E-Wallet

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Objectives of the Study............................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Method of Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Statistical Tool Used ................................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT ........................................................................... 9

3.1 Respondent Profile Analysis....................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Respondent Profile Analysis by Variable ........................................................................................... 9
3.2 Analysis Related to the Topic ................................................................................................... 13
3.2.1 Measuring E-Wallet Mobility Based on Students’ Hometown .................................................. 13
3.2.2 To Analyze the E-Wallet Conveniences Based on the Students’ Gender................................ 14
3.2.3 To Measure the Compatibility of E-Wallet Based on Students’ Race ...................................... 15
3.2.4 To Measure E-Wallet Knowledge Based on Student’s State ...................................................... 16
3.2.5 To Measure the Risk of Using E-Wallet Based on Hometown .................................................. 17
3.2.6 To Measure the Depth of Trust Students have on E-wallet Based on their Gender ............. 18
3.2.7 To Compute Respondent’s Intention to Appraise Social Influence in the Usage of E-
Wallet Based on Their Genders ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.8 Measuring Government Support Towards the Use of E-Wallet Based on Respondents’
Hometown ............................................................................................................................................................. 20
3.2.9 Measuring Perceive Ease to Use the E-Wallet According to the Respondents’ Usage of E-
wallet in Daily Life ............................................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.10 To Analyze the Perceive of Usefulness of E-Wallet According to Student’s Hometown 22
3.2.11 To Analyze Student’s Intention to Use E-Wallet Based on Type of E-Wallet Students
Prefer to Use ......................................................................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 24

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 25

2
 E-Wallet

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2.1: List of Measurement Scale of Different Variable ............................................................ 8
Table 3.1.1: Frequency and Percentage of Students’ State ................................................................ 10
Table 3.1.2: Number of Students, Percentage, Minimum, Maximum, Median, First Quartile, Third
Quartile and Interquartile Range of Family Income Grouped by Hometown ................................... 11
Table 3.2.1: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown .... 13
Table 3.2.2: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Gender .......... 14
Table 3.2.3: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Different Races
............................................................................................................................................................ 15
Table 3.2.4: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Different State
............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 3.2.5: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown .... 17
Table 3.2.6: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Gender .......... 18
Table 3.2.7: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of respondent’s
intentions to appraise social influence in the usage of E-Wallet. ...................................................... 19
Table 3.2.8: Hometown Mean and Standard Deviation for government support towards the use of E-
Wallet based on students’ hometown................................................................................................. 20
Table 3.2.9: The Number of Respondent, mean and standard deviation of respondents’ usage of e-
wallet in daily life .............................................................................................................................. 21
Table 3.2.10: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown .. 22
Table 3.2.11: Type of E-Wallet students prefer to use, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean
Score of student’s intentions to use E-Wallet based on type of E-Wallet students prefer to use ...... 23

3
 E-Wallet

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1.1: Pie Chart Showing Students’ Gender in Foundation Programmed ................................ 9
Figure 3.1.2: Pie Chart Showing Students’ Race ................................................................................. 9
Figure 3.1.3: Bar Graph of Number of Students from Each State ..................................................... 10
Figure 3.1.4: Box Plot of Family Income of People from Different Hometown ............................... 11
Figure 3.1.5: Pie Chart Showing How Many Students using E-Wallet in Daily Life ....................... 11
Figure 3.1.6: Horizontal Bar Chart of Type of E-Wallet Students Prefer to Use .............................. 12
Figure 3.1.7: Pie Chart Showing the Total Amount Spent on E-Wallet for Students in a Month ..... 12
Figure 3.2.1: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score of Students’ Hometown to Measure E-Wallet
Mobility.............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 3.2.2: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score to Measure E-Wallet Convenience Based on
Students’ Gender ................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3.2.3: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score to Measure E-Wallet Compatibility Based on
Students’ Races .................................................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3.2.4: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of Students’ State to measure E-Wallet knowledge
among students ................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.2.5: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score in analyzing risk of using E-Wallet based on
Students’ Hometown .......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.2.6: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of Different Gender on measuring depth of trust
students have on E-Wallet.................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 3.2.7: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of intention to appraise social influence in the
usage of E-Wallet. .............................................................................................................................. 19
Figure 3.2.8: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of government support towards the use of E-
Wallet based on respondents’ hometown........................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.2.9: Bar chart of Mean Score of respondents that use/not use e-wallet for the ease to use
the platform. ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3.2.10: Bar Graph of Mean Score in analyzing the Perceive of Usefulness of E-Wallet
according to Student’s Hometown ..................................................................................................... 22
Figure 3.2.11: Bar Graph of Mean Score of student’s intentions to use E-Wallet based on type of E-
Wallet students prefer to use .............................................................................................................. 23

