Examining Trust Factor Relationships in the Online Business-To-Consumer Environment

Dissertation Submitted to Northcentral University Graduate Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by NEIL T. GLENNIE

Prescott Valley, Arizona April 2010

Copyright 2010 Neil T. Glennie

ABSTRACT The purpose of this quantitative study was to measure six trust-related factors hypothesized to play essential roles in business-to-consumer e-commerce. The dependent variable was intention to use a Web site (USE). Independent variables were trust (TE), subjective norms (SN), perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), computer self-efficacy (SE), and computer anxiety (CA). All variables were used in prior studies, making this study partially confirmatory. A secondary purpose was to help improve Web site content and associated business practices. Using an adult data panel, potential participants were randomly solicited via e-mail to complete a questionnaire. Findings included the demographic profile being that of an educated, middle-aged Caucasian female possessing moderate family income, computer and Internet search skills, wired broadband access, and a penchant for online purchasing (n = 242). Within the high-trust context of online banking, findings also included that all independent variables exhibited a significant relationship with the USE variable. Using LISREL structural equation modeling software maximum likelihood estimation technique at a .05 significance level for data analysis, significant relationships between USE and each latent variable were found. Estimated USEbased covariances were: TE = .58, PU = .49, PEOU = .43, SN = .54, CA = -.08, and SE = .22. Fit index performance was mixed when compared to commonly cited thresholds: = 829.17, df = 303, CFI = .96, RMR = .16, RMSEA = 0.85,

GFI = .80, AGFI = .75, and NFI = .93. Composite reliabilities were all above .60, and AVE values were all above .50. Differences in findings vis--vis comparative

iv

studies were partially explained by dissimilarities in contexts and in data sources used. This research has provided a posteriori evidence regarding the success of several trust-based marketing experiments. Since the measurement model was not comprehensive and the structural model did not fit well, future research should include removing CA, while introducing trust antecedents, additional latent variables, and more TAM paths into the model. To strengthen external validity, future researchers could test that the more-refined model works across several data samples. Extended research includes investigating whether the incorporation of innovative trust elements into Web site offerings stimulates additional Web site use.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have indeed been privileged to be in the company of countless people who encouraged me to succeed academically, with memories dating as far back as grade school. My heartfelt thanks go to my family, being my closest supporters at all levels. My wife, Dr. Maya Begalieva, my daughter, Ms. Gauhar Kanimetova, and I were at one time all students who shared our academic successes and frustrations. Despite their return or introduction to the work-a-day world, despite the interruption of rebuilding after the now-famous hurricane Katrina destroyed our home, and despite my occasional howls and whimpers of protest as a consequence of revision fatigue, neither Maya nor Gauhar questioned my abilities. It was always to them a fait accompli. Family support does indeed go a long way toward encouraging academic success. I also wish to pay homage to my Northcentral University Dissertation Committee, Dr. Bari Courts, Dr. Kurt Linberg, and Dr. Efosa Osayamwen. Each of them challenged, advised, and encouraged me during the course of this endeavor. Their individual support, suggestions, and recommendations were invaluable and much appreciated. As well, I am indebted to my external committee member, Dr. Malcolm Lane, who has supported me for decades in endeavors that have spanned many countries. In alphabetical order, I wish to thank but a few more of those countless people: Dr. John Evans, Dr. Michael Ewald, Dr. Robert Foster, Dr. Graham Glenday, Dr. Glenn Jenkins, Dr. Darwin Johnson, Dr. James Neiman, and Dr. Wilfred Lewis. All have inspired and contributed to my intellectual development

vi

over the years. I also wish to acknowledge the helpful advice of Dr. Traci Hong for her insights on data collection and academic publishing, and of Dr. Catherine Taylor for her presentation advice. I extend a note of appreciation to Dr. Gerhard Mels, who provided his expert guidance and support regarding various aspects of LISREL software. I dedicate this dissertation to the memory of my two deceased parents: mother Irene Glennie (ne Leason) and father Michael Glennie. Had they lived to witness my graduation, no doubt they would have been proud beyond words.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................1 Statement of Problem and Purpose ..............................................................1 Background and Significance of Research....................................................4 Research Questions ......................................................................................6 Brief Review of Related Literature .................................................................6 Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................8 Highlights and Limitations of Methodology ....................................................9 Summary and Conclusions .........................................................................12 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................14 Overview .....................................................................................................14 Constructs and Causality ............................................................................18 Operationalizations ..................................................................................... 21 Model Complexity ........................................................................................22 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ........................................................23 Lessons Learned .........................................................................................31 Summary .....................................................................................................32 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD ...............................................................34 Introduction ................................................................................................. 34 Restatement of the Problem and Purpose ..................................................35 Statement of Research Questions ..............................................................37 Hypotheses .................................................................................................38 Description of Research Method and Design ..............................................40 Operational Definition of Constructs and Key Variables ..............................42 Selection of Participants or Subjects ...........................................................47 Description of Materials and Instruments ....................................................48 Procedures ..................................................................................................50 Discussion of Data Processing....................................................................51 Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ......................53 Ethical Assurances ......................................................................................55 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ..................................................................................58 Overview .....................................................................................................58 Findings.......................................................................................................62 Summary .....................................................................................................84

viii

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS .......89 Implications .................................................................................................91 Recommendations ....................................................................................101 Conclusions...............................................................................................104 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................107 APPENDIXES.................................................................................................117 APPENDIX A: Survey Questions (Intention to Use) .................................118 APPENDIX B: Survey Questions (Ease of Use, Usefulness) ...................119 APPENDIX C: Survey Questions (Trust) .................................................. 120 APPENDIX D: Survey Questions (Subjective Norms, Self Efficacy) ........121 APPENDIX E: Survey Questions (Computer Anxiety) ..............................122 APPENDIX F: Survey Questions (Demographics) ...................................123 APPENDIX G: Survey Questions (Online Experience) ............................124 APPENDIX H: Survey Questions (Online Experience (continued)) .......... 125 APPENDIX I: Permission to Use Survey Items (1) ................................... 126 APPENDIX J: Permission to Use Survey Items (2) ..................................128 APPENDIX K: Permission to Use Survey Items (3) ................................. 130 APPENDIX L: Survey Screen Shots (Representative Examples) ............132 APPENDIX M: Selected Demographic Frequency Tables .......................135 APPENDIX N: LISREL Standardized Measurement Equations ...............140 APPENDIX O: LISREL Completely Standardized Solution ......................144

ix

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Latent Variables ......................................65 LISREL Standardized Correlation Matrix .......................................67 Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted .................74 LISREL Structural Equation, Error Variances, and t-Values ..........80 Selected Goodness of Fit Statistics ...............................................82

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Trust plays an important role in human interaction, whether involving personal or business relationships. The physical distance and degree of anonymity imposed by business to consumer electronic commerce presents a particularly challenging environment in which to engender and foster trust (Chang & Cheung, 2005). While trust has been widely researched from numerous perspectives, lack of trust continues to be identified as a major obstacle in the adoption of various forms of e-commerce (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). As a result, executives in many online business-to-consumer firms remain puzzled over why consumers will not buy when offered even the most tempting circumstances (Gefen & Straub, 2003). This consumer reluctance implies that better models are needed to gain insights into the role trust plays in business-toconsumer e-commerce. Banking is a business activity that requires a high degree of trust because it involves sensitive and private personal information. Consequently, online banking is an e-commerce activity that too requires a high degree of trust. This study was designed to examine trust-based factor relationships that play an essential role in encouraging business-to-consumer e-commerce. Statement of Problem and Purpose Over 80% of users have said that being able to trust a Web site was very important for them in making a decision to interact with that site (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). Issues relating to trust have had crucial ecommerce ramifications as the US online business-to-consumer market was

2 projected to rapidly grow by between 17 and 19 percent annually through 2008 (Willis, 2004), and then slow to an average growth of just under 7 percent between 2008 and 2013 (Grau, 2009). U.S. B2C e-commerce sales had been estimated to total $224 billion in 2009, growing to $319 billion by 2013 (Grau, 2009). The Gartner Group had projected B2C e-commerce evolving into a seven trillion dollar industry (Bentrum & Whatley, 2002). Yet while trust is essential to these business-to-consumer e-commerce transactions, there is little knowledge about the relationships that sustain trust in an online business-to-consumer setting despite that the concept of trust has long been recognized by researchers to be a key factor. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005), for instance, identified 16 studies that focused on trust as it pertained to business-to-consumer ecommerce activities. Critical factors that influence trust have also been identified through research. However, despite their incorporation into the design of e-commerce Web sites, success in inspiring trust in Web sites has remained elusive (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). A survey of adult Internet users indicated that only 29% trust e-commerce sites just about always or most of the time, while 64% trust e-commerce sites only some of the time or never (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). In contrast, the same survey reports that 58% of adult Internet users trust newspapers and television news and 47% trust the federal government. This quantitative study examined the relationship between trust and other factors that are hypothesized to play an essential role in the acceptance of technology within the online business-to-consumer environment.

3 Acceptance of technology (sometimes referred to as an acceptance-centric model) focuses on the primary desired consequent of trust: user acceptance of an e-commerce Web site. Given the importance that trust holds in the future success and growth potential of e-commerce, there is a need to examine the relative importance of each factor that influences consumer acceptance of this form of technology. Researchers have conceptualized trust and its antecedents in a variety of ways, with conceptualizations combined into one construct by some researchers, split apart by others, and often based on the referent disciplines of the researchers (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004; McKnight & Chervany, 2001). Such variation in the literature has produced an abundance of empirical evidence without the means to integrate it, and has hindered the advancement of research on the role of trust in e-commerce (Gefen, Rao, & Tractinsky, 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). In contrast, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the context of business-to-consumer e-commerce. The TAM has been explored from a variety of perspectives, and has consistently been able to explain 30% to 40% of the variance in user acceptance of technology (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). The TAM is a relatively simple model, with only two determinants for user acceptance of technology. TAM posits that perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) determine an individual's intention to use a system, with intention to use serving as a mediator of actual system use (Furneaux, 2006). It follows then, that simplifying the TAM to include

4 only direct relational paths provided an opportunity to confirm basic trust factor relationships, and perhaps yielded additional insights into those factors of trust that play an essential role in technology acceptance within the online businessto-consumer environment. Such insights, in turn, may have uncovered new or improved methods for fostering trust in the online business-to-consumer environment, including more innovative approaches to Web site and marketing designs, to customer retention strategies, and to the improvement of online service quality (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). Linear Structural Relationships (LISREL) analysis with one outcome and six predictor variables was the predominant statistical tool used in this study to examine trust relationships in a business-to-consumer setting that demands a high degree of trust: online banking. Background and Significance of Research Although they have existed for well over a decade, e-commerce Web sites have far to go when it comes to engendering trust in their users (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005; Shergill & Chen, 2005). This reluctance implies that better models are needed to gain insights into the role trust plays in business-toconsumer e-commerce. A variety of consumer trust antecedents have been identified by researchers, including knowledge-based trust, institution-based trust, calculative-based trust, cognition-based trust, and personality-based trust. Trust antecedents have ranged from abstract concepts such as information richness and social presence to relatively tangible ones such as interface design, firm size, and firm reputation (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Therefore, while

5 research literature has arguably provided some basic understandings of consumer trust, important distinctions have not always been adequately articulated and inconsistent and varied conceptualizations and operationalizations have raised many questions about their proper relationships and constructs (Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003). This lack of articulation, inconsistency, and variation has produced what Gefen, Rao, et al. (2003) described as a chaotic mess of empirical evidence that has hindered theoretical advances in business-to-consumer e-commerce research on trust. In contrast, the TAM has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the context of business-toconsumer e-commerce. Moreover, research studies have advanced new models that, while valuable in that they have shown new perspectives on the field, have failed to diminish the usefulness and validity of the TAM. Not only has the TAM consistently been able to explain 30% to 40% of the variance in user acceptance of technology, it has also been explored from a variety of perspectives, including replication studies, comparison studies, extension studies, and scale development (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Simplifying the TAM to include only direct relational paths provided an opportunity to confirm basic trust factor relationships, and perhaps yielded additional insights into the factors of trust that play an essential role in technology acceptance within the online business-toconsumer environment. In the context of online banking, an activity requiring a substantial level of trust, the purpose of this study was to examine those factors that play an essential role in this form of technology acceptance.

6 Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. What is the relationship, if any, between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 2. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 3. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 4. What is the relationship, if any, between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 5. What is the relationship, if any, between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 6. What is the relationship, if any, between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Brief Review of Related Literature Trust has long been understood as a key factor in the success of business-to-consumer e-commerce transactions. Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) cited over 30 studies that conceptualized trust, seven of which were specific to an online or e-commerce environment. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) identified 16 studies that focused on trust as it pertains to business-to-consumer e-commerce activities. A compilation of conceptualizations and operationalizations of trust conducted between 1967 and 2002 evidenced researchers viewing trust as a set of specific beliefs in the characteristics of

7 another party, as a general belief that another party can be trusted, as an affect reflected in feelings of confidence invoked by another party, or as some combination of these elements (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). Such inconsistent conceptualizations of consumer trust in the literature have raised many questions about their proper relationships and constructs, hindering theoretical advances in this area of research (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). Moreover, despite the abundance of research and its inclusion in Web design, users remain wary of participating in online business transactions. This reluctance implies that better models are needed to gain insights into the role trust plays in business-toconsumer e-commerce (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). An exception to the variation in the literature concerns the use of the TAM. The TAM has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the context of business-to-consumer e-commerce. For example, Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) employed the TAM for studying ecommerce behavior. In that study, the TAM explained a considerable portion of variance in intended online behavior. The TAM has also been extended more than once by others (e.g., Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003), and is a well tested model possessing well validated measures that ensure high levels of construct validity (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Moreover, research studies have advanced new models that, while valuable in that they have shown new perspectives on the field, have failed to diminished the usefulness and validity of the TAM. Extending the TAM, Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) adopted the conceptualization of trust as a set of specific beliefs (i.e., integrity, benevolence,

8 ability, and predictability), and relied on separating trust and actual behavioral intentions of the customer. This reliance is consistent with the theoretical social psychology foundations of the TAM. By further extending the TAM, Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) introduced a new research model and agenda that explored the importance of trust and other factors in business-to-consumer ecommerce. It extended research in the field by introducing an acceptance-centric model of trust that focused on the primary desired consequent of trust: intention to use the e-commerce Web site. Definition of Key Terms For the purpose of this study, the following terms were defined: Computer anxiety (CA). Computer anxiety referred to the tendency of an individual to be uneasy, apprehensive, or afraid to use computers (Holsapple & Sasiharan, 2005). Computer self-efficacy (SE). Computer self-efficacy was an individuals self-judgment of his or her ability to use computers effectively (Holsapple & Sasiharan, 2005). Intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site (USE). Intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site in the context of this study referred to the intended use of a Web site to perform any or all of the following banking transactions: viewing a bank balance or statement, transferring money between accounts, or paying bills online (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004).

9 Perceived ease of use (PEOU). Perceived ease of use referred to the extent to which the user perceived that using the particular system would be free of both physical and cerebral effort (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Perceived usefulness (PU). Perceived usefulness referred to the extent to which the user perceived that using the particular system would augment his or her employment-based performance (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Subjective norms (SN). Subjective norms referred to the extent to which an individual believed that people who were important to him (or her) think he (or she) should have performed the behavior in question (Holsapple & Sasiharan, 2005). Trust (TE). Trust referred to the customers assessment that she or he could have relied on the online banking system to ensure the safety and security of the customers online transactions (Holsapple & Sasiharan, 2005). Highlights and Limitations of Methodology The data collection instrument consisted of an online survey containing 40 closed-ended items. Permissions to reuse and adapt instrument items for this study were both requested and obtained (see Appendixes I through K). Highlights of the methodology include that all survey items used in this examination originated from previous studies. By using such well-validated measures, high levels of construct validity and reliability are ensured (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). As opposed to the development of a new model, basic elements of the well-established TAM was used, enhanced with selected extension used by Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) and by Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005). Past

10 research using extensions to the TAM have indicated that both technology and trust should work together to influence the decision to participate in e-commerce (Gefen, Karahanna, et. al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). However, although studies conducted within the TAM framework have repeatedly shown that subjective norms, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety played significant roles in determining user acceptance of information systems, until now they have remained unexplored in the context of trust (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Pilot studies can be used for many reasons, including that of testing survey item wording clarity and appropriateness (Cozby, 2003). However, since the items selected for this study have undergone extensive and repeated validity testing (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005), a pilot project was not employed for the purpose of measure validation. Moreover, because changes to an item in a validated instrument can potentially weaken its reliability and validity (McCoy et al., 2004; Rudestam & Newton, 2001), items used for this study had to the greatest extent possible maintained their original format and order. For the same reason, the wording of all items were subjected to minimal modification, and only when deemed necessary for a change in context. For example, an item that contained the term online vendor had been rephrased to online banking system. In other words, the general online vendor concept was made more specific to the online banking service industry. As the eligible population was comprised of banking-savvy individuals that were both aware of and had access to online banking, the ability to generalize

11 the study is limited to participants that had already established a trusting relationship, and so excludes situations where initial trust was being established. Therefore, the studys focus was on maintaining the trust needed to retain customers rather than on fostering the trust of potential customers. It also limits the ability to generalize the study to a setting where online banking is widely available (i.e., countries possessing an advanced banking infrastructure). It has been observed that people having greater disposable income were more likely to take advantage of the benefits of online banking, such as 24-hour access to accounts and higher interest rates. As of December 2005, 55% of Internet users living in households with $75,000 or more in annual income bank online, compared with 29% of Internet users living in households with less than $30,000 in annual income (Fox & Beire, 2006). Study subjects were randomly selected from an online data panel representing all online US residents at least 18 years of age. All recruitment of potential respondents required a double opt-in by the survey administration company that created the panel. All respondent communications explained why someone is a member of a community and what they should expect from membership. All communications with respondents also offered multiple methods to opt-out of panel membership. Participation was entirely voluntary, and a participant was able to withdraw at any time and for any reason. The online panel allowed for ample diversity among participants. The above-described sample frame was judged by the researcher to be representative of the U.S. online banking population, with no elements of coercion present. Alternate methods of

12 drawing samples were explored and included the use of online banking forums, paper-based neighborhood surveys, and surveying Northcentral University (NCU) learners through channels such as blogging Web sites, user groups, and newsletters. While these methods were clearly more economical, unlike the case of using a professional survey administration company they carried no assurances regarding sample randomness, response quality, response rate, or response timeliness. The survey instrument (see Appendixes A through H) was composed largely of closed-ended statements, which by their nature limited the number and type of response alternatives given, and assumes the dimensions of the variables are well defined (Cozby, 2003). The survey was also administered using electronic means rather than using paper and pencil. Though inconclusive, research assessing the psychometric differences between paper-and-pencil and online survey administration for the TAM instrument suggested that formerly paper-and-pencil survey instruments migrated to the Web may introduce biasing effects (McCoy, Carr, Marks, & Mabarika, 2004). Summary and Conclusions Research on experienced repeat online shoppers supports that consumer trust and TAM use-antecedents together explain much of their behavioral intentions (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). However, surveys have indicated that e-commerce Web sites have not done well in engendering and sustaining user trust (Gefen, 2002; Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Therefore, it is imperative to further the understanding of the

13 factors that influence trust and how relatively important they are. A clearer conceptualization of consumer trust will help diminish the longstanding impediments that have hindered the advancement of cumulative research (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). It may also open the door to discovering innovative ways to use these clearer understandings in future Web site and marketing designs, in customer retention strategies, and in improving service quality (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). The research context used for this study was online banking; an environment that, by its very nature, demands a high degree of sustained consumer trust (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005; Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). This study builds on past models and studies in an attempt to clarify the conceptualization of trust within the online business-to-consumer environment. More specifically, this studys author introduced a model that integrates and extends elements of the well established and widely used TAM, similar to that used by Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003), and with to-date untested Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) acceptance-centric model extensions. The research intended to also promote a direction for future research founded on past successes and insights, with the aspiration of establishing a solid foundation for future trust research.

