Continuous Intention to Use E-Wallet in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Integrating the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Technology Continuous Theory (TCT)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper uses two established theories to investigate consumer's
continuous behavior regarding the use of an E-wallet service: the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Technology Continuous Theory (TCT). 

The authors have done some very interesting research which, in my opinion, can be highly valued by the journal's readers. However, there are points for improvement that the authors should implement before publishing this manuscript. These are:

1.- Authors should clearly state in the abstact what the objective of the paper is, which in my opinion is to find a model that explains the adoption of e-wallet by users. 

2.- In addition, the authors should clarify this point in the final part of the introduction, where they could also explain the structure of the paper.

3.- The research proposal, but refer to other models, such as TAM. In fact, in line 198, on page 4, they do so. In this case, they should cite works that use this theoretical model in studies on the adoption of covid-19 with similar information systems, such as apps.
I suggest you read: 

Velicia-Martin, F., Cabrera-Sanchez, J. P., Gil-Cordero, E., & Palos-Sanchez, P. R. (2021). Researching COVID-19 tracing app acceptance: incorporating theory from the technological acceptance model. PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e316.

Carracedo, P., Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2020). Research lines on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business. A text mining analysis. Journal of Business Research.

Also, in the methodology section, the authors could explain the sampling procedure they followed and how they avoided bias in the survey.

4.- I am sure that the authors can improve the quality of figure 1 and add a second figure 2 with the results.
5.- In table 5 and the rest of the paper change F2 to f2.

6.- Why don't the authors present the HTMT table?

7.- In relation to the IPMA analysis, I suggest that you read several papers that may help you to improve your interpretation, and that you should extend the analysis to the rest of the endogenous variables:

García-Fernández, J., Fernández-Gavira, J., Sánchez-Oliver, A. J., Gálvez-Ruíz, P., Grimaldi-Puyana, M., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2020). Importance-Performance Matrix Analysis (IPMA) to Evaluate Servicescape Fitness Consumer by Gender and Age. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6562.

Palos-Sanchez, P., Martin-Velicia, F., & Saura, J. R. (2018). Complexity in the acceptance of sustainable search engines on the internet: an analysis of unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS. Complexity, 2018.

8.- In the discussion section they should compare the results with R2 of other similar papers, which are using the same constructs: PEOU, PU or Attitude. 

Palos-Sanchez, P. R., Hernandez-Mogollon, J. M., & Campon-Cerro, A. M. (2017). The behavioral response to location based services: an examination of the influence of social and environmental benefits, and privacy. Sustainability, 9(11), 1988.

9.- Finally, for the future, I suggest to the authors that given the size of the sample, they consider continuing the research on segmentation, as is done in one of the papers, using FIMIX-PLS.

I wish the authors the best of luck and success with this research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and uses two models -the Health Belief Model and the Technology Continous Theory- to identify what factors influence consumer's intentions to continue using e-wallets.

The introduction is adequate, although it would be advisable to read and add the bibliometric review on COVID-19 in the social sciences, since it addresses relevant aspects related to the current environment and this research.

Ruiz-Real, J.L.; Nievas-Soriano, B. & Uribe-Toril, J. (2020). "Has Covid-19 Gone Viral? An Overview of Research by Subject Area". Health Education & Behavior, 47 (6).

In the same way, although I consider that the two proposed models (HBM and TCT) are valid for this analysis, it would be convenient to also consult (although it is not applied in this research) the model proposed by Venkatesh et al (2003) (UTAUT1) for explain consumer acceptance and use of technology.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). "User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view". MIS Quarterly, 425-478.

Regarding the hypotheses (mainly 3 and 4) and the model proposed by the authors, I wonder if it would be convenient to include the "new normal" or new environment, as a moderating variable, since the context will be different from the current one what should have consequences in the decision-making processes.

The methodology is clearly explained. However, I consider that there is an important problem with the sample, since it involves university students (therefore, a young population and with advanced studies) and, in addition, the survey is distributed through an online platform, which contributes to that it is a sample very used to the technological environment and electronic devices. Although this fact is mentioned among the limitations of the work, it is a sufficiently relevant fact to condition the results of the work or, at least, make it clear that this research focuses mainly on university students (perhaps in the abstract or even in the own title of the paper).