4
 E-Wallet

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

E-Wallet, which is the other name of Digital Wallet, is a type of software program or online
service that enables users to perform online transactions through smartphone or computer. E-Wallet
serves the same function like a credit or debit card which it is need to be linked to one’s bank account
to make transactions. This digital wallet has two components as its main features, software and
information. The software component keeps personal information of users and securely protect the
data. As for the information component, it is a database of user-input information that includes
shipping address and transaction methods. Despite the useful functions, some individuals still have
divided opinions regarding E-Wallet’s effectiveness and security. Some will think E-Wallet is not
relevant and hard to be used.

In this research, a sample survey is conducted to get to know about the usage of E-Wallet
among the students in the Foundation programmed of Universiti Utara Malaysia. It is hoped that at
the end of this study, we can conclude on what factors that drive students to use E-Wallet and
enlighten those that are against E-Wallet to make use of the system more in the future.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this research of E-Wallet are:

i. To identify respondents’ background
ii. To investigate the willingness of respondents to use E-Wallet
iii. To observe the effectiveness of E-Wallet in daily life

5
 E-Wallet

CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY

2.1 Data Collection

First and foremost, our type of study is descriptive research in nature. Descriptive research is
defined as a research method that describes the characteristics of the population or phenomenon
studied. It concentrates on the “what” of the research instead of the “why” of the research.
Descriptive research typically relates to research issues, design of the research and data analysis
related to the topic of interest. In this case, it refers to the factors influencing students of University
Utara Malaysia behavioral intention to use E-Wallet.

There are a lot of methods that can be used to collect data. For our research, we have collected
primary data through a set of questionnaires that was answered by the students of the Foundation
programmed of Universiti Utara Malaysia. The questionnaires were prepared through Google Form.
Out of 221 students from the Foundation programmed of Universiti Utara Malaysia, 171 students
were willing to spend their valuable time to fill a set of questionnaires to find out the factors that
influence their intention to use E-Wallet.

For our “Factors Influencing Students of Universiti Utara Malaysia Behavioral Intention to
Use E-Wallet” research, we have used a Google Form as a platform to record the results of the
questionnaires as it can be represented in an Excel spreadsheet systematically. The link accessible
to the Google Form was provided to the students in WhatsApp so that every student can fill up the
questionnaires in the Google Form. The students are required to fill up their matric number and
group to confirm their identity beforehand. After identification, the students are required to answer
38 questions that are related to the factors influencing students to use E-Wallet. In terms of
agreement, scale 1 represents that the respondent strongly disagrees with the statement while 7
represents that the respondent strongly agrees with the statement.

The list of questions related to factors influencing students of Universiti Utara Malaysia
behavioral intention to use E-Wallet are as follow:
Factor 1: Measuring Mobility
1. I believe E-Wallet is independent of time.
2. I believe E-Wallet is independent of place.
3. I can use E-Wallet whenever I want.
Factor 2: Measuring Convenience
6
 E-Wallet
4. E-Wallet is convenient because I can use it anytime.
5. E-Wallet is convenient because I always carry a mobile phone.
6. E-Wallet is convenient because I can use it in any condition.
7. E-Wallet is convenient because mobile payment service is not complicated.
Factor 3: Measuring Compatibility
8. I believe E-Wallet is compatible with current technology.
9. I believe E-Wallet is compatible with other provided mobile services.
10. I believe E-Wallet is compatible with my daily routine activity.
Factor 4: Measuring E-Wallet Knowledge
11. I will use E-Wallet easily and effectively.
12. I mainly use E-Wallet to purchase goods or services through the mobile phone.
13. I will be confident to use E-Wallet services for financial transactions.
Factor 5: Measuring Risk
14. Other people may know about my online transactions if I use E-Wallet.
15. There is a great potential to lose money if I buy goods on the Internet/social networking
using E-Wallet.
16. There is significant risk in Internet shopping/social network using E-Wallet.
17. I think dealing with E-Wallet is a risky choice.
Factor 6: Measuring Trust
18. Service providers always provide accurate financial services.
19. Service providers always provide reliable financial services.
20. Service providers always provide safe financial services.
Factor 7: Measuring Social Influence
21. People who influence my behavior think that I should use E-Wallet.
22. My friends think that I should use E-Wallet.
23. Using E-Wallet is considered a status symbol among my friends.
24. People who are important to me expect me to use E-Wallet technology
Factor 8: Measuring Government Support
25. The government encourages payment transaction using E-Wallets.
26. The government ensures E-Wallets server facilities.
27. The government encourages payment innovation via E-Wallets.
28. The government controls E-Wallets payment operations.
Factor 9: Measuring Perceive Ease of Use
29. Interaction with E-Wallet is clear and understandable.
30. Interaction with E-Wallet does not require mental effort.
7
 E-Wallet
31. I think it is easy to use E-wallet to do what I want to do.
32. In general, E-Wallet is easy to use.
Factor 10: Measuring Perceive Usefulness
33. Using E-Wallet will allow me to pay faster.
34. Using E-Wallet makes it easier for me to carry out transactions.
35. I will find a useful E-Wallet to pay for services.
Factor 11: Measuring Intention to Use
36. I will use E-Wallets for payment transactions.
37. I prefer using E-Wallets for payment transactions.
38. In the future, I will use E-Wallets for payment transactions.