14 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Overview Trust has long been understood as a key factor in the success of business-to-consumer e-commerce transactions. A literature search by Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) produced a list of 16 studies that focused on trust as it pertained to business-to-consumer e-commerce activities. An earlier study by Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) cited over 30 studies that conceptualized trust, seven of which were specific to an online or e-commerce environment. Yet despite the application of such research, users remained wary of participating in online business transactions. A survey of adult Internet users indicated that only 29% trusted e-commerce sites just about always or most of the time, while 64% trusted e-commerce sites only some of the time or never (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). In contrast, the same survey reported that 58% of adult Internet users trusted newspapers and television news, and 47% trusted the federal government. Moreover, over 80% of Internet users stated that trust was very important for them when deciding whether to use a Web site (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Trust also appears to be difficult to earn yet easy to lose: a 2005 Privacy Trust Survey for Online Banking found that a single privacy breach would cause 57% of customers with a high level of trust in their banks to take their business to a competitor (Ponemon, 2005). Thus, even after their existence for over a decade, e-commerce Web sites have far to go when it comes to engendering trust in users (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005; Shergill & Chen, 2005). This reluctance implies that better models are needed to

15 gain insights into the role trust and its antecedents play in business-to-consumer e-commerce. The difficulty with engendering trust lies, in part, with the nature of online commercial activity. The opportunity to project a perception of interaction with another human being (i.e., a social presence) is limited online, yet research has identified it is a necessary condition for the development of trust because trust is created within the context of a social environment (Gefen & Straub, 2003). Controversially, several researchers had advanced that trust in a person (conceptualized as trust in the persons competence, benevolence, and integrity) is not fundamentally different from trust in the technology that supports ecommerce. Findings based on over 30 empirical studies suggested that even technologically sophisticated people treat technological artifacts (i.e., computers and computer systems) as if they were other human beings, rather than just tools (Komiak, Wang, & Benbasat, 2005). Gefen and Straub (2003) had explored whether social presence was an antecedent of trust when combined with consumer expectations, because behavior and cues that are in accordance with expectations tend to build trust. Their research suggested that social presence affected consumer trust and that trust subsequently had a stronger effect on purchase intentions than even the widely studied TAM beliefs. The TAM had long been accepted as a robust model for studying behavior in a wide variety of information technology situations, and the Gefen and Straub (2003) study indicated that social presence could unseat TAMs prominence. It also suggested that trust antecedents could exist and be comparatively important

16 in predicting the willingness of consumers to buy online. However, these important trust, TAM and trust antecedent findings were weakened on several counts, including their generalizability beyond a traditional student population (i.e., their external validity) and also related to the issue of Web site stickiness. Web site stickiness is a quality of a Web site that draws consumers to it, and with a tendency to stick to it afterward. It has been often argued that Web sites with this adhesive quality could better explain tendencies of online consumer willingness (Gefen & Straub, 2003). Although studies conducted within the TAM framework have repeatedly identified its perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) factors as playing significant roles in determining user acceptance of information technology, some researchers have made trust an antecedent of PEOU, reversing the causal relationship. These distinctions have been based on whether initial trust (i.e., the online consumer had no prior relationship with the Web site and the vendor) or ongoing trust (i.e., the online consumer had an established relationship with the Web site and the vendor) was involved. Similar arguments of causality between PU and trust have also been made. Notably, in some studies trust had been examined as an antecedent of PU where ongoing trust had been established (Hampton-Sosa & Koufaris, 2005). Subtle but important distinctions have also been made between trust and trusting behavior in relation to risk. The fundamental difference between these two distinctions was between a willingness to assume a risk and actually assuming a risk. There appears to be no risk taken in the willingness to be vulnerable to trust, but risk is

17 inherent in the behavioral manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable. The adoption of Internet banking, a form of trusting behavior, means that a consumer is taking on risk by putting himself in a possibly vulnerable situation. Trust, in the form of a general positive attitude, acts as a guideline toward increasing the likelihood of trusting behavior (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). While the literature has provided researchers with some basic understandings of consumer trust and its antecedents, this knowledge has remained both sparse and fragmented (Nah & Davis, 2002). Inconsistent conceptualizations of consumer trust and its antecedents in the literature have raised many questions about their proper relationships and constructs, hindering theoretical advances in research on trust (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). Divergent meanings and operationalizations of trust have been used in the area of ecommerce: one studys definition of trust has been another studys antecedent to trust; trust has been distinguished from distrust; personalization affects trust over time; definitions and operationalizations of trust and trust antecedents have been based on disciplinary backgrounds (McKnight, Kacmar, & Choudhury, 2004; Serino, Furner, & Smatt, 2005). As early as 1995, the problem had been characterized as a lack of clarity in the relationship between risk and trust; variation between trust, its antecedents and outcomes; lack of specificity of trust referents; and failure to consider both the trustee and the trustor (Chang & Cheung, 2005). A compilation of conceptualizations and operationalizations of trust for 43 studies conducted between 1967 and 2002 showed researchers viewing trust as (a) a set of specific beliefs dealing with the integrity,

18 benevolence, and ability of another party, (b) a general belief that another party can be trusted, (c) affect reflected in feelings of confidence and security in the caring response of another party, or (d) as some combination of these elements. Some researchers combined the first two conceptualizations into one construct; others split the first two, declaring the specific beliefs as antecedents to the general belief, sometimes naming the specific process beliefs as trustworthiness and sometimes conceptualizing the specific beliefs as antecedents to trusting intentions (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). Finally, a study by Loonam and OLoughlin (2008) on Irish online banking advanced that transference of trust from brick-and-mortar providers to online providers was not as strong with ebanking as it was with other e-services, since e-banking customers expected heightened security initiatives due to the nature of the industry. Constructs and Causality A significant variety of research methodologies, constructs and variables have been used to analyze the concept of trust and its antecedents in businessto-consumer online transactions. For example, Gefen (2002) distinguished between trust (a general belief) and trustworthiness (specific consumer beliefs related to ability, integrity, and benevolence), and proposed a three-dimensional scale of trustworthiness to provide a better measure of online behavioral intentions, both directly and through overall trust. The distinction between trust as a general belief versus a set of specific beliefs had been made primarily in interpersonal interaction-based studies. However, in buyer-seller transactions the distinction was seldom expressed, perhaps because trust in such circumstances

19 is an extension of, rather than direct implementation of, interpersonal trust. In contrast, the key to successful economic transactions is avoiding opportunistic behavior, rather than solidifying a social relationship. Consequently, some researchers claimed that actual behavior in ongoing economic alliances is a proxy for trust, defined in that context as confidence or an overall belief (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale (2000) treated trust and trustworthiness interchangeably as a unidimensional construct, while Gefen (2002) argued they are different constructs and that each is multidimensional. The relationship between trust and risk perception has been similarly debated. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) maintained that low risk engenders trust, whereas Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, et al. (2000) advanced that trust engenders risk perception. Risk perception itself has also be viewed as a multidimensional construct (i.e., product category risk and financial risk) (Kim & Kim, 2005).The literature was also unclear whether risk is an antecedent to trust, is trust, or is an outcome of trust (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). Hampton-Sosa and Koufaris (2005) referred to a persisting debate over whether perceived ease-ofuse is an antecedent of trust or vice versa, concluding that additional research is required to determine which the antecedent is, whether the answer is contextdependent, or whether confounding variables are involved. Some researchers had been critical of the work of their peers, intensifying the trust debate. With a goal of elevating the discussion to addressing the direction of future research, Gefen, Rao, et al. (2003) raised important questions about research trends regarding the treatment of trust in e-commerce. These

20 trends included the tendency to treat trust and risk conceptualizations as unidimensional constructs (ignoring the large body of literature suggesting that they are complex and multidimensional constructs), and the tendency to articulate relationships between trust and risk without attention to prior articulations. Challenging this view, Serva, Benamati, and Fuller (2005) argued that in the e-commerce context researchers should be guided by the research question, hypotheses, and research design in deciding which conceptualizations to employ. In the context of online banking, a form of technology acceptance, Kim and Prabhakar (2004) advanced that while there is one trustor (i.e., the online banker), there are two trustees (i.e., the Internet as a banking medium, and the financial institution offering the Internet banking services). A chain is as strong as its weakest link, and so trust in both trustees must be present for online banking to flourish. Consumer trust, acceptance, and use of online banking technologies are possibly also related to the characteristics of the individual consumer and of the specific technology employed. For example, trust, acceptance, and use appeared to be linked to a consumers socioeconomic and demographic characteristics (e.g., income, age), perceptions of specific technologies (e.g., TAMs perceived ease of use), and personal preferences (e.g., desire for control over when a bill is paid) (Anguelov, Hilgert, & Hogarth, 2004). The Internet itself has many trust-based dimensions, including correctness (i.e., proper outputs for each input), availability, reliability, security, and survivability (i.e., capability to provide a level of service under adverse conditions). Onto this is layered the

21 many distinct approaches to trust research, with antecedents of trust often determined by referent disciplines. Personality psychologists tended to view trust as an individual characteristic based on an innate propensity to trust. Institutionbased trust researchers maintained that trust reflects the security felt about a situation based on guarantees and safety nets. Marketers and sociologists have advanced that trust can be transferred or influenced by others, as in the case in word-of-mouth referrals (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). Regardless of the approach to trust research, many researchers recognized its fragility, particularly in online banking where high levels of trust are required. According to the 2005 Privacy Trust Survey for Online Banking, only one privacy breach would cause 57% of customers with a high level of trust in their banks to take their business to a competitor (Ponemon, 2005). Operationalizations Given the debate regarding the constructs themselves, it follows that the way constructs were operationalized differed considerably in the literature. Some researchers operationalized trust by conceptualizing it as a vague confidence, expectancy, belief, or feeling. Other researchers preferred to operationalize trust by identifying specific modes of trust, such as characteristic-based (i.e., social similarity), process-based (i.e., previous or expected outcome), or institutionalbased (i.e., societal institution and intermediary) (Chang & Cheung, 2005). In addition, some researchers preferred to develop their own context-driven or study-driven models. Such an approach required considerable effort to develop and tune the instruments, sometimes involving multiple iterations to produce an

22 acceptable outcome, and having to take into account reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Despite such efforts, the results often lacked sufficient external validity (e.g., Gefen, 2002). Internet banking had been the target of several studies (e.g., Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005; Kim & Prabhakar, 2000; Kim & Prabhakar, 2004) because it represents a high consequence system where high levels of trust are required. Primary concerns in the Internet banking research context have been the confidentiality of the details of financial transactions, the invasion of privacy, and the possibility of errors (Brown & Muchira, 2004; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Statistics have repeatedly suggested that a significant number of Internet users do not engage in Internet banking. Although most banks in the U.S. offer Internet banking, according to a Kim and Phabhakar (2004) study the bank branch steadfastly remains the primary source of financial service delivery to consumers. Only a minority of Internet users actually used the Internet for financial transactions. For example, only 20 million Internet users used online banking although bank Web sites reported a large number of online visitors. In addition, while a 2001 study reported that 61% of all US households were online, only 20% of all U.S. households used Internet banking (Kim & Phabhakar, 2004). The situation could possibly worsen as a consequence of the success of December 2008 attacks that targeted the online banking industry (Krebs, 2008). Model Complexity There is a need to consider the balance between developing impractically complex models against those that are too simplistic. Kim and Tadisina (2005)

23 noted that their trusting belief construct failed to model well in three or more dimensions, and so proposed two dimensions to gain a better fit. In contrast, Gefen (2002), Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005), and others advanced that more-complex models are needed to capture the nature of trust and proportionately weigh it against competing influences. Serva et al. (2005) tested trustworthiness as a unidimensional construct and as two separate multidimensional constructs in the same study. They concluded that multidimensional constructs were superior, though advised that researchers should be guided by the research question, hypotheses, and research design in deciding which conceptualization to use. Taking this drive for complexity to its logical conclusion, further dimension and subconstruct extensions are almost limitless. However, the difficulty with adding increasing amounts of complexity to a model is that the practicality (both financial and administrative) of using the model rapidly diminishes. For example, in the context of administering a questionnaire, response accuracy may progressively diminish toward the end of the questionnaire. Annoyed or impatient participants are not likely to be reliable participants, as they may randomly respond to questions with their newfound purpose of simply finishing the questionnaire, rather than accurately recording their views. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) With the understanding that Web sites are both IT systems and the channels through which consumers interact with e-vendors, Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) accepted that the TAM applies to e-commerce, but also advanced

24 that both technology- and trust-based antecedents should work together to influence the decision to participate in e-commerce. Perceived ease of use, defined as the extent to which the user senses that using the particular system would be free of both physical and cerebral effort, was hypothesized to be correlated with both perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-toconsumer Web site. Perceived usefulness, defined as the extent to which the user senses that using the particular system would augment his or her job performance, was also hypothesized to be correlated with intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Trust was defined in the current study as the customers assessment that she or he can rely on the online banking system to ensure the safety and security of the customers online transactions (Holsapple & Sasiharan, 2005). Trust as a feeling is more relevant to interpersonal relationships (such as friendship and love) than to business transactions (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003), and so was not considered in the current study. Trust in the current study was hypothesized to be correlated with intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The relationship between channel (sometimes called Internet-based or Web-based) risk, trust and e-commerce use is unresolved in the literature. In the context of e-commerce, competing approaches had considered risk perception and trust as independently affecting behavior, risk perception as a mediator of the effect of trust on behavior, and risk perception as a moderator of the effect of trust on behavior (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003). Channel risk, the online equivalent of

25 consumer risk, had many forms, including: whether the product or service meets expectations, return policy, confidentiality, and credit card security (Dillon & Reif, 2004). The three channel risks were also encapsulated in the trust relationship that exists between the online banking system and the consumer. Gefen, Rao, et al. (2003) conceptualized perceived channel risk and trust as having no causeeffect relationship (i.e., acting independently on behavior), based on an Internet banking study by Kim and Prabhakar (2000). Notably, the context of the Kim and Prabhakar (2000) study included initial trust and channel risk, as well as Internet banking. Online business-to-consumer trust has also be considered the product of many antecedents. Some were more relevant to initial stages of a relationship, wherein trust was not based on experience, such as personality-based and cognition-based trust. As well, there are many other variables with the potential to influence the intention to engage in e-commerce, including various risks, vendor size, vendor reputation, and trust transference (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). To restrain the models size, both antecedents and these variables were excluded from the scope of this research, although they should be considered for future studies. For the same reason, phishing fraud risk has also been excluded from the scope of this research but should be considered for future studies (Fox, 2005; Krebs, 2008; Oghenerukeybe, 2009; Orr, 2008a). Holsapple and Sasiharan (2005) introduced three additional variables that influence the intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site: subjective norms, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety. According to the authors,

26 studies conducted within the TAM framework have repeatedly indicated these factors as playing significant roles in determining user acceptance of information systems, yet until now they have remained unexplored in the context of online trust. Subjective norms, defined as the extent to which an individual believes that people who are important to him (or her) think he (or she) should perform the behavior in question, was hypothesized to be correlated both with perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Computer self-efficacy, defined as an individuals judgment of his or her ability to use computers effectively, was hypothesized to be correlated with perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Computer anxiety, defined as the tendency of an individual to be uneasy, apprehensive, or afraid to use computers, was hypothesized to be correlated with perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) never tested their hypotheses regarding these three variables in the online banking context. They were included in this study for initial exploration. The general structure of newer research models tended to examine business-to-consumer e-commerce trust in isolation, in the process ignoring potential explanatory variables and inflating the importance of their own. By not controlling for such potential alternate explanatory variables, the strength of the relationship between trust and user acceptance may have been exaggerated (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). In contrast, the TAM has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the

27 context of business-to-consumer e-commerce. For example, Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) employed the TAM for studying e-commerce behavior. In that study, the two TAM use-antecedents (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use) explained a considerable portion of variance in intended online behavior. The TAM has been extended more than once by others (e.g., Gefen, Karahanna, et al. 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005), and is a well-tested model possessing well-validated measures that ensure high levels of construct validity (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Moreover, researchers have advanced new models that, while valuable in that they have shown new perspectives on the field, have failed to diminish the usefulness and validity of TAM. Therefore, a convergence of research efforts toward developing an extended version of the TAM would encourage the establishment of a common platform for future studies, so that all may benefit from a common direction of efforts. Researchers have integrated the TAM with other conceptual models. Holsapple and Sasiharan (2005) combined it with their acceptance-centric model of trust that focused on the primary desired consequent of trust: intention to use the e-commerce Web site. Arguing that the generic information provided by the TAM model is not sufficient to motivate the consumer to perform online shopping, Adapa (2008) combined elements of the TAM with Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory, the latter of which involved five constructs: relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability, and complexity. Employing that theory, the cultural classification framework proposed by Hofstede (2001) depicted five empirically derived cultural dimensions: individualism-collectivism, power

