provides anonymity and protection of personal data (Currency Research, 2015b). Furthermore, according to the Central Bank of Ireland (2013) and their National Payments Plan, cash offers low-income consumers flexibility to manage their money more efficiently and increase the control over their spending (Currency Research, 2015b). Another social aspect of cash is that its value can be stored in times of crisis, as was mentioned earlier. Money paper remains the preferred mean of stored value as long as a financial crisis continues to occur. Historical trends of currency volumes
3
signify that cash in circulation is increasing during times of crisis even though cash as a percentage of transactions in some situations are decreasing (Currency Research, 2015b). Furthermore, cash represents a fallback solution in a society that the transactions are inclusively made by electronic payment methods such as credit cards or debit cards. (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). For instance, in Germany after suffering technical issues at some card issuers in 2009 it was found that user data had leaked, fueling distrust in the financial system. Similarly, Deutsche Bank in 2016 faced a technical problem that led customers being unable to use their cards. That is to say that banknotes and coins do not need an infrastructure for money transactions in the same way that non-cash transaction mediums do (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). Lastly, Currency Research (2015a) concludes that cash serves as a social and public good rather than the interests of private companies. In a survey conducted by Sweden’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology two-thirds of Swedish citizens perceive cash as a human right (Currency Research, 2015b). Cash over the last years has been subjected to a lot of criticism by private companies according to (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). One of the arguments that these private companies use to support the use of their financial services is the safety of cash as a payment mean. According to Currency Research (2015b) they promote stories of robbery and loss of cash via transport and handling to persuade retailers and consumers to use their financial services rather than banknotes and coins. Another argument used against paper money describes that cash is used for illegal activities and that encourages criminality (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). However, according to Currency Research (2015a) that is another claim of private financial service companies and commercial banks to convince central banks and governments to abolish cash. Moreover, in a cashless society, the shadow economy would simply turn to the other currencies like the US dollar, Swiss franc, Japanese yen or British pound or even to newer technological payment mediums. As a result, the abolishment of cash in society would not necessarily lead to the elimination of criminality and shadow economy (Kruger & Seitz, 2017). However some researchers such as Professor Kenneth S Rogoff suggest getting rid of high denomination banknotes in order to cramp down on illicit use of cash (London School of Economics, 2016). Finally, criticism against the use of banknotes and coins has been debated concerning the replacement of cash with mobile payments. Cash remains high in the preference of consumers' choice despite the increase of mobile and non-cash payment rates every year. To conclude, a key recommendation of Currency Research (2015a) describes that the “war” between card companies and commercial banks should focus even further than on cash. Japan has adopted an advanced mobile payment market despite that fact that Japan has the highest rates of cash transactions in the world. That indicates the possible co-existence of cash and mobile payments. For that purpose, Currency Research (2015a) suggests that card companies and commercial banks should concern more about a scenario where telecom companies would be the next banks and smart-phones the future payment cards. IMPACT OF DIFFERENT PAYMENT MEDIUMS In their article “Consumer Payment Choice: Merchant Card Acceptance Versus Pricing” Arango & Huynh (2015) found that consumers use cash because it is easy to use and it is accepted broadly. Moreover, the use of cash and debit cards could be influenced negatively by credit card rewards plans, which corroborate the findings of Ching & Hayashi (2008) that the presence of debit and credit cards negatively effect cash usage. In addition to this an interesting finding is presented by Runnemark, Hedman & Xiao (2015), saying that consumers are willing to spend more money when using debit cards as compared to using cash as a payment medium. This would, according to the authors, “…suggest that the format of money matters.” and that the results are pointing to that cash makes it easier to control spending for certain individuals in society. These finding are backed up by Mercatant
4
& Li (2014) who also found that consumers (in their case for Italian household) spending increased when using or having access to debit cards. DETERMINANTS OF PAYMENT MEDIUM USAGE Several studies have found there to be different determinants that influence the use of different payment mediums like cash, debit cards, credit cards (to mention a few). Determinants of cash usage according to von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014b) are 1) transaction and personal characteristics, 2) relative costs of cash and card usage and 3) individuals assessments of features of payment instruments. In addition von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014b) found that there are differences on payment behavior across spending categories and that cash usage depends on the transaction value. Moreover they found that there are some differences between younger and older people. Older people tend to use more cash than younger people. Furthermore, the cash share can be predictable in the future (Germany) in case that the distribution of characteristics of older and younger people and their population shares were stable. (e.g. concerning education, income or preferences, cash does not seem on the verge of disappearing). According to their research the share of cash in Germany seems to be stable in the near future. That means that the seigniorage revenuers and the costs of maintaining the cash payment system can be expected to remain relatively stable. However, that may change due to behavioral changes and improvement of current technology in the future. Moreover, that change can be affected from the way merchants and network providers will operate in the future. Finally, he points out that cash transactions do not influenced by the ownership of credit cards (von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix, 2014b). Some scientists argue that the choice of payments (e.g. when or how to pay for a good) is influenced by several factors such as a person’s (i.e. a consumer’s) demographical characteristics, value of the goods/services being purchased, risk aversion as well as the environment where the trade transaction is being conducted. Bouhdaoui, Bounie & François (2014) argue that the practicality of a transaction is notably influenced by the accessibility and cost of the payment systems that are available. The authors discuss the differences between what they call store-of-value (i.e. bank notes, coins, etc.) and account-based payment systems (i.e. charge accounts, checks, credit cards etc. that need constant tracking of the payers and payees). Store-of-value systems will, as its name prevails, retain its value even though it’s not constantly monitored (by any central authority). This may lead to counterfeiting of e.g. bank notes, however this is almost eliminated in the developed world, and the lack of monitoring may also lead to these payment systems to be used in clandestine and illegal activities. On the other hand, a store-of-value system is more susceptible to stealing since it is physically carried or lying around in that sense account-based systems are safer. With increased legal and technical monitoring, the account-based systems will receive a reduced margin where these payment systems are effective. (Bouhdaoui, Bounie & François, 2014)
5
SITUATIONS In a paper by Belk (1975) the author talk about the previous definition of a situation in which individual characteristics are included (e.g. age, gender) as well as environment but excludes descriptions of physical attributes (e.g. sound levels, room size, time). In the end five groups of characteristics are established by Belk (1975) for a situation, namely: Physical Surroundings, Social Surroundings, Temporal Perspective, Task Definition and Antecedent States. Furthermore over a six-seven year period of conducting experiments, Belk (1975) found that there are imperative situational determinants affecting consumer behavior for the examined scenarios in his research. Another finding from all inventories in the research except one, was the suggestion that situation was more important than product popularity in influencing behavior. The conclusion of Belk (1975) is in the end that situations will impact consumer behavior. With the above definitions of a situation Dhar & Nowlis (1999) studied the effects of time pressure (i.e. a situation) on consumer behavior. The results from their study indicate that time pressure have an effect on the choices that consumers make, more precisely consumer become more prone to make a choices under pressure while being more prone to defer any choice making when given more or unlimited time. The results showed that time pressure make consumers more prone to making a decision would indicate that more transactions would be made when putting consumers under temporal pressure. Vital findings by Jockson, Stoel & Brantley (2011) show that physical surroundings have an impact on consumer choices by measuring the effects of mall attributes (i.e. a mall’s physical appearance) on shopping values of different consumer groups. Bagnall et al. (2014) found evidence that the antecedent task (in the form of transaction size) have an impact on the use of cash. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS Cosmas (1982) used questionnaire responses and found that there exists a correlation between different life-style groups and their respective consumer behaviors. He highlights that each life-style group’s relationship to product assortment choice (i.e. consumer choices) is unique though not very strong and the author calls for more research on additional populations in order to give higher external validity to the research. Penz & Sinkovics (2013) research Austrian consumers’ perception of different payment systems. They were able to find that Austrians see cash as “…the prototypical form of payment,”. The authors identify two populations in their study, urban and rural, who view payment systems different but with minor differences. Penz & Sinkovics (2013) note that both these populations associate non-cash payments (i.e. bank and credit cards) with loss of control and indebtedness, while cash on the other hand is associated with control for the urban population whereas the rural population associate cash with work and desires. Regarding the demographics factor Klee (2008) finds that the highest education level has the highest the frequency of credit and debit card usage. Klee (2008) point out that “consumers choices are based on opportunity costs and interest elasticities, but also on transaction and other handling costs”. Jockson, Stoel & Brantley (2011) study how mall attributes (i.e. the physical surroundings of a mall) and their effects on consumer behavior over different generations and genders where the results from point to the existence of some gender differences but no significant generation differences. When studying the effect on the two genders, females experience higher shopping value for hedonic (i.e. shopping for pleasure) shopping than men due to mall attributes, though when looking at utilitarian (i.e. shopping for necessities) shopping value, no gender differences could be observed. The authors concluded that there were no differences in consumer behavior when controlling for age groups but when controlling for gender, the results pointed to different behavioral patterns, specifically when looking at hedonic shopping values derived from physical surroundings. In the case of Austria, Mooslechner, Stix & Wagner (2006) concluded
6
that socio-demographics have a determining role in the choice and use of different payment mediums (cash or cashless). For instance, one of their finding is that cash usage declines with growing income levels of people and they note that age as well as education has impacts on the use of cash versus cashless payments. Carow & Staten (1999) found similar evidence when looking at gas station customers in the U.S. where education, age, and income helped to determine whether they would use cash, debit or credit cards. Bagnall et al. (2014) also found that socio-demographics have an important role in the choice of cash as a payment medium when studying (among other countries) the U.S., Canada, France, and Germany. DRIVERS & OBSTACLES Guariglia & Loke (2004) study time-series panel data across fifteen countries in Europe and North America where they examine the determinants of non-cash payment instruments. The authors found that non-cash transaction volume is more affected than their value following a change in the determinants. Further results found by Guariglia & Loke (2004) suggest that habits (and more precisely past habits) of people play a governing part in the usage of non-cash payment systems, thus suggesting that that habits would be a driver or obstacle of payment system choice. That would imply that habits of people would determine whether they choose cash or non-cash payment systems. Another finding is that the presence of EFTPOS (Electronic Funds Transfer at Point Of Sale) devices are positively correlated with the use of card payments and the authors say that “…both in terms of volume and value of transactions,…” (Guariglia & Loke, 2004). Bounie, François & Waelbroeck (2016) research the impact that debit card services (i.e. withdrawal and payment) have on the demand for cash. Their findings show that the overall effects of these debit cards services have a negative impact on the demand for physical cash. The authors find that the service of cash withdrawal have a positive effect on the demand for cash, but in the end the dominant negative effects of the debit card’s payment service will take the upper hand and thus the result is an overall negative effect on demand for cash. This is again found by Stix (2004) who survey how EFTPOS payments as well as ATM withdrawals (i.e. debit card services according to Bounie, François & Waelbroeck, 2016) effect on Austrian individuals’ demand for cash. Stix (2004) results show that the debit card use significantly influence the demand for cash, thus backing up the findings of (Bounie, François & Waelbroeck, 2016) and (Guariglia & Loke, 2004). Connecting back to habituation, Griffin, Babin & Modianos (2000) look at the derived shopping values of Russian consumers as compared to U.S. consumers in their article Shopping Values of Russian Consumers: The Impact of Habituation in a Developing Economy. Their findings gave evidence for the existence of so called habituation theory, saying that consumers adapt to their surroundings. Their findings also found that there were differences in utilitarian shopping values between Russian and U.S. consumers, but when looking at hedonic shopping values the results showed there to be no difference in shopping values, evidence of the adaption due to habituation according to the authors. In the book Nudge, Thaler & Sunstein (2009) write about what they call “status quo bias”, a phenomena in which people tend to stick with the default option. This could be seen to connect back to the findings of (Guariglia & Loke, 2009) as well as (Griffin, Babin & Modianos, 2000) regarding habituation. Security of personal information according to Currency Research (2015a) is an issue that has to be investigated furthermore. Currently, there isn’t any payment method except cash, which provides the same amount of transaction anonymity and security of personal information. Ching & Hayashi (2010) found that U.S. consumers perceive cash as a tool to help them budget. Similar results, regarding cash being perceived to help people budget and monitor their expenses, were found by von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014a), Jonker (2007), and by Mooslechner, Stix &