2.2 Method of Data Analysis

Respondents are required to fill in their gender, race, state of living, hometown and family
income. This demographic information will be used to compare with the mean score of level of
agreement. Mean score is the average score of level of agreement for each respondent for each
question related to the factors influencing students of Universiti Utara Malaysia behavioral intention
to use E-Wallet. This is calculated by dividing 38 after summing up all the level of satisfaction chosen
by the respondents.
In terms of scale of measurement, the scale of measurement of qualitative data is nominal while
the scale of measurement of quantitative data is interval and ratio. The following table shows the
scale of measurement for all the variable included in the survey.

Table 2.2.1: List of Measurement Scale of Different Variable

Variable Measurement Scale

Gender Nominal
Race Nominal
State Nominal
Hometown Nominal
Family Income Ratio
The Usage of E-Wal;et Nominal
Type of E-Wallet Nominal
Monthly Spend on E-Wallet Interval

2.3 Statistical Tool Used

The software that we used to analyze the data collected is Microsoft Excel. We will use the formulas
and the functions that were already available in Microsoft Excel to construct graphs and charts. It is
the best software to collect, measure, analyze and make decisions for our research. This can enable
us to fully understand the data collected in an easy manner.

8
 E-Wallet

CHAPTER 3
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

3.1 Respondent Profile Analysis

3.1.1 Respondent Profile Analysis by Variable

GENDER
Male Female

36, 21%

135, 79%

Figure 3.1.1: Pie Chart Showing Students’ Gender in Foundation Programmed

Pie chart in Figure 3.1.1 shows the gender of foundation students that answered the survey of the
factors influencing students of Universiti Utara Malaysia behavioral intention to use E-Wallet. From
the pie chart, we can see that female has the highest frequency with 135 students while there are only
36 male students, totaling to 171 students, So, we can see that most of the students who answered
this survey is female. The mode of gender is female which occupy 79% of the foundation population,
while male students only occupy up to 21%.

RACE
3% 3%
6%
Malay
Chinese
Indian
88% Others

Figure 3.1.2: Pie Chart Showing Students’ Race

Figure 3.1.2 shows the foundation student’s races that answered the survey. Based on Figure 3.1.2,
it shows that Malay is the major race from the sample students, the total of Malay students is 151

9
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
students, forming 88% of the students. The total of Chinese students from foundation programmed
is 10 students, forming 6% of the students. Indians and others share the same number of students
where there are 5 students from Indians and 5 students from others, and each race represents 3% of
the students in the foundation programmed. The mode of the student’s races is Malay.

Table 3.1.1: Frequency and Percentage of Students’ State

State Frequency Percentage (%)

Johor 14 8.19
Kedah 37 21.64
Kelantan 3 1.75
Kuala Lumpur 5 2.92
Melaka 7 4.09
Negeri Sembilan 5 2.92
Pahang 5 2.92
Perak 26 15.20
Perlis 11 6.43
Pulau Pinang 22 12.87
Sabah 5 2.92
Sarawak 1 0.58
Selangor 23 13.45
Terengganu 7 4.09
Total 171 100.00
40 37
35
No of Students

30 26
22 23
25
20 14
15 11
10 5 7 5 5 5 7
3 1
5
0

State

Figure 3.1.3: Bar Graph of Number of Students from Each State

Table 3.1.3 and vertical bar graph in Figure 3.1.3 shows the foundation students’ origin of state. From
the graph above, we can say that the modal state is Kedah, meaning that most of the students come
from Kedah. It represents 21.64% of the student’s population with the number of 37 students out of
171 students. Conversely, only one student from Sarawak forming only 0.58% of the students. The
second highest number of the students come from Perak with 26 students, representing 15.2% of the

10
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
students. There are also 5 students who came from Sabah and represents 2.92% of the students,
totaling 3.5% of the students from the East Malaysia which is Sabah and Sarawak.

