Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:277061 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of
download.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm
IJBM
33,2
Innovation adoption across
self-service banking technologies
in India
96 Arun Kumar Kaushik and Zillur Rahman
Received 14 January 2014
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,
Revised 5 May 2014 Roorkee, India
15 May 2014
Accepted 18 June 2014
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the various antecedent beliefs predicting customers’
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
attitudes toward, and adoption of, self-service technologies (SSTs) available in the banking industry.
Design/methodology/approach – A descriptive research design with survey approach is used to
develop and test a conceptual model of adoption for all three self-service banking technologies (SSBTs).
Findings – The results of the comparative analysis showed that antecedent beliefs affecting adopters’
attitude vary across different SSBTs. It extends and tests the technology acceptance model (TAM) by
including two additional antecedents from the theories of adoption behavior.
Research limitations/implications – All three SSBTs included in the paper are from the banking
industry, which limits the generalizability of the findings to other industries. Many other limitations
were also reported.
Practical implications – The findings reveal why and how customers decide to adopt different
SSBTs and why a few SSBTs are more widely accepted than others. The practicality of the findings
guides managers and designers of technological interfaces.
Social implications – People will also benefit from the effective implementation of SSTs.
Originality/value – This study stands out as one of the early studies to empirically examine
the antecedents-attitude-intention relationship across different SSBTs available in Indian banking
industry.
Keywords Marketing, Service, Consumer behavior, Banking, Banking industry, Self-service
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the changing scenario from product-centric to customer-centric approaches, the
focus of marketers has shifted toward their customers and more deliberately on their
experiences (Garg et al., 2010; Yousafzai, 2012). Many innovative financial solutions
for insurance, credit products, and transaction processing services have grown
considerably in the past few decades (Nejad and Estelami, 2012). The impact has been
mainly profound in the services arena through the development of self-service
technologies (SSTs). In recent time the four basic types of self-service banking
technologies (SSBTs) available which significantly affect the traditional banking
services delivery. First the automatic teller machines (ATMs), which were started in the
late 1970s; electronic fund transfer at the point of sale, introduced in the early 1980s;
telephone banking in the mid-1990s; and internet banking (IB), which emerged in the
late 1990s (Meuter et al., 2000; Curran et al., 2003; Mcphail and Fogarty, 2004; Curran
and Meuter, 2005). As the twenty-first century develops, all these SSBTs play their key
International Journal of Bank
roles in the banking services delivery process.
Marketing Information technology (IT) and the internet have emerged as a dynamic medium
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2015
pp. 96-121 for channeling transactions between customers and firms in virtual marketplaces
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-01-2014-0006 The authors would like to thank the Indian banks for their support in collecting data.
(Eriksson et al., 2008; Sayar and Wolfe, 2007; Rahman, 2003). Due to this, bank Innovation
customers access their bank accounts, transfer funds, review transaction details, adoption
pay their bills online, and conduct transactions electronically virtually anytime and
anywhere. Additionally, there are several other advantages of this, such as cost savings
across SSBTs
for banks and convenience for customers by 24/7 access to their account (Xue et al.,
2011; Yoon and Steege, 2013). In many cases however, both service employees and
customers were averse to adopting new technology (Griffy-Brown et al., 2008). 97
With this technological growth, researchers have begun to explore the role of
consumer expectations and innovativeness regarding the adoption of SSTs (Kaushik
and Rahman, 2014). A few early studies described the key factors leading to customer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction while using SSTs (Dabholkar, 1996; Meuter et al., 2000).
Some studies explored the customers’ capacity and willingness as predictors of
adoption (Walker et al., 2002; Mazzarol and Reboud, 2005) and others investigated
the attitudes of customers regarding adoption intention (Dabholkar, 2000; Plouffe
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
et al., 2001; Curran et al., 2003). There is an overabundance of academic literature that
examines the key factors that influence customers’ evaluation of newly introduced
SSTs (Dabholkar and Bagozzi, 2002; Meuter et al., 2005).
The basic technology acceptance model (TAM) is an extended work of theory of
reasoned action (TRA) proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). TAM was primarily
developed by Fred Davis and Richard Bagozzi (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989) to replace
several TRA attitude construct measures with two new constructs, i.e. perceived
ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU). The TRA and TAM work on the
assumption that if an individual makes an intention to act, then he/she will be free
to act without limitations (Davis et al., 1989). Past studies using the TAM in the context
of innovation adoption have mainly emphasized: model replication for empirical evidence
on the relationships between PU, PEOU and technology use/adoption (Adams et al., 1992;
McKechnie et al., 2006); theoretical support for PU and PEOU (Adams et al., 1992;
Eriksson and Nilsson, 2007; Celik, 2008); and an extension of TAM suggested by Legris
et al. (2003), which includes a few additional constructs as direct determinants of attitude,
intentions or use, and model modification by combining TAM with other models
(Chan and Lu, 2004). A comparison of TAM, TRA and the theory of planned behavior,
Yousafzai et al. (2010) showed that TAM was empirically superior to the others.