7
Wagner (2006) where people in several countries (Germany, the Netherlands and Austria respectively) report using cash for liquidity monitoring reasons. As mentioned earlier, von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014b) found that individual’ assessments of features of different payment instruments will have an impact their choice payment medium as well as that there are differences in payment behavior across spending categories and that cash usage depends on the transaction value Van Der Cruijsen, Hernandez & Jonker (2017) study the gap between stated and realized behavior with regard to consumer’s preferred payment medium. The authors asked consumers about their payment preferences and the results showed that people states debit cards as their preferred payment medium, however when looking closer at the economy Van Der Cruijsen, Hernandez & Jonker (2017) could see that cash payments at the point of sale was higher, thus the stated payment medium does not coincide with the realized payment medium of the consumers. Hence the authors found evidence of a gap between stated and realized payment behavior and also note that habits of consumers play an incremental role in the choice of payment method (i.e. falls in line with habituation theory). The authors also found evidence that the higher amounts of cash carried around correlated to higher usage of cash as a payment method and also that low-value-transaction consumers tended to overestimate their use of debit cards compared to higher-value-transaction consumers. Obstacles to cash usage might take the form of substitute payment infrastructures, Mercatanti & Li (2017) found that when looking at Italian household and the effects of debit card holdings and use on the consumer behavior and demand for cash to be more precise, Mercatanti & Li (2017) note that the presence of POS terminals (e.g. EFTPOS) will make debit cards a adjacent substitution of cash and that the increase of debit card use could lead to a decrease in seigniorage incomes of the central bank. The empirical evidence point to that debit cards have significantly negative effects on cash and further evidence seems to also show that cards have a rather quick effect on the reduction on household cash holdings. Kahn & Liñares-Zegarra (2016) studied the case of security and its effects on consumer behavior, the author specifically look at identity theft’s effects on payment medium choice. Their findings provided evidence that identity thefts impacted consumer behavior by making them more prone to switch payment medium, i.e. increase usage of non-bank account based payment systems like cash and credit cards, while at the same time decrease usage of bank account based systems like debit cards and checks. According to Kruger & Seitz (2017) cash represents a fallback solution in a society that the transactions are inclusively made by electronic payment methods such as credit cards or debit cards. For instance, in Germany in 2009 a technical issue on a large number of cards found to have leaked data. Similarly, Deutsche Bank in 2016 faced a technical problem that led customers being unable to use their cards. That is to say that banknotes and coins do not need an infrastructure for money transactions. (Kruger & Seitz, 2017)
8
6. MODEL The findings in our literature review lead us to assume a model that we think might represent the determinants cash use among consumers. The model consisted of four determinants where the first determinant is deemed to be socio-demographics followed by a situational determinant and lastly the determinants of drivers and obstacles which make consumers use cash. The model was built on our findings about previous theories regarding what influence consumer behaviors and choices. The validity of the hypothesized model was tested through a factor analysis where we tried to see if the output components hold theoretically as well as through a discussion regarding the descriptive statistics following the variable loadings in the output components. The hypothesized model can be described as cash use being a function of socio-demographics, situations, drivers, and obstacles, see Equation 1 (Eq. 1) below. Eq. 1 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐻𝐻𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 = 𝑓𝑓(𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶; 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶.𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐻𝐻𝐶𝐶; 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑆𝑆𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶;𝑆𝑆𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑂𝑂𝐷𝐷𝐶𝐶) To further illustrate the model a visualization of the model is given below in Fig 6.1.
Fig 6.1; Cash use is hypothesized to be determined by socio-demographics, situations, drivers, and obstacles.
9
7. VALIDITY, RELIABILITY & RELEVANCE 7.1 VALIDITY The validity of the research conducted is deemed to be good. Partially through the appropriate time frame of the data collected and studied, i.e. cross sectional data from 2017, thus making it recently collected data among a large set of observations. Due to the extent of data (over 2,000 observations) made the choice of a factor analysis a good choice since it helped us reduce the vast amounts of data into fewer and more comprehensible components. The sample method was to collect questionnaire responses from consumers in both Sweden and Germany through a web panel about their payment habits, preferences and demographical characteristics. The questionnaire design was deemed not to impose any pressure on the respondents to state a specific answer by giving a wide range of answer possibilities through a seven point Likert-scales as well as the option to defer answering if the respondent felt the need to do so. Overall the validity of the methods of this research is deemed to be appropriate for the extent of this study.
7.2 RELIABILITY The reliability of this study is deemed to be good. To start with the objectives are clearly stated, which gives the study appropriate reliability. The results are repeatable given the circumstances that the data is done for the same population. Due to the nature of the data which is collected on two specific populations the repeatability hangs on collecting data on a similar population in order to repeat the results. But if given the same data-set the results should definitely be repeatable if using the same methods for factor extractions.
7.3. RELEVANCE 7.3.1 THEORETICAL This research aims at combining the existing scientific knowledge about consumer behaviors, what influences them with regard to choice of payment medium. Several studies have previously and separately found that different circumstances (i.e. situations, socio-demographics as well as drivers and obstacles) impact consumer behavior and with this study we strive to combine these existing knowledges into one model that might establish a behavioral model about what determines whether certain people use cash in an era where digital and technological progress increasingly impact the way we pay for goods and services. 7.3.2 PRACTICAL Our research could help in the debate on the future of cash and the discussion regarding the cashless society. The results from this research might come in use for those interested in the cashless debate with more insight of how and why cash is being used in today’s society.
10
8. METHOD RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study follows the Pragmatic research philosophy. According to Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2016) the research philosophy “…strive to reconcile both objectivism and subjectivism, facts and values, accurate and rigorous knowledge and different conceptual experience.“. This will be the foundation of our research which will undertake a mono-method quantitative since the data set consist of a large amount of data that needs to be analyzed in order to arrive at scientifically relevant results and findings. The data set itself is collected through a web panel questionnaire which will be analyzed using principal component analysis since this was deemed to be the best choice of method. Further the research will take a deductive approach where since this satisfies the requirements that Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill (2016) that the use of data is used in order to properly evaluate our hypothesis which was derived from the existing theories. In short the deductive approach is necessary due to our need to validate out hypothesized model. (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2016) METHOD To start with the analysis of the data we had to start familiarizing ourselves with the questionnaire and data-set following a web-panel survey in 2017. The questionnaire is made up of four parts (Appendix A) :
A. Forms of Payments (e.g. In general, how did you pay for purchases below 100 SEK during the last month?)
B. Cash Usage (e.g. How much cash do you normally carry around?) C. Underlying Dimensions of Cash (e.g. I have cash because… or I avoid using cash because…) D. Socio-Demographic Information (e.g. education, occupation & cultural background)
By analyzing the data set together with the model in chapter 6 we arrived at the following method to extract our results (see Fig 8.1).
Fig 8.1; Illustration of how the factor analysis was made.
11
As shown in Fig 8.1 we take the responses from part C in the questionnaire and “drag” them through a filter of socio-demographics. This will hence yield results where it is possible to see the different behavioral patterns for different socio-demographic groups in both Sweden and Germany as well as in between both countries. In the factor analysis we will take the drivers and obstacles that we found in both theory to have some impact on the consumer behavior. These are as well included in our questionnaire (part C) and then we tested for the different socio-demographic filters. The chosen socio-demographic filters were:
1. Universal (Country specific and comparison) 2. Gender (male or female) 3. Age Group (15-29, 30-49, 50+)
In order to extract more interpretable results we performed factor analysis in order to explore the determinants of cash usage. The method of our factor analysis will be further explained below in this chapter.
8.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION There are two types of Factor Analysis, Confirmatory and Explanatory. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis is used to assess in what way pre-specified factors fits the data, i.e. how well it confirms a priori theorized model (Pett, Lackey & Sullivan, 2011). Exploratory Factor Analysis is form of factor analysis where the researcher does not have any prior theory about the factor outputs (Reinard, 2011). Also Reinard (2011) point out that a factor analysis is useful in order to reduce a set of variables into fewer components (also referred to as factors). Hooper (2012) mentions factor analysis as a way to reduce a large set of correlated variables (sometimes called items), e.g. from questionnaire responses, into a smaller set of factors. As mentioned earlier, Exploratory Factor Analysis is useful in the sense that it does not require previous theories which makes it an ideal method for undertaking the transformation of an abundance of variables into fewer factors that can be used in future multivariate analysis (Hooper, 2012). In our case this is done to explore and test our hypothesized model, for which there is no prior scientific theory. Hooper (2012) writes that the first reason for using factor analysis is to determine the theoretical sense of the factors from a set of variables. The goal is to reduce variables in order to explain as much of the variables with as few output factors as possible according to Hooper (2012). According to both Williams, Brown & Onsman (2012) and Hooper (2012) a large data set of variables and observations is required in order for Factor Analysis to yield useful results, with around 200 as a required minimum number of cases. Factor analysis is a good way to help the researcher formulate problems by structuring certain phenomenon according to Pett, Lackey & Sullivan, (2011). Karlis (2005) also point to the possibilities that factor extraction brings. Firstly he points out the importance of extraction of factors i.e. the creation of new variables that can be named to represent some kind of behavioral pattern, e.g. with regard to cash usage. Secondly Karlis (2005) point to the possibility to analyze the extracted factors more easily since there is fewer variables than before to observe and work with for the researcher. Panaretos & Xelakakis (1995) write that factor analysis help to “examine the variability of a group” in order to interpret the correlations thus helping to reduce the general intricacy of the data. According to Siardo (2002) the extracted factors are uncorrelated (between each other) hence revealing the structure of the variables to be used in further analysis. Johnson (2007) says that the variables help to describe the problem by grouping factors according to
12
their correlations. In other words, the variables in one factor have high correlations between them but low correlations with variables in the other factors. STAGES OF A FACTOR ANALYSIS 1. To start with, we checked if the data was satisfactory enough for further analysis and factor export. This was done through checking the correlations between each variable. If the variables are uncorrelated to a significant degree the data-set is inappropriate for further analysis. (Karlis, 2005) In order to be able to interpret the results it’s important that the variables are correlated in when conducting a factor analysis. What is of interest for our work is to have a major part of the variables to be correlated with each other. Any variables that are uncorrelated to a significant degree can be ignored since they will and will group with the other uncorrelated variables in the end (Rencher, 1992). In order to conduct the first step we look use Barlett’s test of sphereicity and KMO (Keiser-Meyer-Olkin) measure of sampling adequacy. The KMO-test “indicates the proportion of variance in your variables that might be caused by underlying factors” according to IBM (2016a). According to Keiser & Rice (1974) the scale ranges from 0,5 to 1,0 with the latter being “marvellous” for further factor analysis. It should be noted that score of 0,5 and even up towards 0,7 is unsuitable for further analysis (Keiser & Rice, 1974). The Barlett’s test is another way to see if the variables uncorrelated. Values that are less than 0,05 (significance level) are considered appropriate for further analysis. IBM (2016a) The last step to validate if the data is satisfactory for use is to check the anti-image correlation matrix. If the data is satisfactory the numbers in the Anti-Image correlation matrix will be small and thus suitable for factor analysis. (IBM, 2016b) 2. Secondly, decide the extraction method will should be used. In this study a principal component method will be used as the extraction method of our components. The principal component method is used in order to properly to, as Yong & Pearce (2013) writes, “extract the maximum variance from the data set with each component thus reducing a large number of variables into a smaller number of components”. In the factor analysis the first extracted factor will explain the main part of the total variance (the second will explain the second most of the total variance and so forth) Janssens et al (2008). 3. The third step of the factor analysis is to determine the number of factors. According to Janssens et al (2008) the variance explained is decreasingly explained with the increasing number of factors. Therefore it could be of use for a researcher to limit the amount of factors; however the authors note that this process is rather subjective. According to Janssens et al (2008) and Williams, Brown & Onsman (2012), there are two ways to determine this factor reduction:
