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.

Contents 1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. PROBLEM FORMULATION ............................................................................................................ 1

3. PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................................... 1

4. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 1

5. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 2

6. MODEL ............................................................................................................................................... 8

7. VALIDITY, RELIABILITY & RELEVANCE .................................................................................. 9

8. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 10

9. EMPIRICAL DATA ......................................................................................................................... 14

10. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 24

11. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 31

12. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 39

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 40

APPENIDICIES .................................................................................................................................... 44

1

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

Age Group 2

Age Group 3

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

0,925 0,916 0,908 0,877 0,915 0,898

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

6841,136 6348,000 3541,190 5216,918 4717,208 5409,735

df 465 465 465 465 465 465

Sig. 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

KMO and Bartlett's Test Universal Male Female Age Group 1

Age Group 2

Age Group 3

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

0,903 0,894 0,881 0,876 0,893 0,864

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

13013,633 6948,230 6507,628 3281,373 5301,435 5409,735

df 465 465 465 465 465 465

Sig. 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

25

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.

26

Variable MSA

Variable MSA

Sweden Germany Sweden Germany

C1C101 ,951 ,920 C2C204 ,928 ,944 C1C102 ,963 ,926 C2C205 ,917 ,921 C1C103 ,939 ,895 C2C206 ,944 ,939 C1C104 ,929 ,905 C2C207 ,937 ,932 C1C105 ,826 ,877 C2C208 ,855 ,929 C1C106 ,886 ,905 C2C209 ,918 ,943 C1C107 ,890 ,891 C2C210 ,905 ,950 C1C108 ,884 ,897 C3C301 ,969 ,910 C1C109 ,895 ,878 C3C302 ,808 ,892 C1C110 ,965 ,919 C3C303 ,892 ,701 C1C111 ,927 ,893 C3C304 ,868 ,730 C1C112 ,900 ,834 C3C305 ,929 ,880 C1C113 ,955 ,928 C1C114 ,951 ,929 C1C115 ,954 ,910 C1C116 ,948 ,934 C2C201 ,863 ,941 C2C202 ,924 ,939 C2C203 ,887 ,930

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

Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

% Total% of

VarianceCumulative

%

1 8,552 27,587 27,587 8,552 27,587 27,587 3,918 12,639 12,639

2 3,553 11,462 39,049 3,553 11,462 39,049 3,863 12,460 25,100

3 1,657 5,345 44,395 1,657 5,345 44,395 3,806 12,278 37,378

4 1,316 4,244 48,638 1,316 4,244 48,638 2,343 7,559 44,937

5 1,210 3,902 52,541 1,210 3,902 52,541 1,761 5,680 50,617

6 1,077 3,473 56,013 1,077 3,473 56,013 1,673 5,396 56,013

7 0,944 3,045 59,058

8 0,902 2,911 61,969

9 0,831 2,680 64,648

10 0,804 2,592 67,240

11 0,773 2,492 69,733

12 0,708 2,283 72,016

13 0,689 2,223 74,239

14 0,651 2,099 76,339

15 0,646 2,084 78,423

16 0,610 1,967 80,390

17 0,585 1,888 82,278

18 0,549 1,769 84,048

19 0,526 1,698 85,745

20 0,510 1,646 87,392

21 0,476 1,535 88,927

22 0,454 1,465 90,392

23 0,429 1,384 91,776

24 0,399 1,288 93,064

25 0,387 1,248 94,313

26 0,362 1,168 95,481

27 0,355 1,144 96,625

28 0,345 1,114 97,739

29 0,322 1,039 98,778

30 0,251 0,808 99,587

31 0,128 0,413 100,000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

Component

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.

Figure 10.6; Rotated Component Matrix, Sweden, Universal

1 2 3 4 5 6Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar -

0,708

Det är besvärligt att hantera växel -

0,695 -0,272Det är svårt att bära med sig

å 0,664 -0,261

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%).