Following this, the present study extends the TAM by including two additional
antecedents (i.e. need of interaction and perceived risk (PR)) that have not been deeply
explored in extended TAM studies. It mainly aims at comparing the adoption behavior
of customers across SSBTs used in India. The study makes a major contribution by
developing an extended model that increases the explanatory power of attitude toward
the adoption of SSBTs and contributes to various adoption behavior theories. Next,
a comparison across technologies presents how the antecedents vary from one
technology to another. This information is important for designers who make technological
interfaces and for marketing managers who must develop suitable marketing and
promotional strategies for the wider adoption of a particular technological interface.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: a literature review related to the
evolution of service delivery and the different kinds of SSBTs (Section 2), the
development of a conceptual model and derived hypotheses (Section 3), research
methodologies (Section 4), the findings and a discussion based on different analyses
using structural equation modeling (SEM) with empirical data from customers of
Indian banking industry (Section 5), the conclusion and implications (Section 6) and
finally the limitations and further research directions (Section 7).
IJBM 2. Prior research and theoretical background
33,2 2.1 Evolution of service delivery
Over the last few decades, the delivery of certain services has changed from human
interaction to technology that can provide 24/7 self-service opportunities (Meuter et al.,
2000). This evolution of service delivery is different from the replacement of human
labor with automatic machines in the agricultural and manufacturing industries
98 (Ong, 2010). Past studies on the adoption of technology in different services such as the
hospitality sector confirm that a growing number of consumers are prefer DIY (Do-It-
Yourself) opportunities and in some cases are eager to use SSTs in food service and
lodging establishments. SSTs began as service delivery systems to increase revenue for
service providers instead of adding value to their service quality. For example, an ATM
serves as a 24/7 cashier, which saves labor costs and gives bank customers access
to services at their own convenience (Xue et al., 2011; Fitzsimmons, 2003).
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
2.2 SST
In the last few decades, IT applications have changed the landscape of the service
industry. The term “SST” was first used by Meuter et al. (2000) and defined as
“technological interfaces enabling customers to use a service independent of direct
service-employee involvement.” Today, technology-oriented interactions have the
potential to determine the long-term success of a business (Meuter et al., 2005) and
the role of SSTs in customer interactions has increased significantly. In subsequent
studies, the term SST and its definition has gained wide acceptance among other
researchers (Curran and Meuter, 2005; Lee and Allaway, 2002; Forbes, 2008). Although
numerous studies have explored the successful adoption of new technology, the
popularity of self-service kiosks (SSKs) for check-in at airports, and in different service
arena (e.g. hospitality services) has finally made SSTs a familiar technology (Mayock,
2010; Ostrowski, 2010).
Nearly all service industries have encountered new technological innovations that
have transformed traditional service delivery into modern practices. Hotel customers,
who once faced incompetent service experiences like long queues, operational delays,
etc., prefer to the use of SSTs (Kasavana, 2008). With a high acceptance rate of new
SSTs at the workplace, more and more banks are now implementing different SSTs
to enhance their service quality standards, operational efficiencies, and most
importantly overall customer satisfaction. The continuous advancement from
traditional service delivery to modern SSTs is important for all the service industries
(Cunningham et al., 2009).
credit unions and one-third of banks surveyed already use or plan to use personal teller
machines, self-service terminals, or kiosks within the next year.
Although studies on man-machine interactions have been made since Taylor’s and
Gilbreths’ time, different aspects of operating a banking kiosk remain unknown
since it is a recently introduced channel for delivering select services in retail-banking.
To introduce new information delivery systems to retail customers, banking facilities,
operations, and employees must be in a position to support the banking transactions
(McKenna, 1995). Additionally, bank kiosk occupancy is another matter of concern.
Many times, we found long queues in front of ATMs and bankers are worried about
such issues. Another key concern is how service firms should price new innovations
in order to justify their investment (Nejad and Estelami, 2012). The successful
implementation of SSKs depends mainly on the acceptance rate and the realistic
timeframe for recovering the initial investment because adopters only adopt technologies
that are beneficial to them, which generally takes time (Lui and Piccoli, 2010). There are
still not enough banking kiosks, especially for nationalized banks of developing countries
like India.