Discussion of the results is fine, although it would help the reader a lot to include a summary table with the results and hypotheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper examines continuous intention in the context of e-wallet during covid-19. There are numerous studies that examine adoption in many different fields. The question, and challenge, is what is new here and why the need for another study. Note that almost all your hypotheses are accepted, an indication of lack of novelty. However, there is some potential. The authors can improve the novelty of their work by discussing more related work in order to explain how they address shortcomings of existing studies. 

The first two paragraphs about covid and vaccinations do not relate much with the rest of the paper. Try to merge them and either remove most of the details regarding vaccination or revise the part to connect it directly with the study. 

The introduction introduces the topic and problem however it would benefit by adding some major studies in the area and explaining what they have found and what they have missed. This will help you highlight the research gap and give support for the novelty of your model. For example how does previous experience influence the role of PU, PEU, SE and SF on continuance intentions?

The background offers useful information on related work. I suggest not to use more than 3 references for a single statement/argument. Keep the best ones or split the argument to add more details. 

Further, I recommend to add a paragraph that summarises and described the proposed model that will include the main references that you have used to develop it.

Methods

Add a table with the constructs, their definition and source in the literature. This is very helpful for future readers. 

Sample size is not mentioned; only that of the pilot. 

Table 2 is very useful, however I suggest to add the item descriptions in it and move it in the appendix. The AVE and reliability indices can be merged and presented in table 3 as in the work of Pappas et al. (2017).

It would be nice to add a new figure with the findings based on figure 1. 

 The discussion describes how the findings are in accordance with previous findings. This is a very good start. I would like to see also what kind of gaps the present study addresses (based on the research gap in the literature as identified in the introduction)

To strengthen your contributions you may consider other models and argue how yours is bette. For example, previous studies have used the information processing theory to examine customer persuasion in online settings (Pappas, 2017), instead of TAM-based models. 

Pappas, I. O., Kourouthanassis, P. E., Giannakos, M. N., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2017). Sense and sensibility in personalized e‐commerce: How emotions rebalance the purchase intentions of persuaded customers. Psychology & Marketing, 34(10), 972-986.

Possible extensions to increase novelty. This can either be done in the present paper or discussed as future work and how it can extend your findings. 

In detail, you can extend the analysis and findings by employing fsQCA (Ragin, 2009). FsQCA can be employed here to test for to examine asymmetrical relations among existing conditions, and identify which are necessary or sufficient to lead to the adoption of e-wallet. See examples from adoption studies that you can follow in your work (Pappas & Woodside, 2021).

Considering that R-square is about 0.5, it is implied that other factors exist to explain the dependent variable, but also that contrarian cases may exist in your data (Pappas & Woodside, 2021; Woodside, 2014). Employing fsQCA can help identify such cases.

Also, fsQCA can offer good contrasting (complementing) discussion with the 4.4 importance-performance map analysis, as fsQCA captures sufficient combinations of conditions without discussing which are “the most important ones”. 

Pappas, I. O., & Woodside, A. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310.

Ragin, C. C. (2009). Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques, 51, 87-121.

Woodside, A. G. (2014). Embrace• perform• model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495-2503.

Good luck with your work!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied with the changes made to the paper.

In my opinion the manuscript has been significantly improved.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comments and kind opinion. 

For the English proofreading, we asked for a native English professional at this phase as well; and made improvements accordingly.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for revising their work and for responding to my comments. The paper has improved.

I have two minor points that I believe should be addressed.

First, please replace Figure 2, that is a screenshot from SmartPLS with an appropriate model that only includes the constructs and the respective effects, as well as the R-square.

Second, the future work of the paper has not been revised. It would be very useful for future researchers that will read your work to get some ideas on what they can do next, based on your findings. I recommend to go back to my previous comments and consider adding them in your paper, as they open up multiple avenues for future research. 

Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf