Factors Impacting Mobile Banking in India: Empirical Approach Extending UTAUT2 with Perceived Value and Trust

Abstract

The aim of this research is to study the factors impacting usage of mobile banking (mBanking) by consumers in India. The study adopts the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2) with Social Value (SV), Monetary Value (MV), Emotional Value (EV), Quality Value (QV), Trust and the moderation effect of gender. Online and offline survey methods were used to collect primary data from 457 Indian consumers using mBanking. SPSS AMOS was utilized to empirically validate the conceptual model, test research hypothesis and moderation effect. The factors effort expectancy (EE), monetary value (MV), emotional value (EV), quality value (QV) and trust (TR) were found to be significant on behavioural intent (BI), whereas performance expectancy (PE) and social value (SV) were not found to be significant. Banking organizations can formulate strategies to attract new consumers and continue to engage in retaining consumers in using these influencing factors to adopt mBanking and other related mobile financial services (MFS). The study integrates perceived value components and trust with UTAUT2 to form a comprehensive model for examining mBanking adoption.

Keywords

Mobile banking UTAUT2 Perceived value Trust Moderator Gender

1. Introduction

Digital transaction is the future and this is a well-known fact around the world. A revolution is happening right now in India, the way consumers shop, and the move towards digital money. The ubiquitous nature of mobile devices is inevitable today in people’s lives. Mobile phone subscribers in India are greater than 1.176b (TRAI, 2019) with a teledensity of 89 per cent (or the population in possession of a mobile phone) and 478m mobile internet users as of June-2018 (IMAI, 2017). World Bank reports that the number of unbanked who possess a mobile phone in India is greater than 50 per cent, and people with a savings bank account only doubled in 2017 when compared to 2011 (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018).

India’s move towards becoming a digital economy projects a tremendous growth inspite of an estimated 80 per cent cash transactions (ACI, 2018). Mobile technology has a far-reaching impact on mobile financial services (MFS), be it payment or the banking industry worldwide (Gupta, 2013), and has no temporal and spatial constraints for financial transaction using mobile devices. The transformation of new services using mobile technology has improved the lives of millions in an emerging economy (Barrett et al., 2015).

Mobile banking (mBanking) is part of mobile financial services delivering application-based banking services through mobile phones and is used as a channel for offering financial services (Barnes & Corbitt, 2003). In the context of this study, mBanking can be defined as a service provided by banks, mobile network operators and financial organizations for conducting financial transactions (opening fixed deposit, paying utility bills and transferring funds to another bank account) and non-financial transactions (checking account balance) using a mobile phone of the consumer (Shaikh & Karjaluoto, 2015). In India, mBanking services are facilitated through an app or through National Unified Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) platform, which allows mobile phone users to access banking services on their feature phones. mBanking can be viewed as an alternative banking platform. Studies have posited challenges affecting mBanking adoption due to the involvement of third-party with outsourced functions like call centre (Tam & Oliveira, 2016), third-party guarantees (Kim et al., 2009), vulnerability to interceptions (Kim et al., 2009; Zhou et al., 2010).

In India, in spite of 473 banks permitted by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for providing mBanking services (RBI, 2019a), digital payment stands out for its low use (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018). India is an emerging economy and digital payment is still in a nascent stage despite several initiatives being taken by Government of India to promote digital payments in the country such as incentivizing digitization of payments with RBI waiving off the transaction fee charges on using the preferred digital routes for funds transfer (RBI, 2019b). Demonetization of 500 and 1000 currency notes in India during the month of November 2016 helped fast-track digital payments (Sankaran & Chakraborty, 2020), bypassing the personal computer revolution entirely and leapfrogging to the digital payment ecosystem. A digital mindset was created with the advancements in mobile technology (4G), availability of low-cost smartphones and affordable data plans.

Technology acceptance model (TAM) and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) are mature and influential theories, which authors have recommended to advance to the next level of conceptualization (Benbasat & Barki, 2007; Venkatesh, 2015). Combining theoretical models or factors that influence consumer’s intent to adopt information and communication technologies (ICT) and MFS can establish a more comprehensive view than any of the theoretical models can offer (Oliveira et al., 2014; Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006). Though UTAUT2 was empirically tested, several authors (Burton-Jones & Straub Jr., 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2012) have emphasized that future research would include more structural elements related to users.

The developers of the conceptual model of perceived value (PERVAL) empirically tested the constructs to study consumer durable goods (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Despite the inclusion of PERVAL components to study mBanking worldwide, it has been discussed only in a few studies (Berraies et al., 2017). Also, only a few studies have included the effect of moderation variables (Oliveira et al., 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2016) in order to understand the strength of structural relationships due to the complexity in interaction effects (Strasheim, 2014).

Several empirical studies have highlighted the reasons for technology adoption (Alalwan et al., 2017; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015, 2017; Berraies et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2014) as performance expectancy (PE), effort expectancy (EE), facilitating conditions (FC), perceived value and trust. Similarly, the reasons for resistance to adopting mBanking are pointed out as perception of cost, risk, relative advantage and complexity (Cruz et al., 2010); tradition and image barriers affect usage, value and risk barriers (Chaouali & Souiden, 2019); information and guidance offered by a bank followed by usage, image, value and risk barriers (Laukkanen & Kiviniemi, 2010); and investigating risk factors of non-users (Akturan & Tezcan, 2012).

Despite the inherent benefits of the dispersion of mobile phones and digital payments, there is a reluctance amongst consumers to adopt mobile payments (Sankaran & Chakraborty, 2020; Thakur & Srivastava, 2014). Moreover, there is a scarcity of research on the factors influencing mobile banking adoption (Makanyeza, 2017) among the urban population in developing countries. This research envisages to examine the factors for mBanking adoption due to its low use (only one digital payment reported to have been made in 2017 by one-third of account owners in the country) (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018), although urban areas have higher subscriber base of mobile phones (TRAI, 2019). This study aims at bridging these research gaps in the following ways: (a) extending the UTAUT2 model with social value (SV), monetary value (MV), emotional value (EV), quality value (QV) and trust; (b) examining the relationship of these factors and the moderation effect of gender on mBanking adoption in India.

The research undertakes to answer: (RQ1) What are the various factors that influence mBanking in India? (RQ2) Does perceived value affect the adoption of mBanking in India? (RQ3) Does trust influence consumers’ use of mBanking in India? (RQ4) Does the moderator gender have a causal relationship on mBanking adoption?

The research objectives are: (a) To examine the factors impacting mBanking use by consumers in India; (b) To predict a model for intention to use mBanking in India by various factors obtained.

2. Literature Review

The vast span of the literature indicates that models on technology adoption and use can be classified as: (a) foundational models that describe the theory and aspects of adoption of innovations (Aswani et al., 2018); (b) models extended by researchers by adding constructs to adapt to their research study (Natarajan et al., 2017); (c) combination of two or more models to arrive at a working model and empirically testing its significance, which offers a comprehensive view (Oliveira et al., 2014; Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006).

2.1. Technology Adoption Models

For over three decades, various models were adapted from information systems, sociology, psychology and theories of human behaviour, which predict technology adoption and use.

2.1.1. Origin of UTAUT

Looking upstream, the conceptualization of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is from the domain of social psychology principles that attitude is a function of (a) strength of belief about an act and (b) the evaluative aspect of these beliefs. TAM is an adaption from TRA with perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) as the antecedents of behavioural intent (BI) and actual system use (Davis, 1989).

2.1.2. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

UTAUT was formulated as a unified model derived from the theoretical integration of elements across earlier models (TRA and TAM) and was empirically tested (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Four core constructs (out of seven) played a major role as determinants of BI. These constructs are effort expectancy (EE), social influence (SI), performance expectancy (PE) and facilitating conditions (FC). UTAUT combines the concept of PU as PE and PEOU as EE derived from TAM.