2.3.2 Internet-based self-services. The internet offers a huge range of self-services
opportunities for bank customers (Rahman, 2004). It enables them to interact directly
with companies to find out useful information, make queries, and deal with employees
on a range of issues. Initially, it was found that most banks pursue poor and ineffective
strategies for moving customers toward online banking (Sarel and Marmorstein, 2003,
2004). Furthermore, only a few studies have addressed the key influential variables that
strongly influence IB (Kolodinsky, 2004; Machauer and Morgner, 2001), but now this
question has attracted a great deal of academic interest (Alhudaithy and Kitchen, 2009;
Yousafzai, 2012). Moreover, there are many customers who switch to internet-based
services because they perceive them as easy to use, enjoyable, and convenient (Meuter
et al., 2000; Yen, 2005).
2.3.3 Mobile-commerce (m-commerce). M-commerce differs from electronic-commerce
(e-commerce) because it clearly allows users access to real-time information, a certain
level of control and quick access to information (Kim et al., 2010). With of the high level
of mobile technology penetration among consumers, the mobile landscape has been
emerged as an important channel for companies to market their products and services.
However, Hinson (2010) estimated that around 90 percent of the people from developing
countries do not have access to financial services. The study also argued that low income
IJBM or marginal workers must be offered mobile banking if the traditional financial
33,2 setting does not allow them to access banking services. The advancement in mobile
interfaces and the popularity of 3G mobiles has continuously increased the number
of mobile users worldwide. This increase in mobile users will positively contribute to the
growth of m-commerce.
Smart phones were forecasted to increase from 161.4 million units in 2009 to 415.9
100 million units by 2014. The increase in popularity for Samsung smart phones, Apple
i-Phones, Blackberry devices, and the introduction Goggle’s Android phones have
sparked a huge demand in the smart phone market. Additionally, the number
of consumer applications (apps) has also increased exponentially, with the majority of
apps available across almost all types of mobile devices. Smart phones have become
the preferred device for voice, data, and video capabilities among consumers (Kumar,
2010). Most financial organizations use mobile banking (Riivari, 2005) and IB (Raechel
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
toward three different SSBTs, ATM banking, phone banking (PB), and SSKs (e.g.
passbook printing, token machine, cash depositor kiosk). Although, Shih and Fang
(2006) concluded that the addition of extra variables does not improve the explanatory
power of the original model, it did increase the explanatory power of attitude and
behavioral intention. These four antecedent beliefs are summarized in Table I.
Recent studies have found that a person is more likely to have a positive attitude
toward SSTs perceived as easy to use, useful, controllable, and not risky (Wang et al.,
2012; Alhudaithy and Kitchen, 2009; Yousafzai et al., 2010). PEOU has a direct
significant impact on behavioral intention but only in the early stages of adoption
(Venkatesh et al., 2003; Davis, 1989). When adopter experience increases, this impact
becomes indirect and operates through PU (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Therefore, we
propose the following hypotheses in order to verify these relations in our comparative
analysis. This will help in understanding whether these relations vary across different
technologies:
H4. Ease of use of the SSBT will be positively related to attitudes toward a specific
SSBT.
H5. PU of the SSBT will be positively related to attitudes toward specific SSBT.
Sl. Antecedent
no. belief Definition Reference studies
1 Ease of use Degree to which a user would find the use Davis et al. (1989), Adams et al. (1992),
of a particular technology to be free from Dabholkar (1994), Igbaria et al. (1995)
effort on their part
2 Perceived Perceived usefulness is the subjective Jackson et al. (1997), Mathieson (1991),
usefulness probability that using the technology Taylor and Todd (1995)
would improve the way through which
one could finish a given work
3 Need for An aspiration to keep personal contact Dabholkar (1992), Bateson (1985),
interaction with others during a service encounter Meuter et al. (2000)
4 Perceived A probability of certain outcomes given a Peter and Tarpley (1975), Murray (1991),
risk behavior, and the danger and severity of Dabholkar (1996), Meuter and Bitner Table I.
negative consequences from engaging in (1998), Gatignon and Robertson (1991) Antecedent beliefs as
those behaviors predictor of attitudes
IJBM Customer interactions with service employees can develop interpersonal relationships
33,2 between them (Berger and Calabrese, 1975). The need for interaction between
customers and service providers became necessary to deliver a technical quality
service (Seth et al., 2005). According to Seth et al. (2005), technical quality is the quality
of what customers perceive as the outcome of their interaction and what is crucial to
them and their evaluation of the quality of service. However, using SSTs obviously
102 lacks this interaction and eliminates interpersonal relationships. Relationship building
is a valued aspect for building a customer base, especially in the context of service
consumption (Dabholkar, 2000). In addition, Cunningham et al. (2009) reported that
customers analyze SSTs based on the employee contact infused into the transaction
process. Using SSTs may be less effective for a few customers, while a different
customer base may adopt or use different SSTs rather than interacting with service
personnel. However, there is a lack of evidence to confirm this assumption (Hilton et al.,
2013; Kallweit et al., 2014). Thus, we offer the following hypothesis:
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
H6. Need for interaction with service personnel will be negatively related to
attitudes toward SSBTs.