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS AMOUNT SPECIFICSOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTCONVENIENCE

EXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLESPearson Correlation 1 -,244** -,306** -0,003 -,128** -,158**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,927 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,244** 1 ,361** ,253** ,362** ,275**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,306** ,361** 1 ,121** ,293** ,311**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -0,003 ,253** ,121** 1 ,232** ,127**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,927 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,128** ,362** ,293** ,232** 1 ,173**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,158** ,275** ,311** ,127** ,173** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

CONVENIENCE

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

Correlations - Sweden - Universal

**. 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

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 4,059 13,093 41,329 4,070 13,128 29,257

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,625 5,241 46,570 2,715 8,760 38,016

INTERNAL DRIVERS 1,383 4,462 51,032 2,598 8,381 46,397

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,263 4,074 55,106 1,979 6,383 52,781

CONVENIENCE 1,125 3,628 58,735 1,846 5,954 58,735

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 8,552 27,587 27,587 3,918 12,639 12,639

INTERNAL DRIVERS 3,553 11,462 39,049 3,863 12,460 25,100

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,657 5,345 44,395 3,806 12,278 37,378

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,316 4,244 48,638 2,343 7,559 44,937

CONVNENIENCE 1,210 3,902 52,541 1,761 5,680 50,617

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,077 3,473 56,013 1,673 5,396 56,013

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL DRIVERS 8,376 27,018 27,018 4,382 14,135 14,135

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 3,179 10,254 37,272 3,712 11,975 26,109

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,732 5,587 42,859 3,666 11,826 37,936

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,277 4,119 46,978 2,290 7,386 45,321

TRAVEL 1,198 3,865 50,843 1,515 4,886 50,207

EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1,148 3,704 54,548 1,298 4,186 54,394

EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1,019 3,287 57,834 1,067 3,440 57,834

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL DRIVERS 8,233 26,557 26,557 4,372 14,103 14,103

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 3,896 12,568 39,125 4,012 12,942 27,045

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 2,041 6,584 45,709 3,512 11,328 38,373

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,490 4,806 50,515 2,384 7,691 46,063

INTERNAL DRIVERS 1,241 4,003 54,518 2,052 6,620 52,683

TRAVEL 1,105 3,565 58,083 1,674 5,400 58,083

Appendix D - Total Variance Explained 2/3

Age Group 2 - SWE

Age Group 3 - SWE

Universal - GER

Male - GER

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL DRIVERS 9,226 29,760 29,760 5,522 17,812 17,812

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 3,648 11,768 41,528 4,125 13,306 31,117

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,564 5,046 46,574 3,052 9,845 40,963

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,483 4,783 51,358 2,078 6,704 47,667

CONVENIENCE 1,302 4,199 55,557 1,853 5,979 53,646

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,055 3,404 58,960 1,648 5,315 58,960

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL DRIVERS 8,212 26,489 26,489 4,250 13,711 13,711

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 3,351 10,810 37,299 3,509 11,320 25,032

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 1,669 5,384 42,683 3,483 11,235 36,267

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,371 4,421 47,104 2,196 7,084 43,351

EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1,234 3,980 51,085 1,721 5,553 48,904

CONVENIENCE 1,150 3,711 54,796 1,590 5,130 54,034

EXTERNAL DRIVERS 1,051 3,391 58,186 1,287 4,152 58,186

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 6,383 20,591 20,591 5,513 17,783 17,783

INTERNAL DRIVERS 5,824 18,788 39,378 4,102 13,233 31,016

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,932 6,234 45,612 3,004 9,690 40,706

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,523 4,913 50,524 2,541 8,197 48,903

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,325 4,273 54,798 1,827 5,894 54,798

6 0,990 3,193 57,991

7 0,959 3,093 61,084

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 6,561 21,165 21,165 5,647 18,217 18,217

INTERNAL DRIVERS 6,362 20,522 41,687 3,875 12,501 30,718

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,798 5,799 47,487 3,138 10,123 40,841

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,425 4,598 52,085 2,730 8,806 49,648

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,290 4,162 56,247 2,046 6,599 56,247

Appendix D - Total Variance Explained 3/3

Female - GER

Age Group 1 - GER

Age Group 2 - GER

Age Group 3 - GER

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 6,246 20,148 20,148 5,357 17,280 17,280

