Mobile banking adoption of the youth market

Abstract

Purpose -This study aims to investigate consumers' mobile banking adoption through an integration of the technology acceptance model (TAM) with work on perceived benefits and perceived risks. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected from 435 university students who were non-users but future prospects, and analyzed by structural equation modeling (SEM). Findings -It was found that perceived usefulness, perceived social risk, perceived performance risk and perceived benefit directly affect attitudes towards mobile banking, and that attitude is the major determinant of mobile banking adoption intention. In addition, no direct relationship between perceived usefulness and intention to use, perceived ease of use and attitude, financial risk, time risk, security/privacy risk and attitude was detected. Research limitations/implications -This study reflects the perceptions of non-users and university students -potential future prospects -in an emerging country. The main theoretical contribution of this research is the development of a risk-benefit model by extending TAM. Practical implications -Banks should rely on increasing the benefit perceptions of mobile banking. Simultaneously, decreases in social and performance risk should be promoted strongly. Originality/value -In the study, the adoption intention of mobile banking is tested by integrating TAM with perceived benefits and perceived risks -social risk, performance risk, financial risk, time risk, security risk and privacy risk.

An Integrated Fuzzy Ahp and Aras Model to Evaluate Mobile Banking Services

“…In addition, privacy risk and security risk have been examined in M-banking adoption related studies. This is consistent with extant literature, which has shown privacy risk and security risk to have a strong positive relationship with behavioral intentions (Lee et al 2007;Laukkanen, Cruz 2008;Koenig-Lewis et al 2010;Wessels, Drennan 2010;Negash 2011;Akturan, Tezcan 2012;Chen 2013).…”

“…Adoption factors Luarn and Lin (2005) usefulness, convenience, credibility, self-efficacy, cost Laukkanen (2007) efficiency, convenience, safety Lee et al (2007) perceived risk, perceived usefulness, trust Laukkanen and Cruz (2008) usage, value, risk, tradition and image Kim et al (2009) relative benefits, trust, structural assurances Gu et al (2009) usefulness, convenience, trust Crabbe et al (2009) perceived credibility, facilitating conditions Püschel et al (2010) compatibility, convenience, relative benefit, visibility, demonstrability, image, triability, perceived behavioral control, facilitation condition, subjective norm, testability, intention Koenig-Lewis et al (2010) compatibility, perceived usefulness, risk, trust, cost Cruz et al (2010) cost, risk, perceived advantage, complexity Wessels and Drennan (2010) usefulness, risk, convenience, financial cost, compatibility Zhou et al (2010) task characteristics, technology characteristics, convenience conditions, task technology fit, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence Riquelme and Rios (2010) intention, perceived relative advantage, perceived risk, social norms, convenience, usefulness Singh et al (2010) usefulness, ease of use, subjective norms, self-efficacy, cost, safety, trust Lin (2011) perceived advantage, ease of use, compatibility, competence, benevolence, integrity Negash (2011) usefulness, convenience, enjoyment, network quality, security, privacy, trust, awareness, regulation, compliance Akturan and Tezcan (2012) risk, ease of use, usefulness, benefit Zhou (2012) structural assurance, ubiquity, ease of use, personal innovativeness Chen (2013) advantage, concurrency, trialability, complexity, different risk types, attitude, intention to use, brand image, brand awareness Hanafizadeh et al (2014) usefulness, ease of use, the need for interaction, risk, cost, compatibility with life style, credibility, trust Bidar et al (2014) usefulness, ease of use, security, privacy, compatibility, social influence, facilitating conditions, cost…”

Mobile banking in South Africa: A review and directions for future research

“…Considering the technological progress concerning mobile banking, mobile phones and smartphones as relatively young service communication channels offer potential in banking (Abbott 2015;Akturan & Tezcan 2012;Laukkanen & Lauronen 2005). According to Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) and Akturan and Tezcan (2012), the main reasons for mobile banking adoption are convenience, access to banking services at any time of the day or night and minimisation of effort, time and consultation costs.…”

“…According to Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) and Akturan and Tezcan (2012), the main reasons for mobile banking adoption are convenience, access to banking services at any time of the day or night and minimisation of effort, time and consultation costs. Considering these facts, we acknowledge that South African mobile banking: (1) improves banking skills, (2) simplifies bank account maintenance, and (3) …”

Comparative Human Development Thresholds for Absolute and Relative Pro-Poor Mobile Banking in Developing Countries

“…First, with regard to the former, the literature on mobile banking has been substantially based on using surveyed microeconomic data to assess mobile banking adoption intensions (Gu et al, 2009;Medhi et al, 2009;Daud et al, 2011;Akturan & Tezcan, 2012;Kazi & Mannan, 2013;Cudjoe et al, 2015;Alsheikh & Bojei, 2014). We contribute to this stream by: (i) broadening the analytical scope to 93 developing countries from country-specific studies and (ii) focusing on macroeconomic data.…”