PR from the theory of perceived risk (TPR) is another antecedent belief included as a
direct measure of customer attitude. It has been extensively researched and found
negatively associated with attitudes of potential adopter (Dabholkar, 1996; Meuter and
Bitner, 1998; Gatignon and Robertson 1991). Murray (1991) mentioned that customers
seek out enough information to decrease PR while purchasing a service. However, in
many studies on technology framework the concept of risk has been discussed under
various terms like reliability (Dabholkar, 1996), accuracy and recovery (Meuter and
Bitner, 1998). For customers with an online banking facility, security is the key
facilitator variable for its use in the future, while continuous improvements in online
services can be a prohibitive variable (Katuri and Lam, 2006). A few other studies have
reported that PR is a key variable for innovation adoption because individuals are
more likely to adopt technology that is easy to use, enjoyable, and convenient (Meuter
et al., 2000; Yen, 2005), and if they are offered low-cost or low-risk use of technology
(Black et al., 2001). There is still a need for current studies on this construct, thus
we propose:
P7. PR of adopting or using SSBTs will be negatively related to attitudes toward
SSBTs.
3.3 Development of model
Our study extends the technological adoption model by including two additional
external variables. In our extended model, there are now four antecedent beliefs
as direct predictors of an individual’s attitude toward different SSBTs. Furthermore, it
is proposed that an individuals’ attitude affects his/her behavioral intention to adopt
SSBT. This model will be tested with the three SSBTs included in our research.
This will boost the robustness of our testing and analyze the consistency of relations
among all the variables across all three SSBTs (Figure 1).
4. Methodology
4.1 Research design
In order to analyze the factors of intended usage of SSTs in the banking industry,
a descriptive research design with a survey approach has been applied to collect
empirical data from bank customers in India. The banking industry has been targeted
Antecedent Beliefs Attitude Construct Behavioral Intention Innovation
adoption
Ease of Use across SSBTs
Perceived 103
Usefulness Intention to
Attitudes adopt or use
toward SSTs SSTs
Need of
Interaction
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
Figure 1.
Perceived Antecedent-attitude-
Risk intention model
selected voluntary participants. All the participants were randomly selected in front
of banks located at convenient locations in several major cities in North India.
Participants were limited to individuals 18 years of age or older and permanent resides
of India with their own bank account. After the initial survey, 52 respondents answered
to all questions based on antecedent beliefs of ATM banking available in the first
section, 27 respondents answered all questions related to antecedent beliefs of PB in
the second section, 38 respondents answered questions related to the same antecedent
beliefs in the case of SSKs in the last section and the remaining 13 respondents
answered all sections of survey instrument. A principle component factor analysis
(PCA) with Varimax rotation was applied to make a clear differentiation between
factors across all three SSBTs.
For the final data collection, more than 2,000 people were targeted through an online
survey, while approximately 262 people were approached through an offline survey.
For the online survey, the e-mails IDs of bank customers were taken from various
sources like personal contacts, account sections of colleges/universities and from a few
banks. A blind random survey was also conducted with the help of “Google form,”
which is a web-based tool that collects information from users via a personalized
survey or quiz. All the necessary instructions and objectives of research were clearly
mentioned in the initial part of this form. The majority of responses were from major
cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Chandigarh, and Bangalore in India. After reviewing the
survey submissions, the online survey resulted in 374 usable responses with a response
rate of 18.7 percent, but 17 respondents that were found unusable for inclusion in the
final analysis.
A total of 619 respondents were included in the final analysis with an instruction
that they can answer either one section of their own choice or all three. Out of 619
respondents, 223 people answered only the first section about their antecedent beliefs
on ATMs, 167 people answered only the second section of PB and last 185 answered
only the last section based on SSKs, and only 44 respondents responded to all three
sections. Thus, our sample covered all three categories of SSBTs. Since we received
only a few responses on all three SSBTs from the same respondent, we decided against
analyzing the perceptions of people who had experience and answered questions from
all three SSBTs. This offers an opportunity for further research with an objective of
analyzing one’s perception across all SSBTs.
