This research aims to explore the adoption and usage pattern of neobanks in Kerala using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) incorporated with trust and demographic characteristics. Data were collected from 210 young adults aged 17–35 through an online questionnaire. Hypotheses developed were tested using non-parametric tests like Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis H test in SPSS for demographic variables and partial least square-structural equation modelling (SEM) for the remaining variables. The results indicate that behavioural intention (BI) significantly influences actual neobank usage, with perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) that are crucial factors driving neobank acceptance. However, trust (T) does not significantly impact the BI to use neobanks among young customers but has a significant effect on PU. Additionally, gender emerges as significant demographic factor that affects neobank acceptance, while age, educational qualification, and occupation exhibit no significant effects. These insights help to identify key factors influencing neobank adoption, aiding in effective service expansion and business model development for neobanks. They also assist neobank managers in crafting marketing strategies that emphasize convenience and efficiency to attract and retain customers.
AgrawalA., & YesugadeA. (2022). A perception study of neobanking as a fintech. International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications, 12(3), 17–26.
2.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
3.
AlnemerH. A. (2022). Determinants of digital banking adoption in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A technology acceptance model approach. Digital Business, 2(2), 100037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100037
4.
Al-SomaliS. A., GholamiR., & CleggB. (2009). An investigation into the acceptance of online banking in Saudi Arabia. Technovation, 29(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.07.004
5.
AmorosoD. L., & HunsingerS. (2009). Measuring the acceptance of internet technology by consumers. International Journal of E-Adoption, 1(3), 48–81. https://doi.org/10.4018/jea.2009092903
6.
BagozziR. P., & YiY. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
7.
BhatnagrP., & RajeshA. (2023). Neobanking adoption—An integrated UTAUT-3, perceived risk and recommendation model. South Asian Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJM-06-2022-0040
8.
ChinW. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling (1st ed.). Modern Methods for Business Research.
9.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
10.
DokaniaY. (2020). NEO bank—Revolution in Indian banking sector—A critical analysis. International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, 3(6), 361–374. http://doi.one/10.1732/IJLMH.25116
Esposito VinziV., ChinW. W., HenselerJ., & WangH. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8
13.
FishbeinM. A., & AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
14.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
15.
GefenD. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28(6), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00021-9
16.
GefenD., KarahannaE., & StraubD. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
17.
HaddadC., & HornufL. (2019). The emergence of the global fintech market: Economic and technological determinants. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-9991-x
18.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2014a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage Publications.
19.
HairJ. F., RisherJ. J., SarstedtM., & RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
20.
HairJ. F., SarstedtM., HopkinsL., & G. KuppelwieserV. (2014a). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
21.
HairJ. F., WolfinbargerM., MoneyA. H., SamouelP., & PageM. J. (2015). Essentials of business research methods. Routledge.
22.
HenselerJ., HubonaG., & RayP. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382
23.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
24.
JöreskogK. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.
25.
KallanmarthodiG., & VaithiyanathanM. (2012). Assessment of a modified technology acceptance model among e-banking customers in Coimbatore city. International Journal of Innovation, 3(2), 181–187.
26.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
27.
LeeI., & ShinY. J. (2018). Fintech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and challenges. Business Horizons, 61(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.003
28.
LyB., & LyR. (2022). Internet banking adoption under technology acceptance model—Evidence from Cambodian users. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100224
29.
MeijerK. (2021). Customer acceptance of neobanks: What role does national culture play?University of Twente.
30.
MutaharA. M., DaudN. M., RamayahT., IsaacO., & AldholayA. H. (2018). The effect of awareness and perceived risk on the technology acceptance model (TAM): Mobile banking in Yemen. International Journal of Services and Standards, 12, 180–204.
31.
NagyS., MolnárL., & PappA. (2024). Customer adoption of neobank services from a technology acceptance perspective—Evidence from Hungary. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 7(1), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame712024883
32.
NasriW. (2011). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking in Tunisia. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(8), 143. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n8p143
33.
P. K., M., & JacobJ. (2019). Banking technology and service quality: Evidence from private sector banks in Kerala. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(4), 12098–12103. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.D8487.118419
34.
PirinenS. (2022). A study on the Finnish consumers’ attitudes and interest toward Neobanks. Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences.
35.
PolasikM., & Piotr WisniewskiT. (2009). Empirical analysis of internet banking adoption in Poland. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27(1), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320910928227
36.
QureshiT. M., ZafarM. K., & KhanM. B. (2008). Customer acceptance of online banking in developing economies. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 13(1), 1–9.
37.
ReynoldsS. (2019). Neobank or digital bank or bricks and mortar bank?Fullstack [Online]. Retrieved, 15-Sep-2020, from https://www.fullstack.com.au/neobank-or-digital-bank-or-bricks-and-mortar-bank/
38.
RithmayaC. L., ArdiantoH., & SistiyariniE. (2024). Gen Z and the future of banking: An analysis of digital banking adoption. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Kewirausahaan, 26(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.9744/jmk.26.1.64-78
39.
RyanB. J. (2019). The new emerging banks and their role in payments. The PayTech book: The payment technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and fintech visionaries (pp. 28–30). Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119551973.ch8
40.
SafeenaR., KammaniA., & DateH. (2014). Assessment of internet banking adoption: An empirical analysis. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 39(2), 837–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-013-0707-x
41.
Schmidt-JessaK., & StradomskiM. (2023). Consumer awareness and acceptance of digital-only banks. The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 54(4), 389–418.
42.
SolovievV. (2018). Fintech ecosystem in Russia. In2018 eleventh international conference “management of large-scale system development” (MLSD, pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1109/MLSD.2018.8551808
43.
ValeroS., ClimentF., & EstebanR. (2020). Future banking scenarios. Evolution of digitalisation in Spanish banking. Journal of Business Accounting and Finance Perspectives, 2. https://doi.org/10.35995/jbafp2020013
44.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
45.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
46.
VivesX. (2019). Digital disruption in banking. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 11(1), 243–272. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-100719-120854
47.
ZamanS., BhattiH., & KhurshidM. A. (2018). Consumer acceptance of online banking: application of technology acceptance model. IBT Journal of Business Studies, 14(2), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.46745/ilma.jbs.2018.14.02.04