28 distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, and long term-short-term orientation. Hofstedes (2001) framework, based on work related values, received considerable attention from scholars (Van Everdingen & Waarts, 2003). Singer, Avery, and Baradwaj (2008) also combined the TAM with Hofsteds cultural dimensions in the context of online banking. While supportive of the TAM, these researchers concluded that online banking Web sites were also sensitive to the cultural factors of individualism, masculinity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Singer, Avery, and Baradwaj (2008) also noted that the constructs of TAM have not yet been integrated into process innovation management, however this area could prove a fertile field for further research (p. 261). Amin (2009) combined the TAM elements PU and PEOU with perceived credibility, perceived enjoyment, and social norms, and found all but perceived enjoyment to be statistically significant in the context of online banking. Applying a complex LISREL structural equation model, Lin, Yeh, and Chen (2009) combined several TAM antecedents with Innovation Diffusion Theory, and concluded that trust and perceived relative advantage were key determinants of online banking service user-adoption. Rigopoulos and Askounis (2008) developed a revised TAM model for measuring customers attitude towards online payment adoption, being one component of online banking. While the study contained several limitations, including its sample size, an interesting component of the study was that the researchers attempted to observe a connection between behavioral intention to use online banking and its actual usage. Qureshi, Zafar, and Khan (2008) extended the TAM in the context of

29 online banking, and concluded that usefulness, security, and privacy are the main factors that determined customer acceptance. Convenience sampling was noted as a sampling weakness for the study. Rather than integrating the TAM, researchers have alternatively compared the TAM framework to that of other models in an effort to determine which performs better. Using a Web survey to collect data, Gounaris and Koritos (2008) compared three alternative frameworks in the context of Internet banking. Two have been widely used: the TAM and the DoI. The studys authors advanced that the third model, Perceived Characteristics of an Innovation (PCI), has been generally underutilized and never explored in the online context. While Gounaris and Koritos (2008) found the PCI model to perform better than TAM or DoI, the non-random use of local (i.e., Greek) students as subjects and the focus on Internet banking limited the studys external validity. Although Avery, Baradwaj, and Singer (2008) had integrated the TAM with Hofsteads (2001) cultural factor framework, in an alternate study they also considered it separately in the context of retail banking. Each of Hofstede's cultural dimensions was found to have an impact on understanding and explaining the attributes of the various banking Web sites, laying a foundation for future research on the larger international banking community and the ability to report the effectiveness of such sites. Demographics Online consumer researchers have also produced varied results in their efforts to identify key demographics. Haytko and Simmers (2009) found that while the convenience of online banking was displacing teller-based transactions

30 for both genders, females could accept online banking with less of a need for occasional teller interaction. A 2005 survey indicated that 77% of consumers age 65 and over preferred branch banking to online banking (Dong & Bliemel, 2008). In a study that used the five empirically-derived cultural dimensions contained in Hofstedes (2001) framework plus components of the TAM to measure the adoption of Internet shopping, Adapa (2008) noted that within the research literature the effects of age on Internet purchasing is unclear since various studies reported oppositely-signed relationships, and a few studies reported no relationship. The Adapa (2008) study also noted that mixed effects were identified between variables education and Internet shopping, some positive and some negative, while only income exhibited a consistently positive effect with the adoption of Internet shopping. Servon and Kaestner (2008) studied online banking in the context of financial literacy and income. Findings included that while high-income consumers make use of online banking technologies, there was evidence of a link between information and communications technologies and financial literacy, with the more-disadvantaged low- and moderate-income consumers being interested in becoming technologically and financially literate. Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) found that there were few differences between online banking customers and mobile banking customers, with age and gender being the primary differentiating variables between these groups of customers: the typical mobile banker being older and male. Since the TAM construct was invariant across different gender, age, and IT competence subgroups, Lai and Li (2005)

31 concluded that whether male or female, old or young, IT expert or novice, all conceptualized the TAM construct in very similar ways. Lessons Learned Despite the considerable variation in the literature, there were a number of valuable lessons learned from its review and that can be applied to future research. The majority of studies were conducted in the context of online shopping by students. Particularly in a traditional classroom setting, the convenient use of students can limit the external validity of the findings because they are not always representative of the general population (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). As for online shopping, trust barriers may have been lower for specialty e-stores such as Dell.com and all-encompassing e-stores such as Amazon.com, making trust less of an issue. In contrast, the selection of high-trust business-to-consumer Web sites, such as those associated with online banking, presented a superior setting for study (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Future researchers should also embrace the TAM, extending it to make it more comprehensive and sophisticated, and encourage other researchers to do the same. Over the years, the TAM has been explored extensively from a variety of perspectives, including replication studies, comparison studies, scale development and extensions studies. Using the TAM fosters the adoption of a single standard for comparative and replicative research, and endorses a common direction for future research. The TAM has consistently been able to explain 30% to 40% of the variance in user acceptance of technology, promoting it as the theoretical model of choice for exploring user acceptance of information

32 technology (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Finally, all studies should collect demographics, as demographic profiles of respondents could be useful to Web site developers that are privy to their visitors profiles. Summary Regardless of the debates over the precise definition of trust, whether first- or second-order conceptualizations are appropriate, or which are the most important antecedents that drive trust, there clearly remains a widespread agreement in the literature that trust continues to play a major role in determining the success of business-to-consumer e-commerce transactions (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005; Nah & Davis, 2002). Several factors questioned the benefits attributable to current research and perhaps impeded the potential benefits gained through longer-term cumulative research. These included: the articulation of trust relationships idiosyncratically without sufficient attention to prior articulations, the lack of sufficient rigor in operationalizing constructs, and the constraining of external validity through the practice of using students as subjects (Barnes & Vidgen, 2002; Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) adopted the conceptualization of trust as a set of specific beliefs (i.e., integrity, benevolence, ability, and predictability), and relied on separating trust and actual behavioral intentions of the customer. Such a reliance was consistent with the theoretical social psychology foundations of the TAM. Theoretical assertions require clear conceptualizations of the constructs involved and reliable, robust operationalizations of the same. While it

33 was appropriate to have competing conceptualizations and models in the early phases of development of an area of study, it is now time to work towards building a cumulative body of knowledge on trust. Rampant variations placed ecommerce researchers in imminent danger of expending a great deal of effort to produce a chaotic mess of empirical evidence, without the means to integrate all the evidence into a defensible view of the role of trust in e-commerce (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Following the lead of Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003), Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) introduced a new research model and agenda that explored the importance of trust and other factors in business-to-consumer e-commerce. It extended research in the field by introducing an acceptance-centric model of trust that focused on the primary desired consequent of trust: intention to use the e-commerce Web site. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) advanced that the use of the TAM by Gefen et al. (2003) ignored the role played by other factors that could have influenced user acceptance of Web portals, and argued that their research model integrates three missed factors (subjective norms, computer selfefficacy, and computer anxiety) with trust to extend the framework of the TAM.

34 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHOD Introduction The population for the study consisted of established users of online banking. Study subjects were randomly selected from an online data panel representing all online US residents at least 18 years of age. The online panel allows for ample diversity among participants. The above-described sample frame was judged by the researcher to be representative of the U.S. online banking population. Rather than developing a competing model, the well-established TAM was used, similar to that used by Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003), and acceptancecentric model extensions by Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005). The data collection instrument consisted of an online survey containing 40 closed-ended items, inclusive of demographic data. A Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) values was used as the basis for participant responses. The models dependent variable was behavioral intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The six independent variables were the two TAM antecedents (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), trust, subjective norms, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety. Extensions to the TAM have indicated that both technology and trust should work together to influence the decision to participate in e-commerce (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Studies conducted within the TAM framework have indicated subjective norms, computer self-efficacy, and computer anxiety as playing significant roles in determining

35 user acceptance of information systems, yet have remained unexplored in the context of trust (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Restatement of the Problem and Purpose Over 80% of users reported that being able to trust a Web site is very important for them in making a decision to interact with that site (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). Issues relating to trust have crucial ecommerce ramifications as the US online business-to-consumer market was projected to rapidly grow by between 17 and 19 percent annually through 2008 (Willis, 2004), and then slow to an average growth of just under 7 percent between 2008 and 2013 (Grau, 2009). The Gartner Group had projected B2C ecommerce evolving into a seven trillion dollar industry (Bentrum & Whatley, 2002). Yet, while trust is essential to business transactions, there is little knowledge about the relationships that sustain trust in an online business-toconsumer setting. This correlation analysis used one outcome and six predictor variables to examine trust relationships in a business setting that demands a high degree of trust: online banking. Researchers have recognized trust as playing a key role in the success of business-to-consumer e-commerce transactions. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005), for instance, identified 16 studies that focused on trust as it pertains to business-to-consumer e-commerce activities. Researchers have also identified factors that influence trust, although their incorporation into the design of e-commerce Web sites has met with limited success in inspiring trust (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). A survey of adult Internet users indicated that

36 only 29% trust e-commerce sites just about always or most of the time, while 64% trust e-commerce sites only some of the time or never (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). In contrast, the same survey reported that 58% of adult Internet users trust newspapers and television news and 47% trust the federal government. The researcher of this quantitative study examined the relationship between trust and other factors that play an essential role in the acceptance of technology within the online business-to-consumer environment. Given the importance that trust holds in the future success and growth potential of e-commerce, there is a need to examine the relative importance of each factor that influences the acceptance of this form of technology. This studys findings also sought to reveal innovative approaches to Web site and marketing designs, to customer retention strategies, and to the improvement of online service quality. Researchers have conceptualized trust and its antecedents in a variety of ways, with conceptualizations combined into one construct by some researchers, and split apart by others. Such variation in the literature has produced an abundance of empirical evidence without the means to integrate it, and has hindered the advancement of research on the role of trust in e-commerce (Gefen, Rao, et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). In contrast, the TAM has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the context of business-to-consumer e-commerce. The TAM has been explored from a variety of perspectives, and has consistently been able to explain 30% to 40% of the variance in user acceptance

37 of technology (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). The TAM is a relatively simple model with only two determinants for user acceptance of technology. It follows then, that simplifying the TAM to include only direct relational paths provided an opportunity to confirm basic trust factor relationships, and perhaps yielded additional insights into those factors of trust that play an essential role in technology acceptance within the online business-to-consumer environment. Such insights, in turn, may have uncovered new or improved methods for fostering trust in the online business-to-consumer environment, including more innovative approaches to Web site and marketing designs, to customer retention strategies, and to the improvement of online service quality (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). Statement of Research Questions The following research questions were addressed in this study: 1. What is the relationship, if any, between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 2. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 3. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 4. What is the relationship, if any, between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? 5. What is the relationship, if any, between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site?

38 6. What is the relationship, if any, between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Hypotheses The following research questions and hypotheses were used to guide this study: 1. What is the relationship, if any, between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H10: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. H1a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. 2. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H20: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. H2a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. 3. What is the relationship, if any, between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H30: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site.

39 H3a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. 4. What is the relationship, if any, between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H40: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. H4a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. 5. What is the relationship, if any, between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H50: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. H5a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. 6. What is the relationship, if any, between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? H60: There will not be a statistically significant relationship between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. H6a: There will be a statistically significant relationship between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site.

40 Description of Research Method and Design In the context of online banking, the purpose of this quantitative study was to examine those factors of trust that play an essential role in this form of technology acceptance. Specifically, the researcher intended to determine what relationships, if any, exist between the dependent research variable (i.e., intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site), and six independent research variables: namely, two TAM antecedents (i.e., perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use), trust, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy, and subjective norms. The selected research design was by way of a non-experimental survey, delivered in the form of a close-ended survey, and using a 7-point Likert scale for capturing responses, anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) values. The population for this study consisted of U.S. users of an online banking system. The sampling frame consisted of an online data panel representing all online US residents at least 18 years of age. A number of strengths to the research design included the use of wellvalidated TAM constructs, the use of well-validated Likert scales, the use of preexisting and well-validated measures, and that the use of a survey online lended itself to a study of online behavior from both cost and reliability perspectives. The potential for gathering a large sample size was also a strength, in that it would improve the reliability of the measure and reduce the size of the confidence interval. Finally, the use of online banking requires a high degree of trust to sustain ongoing business transactions, compared to transactions involving such

41 items as CDs or books, each requiring limited degrees of trust. Thus, a major strength associated with the research design was that, as considerably more trust was involved, it was comparatively easier to measure the presence of this behavioral phenomenon. For comparative purposes, this studys researcher used LISREL for analysis; the same method of statistical analysis used by Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003). These researchers argued that it has distinct advantages over other techniques. LISREL, they asserted, accounts for all the covariance in the data and so allows for the examination of all the correlations, shared variances, and paths in the model when estimating the significance level and coefficient of the paths. According to Gefen, Karahanna, et al., the result is more accurate parameter estimation and more realistic analysis. LISREL, these authors contended, also enables unidimensionality analysis, an analysis not possible using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Cronbachs alpha reliability tests. However, for many statistical tests even severe departures from interval-ness did not seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically in situations where the scale contains at least a 5-point scale (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). This study contained a 7-point scale which, compared to a 5-point scale, decreased the likelihood of departing from the assumption of normal distribution. The estimated minimum sample size was determined beforehand on the basis of the type of statistical method, and the desired levels of significance, power and effect size. To estimate the minimum sample size needed, power analysis requires a two-tailed test because there are no directions specified in

42 the hypotheses. Using G*Power statistical power analysis software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to estimate minimum sample size, for a level of significance (alpha) of .05, a power of .80, and a medium effect size of .30 (all standard values), the required minimum number of participants was 84. However, most studies agreed that 100 to 150 subjects is the minimum recommended sample size when engaged in covariance structure modeling (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), and many articles used between 250 and 500 subjects (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Consideration was given to any biases introduced by the sampling frame, such as oversampling participants that are more active on weekdays (possibly because they are retired). Because the survey was conducted online and can be completed at any time convenient to the participant, geographic- and time-based biases are controllable factors. An individual submitting multiple responses could have also produce bias. However the survey administration company had mechanisms in place to control this source of potential bias, and there was little incentive to submit multiple responses since there was no direct monetary reward. Operational Definition of Constructs and Key Variables This study focused on trust as it pertains to business-to-consumer ecommerce activities. The researcher examined trust factor relationships in the online business-to-consumer environment. Online banking was the activity under investigation, as it requires a significant degree of trust on part of the consumer.

43 Intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site: Dependent variable (Y). The degree to which a customer was willing to share sensitive information with an online bank, intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site may be directly affected by trust, by either of TAMs antecedents (i.e., perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use), as well as by subjective norms, computer anxiety, or computer self-efficacy. In the context of online banking, intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site was defined as the use of a banks Web site to perform any or all of the following banking transactions: view a bank balance or statement, transfer money between accounts, or pay bills online (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). Shared sensitive information includes credit or debit card information, or anything considered as such by the participant. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled USE1 and USE2 of the survey (see Appendix A). Perceived ease of use: Independent variable (X1). The customers perceived ease of use when performing transactions on the banks Web site may have had a direct impact on their intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled PEOU1 through PEOU4 of the survey (see Appendix B). Perceived usefulness: Independent variable (X2). The customers perceived usefulness of a banks Web site (indicated by how it affects their banking effectiveness and productivity) may have had a direct impact on their

44 intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled PU1 through PU4 of the survey (see Appendix B). Trust: Independent variable (X3). The customers experience-based selfassessment that the online banking system has characteristics that maintain ongoing trust may have had a direct impact on their intention to use a businessto-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled TE1 through TE5 of the survey (see Appendix C). Trustmaintaining characteristics included an assessment of the honesty and predictability of banking systems supporters. Subjective norms: Independent variable (X4). The customers assessment of how friends, co-workers, and those that they admire or respect view their use of online banking may have had a direct impact on their intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled SN1 through SN4 of the survey (see Appendix D). Computer self-efficacy: Independent variable (X5). The customers self assessment of their abilities to perform online banking transactions may have had a direct impact on their intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree

45 to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled SE1 through SE6 of the survey (see Appendix D). Computer anxiety: Independent variable (X6). The customers selfassessment of their general level of discomfort with using a computer, including fear and nervousness, may have had a direct impact on their intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The ordinal data was measured on a 7-point scale (1 meaning strongly disagree to 7 meaning strongly agree) by the responses to questions labeled CA1 through CA3 of the survey (see Appendix E). Demographic variables were also reported, and include: gender, age, household income, educational attainment, internet connection at home, and race (see Appendix F). Gender was coded using 1 for female and 2 for male, with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. Age was declared by the participant, with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. Annual household income was coded as a number ranging from 1 (meaning less than $25,000), and increase in $25,000 increments to 5 (meaning $100,000 or more). A response code of 0 was used to indicate either an unwillingness or inability to answer. Current education attainment was coded as a number ranging from 1 (meaning did not complete high school) to 5 (meaning college plus). A response code of 0 was used to indicate the respondent preferred not to answer. The presence of an Internet connection at home was coded as a number ranging from 1 to 4. It indicated whether there was a connection, and if so then whether it was high speed wired (i.e., DSL, cable, satellite), low speed wired (i.e., dial-up),

46 wireless (i.e., Smartphone, PDA), or other (in case a new technology emerges or is unknown to the researcher). A response code of 5 indicated the connection type was unknown or non-existent, while a response code of 0 indicated a preference not to answer. Based on current Census Bureau Race and Ethnic classifications (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008), race was coded as a number ranging from 1 (meaning Caucasian) to 7 (meaning multiracial). A response code of 0 was used to indicate the respondent preferred not to answer. Demographic variables also reported (without testing or analysis) concerned the participants self-assessed online experience: computer ownership, computer skill level, Internet search skill level, Internet usage frequency, online purchase frequency, and online banking frequency (see Appendixes G and H). Computer ownership was coded using 1 for yes and 2 for no, with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. Computer skill level was coded as a number ranging from 1 (beginner) to 4 (expert), with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. Both computer skill level and Internet search skill level were coded as a ranging from 1 (beginner) to 4 (expert), with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. Frequency of Internet usage was coded as a number ranging from 1 (seldom) to 7 (daily), with a 0 indicating a preference not to answer. General trust in both people and Web sites was coded using 1 for yes and 0 for no. Online banking frequency during the past year was coded as a number ranging from 1 (a few times a year) to 6 (meaning daily). The question, along with a definition of online banking, was posed at the beginning of the survey. If the participant responded with a 0 (indicating either a preference not to

