Cash or Card: Consumer Perceptions of Payment Modes - Scholarly ...

associated with the purchase of pleasurable purchase types. Zellermayer (1996) suggests that
“choosing when to pay an expense is a relatively unique task that requires subjects to actually
look inward and reveal their preferences. Choosing how to pay, on the other hand, is highly
routine and more likely to be determined by habit than by immediate pain or pleasure
considerations. He argues that this is so “because different payment modes are “ubiquitous,
subjects may have revealed their memorised or programmed responses by associating each
expense with its typical, rather than emotionally-preferred, payment mode; a pain of paying
effect, then, ceases to exist” (Zellermayer, 1996:67).
As such, Zellermayer’s study does not examine the degree of pain associated with the use of
cards or cash so his work is not a clear indication that the use of cash inherently causes pain
to be experienced. This is interesting, as underpinning much of the assumptions underpinning
the transparency explanation is the notion that an electronic payment mode reduces the
degree of pain experience.
2.6.3: Transparency
Soman (2003) proposed that the explanation of these findings lies with the notion of
‘Transparency’. He defines payment transparency as “the relative salience of payment, both
in terms of physical form and the amount” (p. 175). Cash is the most transparent form of
payment in that the purchaser sees exactly what amount of money is being transferred. Card-
based modes have low transparency. He argues that high transparency correlates positively
with the degree of pain experienced when paying for products (he borrows Zellermayer’s
term ‘pain of paying’). He does not examine the degree of pain-pleasure associated with the
type of products purchased afford the subjects, and merely assumes that a high degree of
transparency, i.e., the use of cash equates positively with the degree of pain experienced.
Essentially he reports on the behaviours associated with the use of smart cards versus cash in
three contexts - making photocopies, laundromat use and supermarket purchases.
Photocopying: Soman (2003) found that participants using a photocopy card (M = 114.5)
made more copies compared to those who used cash to pay for photocopying (M = 77.25).
Laundromat use: Those who used laundromat pre-paid cards separated their laundry loads
in whites and colour and used the washing machine for longer periods (Soman 2003).
Cash users were more efficient and used the full capacity of the washing machine. He
suggests that participants were more willing to separate laundry when the payment
26