2.1.3. Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2)

UTAUT2 model is an extension of UTAUT with the addition of three endogenous constructs: price value (PV), habit (HT) and hedonic motivation (HM) (Venkatesh et al., 2012). The empirical test of this model indicates R² results, showing an improvement (as compared to UTAUT) from 56 to 74 per cent in BI. By realizing the benefits of technology more than the cost (Venkatesh et al., 2012), it implies a positive effect on technology use. UTAUT and TAM were empirically tested from the context of technology (email usage in the organization, various industries, including telecom services, banking and financial services). Since the introduction of TAM, UTAUT2 is the first technology adoption model in the past three decades that the authors have empirically tested for consumer use.

Well-established theories of information systems (IS) (Moore & Benbasat, 1991) measure the perception of an individual and the role of intention as a predictor of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). From the perspective of this study, BI means predicting intention to use or to make mBanking transactions.

2.2. Trust

Trust is defined as ‘the perceived credibility and benevolence of a target of trust‘ (Doney & Cannon, 1997). This definition is relevant in the mBanking context. A consumer faces some degree of risk while making a financial transaction. A consumer expects a reliable (credible) mobile app that the service provider can offer in the consumers’ best interests (benevolent). Trust is used in various branches of psychology and sociology and is critical to strengthen customer relationship (Lewicki, 2006). UTAUT2 model was tested with and without the trust construct (Alalwan et al., 2017) to verify the predictive power of the model. The model was able to predict 65 per cent for BI with trust and 59 per cent without trust, with an inference that trust contributes to more power in predicting BI together with UTAUT2 constructs. Another study (Chong, 2013b) extended TAM by incorporating trust to determine factors influencing m-commerce adoption. The aspects of trust and security (Kim et al., 2010) have been detailed in the e-payment systems. An integrated model was used to study trust with the TAM model on the online shopping behaviour of students (Gefen et al., 2003).

2.3. Perceived Value (PERVAL)

Extant literature yields theories that show different aspects of PERVAL components, since the meaning of value for the customers varies a lot (Zeithaml, 1988). PERVAL is described with four unique value constructs, namely, performance/quality value, emotional value, monetary value and social value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). PERVAL was replicated and validated in the UK and USA (Walsh et al., 2014) and was extended with the additional constructs of etrust, esatisfaction and eloyalty on mBanking (Berraies et al., 2017). Further, Peng et al. (2019) examined the relationship between PERVAL and purchase intention on social e-commerce sales promotion.

2.4. Consumer Behaviour Related Studies on MFS

This study elucidates several aspects that are useful to understand the key influencing factors that impact mBanking by consumers. Shaw and Sergueeva (2019) modified the UTAUT2 model with constructs such as perceived value and perceived privacy concerns to determine the factors for mobile commerce. TAM continues to be a popular model used for empirical analysis of adoption of technology. There are studies that have extended TAM with trust by comparing the factors for mBanking adoption in Brazil and USA (Malaquias et al., 2018), non-users of mBanking in Turkey extending TAM with the diffusion of innovation (DoI) and perceived risk (Akturan & Tezcan, 2012).

An empirical study in Jordan explores the factors that influence BI and adoption of mBanking in which the key factors were found to be BI and FC (Alalwan et al., 2017). Examining the structural model with and without trust, R² was found to improve by 6 per cent with the inclusion of the construct trust. Hence, the results indicate trust to be the prime factor in determining the factors that influence mBanking adoption in Jordan. An empirical test conducted in Mozambique (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015) explains the factors affecting mBanking by using an extended model of UTAUT2 with Hofstede cultural moderators. The study (Boonsiritomachai & Pitchayadejanant, 2019) identified the key factors in adopting mBanking to be FC and mobile banking expectancy (MBE), and hedonic motivation was used as a mediator. MBE construct was formulated by merging PE and EE due to high consistency measurement. A comprehensive study by Oliveira et al. (2014) combines three models, that is, UTAUT with task technology fit (TTF) and initial trust model (ITM), to study mBanking in Portugal, showing PE as the most important factor with no moderating factor for age and gender. The factors impacting the adoption of mBanking using TAM and DoI (Deb & Lomo-David, 2014) were used with cluster analysis to understand specific segment intentions and reduce overgeneralization in understanding customers. Additional studies related to MFS adoption in India along with the findings are listed in Appendix (Table A2).

Drawing from the extant literature, perceived value is conceptualized in this study based on PERVAL (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) and its integration with UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012) to develop a comprehensive model to study mBanking in the Indian context. Accordingly, in this study, it was decided to use BI as a dependent variable to predict the use of mBanking. The measure of individual intent is in sync with other studies (Sheppard et al., 1988; Venkatesh et al., 2012).

2.5. Moderator

As revealed by extant literature, gender difference (male/female) in decision making (Bem & Allen, 1974) constitutes social aspects that influence behaviour (Gefen et al., 2003), as men are task-oriented (Minton & Schneider, 1980). Researchers (Nysveen & Pedersen, 2005) have studied the role of gender in technology adoption. Task orientation is more in men than women and seems to be process oriented (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). Male and female display different notions in several dimensions (Wolin & Korgaonkar, 2003). Several studies underscore that male and female exhibit differences in the measures of perceived trust, and also infer that females display reduced levels of trust during internet transactions (Nysveen & Pedersen, 2005).

The importance of moderators has been emphasized in various studies, which help explain the relationship between dependent and independent variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Walsh et al., 2008). Baptista and Oliveira (2015) excluded moderators’ age and gender from the analysis due to resulting complexity and only a small incremental improvement in BI variance. This study examines the moderator role of gender based on extant literature and its usage in various studies (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Berraies et al., 2017; Gupta, Dasgupta, & Gupta, 2008; Natarajan et al., 2017).

3. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

The conceptual model and the working constructs are given in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Note: ***=p<.001, **=p<.01, *=p<.05, ns=not supported.

Performance expectancy (PE) measures usefulness/helpfulness and seamless experience of consumers across various interactions in performing banking activities, and also the flexibility of the mBanking application (Venkatesh et al., 2012). In our research, the consumer perceives flexibility offered by the mBanking app to perform banking transactions free of temporal constraints (Hanafizadeh et al., 2014), mobility (Deb & Lomo-David, 2014), leading to accomplishing things quickly, which, in particular, is important to a consumer (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Thus, consumers would adopt mBanking if they find mBanking app services beneficial (Oliveira et al., 2014). In UTAUT, PE has a strong influence in predicting BI, but beta value is reduced in UTAUT2. Studies have found PE-BI to be a significant relationship (Deb & Lomo-David, 2014; Gupta, Manrai, & Goel, 2019; Hanafizadeh et al., 2014; Malaquias & Hwang, 2019; Oliveira et al., 2014). We hypothesize:

H1 : PE will have a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Effort expectancy (EE) measures whether using mBanking enhances the ease of use or convenience of the consumers (Sankaran & Chakraborty, 2020; Venkatesh et al., 2012). In the context of this study, EE is the convenience factor offered by the mBanking app in terms of extent of simplicity (Alalwan et al., 2017), user-friendly interface (Deb & Lomo-David, 2014) and ease of learning (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017; Zhou et al., 2010). There is a need to overcome the impediments in the process issues with EE, expected in the nascent stages of a new behaviour. Extant studies (Alalwan et al., 2017; Baptista & Oliveira, 2017; Giovanis et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2019) have found a significant EE-BI relationship. We hypothesize:

H2 : EE has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ behavioural intent to use mBanking.

Habit (HB) is a perception-based approach, also reported in psychology research (Limayem et al., 2007). Habit is a prior behaviour (Kim & Malhotra, 2005) and the extent to which people tend to use mBanking app automatically is because of learning (Limayem et al., 2007). Belief influences the behaviour of a person by making an impression that builds a strong habit. Habit embeds an intention that affects behaviour. In UTAUT2, habit is the strongest predictor of BI (Venkatesh et al., 2012). Studies (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015, 2017; Kwateng et al., 2018) have examined HB-BI relationship. We hypothesize:

H3 : HB has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Perceived value (PERVAL) was replicated and validated in UK and USA (Walsh et al., 2014) with regard to the relationship of mBanking and customers etrust, esatisfaction, eloyalty (Berraies et al., 2017) and social ecommerce (Peng et al., 2019). This study includes the PERVAL construct with the following four components:

Social value (SV) is defined as ‘the utility derived from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept’ (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Though the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) has used social influence (SI), it is how an individual perceives others’ opinions to use the system. TRA and the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) refer to this construct as the subjective norm. Basically, the understanding here is that SV determines the extent of influence others’ opinion has on consumers (Alalwan et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2019; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Zhou et al., 2010), for example, friends, family and peer groups, and provides the stimulus towards using mBanking apps (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Deb & Lomo-David, 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012).