47 answer or no online banking experience) then only demographic data was collected. Selection of Participants or Subjects The research context used for this study was online banking, being an environment that by its very nature demands a high degree of sustained consumer trust. The population for this study consisted of users of an online banking system. Study subjects were randomly selected from an online data panel representing all online US residents at least 18 years of age. All recruitment of new respondents requires a double opt-in by the survey administration company that created the panel. All respondent communications explained why someone was a member of a community and what they should expect from their membership. All communications with respondents also offered multiple methods to opt-out of panel membership. Participation was voluntary and a participant could have withdrawn at any time and for any reason. SSI is also a member of the Better Business Bureaus Online Reliability Program. This online panel allowed for ample diversity among participants, and so the above-described sample frame was judged by the researcher to be representative of the U.S. online banking population. Alternate methods of drawing samples were explored and included the use of online banking forums, paper-based neighborhood surveys, and surveys of NCU learners through various channels such as blogging Web sites, user groups, and newsletters. While these methods were clearly more economical, unlike using a professional survey administration company they carried no assurances

48 regarding sample randomness, response quality, response rate, or response timeliness. Surveying users of online banking by means of a professional survey administration company was also selected because it was assumed that bank corporate managers are unlikely to allow third party access to their online banking customer base, given the high trust, privacy, and confidentiality concerns associated with the financial sector. Estimating expected response rates have been a persistent problem for Internet-based surveys, perhaps more severely when they are applied to focused studies such as online banking. Estimating was further complicated by administrative factors not being available for this survey, such as the use of one or more advanced notices in the form of letters, postcards, or e-mails. Typically, response rates to Web surveys range between 20% and 30%. However, response rates have been reported to be declining over time due, it has been theorized, to problems associated with various social and environmental factors (Tomaszczyk, 2008). Therefore, further advantages of contracting with a professional survey administration company included that a large panel was available for drawing a sample, and that the minimum number of responses could be agreed on beforehand. Description of Materials and Instruments Several instruments were used for this study. The first instrument was the Scientific Software International (SSI) data panel. Hosted by SSI, invitations were e-mailed to randomly selected panel members by this survey administration company. Each e-mail contained a brief description of the study along with a link

49 to the survey (see Appendix L) home Web page. A second instrument was the online survey itself (see Appendixes A through H), which consisted of 40 closedended items, including demographic data. Footnotes in the appendixes cite the originating source for each question, all of which were adapted from the appendixes of published research studies, which in turn were adapted from prior published research. Permissions to reuse and adapt instruments for this study were both requested and obtained (see Appendixes I through K). Using such well-validated measures encouraged high levels of construct validity and reliability (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Questions involving TAMbased variables (see Appendixes A and B) were adapted from Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003). Questions involving trust (see Appendix C) were adapted from Gefen, Karahanna, et al. and from Holsapple and Sasidharan. Questions involving TAM extensions (see Appendixes D and E) were adapted from Holsapple and Sasidharan. Any change to a validated instrument could have potentially weakened its reliability and validity (McCoy et al., 2004; Rudestam & Newton, 2001). Therefore, all instruments used for this study had, to the greatest extent possible, maintained their original order. For the same reason, the wording of all questions had been subjected to modification only when clearly necessary. The relationships between the latent variables and their indicators (i.e., the manifest variables) were used in evaluating the measurement part of the model, with the aim of determining the validity and reliability of the measures used to represent the constructs of interest. Validity reflects the extent to which an

50 indicator actually measures what it was supposed to measure, while reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement (i.e., the extent to which an indicator was free of random error) (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Selected demographics regarding online experience were adapted from a study by Dillon and Reif (2004) (see Appendix G). Response data will remain private and was securely downloaded to the researchers personal computer for analysis using LISREL 8.80 software (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006), with MS Excel performing computations not provided by LISREL. Procedures The first step in the procedural process was to install the survey into an online survey tool. SSI offered a professional interface for hosting surveys such as the one used in this study. In order for the instrument to be implemented, access to a sampling frame was obtained. From a practical perspective, to secure the direct cooperation of bank corporate managers was deemed unrealistic, given the high trust, privacy, and confidentiality concerns associated with the financial sector. Thus, it was necessary to look to indirect sources for active users of online banking: an SSI data panel. The next step of the study was to issue an invitational e-mail message to panel members that were randomly selected as potential participants. The subject of the e-mail message sent by SSI was Online Banking Survey. In contrast with spam e-mail, panel members were familiar with the sender (i.e., SurveySpot) and knew that a survey was involved. The e-mail included a description of the survey topic (online banking), the reward (an instant win game

51 play and an entry in a cash sweepstake), the estimated time require for completion (i.e., 13 minutes), a link to the survey, an encouraging thank you note for participation, and contact information in the event there are questions (see Appendix L). Following approval of the research proposal by Northcentral Universitys Institutional Review Board, the survey was made accessible to panel members using SSI to host the survey. The survey remained open for approximately four days, during which the previously agreed-upon number of responses were collected, and then the link to the survey was disabled. The survey consisted of a questionnaire and was completed online by the panel members that volunteered to participate. The survey (see Appendixes A through H) contained 40 closedended items, including demographic data, and was to take an estimated 13 minutes to complete. The final step in this study was to retrieve and analyze the survey data. Discussion of Data Processing SSI hosted the survey. Once the survey results had been captured, for comparative purposes this studys researcher used LISREL structural equation modeling (SEM) software for analysis. Gefen, Karahanna, et al. (2003) argued that LISREL has distinct advantages over other techniques. LISREL, they asserted, accounts for all the covariance in the data and so allows for the examination of all the correlations, shared variances, and paths in the model when estimating the significance level and coefficient of the paths. According to Gefen, Karahanna, et al., the result is more accurate parameter estimation and

52 more realistic analysis. LISREL, these authors contended, also enables unidimensionality analysis, an analysis not possible using PCA or Cronbachs alpha reliability tests. While treating nominal-level data as interval data can lead to nonsensical results, treating ordinal data as interval data is commonplace in social science and usually does not alter substantive research conclusions (Garson, 2008). For many statistical tests even severe departures from interval-ness (i.e., data possessing the interval attribute) do not seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically in situations where the scale contains at least a 5-point scale (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). This study contains a 7-point scale which, when compared to a 5-point scale, further decreases the likelihood of departing from the assumption of normal distribution. Lubke and Muthn (2004) asserted that treating Likert scale data as continuous outcomes in confirmatory factor analysis violates the assumption of multivariate normality. However, they also conceded that given a sufficiently large number of response categories (e.g., seven), an absence of skewness, and equal thresholds across items, it seems nevertheless possible to obtain reasonable parameter value results if a reasonably large data sample stems from a single homogenous population. The data collection instrument (see Appendixes A through H) consisted of an online survey containing 40 closed-ended items, including demographic data. The survey questions used in this examination were all preexisting and have all been previously validated. A summated rating psychometric scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree) values were used as the basis for

53 participant responses. The relationships between the latent variables and their indicators (i.e., the manifest variables) were used in evaluating the measurement part of the model, with the aim of determining the validity and reliability of the measures used to represent the constructs of interest. Validity reflects the extent to which an indicator actually measures what it was supposed to measure, while reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement (i.e., the extent to which an indicator was free of random error) (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations The sampling frame for this study consisted of online panel members that offered to participate, and were provided incentives in the form of an instant win game play and an entry in a cash sweepstake. There is an assumption that the responses from these participants can be generalized to experienced users in the online banking population as a whole. In addition, neither the methodology nor the model was assumed complete for all research contexts. For example, online auctions or online gambling may have factors such as playfulness or enjoyment to consider, which do not particularly apply to online banking (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Because measures of all constructs were collected via the same instrument at the same point in time, there was also a potential for common method variance (i.e., variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent) (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). A limitation associated with the studys methodology is that causality is difficult to determine when not using true experimental design (Cozby, 2003).

54 While the artificiality of experiments was avoided, the cause-and-effect aspect of the research remained unanswerable, and so could only be inferred through the theory in this cross-sectional study (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). Moreover, measures of trust focused on the final outcome of the rational assessment process, rather than on specific costs and benefits or on an explicit assessment of overall costs and benefits. The researcher for this study assumed that the measure effectively captured the essence of the construct, as was the case in the Gefen, Karahanna, et al. study. Although arguments had been made that the sample frame for this study can be considered representative of the online banking population, the lack of randomness in participant selection (given that participants were allowed to optout at any time and for any reason) nonetheless threatened its external validity. The difficulties in obtaining a true random sample make the selected sample frame an all too common weakness in numerous academic studies (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). These limitations merit further investigation in future research. As a delimitation, this study focused on trust as it pertains to experienced online banking users, and did not address the situation of Internet users that have never used online banking, whether they were experienced at Internet use or not. In other words, this study focused exclusively on consumers of online banking that had prior first-hand experience. A significant remark associated with studying only experienced users of online banking was that familiarity with an a priori trustworthy e-vendor should increase consumer trust since more familiarity

55 implies an increasing amount of accumulated knowledge derived from experience from previous successful interactions through the Web site (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). In other words, trust-relevant knowledge accumulated through familiarity can itself build trust. A related delimitation was that while trust was incorporated into the model as an independent variable, this study did not incorporate possible trust antecedents. Examples of possible trust antecedents included in other research (see Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003) yet excluded in this study are cognition-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and calculativebased trust. These delimitations warrant consideration in future research. Ethical Assurances Banking involves activity of a highly personal nature, demanding a high degree of privacy and confidentiality. Privacy ranks as one of the most important concerns for Internet users, with recognition that a failure to address privacy concerns may erode trust, thereby slowing growth of online marketplaces and limit the number and type of services available online. Consumers must always feel in control of their personal information (Friedman, Lerner, & Foster, 2001). Accordingly, potential study participants were assured that their right to privacy was not threatened. The survey invitation contained a link to a 12-item privacy policy and confidentiality notice, as well as a 24-item agreement on participatory terms and conditions. The survey did not contain items that are of a sensitive nature, such as questions querying participants about their personal finances, so confidentiality was not an issue. Privacy was also not an issue, as no personal data was

56 collected. With the exception of possible risks derived from cultural differences (discussed below), this study contained no known physical or psychological risks or discomforts to the participant. Also, participants were informed that they were able to withdraw without penalty from the study at any time and for any reason. Direct benefits from participating in this research included an entry in SSIs cash sweepstakes and an instant win game play. As another possible indirect benefit, the results may have had a positive impact on improving Web site design with respect to trust. Forms of deception (e.g., withholding of information) were not required for this study, and so debriefing was not required. Because there was no control group involved, the issue of right to service did not arise. Coercion was not an issue in that there was no limitation on an individuals freedom to consent. Moreover, given the innocuous nature of the questions, coercion was not a significant source of ethical concern. Obtaining informed consent is challenging in an online environment (Cozby, 2003). SSI employs a double opt-in strategy, frequently explains why someone is a member of a community and what they should expect from membership, and offer simple methods to unsubscribe at any time. The population in this study unlikely had an issue with autonomy based on cognitive impairment, as the sample frame consists of Internet savvy individuals. Inadvertently accepting minors as participants is not an issue for this study since the data panel consists of individuals that are at least 18 years of age. Cultural sensitivities were also taken into consideration, as any online study will likely include individuals from a diverse array of cultural backgrounds.

57 Accordingly, participants were required to respond to any questions that they were not comfortable with. Privacy is an ethical issue which develops in and through specific historical situations within specific cultural norms; a complex notion arising from various implicit social contracts between individuals based on specific historical perspective (Hudson & Bruckman, 2005). Within America, asking an ethnic participant to reveal his or her income bracket or even birth year may affront their norms of privacy. Being sensitive to such differences was important, and a safeguard was provided by allowing for a non-response to those questions a participant was not comfortable answering.

58 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS Overview In this chapter, data collected from the studys online survey questionnaire are presented. The survey consisted of 40 questions, 27 of which were designed to measure the seven latent variables included in the study: Intention to Use (USE), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), Trust (TE), Subjective Norms (SN), Computer Self-Efficacy (CE), and Computer Anxiety (CA) (see Appendixes A through E). The remaining 13 questions were designed to collect demographic data (see Appendix F) and computer online experience (see Appendix G). Following a general discussion of the data set, the findings are organized according to the six research questions that guided this study. By using these questions, trust factor relationships that have been hypothesized to play a significant role in fostering the use of online e-commerce were examined. Factors contained in TAM (trust, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness) uphold lengthy histories and are considered by many information technology researchers to have consistently been able to explain a significant portion of the variance in user acceptance (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Other factors (computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and subjective norms), while having been studied in other contexts have until now never been explored in the context of trust (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Participants for the studys online survey were selected from the United States panel maintained by Survey Sampling International (SSI), LLC. In developing its US panel, SSI utilized over 3,300 partners while recruiting

59 panelists. These partners employed banner ads, e-mail invitations, and referrals to recruit panelists. The sample selection methodology for the study began by identifying the total universe of the panelists that qualified to take the survey (i.e., they resided in the United States). A random starting point was then identified, a selection interval was determined, and then every nth record was selected (while allowing for adequate oversampling) to arrive at the targeted number of 250 completed surveys. The resulting e-mail address sample was sorted randomly before e-mailing, using a standard Oracle (database software) random sorting algorithm. The selected panelists were then invited to complete the online survey instrument. Typical screenshots of the instruments presentation are shown in Appendix L. The target group for data collection was experienced users of online banking, and a survey invitation with the subject line Online Banking was presented to the randomly selected panelists. National sampling for the study began Thursday July 23 and ended Monday July 27, 2009. During those four days 486 surveys were collected. Of those, 266 surveys were considered complete and 220 surveys were rejected. The majority (69%) of those 220 rejections were a result of respondents that declared they have little or no experience with online banking; a prerequisite for participation. The remaining 31% were rejected as the potential participants incurred a conflict of interest (i.e., declared themselves employees, managers, or stockholders in a financial institution that provided online banking services), were under 18 years old (the set minimum for study participation), or were recorded by the researcher as part of the surveys extensive testing phase.

60 Of the 266 complete surveys, each survey took on average 4.5 minutes to complete the surveys 40 questions that were contained on 20 separate screens (see Appendix L for representative examples), with a standard deviation of just under two minutes. Within the 266 completed surveys, there were 114 occurrences of missing values (i.e., where an individual responder chose not to answer one or more questions). Only two survey questions contained a relatively high number of missing values. Twelve percent of respondents chose not to reveal their age. Eleven percent of the participants chose not to respond to the statement regarding co-workers thinking that they should use an online banking system, possibly due to non-employment (i.e., being either a student or retired). The remaining 38 (of 40) survey questions contained a relatively low number of missing values. Nonetheless, a decision on how to address missing values is an important step in data preparation. The choice is to either delete subjects who have missing values, replace the missing data values, or use robust statistical procedures to accommodate for the presence of missing values (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The two options for deletion are listwise (i.e., on any variable) and pairwise (i.e., on only the two variables used) (Du Toit, Du Toit, Mels, & Yan, 2006). Since a relatively few surveys were involved and the deletions did not appear to affect information contained in other variables, the researcher opted to delete surveys containing missing values using the listwise option. Thus, a further 24 surveys were rejected, as each contained one or more missing values (excluding demographic data), yielding 242 surveys as input for detailed LISREL analysis.

61 G*Power statistical power analysis software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) was used to estimate a required minimum sample size of 84 with a level of significance (alpha) of .05, a power of .80, and a medium effect size of .30 (all standard values). Most studies recommended that 100 to 150 subjects is the minimum sample size when engaged in covariance structural equation modeling (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), and many articles used between 250 and 500 subjects (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). However, there have also been outliers. One study recommended that the estimation of structural equation models by maximum likelihood methods be used only when sample sizes are at least 200 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), one study recommended at least 400, and one study indicated that in some cases even 5,000 subjects is considered insufficient (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The current studys final sample size of 242 was deemed sufficient in consideration of these recommendations, and because the sample-size sensitive RMSEA was computed. Nonetheless, it is notable that fit indices such as CFI and NFI can be adversely affected by having an insufficient number of subjects (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Using Microsoft Excel, descriptive statistics were computed to provide an overview of the dataset, including those questions related to demographics and online experience. LISREL 8.80 statistical software was next used for data analysis, which allowed for a more direct comparison to a similar study by Gefen et al. (2003). Of equal importance, the Gefen et al. (2003) research team used LISREL for data analysis because of what they described as its distinct

62 advantages over other techniques. These include that the covariance matrixbased structure modeling methodology of LISREL accounts for all of the covariances in the data and so allows for the examination of all the correlations, shared variances, and paths in the model when estimating the significance level and coefficient of the paths (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; Gefen et al., 2003). In the discussion of model modification, this additional LISREL output was addressed in Chapter 5 of this study. Findings See Appendix M for selected demographic frequency tables. Respondent gender was composed of 57% females and 43% males. The age of the respondents, in years, ranged from 18 (the set minimum) through 86, with a mean age of 52 (SD = 14) and a median age of 53. Table M2 cross tabulates gender with age, and indicated a fall-off in the elderly consumers penchant for online banking. It also indicated a greater proclivity for females more so than males, and overall as well as in most age groups, to engage in online banking. This was consistent with study findings by Haytko and Simmers (2009) and by Dong and Bliemel (2008). Over 84% of respondents classified themselves as White or Caucasian; under 5% classified themselves as Black or African American; under 3% classified themselves as Hispanic, Spanish, or Latino; under 3% classified themselves as Multiracial; under 5% classified themselves as Asian, Central Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander; and under 1% classified themselves as American Indian, Alaskan, Native, Eskimo, or Aleut.