Table 3.1.2: Number of Students, Percentage, Minimum, Maximum, Median, First Quartile, Third Quartile
and Interquartile Range of Family Income Grouped by Hometown

Hometown N Percentage Minimum Maximum Median Q1 Q3 IQR

Urban 102 59.65 0 22000 5115.5 3005 10000 6995
Rural 69 40.35 450 21000 6000.0 4000 10000 6000
Total 171 100.00 0 22000 6000.0 3500 10000 6500

Figure 3.1.4: Box Plot of Family Income of People from Different Hometown

Based on Table 3.1.2 and the box plot in Figure 3.1.4, we can see that people who come from rural
area have higher median which is 6000 compared to that of urban area which only have 5115.5 for
median. Median is suitable to use as the central tendency measurement. This shows that, generally
people living in the rural area is richer than those who live in the urban area. The average of income
for urban area is lower than rural area which is 8024.1 compared to that of rural area which have
8290 for average. Therefore, showing that most of the people living in rural area are richer.

ARE YOU USING EWALLET IN YOU

DAILY LIFE
Yes No

50% 50%

Figure 3.1.5: Pie Chart Showing How Many Students using E-Wallet in Daily Life

11
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
From the pie chart in Figure 3.1.5, we can see that both students who use and do not use E-Wallet in
their daily life have the same percentage which is 50% each. Therefore, we can say that from 171
students of foundation programmed, half from it use E-Wallet in their daily life while the other half
do not use E-Wallet in their daily life.

Type of E-Wallet Students Prefer To Use

No 15
Touch 'n Go 127
Top Up 1
ShopeePay 2
QRPay 6
Kiple pay 6
GrabPay 6
Boost 7
Bigpay 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Figure 3.1.6: Horizontal Bar Chart of Type of E-Wallet Students Prefer to Use

From the horizontal bar chart in Figure 3.1.6, we can see that 127 students out of 171 students prefer
to use Touch ‘n Go application as their E-Wallet. So, we can say that majority students from
foundation programme used Touch ‘n Go application as their E-Wallet than other application. The
other applications such as GrabPay, Kiple Pay, and QRPay, there are 6 students used each of these
applications, totaling 18 students, 7 students use Boost, 1 student each for using BigPay and Top Up,
and 2 students use ShopeePay. There are 156 students use E-Wallet while there are 15 students did
not use any type of E-Wallet. The mode of type of E-Wallet students prefer to use is Touch ‘n Go.

How much Students spend

1%
on ewallet in a month
1% 1%
2% 1%

94%

at most 100 at most 200 at most 300 at most 400 at most 500 at most 2500
.
Figure 3.1.7: Pie Chart Showing the Total Amount Spent on E-Wallet for Students in a Month

Pie chart in Figure 3.1.7 shows the total amount spent on E-Wallet for students in a month. We can
see that most of the students spend on E-Wallet at most RM100 in a month. There are 161 students
12
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
out of 171 students spend at most RM100 on E-Wallet, forming 94%. There are 4 students spend at
most RM200 on E-Wallet in a month, forming 2% and 1 or 2 students spend at most RM300, RM400,
RM500 and RM2500 represents 1% each. The modal class of total students spend on E-Wallet in a
month is at most 100. To conclude, we can say that most of the students spend no more than RM100
on E-Wallet.

3.2 Analysis Related to the Topic

3.2.1 Measuring E-Wallet Mobility Based on Students’ Hometown

Table 3.2.1: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown

Hometown N Mean Standard Deviation

Rural 69 5.28985507 1.38576452
Urban 102 5.37908497 1.38039986
Total 171 5.34307992 1.38039986
5.4
5.37908497
5.38
5.36
Mean Score

5.34
5.32
5.3 5.28985507
5.28
5.26
5.24
Rural Urban
Hometown

Figure 3.2.1: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score of Students’ Hometown to Measure E-Wallet
Mobility

Based on Table 3.2.1 and Figure 3.2.1, we can clearly see that the urban area has a higher mean score
than the rural area. The mean score for the urban area is 5.37908497 while the mean score for the
rural area is 5.28985507. This shows that respondents that are living in the urban areas has a higher
ability to move freely towards the use of E-Wallet and they can use E-Wallet service whenever they
want. However, the standard deviation in the rural area is higher than the standard deviation in the
urban area. The standard deviation for the rural area is 1.38576452. For the urban area, the standard
deviation is slightly lower compared to the standard deviation in the rural area. It has a standard
deviation of 1.38039986. This shows that the rural area has a higher variation than the urban area.