1. By looking at the so called “Keiser criterion” which indicates what factors have eigenvalue of 1,0 or greater.
2. By observing the scree plot that visualizes the eigenvalues of the factors. A recommendation is to choose the number factors according to the “elbow” of the plotted curve.
13
4. In the fourth step the type of rotation will be chosen. There are two types of rotations to choose from (orthogonal and oblique).The purpose of the rotation according to Williams, Brown & Onsman (2012) is to “maximize high item loadings and minimize low item loading” and thus it will yield results that are easier to interpret. In this study the Orthogonal Varmiax rotation method was used. That means that the factors will be uncorrelated after the rotations, and thus it will help us to explain and interpret our results better. Janssens et al (2008) 5. In the fifth step the interpretations of the results are to be conducted. The extracted factors are to be studied by the researcher in order to assign those factors their names. As an example Williams, Brown & Onsman (2012) state that “a factor may have included five variables which all relate to pain perception; therefore the researcher would create a label of “pain perception” for that factor”. Typically the first three variables in a factor will determine the most accurate interpretation and naming of the factor; however the naming will be subjective depending on the researcher that conducts the naming process. Also it is vital that the naming of the factors be done in order to properly mirror the theory. (Williams, Brown & Onsman, 2012)
14
9. EMPIRICAL DATA The data-set consists of a total of 48 questions and 2005 observations from Sweden (n=1 005) and Germany (n=1 000) which is excellent for using in factor analysis. As can be seen in Graph 9.1a the age distribution for Sweden tells us that 26% of respondents belong to age_group 1 (age 15-29), 35% belong to age_group 2 (age 30-49), and 39% belong to age_group 3 (age 50+). In Germany (Graph 9.1b) there are fewer respondents in age_group 1 than in Sweden with 20% of respondents belonging 20% to age_group 1, similarly to Sweden around 34% of German respondents belong to age_group 2. In Germany older respondents clearly outnumber the other age groups (in relative terms) with 46% of respondents belonging to age_group 3 in Germany.
Graph 9.1a; Age distribution from Swedish respondents. Graph 9.1b; Age distribution from German respondents.
As can be seen in Graph 9.2a the gender distribution among Swedish respondents is 48% males and 52% females. In the case of German respondent the pattern is almost identical with 49% males and 51% females as can be seen in Graph 9.2b.
Graph 9.2a; Gender distribution from Swedish respondents. Graph 9.2b; Gender distribution from German respondents.
It’s clear that the age distribution differ between the two countries with the German population (in our research) being somewhat older on average compared to the Swedish population. It can be noted that there is minor differences between the two countries when looking at age_group 2 (age 30-49).
15
9.1. OBSERVATIONS - UNIVERSAL The following part will discuss the data and observation made on the general populations for both Sweden and Germany. The sample used here is not filtered for any socio-demographic groups (e.g. age or gender), hence a universal comparisons of the two countries’ general populations are made in this section. By not dividing the sample into different groups we strive to identify different universal trends throughout the general populations of each country. PAYMENT AMOUNT Respondents from both Sweden and Germany report they have high levels of access to cash, 96% and 94% for Germans and Swedes respectively. In Germany almost every person (94%) use cash for low payment amounts (<€10) while only a third of Swedes (34%) use cash for low payment amounts. For high payment amounts (>€50) around a third of Germans use cash while very few (5%) of Swedes use cash. Overall there is a clear trend for Germans to use much cash than Swedes, however there is also a clear negative correlation of cash use frequency to the payment amount in both countries, i.e. the cash use is decreasing with higher payment amounts (as can be seen in table 9.1.1.). The average cash payment amount for Germans and Swedes is €10-50 and <€10 respectively.
Diagram 9.1.1; Cash Payment Amount by Country.
When looking at the use of debit cards, the respondents in both countries, yet again as with cash, report high access to debit cards, 90% of Germans and 96% of Swedes have access to debit cards. The use of debit cards is rather low (18%) in Germany for low payment amount but increases sharply (to 49%) for medium payment amounts (€10-€50). From there the increase in use is not very big to high payment amounts (56%). In Sweden the use of debit cards is high for low payment amounts (68%) with a slight increase for medium payment amounts (79%) and then it falls for high payment amounts (56%). Debit card usage overall seems to be negatively correlated to the use of cash. However a decreasing return to scale can be observed for both countries, especially for Sweden where debit card use peaks at medium payment amounts (€10-€50) and then decrease for higher payment amounts (See table 9.1.2.). Another finding is that most Germans hold debit cards but don’t use them to the same extent as Swedes for purchases. The average debit card payment amount in Germany and Sweden is €50 or more.
16
Diagram 9.1.2; Debit Card Payment Amount by Country.
Credit cards are readily available but not nearly as much as cash and debit cards in both Sweden and Germany. Swedes and Germans report rather high access to debit cards with 57% and 58% respectively. The use of credit cards is small for low value payments in both Germany and Sweden (6% and 13% respectively), for higher payment amount credit card becomes more frequently used. In Germany 18% use credit cards for medium amount payments and 29% use it for high amount payments. In Sweden 22% use credit cards for medium amount payments and 23% use it for high amount payments, again a decreasing return to scale on the positive correlation of credit card use to payment amount. The average credit card payment amount in Germany and Sweden is €10-€50. (See table 9.1.3.)
Diagram9.1.3; Credit Card Payment Amount by Country.
Swedes report high access to Swish (mobile payment solution widely used in Sweden) with 77% reporting access to the payment medium. In Germany only 11% report access to mobile payments a significant drop compared to Sweden. Swedes use mobile payments for low payments amounts (20%) and from there the use of mobile payments decrease with increasing payment amount, only 14% of Swedes use mobile payments for medium value payments and 6% for high value payments. In
17
Germany the distribution is flat, 3% use mobile payments regardless of payment amount. Swedes report high access to mobile payment mediums but don’t use it to a large extent. Germans on the other hand report low access to mobile payments but also use it do a very low degree for payments.
Diagram 9.1.4; Mobile Payment Amount by Country.
CATTY AMOUNT The first interesting finding is that no Germans report they never holding any cash while 12% of Swedish respondents stated they never carry cash (See table 9.1.5.). Among German respondents there is a clear skew towards holding higher denominations with the most occurring German carry amount to be €20-€40 (32%). In Sweden the skew is clearly towards carrying lower denominations with €20-€40 (28%) being the most common carry amount. When controlling for the skewing the average carry amount of Germans is €50 while the average carry amount of Swedes is €10. (See table 9.1.5.).
Diagram 9.1.5; Carry Amount by Country.
9.2. OBSERVATIONS - GENDER This section presents the data and findings among different payment mediums and behaviors among the two genders, male and female, in the two countries studied.
18
PAYMENT AMOUNT As in previous the section (9.1 Universal) the access to cash is reported to be good among both male and female in the two respective countries with approx. 95-94% have access to cash, i.e. no differences among the genders. The pattern in cash usage is similar to those in section 9.1 where cash use is negatively correlated to payment amount in both countries with Sweden as the least frequent cash user regardless of payment amount. Overall no major differences can be observed between each gender in the two countries regarding cash usage.
Diagram 9.2.1; Cash Payment Amount by Gender
Germans report somewhat lower access to debit cards than Swedes with males reporting a few percentage point higher access to debit cards than females in Germany. The usage patterns are similar (almost identical) to those found in diagram 9.1.2. where debit cards usage is positively correlated to payment amount with decreasing returns to scale. One observation is that Swedish female use more debit cards than Swedish males for all payment amounts, at the same time that pattern is not obvious in Germany where males and females have similar usage pattern of debit cards.
Diagram 9.2.2; Debit Card Payment Amount by Gender
19
When looking at credit cards some differences between the genders starts to appear with males in both Germany and Sweden reporting higher access to credit cards (see diagram 9.2.3.) as well as higher usage for all payment amounts than women. Another finding is that Swedes tend to use credit cards more frequently than Germans, this pattern appears for most payment amount but for high payment amounts German males are the most frequent users of credit cards.
Diagram 9.2.3; Credit Card Payment Amount by Gender
In the case of mobile payments there is a clear difference between Germans and Swedes where the latter has significantly greater access to mobile payment (e.g. Swish in Sweden, a widely used mobile payment service) than Germans do. In Sweden slightly more women reported access while in Germany, despite overall low access, males have greater access than females. The pattern for use in Germany is low but rather even for all enquired payment amounts, however in Sweden the use of mobile payment systems are highest for low payment amounts and then decrease from there for higher amounts (see diagram 9.2.4.). In Sweden mobile payments have a negative correlation with payment amount while in Germany it is utilized equally infrequently regardless of payment amounts. No reoccurring behavioral differences can be spotted between the genders since there are too many irregularities between the genders in Sweden.
20
Diagram 9.2.4; Mobile Payment Amount by Gender CARRY AMOUNT When looking at carry amount the most frequent carry amount is around 200-500 SEK in both countries, however German respondents have a slight skew towards higher denominations while Swedes skew towards holding lower denominations. Another pattern is that Swedish males seem to carry higher denominations than Swedish females with the same pattern appearing in Germany. The average carry amount in Sweden is 200-400 SEK for males and 100 SEK for females; in Germany the average carry amount for both genders is 500 SEK (ca 50 EUR), however the statistical average score for males is slightly higher. Around 10-12% of Swedes report on never carrying cash while almost no Germans reported the same.