H4 : Social Value has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Monetary value (MV) is ‘the utility derived from the product due to the reduction of its perceived short-term and long-term costs’ (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). UTAUT2 has used a construct price value, which is the variation between perceived benefits and perceived cost. The cost or the price value has an important role as a stimulus for intent to use (Venkatesh et al., 2012), as part of UTAUT2 and is a construct defined as the monetary value in PERVAL. In our research, MV is a cognitive trade-off (Kwateng et al., 2018; Sankaran & Chakraborty, 2020; Venkatesh et al., 2012), which means more cost savings or the ability to obtain a better product or service in exchange for the cost and benefits perceived by the customer, it can have an impact on the intended use of mBanking. MV, from a consumer’s perspective, is an important factor as the costs of smartphones and mobile data need to be borne by them (Alalwan et al., 2017; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015). We hypothesise:

H5 : Monetary value has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Emotional value (EV) is ‘the utility derived from the feelings or affective states that a product generates’ (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Here, EV is an extent to which a consumer will have the pleasure to use the mBanking app. A few empirical research was conducted to study mBanking by extending the UTAUT2 model using gamification (GAM) (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017), resulting in a strong relationship between gamification (for hedonic oriented) and intention. Another study (Shareef et al., 2018) used the theoretical concept of GAM model in Bangladesh. The hedonism achieved with the usage of mobile phone (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017; Shareef et al., 2018) using the construct hedonic motivation or EV in this study will be a useful determinant of BI. A higher hedonism will lead to greater acceptance intention (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015, 2017).

H6 : Emotional value has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Quality value (QV) is ‘the utility derived from the perceived quality and the expected performance of the product’ (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). The importance of quality has been emphasized to affect the ROI and its elusiveness (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The evaluation of service quality is defined as a comparative process known as ‘disconfirmation paradigm’ (Oliver, 1980). Consumers compare the service they expect with technical (what), functional (manner) quality types (Gronroos, 1984), using a multi-stage model (Bolton & Drew, 1991), which reveals that service quality leads to service value (Parasuraman et al., 1988). From this study’s perspective, QV is the expected performance perceived by a consumer in using mBanking app.

H7 : Quality value has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Trust (TR) is a construct used in studies concerning financial transactions, be it electronic or mobile commerce/mBanking/mobile payment solutions (Sankaran & Chakraborty, 2020). Dahlberg et al. (2015) criticized that security and trust have been repeatedly used in all studies and cited these factors as a prerequisite and as principal theoretical contributions. However, another study (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015) did not include trust in the model, and it resulted in BI not being significant. From this study’s perspective, trust is built through safety mechanism (Gefen et al., 2003), and it reduces uncertainty (Giovanis et al., 2018) and the consumer’s willingness to depend (Alalwan et al., 2017) on mBanking transaction. In TAM meta-analysis (Wu et al., 2011), trust was identified as an important component used in various studies that found the results to be significant (Alalwan et al., 2017; Gefen et al., 2003; Giovanis et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2011). We hypothesize:

H8 : TR has a positive influence on Indian consumers’ BI to use mBanking.

Moderation effect: The presence of moderation changes the relationship between the independent and the dependent variable, which is modelled as an interaction (Strasheim, 2014). This study examines the interaction of the dichotomous variable, gender (male and female). The perceived usefulness of mBanking is found to a greater extent in men than women (Nysveen & Pedersen, 2005), which can be attributed to their being more focused on the task and goal (Cruz et al., 2010). Some researchers (Garbarino & Strahilevitz, 2004) have shown that females are more apprehensive during a mobile transaction, while others (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2010; Laukkanen & Pasanen, 2008) have inferred that males are more likely to use mBanking. There is an influence of the gender moderator on BI, and we hypothesize:

H9a : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between PE-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9b : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between EE-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9c : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between HB-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9d : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between SV-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9e : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between MV-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9f : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between EV-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9g : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between QV-BI to adopt mBanking.

H9h : Gender has a significant moderation effect on the relationship between TR-BI to adopt mBanking.

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Sampling Procedure

The primary data was collected using both online and offline mode (people coming out of the bank) or intercept sampling (Link, 2018), ensuring that the criteria is met (whether the respondents use mBanking). Offline mode was used to collect data from respondents, including those who were not connected to emails. Online respondents included those who were conducting m-banking transactions and were conversant with mobile (technological devices). They were recruited using emails (volunteer sampling), a non-probabilistic convenience sampling, which is an attractive option (Link, 2018). Convenience sampling has been chosen to draw cross-cultural and cross-regional samples (Zikmund et al., 2016) from various urban regions of India (north, east, west and south), including Bengaluru, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Ranchi.

4.2. Instrument Development

The survey instrument or questionnaire consists of two parts, namely demographic profile and scale items for constructs.

Scale items: The questionnaire includes four items per construct totalling 40 items for ten constructs, adopting a good practice of parsimony (Hair et al., 2010). The questionnaire (refer to Table A1) has been developed with the help of extant research (Gefen et al., 2003; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Venkatesh et al., 2012), complying with pre-validated measures. Scale items for UTAUT2 constructs EE, PE, HB, BI were adopted from Venkatesh et al. (2012), the construct PERVAL (comprising of SV, EV, QV, MV) from Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and trust from Doney and Cannon (1997) and Gefen et al. (2003) and were rephrased in the context of mBanking in India.

Measurement scale: The UTAUT2 extensively used in various contexts across various countries had satisfactory validity and reliability. A 7-point Likert scale (7=strongly agree to 1=strongly disagree) was used to measure the responses. The scale psychometric properties were empirically tested and validated from the mobile internet context by the developer of UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al., 2012).

4.3. Face Validity and Content Validity

The validity was examined ensuring that the questions are clear, unambiguous and can be easily comprehended by respondents. It was validated with the help of a pilot study before beginning the actual data collection phase.

4.4. Data Collection

The primary data was collected from 466 respondents using both online and offline modes. Employing a digital mechanism (respondents using a computer and now a mobile phone) is a frequented approach used in an online survey and offers various advantages (Evans & Mathur, 2018).

Data validation checks were performed to assess plausibility of data to ensure consistency within the elements of the data set, which includes data integrity and validity of entries (valid data type and numerical range), no missing data, no duplicate entries, data validation rules and completeness checks on the content of column (gender includes male or female; age group; income; education level; city name is a valid name; use mBanking – Yes/No; and items with Likert scale are between 1 to 7).

Usable sample: Nine respondents were excluded from the dataset due to unengaged response, incomplete data and for not using mBanking, resulting in 457 usable responses. Data adequacy assumes that the sample size required falls in the range of five times to ten times the number of items (Hair et al., 2010). Four hundred and fifty-seven respondents meet the recommended stipulation of sample size (n>150) if a dataset has several high factor loading scores (>.8) (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988).

5. Data Analysis and Results

A two-stage methodology was adopted to test the measurement and structural model using IBM SPSS and AMOS (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Out of the usable responses, 64 per cent were male and 36 per cent were female. The overall data collected is a true representation of various regions in India, which consists of 50 per cent students and 50 per cent others (working professionals and retired consumers), and accordingly the distribution of income (students less than INR 20k). The educational qualification of the respondents is bachelor and higher (99%).

5.2. Instrument Validity

Cronbach alpha, composite reliability, convergent validity, AVE and discriminant validity were used to test the validity and reliability of the survey instrument.