63 In contrast with the Fox and Beire (2006) study that reported 55% of Internet users living in households with $75,000 or more in annual income banked online, in this study only 29% of Internet users living in households with $75,000 or more in annual income banked online. There was a distinct shift in online banking activity toward the middle income range. Only 14% of respondents positioned themselves in the high income range ($100K or more), and another 14% positioned themselves in the low income range (under $25K), while there were over twice as many respondents in the mid-low income range (31% for $25K under $50K) than in the mid-high income range (15% for $75K under $100K). Respondents occupied 21% of the mid-income range ($50K under $75K). Educational attainment was diverse but, despite income obstacles, tended toward possessing a higher education. Fewer than 2% did not completing high school, while almost 40% possessed some college, and almost a quarter more were college graduates. Over 18% had graduated from high school, and another 18% had some exposure to post-graduate studies. Almost all (98%) of the respondents owned a computer. One third (34%) considered themselves averagely skilled with a computer, almost half (49%) considered themselves more than averagely skilled, and 14% considered themselves expertly skilled. Over 92% of the respondents had a high-speed connection to the Internet at home, and a further 4% connected to the Internet using wireless devices such as smart phones and personal digital assistants. Sixty-six percent of respondents considered themselves above average at

64 Internet searches, and only 3% considered themselves beginners. Over 77% of respondents accessed the Internet daily, and a further 15% accessed the Internet almost daily. Almost 8% of respondents used the Internet for making purchases several times a week or more, while 32% employed this form of shopping several times a month. Almost 55% or respondents used the Internet for making purchases a several times a year or less, while 5% never use the Internet for making purchases. Descriptive data for the constructs are shown in the first three columns of Table 1. All items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), and showed a reasonable dispersion in their distributions across the ranges, as seen in the standard deviations (SD). Where the same construct was used, the descriptives also compared well to their Gefen et al. (2003) equivalents, as shown in the right-most column of Table 1.

65 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Latent Variables Study: Current study N = 242 Min.=1, Max.=7 Latent variable Intention to use Perceived ease of use Perceived usefulness Trust Subjective norms Computer self-efficacy Computer anxiety Symbol USE PEOU PU TE SN SE CA Mean (SD) 5.21 (1.51) 5.87 (1.21) 5.93 (1.25) 5.44 (1.15) 4.66 (1.40) 5.11 (1.42) 2.07 (1.44) Gefen et al. (2003) N = 213 Min.=1, Max.=7 Mean (SD) 4.18 (1.46) 4.76 (1.13) 4.28 (1.31) 3.15 (1.21)

In LISREL 8.80, several methods are available to estimate the parameters of a model, and include both limited-information techniques (i.e., estimate each parameter equation separately) and full-information techniques (i.e., estimate the entire system of equations simultaneously) (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). As was the case with Gefen et al. (2003), standardized LISREL covariance structure analysis was used by this researcher. This approach used the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method, a full-information technique and the estimation method that, according to Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006), is most often reported in research studies when compared to competing covariance

66 fitting procedures. ML provides consistently efficient estimation under the assumption of multivariate normality and is accompanied by a whole range of statistics used to assess the extent to which a model is in fact consistent with its data (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Moreover, an advantage of standardization is that it makes the interpretation of bivariate relationships between latent variables easier to understand. A second advantage of standardization is that it helps identify the relative contribution of independent latent variables in influencing the endogenous latent variables. A final advantage of standardization is that it facilitates the detection of improper estimates (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The ML estimation converged following 22 iterations, and produced the LISREL standardized correlation matrix shown in Table 2.

67 Table 2 LISREL Standardized Correlation Matrix Intention to use USE USE PEOU PU TE SN SE CA 1.00 0.43 0.49 0.58 0.54 0.22 0.08 1.00 0.89 0.73 0.36 0.23 0.30 1.00 0.75 0.43 0.28 0.24 1.00 0.50 0.25 0.11 1.00 0.35 0.05 1.00 0.00 1.00 Perceived ease of use PEOU Perceived usefulness PU Trust TE Subjective norms SN Computer self-efficacy SE Computer anxiety CA

68 The problem of identification concerns the question of whether one has sufficient information to obtain a unique solution for the parameters to be estimated in the model. If a model is not identified, then it is not possible to determine unique values for the model coefficients. Instead, there can be any number of acceptable parameter estimates and the selection of one set of values over another becomes entirely arbitrary (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). When information provided by the empirical data (i.e., the variances and covariances of the manifest variables) is not sufficient to allow for a unique solution to be derived for the model parameters, LISREL generates a warning message indicating that a parameter may not be identified, and so standard error estimates, t-values, modification indices, and standardized residuals cannot be computed. If the model and the data are compatible, LISREL software is effective in providing good starting values and converging after a relatively few iterations to an admissible solution. A non-admissible (or improper) solution is one which results in parameters which fall outside a feasible range (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Examples of a non-admissible solution include correlations greater than 1.0, negative variances, and covariance or correlation matrices that are not positive-definite. The LISREL built-in admissibility check ensured that no rows of only zeros are included in the LAMBDA-Y and LAMBDA-X matrices and that the PHI, PSI, THETA-EPS and THETA-DELTA are all positive definite. A non-positive definite matrix has a determinant of zero and cannot be inverted (i.e., its inverse does not exist). Under these conditions, portions of statistical

69 information related to the sample covariance matrix cannot be computed or trusted. Since a requirement of several estimation procedures, including maximum likelihood, is that the sample covariance matrix be positive definite, if the admissibility test fails then LISRELs iterative numerical search process is aborted and a fatal error is generated (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The error message indicates that the matrix to be analyzed is not positive definite. Therefore, it is significant that neither warnings nor errors had been generated for this studys LISREL estimations. A second observation was that an inspection of the output did not reveal obviously unreasonable results, such as negative error variances in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (see Appendix N). Third, the vast majority (50 out of 51) of the parameter estimates in the LISREL standardized measurement equations were significantly different from zero (as indicated by tvalues greater than 1.96 or less than 1.96, using the 5% significance level). The only nonsignificant parameter was the error variance of CA2. Nonsignificant error variance usually suggests specification error, since it is unreasonable to expect the absence of random error in most social science contexts (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Fourth, the signs of the parameters estimates were consistent with the expectations among the latent variables; computer anxiety being often negatively associated with the other variables, as shown in Table 2. Fifth, in the LISREL standardized measurement equations the squared multiple correlations of the manifest variables were indicative of the degree to which the indicators are free from measurement error; the closer to 1.00, the better the manifest variable

70 acts as an indicator of the corresponding latent variable. All but one of the R2 values were moderate to high, with 26 out of 27 ranging between .48 and .98. This suggested that the manifest variables were reasonably successful as measures of corresponding latent variables in the model. Three pieces of information were given in the LISREL standardized measurement equations: the unstandardized parameter estimate, its standard error, and the relevant t-value. Interpretations of the Appendix N table is straightforward. For example, in the equation that linked PU1 (see Appendixes A through E for item definitions) to PU (perceived usefulness), 1.26 was the unstandardized estimate, .065 was the standard error, and 19.32 was the t-value. The magnitude of the unstandardized parameter estimate showed the resulting change in a dependent variable from a unit change in an independent variable, with all other independent variables being held constant. The direction of the change was indicated by the sign of the parameterpositive signs indicated an increase in the value of the dependent variable and negative signs a decrease. In the LISREL standardized measurement equations all signs are positive, so a positive change in a manifest variable will result in a positive change in the corresponding latent variable. Therefore, the interpretation of unstandardized parameter estimates is analogous to that of regression coefficients in conventional regression analysis (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). In Appendix N, each parameter estimate also includes its standard error. Standard error indicated how precisely the value of the parameter has been estimated: the smaller the standard error, the better the estimation. However, a

71 very small (close to zero) standard error is not a good sign, since the test statistic of the parameter cannot be defined. Equally, an excessively large standard error indicates that the parameter cannot be reasonably determined by the data. In addition, as noted by Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006), standard errors under ML estimation are correct under assumptions of multivariate normality but otherwise need to be interpreted with caution. The value of a parameter divided by its standard error produced the test statistic, or t-value. For example, again in the equation that linked PU1 to PU in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (see Appendix N), the t-value 19.32 was computed as the ratio between the unstandardized parameter estimate and the associated standard error (i.e., 1.26 / .065). Discrepancies were due to rounding errors. With a large sample size t-values are approximately normally distributed, though despite their designation they do not follow a tdistribution (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). As previously stated, t-values are used to determine whether a particular parameter is sufficiently different from zero in the population. Any t-value between 1.96 and 1.96 indicated that the corresponding parameter was not significantly different from zero (at the 5% significance level). Note also in the LISREL standardized measurement equations that USE1 was used by LISREL as a reference variable for scaling, and thus was not accompanied by a standard error or t-value. This is appropriate since all manifest variables used the same 7point scale of measurement, and so reduced the need to perform an equal

72 threshold test and compute polychoric correlations (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006; Du Toit et al., 2006). The two right-most columns of the LISREL Standardized Measurement Equations (Appendix N) contain error variances and squared multiple correlations. Error variances reflected errors in measurement for the manifest variables. Being free parameters, estimated error variances were accompanied by their own standard errors and t-values. The squared multiple correlation, R2, was reported for each equation. This value is analogous to the R2 obtained in conventional regression analysis and indicated the amount of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variable(s) in the equation. The relationships between the latent variables and their indicators (i.e., the manifest variables) were used in evaluating the measurement part of the model, with the aim of determining the validity and reliability of the measures used to represent the constructs of interest. Validity reflects the extent to which an indicator actually measures what it was supposed to measure, while reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement (i.e., the extent to which an indicator was free of random error) (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The models validity was assessed by examining the significance of the indicator loadings (at p < .05 or better), as indicated by the t-values well in excess of 1.96 in absolute terms (see Appendix N). The one exception was CA2 which indicated a t-value of .58, suggesting there was no difference from zero at the 5% significance level.

73 Reliability of the models indicators was examined by looking at the squared multiple correlations (R2) of the indicators, which showed the proportion of variance in an indicator that is explained by its underlying latent variable (the rest being due to measurement error) (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). In the right-most column of Appendix N, high squared multiple correlation R2 values denoted high reliability for the indicator concerned. Exceptions were a low squared multiple correlation for SE1 (.21), and a moderate squared multiple correlation for CA3 (.37). These results were consistent with the magnitudes of the standardized loadings shown in the LISREL Completely Standardized Solution (see Appendix O), which is recommended when indicators of the same construct are measured on very different scales (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The standardized loading was low for SE1 (.46), and a moderate for CA3 (.61). All remaining standardized loadings ranged between .70 and .99. In addition to assessing the reliability of the individual indicators, a composite reliability value for each latent variable (also known as construct reliability) was calculated, as well as the complementary average variance extracted measure. The LISREL software does not perform these calculations, and so an Excel spreadsheet was used. Table 3 contains the results of these calculations. Since composite reliability (C) values computed were all greater than .60, there was an indication that, taken as a set, the corresponding indicators provided reliable measurements of their respective construct. For example, the three indicators PU1, PU2, and PU3 (see Appendix B), taken as a set, provided reliable measurements of construct PU.

74 Table 3 Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted Average Composite reliability Latent variable Intention to use (USE) Perceived ease of use (PEOU) Perceived usefulness (PU) Trust (TE) Subjective norms (SN) Computer self-efficacy (SE) Computer anxiety (CA) (C) .75 .94 .92 .90 .95 .90 .87 variance extracted (V) .60 .80 .80 .64 .82 .60 .71

Similarly, since the average variance extracted (V) values computed were all greater than .50, there was an indication that a substantially higher amount of variance in the indicators was captured by the construct compared to that accounted for by measurement error. Therefore, both composite reliability ( C) and average variance extracted (V) calculated results provided additional confidence in the operationalization of all constructs (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).

75 Research Question 1. This question was: What is the relationship, if any, between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and trust (TE) was .58, which indicated that a unit change in trust produced a .58 unit gain in intention to use. With reference to the two USE equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of high parameter estimates (1.32, 1.26), a low (but not approaching zero) standard error (.150), and a high t-value (8.28) indicated that the null hypothesis is not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variance for USE2 was significant (.65), its corresponding standard error was low (.17) and its corresponding t-value was sufficiently high (3.79). However, standard error for USE1 was only moderate (.24), although the corresponding tvalue was high (7.42). Research Question 2. This question was: What is the relationship, if any, between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-toconsumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and perceived usefulness

76 (PU) was .49, which indicated that a unit change in perceived usefulness produced a .49 unit gain in intention to use. With reference to the three PU equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of high parameter estimates (1.101.26), correspondingly low (but not approaching zero) standard errors (.065.070), and correspondingly high t-values (15.9919.32) all indicated that the null hypothesis was not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances were significant (.20.50), corresponding standard errors were low but not approaching zero (.034.052), and corresponding t-values were high (5.89 9.45). R2 values were all high, ranging between .71 and .89. Research Question 3. This question was: What is the relationship, if any, between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-toconsumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) was .43, which indicated that a unit change in perceived ease of use produced a .43 unit gain in intention to use. With reference to the four PEOU equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of high parameter estimates (1.121.24), correspondingly low (but not approaching zero) standard

77 errors (.061.068), and correspondingly high t-values (15.9018.55) all indicated that the null hypothesis was not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances were significant (.25.60), corresponding standard errors were low but not approaching zero (.031.062), and corresponding t-values were high (8.01 9.71). R2 values were all high, ranging between .70 and .84. Research Question 4. This question was: What is the relationship, if any, between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between subjective norms and intention to use a business-toconsumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and subjective norms (SN) was .54, which indicated that a unit change in subjective norms produced a .54 unit gain in intention to use. With reference to the four SN equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of high parameter estimates (1.291.48), correspondingly low (but not approaching zero) standard errors (.072.077), and correspondingly high t-values (16.8820.51) all indicated that the null hypothesis was not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances were significant (.14.55), corresponding standard errors were low but not

78 approaching zero (.032.057), and corresponding t-values were high (4.31 9.63). R2 values were all high, ranging between .75 and .94. Research Question 5. This question was: What is the relationship, if any, between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-toconsumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and computer anxiety (CA) was -.08, which indicated that a unit change in computer anxiety produced a .08 unit loss in intention to use. With reference to the three CA equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of high parameter estimates (1.101.49), correspondingly low (but not approaching zero) standard errors (.072.110), and correspondingly high t-values (10.3820.70) all indicated that the null hypothesis was not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant negative relationship between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances ranged broadly (.0362.03), corresponding standard errors were low but not approaching zero (.062.19), and corresponding t-values were high for CA1 and CA3 (4.00, 10.79). However, CA2 indicated a t-value of .58, suggesting there was no difference from zero at the 5% significance level. R2 values were also not uniform, being high for CA1 (.89) and CA2 (.98), though only moderate for CA3 (.37).

79 Research Question 6. What is the relationship, if any, between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? The null hypothesis stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Referring to the measurement equations of Table 2, the estimated covariance between intention to use (USE) and self-efficacy (SE) was .22, which indicated that a unit change in perceived usefulness produced a .22 unit gain in intention to use. With reference to the six SE equations in the LISREL standardized measurement equations (Appendix N), the combination of moderate to high parameter estimates (.701.68), correspondingly low (but not approaching zero) standard errors (.088.168), and correspondingly high t-values (7.1915.77) all indicated that the null hypothesis was not supported. This indicated that there was a statistically significant positive relationship between self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances were significant (.781.86), corresponding standard errors were low but not approaching zero (.10.17), and corresponding t-values were high (7.4510.73). R2 values were high for SE2SE6 (.62.78), but low for SE1 (.21). While the measurement sub-model (which described how each latent variable is measured or operationalized by corresponding manifest indicators) performed within expectations, the structural sub-model (which described the relationships between the latent variables themselves and indicated the amount of unexplained variance) reported results that were not as expected. For

80 example, the structural equation indicated an unexpected negative relationship between USE and PEOU of .09, as shown in the structural equation contained in Table 4. For this equation, the error variance = .57 (significant if greater than, say, .01) and the R = .43 (moderate, being between thresholds .30 and .50), the latter based on Hayduk's (2006) blocked-error R. Moreover, t-values for several of the parameter estimates were within |1.96|, making them not significantly different from zero at the 5% significance level. Table 4 LISREL Structural Equation, (Error Variances), and t-Values USE = .09*PEOU (.17) .50 (.18) .64 +.11*PU (.12) 3.19 +.39*TE (.08) 3.94 +.33*SN (.07) .00 +.00*SE (.07) .82 .05*CA (.11) 5.04

Goodness of fit statistics were also reported by LISREL, and were used to assess the extent to which the hypothesized model is consistent with the data. Several indices were computed as each operates somewhat differently given the sample size, estimation procedure, model complexity, variable independence, underlying assumptions of multivariate normality, or any combination thereof. Different researchers favor different indices, often leading to conflicts over which is most reliable for assessing a given model (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). It is common that LISREL models seldom show excellent fit values in all the indices (Gefen et al., 2003).

81 Along with their thresholds, Table 5 shows a selection of goodness of fit statistics for the current study and, for comparison, for the Gefen et al. (2003) study. As shown in the second column of Table 5, according to the majority of references in Gefen et al. (2000) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Normed Fit Index (NFI) were all best if above .90, though studies (e.g., Lin, Yeh, & Chen, 2009) had also used .80 as a GFI threshold. Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were best if above .80, Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) was best if below .05, and the ratio of freedom was best if below 1:3. There was some disagreement in the literature concerning the cutoff value for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Some researchers suggested .08 or .06 should be the maximum value (Gefen et al., 2003), while Diamantopolous and Siguaw (2006) suggested values less than .05 are indicative of a good fit, between .05 and under .08 of a reasonable fit, between .08 and .10 of a mediocre fit, and greater than .10 of a poor fit. The RMSEA is generally regarded as one of the most informative fit indices (Diamantopolous & Siguaw, 2006), and takes into account degrees of freedom. The RMSEA shows how well the model, with unknown but optimally chosen parameter values, fits the population covariance matrix if it were available. For the current study, the RMSEA indicator suggested the model was a mediocre fit. The minimum fit function is a traditional measure for evaluating overall model fit. The of to degrees of

829.17 with 303 degrees of freedom showed a

to degrees of freedom ratio of

1:2.74 (= .365), which was slightly above the recommended 1:3.00 (= .333)

82 maximum, though significantly better than the 1:1.52 (= .658) ratio in the Gefen et al. (2003) study. Table 5 Selected Goodness of Fit Statistics Criteria / threshold Measure value(s) 84 100150 400 > 5000 Current study Gefen et al. (2003)

Sample size (N)

242

213

Minimum fit function, chi-square ( Degrees of freedom Ratio of to degrees of freedom (ratio expressed as a decimal) Root mean square residual (RMR) Standardized RMR Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 1:3 (< .333) < .050 < .050 .08 or .06 or .05 .80 or > .90 > .80 > .90 > .90

829.17 303 1:2.74 (.365) .160 .071

389.77 247 1:1.52 (.658) .050

.085

.049

Goodness of fit index (GFI)

.80

.88

Adjusted GFI (AGFI) Comparative fit index (CFI) Normed fit index (NFI)

.75 .96 .93

.84 .96 .90

Note. The standardized root mean square residual was not reported in the Gefen, et. al. (2003) study.

