This research, using an extended version of classical technology acceptance model (TAM), investigates the factors influencing the adoption behaviour of mobile technology in banking. Survey data on 214 banking customers in Kerala were analysed under a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework and the results confirm the usefulness of TAM in predicting mobile banking adoption behaviour. The exogenous constructs from the original TAM, perceived usefulness (PU), and perceived ease of use (PEU) along with two additional constructs in the extended model, perceived credibility (PC) and perceived self-efficacy (PSE), emerged out as significant antecedents of the behavioural intention of customers, especially of an educated youth, towards the use of mobile technology in banking. Findings ultimately suggest that accurate and consistent identification of customers’ propensity to adopt technology banking provides strategic map to banks from emerging markets to grow in underserved markets, achieve omni-channel presence, and disrupt value chain components.
ReedJ. FinTech financial technology and modern finance in the 21st century. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; 2016.
2.
KPMG. Digital payments: Analyzing the cyber landscape; 2017. Available from https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/04/Digital_payments_Analysing_the_cyber_landscape.pdf
3.
BarquinSVinayakHV. Digital banking in Asia: What do consumers really want? McKinsey; 2015. Available from http://zenithinfobank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Digital_Banking_in_Asia_What_do_consumers_really_want.pdf33
4.
AT Kearney. Technology’s double edge. San Francisco, CA: Annual CEO Retreat; 2015.
5.
KashyapKR.Moving up the value chain: The road ahead for Indian IT exporters. Gurgaon: Partridge Publishing; 2014.
6.
State Planning Board. Economic review. Kerala: State Planning Board; 2012.
7.
PaulD. A study on the banking habits of the people of Kerala. Doctoral Thesis. Malappuram: University of Calicut; 2013.
8.
TRAI. Press release no. 43/2017; 2017. Available from http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PR_No_43_Eng_13_06_2017.pdf
9.
ParkSY. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educ Technol Soc. 2009; 12(3):150–162.
10.
SafeenaRDateHKammaniAHundewaleN. Technology adoption and Indian consumers: Study on mobile banking. Int J Comput Theory Eng. 2012; 4(6):1020–1024.
11.
DavisFD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989; 13(3):318–339.
12.
LuarnPLinHH. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Comput Hum Behav. 2005; 21(6):873–891.
13.
ChinWToddP. On the use, usefulness, and ease of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of caution. MIS Q. 1995; 19(2):237–246.
14.
DollWJHendricksonADengX. Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease of use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multi-group invariance analysis. Decis Sci. 1998; 29(4):839–869.
15.
MathiesonKPeacockEChinWW. Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of perceived user resources. Data Base Adv Inf Syst. 2001; 32(3):86–112.
16.
LewisNKMollA. Predicting young consumers’ take up of mobile banking services. Int J Bank Mark. 2010; 28(5):410–432.
17.
MathiesonK. Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf Syst Res. 1991; 2(3):173–191.
18.
TaylorSToddPA. Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Inf Syst Res. 1995; 6(2):144–176.
19.
ChauPYKHuPJH. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparison approach. Decis Sci. 2001; 32(4):699–719.
20.
MoonJWKimYG. Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf Manage. 2001; 38(4):217–230.
21.
WangYHWangYMLinHHTangT. Determinants of user acceptance of Internet banking: An empirical study. Int J Serv Ind Manage. 2003; 14(5):501–519.
22.
FriedmanBKahnPHJrHoweDC. Trust online. Commun of the ACM. 2000; 43(12):34–40.
23.
GefenDKarahannaEStraubDW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q. 2003: 27(1):51–90.
24.
KimGShinBLeeHG. Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Inf Syst J. 2007; 19(3):283–311.
25.
LeeKCChungN. Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with mobile banking in Korea: A modified Delone and Mclean’s model perspective. Interact Comput. 2009; 21(5–6):385–392.
26.
QuanSHaoCJianxinY. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile service in China: An integration of TAM. J Comput. 2010; 5(5):799–806.
27.
BanduraASelf-efficacy. In: RamachaudranVS, editor. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1994; pp. 71–81. (Reprinted in Friedman H, editor. Encyclopedia of Mental Health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press).
28.
LinHHWangYH. An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Inf Manage. 2006; 43(3):271–282.
29.
GuJCLeeSCSuhYH. Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Syst Appl. 2009; 36(9):11605–11616.
30.
SinghSSrivastavaVSrivastavaR. Customer acceptance of mobile banking: A conceptual framework. SIES J Manage. 2010; 7(1):55–64.
31.
SadiANoordinMF. Factors influencing the adoption of M-commerce: An exploratory analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–24 January 2011. 2011; pp. 492–498.
32.
JeongBKYoonTE. An empirical investigation on consumer acceptance of mobile banking services. Bus Manage Res. 2013; 2(1):31–40.
33.
AboelmagedMGGebbaTR. Mobile banking adoption: An examination of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Int J Bus Res Dev. 2013; 2(1):35–50.
34.
SzajnaB. Software evaluation and choice: Predictive validation of the technology acceptance instrument. MIS Q. 1994; 18(3):319–324.
35.
AriffMSMYeowSMZakuanNJusohABahariAZ. The effects of computer self efficacy and technology acceptance model on behavioral intention to Internet banking systems. Proc Soc Behav Sci. 2012; 57:448–452.
36.
ErnovianteEMatNKNKassimURashidRShaariMSM. The usage of Internet banking service among higher learning students in Malaysia. Am J Econ. 2012; Special Issue:105–108.
37.
NasriWZaraiM. Empirical analysis of Internet banking adoption in Tunisia. Asian Econ Financ Rev. 2014; 4(12):1812–1825.
38.
AgarwalRSambamurthyVStairRM. Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy—An empirical assessment. Inf Syst Res. 2000; 11(4):418–430.
39.
VenkateshV. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Res. 2000; 11(4):342–365.
40.
MonsumeTPDellaertBGCRuyterK. What drives consumers to shop online? A literature review. Int J Serv Ind Manage. 2004; 15(1):102–121.
41.
VenkateshVDavisF. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manage Sci. 2000; 46(2):186–204.
42.
WuJHWangSC. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf Manage. 2005; 42(5):719–729.
43.
BrownLG. Convenience in services marketing. J Serv Mark. 1990; 4(1):53–59.
44.
CompeauDHigginsC. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995; 19(2):189–211.
DavisFD. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int J Man-Mach Stud. 1993; 38(3):475–487.
47.
OrjiR. Impact of gender and nationality on acceptance of a digital library: An empirical validation of nationality based UTAUT using SEM. J Emerg Trends Comput Inf Sci. 2010; 1:68–79.
48.
HairJFJrBlackWCBabinBJAndersonRETathamRL. Multivariate data analysis. New Delhi: Pearson Education; 2012.