5.2.1. Non-response bias

Survey methods pose non-response bias and an independent sample t-test was used to compare the respondents (early wave and late wave) (Armstrong & Overton, 1977) with demographic variables (Sivathanu, 2018; Wang, 2012). The results of wave analysis indicated that non-response bias was not a serious concern in this study.

5.2.2. Normality

Normality for each indicator was tested using skewness-kurtosis in SPSS. The skewness values ranged from benign to 1.47 and are below the recommended value <3, and kurtosis values ranged from benign to 7.2 and are within recommended value <8 (Kline, 2015).

5.2.3. Reliability

Cronbach alpha for nine constructs resulted in a low correlation for one item QV4R (-.08). The suggested correlation value for each item should be greater than .4 (Leech et al., 2015). Cronbach alpha for QV improved to .86 with item QV4R deleted. The resulting value of Cronbach alpha (>.82) for all constructs PE, EE, HB, SV, QV, EV, MV, TR and BI indicates good internal consistency (Lance et al., 2006; Nunnally, 1978).

5.3. Measurement Model

5.3.1. KMO measure of sampling adequacy

The KMO value obtained was .94, which is well within the acceptable range (Kaiser & Rice, 1974). Bartlett’s test of sphericity under the null hypothesis (H0) follows chi-square distribution and the significance was found to be <.05, which indicates that correlation exists amongst the variables and, hence, factor analysis can be performed (Hair et al., 2010).

5.3.2. Factor analysis

Factor analysis was performed using Promax rotation, thereby extracting nine factors for the items. Subsequently, the items removed are HB4 due to low factor loading. The final rotated component matrix (Table 1) ascertains that the factor loading has been obtained (>.58 for all items) as recommended (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) and distinctiveness of factors have been established.

Table 1.
Rotated Component Matrix

Factor Cronbach Alpha Items Factor loading

PE .858 PE1 .729

PE2 .914

PE3 .958

PE4 .759

EE .892 EE1 .887

EE2 .982

EE3 .860

EE4 .685

HB .839 HB1 .589

HB2 .997

HB3 .692

SV .922 SV1 .763

SV2 .924

SV3 .913

SV4 .912

EV .904 EV1 .684

EV2 .787

EV3 .886

EV4 .782

QV .865 QV1 .849

QV2 .773

QV3 .884

MV .877 MV1 .657

MV2 .999

MV3 .873

MV4 .692

TR .948 TR1 .835

TR2 .959

TR3 .924

TR4 .897

BI .891 BI1 .588

BI2 .841

BI3 .893

BI4 .873

Factor	Cronbach Alpha	Items	Factor loading
PE	.858	PE1	.729
		PE2	.914
		PE3	.958
		PE4	.759
EE	.892	EE1	.887
		EE2	.982
		EE3	.860
		EE4	.685
HB	.839	HB1	.589
		HB2	.997
		HB3	.692
SV	.922	SV1	.763
		SV2	.924
		SV3	.913
		SV4	.912
EV	.904	EV1	.684
		EV2	.787
		EV3	.886
		EV4	.782
QV	.865	QV1	.849
		QV2	.773
		QV3	.884
MV	.877	MV1	.657
		MV2	.999
		MV3	.873
		MV4	.692
TR	.948	TR1	.835
		TR2	.959
		TR3	.924
		TR4	.897
BI	.891	BI1	.588
		BI2	.841
		BI3	.893
		BI4	.873

5.3.3. Confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA) is used to test the measurement model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Common latent factor (CLF) method was used to identify the common variance among all variables in this research model (Podsakoff et al., 2003) in AMOS. By comparing the standardized regression weights from the model to a model without the CLF, all were found to be greater than .7 (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012). This result implies the absence of common method bias (CMB).

5.3.4. Discriminant validity

has been examined using the factor correlation matrix to identify the magnitude to which factors are distinct, and the correlations between factors are found to be not exceeding the suggested value .7 (Kline, 2015). The validity of the measurement model was performed in AMOS and the result was obtained (Table 2) for CR>.7, AVE>.5 and discriminant validity when doing CFA (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010).

The diagonal values (given in bold) in the Table 2 represents the square root of AVEs, and was found to be greater than its off-diagonal values for each factor, which represents that the factors are able to discriminate among each other, indicating that they are distinct. In accordance with Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion, square root of AVE of each construct must be greater than the inter-construct correlations, which is satisfied in Table 2. The values found in this study (closeness of diagonal values and off-diagonal values) are similar to other studies (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017; Chong, 2013a; Oliveira et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2016; Ramadan & Aita, 2018; Singh, Sinha, & Liebana-cabanillas, 2020; Sivathanu, 2018). Also, it can be noticed that the items of each construct have higher loading to its construct than on other construct and, hence, discriminant validity is established.

Table 2.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity

CR AVE SV TR EE PE MV BI QV EV HB

SV .92 .75 .87

TR .95 .83 .35 .91

EE .89 .68 .24 .52 .83

PE .87 .64 .36 .46 .68 .80

MV .88 .65 .45 .63 .54 .54 .81

BI .89 .68 .44 .70 .60 .61 .73 .83

QV .87 .68 .52 .64 .49 .46 .56 .56 .83

EV .90 .69 .78 .42 .38 .48 .51 .53 .59 .83

HB .85 .65 .58 .49 .49 .65 .55 .65 .50 .59 .81

	CR	AVE	SV	TR	EE	PE	MV	BI	QV	EV	HB
SV	.92	.75	.87
TR	.95	.83	.35	.91
EE	.89	.68	.24	.52	.83
PE	.87	.64	.36	.46	.68	.80
MV	.88	.65	.45	.63	.54	.54	.81
BI	.89	.68	.44	.70	.60	.61	.73	.83
QV	.87	.68	.52	.64	.49	.46	.56	.56	.83
EV	.90	.69	.78	.42	.38	.48	.51	.53	.59	.83
HB	.85	.65	.58	.49	.49	.65	.55	.65	.50	.59	.81

To summarize, the tests validate high reliability and internal consistency, which are necessary conditions for scales construct validity.

5.4. Model Fit

The overall model fit indices CMIN/df=2.50, GFI=.86, CFI=.94, RMSEA=.05 and SRMR=.05 were found to be satisfactory as per the recommended thresholds (CMIN/df<=3; GFI>.7; CFI>.9; RMSEA .05-.10; SRMR<.08) (Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Hair et al., 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Schreiber et al., 2006; Tanaka & Huba, 1985).

5.5. Structural Model

The latent model is detailed in Figure 2. The variance inflation factors (VIF) was examined on dependent variables and observed that no VIFs were found greater than 4 and are below the recommended threshold of 10 (Hair et al., 2010).

Figure 2.

Path Model (Latent Variable)

Testing of hypotheses: From test results (Figure 2), hypothesis H2 or EE-BI (β=.13, p<.001), H3 or HB-BI (β=.21, p<.001), H5 or MV-BI (β=.36, p<.001), H8 or TR-BI (β=.32, p<.001), and H6 or EV-BI (β=.10, p<.05) have a significant positive relationship, H7 or QV-BI (β=-.08, p<.05) has a significant negative relationship, and H1 or PE-BI (β=.05, p=.16) and H4 or SV-BI (β=-.03, p=.49) were found to be not significant. The total variance or R² explained by the model is 78 per cent.

Analysis of moderator: The effect of moderation is based on the concept that the hypothesis is supported if the interaction is significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hayes, 2017). The study found hypothesis H9b (EE x Gender) supported with the moderation effect stronger for males (coefficient -.18, p<.05) and hypothesis H9e (MV x Gender) supported with the moderation effect stronger for males (coefficient -.16, p<.01) as compared to females. As described in Table 3, other hypotheses (H9c, H9f, H9g and H9h) using gender as a moderator with HB-BI, EV-BI, QV-BI, and TR-BI were not significant.

Table 3.

