IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mnb/bullet/v7y2012i3p7-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Better safe than sorry: views of the Hungarian public on the security of payment instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Éva Divéki

    (Magyar Nemzeti Bank (central bank of Hungary))

  • Dániel Listár

    (Magyar Nemzeti Bank (central bank of Hungary))

Abstract

Our survey found that the Hungarian public considers bank cards to be the most secure electronic payment instrument. The positive perception of the bank card ranks immediately behind the perceived security of traditional payment instruments: the yellow cheque and cash. Nevertheless, one of the key findings of our article is that the less intensive use of state-of-the-art electronic payment instruments is not due primarily to security reasons, although such concerns may play a certain role, particularly in the case of online payment instruments. The sense of security in payment instruments relates mainly to familiarity and use. That is, consumers consider payment instruments they know and use to be safe, while lesser known and little used ones are perceived as less secure. Consequently, the use of cashless electronic payment instruments can be intensified mostly through the dissemination of information, which will elevate the sense of security in consumers as well. The majority of the population expects their own account keeping bank to convey information relating to payment instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Éva Divéki & Dániel Listár, 2012. "Better safe than sorry: views of the Hungarian public on the security of payment instruments," MNB Bulletin (discontinued), Magyar Nemzeti Bank (Central Bank of Hungary), vol. 7(3), pages 7-27, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:mnb:bullet:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:7-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mnb.hu/letoltes/diveki-listar-eng.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anneke Kosse, 2013. "The Safety of Cash and Debit Cards: A Study on the Perception and Behavior of Dutch Consumers," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 9(4), pages 77-98, December.
    2. Kosse, Anneke, 2013. "Do newspaper articles on card fraud affect debit card usage?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5382-5391.
    3. Julia S. Cheney, 2006. "Supply- and demand-side developments influencing growth in the debit market," Consumer Finance Institute discussion papers 06-11, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
    4. Schuh, Scott & Stavins, Joanna, 2010. "Why are (some) consumers (finally) writing fewer checks? The role of payment characteristics," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1745-1758, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tamás Ilyés & Lóránt Varga, 2015. "Show me how you pay and I will tell you who you are – Socio-demographic determinants of payment habits," Financial and Economic Review, Magyar Nemzeti Bank (Central Bank of Hungary), vol. 14(2), pages 25-61.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anneke Kosse & David-Jan Jansen, 2011. "Choosing how to pay: the influence of home country habits," DNB Working Papers 328, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    2. Kosse, Anneke, 2013. "Do newspaper articles on card fraud affect debit card usage?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5382-5391.
    3. Bruno Karoubi & Régis Chenavaz & Corina Paraschiv, 2016. "Consumers’ perceived risk and hold and use of payment instruments," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(14), pages 1317-1329, March.
    4. Lola Hernandez & Nicole Jonker & Anneke Kosse, 2017. "Cash versus Debit Card: The Role of Budget Control," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 91-112, March.
    5. Choi, Hyung Sun, 2013. "Money and risk of loss in an asset market segmentation model," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 146-155.
    6. Ardizzi, Guerino, 2012. "The Impact of the Microchip on the Card Frauds," MPRA Paper 41435, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Wilko Bolt & Sujit Chakravorti, 2010. "Digitization of Retail Payment," DNB Working Papers 270, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
    8. Imaduddin Sahabat & Teguh Dartanto & Haidy A. Passay & Diah Widyawati, 2017. "Electronics Payment Decisions of the Indonesian Urban Households: A Nested Logit Analysis of the Effects of the Payment Characteristics," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 7(5), pages 498-511.
    9. Anneke Kosse, 2013. "The Safety of Cash and Debit Cards: A Study on the Perception and Behavior of Dutch Consumers," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 9(4), pages 77-98, December.
    10. Egor Krivosheya & Polina Belyakova, 2019. "Financial innovations role in consumer behavior at Russian retail payments market," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 9511955, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    11. Krivosheya, Egor, 2020. "The role of financial innovations in consumer behavior in the Russian retail payments market," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    12. Greene, Claire & Prescott, Brian & Shy, Oz, 2022. "How people pay each other: Data, theory, and calibrations," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    13. Sergei Koulayev & Marc Rysman & Scott Schuh & Joanna Stavins, 2016. "Explaining adoption and use of payment instruments by US consumers," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(2), pages 293-325, May.
    14. Jonker, Nicole & van der Cruijsen, Carin & Bijlsma, Michiel & Bolt, Wilko, 2022. "Pandemic payment patterns," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Joanna Stavins & Huijia Wu, 2017. "Payment discounts and surcharges: the role of consumer preferences," Working Papers 17-4, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    16. Łukasz Goczek & Bartosz Witkowski, 2015. "Determinants of non-cash payments," NBP Working Papers 196, Narodowy Bank Polski.
    17. Marie-Hélène Felt & Angelika Welte & Katrina Talavera, 2024. "Untapped Potential: Mobile Device Ownership and Mobile Payments in Canada," Staff Working Papers 24-25, Bank of Canada.
    18. Vânia G. Silva & Esmeralda A. Ramalho & Carlos R. Vieira, 2017. "The Use of Cheques in the European Union: A Cross-Country Analysis," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 581-602, July.
    19. Shy Oz, 2012. "Account-to-Account Electronic Money Transfers: Recent Developments in the United States," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.
    20. Ulf Von Kalckreuth & Tobias Schmidt & Helmut Stix, 2014. "Using Cash to Monitor Liquidity: Implications for Payments, Currency Demand, and Withdrawal Behavior," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 46(8), pages 1753-1786, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    security; public view; payments.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • G21 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Banks; Other Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mnb:bullet:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:7-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Maja Bajcsy (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mnbgvhu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.