Diagram 9.2.5; Carry Amount by Gender
9.3. OBSERVATIONS - AGE GROUPS In this section the sample population is allocated into three different socio-demographic groups namely age groups (AG). The first age group (AG1) consist of respondents aged 15-29 years (N; GER=201; SWE=260), age group two (AG2) with people 30-49 years of age (N; GER=336; SWE=354), and age group three (AG3) aged 50+ years (N; GER=463; SWE=391). PAYMENT AMOUNT The access to cash among different age groups is reported to be strong in both countries (See table X). However an early indication is that AG1 (i.e. young people) report somewhat lower access to cash and use it less frequently compared to the older age groups for low payment amounts. Germans have a clear tendency to use cash more frequently than Swedes regardless of payment amount. Again the frequency in cash usage is declining with the increasing payment amount i.e. cash usage have a negative correlation to payment amount in both countries. For low (and medium to some extent) payment amounts older respondents (AG3) in both countries tend to be the most frequent cash users, most notably in Sweden where (still only 50% in AG3) use cash compared to younger age groups for low payment amounts. For high payment amounts the distribution over different age groups is rather flat since all age groups use cash in a similar way with the only clear observation that Germans (around one third) use cash for high payment amount compared to (around5%) of Swedes. (See table 9.3.1.)
21
Diagram 9.3.1; Cash Payment Amount by Age Groups.
Respondents from both countries (after controlling for age groups) report high access to debit cards (around 90% in Germany and around 95% in Sweden) with no or small differences within each country and age group. It’s more customary to use debit cards in Sweden compared to Germany for all payment amounts and in both countries there is a positive correlation for debit card usage to payment amount. The usage of debit cards appear to be inverted compared to cash usage, i.e. when cash is more frequently used (e.g. low payment amounts) debit card use seems to be lower and vice versa. The frequency of debit card use if also more prevalent for younger age groups compared to older ones, especially in Sweden where most young people use debit cards for low payment amounts. (See table 9.3.2.)
Diagram 9.3.2; Debit Card Payment Amount by Age Groups.
Access to credit cards differs among the different age groups in both countries. To start with people of AG2 and AG3 have high (and rather equal) access to credit cards with the slight exception of older Swedish people (AG3) who report on having about 10% more access than the others. Young people (AG1) however report significantly lower access to credit cards compared to their older countrymen (and women) by almost half. Middle aged Germans (AG2) tend to be the heaviest users of credit cards
22
while in Sweden it’s older people (AG3) who are the most frequent users of credit cards. Overall Swedes are more susceptible/prone to use credit cards compared to their German peers. Credit cards have a clear tendency to be used for higher payment amounts, a pattern that is evident throughout all age groups in both countries.
Diagram 9.3.3; Credit Card Payment Amount by Age Groups.
Reported access to mobile payments is significantly higher in Sweden compared to Germany, where on average 79% in Sweden have access to mobile payments while in Germany reported 11% (on average) that they have access to equivalent payment mediums. People in AG3 report they have lower access than younger age groups and that they also use mobile payments less than their younger countrymen, something that is evident for lower payment amounts. The most frequent users of mobile payments are younger people (AG1) in both countries. The use of mobile payments is declining with the increasing payment amount.
Diagram 9.3.4; Mobile Payment Amount by Age Groups.
23
CARRY AMOUNT Overall, Germans have a tendency to carry more cash than Swedes, both in terms of frequency and value of carried cash. Older people (AG3) tend to carry higher denominations of cash as compared to younger age groups, a pattern that is apparent in both Sweden and Germany. A significant observation is that Swedish respondents, 22% and 18% of AG1 and AG2 respectively, reported that they never carry cash while only 4% of Swedish in AG3 reported they never carry cash. The amount of Germans reporting they never carry cash is almost non-existent.
Diagram 9.3.5, Carry Amount by Age Group.
24
10. RESULTS In the following chapter the findings of our principal component analysis will be presented along with the some imperative tables and graphs. All other output that is not included in this chapter but show imperative findings is referenced and attached in the appendices at the end of this thesis. 10.1 ADEQUACY OF DATA Before performing a factor analysis is very important to perform a means test in order to make sure that the input variables are suitable for further analysis. By looking at the correlation matrixes we see that some variables are uncorrelated. That means that some of the variables should be excluded. However since we consider that all of our variables are important to be examined in our analysis we will continue by looking on “Bartlett’s test of sphericity”, “Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy” and the anti-image correlation matrix. In the tables 10.1 & 10.2 below it can be seen the results of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of sphericity tests for both Sweden and Germany and for different socio-demographic groups within each country.
Table 10.1; KMO and Barlett’s test, Sweden
Table 10.2; KMO and Barlett’s test, Germany
KMO and Bartlett's Test Universal Male Female Age Group 1
A rule of thumb suggests that KMO values between 0.8 and 1 indicate that the sampling is adequate while values less than 0.6 indicate that the sampling is not adequate. However Kaiser sets the following limits on the values:
• ≤ 0.49 unacceptable. • 0.50 to 0.59 miserable. • 0.60 to 0.69 mediocre. • 0.70 to 0.79 middling. • 0.80 to 0.89 meritorious. • 0.90 to 1.00 marvellous
As it can be seen in the tables above KMO values are higher than 0.8 for both countries and within each socio-demographic group. That indicates that correlations between the variables are high enough to perform the factor analysis. Similarly by looking at the Barlett’s test of sphericity we can observe that the level of significance is less than 0.05 (5%). The last criterion to determine the degree of correlations between the variables is the anti-image correlation matrix. The anti-image correlation matrix includes the negatives of the partial correlation coefficients. To determine if the factor model is a good model to extract the factors we need to make sure that the majority of the off-diagonal variables are close to zero. In addition the measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) for a variable is shown on the diagonal of the anti-image correlation matrix. In this way the correlation matrix will show which variables are significant to use in the factor analysis model. In the table 10.3 below it can be seen the values of MSA for both Sweden and Germany.
Table 10.3; MSA Values of variables for Sweden & Germany As it can be seen on the table 10.3 above all the values of correlation coefficients for each variable is quite high. The smallest value of MSA is equal to 0.701. However it is still high and there is no need to exclude any of the variables. To conclude all the three tests has been performed and the results of them indicate that the factor analysis can be performed without excluding any of the variables. 10.2 EXTRACTION METHOD AND SELECTION OF NUMBER OF FACTORS The selection of number of factors is a process that requires repetitively the assessment and evaluation of the model. A good way to examine the number of factors that will be extracted by the model is to use the Scree Plot. The Scree Plot displays the eigenvalues associated with a component or factors in descending order versus the number of the component or factor. In this way we can visually determine which components explain most of the variability in the data. Below is presented the Scree Plot for Sweden (Universal). The Scree Plots for Germany and the socio-demographic groups within each country can be found in the Appendix C.
27
Figure 10.4; Scree Plot, Sweden
More specifically in the horizontal axis of the graph is displayed the extracted factor and in the vertical axis the percentage of the variance that explained by them. Table 10.5 below displays the eigenvalues and the percentage of variance that each eigenvalue explains for both Sweden and Germany. The Total Variance Explained tables for socio-demographics groups can be found in the Appendix D.
28
Table 10.5; Total Variance explained by the six components, Sweden
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
29
10.3 ROTATION OF FACTORS In the table below is presented the loadings of factor after the rotation with the method of Varimax. Varimax rotation method is the most used compared to the other methods since our purpose is to see which variables describe mostly on each factor. From the Rotated Component Matrix all the variables that their loadings is less than 0.25 have been excluded in order to make easier the process of factor interpretation. In the table 10.6 below the Rotated Component Matrixes for Sweden (Universal) is presented. The Rotated Component Matrices for the different socio-demographics groups for each country can be found in the Appendix E.
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att
0,653
Kontanter känns ohygieniska -
0,649De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att
0,623
Det är svårt att hitta tt t t J d ik tt
0,592Genom att betala med kort får jag bätt ö bli k ö i k i
0,532 -0,518Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla
å 0,666
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har
0,626Det känns osäkert ibland att
0,612 0,345
Jag är van vid att betala med k t t J h k t t fö
0,599 0,385Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller
bil ä kl J d ik tt 0,489 -0,527 -0,310
Det är enklare än att betala med k t/ bil J h k t t fö
0,518 0,256Jag får olika fördelar genom att
0,380 -0,424 0,303
När beloppet är under 50 kronor -
0,882När beloppet är under 20 kronor -
0,859
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - J ä d li t i k t t
0,296 0,801När jag har bråttom - Jag
ä d li t i k t t0,465 0,583
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid
0,490 0,522Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har
0,773
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa
0,733
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop
0,620 0,336Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon
å 0,254 0,384 -0,289
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åt i t d l i ) J h
0,320 0,357Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, h t ll t J h k t t fö
0,760Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på
fé/ t i täll t fö tt 0,320 0,705
Det inte är alltid man kan betala
0,262 0,651När jag besöker andra länder - J ä d li t i k t t �
0,418 0,554Det är bra att ha en
0,355 0,346 0,467
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre
0,297 0,303 0,379
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. R t ti M th d V i ith K i N li tia. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
30
In order to properly name the extracted components in Appendix E we tried to focus on the three highest loading variables in each component. For example in the component 1 (table 10.6) we see that the first three variables: “I avoid using cash since it is time consuming to withdraw it”, “I avoid using cash since it hard to carry changes” and “I avoid using cash since it is hard to carry money ex. wallet” describe something we chose to name Internal Obstacles. Similarly we followed the same naming process for the remaining socio-demographic groups in both Sweden and Germany. 10.4 VALIDITY TEST OF THE EXTRACTED FACTORS In this step we will perform an analysis of the correlations between the extracted factors for each socio-demographic group in Sweden and Germany. The purpose of it is to validate that the extracted factors for each model are correlated enough and that the significance levels are less than 0.05 (i.e. <5%). In order to do that we take the variables that have the highest loading on each respective factor and test for correlations. In table 10.7 one can observe the case of Sweden (Universal). The correlation matrices for the various socio-demographic groups for can be found on the Appendix F.
Table 10.7; Correlation Matrix of Extracted Factors, Sweden (Universal)
The universal components within Sweden are the following: Internal Obstacles, Internal Drivers, Amount Specific, Social Environment, Convenience and External Positive Obstacles. After preforming the validity test on these factors we found that one pair of components do not significantly overlap in their covariance, and thus are not correlated. These are Internal Obstacles and Social Environment. The correlation is equal to -0.003 and the level of significance equal to 0,927. In the case of Germany (Universal) we can observe that there are two pairs of Factors that are correlated. The first one is the pair of Internal Obstacles and External Positive Obstacles with the correlation to be equal to 0,045 and the level of significance equal to 0,153. The second one is the pair of Social Environment and Amount Specific with the correlation to be equal to -0,013 and the level of significance equal to 0,682. Similarly by looking to the rest of the extracted factors for each socio-demographic group both in Sweden and Germany we can observe that there are at least one to two or in some cases three pairs of factors that are uncorrelated and the level of significance to be higher than 0.05 (>5%).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
31
11. DISCUSSION The output from the factor analysis gave the results showed in Tables 11.1 & 11.2 below. These tables show what components are reoccurring across all groups (represented in Common Components) and what components only occur for specific groups (represented in Unique Components).