Hypothesis Test Results

Hypothesis	Path	Beta coefficient	p-value	Significance
H1	PE-BI	.06	.16	Rejected
H2	EE-BI	.13	***	Supported
H3	HB-BI	.21	***	Supported
H4	SV-BI	–.03	.485	Rejected
H5	MV-BI	.36	***	Supported
H6	EV-BI	.10	*	Supported
H7	QV-BI	–.08	*	Supported
H8	TR-BI	.32	***	Supported
H9b	EE x Gender	–.18	.015	Supported
H9c	HB x Gender	–.04	.369	Rejected
H9e	MV x Gender	–.17	.002	Supported
H9f	EV x Gender	–.03	.541	Rejected
H9g	QV x Gender	–.06	.234	Rejected
H9h	TR x Gender	–.05	.298	Rejected

Note: ***=p<.001, **=p<.01, *=p<.05, moderation effect is calculated for hypothesis supported.

6. Discussions

Based on results obtained, this study highlights the following research objectives: (a) examining the factors EE, HB, MV, EV, TR has a positive significant relationship with BI, whereas the factor QV has a negative significant relationship with BI and PE-BI, SV-BI was not significant; (b) these factors are considered important for consumers to adopt and to continue to use mBanking in India; (c) the moderator gender had a stronger effect on EE and MV for males. The path coefficients PE-BI was not significant and this result is similar to other studies (Boonsiritomachai & Pitchayadejanant, 2019; Kwateng et al., 2018; Verkijika, 2018). This implies that consumers find alternate ways of banking (internet banking, ATM, m-payments or cash) more advantageous. The study found a substantial impact of PE-BI (Oliveira et al., 2014) whereas PE-BI was found to be weak as compared to other constructs of UTAUT (Gupta et al., 2019). Effort expectancy is based on the expectations of easy to use (Venkatesh et al., 2012), easy to learn and essential with the realization of these expectations. The results obtained in the study had similar pattern observed in other studies with a significant positive relationship (Alalwan et al., 2017; Giovanis et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2019), wherein consumers would advance towards forming a habit related to increased frequency of transactions to use mBanking (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017).

Habit is influenced by the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones. Though the results obtained for HB was significant and similar to other studies (Baptista & Oliveira, 2015, 2017; Kwateng et al., 2018), the beta value was quite low from which it can be inferred that (a) people at large use mobile phones for watching video content and as a networking sharing tool and (b) there are other considerations like non-monetary value that consumers could evaluate. The role of non-monetary costs could be an area to assess whether to use or not to use mBanking and may, at times, be concerned compared to monetary price. Habit was not included in the study (Alalwan et al., 2017) as mBanking adoption was sluggish and still considered a new technology in Jordan.

Trust is the second most important factor to influence consumers’ behavioural intent as revealed in studies by Alalwan et al. (2017), Giovanis et al. (2018) and Kwateng et al. (2018). The probable cause of this outcome is attributed to high penetration and use of mobile phones, making mBanking easy to use. The app developers should ensure that transactions are secure and no threat is imposed on consumers. Therefore, implementing trust mechanisms will affect the consumer’s usage of mBanking, while enabling multiple levels of security will provide trustworthiness and belief that safety mechanism is inbuilt (Gefen et al., 2003).

Monetary value was the most significant factor, having a positive relationship with behavioural intent, which implies that there are various intrinsic motivation factors that consumers consider critical to mBanking adoption in India. The influence of societal norms on the consumer is based on the popularity of the technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012) and recommendations, which influence the intention to start using mBanking. The results are in-line with other studies (Alalwan et al., 2017; Baabdullah et al., 2019; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Boonsiritomachai & Pitchayadejanant, 2019; Kwateng et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018). The results indicate that consumers do not find social value, linked to the influence of friends and family, essential for adoption of mBanking. Consumer perceptions are formed by the service experiences according to the disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980) and service performed as expected increases perceived pleasure (EV), similar to research by Baptista & Oliveira (2015, 2017) and Shareef et al. (2018). The results of this study indicate that consumer considerations are critical for QV regarding the standard of quality and for mBanking to perform consistently (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

If a consumer can obtain their non-financial banking transactions (access to passbook) or perform banking transactions (make utility payments or transfer money to another account) via an mBanking app, they can save time and transportation costs to visit the bank. Our results agree with previous findings (Alalwan et al., 2017; Baptista & Oliveira, 2015; Kwateng et al., 2018; Venkatesh et al., 2012). These stimuli of MV would imply that better the perception a consumer has on the mBanking to help save money, more likely are they to adopt mBanking. MV could also relate to consumers using the technology; mBanking is free, implying a low barrier to start using it.

As mentioned earlier, the effect of moderation is based on the concept that the hypothesis is supported if the interaction is significant. This study found EE x Gender and MV x Gender supported and the moderation effect was stronger for males. This coincides with the rationale that the use of mobile phones for communication purposes holds importance in females while using mobile phones for transactions is a preference among men (Jackson et al., 2008). The introduction of biometric identification cards (known as Aadhar card) during 2014 by Government of India gave boost to account ownership among unbanked consumers and has helped narrow the gender gap (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018). Other hypotheses using gender as a moderator with TR-BI, EV-BI, QV-BI and HB-BI were not significant in-line with other studies (Ladhari & Leclerc, 2013). It can be inferred that male and female respondents perceive a similar level of service for the factors trust, habit and perceived value and is not affected by their BI for mBanking adoption in India. The possible explanation for the non-significant effect of moderator lie in that trust, EV, QV and habit components are considered to be of equal importance by both males and females. Hence, consumer gender differentiated approach is not required for mBanking firms to develop trust and value related strategies.

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1. Theoretical Contribution

This study enriches the theoretical contribution in the following ways. First and foremost, it embraces alternative theories on mBanking use and adoption. The espousal of the UTAUT2 extending as part of the conceptual model in this study is a way forward in contributing to the literature and allows for future research to extend theories (Webster & Watson, 2002).

Second, the study has focused on PERVAL components and the results obtained are relevant in the context of mBanking. Furthermore, this study utilizes a comprehensive model to explore mBanking in which it considers new factors such as social value, emotional value, monetary value and quality value of PERVAL and the moderator of these relationships.

7.2. Managerial Implications

The study can be useful to banking organizations in formulating strategies not only to attract customers but also to continue to engage and retain them using these influencing factors to adopt mBanking. This is particularly relevant to everyday transactions using mBanking for a variety of utility services.

Numerous banking organizations are entering into this competitive market as MFS has undergone multi-faceted changes, thus paving the way for companies to augment their revenue sources, and they use various novel methods to retain consumers. With the advent of innovations in mobile technology, banks can effectively meet with the ever-growing needs of their customers. This study adds focus on trust to be at the helm for consumers to consider the country’s digital environment. It is time to watch what they do and not just what they say.

The study includes PERVAL components and the results reveal monetary value to be the most important factor for consumers to adopt mBanking. These factors will enable banks to develop services that will be perceived as high quality by consumers while using mBanking for both financial and non-financial transactions.

With trust being identified as the prime factor in this study, banks and banking organizations can use this to strategise their relationship marketing and win customer trust. The absence of trust might lead to the risk of private data being misused. This is crucial for banking transactions.

A World Bank report indicates that in the past year, less than 10 per cent of the account holders in India (an emerging economy) used mobile phone or internet to make a minimum of one financial transaction (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018). Hence, the factors identified in this study will enable banking organizations to explore the means of facilitating customers in adopting and using mBanking services.

In this era of monetization in India, this study will give significant insight for policymakers and will help banks and banking organizations to (a) identify the factors that consumers consider important to adopt and to continue to use the mBanking application for financial and non-financial transactions, and (b) strategize due to reduction in footfalls and reduction of opening of new bank branches and ATMs. The convenience factor is not only considered important for consumers, but it also results in reduced costs for vendors and organizations, as payments made in cash transactions need to be counted, stored and transported. Adopting digital payments and mobile banking options to accept cashless payments will save business time and costs associated with the processing of cash.

The factors identified will help banks and financial organizations to (a) view the channel as a cost-saving avenue which will eventually reduce the operational cost and time cost of the user (no need to physically visit the bank), thereby also reducing dependency on bank branch; (b) develop offerings by ensuring all banking services are available via mobile, negating the need to visit the bank; (c) scale up their business even after footfall reduction; (d) be cost-effective and stay efficient by automating the process and minimizing human error; and (e) retain customers, be connected to them and be competitive.

