Mobile Commerce Adoption Scale

What it measures

Measures consumer adoption intentions for mobile commerce — shopping, payments, and transactions via mobile devices. Extends the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) with compatibility (how well m-commerce fits with the consumer's existing lifestyle and values) as an additional adoption driver. Widely used in m-commerce, mobile payment, and fintech adoption research.

Response format

Likert (1–7, strongly disagree to strongly agree)

Scale items

Perceived Usefulness — belief that mobile commerce enhances shopping performance (Likert 1–7, strongly disagree to strongly agree)

• Using mobile commerce would enable me to shop more quickly.
• Using mobile commerce would improve my shopping experience.
• Using mobile commerce would make it easier to find what I need.

Perceived Ease of Use — belief that mobile commerce is easy to use

• Learning to use mobile commerce would be easy for me.
• My interaction with mobile commerce would be clear and understandable.
• It would be easy for me to become skilled at using mobile commerce.

Perceived Compatibility — degree to which mobile commerce fits lifestyle and values

• Using mobile commerce fits well with the way I like to shop.
• Mobile commerce fits my lifestyle.
• Mobile commerce is compatible with how I manage my purchases.

Intention to Use mobile commerce

• I intend to use mobile commerce in the future.
• I will use mobile commerce for my shopping needs.
• I plan to use mobile commerce on a regular basis.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Four subscale scores. Score = mean per dimension. Compatibility is the key differentiator from TAM — it captures whether mobile commerce aligns with existing consumer habits and values. Widely used in research on mobile payment adoption (Apple Pay, Google Pay), super-apps, and digital wallet acceptance.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Wu, J.H., & Wang, S.C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(5), 719–729.

Keywords