The Acceptance of Payment Methods Through Blockchain Technology and Cryptocurrency: The Effect of Brand Image

Öz

Blockchain technology, along with cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and stablecoin represent potential advancements that could change the financial industry. Stablecoins, have established a presence could change the traditional mechanisms of global economy. Nonetheless, consumer adoption of these technologies has been slightly slow. Many aspects and gaps are still not filled in the literature about these new technologies. In this research, using the technology acceptance model (TAM) to see the factors behind the intention to use cryptocurrencies as a payment method by examining the brand image role in the intention to use cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies for payment methods. The research has been done through an online survey, distributed between group of people with different backgrounds in Türkiye. The survey was conducted in Turkish, and all scales and measurements have been tested and approved in previous studies. The findings indicate that brand image impacts the intention to use cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology transactions. Also, the strongest relation is between attitude (A) and brand image (BI) these finding highlight the importance of brand image in driving consumer’s attitude and intention to use cryptocurrencies as payment method. Moreover, we discuss in the conclusion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blockchain
• Cryptocurrency
• TAM
• Brand Image
• Adoption

Blockchain Teknolojisi ve Kripto Para Aracılığıyla Ödeme Yöntemlerinin Kabulü: Marka İmajının Etkisi

Öz

Blockchain ve Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoin gibi kripto paralar finans piyasasında yayılan yenilikçi teknolojiler olup, stablecoin hızla finans sektörüne damgasını vurarak küresel ekonominin dinamiklerini yeniden şekillendirmiştir. Bununla birlikte, tüketicilerin bu yenilikleri benimsemesi nispeten yavaş olmuştur. Bu yeni teknolojilerle ilgili literatürde birçok husus ve boşluk hala doldurulmamıştır. Teknoloji Kabul Modelini (TAM) ile bu araştırma, ödeme yöntemleri için kripto para birimlerini ve blockchain teknolojilerini kullanma tutumu ile niyeti arasında aracı olarak marka imajı etkisini inceleyerek, kripto para birimlerini bir ödeme yöntemi olarak kullanma niyetinin ardındaki davranışsal faktörleri incelemektedir. Araştırma, Türkiye'de farklı geçmişlere sahip bir grup insanla 5'li Likert ölçeği kullanılarak yapılan çevrimiçi bir anket aracılığıyla yapılmıştır. Anket Türkçe olarak yapıldı ve tüm ölçümler ve ölçekler daha önceki çalışmalarda test edildi ve onaylandı. Bulgular, marka imajının kripto para birimleri ve blockchain teknolojisi işlemlerini kullanma niyetini etkilediğini gösteriyor. Ancak tutum (A) ile marka imajı (BI) arasındaki ilişki diğer ilişkilerden daha güçlüdür. Ayrıca Algılanan Kullanım Kolaylığı (PEoU) ile tutum (A) arasındaki ilişki ise pozitif olmasına rağmen ancak etkisi diğer tüm ilişkilerden istatistiksel olarak daha az fark edilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kripto para
• Marka İmajı
• TAM

Kaynakça

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-2112. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
2. Albayati, H., Kim, S. K., & Rho, J. J. (2020). Accepting financial transactions using blockchain technology and cryptocurrency: A customer perspective approach. Technology in Society, 62, 101320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101320
3. Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2020). Towards a conceptual model for examining the impact of knowledge management factors on mobile learning acceptance. Technology in Society, 101247. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101247
4. Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students Acceptance of Google Classroom: An Exploratory Study using PLS-SEM Approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(06), pp. 112–123. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i06.8275
5. Aste, T., Tasca, P., & Di Matteo, T. (2017). Blockchain technologies: The foreseeable impact on society and industry. Computer, 50(9), 18-28. Doi 10.1109/MC.2017.3571064.
6. Bradley, F. (2002). Uluslararası pazarlama stratejisi. Istanbul: Bilim Teknik Kitabevi.
7. Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192
8. Davis, F.D. R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models, Manag. Sci. 35 (8) (1989 - Aug) 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

9. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Q. (1989 - Sep) 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
10. Egea, J. M. O., & González, M. V. R. (2011). Explaining physicians’ acceptance of EHCR systems: An extension of TAM with trust and risk factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 319-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.010
11. Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 9(3), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501897
12. Folkinshteyn, D., & Lennon, M. (2016). Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 18(4), 220-249.
13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley1.
14. Folkinshteyn, D., & Lennon, M. M. (2016). Braving Bitcoin: A technology acceptance model analysis. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 18(4), 220-249. DOI:10.1080/15228053.2016.1275242
15. Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593. DOI:10.1111/bjet.12864
16. Hair Jr, J., Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
17. Hern, A. (2013, November 25). Is Bitcoin about to change the world? The Guardian. Accessed date: 20 October 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/25/is-bitcoin-about-to-change-the-world-peer-to-peer-cryptocurrency-virtual-wallet
18. Houben, R., & Snyers, A. (2018). Cryptocurrencies and blockchain: Legal context and implications for financial crime, money laundering and tax evasion.
19. Koca, H. (2021). Uluslararası pazarlamada standardizasyon ve adaptasyon stratejileri. [Published master thesis. İstanbul Esenyurt university].
20. Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (pp. 1-14). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.1999.772658
21. Martinez, E., & Pina, J. M. (2003). The negative impact of brand extensions on parent brand image. Journal of product & brand management, 12(7), 432-448. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420310506001
22. Mendoza-Tello, J. C., Mora, H., Pujol-López, F. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2018). Social commerce as a driver to enhance trust and intention to use cryptocurrencies for electronic payments. Ieee Access, 6, 50737-50751. DOI:10.1007/s10257-019-00415-w
23. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
24. Ögel, S., & Ögel, İ. Y. (2021). The interaction between perceived risk, attitude, and intention to use: An empirical study on bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. In E. Özen, S. Grima, & R. D. Gonzi (Eds.), New Challenges for Future Sustainability and Wellbeing (pp. 211-241). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-968-920211012
25. Palos-Sanchez, P., Saura, J. R., & Ayestaran, R. (2021). An exploratory approach to the adoption process of bitcoin by business executives. Mathematics, 9(4), 355. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040355
26. Radic, A., Quan, W., Ariza-Montes, A., Lee, J. S., & Han, H. (2022). You can't hold the tide with a broom: Cryptocurrency payments and tourism in South Korea and China. Tourism Management Perspectives, 43, 101000. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmp.2022.101000
27. Salloum, S. A., Alhamad, A. Q. M., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A. A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE access, 7, 128445-128462. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467
28. Sekmen, b., & Arslan, f. m. (2021). Marka deneyiminin marka imaji ve marka sadakatine etkisi: marka imajinin aracilik rolü. öneri dergisi, 16(55), 221-249. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.732562
29. Şenyapar, F. G. (2008). Küreselleşme sürecinde değişen işletme yönetimi. [published Master's thesis, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi].
30. Schiffman, L. G. (1972). Perceived Risk in New Product Trial by Elderly Consumers. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(1), 106–108. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149622
31. Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., Wang, J., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). An empirical investigation on the adoption of cryptocurrencies among the people of mainland China. Technology in Society, 55, 33-40. DOI: 10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2018.05.006
32. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
33. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-4783 https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
34. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
35. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-1785. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
36. Walton, A. J., & Johnston, K. A. (2018). Exploring perceptions of bitcoin adoption: The South African virtual community perspective. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 13, 165. DOI:10.28945/4080
37. Wang, Y. H., & Tsai, C. F. (2014). The relationship between brand image and purchase intention: Evidence from award winning mutual funds. The international journal of business and finance research, 8(2), 27-40.
38. Yeh, H. (2015). Effects of ICT's innovative applications on brand image and customer's purchase intention. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 7(4).
39. Yu, C. C., Lin, P. J., & Chen, C. S. (2013). How brand image, country of origin, and self-congruity influence internet users' purchase intention. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 41(4), 599-611. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.599