13
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
3.2.2 To Analyze the E-Wallet Conveniences Based on the Students’ Gender
Table 3.2.2: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Gender

Gender N Mean Standard Deviation

Male 36 5.77083333 1.33073943
Female 135 5.62407407 1.32692199
Total 171 5.65497076 1.32692199
5.8 5.77083333

5.75
Mean Score

5.7

5.65 5.62407407

5.6

5.55
Male Female
Gender

Figure 3.2.2: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score to Measure E-Wallet Convenience Based on
Students’ Gender

Based on Table 3.2.2 and Figure 3.2.2, it shows that male has a higher mean score than female. The
mean score for male is 5.77083333 while the mean score for female is 5.62407407. This shows that
a higher percentage of male students think that it is more convenient to use E-Wallet than using cash
to make transactions compared to female students. On the other hand, the standard deviation for male
and female is almost the same. The standard deviation for male is higher that the standard deviation
of female. Male has a standard deviation of 1.33073943 while female has a standard deviation of
1.32692199. Hence, the variation of male and female students is almost the same.

14
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet

3.2.3 To Measure the Compatibility of E-Wallet Based on Students’ Race

Table 3.2.3: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Different Races

Race N Mean Standard Deviation

Malay 151 5.64459161 1.17638043
Chinese 10 5.46666667 1.21618074
Indian 5 6 1.21360997
Others 5 5.86666667 1.15943264
Total 171 5.65107213 1.17638043

Others 5.86666667

Indian 6
Races

Chinese 5.46666667

Malay 5.64459161

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1

Mean Score

Figure 3.2.3: Bar Chart of Mean for Mean Score to Measure E-Wallet Compatibility Based on
Students’ Races

According to Table 3.2.3 and Figure 3.2.3, it shows that Indian has the highest mean score among all
the other races, which are Malay, Chinese and Others. This is followed by Others, Malay and Chinese.
Indian and Others have a mean score of 6 and 5.86666667 respectively. This shows that Indians are
more optimistic about the compatibility of E-Wallet towards the technology of our country. For the
standard deviation, Chinese has the highest standard deviation, which is 1.21618074. Conversely,
Others have the lowest standard deviation, which is 1.15943264. This shows that the variation among
the Chinese is higher compared to other races.

15
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
3.2.4 To Measure E-Wallet Knowledge Based on Student’s State

Table 3.2.4: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Different State

State N Mean Standard Deviation

Johor 14 5.166666667 1.247762225
Kedah 37 5.144144144 1.594575161
Kelantan 3 4.555555556 1.424000624
Kuala Lumpur 5 5.133333333 1.552264091
Melaka 7 5.428571429 1.028174527
Negeri Sembilan 5 5.6 1.183215957
Pahang 5 4.2 1.740279124
Perak 26 5.371794872 1.46037688
Perlis 11 4.303030303 1.489229005
Pulau Pinang 22 5.212121212 1.29514064
Sabah 5 5.2 0.861891607
Sarawak 1 4 -
Selangor 23 5.333333333 1.491807694
Terengganu 7 5.761904762 1.578124263
Total 171 5.167641326 1.462809026

Terengganu 5.761904762
Selangor 5.333333333
Sarawak 4
Sabah 5.2
Pulau Pinang 5.212121212
Perlis 4.303030303
Perak 5.371794872
State

Pahang 4.2
Negeri Sembilan 5.6
Melaka 5.428571429
Kuala Lumpur 5.133333333
Kelantan 4.555555556
Kedah 5.144144144
Johor 5.166666667

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Score

Figure 3.2.4: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of Students’ State to measure E-Wallet
knowledge among students

Based on table 3.2.4 and figure 3.2.4, the mean of mean score for all states are at least 4 generally.
This shows that students from all states in Foundation programme know about E-Wallet system quite
well. It can be seen that students from Terengganu, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka are more exposed

16
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
to the E-Wallet system. The mean for Terengganu, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka is 5.761904762, 5.6
and 5.428571429 respectively. Meanwhile, the states that have among the lowest mean are Sarawak,
Pahang and Perlis which are 4, 4.2 and 4.303030303 respectively. The reason might be because the
students from these states are not really exposed to the E-Wallet. The standard deviation shows that
generally all the data varies with the mean of mean by score in between 0.8 to 1.8. It can be seen that
variation of data from the mean of students from Pahang are relatively higher than other states because
students from Pahang have a standard deviation of more than 1.7 which are significantly higher than
other states which have standard deviation less than 1.5. There is no standard deviation of Sarawak
because there is only one student comes from that state. Therefore, there is no variation of data from
the mean of mean score.