INTERNAL DRIVERS 5,333 17,205 37,353 4,411 14,228 31,508

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 2,138 6,895 44,248 2,368 7,637 39,146

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,680 5,419 49,667 2,303 7,429 46,575

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,398 4,511 54,178 1,677 5,409 51,984

CONVENIENCE 1,054 3,402 57,580 1,577 5,088 57,072

TRAVEL 1,036 3,341 60,921 1,193 3,849 60,921

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 7,286 23,502 23,502 5,608 18,091 18,091

CONVENIENCE 6,279 20,255 43,757 4,245 13,692 31,783

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 2,051 6,615 50,373 3,741 12,066 43,849

INTERNAL DRIVERS 1,568 5,059 55,432 2,869 9,256 53,105

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,301 4,197 59,629 1,822 5,877 58,982

TRAVEL 1,087 3,505 63,134 1,287 4,152 63,134

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 7,203 23,236 23,236 5,854 18,885 18,885

INTERNAL DRIVERS 6,221 20,068 43,304 4,732 15,263 34,148

CONVENIENCE 1,878 6,058 49,361 2,637 8,508 42,655

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 1,692 5,457 54,819 2,234 7,205 49,860

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,280 4,130 58,948 2,032 6,555 56,415

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,058 3,413 62,361 1,486 4,795 61,210

TRAVEL 1,010 3,258 65,620 1,367 4,410 65,620

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation SS Loadings

Components: Total % of Variance

Cumulative % Total % of

Variance Cumulative

%

INTERNAL OBSTACLES 6,145 19,823 19,823 5,016 16,180 16,180

INTERNAL DRIVERS 4,733 15,269 35,092 3,897 12,572 28,752

AMOUNT SPECIFIC 2,124 6,851 41,943 2,460 7,934 36,686

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT 1,501 4,841 46,785 2,325 7,499 44,186

EXTERNAL POS. OBSTACLES 1,424 4,595 51,379 1,894 6,108 50,294

CONVENIENCE 1,049 3,384 54,763 1,386 4,469 54,763

Appendix E - Rotated Component Matrix 1/12

1 2 3 4 5 6

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

kontanter för att

INTERNAL OBSTACLES INTERNAL DRIVERS AMOUNT SPECIFICSOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTCONVENIENCE

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

Pearson Correlation 1 -,244** -,306** -0,003 -,128** -,158**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,927 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,244** 1 ,361** ,253** ,362** ,275**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,306** ,361** 1 ,121** ,293** ,311**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -0,003 ,253** ,121** 1 ,232** ,127**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,927 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,128** ,362** ,293** ,232** 1 ,173**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,158** ,275** ,311** ,127** ,173** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att

Correlations - Sweden - Universal

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERSDet ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att CONVENIENCE

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

Universal - SWE

Male - SWE

Female - SWE

Age Group 1 - SWE

Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket

pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för

att

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag

undviker att använda kontanter för att

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter

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

När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter

Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller

äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att

Jag får själv betalt i kontanter

(åtminstone delvis) - Jag har

kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERS

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

AMOUNT SPECIFICSOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTTRAVEL EXTERNAL DRIVER

EXTERNAL DRIVER

Pearson Correlation 1 -,244** ,361** ,355** ,170** ,223** ,292**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation -,244** 1 -,306** -,116** -0,024 -0,016 -0,052Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,439 0,606 0,100Pearson Correlation ,361** -,306** 1 ,270** ,088** ,134** ,255**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,005 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation ,355** -,116** ,270** 1 ,105** ,189** ,241**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation ,170** -0,024 ,088** ,105** 1 0,022 0,028Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,439 0,005 0,001 0,476 0,376Pearson Correlation ,223** -0,016 ,134** ,189** 0,022 1 ,275**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,606 0,000 0,000 0,476 0,000Pearson Correlation ,292** -0,052 ,255** ,241** 0,028 ,275** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,100 0,000 0,000 0,376 0,000

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter AMOUNT SPECIFIC

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

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter TRAVEL

Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att INTERNAL DRIVERS

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att EXTERNAL DRIVER

Jag får själv betalt i kontanter (åtminstone delvis) - Jag har kontanter för att EXTERNAL DRIVER