Table 11.1; General & Groups Specific Components in Sweden.
Table 11.2; General & Groups Specific Components in Germany.
For both countries we have found common components and unique components. The common components are reoccurring for every socio-demographic group in both countries while the unique are exclusive to some groups in each respective country. SWEDEN In the case of Sweden we have found that four common components that reoccur for every socio-demographic group. This tells us that internal (i.e. perceived) obstacles and drivers as well as the amount specific and the social environment are the most important determinants of Swedish respondents’ cash usage.
Common components Universal Male Female Age Group 1 Age Group 2 Age Group 3Internal Obstacles X X X X X XInternal Drivers X X X X X XAmount Specific X X X X X XSocial Environment X X X X X XUnique componentsConvenience X X X XExternal Positive Obstacles X X XTravel X XExternal Drivers X X
Sweden Factor Analysis
Common components Universal Male Female Age Group 1 Age Group 2 Age Group 3Internal Obstacles X X X X X XInternal Drivers X X X X X XAmount Specific X X X X X XExternal Positive Obstacles X X X X X XUnique componentsSocial Environment X X X XConvenience X X X XTravel X X X
Germany Factor Analysis
32
We have found four unique components in Sweden, namely Convenience, External Positive Obstacles, Travel, and External Drivers. The convenience component is occurring for Swedish males and also in age group 2 and 3 (30-49 and 50+ years of age). However it does not seem to influence females and younger respondents of age group 1. The convenience component also seems to on average occur for most Swedish respondents since it appears in the universal component thus saying most Swedes have some kind of convenience influence on their behavior. In the case for external positive obstacles the components again influence males and respondents of age group 2 in Sweden, but it also appears universally among Swedes. The travel component appears only for Swedish females and young Swedes in age group 1. This component is however not universally occurring in Sweden as can be seen in table 11.1. External drivers appear to typically influence Swedish females and older Swedes in age group 3. However the factor does not appear in Germany at all and only for very few groups in Sweden. GERMANY When looking at table 11.2 for Germany the four common components and thus most important determinants for all German socio-demographic groups are Internal Obstacles and Drivers, Amount Specific, and External Positive Obstacles. In Germany the unique components are Social Environment, Convenience, and Travel. The first component (social environment) occurs as a determinant for the overall German population (hence it shows up in the universal column in table 11.2). It also appears for males as well as for Germans of age group 2 and 3. On a last note it does not appear as a determinant for females and young people. Convenience in Germany influence females as well as all age groups in Germany. However it does not influence the overall German population and thus does not show up in the universal column. Travelling is a determinant for German females and Germans of age groups 2 and 3. BOTH COUNTRIES To start with the first three common components in both counters occur in both Sweden and Germany. Thus it’s clear that internal obstacles, internal drivers, and amount specific determine the cash usage behavior in both countries. The social environment however is something that influences all Swedes, regardless of socio-demographic characteristics; while in Germany the social environment due appear overall in the population but most significantly for German males and older respondents. The external positive obstacles, which is a common German component is however not a common one in Sweden. Although as in the case of social environment the for both countries, external positive obstacles occurs universally for Swedish respondents but not for females as well as young and old Swedes. In Germany however the external positive obstacles influence all respondents’ cash usage. This shows that both populations have some major similarities when it comes to the common components with regard to cash usage but at the same time the unique factor vary much more across the two countries.
33
INTERNAL OBSTACLES Internal obstacles in both countries are synonymous with responses like “I don’t have cash because…”. since this obviously indicate perceived obstacles towards using cash like “…it’s time consuming to withdraw money.” and “…it’s cumbersome to handle change.” this component clearly represents the obstacles that consumers encounter and perceive against using cash. These statements clearly correspond the finding and theories presented by (among others) Thaler & Sunstein (2009) & Guariglia & Loke (2004) who wrote that habits of consumers will impact the choice of payment method and their behaviors. In this case one can link this to be perceptions since the respondents clearly perceive it as time consuming to withdraw money, this would indicate that the internal obstacle component is clearly linked with perceptions and habits and thus makes it being categorized as an obstacle. Also the clearly stated positive upsides of non-cash payment systems as well as the negative downsides of cash indicate what people perceive as obstacles toward using cash. Because the internalizing part clearly comes from within the consumers themselves it is only logical to assume that these perceived/habituated obstacles to by classified as such (i.e. obstacles). EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES Also the external positive obstacles is an interesting finding since it encompasses the same kind of obstacles but for the opposite reasons like “I have cash because it’s not always possible to pay by card or mobile.” something that is more prevalent in Germany than Sweden. This is however logical, from the authors’ experiences, this occurrence holds for Germany where the option to pay with card is not always given at certain venues and establishments. In Sweden though it is becoming increasingly hard (again the authors’ personal experiences) not being able to pay by card or mobile, on the contrary actually, in Sweden it is becoming harder and harder to find establishments where they accept cash as a transaction medium. Mercatanti & Li (2017) who found that the presence of non-cash infrastructure or in this case the lack of non-cash infrastructure would imply that cash is the go to transaction medium. This would represent it as a double negative obstacle in the form lack of non-cash infrastructure which logically makes it a positive obstacle with regard to cash usage (since it is clearly an obstacle towards the use of non-cash transactions). Also the lack of present non-cash infrastructure would pose as an obstacle for non-cash transaction, which by the logic we discussed above would imply a double negative obstacle in favor of cash usage (Guariglia & Loke, 2004). As mentioned by Stix (2004) the use of non-cash payment reduce the demand for cash. However in this case where obstacles towards non-cash payment arise, the findings of Stix (2004) would clearly be reversed. This leads us to classify and regard the component external positive obstacles as an obstacle since it clearly is corresponding with theories about obstacles and their influence of consumer behavior. INTERNAL DRIVERS As for the case of internal obstacles the internalization feature of consumers (including their perceptions and habits) would logically apply for internal drivers as well. The statements (variables) loaded into the internal driver component encompass statements such as “I have cash because… it gives me the possibility to monitor my liquidity.” and “…of anonymity reasons.”. These statements can be seen in the light of the findings by Ching & Hayashi (2010) who found that consumers in the U.S. perceive cash as giving them the ability to better monitor their expenses. Other studies found similar results when looking at Germany, The Netherlands and Austria as shown by von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014a), Jonker (2007) and Mooslechner, Stix & Wagner (2006). According to Currency Research (2015a) showed that to date, no other payment method provide the same anonymity and security of personal information as cash do, leading people who favor anonymity to opt for cash
34
before any other payment method. These findings help us to conclude that the component internal drivers is part of the determining factor we have chosen to call drivers in our model. Again the “internal” prefix to the component was given due to the nature of the statements, which clearly indicate that these behaviors are linked to the consumers’ own views, habit and perceptions and thus making them purely derived from the consumers’ internal behaviors and preferences. EXTERNAL DRIVERS The component external drivers appear only in Sweden for female and respondents of age group 3. The statements (variables) associated with this component suggest that the respondents “have cash because…“ “…I’m paid in cash (at least partially)” and “…I take care of someone else’s finances.”. This indicates that the source of their cash holding originate from an external source that (to a greater or lesser extent) “force” them to carry cash (at least at the point of the transaction). According to Van Der Cruijsen, Hernandez & Jonker (2017) the amount carried correlates positively with the use of cash which makes that specific statement logical derivation of that theory. If an external source provides a consumer with cash it becomes natural to hold cash, this could also be seen in the light of “status quo bias” and hence the default option to hold cash (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). When analyzing the second statement where the respondent is helping with someone else’s finances this yet again is an external source of cash usage and holdings. This statement should be seen in the light of the research conducted by von Kalckreuth, Schmidt & Stix (2014a), Jonker (2007), and Mooslechner, Stix & Wagner (2006) who found that cash helps people to monitor expenses and budgets. I light of these results we were able to conclude that the use of cash must help people who assists with other’s finances and thus it satisfies these prior studies’ findings and might explain why cash is used in these cases. What is interesting to note however is that only very few group experience this component. With these findings and theories in mind we felt found this component to be classified as external drivers since the source of cash come from an external source or purpose and the theories suggest that it clearly is driver that we are looking at here. However due to the complexity in naming the component and since it only shows up in Sweden we deemed the external driver component to be excluded in the future. AMOUNT SPECIFIC When looking at the item loadings in the component named amount specific it is clear that the statements such as “I use cash… when the payment amount falls below 50 SEK” appear. These types of statements clearly represent what Belk (1974) characterizes as an antecedent task when conducting a payment, according to Belk (1974) the antecedent task is one of the main characteristics of a situation. This theory and analysis of amount specific is also backed up by Bagnall et al (2014) who found that the antecedent task in the form of transaction size will impact the consumer behavior with regard to cash usage. Alos Bouhdaoui, Bouni & François (2014) found the value of the good/service being purchased as well as arguing that the practicality of a transaction is notably influenced by the accessibility and cost of the payment systems that are available. This last argument makes good point with regard to the amount specific component since the low payment amount at hand would indicate that the low cost of payments is a key influencer of using cash in these since the cost of using cash as a payment mean is low, both on personal and social terms (Bouhdaoui, Bouni & François, 2014). These theories clearly lead us to regard the component amount specific as a situational.