3.2.5 To Measure the Risk of Using E-Wallet Based on Hometown

Table 3.2.5: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown

Hometown N Mean Standard Deviation

Rural 69 4.503623188 1.552705998
Urban 102 4.218137255 1.470083138
Total 171 4.333333333 1.509365589
4.55 4.503623188
4.5
4.45
4.4
Mean Score

4.35
4.3
4.25 4.218137255
4.2
4.15
4.1
4.05
rural urban
Hometown

Figure 3.2.5: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score in analyzing risk of using E-Wallet based on
Students’ Hometown

From the above Table 3.2.5 and Figure 3.2.5, mean of mean score of rural area is 4.503623188
meanwhile urban area has score of 4.218137255. Students from rural have higher mean of mean score
about 0.3 more than urban area. Therefore, we can clearly see that students from rural area think that
using an E-Wallet is a risky choice to make transaction compared to students that live in urban area.

17
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
The students that live in rural area tend to think that there are other people that may know about their
transaction and great potential to lose money if they use E-Wallet. As for standard deviation, the score
for rural area is higher than urban area which are 1.552705998 and 1.470083138 respectively. It
shows that the variation of data from the mean of rural hometown are slightly higher than urban
hometown. The reason is the students from rural hometown have more variety ideas regarding the
risk of E-Wallet that make their answers vary more compared to students from urban area.

3.2.6 To Measure the Depth of Trust Students have on E-wallet Based on their Gender

Table 3.2.6: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Gender

Gender N Mean Standard deviation

Female 135 4.975308642 1.031380271
Male 36 5.138888889 1.171773425
Total 171 5.009746589 1.063373967
5.2

5.15 5.138888889

5.1
Mean Score

5.05

5 4.975308642

4.95

4.9

4.85
female male
Gender

Figure 3.2.6: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of Different Gender on measuring depth of trust
students have on E-Wallet

Based on table 3.2.6 and figure 3.2.6, the bar graph shows the mean score to measure the depth of
trust students have on E-Wallet based on student’s gender. The male students have higher mean score
of 5.138888889 compared to female students’ score which is 4.975308642. The reason male students
have higher mean score because they have higher trust on E-Wallet compared to female students.
Male students believe more that service providers of E-Wallet always provide accurate, reliable and
safe financial services. Female students can be seen more careful in trusting the E-Wallet system. As
for standard deviation, male students have higher value than female students. Male students’ standard

18
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
deviation is 1.171773425 meanwhile female students’ standard deviation is 1.031380271. It shows
that female students have more common way of thinking regarding their trust on E-Wallet service.
On the other hand, the male students are opposite which they have more variation of data from the
mean score that shows that they have different depth of trust on E-Wallet more than female students.

3.2.7 To Compute Respondent’s Intention to Appraise Social Influence in the Usage of E-

Wallet Based on Their Genders

Table 3.2.7: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of respondent’s intentions to
appraise social influence in the usage of E-Wallet.

Genders N Mean Standard Deviation

Male 36 4.673611111 1.616479214
Female 135 3.777777778 1.619302246
Total 171 3.966374269 1.658302069
SOCIAL INFLUNCE IN THE USAGE OF E-WALLET BASED ON
GENDERS

FEMALE 3.777777778

MALE 4.673611111

Figure 3.2.7: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of intention to appraise social influence in the
usage of E-Wallet.

In the analysis of Table 3.2.7 and Figure 3.2.7 it shows that the highest mean of mean score is male
respondents. It shows that male respondents are likely to get influenced in using E-wallet by the social
environment that they find the benefit and effect of using this service. Mean is chosen as the central
tendency measurement because the method considers all the data. On the other hand, from the Figure
3.2.7 we can clearly see that the mean score for the Female respondents is 3.777777778, lower than
the mean score of male respondents, which is 4.673611111, showing that female students did not
really get exposed by social influenced over E-wallet usage. In the perspective of variable
measurement, male and female respondents have quite a similar standard deviation value which is
1.616479214 for male and 1.619302246 for female’s respondents. The survey to measure the social
influenced of social influence in the usage of E-Wallet are ‘People who influence my behavior think
19
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
that I should use E-wallet’, ‘My friends think that I should use E-wallet’, ‘Using E-wallet is
considered a status symbol among my friends’, ‘People who are important to me expect me to use E-
wallet technology.