83 RMSEA can also be used for power assessment. A test for a close fit using a 90% confidence interval for RMSEA gave a power of .95. Generally, a power greater than .80 is sufficient. Therefore, there was a high chance of rejecting a close fit if the true fit was mediocre. Thus, serious misspecifications would have been detected and a correct decision would have been made. GFI is an indicator of the relevant amount of variances and covariances accounted for by the model and thus shows how closely the model comes to perfectly reproducing the observed covariance matrix, while the AGFI is the GFI adjusted for the degrees of freedom in the model. GFI for both studies were below the .90 threshold value, though acceptable by the lower standard of .80; AGFI is below the threshold for the current study but above the threshold for the Gefen et al. (2003) study. RMR is a summary measure of fitted residuals (i.e., the differences between sample covariances and model-implied covariances). Values are indicative of an unacceptable fit for the current study, while borderline for the Gefen et al. (2003) study. A problem with interpreting fitted residuals (e.g., RMR) is that their size varies with the unit of measurement. This problem can be avoided by using a standardized residual (e.g., standardized RMR) which are fitted residual divided by their estimated standard errors. Standardized RMR for the current study is still outside the threshold but more acceptably so as compared to RMR. Standardized RMR was not reported for the Gefen et al. (2003) study, possibly because RMR was deemed sufficient evidence of fit despite being a borderline situation. CFI and NFI are part of a family of relative fit indicators which show

84 how much better the model fits compared to a baseline model; each have a range between 0 and 1, with values close to 1 representing a good fit. Both studies are on the good fit side of the threshold for CFI. For NFI, the current study was on the good fit side of the threshold, while the Gefen et al. (2003) study bordered the threshold. On balance, the goodness of fit statistics suggested a less-than-ideal model fit for indicators, and did not perform well for the current study as compared to the Gefen et al. (2003) study. While Gefen et al. concluded that the fit indexes were (except for GFI) within accepted thresholds, this researcher concluded that there is room for model fit improvement in both studies. At the same time, a good fit for a model provides weak support, as there are conceivably many models that could fit at least as well. In addition, model alterations must be made based on theory, and guarded against making datadriven modifications just to get a model that fits the data better (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Summary This researcher examined trust factor relationships that were hypothesized to play a significant role in fostering the use of online e-commerce. Over four days in July 2009 this studys survey was conducted online, using participants randomly selected from a list of recruited adult panelists residing in the United States. The target group for data collection was experienced users of online banking. A total of 486 surveys were completed and, following additional filtering and screening, 242 surveys were used for detailed analysis; a 50%

85 successful response rate. The 242 surveys were considered by the majority of researched measures to be a statistically significant sample size. Following a profile of the demographic composition and online experience of the participants, the data was imported into LISREL 8.80 and modeled to comply with the six research questions. Selected portions of the LISREL programs output, as well as additional Excel computations, were presented in Tables 1 through 5 to support the analysis contained in this chapter. Using ML estimation, high parameter estimates combined with corresponding low standard errors (.20 < std.err. < .03) and corresponding tvalues significantly different from zero at the 5% significance level (-1.96 < tvalue < 1.96) provided evidence to reject all null hypotheses in favor of their alternatives. The six null hypotheses all stated that there was not a statistically significant relationship between the latent variable under scrutiny and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. The relationships for all independent latent variables were positive with intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site, except for CA (computer anxiety) which expectedly showed a negative relationship with intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Measurement error variances (along with their standard errors and t-values) and squared multiple correlations also reported acceptable values. The measurement sub-model did, however, show a few exceptions for the individual manifest indicators: CA2 indicated a nonsignificant measure error variance (.036) and a tvalue of .58 (indicating no difference from zero at the 5% significance level), and R2 was moderate for CA3 and low for SE1.

86 As a possible consequence of a poor model fit, the structural sub-model reported results that were not as expected. Possible reasons for a model to have a substandard fit include violations of distributional assumptions, non-linearities, missing data, and specification errors. Specification errors can be based on many factors, such as omissions of relevant exogenous variables from the model, omissions of important linkages among included variables, and the inclusion of irrelevant linkages (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Model modification attempts to detect and correct internal model specification errors, such as omissions/inclusions of important/irrelevant parameters, given the set of variables in the model. LISREL modification indices can be used to suggest possible modifications, albeit with the inherent danger of overfitting the model, which in the extreme results in a saturated model with zero degrees of freedom and a perfect fit. USE1 was used as a reference variable for scaling, and perhaps a different variable would have provided results that are more agreeable. However, there was nothing apparent in USE1 to support that modification (unlike if, say, TE5 or SE1 were used for scaling; neither have an occurrence of Likert value = 2 for any observation). Given the inherent dangers of overfitting a model where changes are not supported by theory, and that model modification can be very unstable (i.e., cannot be replicated with other samples), the researcher concluded that there was no justification for changing the scaling reference variable.

87 Where the same measures were used, the researcher considered demographic factors that may have influenced differences in reported results in comparison with the Gefen et al. (2003) study. The relationships between dependent latent variable intention to use a B2C Web site (USE) and independent latent variable trust (TE) were similar in the two studies. However, the relationships between dependent latent variable USE and independent latent variables perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were significantly stronger in the Gefen et al. (2003) study. One possible influence is that the gender responses for the current study was predominantly female (57% female; 43% male), whereas the Gefen et al. (2003) study of graduate business students was predominantly male (44% female; 56% male). Perhaps a more plausible influence is differences in the age characteristics of the respondents. In the Gefen et al. (2003) study the respondents were uniformly young; 88% were in their twenties and over 83% in their early twenties. The current studys respondent mean age was 52 years (SD = 14) and median age was 53 yearsa considerably older and more diverse group. This suggested that the convenient use of students limited the external validity of the Gefen et al. (2003) studys findings because they were not representative of the wider population. Unlike in the current study, the majority of trust studies made use of business school students. Such a cohort possesses a number of characteristics that distinguishes it from the larger populace, such as having higher degrees of computer self-efficacy, tending to be more comfortable with technology, possessing more idealistic outlooks, and holding higher levels of faith in humanity

88 (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Although not demographic, a further issue raised by Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) concerned the predominance of online shopping as the most widely used research context. Factors such as rating agencies and liability limits require the online purchaser to hold decreasing degrees of trust over time for the purchase of generics such as CDs or books. Online banking, in contrast, is a highly personal setting that by its nature possesses high (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005), and perhaps growing (Krebs, 2008), barriers to trust.

89

CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSIONS Trust has been widely researched from numerous perspectives, though no dominant conclusions have been reached and lack of trust continues to be identified as a major obstacle in the adoption of various forms of e-commerce (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). As a result, executives in many online business-to-consumer firms remain puzzled over why consumers will not buy when offered even the most tempting circumstances (Gefen & Straub, 2003). This consumer reluctance implies that better models are needed to gain insights into the role trust plays in business-to-consumer e-commerce. The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between trust and other factors that play an essential role in the acceptance of technology within the online business-to-consumer environment. Acceptance of technology (sometimes referred to as an acceptance-centric model) focuses on the primary desired consequent of trust: user acceptance of an e-commerce Web site. Given the importance that trust holds in the future success and growth potential of e-commerce, there is an ongoing need to examine the relative importance of each factor that influences consumer acceptance of this form of technology. The physical distance and degree of anonymity imposed by e-commerce combined with the involvement of sensitive and private personal information makes online banking an e-commerce activity that requires a high degree of trust. This study was designed to examine those trust-based relationships that are hypothesized to play an essential role in business-to-consumer e-commerce,

90 and perhaps uncover new or improved methods for fostering trust in this environment, including more innovative approaches to Web site and marketing designs, to customer retention strategies, and to the improvement of online service quality (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). This research focused on addressing six research questions regarding trust factor relationships that have been hypothesized to play a significant role in fostering the use of online e-commerce. The online survey contained 40 questions that were adopted from other studies and have all been previously validated. Study participants were randomly selected from an online data panel representing all online US residents at least 18 years of age. Panel participation was entirely voluntary and required a double opt-in by the survey administration company that created the panel. While completing the survey, a participant was able to withdraw at any time and for any reason. The online panel allowed for ample diversity among participants, and was judged by the researcher to be representative of the target group: the U.S. online banking population. A total of 486 surveys were collected online over four days in July 2009. Following several data filtering and preparation steps, 244 (50%) of the surveys were rejected for a variety of reasons, as described in Chapter 3. The remaining 242, deemed a sufficient sample size by most estimates, were used for detailed LISREL analysis. To better understand the context and evolution of this study, this researcher reviewed relevant literature related to trust (particularly, though not exclusively) in the context of B2C e-commerce. Research approaches were considerably varied and sometimes diametrically opposed, with individual

91 researcher teams vying for recognition and, at times, discrediting the work of others. Such variation in the literature has produced an abundance of empirical evidence without the means to integrate it, and has hindered the advancement of research on the role of trust in e-commerce (Gefen, Rao, & Tractinsky, 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). It also suggested that, despite the many studies and the many years involved, the life cycle of B2C online trust research is still in its infancy. However, one exception has stood out: the TAM has been widely used over the years for academic studies concerning trust, both within and without the context of business-to-consumer e-commerce. This researcher used fundamental components of TAM to detect any direct relationship with intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site. Implications The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the relationship between trust and other factors that play an essential role in the acceptance of technology within the online business-to-consumer environment. Research question 1. Research question 1 was: What is the relationship, if any, between trust and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the five trust questions in Appendix C. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high t-value suggested that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between trust and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, moderate

92 corresponding standard error, high corresponding t-values, and moderate to high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. Research question 2. Research question 2 was: What is the relationship, if any, between perceived usefulness and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the three perceived usefulness questions in Appendix B. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high tvalue suggested that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between perceived usefulness and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, low corresponding standard error, high corresponding t-values, and high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. Research question 3. Research question 3 was: What is the relationship, if any, between perceived ease of use and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the four perceived ease of use questions in Appendix B. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high tvalue suggested that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between perceived ease of use and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, low corresponding standard error, high

93 corresponding t-values, and high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. Research question 4. Research question 4 was: What is the relationship, if any, between subjective norms and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the four subjective norms questions in Appendix D. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high tvalue suggested that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between subjective norms and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, low corresponding standard error, high corresponding t-values, and high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. Research question 5. Research question 5 was: What is the relationship, if any, between computer anxiety and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the three computer anxiety questions in Appendix E. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high tvalue suggested that a statistically significant negative relationship exists between computer anxiety and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, low corresponding standard error, high corresponding t-values, and high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. However there were two exceptions: the CA2 nonsignificant

94 measurement error variance and low t-value suggested there was no difference from zero at the 5% significance level, and the R2 value was only moderate for CA3. Research question 6. Research question 6 was: What is the relationship, if any, between computer self-efficacy and intention to use a business-to-consumer Web site? Survey responders answered the two intention-to-use questions in Appendix A and the six self-efficacy questions in Appendix D. LISREL maximum likelihood parameter estimations supported the alternate hypothesis. The combination of moderate to high parameter estimates, low standard error, and a high t-value suggested that a statistically significant positive relationship exists between self-efficacy and intention to use a B2C Web site. Significant measurement error variances, low corresponding standard error, high corresponding t-values, and high R2 values also supported the alternate hypothesis. The one exception to high R2 values was a comparatively low value for SE1. The LISREL measurement sub-model (which described how each latent variable is measured or operationalized by corresponding manifest indicators) indicated that the null hypothesis rejected in favor of the alternate for all six research questions. There was a positive relationship between each of five independent variables (i.e., trust, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, and self-efficacy) and the dependent variable: intention to use a B2C Web site. There was a negative relationship between computer anxiety and intention to use a B2C Web site. Coefficient values were as follows: trust

95 (.58), perceived usefulness (.49), perceived ease of use (.43), subjective norms (.54), computer anxiety (0.08), and computer self-efficacy (.22). Differences in findings may be partially explained by differences in contexts and in data sources used. The research implication of these findings is that they provide additional evidence that each of these six independent variables have a direct effect on the dependent variable, and this research has further indicated the magnitude and direction of this effect. The practical implications of these findings are that Web site operators can incorporate innovative elements into their offering mix with increased confidence that these elements will effect additional Web site use, whether it be profit-making sales of products/services, or resource-saving activities. To date there have been several recent successes noted, particularly with respect to trust. Pay-what-you-want is a direct trust-based example on the sales side. Facing declining album sales from the expansion of digital distribution and piracy, British alternative rock band Radiohead allowed customers to download their album from their Web site. Rather than setting a fixed price, each customer could set his or her own price. The strategy relied on building trust by offering trust, and within a year the band sold over three million copies. Although not a model adaptable to all situations, this innovative approach to fostering online trust among Radioheads large fan base generated more revenue than for any of the bands six previous releases (Seidman, 2009). Take-what-you-need is an indirect trust-based example on the resource side. Netflix is a purely online DVD and Blu-ray disc rental service that offers flat

96 rate rental-by-mail and online streaming to customers in the United States. As an employee benefit, Netflix allows its employees to take whatever vacation they feel they need. Again the strategy relied on building trust by offering trust, which fostered improved company performance, innovation, and progress (Seidman, 2009). The key point to be taken from these examples is that the instigators likely relied on intuition to drive their actions, rather than on the quantitative research findings contained in this and similar studies. The LISREL completely standardized solution to the model suggested that it was admissible, since none of the Lambda-X or Theta-Delta estimates exceeded unity in absolute value (Mels, 2009). However, the LISREL structural sub-model (which described the relationships between the latent variables themselves and indicated the amount of unexplained variance) indicated a number of refinements could better fit the model to the data. LISREL modification indices suggest adding new paths between several variables. Any such additions must be founded on theory-based hypotheses, and not driven by the data (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). For example, a path from trust to perceived usefulness, hypothesizing that trust is an antecedent of perceived usefulness, could be a justified addition by using past success of the TAM as the theoretical justification for the change (Gefen et al., 2003; Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). As the eligible population was comprised of banking-savvy individuals that were both aware of and had access to online banking, the ability to generalize the study is limited to participants that had already established a trusting relationship, and so excludes situations where initial trust was being established.

97 Therefore, the studys focus was on maintaining the trust needed to retain customers rather than on fostering the trust of potential customers. It also limits the ability to generalize the study to a setting where online banking is widely available (i.e., countries possessing an advanced banking infrastructure). The sampling frame for this study consisted of online panel members that offered to participate, and were provided incentives in the form of an instant win game play and an entry in a cash sweepstake. There was also an assumption that the responses from these participants could be generalized to experienced users in the online banking population as a whole. Participants self-assessed their responses to questions involving skill, such as the abilily to search the Internet. Neither the methodology nor the model was assumed complete for all research contexts. Because measures of all constructs were collected via the same instrument at the same point in time, there was also a potential for common method variance (i.e., variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent) (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). Future researchers should consider designs that would avoid this potential. A limitation associated with the studys methodology is that causality is difficult to determine when not using true experimental design (Cozby, 2003). While the artificiality of experiments was avoided, the cause-and-effect aspect of the research remained unanswerable, and so could only be inferred through the theory in this cross-sectional study (Gefen, Karahanna, et al., 2003). Moreover, measures of trust focused on the final outcome of the rational assessment

98 process, rather than on specific costs and benefits or on an explicit assessment of overall costs and benefits. The researcher for this study assumed that the measure effectively captured the essence of the construct. Although arguments had been made that the sample frame for this study can be considered representative of the online banking population, the lack of randomness in participant selection (given that participants were allowed to opt-out at any time and for any reason) nonetheless threatened its external validity. The ability to extend the studys external validity beyond that of online banking, such as to online shopping or online gambling, is also a limitation. While there may be theoretical justification to extend the studys findings to online shopping, online gambling may have factors such as playfulness or enjoyment to consider, which do not particularly apply to online banking (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). Observations on ordinal variables represent responses to a set of ordered categories, including those associated with a Likert scale. Ordinal variables do not have origins or units of measurement, and so researchers have contended that their means, variances, and covariances have no meaning (Du Toit et al., 2006). However, ordinal variables may also be regarded as crude measurements of underlying unobserved or unobservable continuous variables. Assuming an underlying standard normal distribution, a polychoric correlation matrix can be estimated from the inverse of the normal distribution function using an equal thresholds test (Du Toit et al., 2006). Alternatively, there are also researchers that have contended that treating ordinal data as interval data is commonplace in social science and usually does not alter substantive research conclusions

99 (Garson, 2008). Moreover, for many statistical tests, treating ordinal data as continuous data does not seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically in situations where the scale contains at least a 5-point scale (Jaccard & Wan, 1996). The models size, measured by the quantity of latent and manifest variables included in the model, presented a limitation. The more complex the model in terms of its variables, the more likely problems with model fit and the greater the required sample size. Alternatively, too simple a model may lead to specification error in the structural part of the model (through the omission of important latent variables) and/or poor measurement quality (through omission of key indicators). While no rigid rules exist, one recommendation was to limit a model to about five or six latent variables each measured by three or four indicators (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). The model in this research contained seven latent variables each measured by two to six indicators, averaging 3.9 indicators per latent variable and using a total of 27 indicators. This was outside the recommended model size boundaries, though not excessively so. Future researchers will need to carefully consider size and complexity when designing their models. Most studies agreed that 100 to 150 subjects is the minimum recommended sample size when engaged in covariance structure modeling (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), and many articles used between 250 and 500 subjects (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The current studys final sample size of 242 was deemed sufficient by most measures, though there have been