8. Limitations and Directions for Future Study

This study focused on the middle-class, educated Indian consumers owning a smartphone in the urban regions of India. It will be an important aspect to investigate the banking services using mobile phones for the transfer of funds, including those families not having savings accounts.

The results cannot be generalized to the whole country because convenience sampling was used in this study (Baabdullah et al., 2019; Neuman, 2011). Adequate care is required for generalizing the results to the whole population. Another consideration would be to utilize non-urban region to determine the factors considered important for using mBanking, contributing to the ‘Digital India’ initiative. This study focuses on one type of use of technology (mBanking). A comparison of various MFS (like mCommerce vs mBanking) can lead to interesting findings. Longitudinal surveys were not used, and hence future studies can focus on identifying the change in behaviour of respondents across time.

The study includes trust and PV components as an extension to UTAUT2. Digital payments are still at a nascent stage and are used less in India (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018), and with the government initiative, there is growth potential for mBanking (RBI, 2019c). It will become prudent for future researchers to include other factors like satisfaction level (post-use evaluation), loyalty and cost factors, which will gain prominence with the increase in the extent of mBanking penetration. Similarly, previous experience of consumer influences the trust factor for mBanking use, and this study includes respondents who have used mBanking app. Future studies can examine the effect of trust on mBanking use by both users and non-users.

Due to the growth in the number of banks approved to provide mBanking services in India (RBI, 2019a), there is a potential for each bank to offer mBanking services. Accordingly, this study will help banks and MFS organizations to strategize and consider these key factors while offering services to consumers. People will consider these factors important while the mobile technologies spread to the rural parts of the country as part of the ‘Digital India’ movement, and this study will be useful for banks while offering these services in the rural areas. Finally, keeping in view the emerging trend and tremendous growth of digitization in the country, future studies can dwell into the espousal model regarding customers’ satisfaction with the adoption of mobile technology services, as this research examines the consumer’s behavioural intent to adopt mBanking.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

Table A2.

Studies related to factors affecting MFS adoption from the Indian context

Authors	Category	Country	Theories used	Sample size	Major findings
(Chawla & Joshi, 2017)	mBanking	India		367	Segmenting users in three clusters based on adopters, followers and laggards resulting in attitude and intentions differing across these three segments.
(Deb & Agrawal, 2017)	mBanking	India	TAM	300	Study resulting in subjective norm, output quality and personal innovativeness impacting PU. The factors privacy and security perceived negatively by customers.
(Deb & Lomo-David, 2014)	mBanking	India	TAM + DOI	600	PU, PEOU, SI were found affecting positively whereas no support for FC, privacy and security. Cluster analysis to understand specific segment intentions and reduce over generalization in understanding customers.
(Gupta, Manrai, & Goel, 2019)	Payment banks	India	UTAUT	660	All factors were found to be direct determinants of BI with perceived creditability to be the strongest influencer.
(Gupta, Yun, Xu, & Kim, 2017)	mBanking	India	SDM	176	Perceived risk, control and security affecting intention to adopt in urban areas, whereas only perceived control significantly was influenced by metropolitan customers.
(Gupta & Arora, 2017)	mBanking	India	BRT	379	Factors ubiquitous and openness to change were found to be the major determinant for adoption, and tradition barrier were major determinant among the reasons against m-banking adoption.
(Kumar et al., 2017)	mBanking	India	TAM	144	PU, PEOU, SI and Trust propensity were found to be the determinants of BI.
(Liebana-Cabanillas et al., 2020)	mPayments	India	TAM	206	The study found the hypothesized relationship supported between stress, innovativeness, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived risk, perceived satisfaction, and perceived trust on users’ intention to use mobile payment services.
(Natarajan et al., 2017)	mShopping	India	TAM + DOI	675	the price sensitivity criterion on mShopping applications resulting in risk and personal innovativeness as key factors.
(Pal et al., 2020)	mPayments	India	SDM	298	Facilitators (habit, trust, network externalities) and barriers (perceived risk) were found to be significant in a developing country context whereas other factors were price benefit, FC, operational constraints were not supported.
(Patil et al., 2020)	mPayments	India	UTAUT	491	The study adapted meta-UTAUT and extended with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust and grievance redressal and found all hypotheses supported. Anxiety was found to be the weakest with a negative beta value.
(Priya et al., 2018)	mBanking	India	TAM	269	PU, PEOU and perceived credibility were found to be determinants of satisfaction and BI.
(Sahoo & Pillai, 2017)	mBanking	India	Servicescape	345	The study examined the role of servicescape to be the strong predictor of customer attitude which in turn mediates engagement.
(Sampaio et al., 2017)	mBanking	India, Brazil, US	SDM	383	Benefits offered affects satisfaction, trust, loyalty and positive WOM resulting in uncertainty avoidance was found to be non-significant moderators in cross-cultural study (Brazil, USA and India)
(Shankar & Datta, 2018)	mPayments	India	TAM	381	PEOU, PU, trust and self-efficacy were found significant, whereas subjective norms, personal innovativeness were not significant implying that users finds it easy to use mPayments in comparison with traditional methods.
(Shankar & Rishi, 2020)	mBanking	India	SDM	432	Convenience factors (access, transaction, possession) predict adoption intention of mBanking.
(Singh et al., 2018)	mBanking	India	TAM	855	PEOU, security, perceived cost, self-efficacy were found significant, whereas trust and SI were not significant as consumers tend to make their own money choices instead of contacting friends and family members. Also, consumers might consider banks to be more trustworthy.
(Sivathanu, 2018)	Digital payments	India	TAM+DOI	675	Personal innovativeness and perceived risk play a major role in deciding the intention to use. Users who are innovative and with a higher intention to use mShopping are less sensitive to price.
(Thakur & Srivastava, 2014)	mPayment	India	TAM+UTAUT	774	PU, PEOU, SI, FC, PV and multi-dimensional construct risk were used to determine adoption readiness leading to BI resulting in usage being higher for users than compared to non-users.

Note: BRT=Behavioural Reasoning Theory, DOI=Diffusion of Innovation, SDM=Self-developed model, TAM=Technology Adoption Model, UTAUT=Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, UTAUT2=Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.

References

ACI (2018). Transactions 2025: The future of payments in India. Worldwide ACI. https://www.aciworldwide.com/-/media/files/collateral/trends/transactions-2025-an-economic-times-report-on-the-future-of-payments-in-india.pdf

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Akturan

, & Tezcan

(2012). Mobile banking adoption of the youth market: Perceptions and intentions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(4), 444–459.

Alalwan

A. A.

, Dwivedi

Y. K.

, & Rana

N. P.

(2017). Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of Information Management, 37(3), 99–110.

Anderson

J. C.

, & Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

Armstrong

J. S.

, & Overton

T. S.

(1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150783

Aswani

, Ilavarasan

P. V.

, Kar

A. K.

, & Vijayan

(2018). Adoption of public WiFi using UTAUT2: An exploration in an emerging economy. Procedia Computer Science, 132(2018), 297–306.

Baabdullah

A. M.

, Alalwan

A. A.

, Rana

N. P.

, Kizgin

, & Patil

(2019). Consumer use of mobile banking (M-Banking) in Saudi Arabia: Towards an integrated model. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 38–52.

Bagozzi

R. P.

, & Yi

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

10.

Baptista

, & Oliveira

(2015). Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 418–430.

11.

Baptista

, & Oliveira

(2017). Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of mobile banking services. Internet Research, 27(1), 118–139.

12.

Barnes

S. J.

, & Corbitt

(2003). Mobile banking: Concept and potential. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 1(3), 273–288.

13.

Baron

R. M.

, & Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

14.

Barrett

, Davidson

, Prabhu

, & Vargo

S. L.

(2015). Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions. MIS Quarterly, 39(1), 135–154.

15.

Bem

D. J.

, & Allen

(1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506–520.