The majority of customers (approx 54 percent) were adult students (e.g. master’s
and doctoral students) because we can easily reach and target them. They are frequent
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
Cronbach’s α values
Antecedent beliefs (included in
Present study) Description of scale items Items adopted from Pretest Study
Ease of use Learning to use SST was easy Davis et al. (1989), Dabholkar (1994) 0.90 0.81
Finding SSTs difficult to use
Easy to become skillful by using SST
Perceived usefulness SST is useful for banking Adams et al. (1992), Davis et al. 0.93 0.89
Using the SST improves the banking (1989), Igbaria et al. (1996), Jackson
Using the SST makes banking easier et al. (1997)
Need for interaction Enjoy to see the working people at bank Dabholkar (1996) 0.74 0.72
Personal attention of bankers is not important
People do things for me that no machine could
Perceived risk Felling secure while using the SST for Dabholkar (1996), Meuter and 0.79 0.76
business in banking Bitner (1998), Murray (1991)
Feeling safe while using the SST for banking
Knowing that the SST may handle my
business correctly
A little danger about anything may go wrong
when I use the SST
Attitudes toward SSTs Feeling good or bad about using the SST Barki and Hartwick (1994), 0.93 0.91
Feeling pleasant or unpleasant while using Dabholkar (1996), Harrison et al.
the SST (1997)
Your liking or disliking while using the SST
Intention to adopt or use SSTs In your routine banking how likely are you to Curran and Meuter (2005) na na
use the SST?
Notes: During Survey, terms “ATMs technology”, “Phone banking” and “Self-service Kiosks” were used instead of SSTs; some of the items were reverse-coded
at the time of final analysis; attitude toward SSTs shows lowest value of the three Cronbach α’s for all three SSTs
Innovation
adoption
Table II.
105
IJBM users of banking services because they have a monthly scholarship as income. Other
33,2 reasons for including students in the majority of samples are their high propensity
to adopt technologies, the availability of SSTs on campus and their ability to learn new
technologies. Additionally, students have also been taken as a sample in past adoption
studies in various contexts such as developers and deliverers of e-learning that need to
better understand how students perceive and react to various elements of e-learning
106 (Park, 2009). Selim (2003) also stated that there was a need to investigate TAM with
web-based learning and university students. Lee et al. (2005) did a similar study on
university students’ adoption behavior toward an internet-based learning medium.
In our research, all the students were asked to complete at least one section of the
survey instrument. However, we targeted both students and people from other
occupations such as the service, business, and agriculture sectors.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
principle component and Varimax rotated factor analysis on the complete set of all nine
attitude items showed three separate factors. All three factors can also be seen by a
Scree plot, which is a graphical representation of the Eigen values for all the variables.
The factor loadings for each SSBT were found much higher than the minimum
acceptable values of 0.50. The factor loading values for each SSBT ranged from 0.789 to
0.912 (see Table IV).
A multivariate technique (SEM) is mainly used to test and validate a model in the
present study. The correlations among all the factors were measured while applying
the SEM. The overall correlation model indicated a good fit with a significant χ2-value
of 2.314, a comparative fit index (CFI) value of 0.963 (W 0.9), and a root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.0578 ( W 0.05). The average variance
extracted for each construct ranged from 0.74 to 0.81 for all three attitude constructs
construct for were 2.73, 4.32, and 3.36 for ATMs, PB, and SSKs, respectively. This
supports the fact that the people who participated in our study had a more familiar
attitude toward ATMs, followed by SSKs and the least favorable attitude toward PB.
These scores were further compared in order to analyze significant differences
between attitudes toward adoption of all three SSBTs. To do so, a paired-sample t-test
was applied that showed significant differences between each of the possible pairs of
all three SSBTs. When we compare the t-values in Table V, it shows that the maximum
difference in attitude exists between the ATM and PB and then PB and SSKs. These
t-values in both cases are more than 11, on the other side, the t-value between PB
and SSKs is just seven. However, all are highly significant with a significant p-value
(0.000 o 0.001). Earlier we discussed that the most widely used SSBT are ATMs,
followed by SSKs and then PB. Thus, our findings here provide sufficient support for
our hypothesis (H2) that the most positive attitude is toward the highly adopted SSBT
(ATMs) and the least positive attitude is toward the poorly adopted SSBT (PB).
coefficient (0.617) from PU to attitude toward ATMs was also significant at the 0.001
level. Both of these support H4 and H5. The paths from the last two constructs (i.e. need
to interaction and PR) to attitude construct were not found significant enough either
at the 0.001 level or 0.05 level, therefore we do not have support for H6 and H7 for the
ATM model.