100 recommendations that at least 400 (and in some cases more than 5,000) subjects should be used (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004), since fit indices such as CFI and NFI can be adversely affected by having an insufficient number of subjects (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). Future researchers should therefore consider using a larger sample size. The LISREL structural sub-model (which described the relationships between the latent variables themselves and indicated the amount of unexplained variance) reported results that were not as expected, showing a negative relationship between USE and PEOU, and several t-values not significantly different from zero at the 5% significance level. Goodness of fit statistics suggested a less-than-ideal model fit. While a good fit for a model provides weak support, as there are conceivably many models that could fit at least as well, the RMSEA indicator suggested the model was a mediocre fit, and the minimum fit was above the recommended maximum. A number of other goodness of fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, AGFI) suggested a less-than-ideal fit, although some (e.g., CFI, NFI) were more favorable. Possible reasons for a model to have a substandard fit include violations of distributional assumptions, non-linearities, missing data, and specification errors, as described in Chapter 4. With the exception of missing data, any of these reasons may have contributed to this studys mediocre model fit and so should be given due consideration in future research. These research findings support past research suggesting that intention to use a Web site is positively correlated with (in decreasing order), trust, subjective

101 norms, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and computer self efficacy; that is, of the six independent variables trust held the strongest positive correlation. Intention to use a Web site was both relatively weak and negatively correlated with computer anxiety. The LISREL measurement model used in this research was not comprehensive, and the structural model did not fit well. The LISREL standardized correlation matrix of Table 2 suggest that strong correlations exist between the trilogy of trust, perceived ease of use, and perceived usefulness; all consistent with past TAM-based research findings. Table 2 also suggests strong correlations exist between subjective norms and perceived usefulness, which was hypothesized as unexplored in the context of trust by Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005). Recommendations If one accepts that within the context of online banking drawn from a national sample, and that the underlying assumption of multivariate normality is appropriate using Likert scales, it is recommended that future research include refinements and extensions to improve the model and its fit. Since it had not been studied in the context of trust, Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) suggested the inclusion of computer anxiety as an independent model variable. However since this study showed such a weak correlation, it is recommended that computer anxiety be removed from the model. LISREL modification indices could be used to improve model fit by including additional paths, as long as the introduced changes have theoretical

102 foundations. New variables could also be introduced into the model, a number of which have been suggested in the literature. Gefen et al. (2003), for example, constructed a model using TAM, trust, and four antecedents of trust, as well as 14 paths to connect these latent variables. Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005), on the other hand, retained TAM, dropped the four trust antecedents, and added three of their own latent variables. The Holsapple and Sasidharan (2005) model resembles the model of this study, although the former model contained 14 hypothesized paths while this study contained six. In the interest of parsimony and to stay within the recommended LISREL complexity limits (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006), this researcher placed restrictive limits on the number of latent variables and on the number of connecting paths. Perhaps in the interest of measurement quality, this restriction should be relaxed so as to encourage the potential inclusion of key indicators. Once an improved model has been developed (from both substantive and fit perspectives) the next task would be to perform model cross-validation. This involves testing the model to ensure it works not only for the given sample but also for other samples, expanding the external validity of the model. Cross-validation is particularly important if the model has been improved by repeatedly using the same data set (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). From a practical perspective, opportunities for future research include investigating the extent to which the incorporation of innovative trust elements into Web site offerings stimulates additional Web site use. There are several nascent online and mobile banking activities that represent opportunities to

103 explore such strategies, including account-to-account (A2A) payments (Orr, 2008b), word-of-mouth based banking (Casal, Flavin, & Guinalu, 2008), and mobile person-to-person money transfers (Feldman, 2009). A2A payments, for example, is a relatively new online banking activity wherein customers can move funds between accounts located in competing banks. It has a particularly popular use in funding the bank accounts of students away from home, and already attracts $38 billion of activity among the early adopters (Orr, 2008b). Given that A2A online banking is still in its infancy, there is an opportunity to explore the use of trust-based strategies such as pay-what-you-can. These may prove to be more profitable through the combination of a customers favorable perceptions of the service (i.e., PEOU and PU), increased loyalty (by customers favoring a bank that places trust in its customers), a boost for word-of-mouth based banking, and a net increase in deposit values (a result of letting customers handle their money any way they want). For a software company, one approach to managing trust with repeat customers could read: Dear [name of customer], let us take the element of trust out of the equation. Here is the full version download of the same program you bought from us last year: [name of product]. Go ahead and download it, register it, update and test drive it. If you are not happy for some reason, then you got it free. If you liked what it is just let us know and we will send you an invoice. We are not out to get anyone. We are just trying to retain

104 your business. Sincerely, [name of representative] (L. Wales, personal communication, December 2, 2009). This is consistent with the guarantee offered by Intuit, the creators of TurboTax. A customer may use TurboTax Online without charge up to the point he or she decides to print or electronically file a tax return. Phishing fraud and other risks, vendor size, vendor reputation, and trust transference, and many other variables had been excluded from the scope of this research but should be considered for future studies (Fox, 2005; Gefen, Karahana, et al, 2003; Krebs, 2008; Oghenerukeybe, 2009; Orr, 2008a). Although bank staff may claim that the cause is technically not due to any error on their part, online banking management may nonetheless become the victims of this growing threat and so may want to be more proactive and inventive in its resolution. Rather than bank staff summarily dismissing or even terminating discussions with a customer by using there is nothing wrong on our end as a defensive response, they should seize these opportunities to foster trust and protect their customer base on all possible levels. This aspect is in and of itself an expansive, untapped opportunity for future research. Conclusions Issues relating to trust have crucial e-commerce ramifications as the US online business-to-consumer market was projected to grow by between 17 and 19 percent annually through 2008 (Willis, 2004), and then slow to an average growth of just under 7 percent between 2008 and 2013 (Grau, 2009). US B2C ecommerce sales have been estimated to tally $224 billion in 2009 and grow to

105 $319 billion by 2013 (Grau, 2009). Yet while trust is essential to business transactions, there is little knowledge about the relationships that sustain trust in an online business-to-consumer setting. Critical factors that influence trust have been identified through research. However, despite their incorporation into the design of e-commerce Web sites, success in inspiring trust in Web sites has remained elusive (Holsapple & Sasidharan, 2005). A survey of adult Internet users indicated that only 29% trust e-commerce sites just about always or most of the time, while 64% trust e-commerce sites only some of the time or never (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2002). This quantitative study examined the relationship between trust and other factors that play an essential role in the acceptance of technology within the online business-to-consumer environment. Acceptance of technology (sometimes referred to as an acceptance-centric model) focuses on the primary desired consequent of trust: user acceptance of an e-commerce Web site. Given the importance that trust holds in the future success and growth potential of ecommerce, there is a need to examine the relative importance of each factor that influences consumer acceptance of this form of technology. Such insights may uncover new or improved methods for fostering trust in the online business-toconsumer environment, including more innovative approaches to Web site and marketing designs, to customer retention strategies, and to the improvement of online service quality (Kim & Prabhakar, 2004). Findings included that the respondents typical profile is that of an educated, middle-aged Caucasian female possessing moderate family income,

106 significant computer and Internet search skills, wired broadband access, and a penchant for online purchasing. Findings also included the existence of measurable relationships between each of these latent variables and intention to use a Web site, albeit not as significant as found in earlier research. Coefficient values were as follows: trust (.58), perceived usefulness (.49), perceived ease of use (.43), subjective norms (.54), computer anxiety (0.08), and computer selfefficacy (.22). Differences in findings may be partially explained by differences in contexts and in data sources used. The researcher also noted that while some of the variables studied have been creatively used to encourage online system use, the application of quantitative research was not likely a decision-making factor. This research, therefore, has provided some a posteriori knowledge regarding the success of these marketing experiments. Future research should include that additional latent variables be introduced into the model, a number of which have been suggested in past research, including phishing fraud and other risks, vendor size, vendor reputation, and trust antecedents. Once the model introduced in this research is sufficiently refined, the next step is to ensure that it works for other data samples to expand its external validity.

107 REFERENCES Adapa, S. (2008, August). Adoption of Internet shopping: Cultural considerations in India and Australia [Electronic version]. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 13(2), 1-18. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/2008-08/Adapa.pdf Amin, H. (2009). An analysis of online banking usage intentions: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model [Electronic version]. International Journal of Business and Society, 10(1), 27-40. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1806822651). Anguelov, C. E., Hilgert, M. A., & Hogarth, J. M. (2004, Winter). U.S. consumers and electronic banking, 1995-2003 [Electronic version]. Federal Reserve Bulletin. Retrieved February 10, 2009, from http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2004/winter04_ca.pdf Avery, A. E., Baradwaj, B. G., & Singer, D. D. (2008, Fall). An examination of Hofstedes cultural factors in explanation of differences in Citibank international retail banking web sites [Electronic version]. Journal of Business & Economic Studies, 14(2), 73-90, 117-118. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1591993251). Barnes, S. J., & Vidgen, R. T. (2002, August). An integrative approach to the assessment of e-commerce quality [Electronic version]. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3, 114-127. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.csulb.edu/web/journals/jecr/p_i.htm Bentrum, J., & Whatley, J. (2002). Building e-commerce sites with the .NET framework [Electronic version]. Indianapolis, IN: Sams Publishing. Retrieved September 20, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?id=SEsqnbXvdBIC&pg=RA1PA8&lpg=RA1-PA8&dq=US+b2c+ecommerce+trends&source=bl&ots=6_WwExmLfV&sig=_vRh4BJBgC_no_ n4G6s_LHDSB7w&hl=en&ei=mLazSonxI4jUNenSxNoO&sa=X&oi=book_r esult&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=US%20b2c%20ecommerce%20trends&f=false Brown, M., & Muchira, R. (2004). Investigating the relationship between Internet privacy concerns and online purchase behavior [Electronic version]. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 5(1), 62-70. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20041/Paper6.pdf

108 Casal, L. V., Flavin, C., & Guinalu, M. (2008). The role of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer loyalty and positive word-ofmouth in the e-banking services [Electronic version]. International Journal of Banking Marketing, 26(6), 399-417. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1554381401). Chang, M. K., & Cheung, W. (2005). Online trust production: Interactions among trust building mechanisms [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://csdl2.computer.org/persagen/DLAbsToc.jsp?resourcePath=/dl/proce edings/&toc=comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/07/2268toc.xml&DOI=10 .1109/HICSS.2005.471 Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newstead, P. R. (2003, June). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail emotion/adoption study (supplemental material) [Electronic version]. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://e-companions.pubs.informs.org/ISR/1526-5536-2003-02SupplA.pdf Cozby, P. C. (2003). Methods in behavioral research (8th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dillon, T. W., & Reif, H. L. (2004, Fall). Factors influencing consumers e commerce commodity purchases [Electronic version]. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 22(2), 1-12. Dong, J., & Bliemel, M. (2008, December). Strategies for increased integration of online and in-branch services of banks in Canada [Electronic version]. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 13(3), 1-8. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/200812/Dong-Bliemel-JIBC.pdf Du Toit, S.H.C., Du Toit, M., Mels, G., & Yan, C. (2006). LISREL for Windows: PRELIS Users Guide [Electronic version]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/IPUG.pdf

109 Feldman, A. (2009, November 23). Innovation & technology: Buddy, can you email me 100 bucks? BusinessWeek, 4156, 68. Fox, S. (2005, February 9). Online banking 2005: A Pew Internet project data memo [Electronic version]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 17, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Banking_2005.pdf Fox, S., & Beier, J. (2006). Online banking 2006: Surfing to the bank [Electronic version]. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Banking_2006.pdf Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences [Electronic version]. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.psycho.uniduesseldorf.de/abteilungen/aap/gpower3/download-andregister/Dokumente/GPower3-BRM-Paper.pdf Friedman, A., Lerner, D., & Foster, K. T. (2001, August 29). Online banking privacy: A slow, confusing start to giving customers control over their information [Electronic version]. Center for Democracy & Technology. Retrieved September 22, 2007, from http://www.cdt.org/privacy/financial/010829onlinebanking.shtml Furneaux, B. (2006, January). Technology acceptance model. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from York University (Toronto), Theories Used in IS Research (Schneberger, S., & Wade, M., Eds.) web site: http://www.istheory.yorku.ca/Technologyacceptancemodel.htm Garson, G. D. (2008, March 24). Data levels and measurements. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/datalevl.htm Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust [Electronic version]. The International Journal of Management Science, 28(6), 725737. Oxford: Omega. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 68548413). Gefen, D. (2002, Summer). Reflections on the dimensions of trust and trustworthiness among online consumers [Electronic version]. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 33, 38-53. New York: ACM-SIGMIS. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 196572981).

110

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003, March). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model [Electronic version]. MIS Quarterly, 27, 5190. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 311802041). Gefen, D., Rao, V. S., & Tractinsky, N. (2003). The conceptualization of trust, risk and their relationship in electronic commerce: The need for clarifications [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 19, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2003/1874/07/1874701 92b.pdf Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2003, Winter). Managing user trust in B2C e-services [Electronic version]. e-Service Journal, 2, 7-24. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 548022581). Gounaris, S., & Koritos, C. (2008). Investigating the drivers of Internet Banking adoption decision: A comparison of three alternative frameworks [Electronic version]. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(5), 282304. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1528442201). Grau, J. (2009, June). Retail e-commerce forecast [Electronic version]. New York: E-Marketer, Inc. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://www.emarketer.com/Reports/All/Emarketer_2000565.aspx Hampton-Sosa, W., & Koufaris, M. (2005, Fall). The effect of web site perceptions on initial trust in the owner company [Electronic version]. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 10(1), 55-81. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 932985211). Haytko, D. L., & Simmers, C. S. (2009). Whats your preference? An exploratory examination of the effect of human vs ATM vs online interactions on overall consumer satisfaction with banking services [Electronic version]. Management Research News, 32(4), 337-353. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1866168671).

111 Holsapple, C. W., & Sasidharan, S. (2005, November 8). The dynamics of trust in B2C e-commerce: A research model and agenda. Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 3, 377-403. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from Springer-Link: www.springer.com. Also available as ProQuest database Document ID 930538601. Hudson, J. M., & Bruckman, A. (2005). Using empirical data to reason about Internet research ethics [Electronic version]. ECSCW 2005: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 287-306. Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.ecscw.org/2005/paper15.pdf Hayduk, L. (2006). Blocked-error R2: A conceptually improved definition of the proportion of explained variance in models containing loops or correlated residuals. Quality and Quantity,40(4), 629-649. Netherlands: Springer. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000, March). Consumer trust in an Internet store [Electronic version]. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45-71. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 501065431). Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (2006). LISREL (Version 8.80) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Kim, Y. H., & Kim, D. J. (2005). A study of online transaction self-efficacy, consumer trust, and uncertainty reduction in electronic commerce transaction [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2005/2268/07/2268017 0c.pdf Kim, K. K., & Prabhakar, B. (2000). Initial trust, perceived risk, and the adoption of Internet banking [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems. Atlanta: Association for Information Systems. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=359809.

112 Kim, K. K., & Prabhakar, B. (2004, Spring). Initial trust and the adoption of B2C e-commerce: The case of Internet banking [Electronic version]. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 35(2), 50-64. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 698213511). Kim, E., & Tadisina, S. (2005). Factors impacting customers initial trust in ebusiness: An empirical study [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/abs/proceedings/hicss/2005/226 8/07/2268toc.htm Komiak, S., Wang, W., & Benbasat, I. (2005). Comparing customer trust in virtual salespersons with customer trust in human salespersons [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/abs/proceedings/hicss/2005/226 8/07/2268toc.htm Krebs, B. (2008, December 8). Digging deeper into the CheckFree attack [Electronic version]. The Washington Post. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from the washingtonpost.com web site: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/12/digging_deeper_into _the_checkf.html?wpisrc=newsletter Lai, V. S., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for Internet banking: An invariance analysis [Electronic version]. Information & Management, 42(5), 373-386. Laukkanen, T., & Pasanen, M. (2008). Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they differ from other online users [Electronic version]? Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 13(2), 86-94. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1540294941). Lin, W., Yeh, J., & Chen, Y. (2009). Determinants of user adoption of e-payment services [Electronic version]. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 14(2), 224-229. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1614428801).