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations - Sweden - Female

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag

använder vanligtvis kontanter

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag

undviker att använda kontanter för att

Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att

Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med

kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng,

reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att

använda kontanter för att

Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller

mobil - Jag har kontanter för att

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag

har kontanter för att

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

INTERNAL DRIVERS

EXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLECONVENIENCE

Pearson Correlation 1 -,306** ,121** -,090** ,311** ,293**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,004 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation -,306** 1 -0,003 ,244** -,158** -,128**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,927 0,000 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation ,121** -0,003 1 0,044 ,127** ,232**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,927 0,168 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation -,090** ,244** 0,044 1 -,063* ,083**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,004 0,000 0,168 0,045 0,008Pearson Correlation ,311** -,158** ,127** -,063* 1 ,173**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,045 0,000Pearson Correlation ,293** -,128** ,232** ,083** ,173** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,008 0,000

Correlations - Sweden - Male

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter AMOUNT SPECIFIC

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERS

Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLE

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att CONVENIENCE

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att

vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att

använda kontanter för att

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag

använder vanligtvis kontanter

Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för att

Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att

När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis

kontanter

INTERNAL DRIVERS INTERNAL OBSTACLE AMOUNT SPECIFIC SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT INTERNAL DRIVERS TRAVEL

Pearson Correlation 1 -,122** ,305** ,295** ,262** ,155**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,122** 1 -,306** -,107** -,185** -0,024

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,439

Pearson Correlation ,305** -,306** 1 ,185** ,301** ,088**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,005

Pearson Correlation ,295** -,107** ,185** 1 ,169** ,120**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation ,262** -,185** ,301** ,169** 1 0,037

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,236

Pearson Correlation ,155** -0,024 ,088** ,120** 0,037 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,439 0,005 0,000 0,236

När jag besöker andra länder - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanterTRAVEL

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanterAMOUNT SPECIFIC

Ge bort på födelsedagar, bröllop etc. - Jag har kontanter för attSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Det är enklare än att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för attINTERNAL DRIVERS

Correlations - Sweden - Age Group 1

Kunna lämna pengar på bordet på café/restaurang istället för att vänta på servitör - Jag har kontanter för att INTERNAL DRIVERS

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att INTERNAL OBSTACLE

Appendix F - Factor Analysis Validation 2/4

Age Group 2 - SWE

Age Group 3 - SWE

Universal - GER

Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter

för att

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att

använda kontanter för att

När beloppet är under 20 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 kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERS INTERNAL OBSTACLES AMOUNT SPECIFIC SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT CONVENIENCEEXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLE

Pearson Correlation 1 -,244** ,270** ,253** ,362** ,275**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation -,244** 1 -,268** -0,003 -,128** -,158**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,927 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation ,270** -,268** 1 ,084** ,224** ,304**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,007 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation ,253** -0,003 ,084** 1 ,232** ,127**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,927 0,007 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation ,362** -,128** ,224** ,232** 1 ,173**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Pearson Correlation ,275** -,158** ,304** ,127** ,173** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000

Det ger mig en möjlighet att hålla reda på hur mycket pengar jag har kvar - Jag har kontanter för att INTERNAL DRIVERS

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att INTERNAL OBSTACLES

När beloppet är under 20 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanterAMOUNT SPECIFIC

Correlations - Sweden - Age Group 2

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Ge som veckopeng/månadspeng, etc. till mina barn - Jag har kontanter för att SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för attCONVENIENCE

Det inte är alltid man kan betala med kort eller mobil - Jag har kontanter för att

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLE

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich

herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit

Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es

weniger Transaktionen

erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe

Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist -

Ich verwende Bargeld

normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder

Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe

Bargeld bei mir,...