16.

Benbasat

, & Barki

(2007). Quo vadis, TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218.

17.

Bentler

(1990). Quantitative methods in psychology: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

18.

Berraies

, Yahia

K. Ben

, & Hannachi

(2017). Identifying the effects of perceived values of mobile banking applications on customers: Comparative study between baby boomers, generation X and generation Y. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(6), 1018–1038.

19.

Bolton

R. N.

, & Drew

J. H.

(1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384.

20.

Boonsiritomachai

, & Pitchayadejanant

(2019). Determinants affecting mobile banking adoption by generation Y based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology model modified by the technology acceptance model concept. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2017.10.005

21.

Browne

M. W.

, & Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions, 21(2), 230–258.

22.

Burton-Jones

, & Straub Jr.

D. W.

(2006). Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test, information systems research. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 228–246.

23.

Chaouali

, & Souiden

(2019). The role of cognitive age in explaining mobile banking resistance among elderly people. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50(July 2018), 342–350.

24.

Chawla

, & Joshi

(2017). Consumer perspectives about mobile banking adoption in India: A cluster analysis. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(4), 616–636.

25.

Chong

A. Y. L.

(2013a). A two-staged SEM-neural network approach for understanding and predicting the determinants of m-commerce adoption. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(4), 1240–1247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.067

26.

Chong

A. Y. L.

(2013b). Predicting m-commerce adoption determinants: A neural network approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(2), 523–530.

27.

Cruz

, Neto

L. B. F.

, Munoz-Gallego

, & Laukkanen

(2010). Mobile banking rollout in emerging markets: Evidence from Brazil. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28(5), 342–371.

28.

Dahlberg

, Guo

, & Ondrus

(2015). A critical review of mobile payment research. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 265–284.

29.

Davis

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

30.

Deb

, & Agrawal

(2017). Factors impacting the adoption of m-banking: Understanding brand India’s potential for financial inclusion. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 11(1), 22–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-11-2015-0191

31.

Deb

, & Lomo-David

(2014). An empirical examination of customers adoption of m-banking in India. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 32(4), 475–494.

32.

Demirguc-Kunt

, Leora

Klapper

, Singer

, Ansar

, & Hess

(2018). The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution. https://globalfindex.worldbank.org/

33.

Doney

P. M.

, & Cannon

J. P.

(1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.

34.

Evans

J. R.

, & Mathur

(2018). The value of online surveys: A look back and a look ahead. Internet Research, 28(4), 854–887.

35.

Fishbein

, & Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison A: Addison: Addison-Wesley.

36.

Fornell

, & Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

37.

Garbarino

, & Strahilevitz

(2004). Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research, 57(7), 768–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00363-6

38.

Gefen

, Karahanna

, & Straub

D. W.

(2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.

39.

Giovanis

, Assimakopoulos

, & Sarmaniotis

(2018). Adoption of mobile self-service retail banking technologies: The role of technology, social, channel and personal factors. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 47(9), 894–914.

40.

Gronroos

(1984). A service quality model and its mMarketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.

41.

Guadagnoli

, & Velicer

W. F.

(1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265

42.

Gupta

, & Arora

(2017). Consumer adoption of m-banking: A behavioral reasoning theory perspective. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(4), 733–747.

43.

Gupta

, Dasgupta

, & Gupta

(2008). Adoption of ICT in a government organization in a developing country: An empirical study. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 140–154.

44.

Gupta

K. P.

, Manrai

, & Goel

(2019). Factors influencing adoption of payments banks by Indian customers: Extending UTAUT with perceived credibility. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 13(2), 173–195.

45.

Gupta

Sumeet

, Yun

, Xu

, & Kim

H. W.

(2017). An exploratory study on mobile banking adoption in Indian metropolitan and urban areas: A scenario-based experiment. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 127–152.

46.

Gupta

Sunil

(2013). The mobile banking and payment revolution. European Financial Review, 2(36), 3–6.

47.

Hair

J. F.

, Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonJ: Pearson: Pearson Prentice Hall.

48.

Hanafizadeh

, Behboudi

, Koshksaray

A. A.

, & Tabar

M. J. S.

(2014). Mobile-banking adoption by Iranian bank clients. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 62–78.

49.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.

50.

L. T.

, & Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

51.

IMAI (2017). Mobile internet report. https://cms.iamai.in/Content/ResearchPapers/dc232cb2-22d2-46da-919e-e7a536887291.pdf

52.

Jackson

L. A.

, Zhao

, Kolenic

, Fitzgerald

H. E.

, Harold

, & Von Eye

(2008). Race, gender, and information technology use: The new digital divide. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0157

53.

Joreskog

K. G.

, & Sorbom

(1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Scientific Software International.

54.

Kaiser

H. F.

, & Rice

(1974). Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111–117.

55.

Kim

, Tao

, Shin

, & Kim

K. S.

(2010). An empirical study of customers perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(1), 84–95.

56.

Kim

, Shin

, & Lee

H. G.

(2009). Understanding dynamics between initial trust and usage intentions of mobile banking. Information Systems Journal, 19(3), 283–311.

57.

Kim

S. S.

, & Malhotra

N. K.

(2005). A longitudinal model of continued IS use: An integrative view of four mechanisms underlying postadoption phenomena. Management Science, 51(5), 741–755.

58.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.

59.

Koenig-Lewis

, Palmer

, & Moll

(2010). Predicting young consumers take up of mobile banking services. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28(5), 410–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321011064917

60.

Kumar

V. V. R.

, Lall

, & Mane

(2017). Extending the TAM model: Intention of management students to use mobile banking: Evidence from India. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916666991

61.

Kwateng

K. O.

, Atiemo

K. A. O.

, & Appiah

(2018). Acceptance and use of mobile banking: An application of UTAUT2. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 118–151.

62.

Ladhari

, & Leclerc

(2013). Building loyalty with online financial services customers: Is there a gender difference? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 560–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.005

63.

Lance

C. E.

, Butts

M. M.

, & Michels

L. C.

(2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105284919

64.

Laukkanen

, & Kiviniemi

(2010). The role of information in mobile banking resistance. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28(5), 372–388.

65.

Laukkanen

, & Pasanen

(2008). Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they differ from other online users? Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.fsm.4760077

66.

Leech

N. L.

, Barrett

K. C.

, & Morgan

G. A.

(2015). IBM SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (5th ed.). Routledge.

67.

Lewicki

R. J.

(2006). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice ( Deutsch

, Coleman

P. T.

, & Marcus

E. C.

(Eds.); 2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

68.

Liebana-Cabanillas

, Japutra

, Molinillo

, Singh

, & Sinha

(2020). Assessment of mobile technology use in the emerging market: Analyzing intention to use m-payment services in India. Telecommunications Policy, 44(9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.102009

69.

Limayem

, Hirt

S. G.

, & Cheung

C. M. K.

(2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737.

70.

Link

(2018). New data strategies: Nonprobability sampling, mobile, big data. Quality Assurance in Education, 26(2), 303–314.

71.

MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

P. M.

(2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.

72.

Makanyeza

(2017). Determinants of consumers’ intention to adopt mobile banking services in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(6), 997–1017.

73.

Malaquias

, Malaquias

, & Hwang

(2018). Understanding the determinants of mobile banking adoption: A longitudinal study in Brazil. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 30(May), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.05.002

74.

Malaquias

R. F.

, & Hwang

(2019). Mobile banking use: A comparative study with Brazilian and U.S. participants. International Journal of Information Management, 44(October 2018), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.004

75.

Minton

H. L.

, & Schneider

F. W.

(1980). Differential psychology. Waveland Press.

76.

Moore

G. C.

, & Benbasat

(1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.

77.

Natarajan

, Balasubramanian

S. A.

, & Kasilingam

D. L.

(2017). Understanding the intention to use mobile shopping applications and its influence on price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 37, 8–22.

78.

Neuman

L. W.

(2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

79.

Nunnally

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

80.

Nysveen

, & Pedersen

P. E.

(2005). Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: Moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760510611671

81.