5.4.2 PB model. A total of 185 responded to questions related to PB. It was found to
be the least adopted technology out of all three SSBTs included in our study. It may
be that the PB model is not quite as strong as the ATM model. The χ2-value of this
model was 279.789 with same degree of freedom (109), resulting a ratio 2.56 between the
chi-square and degree of freedom values, which is still well acceptable. The RMSEA
value of 0.093 is much higher but once again lies within acceptable limits of o0.1
(Browne and Cudeck, 1993). The CFI value of 0.907 is once again acceptable.
The proportion of the variance explained (R2) by independent variables for both the
dependent variables are 32.7 and 19.2 percent for attitudes and intentions toward PB,
respectively. These once again indicate their large effect sizes. The path from attitude
Ease of Use
0.213**
Perceived
Usefulness 0.753* Intention to
0.617* Attitudes adopt or use
toward SSTs SSTs
0.019
Need of
Interaction
0.037 R 2 = 0.597 R 2 = 0.498
RMSEA = 0.089
Figure 2.
ATMs model
Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05
IJBM to intention is again significant at the 0.001 level and supports H3. In this case, only the
33,2 path from PR to attitude toward PB was found significant enough at the 0.001 level,
which provides support for H7 and no support H4, H5, and H6 (Figure 3).
5.4.3 SSKs model. A total of 185 respondents answered questions related to SSKs.
The χ2-value of ATM model was 239.324 with same degree of freedom of 109, providing
a ratio of χ2/dof for a value of 2.19, which is once again acceptable with a significant
110 p-value. The RMSEA value of 0.083 is high but lies within acceptable limits. The CFI
value of 0.91 is again acceptable. The proportion of the variance explained (R2) by
independent variables for dependent variables are 43.3 and 39.2 percent for attitudes
toward SSKs and for behavioral intentions to adopt SSKs, respectively. Both of these
values indicate their large effect sizes. The significant path from attitudes toward SSKs
to behavioral intention to adopt SSKs supports H3. Only the path from PU to attitude
toward PB was found significant enough at the 0.001 level. Hence, it supports H5 but
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
insignificant paths from the three remaining antecedents to attitude construct (i.e. ease
of use, need to interaction, and PR) do not support H4, H6, and H7 (Figure 4).
Ease of Use
0.113
Perceived
Usefulness 0.553* Intention to
0.043 Attitudes adopt or use
toward SSTs SSTs
0.014
Need of
Interaction
0.691* R 2 = 0.327 R 2 = 0.192
Risk
CFI = 0.91
PB is significantly more negative as compared to ATMs and SSKs. This suggests the
need for improving the marketing appeal of PB.
The present research emphasized a comparison of these SSBTs in order to identify
the key factors that affect their adoption by customers. Service providers may
anticipate these factors as critical to the proper implementation of various SSTs in
their firms. In the present research, we have already confirmed that the more positive
the attitude toward any SST, the more widely it will be adopted, but what drives
the customers’ attitude toward SSTs is also very important. We have tested four
antecedent beliefs and interestingly their impacts vary across different SSBTs. We also
found that PU is a significant predictor of attitudes toward ATMs as well as toward
SSKs, but not for PB. Similarly, PEOU was found a significant predictor of attitude
toward ATMs, but surprisingly not for the other two SSBTs. This finding reveals that
usefulness is more important than how to use in case of SSKs and PB. PR was found to
be a significant predictor of attitude toward PB. This shows that people do not want
to use PB due to associated risks. Thus, different antecedent beliefs need to be
considered while designing and implementing SSTs.
However, the findings of our study do not completely support several other studies.
For instance, Curran and Meuter (2005) suggested PU as a key predictor of attitude
toward PB and PR as a key predictor of attitude toward online banking adoption. This
controversy might have occurred because different contexts, since we targeted banking
customers in India while they studied populations in northwest USA, which is a
comparatively more developed location. Surprisingly, none of the three tested models
showed any significant relation between “need for interaction” and attitude toward any
of the SSBTs. However that does not mean it is not an important construct. In fact, it
must be concluded that its role as a predictor of attitude is not supported by our study.
As we have discussed earlier, two of the SSBTs included in our study (ATMs and
PB) have a huge difference in terms of adoption by the banking customers. However,
these two SSBTs have been available for a long time in the present context.
The statistics in Table III clearly show that ATMs have been widely accepted, but PB
IJBM has not. If we compare the models of these two SSBTs, it shows that not even a single
33,2 antecedent belief significantly influences both the SSBTs. In case of ATMs, PEOU,
and PU were two key influencers, while in other case of PB, only PR was found an
important factor that negatively affects attitude toward adoption. By combining the
results of adoption rates and path analysis in the models, it is reasonable to conclude
that banking customers widely adopt SSBTs that are easy to use and useful for them,
112 but not those with a certain degree of risk. However, this comparison also presents a
limitation since it does not clearly show whether the low adoption rate is caused
by the technology design used by banks in case of PB or a promotional issue.