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

EXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLESPearson Correlation 1 -,072* ,178** -,167** 0,045Sig. (2-tailed) 0,023 0,000 0,000 0,153N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,072* 1 ,143** ,162** ,135**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,023 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation ,178** ,143** 1 -0,013 ,098**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,682 0,002N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,167** ,162** -0,013 1 ,117**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,682 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation 0,045 ,135** ,098** ,117** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,153 0,000 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations - Germany - Universal

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,... EXTERNAL POSOTIVE OBSTACLES

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

INTERNAL DRIVERS

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har

kontanter för att

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis

kontanter

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag

undviker att använda kontanter för att

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

Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag

undviker att använda kontanter för att

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag

har kontanter för att

Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv

vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERS AMOUNT SPECIFICINTERNAL

OBSTACLESSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT EXTERNAL (NEGATIVE) DRIVERS CONVENCIENCE

EXTERNAL DRIVERS

Pearson Correlation 1 ,372** -,208** ,308** -,073* ,334** ,157**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,021 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation ,372** 1 -,306** ,270** -,090** ,293** ,134**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,004 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation -,208** -,306** 1 -,116** ,244** -,128** -0,016Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,606Pearson Correlation ,308** ,270** -,116** 1 0,026 ,299** ,189**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,413 0,000 0,000Pearson Correlation

-,073* -,090** ,244** 0,026 1 ,083** 0,027

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,021 0,004 0,000 0,413 0,008 0,393Pearson Correlation ,334** ,293** -,128** ,299** ,083** 1 ,193**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,008 0,000Pearson Correlation ,157** ,134** -0,016 ,189** 0,027 ,193** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,606 0,000 0,393 0,000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

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 attSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Jag får olika fördelar genom att betala med kort, t ex lojalitetspoäng, reseförsäkring, etc. - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att

EXTERNAL (NEGATIVE) DRIVERS

Kunna ge dricks på restauranger, hotell, etc. - Jag har kontanter för att CONVENCIENCE

När beloppet är under 50 kronor - Jag använder vanligtvis kontanter AMOUNT SPECIFIC

Det är tidsödande att ta ut pengar - Jag undviker att använda kontanter för att

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Jag sköter ekonomin åt någon annan, exv vårdtagare eller äldre släkting - Jag har kontanter för att

EXTERNAL DRIVERS

Correlations - Sweden - Age Group 3

Det känns osäkert ibland att betala med kort/mobil - Jag har kontanter för att

INTERNAL DRIVERS

Appendix F - Factor Analysis Validation 3/4

Male - GER

Female - GER

Age Group 1 - GER

Universal - GER

Es schwer ist, Geldautomaten zu

finden - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu

verwenden, weil...

Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei

mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als

Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei

mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich

verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone

bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich

verwende Bargeld

normalerweise...

INTERNAL OBSTACLE

INTERNAL DRIVERS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

CONVENIENCE TRAVEL

Pearson Correlation 1 -,108** ,178** -,168** 0,045 ,170** -0,030Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,153 0,000 0,343N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,108** 1 ,114** ,308** ,159** ,153** ,231**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation ,178** ,114** 1 0,028 ,098** ,284** ,113**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,371 0,002 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,168** ,308** 0,028 1 ,104** 0,053 ,235**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,371 0,001 0,095 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation 0,045 ,159** ,098** ,104** 1 ,123** ,126**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,153 0,000 0,002 0,001 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation ,170** ,153** ,284** 0,053 ,123** 1 ,099**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,095 0,000 0,002N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -0,030 ,231** ,113** ,235** ,126** ,099** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,343 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,002N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations - Germany - Female

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil…

Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise... TRAVEL

CONVENIENCE

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

INTERNAL DRIVERS

INTERNAL OBSTACLE

Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld

mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit

Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es

weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als

Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei

mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich

verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone

bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

INTERNAL OBSTACLE

INTERNAL DRIVERS

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

Pearson Correlation 1 -,176** ,106** -,153** ,117**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,176** 1 ,143** ,162** ,135**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation ,106** ,143** 1 -0,013 ,098**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,682 0,002N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation -,153** ,162** -0,013 1 ,117**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,682 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation ,117** ,135** ,098** ,117** 1Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Correlations - Germany - Male

Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 5 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

INTERNAL OBSTACLE

INTERNAL DRIVERS

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu

verwenden, weil...

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,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist -

Ich verwende Bargeld

normalerweise...

Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu

bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone

bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme

(zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

CONVENIENCEAMOUNT SPECIFIC

INTERNAL DRIVERSEXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLESTRAVEL

Pearson Correlation

1 ,102** -,211** -,064* ,117** 0,058

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,043 0,000 0,068N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,102** 1 0,053 ,198** ,123** ,232**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,095 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,211** 0,053 1 ,216** ,104** 0,043

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,095 0,000 0,001 0,172N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,064* ,198** ,216** 1 ,178** ,173**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,043 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,117** ,123** ,104** ,178** 1 0,045

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,154N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

0,058 ,232** 0,043 ,173** 0,045 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,068 0,000 0,172 0,000 0,154N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

Correlations - Germany - Age Group 1

AGE GROUP 1

Der Umgang mit dem Wechselgeld mühselig ist - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

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,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

CONVENIENCE

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

Da es sich Manchmal unsicher anfühlt mit Karte/Smartphone zu bezahlen - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da ich selbst Bargeld als Bezahlung bekomme (zumindest teilweise) - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

TRAVEL

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS

Appendix F - Factor Analysis Validation 4/4

Age Group 2 - GER

Age Group 3 - GER

Age Group 3 - GER

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu

verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu

bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich

habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich

habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei

mir,...

Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich

verwende Bargeld

normalerweise...

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS CONVENIENCE AMOUNT SPECIFCSOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTEXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLESTRAVEL

Pearson Correlation

1 -,072* ,170** -,168** ,178** 0,045 -0,030

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,023 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,153 0,343N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,072* 1 ,185** ,266** ,143** ,135** ,198**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,023 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,170** ,185** 1 0,053 ,284** ,123** ,099**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,095 0,000 0,000 0,002N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,168** ,266** 0,053 1 0,028 ,104** ,235**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,095 0,371 0,001 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,178** ,143** ,284** 0,028 1 ,098** ,113**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,371 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

0,045 ,135** ,123** ,104** ,098** 1 ,126**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,153 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-0,030 ,198** ,099** ,235** ,113** ,126** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,343 0,000 0,002 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Wenn ich andere Länder besuche - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil...

Da es schneller geht als mit Karten/Smartphone zu bezahlen und es weniger Transaktionen erzeugt - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

Correlations - Germany - Age Group 2

AGE GROUP 2

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

INTERNAL OBSTACLES

INTERNAL DRIVERS

CONVENIENCE

AMOUNT SPECIFC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

TRAVEL

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu

verwenden, weil...

Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone -

Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist -

Ich verwende Bargeld

normalerweise...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich

habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone

bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

INTERNAL OBSTACLE INTERNAL DRIVERSAMOUNT SPECIFIC

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTEXTERNAL POSITIVE

OBSTACLESCONVENIENCE

Pearson Correlation

1 -,108** -,168** ,178** 0,045 ,170**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,153 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,108** 1 ,308** ,114** ,159** ,153**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

-,168** ,308** 1 0,028 ,104** 0,053

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,371 0,001 0,095N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,178** ,114** 0,028 1 ,098** ,284**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,371 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

0,045 ,159** ,104** ,098** 1 ,123**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,153 0,000 0,001 0,002 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000Pearson Correlation

,170** ,153** 0,053 ,284** ,123** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,095 0,000 0,000N 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Da man damit leichter bezahlen kann als mit Karte/Smartphone - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Wenn der Betrag unter 10 Euro ist - Ich verwende Bargeld normalerweise...

Um es meinen Kindern als Taschengeld zu geben - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

Da man nicht überall mit Karte oder Smartphone bezahlen kann - Ich habe Bargeld bei mir,...

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,...

CONVENIENCE

EXTERNAL POSITIVE OBSTACLES

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

AMOUNT SPECIFIC

INTERNAL DRIVERS

Correlations - Germany - Age Group 3

AGE GROUP 3

Es schwierig ist, das Geld mit sich herumzutragen, z. B. keine Brieftasche - Ich vermeide es, Bargeld zu verwenden, weil... INTERNAL OBSTACLE

TRITA-ABE-MBT-18178

www.kth.se