3.2.8 Measuring Government Support Towards the Use of E-Wallet Based on Respondents’
Hometown

Table 3.2.8: Hometown Mean and Standard Deviation for government support towards the use of E-Wallet
based on students’ hometown.

Hometown N Mean Standard Deviation

Rural 69 5.467391304 1.126065591
Urban 102 5.18627451 1.174925516
Total 171 5.299707602 1.16284597

Government support towards the use of E-

5.5 Wallet
5.45
5.467391304
5.4
5.35
5.3
5.25
5.2
5.15 5.18627451
5.1
5.05
5
RURAL URBAN

Figure 3.2.8: Bar Graph of Mean for Mean Score of government support towards the use of E-
Wallet based on respondents’ hometown.

Based on Table 3.2.8 and Figure 3.2.8, we can see that respondents from rural hometown mean score
for the government support in the usage of E-wallet is higher than respondents from urban. The mean
is frequently used measure of central tendency because it uses all values of the data set to give an
average. Mean for rural is 5.467391304 while mean from urban respondents are 5.18627451 Also,
the standard deviation for rural is 1.126065591 and urban 1.174925516 respectively. The standard
deviation for both hometowns does not have a huge difference which likely mean that the government
in charge do give enough support for the usage of E-Wallet. The questions that has been asked in this
research to measure if the government give enough support in E-wallet usage are ‘The government
encourages payment transaction using E-wallets’, ‘The government ensures E-wallets server

20
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 E-Wallet
facilities’, ‘The government encourages payment innovation via E-wallets’ and ‘The government
controls E-wallets payment operations.

3.2.9 Measuring Perceive Ease to Use the E-Wallet According to the Respondents’ Usage of E-
wallet in Daily Life

Table 3.2.9: The Number of Respondent, mean and standard deviation of respondents’ usage of e-wallet in
daily life

Respondents’ usage of E-wallet in daily life N Mean Standard Deviation

Yes 85 5.632352941 1.148352825
No 86 5.276162791 1.27634287
Total 171 5.453216374 1.22653849

Mean of Ease to Use the E-Wallet According to the Respondents’ usage of

E-wallet in daily life

NO 5.276162791

YES 5.632352941

5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Figure 3.2.9: Bar chart of Mean Score of respondents that use/not use e-wallet for the ease to use
the platform.

According to the Table 3.2.9 and Figure 3.2.9 we can say that the respondents that use the E-Wallet
services in daily life say that using E-Wallet is effortless and easy than respondents that barely use E-
Wallet in daily life. The mean of E-Wallet users in daily life is 5.632352941, higher than respondents
that did not use the services in daily life, which is 5.276162791. For the standard deviation, the
respondents whom choose yes to using e-wallet in daily life is 1.148352825 while the standard
deviation for respondents that choose no is 1.27634287. The standard deviation from respondents that
use E-Wallet in daily life prove that E-Wallet is easy and bring ease for them as they use the service
more than the respondents that did not use the services every day. The question to measure Perceive
Ease to Use the E-Wallet According to the respondents’ usage of E-wallet in daily life are ‘Interaction
with E-wallet is clear and understandable’, ‘Interaction with E-wallet does not require mental effort’,
‘I think it is easy to use E-wallet to do what I want to do’ and ‘In general, E-wallet is easy to use’.

21
AQ0023 Fundamental of Mathematics 2 Wallet
E-3.2.10 To Analyze the Perceive of Usefulness of E-Wallet According to Student’s
Hometown
Table 3.2.10: Number of Students, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of Hometown

Hometown N Mean Standard Deviation

Urban 102 5.85620915 1.026969
Rural 69 5.68115942 1.121192
Total 171 5.78557505 1.068378

Rural 5.68115942
Hometown

Urban 5.85620915

5.55 5.6 5.65 5.7 5.75 5.8 5.85 5.9

Mean Score

Figure 3.2.10: Bar Graph of Mean Score in analyzing the Perceive of Usefulness of E-Wallet
according to Student’s Hometown

Based on Table 3.2.10 and Figure 3.2.10, we can see that the mean score of students from urban area
is higher than the mean score of students from rural area. The mean score of students from urban area
is 5.85620915 while the mean score of students from rural area is 5.68115942. So, we can say that E-
Wallet is more useful for students who live in urban hometown than students who live in rural area.
The standard deviation for students who live in urban and rural area is 1.026969 and 1.121192
respectively. It shows that all the mean scores only different from each hometown only a little bit
which is 0.17505.