Therefore, additional empirical studies are needed to clarify this issue of low
acceptance rate of PB.
In the case of SSKs, the results of the structural model show that only PU was a
significant predictor of attitude toward SSKs. In this situation, it can be concluded that
banking customers perceive it as useful since it ultimately offers many services like
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
cash/cheque deposits, passbook printing, and queue tokens, etc. Comparing the results
of the SSKs and ATMs structural models shows that ease of use is a significant
predictor of attitude toward ATMs, but not of attitude toward SSKs. This reveals that
customers treat SSKs as useful technology causing a good adoption rate (47 percent),
but not ease of use since they are relatively new. Therefore, we can conclude that
banking customers reactions are positive, but more efforts are required to increase
customer’s awareness about the use of SSKs.
There are two primary marketing issues faced by service firms implementing SSTs.
The first issue is customer reaction to the design of SSTs and second is customers’
education regarding how to use and ease of use. However, a service customer might
have problems understanding an entirely new SST (Li and Calantone, 1998) because
they are only familiar and comfortable with their habitual services. Therefore, any SST
should be designed in a way that combines new technology with a service encounter
that customers are already familiar. This will increase the chances of adoption.
Finally, we can conclude that the widespread adoption of SSBTs must be useful and
easy to use as in the case of ATMs. If any SSBT (like SSKs) is simply being useful but
not easy to use, it is comparatively less adopted by banking consumers. This finding
provides a fact that marketing strategies must address the antecedent beliefs that
are even more important for a specific SST. In the case of PB, service providers
must overcome consumer uncertainties regarding its secure use and then develop
appropriate marketing strategies. Banking consumers do not find PB as useful or easy
to use as other SSBTs (e.g. ATMs and SSKs). In our case, the (13 percent) adoption rate
was 13 percent, which is quite low compared to other SSBTs. If PB is easy to use,
then this should be made clear to banking customers with effective advertising
strategies. However, if it is not so then banks must change their equipment to make
them easier to use.
consumers are not only faced various SSTs in service organizations, but also have
several SST modes of SSTs (Patrício et al., 2003) that perform similar services to choose
from. The majority of studies emphasized consumer behavior toward specific SSTs to
understand why consumers adopt a specific SST. While it is important to understand
why they choose one SST over another and what are the key variables affecting their
decisions to adopt, It is more important from a firms’ point of view because the costs of
implementation vary across SSTs. Future research may consider the impact of various
factors/antecedents on innovativeness in different stages of consumer’s adoption
process. A traditional six-step adoption process that begins with awareness and leads
to commitment illustrates how our research relates to the process of innovation
adoption and commitment (Rogers, 2003). Until now, it is not well understood why
customers decide to try SSTs and why some SSTs are more widely accepted than
others. For this, further studies should focus on how the different factors/antecedents
affect the different stages of the adoption process. For instance, Meuter et al. (2005)
explored key factors that influence the initial SST trial decision. With past studies
finding evidence for the relationship between attitude and intention constructs (Chau
and Hu, 2002; Chen et al., 2002; Vijayasarathy, 2004), attitude is also predicted to act
as a mediator between various antecedents and intention to use technology. Since, the
present study mainly aims at comparing key antecedents for different SSTs in banking,
and not considering the mediating effect of attitude between antecedents and intention
to adopt, which provides an additional path of research.
References
Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of
information technology: a replication”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-247.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Alhudaithy, A.I. and Kitchen, P.J. (2009), “Rethinking models of technology adoption for internet
banking: the role of website features”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 56-69.
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. (1994), “Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user
attitude”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-82.
Bateson, J.E.G. (1985), “Self-service consumer: an exploratory study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 61
No. 3, pp. 49-76.
Berger, C.R. and Calabrese, R.J. (1975), “Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Innovation
toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication”, Human Communication
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
adoption
Black, N., Lockett, A., Winklhofer, H. and Ennew, C. (2001), “The adoption of internet financial
across SSBTs
services: a qualitative study”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 390-398.
Blackhall, L.J., Frank, G., Murphy, S.T., Michel, V., Palmer, J.M. and Azen, S.P. (1999), “Ethnicity 115
and attitudes towards life-sustaining technology”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 48
No. 12, pp. 1779-1789.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A.
and Long, J.S. (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA,
pp. 136-162.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
Eagly, A.A. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace College
Publishers, Fort Worth, TX.
Eriksson, K. and Nilsson, D. (2007), “Determinants of the continued use of self-service technology:
the case of internet banking”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 159-167.