Oliveira

, Faria

, Thomas

M. A.

, & Popovic

(2014). Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), 689–703.

82.

Oliveira

, Thomas

, Baptista

, & Campos

(2016). Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 404–414.

83.

Oliver (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing, 17(4), 460–469.

84.

Pal

, Herath

, De

, & Rao

H. R.

(2020). Contextual facilitators and barriers influencing the continued use of mobile payment services in a developing country: Insights from adopters in India. Information Technology for Development, 26(2), 394–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2019.1701969

85.

Parasuraman

, Zeithaml

V. A.

, & Berry

L. L.

(1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.

86.

Patil

, Tamilmani

, Rana

N. P.

, & Raghavan

(2020). Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal. International Journal of Information Management, 54(May). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102144

87.

Pavlou

P. A.

, & Fygenson

(2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115–143.

88.

Peng

, Zhang

, Wang

, & Liang

(2019). Moderating effects of time pressure on the relationship between perceived value and purchase intention in social E-commerce sales promotion: Considering the impact of product involvement. Information and Management, 56(2), 317–328.

89.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J. Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

90.

Priya

, Gandhi

A. V.

, & Shaikh

(2018). Mobile banking adoption in an emerging economy: An empirical analysis of young Indian consumers. Benchmarking, 25(2), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2016-0009

91.

Ramadan

, & Aita

(2018). A model of mobile payment usage among Arab consumers. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(7), 1213–1234.

92.

RBI (2019a). List of banks permitted to provide mobile banking service in India. https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/bs_viewcontent.aspx?Id=2463

93.

RBI (2019b). NEFT and RTGS waiver of charges. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11586&Mode=0

94.

RBI (2019c). Payment systems vision 2019-2021. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationVisionDocuments.aspx?Id=921

95.

Sahoo

, & Pillai

(2017). Role of mobile banking servicescape on customer attitude and engagement: An empirical investigation in India. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7), 1113–1130.

96.

Sampaio

C. H.

, Ladeira

W. J.

, & Santini

F. D. O.

(2017). Apps for mobile banking and customer satisfaction: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7), 1131–1151.

97.

Sankaran

, & Chakraborty

(2020). Why customers make mobile payments? Applying a means-end chain approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, ahead-of-p(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-12-2019-0622

98.

Schreiber

J. B.

, Stage

F. K.

, King

, Nora

, & Barlow

E. A.

(2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–337.

99.

Shaikh

A. A.

, & Karjaluoto

(2015). Mobile banking adoption: A literature review. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 129–142.

100.

Shankar

, & Datta

(2018). Factors affecting mobile payment adoption intention: An Indian perspective. Global Business Review, 19(3; suppl), S72–S89.

101.

Shankar

, & Rishi

(2020). Convenience matter in mobile banking adoption intention? Australasian Marketing Journal (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2020.06.008

102.

Shareef

M. A.

, Baabdullah

, Dutta

, Kumar

, & Dwivedi

Y. K.

(2018). Consumer adoption of mobile banking services: An empirical examination of factors according to adoption stages. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 43, 54–67.

103.

Shaw

, & Sergueeva

(2019). The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. International Journal of Information Management, 45(November), 44–55.

104.

Sheppard

B. H.

, Hartwick

, Warshaw

P. R.

, & Sheppard

B. H.

(1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.

105.

Singh

, Sinha

, & Liebana-cabanillas

F. J.

(2020). Determining factors in the adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: Analysis of the effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 191–205.

106.

Singh

, Srivastava

R. K.

, & Sindhu Singh

R. S.

(2018). Predicting the intention to use mobile banking in India. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(2), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-12-2016-0186

107.

Sivathanu

(2018). Adoption of digital payment systems in the era of demonetization in India: An empirical study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(1), 07-2017–0033.

108.

Strasheim

(2014). Testing main and interaction effects in structural equation models with a categorical moderator variable. Management Dynamics, 23(4), 31–69.

109.

Sweeney

J. C.

, & Soutar

G. N.

(2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220.

110.

Tam

, & Oliveira

(2016). Understanding the impact of m-banking on individual performance: DeLone & McLean and TTF perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 233–244.

111.

Tanaka

J. S.

, & Huba

G. J.

(1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 197–201.

112.

Taylor

, & Todd

P. A.

(1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

113.

Thakur

, & Srivastava

(2014). Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and usage intention across customer groups for mobile payment services in India. Internet Research, 24(3), 369–392.

114.

TRAI (2019). Press Release No. 13/2019. https://main.trai.gov.in/release-publication/reports/telecom-subscriptions-reports

115.

Venkatesh

(2015). Technology acceptance model and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 1–9.

116.

Venkatesh

, & Morris

M. G.

(2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.

117.

Venkatesh

, Morris

M. G.

, Davis

G. B.

, & Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478.

118.

Venkatesh

, Thong

, & Xu

(2012). Consumer acceptance and user of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.

119.

Venkatesh

, Thong

J. Y. L.

, & Xu

(2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.

120.

Verkijika

S. F.

(2018). Factors influencing the adoption of mobile commerce applications in Cameroon. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1665–1674.

121.

Walsh

, Evanschitzky

, & Wunderlich

(2008). Identification and analysis of moderator variables: Investigating the customer satisfaction-loyalty link. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9–10), 977–1004.

122.

Walsh

, Shiu

, & Hassan

L. M.

(2014). Replicating, validating, and reducing the length of the consumer perceived value scale. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 260–267.

123.

Wang

(2012). Factors influencing mobile services adoption: A brand-equity perspective. Internet Research, 22(2), 142–179.

124.

Webster

, & Watson

R. T.

(2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.

125.

Wolin

L. D.

, & Korgaonkar

(2003). Web advertising: Gender differences in beliefs, attitudes and behavior. Internet Research, 13(5), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310501658

126.

, Zhao

, Zhu

, Tan

, & Zheng

(2011). A meta-analysis of the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation of moderating influence of subject and context type. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 572–581.

127.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.

128.

Zhou

, Lu

, & Wang

(2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 760–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.013

129.

Zikmund

W. G.

, Babin

B. J.

, Carr

J. C.

, Adhikari

, & Griffin

(2016). Business Research Methods (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

	CR	AVE	SV	TR	EE	PE	MV	BI	QV	EV	HB
SV	.92	.75	.87
TR	.95	.83	.35	.91
EE	.89	.68	.24	.52	.83
PE	.87	.64	.36	.46	.68	.80
MV	.88	.65	.45	.63	.54	.54	.81
BI	.89	.68	.44	.70	.60	.61	.73	.83
QV	.87	.68	.52	.64	.49	.46	.56	.56	.83
EV	.90	.69	.78	.42	.38	.48	.51	.53	.59	.83
HB	.85	.65	.58	.49	.49	.65	.55	.65	.50	.59	.81

	CR	AVE	SV	TR	EE	PE	MV	BI	QV	EV	HB
SV	.92	.75	.87
TR	.95	.83	.35	.91
EE	.89	.68	.24	.52	.83
PE	.87	.64	.36	.46	.68	.80
MV	.88	.65	.45	.63	.54	.54	.81
BI	.89	.68	.44	.70	.60	.61	.73	.83
QV	.87	.68	.52	.64	.49	.46	.56	.56	.83
EV	.90	.69	.78	.42	.38	.48	.51	.53	.59	.83
HB	.85	.65	.58	.49	.49	.65	.55	.65	.50	.59	.81

	CR	AVE	SV	TR	EE	PE	MV	BI	QV	EV	HB
SV	.92	.75	.87
TR	.95	.83	.35	.91
EE	.89	.68	.24	.52	.83
PE	.87	.64	.36	.46	.68	.80
MV	.88	.65	.45	.63	.54	.54	.81
BI	.89	.68	.44	.70	.60	.61	.73	.83
QV	.87	.68	.52	.64	.49	.46	.56	.56	.83
EV	.90	.69	.78	.42	.38	.48	.51	.53	.59	.83
HB	.85	.65	.58	.49	.49	.65	.55	.65	.50	.59	.81