35
SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT According to Belk (1974) one of the characteristics of a situation is the social surrounding of a consumer (person), this leads us to clearly see that the component social environment is a form of situational factor since it is composed of item such as “I have cash because… to give it as presents at birthdays, wedding, etc.” and “…to give allowance, etc, to my kids.”. These kinds of statement obviously indicate that cash in these circumstances are used in specific social environments where the consumer is surrounded by other people, thus indicating that it is certain types of social gatherings and family arrangements and events connected to this component. Bouhdaoui, Bouni & François (2014) also not that the environment where the transaction is done has an influence on the choice of cash and non-cash payment mediums. These theories lead us to classify the social environment component as a situation due to the specific environment and social surroundings that encompass the variables which loaded into the components. CONVENIENCE While convenience seems to be more determining for Swedish males’ behavior it appears to be more of a female determinant in Germany. It is interesting to note that travelling in both countries seems to determine females’ cash usage more while it does not seem to be a determinant for male cash usage behavior. The convenience component takes into consideration the ability for consumers to e.g. leave tips and payments at a restaurant and/or café in order to quickly pay and leave instead of going through the hassle of waiting for service staff in order to pay, this indicate some kind of connection with a temporal perspective as mentioned by Belk (1974), since the consumer clearly wants the task at hand to be a quick transaction. This aspect of a perceived temporal pressure is backed up by Dhar & Nowlis (1999) who’s findings say that the time pressure have an influence of consumer’s behavior. Hence the aspect of convenience indicates it should belong into the category of situational determinants because of its close similarity to a temporally motivated action and behavior. All the above regarding temporal influence in convenience could also be combined with the findings of both Jockson, Stoel & Brantley (2011) and Bagnall et al (2014) who found evidence that both physical environment (or surroundings) and the antecedent task impact consumer behavior. These additional theories that the environment consumers are located in as well as the task of paying for goods and services in a bustling environment (common for restaurants and/or cafés) combined with the temporal perspective make us to categorize the convenience factor as a situation. TRAVEL Travelling is an interesting component to analyze since it’s obvious that travelling is imposing a significant change in consumers’ physical and social (i.e. cultural) surroundings. This physical and social surroundings will clearly change to a larger or lesser extent depending on the distance of travel, however even a short (e.g. domestic) trip might impose changes in the before mentioned environments, these theories are supported by Belk (1974), Jockson, Stoel & Brantley (2011) as well as by Bagnall et al (1999). Another factor that comes into consideration is that the destination itself (maybe due to its different social surroundings and socio-demographics circumstances) might impose some determining influence of cash usage, e.g. if the destination of travel have lack of non-cash payment infrastructure. This would thus impose an obstacle for a visitor to use non-cash transactions and force them into using more physical cash (Guariglia & Loke, 2004). In the article by Ching & Hayashi (2008) they point to the existence of card reward programs would make people prone to use card as opposed to cash. On the opposite, the presence of card fees for international payment and withdrawal would be a clear obstacle against using non-cash or acting as a driver for using cash when
36
travelling. Another impacting theory could be the uncertainty about security surrounding card payments when situated abroad might drive travelers into using cash (Kahn & Liñares-Zegarra, 2016). Overall in the case of travel, we found the major influence to be the significant changes in the physical and social surroundings which lead us to classify travel as a form of situational component that help to determine cash usage. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHICS: Overall, the differences both within and between the two countries do support our hypothesis and prior theory that socio-demographics have an influence on consumer behavior and their choice of payment medium hence making it a determinant of cash usage. Thus it theoretically satisfies the part of our hypothesized model saying that socio-demographics will determine the cash use of consumers. This theory is backed up by several researchers e.g. Carow & State (1999) who have found that different socio-demographic attributes such as age (among others) determined whether they would use cash, debit or credit. Similar findings and theories have been presented by Klee (2008), Mooslechner, Stix & Wagner (2006) and Bagnal et al (2014), who all found socio-demographic the be a determinant of cash usage. When comparing the common factors for Sweden and Germany we have found that there are differences in how the respondents from the two respective countries perceive the different questions in the components. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR EXTRACTED FACTORS Firstly when looking at the internal obstacles component and the highest loading Swedish variable (statement) “I avoid using cash because it’s time consuming to withdraw cash” Swedes tend to be neutral (i.e. they neither agree nor disagree) in their attitude while German respondents on average disagree. On the other hand when looking at the highest loading German statement for internal obstacles is “I avoid using cash because it difficult to carry cash” both Germans and Swedes tend to disagree with this statement. (See Fig 11.3) For the second common component internal drivers the highest loading statement in Sweden was “I use cash because it helps me monitor my budget” where Swedish respondents disagree to a large much larger extent compared to their German counterparts who tend to answer that they agree with this statement. In the case of the highest loading German statement “I have cash because it's faster than paying with cards / smartphones for smaller transactions” the pattern is similar where Germans agree with this statement and Sweden yet again have a more negative opinion with Swedes typically disagree somewhat with this statement. From this we can see that Germans view internal driver more favorable than Swedes who tend to have a rather negative perception on the internal drivers of cash usage. (See Fig 11.3)
37
In the case of the amount specific component the top statement from both countries was “I usually use cash when the payment amount falls below 50 SEK”. Here we can observe a clear difference between Swedish and German respondents where the Swedes are rather neutral towards this statement and using cash for 50 SEK or less, however when looking at the German attitude for this scenario of using cash they clearly agrees that they use cash for 50 SEK or less. This again give a picture of Swedes and Germans having vastly different perceptions about how they use cash, with Germans reporting they are more likely to use cash for low value transactions while some Swedes do and some doesn’t. (See Fig 11.3) When looking at the social environment component’s descriptives yet again the top loading statement was similar in both countries “I have cash to give allowance to my kids”. Here both populations answer in a similar way with Swedes and Germans disagreeing with this statement (See Fig 11.3). This tells us that the allowance variable might not be a strong determinant for cash usage due to respondents from both countries stating that they typically don’t have cash for the sake of giving allowance. However other factor behind this might better help to explain the impact of the social environment’s impact of cash usage. (See Fig 11.3) In the case of the component external positive obstacle the highest loading variable in both Sweden and Germany is “I have cash because it’s not always possible to pay by card or mobile”. In the case for Sweden as well as for Germany people tend to agree with this statement indicating that the perceived obstacle of not being able to use non-cash payment every drives people into holding cash if the obstacle would arise. Thus it is rather clear that the external positive obstacle is both in theory and according to our descriptives a determinant of cash usage in both Sweden and Germany. (See Fig 11.3)
38
Fig 11.3; Average scores of respondents on questions regarding the use of cash.
39
12. CONCLUSION • From prior research we found enough theory to support our hypothesized model in which we
deemed cash usage to be determined by socio-demographics, situations, drivers, and obstacles. • To start with we looked at correlations between the all the input variables, and we found that
there are some variables that are uncorrelated. However since we wanted to include all of them in our factor analysis, we performed a KMO and Barlett’s test. These tests showed that the data is adequate for further analysis and factor extraction. We also looked at the anti-image correlation matrix (table 10.3) as a test of data adequacy and saw that there was no need to exclude variables.
• From the factor extraction we obtained eight components (see table 11.1 & 11.2) for the different socio-demographic groups tested for (country, gender, and age). We found five of these to be common, i.e. that they appear for every socio-demographic groups with the unique factors vary and impacting only.
• When looking closer at these components we found that some are clearly linked to Situations (Amount Specific, Social Environment, Convenience, and Travel), Obstacles (Internal Obstacles and External Positive Obstacles), Drivers (Internal Drivers and External Drivers) as it was suggested by the literature. The overall differences between the different socio-demographic groups tested for, shows that also Socio-Demographics are a determinant of cash usage. These classifications theoretically validate our model saying that cash is determined by Socio-Demographics, Situations, Drivers, and Obstacles.
• However we see in the descriptive statistics that maybe not all of them (even though most of the components are statistically correlated) represent the determinants of cash usage when looking at the stated average scores of respondents (see Fig 11.3). As an example Social Environment is an extracted component but when looking at the highest loaded variable (I have cash to give it as weekly/monthly money to my children) and on the average scores of respondents we can see that in the case for allowance this isn’t something that seems to drive cash usage due to both populations disagreeing with the statement that they use cash in order to give allowance to their kids. Even though they disagree with this statement it is clear that Social Environment is a type of situation which will impact people’s behavior in some way or the other. It must be noted that some previous research (Van Der Cruijsen, Hernandez & Jonker, 2017) have found that there is a gap between stated and realized payment preferences which could indicate that it’s hard to gain a clear picture from looking at the variables. However it show us some interesting findings that there are several similarities and also dissimilarities between different socio-demographic groups. Hence the reality could be that more respondents do have cash for allowance than reported, however they might not have stated this in their responses since this might not be their main driver of cash usage.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH We would like to recommend future studies into how specific locations help determine cash usage. Moreover, we noted that some components into the socio-demographic groups are uncorrelated and thus we would like to recommend further research into the statistical validity of the model.
40
REFERENCES Arango, C., Huynh, K.P., Sabetti, L., 2015. Consumer Payment Choice: Merchant Card Acceptance Versus Pricing. Journal of Banking and Finance. Vol 55 (6), pp.130-141. Bagnall, J., Bounie, D., Huynh, K.P., Kosse, A., Schmidt, T., Schuh, S.D. Stix, H., 2014. Consumer Cash Usage: A Cross-Country Comparison with Payment Diary Survey Data. Bundesbank Discussion Paper No. 13/2014. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2796990 Belk, R. W., 1975. Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 (3), pp.157-164. Bennet, B., Conover, D., O’Brian, S., Advincula, R., 2014. Cash Continues to Play a Key Role in Consumer Spending: Evidence from the Diary of Consumer Payment Choice. [online] San Fransisco (CA): Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco. Available at: https://www.frbsf.org/cash/publications/fed-notes/2014/april/cash-consumer-spending-payment-diary/ Bouhdaoui, Y., Bounie, D., François, A., 2014. Convenient Prices, Cash Payments and Price Rigidity. Economic Modelling. Vol 41 (8), pp.329-337. Bounie, D., François, A., Waelbroeck, P., 2016. Debit Card and Demand for Cash. Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol 73 (12), pp. Carow, K. A., Staten, M. E., 1999. Debit, Credit, or Cash: Survey Evidence on Gasoline Purchases. Journal of Economics and Business, Vol 51 (5), pp.409-421. Central Bank of Ireland, 2013. National Payments Plan. A Strategic Direction for Payments. Dublin: Central Bank of Ireland. Available at: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/news-and-media/2014/april/10-april/national-payments-plan---final-version.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Ching, A.T., Hayashi, F., 2010. Payment card reward programs and consumer payment choice. Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol 34 (8), pp. 1773-1787. Cosmas, S. C., 1982. Life Styles and Consumption Patterns. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 8 (4), pp.453-455. Currency Research (2015a) The case for Cash: Part one: Myths Dispelled. [online] Colleyville: Currency Research. Available at: http://currencyresearch.com/consulting/reports/case-for-cash-report Currency Research (2015b) The case for Cash: Part two: The Justification. [online] Colleyville (TX): Currency Research. Available at: http://currencyresearch.com/consulting/reports/case-for-cash-report-2 Dhar, R., Nowlis, S. M., 1999. The Effect of Time Pressure on Consumer Choice Deferral. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 (4), pp. 369-384.
41
Drost, F., Steuer, H., 2017. It’s Not About The Money. Handelsblatt Global. [online] 2017-08-03. Available at: https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/its-not-about-the-money-2-807023 Yong, A.G., Pearce, S., 2013. A Beginner’s Guide to Factor Analysis: Focusing on Exploratory Factor Analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology. Vol.9 (2), pp.79-94. Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., Modianos, D., 2000. Shopping Values of Russian Consumers: The Impact of Habituation in a Developing Economy. Journal of Retailing, Vol 76 (1), pp.33-52. Guariglia, A., Loke, Y. J., 2004. What determines the value and volume of noncash transactions? Evidence from a panel of European and North American countries. Applied Economics, Vol 36 (4), pp. 291-303. Hooper, D., 2012. Exploratory Factor Analysis. Cork: Oak Tree Press IBM, 2016a. KMO and Barlett’s Test. [online] Available at: <https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLVMB_24.0.0/spss/tutorials/fac_telco_kmo_01.html> [Accessed 2018-05-29] IBM, 2016b. Factor Analysis Descriptives. [online] Available at: < https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLVMB_24.0.0/spss/base/idh_fact_des.html> [Accessed: 2018-05-29] Janssens, W., Wijnen, K., De Pelsmacker, P., Van Kenhove, P., 2008. Marketing Research With SPSS. Harlow: Pearson Education Jockson, V., Stoel, L., Brantley, A., 2011. Mall attributes and shopping value: Differences by gender and generational cohort. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol 18 (1) , pp.1-9. Johnson, A.R., Wichern, D.W., 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Education Ink. Jonker, N., 2007. Payment Instruments as Perceived by Consumers – Results From A Household Survey. De Economist, vol 155 (3), pp.271-303 Kahn, C., Liñares-Zegarra, J., 2016. Identity Theft and Consumer Payment Choice: Does Security Really Matter?. Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol 50 (1), pp.121-159. von Kalckreuth, U., Schmidt, T., Stix., H., 2014a. Using Cash to Monitor Liquidity: Implications for Payments, Currency Demand, and Withdrawal Behavior. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking. Vol 46 (8), pp.1753-1786. von Kalckreuth, U., Schmidt, T., Stix., H., 2014b. Choosing and Using Payment Instruments: Evidence From German Microdata. Empirical Economics. Vol 46 (3), pp.1019-1055.