113 Loonam, M., & OLoughlin, D. (2008). Exploring e-service quality: A study of Irish online banking [Electronic version]. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 26(7), 759-780. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1587311831). Lubke, G., & Muthn, B. (2004). Factor-analyzing Likert scale data under the assumption of multivariate normality complicates a meaningful comparison of observed groups or latent classes. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 514-534. McCoy, S., Carr, C. L., Marks, P. V., Jr., & Mabarika, V. (2004). Electronic versus paper surveys: Analysis of potential psychometric biases [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/abs/proceedings/hicss/2004/205 6/08/2056toc.htm McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2001). What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology [Electronic version]. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35-59. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from Michigan State Universitys web site: https://www.msu.edu/~mcknig26/TrTypology.pdf McKnight, D. H., Kacmar, C. J., & Choudhury, V. (2004). Dispositional trust and distrust distinctions in predicting high- and low-risk Internet expert advice site perceptions [Electronic version]. E-Service Journal, 3(2), 35-58. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from Michigan State Universitys web site: https://www.msu.edu/~mcknig26/DisplTrustDistrust.pdf Mels, G. (2006). LISREL for Windows: Getting started guide [Electronic version]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/GSWLISREL.pdf Mels, G. (2009). LISREL measurement model output [Electronic version]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/MeasurementModelOutput.pdf Nah, F., & Davis, S. (2002, August). HCI research issues in e-commerce [Electronic version]. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3, 98-113. Retrieved February 21, 2006, from http://www.csulb.edu/web/journals/jecr/p_i.htm

114 Oghenerukeybe, E. A. (2009, April). Customers perception of security indicators on online banking sites in Nigeria [Electronic version]. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 14(1), 1-16. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/2009-04/Egwali.pdf Orr, B. (2008a, February). Security 2.0: Not just a new kettle of phish [Electronic version]. American Bankers Association ABA Banking Journal, 100(2), 54. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.allbusiness.com/crimelaw/criminal-offenses-cybercrime/7303476-1.html Orr, B. (2008b, April). A2A payments: Next generation of online banking [Electronic version]. American Bankers Association ABA Banking Journal, 100(4), 53. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.allbusiness.com/banking-finance/banking-lending-creditservices-electronic/10552670-1.html Ponemon, L. (2005, April 26). Trust in online banking: Hard to earn, easy to lose [Electronic version]. Computerworld. Framingham, MA: International Data Group, Inc. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBas ic&articleId=101341 Princeton Survey Research Associates. (2002, April 16). A matter of trust: What users want from websites. Consumer Reports WebWatch. Retrieved January 30, 2009 from http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/webcredibility-report-a-matter-of-trust.cfm#top Qureshi, T. M., Zafar, M. K., & Khan, M. B. (2008, April). Customer acceptance of online banking in developing economies [Electronic version]. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 13(1), 1-9. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/200804/Tahir%20Masood.pdf Rigopoulos, G., & Askounis, D. (2007, December). A TAM framework to evaluate users perception towards online electronic payments [Electronic version]. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 12(3), 1-9. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/200712/George_final.pdf Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation: A comprehensive guide to content and process (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). Beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

115

Seidman, D. (2009, September 7). Building trust by trusting. BusinessWeek, 76. New York: McGraw-Hill. Serino, C. M., Furner, C. P., & Smatt, C. (2005). Making it personal: How personalization affects trust over time [Electronic version]. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from the IEEE Digital Library: http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/abs/proceedings/hicss/2005/226 8/07/2268toc.htm Serva, M. A., Benamati, J. S., & Fuller, M. A. (2005, Summer). Trustworthiness in B2C e-commerce [Electronic version]. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 36, 89-108. New York: ACM-SIGMIS. Retrieved February 20, 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 898971621). Servon, L. J., & Kaestner, R. (2008, Summer). Consumer financial literacy and the impact of online banking on the financial behavior of lower-income bank customers [Electronic version]. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(2), 271-305. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1501065271). Shergill, G. S., & Chen, Z. (2005). Web-based shopping: Consumers attitudes towards online shopping in New Zealand [Electronic version]. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(2), 79-94. Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://www.csulb.edu/web/journals/jecr/p_i.htm Singer, D., Avery, A., & Baradwaj, B. (2008). Management innovation and cultural adaptivity in international online banking [Electronic version]. Management Research News, 31(4), 258-272. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 1462811181). Tomaszczyk, A. (2008, Summer). Research note for response rates in web surveys. Retrieved November 19, 2008, from University of Waterloo (Canada), Survey Research Centre web site: http://www.src.uwaterloo.ca/Services/Research%20Note%20for%20Resp onse%20Rates%20in%20Web%20Surveys.htm U.S. Census Bureau. (2008, April 10). Racial and ethnic classifications used in Census 2000 and beyond. Retrieved November 7, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html

116 Van Everdingen, Y. M., & Waarts, E. (2003). The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations [Electronic version]. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 217232. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from ABI/INFORM Global using the ProQuest database (Document ID 446109451). Willis, J. L. (2004). What impact will e-commerce have on the U.S. economy [Electronic version]? Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas Economic Review, 2004(2). Retrieved May 13, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3699/is_200404/ai_n9396584/pg_2/ ?tag=content;col1

117

APPENDIXES

118 APPENDIX A: Survey Questions (Intention to Use) Item Question Intention to Use a Business-to-Consumer Web site (USE)a USE1 I would likely use my credit or debit card in transactions involving an online banking system. USE2 I would likely provide an online bank system with the information it needs to better serve my needs.
Note. aAdapted from Trust and TAM in Online Shopping, by D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, 2003, MIS Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 84-85.

119 APPENDIX B: Survey Questions (Ease of Use, Usefulness) Item Question Perceived Ease of Usea PEOU1 It is easy to become skillful at using an online banking system. PEOU2 Learning to operate an online banking system is easy. PEOU3 An online banking system is flexible to interact with. PEOU4 An online banking system enhances my ability to do online banking.

Perceived Usefulnessa PU1 Using an online banking system enhances my effectiveness in conducting my banking. PU2 Using an online banking system increases my productivity in conducting my banking. PU3 Using an online banking system enables me to conduct my banking faster.
Note. aAdapted from Trust and TAM in Online Shopping, by D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, 2003, MIS Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 84-85.

120 APPENDIX C: Survey Questions (Trust) Item Question Trust (TE) TE1a Based on my experience with online banking systems, I believe the systems providers are honest. TE2a Based on my experience with online banking systems, I believe the systems providers care about customers. TE3a Based on my experience with online banking systems, I believe the systems providers are not opportunistic. TE4a Based on my experience with online banking systems, I believe the systems providers are predictable. TE5b Based on my experience with online banking systems, I believe the systems providers are skilled and knowledgeable.
Note. a Adapted from Trust and TAM in Online Shopping, by D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, 2003, MIS Quarterly, 27(1), pp. 84-85. b Adapted from The Dynamics of Trust in B2C E-commerce: A Research Model and Agenda, by C. W. Holsapple and S. Sasidharan, 2005, Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 3, pp. 397-398.

121

APPENDIX D: Survey Questions (Subjective Norms, Self Efficacy) Item Question Subjective Norms (SN)a SN1 SN2 SN3 My friends would think that I should use an online banking system. My co-workers would think that I should use an online banking system. People I respect or admire would think that I should use an online banking system. SN4 People who are important to me would think that I should use an online banking system.

Self-Efficacy (SE)a I could complete almost any online banking transaction SE1 SE2 if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go. if I had only software manuals or text-based online help for a reference. SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 if I had seen someone else using it before trying it myself. if I knew I could call upon someone for help if I got stuck. if someone else had helped me get started. if I had a lot of time to complete the online banking task.

Note. aAdapted from The Dynamics of Trust in B2C E-commerce: A Research Model and Agenda, by C. W. Holsapple and S. Sasidharan, 2005, Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 3, pp. 397-398.

122 APPENDIX E: Survey Questions (Computer Anxiety) Item Question Computer Anxiety (CA)a CA1 CA2 CA3 Computers scare me. Working with a computer makes me nervous. If someone near me is having trouble with a computer I would not likely offer assistance.
Note. aAdapted from The Dynamics of Trust in B2C E-commerce: A Research Model and Agenda, by C. W. Holsapple and S. Sasidharan, 2005, Information Systems and eBusiness Management, 3, pp. 397-398.

123 APPENDIX F: Survey Questions (Demographics) Item Question Demographics (D) DSEX DAGE DINC Gender [1 = Female] / [2 = Male] / [0 = Prefer not to answer] Current age: [###] (0 = Prefer not to answer) The annual household income where I live is: [1 = less than $25,000] / [2 = $25,000-$49,999] / [3 = $50,000-74,999] / [4 = $75,000 - $99,999] / [5 = $100,000 or more] / [0 = prefer not to answer] DEDU Current educational attainment: [1 = Did not complete high school] / [2 = High school graduate] / [3 = Some college] / [4 = Graduated college] / [5 = College plus] / [0 =Prefer not to answer] DNET Internet connection at home: [1 = Wired dial-up] / [2 = Wired Broadband (DSL, cable, satellite)] / [3 = Wireless (Smartphone, PDA] / [4 = Other connection type] / [5 = Unknown, not applicable] / [0 = Prefer not to answer] DRACE I consider myself as [1 = White, Caucasian] / [2 = Black, African American] / [3 = Hispanic, Spanish, Latino] / [4 = Asian, Central Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander] / [5 = American Indian, Alaskan Native, Eskimo, Aleut] / [6 = Other] / [7 = Multiracial] / [0 = Prefer not to answer]

124

APPENDIX G: Survey Questions (Online Experience) Item Question Online Experience (EXP) EXP1a EXP2a I own a computer. [1 = yes] / [2 = no] / [0 = Prefer not to answer] I consider my computer skill level to be: [1 = beginner] / [2 = average] / [3 = experienced] / [4 = expert] / [0 = Prefer not to answer] EXP3a I consider my Internet search skill level to be: [1 = beginner] / [2 = average] / [3 = experienced] / [4 = expert] / [0 = Prefer not to answer] EXP4 I generally use the Internet: [1 = seldom] / [2 = once a month] / [3 = several times a month] / [4 = once a week] / [5 = several times a week] / [6 = almost daily] / [7 = daily] / [0 = never or prefer not to answer]
Note. aAdapted from Factors Influencing Consumers E-Commerce Commodity Purchases, by T. W. Dillon and H. L. Reif, 2004, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 22(2), p. 8.

125 APPENDIX H: Survey Questions (Online Experience (continued)) Item EXP5a Question In the last 12 months I used the Internet to make online purchases: [1 = never] / [2 = a few times a year] / [3 = several times a year] / [4 = several times a month] / [5 = several times a week] / [6 = almost daily] / [7 = daily] / [0 = Never or prefer not to answer] EXP6b In the last 12 months, I generally used the Internet to do online banking:* [1 = a few times a year] / [2 = several times a year] / [3 = several times a month] / [4 = several times a week] / [5 = almost daily] / [6 = daily] / [0 = Never or prefer not to answer] * For this survey, online banking is using a banks Web site to perform any or all of the following banking transactions: view a bank balance or statement, transfer money between accounts, or pay bills online.
Note. aAdapted from Factors Influencing Consumers E-Commerce Commodity Purchases, by T. W. Dillon and H. L. Reif, 2004, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 22(2), p. 8. bThis question was asked at the start of the survey and used as a screening tool for survey participation. Respondents were screened out that answered with never or prefer not to answer. Respondents also screened out were employees, managers, and stockholders in a financial institution that provided online banking (i.e., conflict of interest).

126 APPENDIX I: Permission to Use Survey Items (1)

127

Received January 29, 2009 via e-mail. RE: Trust in B2C e-commerce: permission request From: "David Gefen" gefend@drexel.edu To: nglennie@rocketmail.com Hi Neil, You may reuse my survey items as is customary in academia. This means you need to reference the paper you took them from when you use them. All the best David Sent January 29, 2009 via e-mail. From: Neil Glennie Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:01 PM To: David Gefen Subject: Trust in B2C e-commerce: permission request Hello Dr. Gefen: Since our brief communications of (ouch! how time passes) two plus years ago, I have formed my dissertation committee and continue to pursue the study of Trust and TAM in online banking. In that regard, I am seeking permission to use one of your questionnaires in the development of my own. As a reminder, the questionnaire I refer to is from Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model (Appendix A). MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 1 / March 2003. Best regards, Neil Glennie (Ph.D. candidate)

128 APPENDIX J: Permission to Use Survey Items (2)

129

Received January 31, 2009 via e-mail. RE: The dynamics of trust in B2C ecommerce -- permission request From: "Holsapple, Clyde W" cwhols@e-mail.uky.edu To: "nglennie@rocketmail.com" nglennie@rocketmail.com Cc: "Sasidharan, Sharath" <sasidharan@marshall.edu> Hi NeilYes, provided the original article by Dr. Sasidharan and me is acknowledged as the source of the questionnaire, that is fine. Clyde

Sent January 29, 2009 via e-mail. From: Neil Glennie Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:20 PM To: Clyde Holsapple Subject: The dynamics of trust in B2C ecommerce -- permission request Hello Dr. Holsapple: Since our brief communications of (ouch! how time passes) two plus years ago, I have formed my dissertation committee and continue to pursue the study of Trust and TAM in online banking. In that regard, I am seeking permission to use one of your questionnaires in the development of my own. As a reminder, the questionnaire I refer to is from The dynamics of trust in B2C e-commerce: A research model and agenda (Appendix 4). Information Systems and eBusiness Management (ISeB), 3, 377-403. Best regards, Neil Glennie (Ph.D. candidate)

130 APPENDIX K: Permission to Use Survey Items (3)

131

Received February 9, 2009 via e-mail. RE: Factors Influencing Consumers' E-Commerce Commodity Purchases: permission request Monday, February 9, 2009 7:24 AM From: "Tom Dillon" <dillontw@jmu.edu> To: nglennie@rocketmail.com Cc: "Harry Reif" <reifhl@jmu.edu> Neil, Thank you for the request. Feel free to use any measure from the paper (references us accordingly). If you need assistance, please let me know. Tom -Thomas W. Dillon, PhD Professor CIS/MS College of Business James Madison University 800 South Main St. MSC 0203 Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Sent February 8, 2009 via e-mail. From: Neil Glennie Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2009 12:16 PM To: Tom Dillon Subject: Factors Influencing Consumers' E-Commerce Commodity Purchases: permission request Hello Dr. Dillon, I am a PhD candidate currently studying Trust and TAM in online banking. In that regard, I am seeking permission to reuse one of your survey items in the development of my own. The survey item I refer to is from Factors Influencing Consumers' E-commerce Commodity Purchases, Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal Vol. 22 (2). Sincerely, Neil Glennie

132 APPENDIX L: Survey Screen Shots (Representative Examples)

133

Topic: Online Banking Reward: An Instant Win game play and an entry in the $25,000 sweepstakes Survey length 13 minutes Click this link to start: http://www.surveyspot.com/welcome.jsp?sid=766639 Your opinion makes a difference. Thank you for taking part. Questions? Please reference survey number 766639

** Our members spoke, and we listened! Next month, SurveySpot will be moving to PayPal! For more information on PayPal, and how this will affect your rewards please go to: http://www.surveyspot.com/paypal.shtml Please do not reply to this e-mail; we're unable to read e-mails sent as replies. You received this e-mail because you joined SurveySpot and agreed to receive survey invitations. SurveySpot is a product of Survey Sampling International, 6 Research Drive, Shelton, CT 06484. To discontinue your membership, please click: http://www.surveyspot.com/svy/71.

134

135 APPENDIX M: Selected Demographic Frequency Tables

136 Table M1 Age range cross tabulated with gender Age range 18 22 23 27 28 32 33 37 38 42 43 47 48 52 53 57 58 62 63 67 68 72 73 77 78 82 83 87 Totals (%) Female % 3 2 3 5 8 8 8 5 8 3 3 0 1 0 57 Male % 1 0 2 0 2 3 5 6 12 4 6 3 0 0 43 Total % 3 2 5 5 10 11 13 11 20 7 9 3 1 0 100

Notes. Percentages may not sum due to rounding.

137 Table M2 Household income range % Under $25k $25k 50k $50k 75k $75k 100k Over $100k No response 14 31 21 15 14 5

Table M3 Educational attainment % No high school High school Some college College graduate College plus No response 2 18 38 23 18 1

138 Table M4 Computer skills % Beginner Average Experienced Expert 3 34 49 14

Table M5 Internet connection at home % Wired dial-up Wired broadband Wireless, Smartphone Other Unknown 2 92 4 1 1

Table M6 Internet search skills % Beginner Average Experienced Expert 3 31 47 19

139 Table M7 Internet usage % Seldom Once per month Many times per month Once per week Many times per week Almost daily Daily 1 1 2 1 3 15 77

Table M8 Internet purchases % Never Few times per year Several time per year Several time per month Several times per week Almost daily Daily 5 24 31 32 4 1 3

140 APPENDIX N: LISREL Standardized Measurement Equations

141

LISREL Standardized Measurement Equations Manifest variable Latent variable R2

Coefficient (Std. Error) t-value 1.32 1.26 (.15) 8.28 1.12 (.061) 18.31 1.16 (.062) 18.55 1.19 (.075) 15.90 1.24 (.068) 18.17 1.26 (.065) 19.32 1.25 (.070) 17.77 1.10 (.069) 15.99

Error Var. (Std. Error) t-value 1.80 (.24) 7.42 .65 (.17) 3.79 .26 (.031) 8.27 .25 (.031) 8.01 .60 (.062) 9.71 .33 (.039) 8.41 .20 (.034) 5.89 .37 (.045) 8.25 .50 (.052) 9.45

USE1

USE

.49

USE2

USE

.71

PEOU1

PEOU

.83

PEOU2

PEOU

.84

PEOU3

PEOU

.70

PEOU4

PEOU

.82

PU1

PU

.89

PU2

PU

.81

PU3

PU

.71

142

Manifest variable

Coefficient (Std. Error) t-value 1.01 (.070) 14.37 1.20 (.075) 16.03 1.12 (.094) 11.95 .97 (.080) 11.99 1.06 (.070) 15.21 1.29 (.077) 16.88 1.34 (.077) 17.33 1.48 (.072) 20.51 1.35 (.074) 18.18 .70 (.097) 7.19

Latent variable

Error Var. (Std. Error) t-value .60 (.066) 9.09 .54 (.067) 8.01 1.34 (.013) 9.94 .98 (.099) 9.93 .54 (.062) 8.62 .55 (.057) 9.63 .51 (.055) 9.41 .14 (.032) 4.31 .39 (.045) 8.79 1.86 (.17) 10.73

R2

TE1

TE

.63

TE2

TE

.73

TE3

TE

.48

TE4

TE

.49

TE5

TE

.68

SN1

SN

.75

SN2

SN

.78

SN3

SN

.94

SN4

SN

.82

SE1

SE

.21

143

Manifest variable

Coefficient (Std. Error) t-value 1.47 (.10) 14.32 1.68 (.098) 17.15 1.31 (.088) 14.83 1.57 (.100) 15.77 1.40 (.097) 14.49 1.44 (.076) 19.03 1.49 (.072) 20.70 1.10 (.11) 10.38

Latent variable

Error Var. (Std. Error) t-value 1.31 (.14) 9.40 .78 (.10) 7.45 .91 (.100) 9.17 1.03 (.12) 8.64 1.14 (.12) 9.33 .25 (.062) 4.00 .036 (.062) .58 2.03 (.19) 10.79

R2

SE2

SE

.62

SE3

SE

.78

SE4

SE

.65

SE5

SE

.71

SE6

SE

.63

CA1

CA

.89

CA2

CA

.98

CA3

CA

.37

Note. Dashes indicate the standard error and t-value were not estimated for manifest variable USE1, since it was used by LISREL as a reference variable for scaling (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).

144 APPENDIX O: LISREL Completely Standardized Solution

145 LISREL Completely Standardized Solution LAMBDA-Y (dependent variable coefficients) USE USE1 USE2 .70 .84

LAMBDA-X (independent variable coefficients) Perceived ease of use PEOU PEOU1 PEOU2 PEOU3 PEOU4 .91 .92 .84 .91 Perceived usefulness PU Trust Subjective norms SN Computer self-efficacy SE Computer anxiety CA

TE

146 Perceived ease of use PEOU PU1 PU2 PU3 TE1 TE2 TE3 TE4 TE5 Perceived usefulness PU .94 .90 .84 .79 .85 .70 .70 .82 Trust Subjective norms SN Computer self-efficacy SE Computer anxiety CA

TE

147 Perceived ease of use PEOU SN1 SN2 SN3 SN4 SE1 SE2 SE3 SE4 SE5 SE6 Perceived usefulness PU Trust Subjective norms SN .87 .88 .97 .91 .46 .79 .89 .81 .84 .80 Computer self-efficacy SE Computer anxiety CA

TE

148 Perceived ease of use PEOU CA1 CA2 CA3 Perceived usefulness PU Trust Subjective norms SN Computer self-efficacy SE Computer anxiety CA .95 .99 .61

TE