22
 E-Wallet

3.2.11 To Analyze Student’s Intention to Use E-Wallet Based on Type of E-Wallet Students
Prefer to Use

Table 3.2.11: Type of E-Wallet students prefer to use, Mean and Standard Deviation for Mean Score of
student’s intentions to use E-Wallet based on type of E-Wallet students prefer to use

Type of E-Wallet students prefer to use N Mean Standard Deviation

BigPay 1 7 0
Boost 7 4.952381 1.116969
GrabPay 6 6.611111 0.777544
Kiple Pay 6 4.166667 1.248529
QRPay 6 5.944444 1.258955
ShopeePay 2 6.5 0.547723
Top Up 1 4.666667 0.57735
Touch `n Go 127 5.128609 1.316593
No 15 4.422222 1.544622
Total 171 5.130604 1.375177
8 7 6.611111111 6.5
7 5.944444444
6 4.952380952 5.128608924
Mean Score

4.666666667 4.422222222
5 4.166666667
4
3
2
1
0

Type of E-Wallet students prefer to use

Figure 3.2.11: Bar Graph of Mean Score of student’s intentions to use E-Wallet based on type of E-
Wallet students prefer to use

Based on Table 3.2.11 and Figure 3.2.11, we can see that BigPay have the highest mean which is 7.
The second highest mean is GrabPay which is 6.611111 and the third highest mean is ShopeePay
which is 6.5. So, we can say that these three types of E-Wallet give the best services to their users
that cause user’s intention to use these E-Wallet’s applications as their payment method. Mean is
chosen as the central tendency measurement because the method considers all the data. The lowest
mean is Kiple pay which is 4.166667 and we can say that Kiple pay users are not intended to use E-
Wallet application as their payment method. The lowest standard deviation is BigPay which is 0 and
it shows that BigPay users are intended to use E-Wallet as their payment method. To conclude, we
can say that BigPay users are the most intended to use E-Wallet as their payment method and BigPay
have given the best service to their users.

23
 E-Wallet

CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION

4.1 Conclusion

From the analysis made based on the respondent profile analysis, we can see that half of the
students prefer to use E-Wallet while half of the students does not have the intention to use E-Wallet
inside the campus. This is due to the fact that a lot of shops inside the campus does not accept E-
Wallet yet. Hence, the Centre for Foundation Studies of Universiti Utara Malaysia should encourage
and assist the owners to introduce the E-Wallet feature to their shops so that more students will be
able to use E-Wallet to make transactions, especially Touch n’ Go. This is because Touch n’ Go is
the most popular E-Wallet among the students because of its ease of use.

Next, for the analysis related to factors influencing students of Universiti Utara Malaysia
behavioral intention to use E-Wallet, we can observe the number of female students that have the
intention to use E-Wallet is higher than male students. However, this situation can be caused by the
lower number of males in the Foundation programmed. Thus, to solve this problem, the Centre of
Foundation Studies should consider offering more places to the male students so that the usage of E-
Wallet between two genders can be standardized.

In addition, the analysis shows that types of hometown can also influence the intention of
students to use E-Wallet. It can be seen that students from the urban area will use E-Wallet more to
make transactions compared to students from the rural area. This is because the urban area is highly
developed with high-end technologies. A majority of businesses will provide E-Wallet service for
users to use. Hence, using E-Wallet in the urban area is much more convenient compared to the rural
area.

In conclusion, based on the project above, we can simply state that the Centre of Foundation
Studies should conduct this type of survey regularly to get a better view of the students’ behavioral
intention to use E-Wallet. The Centre of Foundation Studies can improve from time to time so that
every student will be willing to use E-Wallet to make transactions.

24
 E-Wallet

REFERENCES

1. Kagan, J. (2019). What Is a Digital Wallet? Investopedia.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/digital-wallet.asp
2. The Economic Times. (2019). What is E-wallets? Definition of E-wallets, E-wallets
Meaning - The Economic Times. The Economic Times.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/e-wallets
3. Wikipedia Contributors. (2019, September 10). Digital wallet. Wikipedia; Wikimedia
Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_wallet

25