42
Karlis, D., 2005. Πολυμεταβλητή Στατιστική Ανάλυση [Multivariate Statistical Analysis]. Athens: Stamoulis Publications. Keiser, F.H., Rice, J., 1974. Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement. Vol.34 (1), pp.111-117. Klee, E., 2008. How People Pay: Evidence From Grocery Store Data. Journal of Monetary Economics. Vol 55 (3), pp.526-541. Kruger, M., Seitz, F., 2017. Cost and Benefits of Cash and Cashless Payment Instruments in Germany: Module 2, The Benefits of Cash. Aschaffenburg & Weiden: Aschaffenburg University of Applied Sciences & Weiden Technical University of Applied Sciences. London School of Economics, Roghoff, K.S., 2016. The Curse of Cash. [video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3GnvQX39po [Accessed 2018-05-31] Matheny, W., O’Brien, S., Wang, C., 2016. The State of Cash: Preliminary Findings from the 2015 Diary of Consumer Payment Choice. [online] San Fransisco (CA): Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco. Available at: https://www.frbsf.org/cash/publications/fed-notes/2016/november/state-of-cash-2015-diary-consumer-payment-choice/ Mercatanti, A., Li, F., 2014. Do debit cards increase household spending? Evidence from a semiparametric causal analysis of a survey. Annals of Applied Statistics. Vol 8 (4), pp.2485-2508. Mercatanti, A., Li, F., 2017. Do debit cards decrease cash demand?: causal inference and sensitivity analysis using principal stratification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics). Vol 66 (4), pp.759(18). Mooslechner, P., Stix, H., Wagner, K., 2006. How Are Payments Made in Austria?. Results of a Survey on the Structure of Austrian Households’ Use of Payment Means in the Context of Monetary Policy Analysis. Monetary Policy & the Economy Q, 2, 111-134. Panaretos, I., Xelakakis, E., 1995. Εισαγωγή στην Πολυμεταβλητή Στατιστική Ανάλυση [Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis]. Athens. Penz, E., Sinkovics, R. R., 2013. Triangulating consumers’ perceptions of payment systems by using social representations theory: A multi-method approach. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol 12 (4), pp.293-306. Pett, M.A., Lackey, N.R., Sullivan, J.J., 2011. Making Sense of Factor Analysis. Thousand Oak: SAGE Publications Ltd.. Reinard, J.C., 2011. Exploratory Factor Analysis. In: Communication Research Statistics. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
43
Rencher, A.C., 1992. Interpretation of Canonical Discriminant Functions, Canonical Variates, and Principal Components. The American Statistician. Vol.46 (3), pp.217-225. Runnemark, E., Hedman, J., Xiao, X., 2015. Do Consumers Pay More Using Debit Cards Than Cash?. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol 14 (5), pp. 285-291. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2016. Research Methods For Business Students. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Siaridos., K.G., 2002. Μέθοδοι Πολυμεταβλητής Στατιστικής Ανάλυσης: με την επίλυση ασκήσεων μέσω του στατιστικού προγράμματος SPSS [Multivariate Statistical Analysis Methods: With Solving Exercises Through the SPSS Statistical Program]. Thessaloniki: ZETHIA Publications. Stix, H., 2004. How do Debit Cards Effect Cash Demand?. Survey Data Evidence. Empirica Vol 31(2), pp.93-115. Sveriges Riksbank, 2016. Svenska Finansmarknaden. [online] Stockholm: Sveriges Riksbank. Available at: https://www.riksbank.se/sv/press-och-publicerat/publikationer/om-finansiell-stabilitet/den-svenska-finansmarknaden/?year=2016 Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2009. Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. 2rd ed. New York: Penguin Books. Van Der Cruijsen, C., Hernandez, L., Jonker, N., 2017. In Love With The Debit Card But Still Married To Cash. Applied Economics. Vol 49 (30), pp.2989-3004. Walsh, C.E., 2017. Monetary Theory and Policy, 4 ed. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press. Williams, B., Brown, T., Onsman, A., 2012. Exploartory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide For Novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine. Vol.8 (3), pp.1-13.
Appendix A - Questionnaire 1/3
Sweden & Germany
A. Firstly, we would like to ask some questions about the payment solutions that are available to you:
A1. Which of the following payment solution do you have access to? MULTIPLE CHOICEA2. In general, how did you pay for purchases below 100 SEK during the last month? MULTIPLE CHOICEA3. In general, how did you pay for purchases between 100 SEK and 500 SEK during the last month? MULTIPLE CHOICEA4. In general, how did you pay for purchases above 500 SEK during the last month? MULTIPLE CHOICE
MULTIPLE-CHOICE ALTERNATIVES: • Cash• Debit Card• Credit Card• Swish• Other mobile payment service• SMS• Bitcoin or other virtual currency • Other form of payment, namely: [OPEN]• I haven’t purchased for more than 100/500 SEK during the last month
B. Now some questions concerning how you handle cash:
B1. How often do you withdraw cash from and ATM?• Daily (1)• 1-3 times a week (2)• 1-3 times a month (3)• Less than once a month (4)• Never (5)• Don’t know (99)
B2. Approximately how much money did you withdraw the last time you made a cash withdrawal from an ATM? (Choose the closest alternative)• 100 SEK (3)• 200–400 SEK (4)• 500 SEK (5)• 600–900 SEK (6)• 1000 SEK (7)• Above 1000 SEK (8)• Don’t Know (99)
B3. How often do you withdraw cash from a bank (Not ATM)• Daily (1)• 1-3 times a week (2)• 1-3 times a month (3)• Less than once a month (4)• Never (5)• Don’t know (99)
B4. Approximately how much money did you withdraw the last time you made a cash withdrawal from a bank (not ATM)? (Choose the closest alternative)• 100 SEK (3)• 200–400 SEK (4)• 500 SEK (5)• 600–900 SEK (6)• 1000 SEK (7)• Above 1000 SEK (8)• Don’t Know (99)
B5. How often do you withdraw cash from the cashier in the store?• Daily (1)• 1-3 times a week (2)• 1-3 times a month (3)• Less than once a month (4)• Never (5)• Don’t know (99)
Appendix A - Questionnaire 2/3
B6. Approximately how much money did you withdraw the last time you made a cash withdrawal from the cashier in the store? (Choose the closest alternative)• 100 SEK (3)• 200–400 SEK (4)• 500 SEK (5)• 600–900 SEK (6)• 1000 SEK (7)• Above 1000 SEK (8)• Don’t Know (99)
B7. How much cash do you normally carry around? (Choose the closest alternative)• 20 kronor (1)• 50 kronor (2)• 100 SEK (3)• 200–400 SEK (4)• 500 SEK (5)• 600–900 SEK (6)• 1000 SEK (7)• Above 1000 SEK (8)• I never carry cash (9)• Don’t know (99)
B8. Do you save in cash?• Yes (1)• No (2)
B9. What do you do with coins that you receive, e.g., as change?B901. Store at homeB902. Use them for purchasesB903. Give away/TipB904. Use for parkingB905. Throw awayB906. Other, Namely: [OPEN]
C. You will now be presented with a number of statements about how you use cash. For each of these statements, please mark to what extent do you agree/disagree. [1=Don’t agree at all, 7=Agree fully]
C1. I have cash because… [Table]C101. It enables me to keep track of how much money I have leftC102. It’s faster than using card or mobile when making smaller transactionsC103. It’s simpler than paying with card/mobileC104. To use as gifts, e.g., at birthdays, weddings, etc.C105. To use for weekly/monthly allowance to my kidsC106. To be able to tip at restaurants, hotels, etc.C107. To send with, e.g., my kids, friends or colleagues when I ask them to buy something for me (e.g., lunch, groceries)C108. I take care of someone else’s affairs, e.g., elderly relative or patient.C109. To be able to leave money on the table at cafés/restaurants instead of waiting for the waiterC110. I’m used to pay with cashC111. I get paid in cash myself (at least partly)C112. It’s not always possible to pay with card or mobileC113. Sometimes I don’t feel safe paying with card/mobileC114. Some shops charge a fee when paying smaller amounts with cardC115. It’s good to have a safety buffer for unexpected/unplanned situations.C116. For Reasons of anonymityOther, namely: [OPEN]
C2. I avoid using cash because… [Table]C201. It’s difficult to find an ATMC202. It’s time consuming to withdraw cashC203. I don’t want someone to steal them or lose them myselfC204. It’s cumbersome to handle changeC205. The places where I shop don’t want cashC206. Other solutions, e.g., card or mobile, are simplerC207. It’s ungainly to carry money, e.g., no wallet, etc.C208. I gain certain benefits by paying with card, e.g., points in reward/loyalty program or travel insuranceC209. Card payment is easy for record keeping and to track my spending: monthly statements, recipients, etc.C210. Cash feels unhygienic
Other, namely: [OPEN]
Appendix A - Questionnaire 3/3
C3. I usually use cash… [Table]C301. When I’m in a hurryC302. When I visit other countriesC303. When the amount is below 20 SEK C304. When the amount is below 50 SEK C305. When the amount is below 100 SEK C306. When I’m paying at certain types of places [SEGMENTATION LIST]Other, namely: [OPEN]
SEGMENTATION LIST1. Grocery Store2. Other retail, e.g., clothes, books3. Restaurant, Pub, Nightclub4. Petrol & Retail5. Service Retail, e.g., 7-116. Fast Food7. Public Transportation8. Taxi9. Café/Bakery10. Flee market, auctions, etc.11. Pharmacy12. Health Care13. Attractions & Entertainment, e.g., concerts, sport events.14. Sports & Recreation, e.g., heath club, gym, bingo.15. Gambling & Play. 16. Hotel & Conference17. Beauty Care, e.g., hairdresser, manicurist, beauty parlour18. Church/Temple/Mosque or other place of worship19. Liquor Store
D. Lastly, some questions about yourself
D1. What is the highest eduction you have concluded?• Primary school (1)• Secondary School (2)• First degree University (3)• Post graduate University (4)
D2. What is your current work status?• Full-time employed (1)• Part-time employed (2)• Own business (3)• Unemployed (4)• Disability pension (5)• Retired/OAP (6)• Student (7)
D1. What statement best describes your and your parents’ ethnical background? • I was born in Sweden/in the Nordic region and so were both my parents. (1)• I was born in Sweden/the Nordic region but at least one of my parents was born outside the Nordic region. (2)• I was born outside the Nordic region and so was at least one of my parents. (3)• Jag was born outside the Nordic region but at but at least one of my parents was born in Sweden (4)• I don’t want to answer this question (5)
Sweden
1/2Appendix B - Correlations of input Variables
Appendix B - Correlations of input Variables
Germany
2/2
Appendix C - Scree Plots
SwedenUniversal Male Female
Age Group 3Age Group 2Age Group 1
Universal Male Female
Age Group 3Age Group 2Age Group 1
Germany
Appendix D - Total Variance Explained 1/3
Universal - SWE
Male - SWE
Female - SWE
Age Group 1 - SWE
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings
Components: Total % of Variance
Cumulative % Total % of
Variance Cumulative
%
AMOUNT SPECIFIC 8,753 28,236 28,236 5,000 16,129 16,129
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,708
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,695 -0,272
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,664 -0,261
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,653
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,649
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,623
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,592
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,532 -0,518
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,666
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,626
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,612 0,345
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,599 0,385
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,489 -0,527 -0,310
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,518 0,256
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,380 -0,424 0,303
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,882
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,859
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,296 0,801
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,465 0,583
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,490 0,522
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,773
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,733
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,620 0,336
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,254 0,384 -0,289
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,320 0,357
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,760
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,320 0,705
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,262 0,651
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,418 0,554
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,355 0,346 0,467
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,297 0,303 0,379
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations.
Universal - SWE
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 2/12
1 2 3 4 5 6
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,897
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,865
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,847
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,697 0,251
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,640 0,322
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,560 0,414
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,475 0,450 -0,447
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,387 0,328
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,384 0,304 0,360
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,731
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,271 0,697
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,278 0,686
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,674
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,666
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,661
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,608
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,503 -0,501
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,745
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,718
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,670 0,282
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,495 0,316
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,462 0,405
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,349 -0,576 0,263
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,296 0,574 0,274
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,389 0,527 0,263
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,332 0,507 0,330 0,262
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,281 0,677
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,590 0,361
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,368 0,258 0,588
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,260 0,732
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,285 0,293 0,683
ComponentMale - SWE
3/12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,697
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,668
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,656 0,307
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,638 -0,335
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,609
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,593 0,466
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,530 0,502
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,400 0,302 0,376
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,274 0,681
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,678 -0,276
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,641
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,635 -0,268
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,632
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,627
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
-0,483 0,534
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,534
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,883
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,868
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,317 0,788
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,517 0,546
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,387 0,402 0,371
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,766
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,742
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,631
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,716
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,606
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,326 0,319 0,300 -0,475
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,284 0,430 0,475 -0,344
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,384 0,409 0,470
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,289 0,588
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,418 -0,444
ComponentFemale - SWE
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix
4/12
1 2 3 4 5 6
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,773 0,251
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,756
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,545 0,442
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,542 0,264 0,390
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,540 0,269 0,338
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,497 0,311 0,472
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,485 0,261 0,250 0,404
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,484 0,318
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,466 0,348 0,323 0,412
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,445 0,434 0,439
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,709
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,689
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,679 -0,270
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,649
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,629
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,604
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,580 -0,261
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,579
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
-0,286 0,557 -0,253
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,400 0,497 -0,251 -0,251
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,895
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,843
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,835
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,457 0,594
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,742 0,271
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,374 0,728
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,355 0,543 -0,300
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,331 0,269 0,391
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,806
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,779
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,372 0,560
ComponentAge Group 1 - SWE
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 5/12
1 2 3 4 5 6
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,746
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,712 0,293
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,695 0,302
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,687
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,682
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,651 0,460
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,624
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,591 0,508
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,424 0,417 0,296
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,408 0,306 -0,367
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,359 0,268
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,728
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,266 0,678
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,671
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,668
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,643
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,634 -0,285
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,622 -0,284
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
-0,410 0,576
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,431
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,854
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,360 0,849
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,447 0,749
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,769
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,293 0,752
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,630 0,285
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,365 0,664
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,407 0,637
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,608 0,291
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,267 0,708
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,341 0,251 0,512
ComponentAge Group 2 - SWE
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 6/12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,708
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att 0,684
Jag är van vid att betala med kontanter - Jag har kontanter för att 0,598 0,385 -0,287
En del butiker tar ut avgifter när man använder kort för mindre belopp - Jag har kontanter för att 0,586 0,284
Av anonymitetsskäl - Jag har kontanter för att 0,585
Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,540
Det är bra att ha en säkerhetsreserv för oväntade situationer - Jag har kontanter för att 0,474 0,365 0,314
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att 0,402 0,300 0,379 -0,369
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,887
När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,852
När beloppet är under 100 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,341 0,775
När jag har bråttom - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,528 0,558
Det går snabbare än kort/mobil vid mindre transaktioner - Jag har kontanter för att 0,481 0,511
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,739
Det är besvärligt att hantera växel - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,721
Det är svårt att bära med sig pengar; ingen plånbok, t ex - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,673
Kontanter känns ohygieniska - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,665
De ställen jag handlar på vill inte ha kontanter - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,646
Det är svårt att hitta uttagsautomater - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,493 0,293
Jag vill inte bli bestulen eller tappa pengarna - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att 0,470 0,364 -0,307
Skicka med t ex mina barn, vänner eller kollegor när de skall köpa någonting för min räkning (t ex. lunch, handla, etc.) - Jag har kontanter för att
0,270 0,690
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att 0,669 0,251
Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,284 0,638 0,260
Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
0,710
Genom att betala med kort får jag bättre överblick över min ekonomi: kontoutdrag, betalningsmottagare, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att
-0,333 0,408 0,547
När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter 0,364 0,455 0,350
Andra lösningar, t ex kort eller mobil, är enklare - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att -0,402 -0,304 0,401 0,413
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att 0,366 0,665
Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att 0,327 0,292 0,613
Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att 0,797
Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att 0,264 0,514
ComponentAge Group 3 - SWE
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 7/12
1 2 3 4 5
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,781
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,778
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,763
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,710
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,709
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,689
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,689 -0,378
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,668
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,662
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,632
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,762
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,748
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... -0,265 0,727
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,684
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,683
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,612 0,322
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,705
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,679
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,660 0,300
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,635
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,410 0,566 -0,257
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,501
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,895
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,893
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,466 0,655
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,404 0,417
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,373
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,721
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,356 0,551
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,402 0,486
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,339 0,323 0,429
Component
Universal - GER
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 8/12
1 2 3 4 5
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,793
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,792
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,779
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,726 -0,344
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,722
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,721
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,714
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,668
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,631
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,627
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,819
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,712 0,253
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,694 0,259
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,678 0,266
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,672 0,251
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,547 0,416
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,708
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,666 0,273
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,420 0,617
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,596 0,333
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,579 0,392
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,564
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,898
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,888
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,439 0,664
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,346 0,412
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,379 0,279
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,761
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,281 0,338 0,541
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,387 0,531
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,372 0,299 0,458
ComponentMale - GER
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 9/12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,789
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,747
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,724
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,711 -0,303
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,704
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,675
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,672 0,353
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,662 -0,255
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,651 -0,399
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,631
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,… 0,771
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... -0,295 0,751
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,719
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,708
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,686
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,663
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,792
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,711
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,620 0,300
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,393 0,490 -0,335
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,904
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,878
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,506 0,650
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,675
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,346 0,655
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,331 0,740
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,388 0,558
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,389 0,252 0,408
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,757
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,453 -0,476
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,428 0,306 0,467
ComponentFemale - GER
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 10/12
1 2 3 4 5 6
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,776
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,765
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,724 0,284
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,721
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,717 -0,310
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,712
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,692 -0,318
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,662 0,335
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,661
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,606 -0,311
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,795
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,763
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,716
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,308 0,707
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,403 0,667 -0,279
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,570 0,268
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,529 0,449
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,835
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,773
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,714 0,388
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,631 0,466
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,339 0,465 0,416
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,296 0,746
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,300 0,729 0,266
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,391 0,618
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,275 0,509 0,520
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,739 0,260
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,288 0,273 0,654
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,386 -0,654
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise… 0,517 0,520
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,478 0,508
ComponentAge Group 1 - GER
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 11/12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,793
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,768
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,753
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,748
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,744
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,739
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,734
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,726 0,284
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,650 -0,402 0,265
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,631 0,293
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,821
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,820
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,745
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,745
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,696
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,602 0,351
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,762
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,723
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,614 0,390
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,360 0,591
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,876
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,863
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,530 0,660
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,763
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,… 0,263 0,620
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,450 0,299 0,548
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,474 0,498 0,278
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,742
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,457 0,585
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,824
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,426 0,262 0,549
ComponentAge Group 2 - GER
Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 12/12
1 2 3 4 5 6
Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,785
Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,776
Sich Geld zu holen Zeitverschwendung ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,735
Andere Lösungen, z. B. Karten oder Smartphone, einfacher sind - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,699 -0,367
Ich nicht bestohlen werden möchte oder nicht Geld verlieren will - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,696
Ich Bargeld als unhygienisch empfinde - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,651
Ich durch die Zahlung mit Karte einen besseren Überblick über meine Finanzen bekomme: Kontoauszüge, Zahlungsempfänger usw. - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,643 -0,258
Ich verschiedene Vergünstigungen bekomme, indem ich mit Karte bezahle, z. B. Treuepunkte, Reiseversicherung - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...
0,632 0,259
An den Orten, an denen ich einkaufe, kein Bargeld angenommen wird - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,566 0,442
Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... 0,549
Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,761
Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,756
Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,682
Da ich es gewohnt bin, in bar zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... -0,371 0,653
Aus Gründen der Anonymität - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,620 0,281
Um dadurch die Übersicht zu behalten, wieviel Geld ich noch habe - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,607 0,347
Wenn ich in Eile bin - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,443 0,337 0,404
Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,326
Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,930
Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,913
Wenn der Betrag unter 20 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... 0,426 0,675
Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,720
Um es zu Geburtstagen/Hochzeiten usw. zu verschenken - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,656 0,275
Um es z. B. meinen Kindern, Freunden oder Kollegen mitzugeben, wenn sie etwas für mich einkaufen gehen (z. B. Mittagessen, Lebensmittel) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,610 0,308
Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,540
Da ich damit die Finanzen für jemand anderen verwalte, z. B. ein/e Pflegeempfänger/in - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,275 0,476 -0,319
Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,667
Da es gut ist, eine Sicherheitsreserve für unerwartete Situationen zu haben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,291 0,603
Um damit Trinkgeld in Restaurants, Hotels usw. zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... 0,541 0,440
Da es in einigen Geschäften eine Gebühr verlangt wird, wenn man kleinere Beträge mit Karte bezahlen möchte - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,334 0,399
Um damit Geld im Café/Restaurant auf dem Tisch liegen lassen zu können und nicht auf die Bedienung warten zu müssen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...
0,343 0,679
ComponentAge Group 3 - GER
Appendix F - Factor Analysis Validation 1/4
Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att
använda kontanter för att
Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur
mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter
för att
När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter
Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att
Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att
Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har