Eriksson, K., Kerem, K. and Nilsson, D. (2008), “The adoption of commercial innovations in the
former central and eastern European markets: the case of internet banking in Estonia”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 154-169.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fitzsimmons, J.A. (2003), “Is self-service the future of services?”, Managing Service Quality,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 443-444.
Forbes, L.P. (2008), “When something goes wrong and no one is around: non-internet self-service
technology failure and recovery”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 316-327.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garg, R., Rahman, Z. and Kumar, I. (2010), “Evaluating a model for analyzing methods used for
measuring customer experience”, Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy
Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 78-90.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), “Innovative decision processes”, in Robertson, T.S. and
Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 316-348.
Grabner-Kräuter, S. and Faullant, R. (2008), “Consumer acceptance of internet banking: the
influence of internet trust”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 7,
pp. 483-504.
Griffy-Brown, C., Chun, M.W.S. and Machen, R. (2008), “Hilton hotels corporation self-service
technology”, Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 37-57.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harrison, D.A., Mykytyn, P.P. Jr and Riemenschneider, C.K. (1997), “Executive decisions about
adoption of informationtechnology in small business: theory and empirical tests”,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 171-195.
Hilton, T., Hughes, T., Little, E. and Marandi, E. (2013), “Adopting self-service technology to do
more with less”, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Hinson, R.E. (2010), “Banking the poor: the role of mobiles”, Journal of Financial Services Innovation
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 320-333.
adoption
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, B.D. (1995), “Testing the determinants of microcomputer across SSBTs
usage via a structural equation model”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 87-114.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S. and Baroudi, J.J. (1996), “A motivational model of microcomputer
usage”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 127-143. 117
Jackson, C.M., Chow, S. and Leitch, R.A. (1997), “Toward an understanding of the behavioural
intentions to use an information system”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 357-389.
Kallweit, K., Spreer, P. and Toporowski, W. (2014), “Why do customers use self-service
information technologies in retail? The mediating effect of perceived service quality”,
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 268-276.
Kasavana, M. (2008), “The convergence of self-service technology”, Hospitality Upgrade, August
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
McKenna, R. (1995), “Real-time marketing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 87-95.
Mcphail, J. and Fogarty, G. (2004), “Mature Australian consumers’ adoption and consumption of
self-service banking technologies”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 302-313.
Machauer, A. and Morgner, S. (2001), “Segmentation of bank customers by expected benefits and
attitudes”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intention: comparing the technology acceptance model
with the theory of planned behaviour”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-191.
Mayock, P. (2010), “Checking in on self-service kiosks”, February 4, available at: HotelNewsNow.
com; www.hotelnewsnow.com/articles.aspx?ArticleId ¼ 2652 (accessed July 16, 2012).
Mazzarol, T. and Reboud, S. (2005), “Customers as predictors of rent returns to innovation in
small firms – an exploratory study”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Management, Vol. 5 Nos 5/6, pp. 483-494.
Meuter, M.L. and Bitner, M.J. (1998), “Self-service technologies: extending service frameworks
and identifying issues for research”, in Grewal, D. and Pechman, C. (Eds), Marketing
Theory and Applications, Vol. 9, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 12-19.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative
service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), “Self-service technologies:
understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 50-64.
Murray, K.B. (1991), “A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition
activities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Nejad, M.G. and Estelami, H. (2012), “Pricing financial services innovations”, Journal of Financial
Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 120-134.
Netemeyer, R.G., Boles, J.S., McKee, D.O. and McMurrian, R. (1997), “An investigation into the
antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 85-98.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ong, L.I. (2010), “Can self service technologies work in the hotel industry in Singapore? A
conceptual framework for adopting self service technology”, UNLV theses/dissertations/
professional papers/capstones, Las Vegas, p. 694, available at: http://digitalscholarship. Innovation
unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article ¼ 1695&context ¼ thesesdissertations (accessed June
28, 2012).
adoption
Ostrowski, C. (2010), “Check-in kiosk risk/reward potential has polarizing effect on deployment”,
across SSBTs
Hotel Business, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 12-14.
Parasuraman, A. (2000), “Technology readiness index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure
readiness to embrace new technologies”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, 119
pp. 307-320.
Park, S.Y. (2009), “An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university
students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning”, Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 150-162.
Patrício, L., Fisk, R.P. and Cunha, J.F. (2003), “Improving satisfaction with bank service offerings:
measuring the contribution of each delivery channel”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 471-482.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
Peter, J.P. and Tarpey, L.Z. Sr (1975), “A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-37.
Plouffe, C.R., Vandenbosch M. and Hulland J. (2001), “Intermediating technologies and
multi-group adoption: a comparison of consumer and merchant adoption intentions”, The
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 65-81.
Puschel, J., Mazzon, J. and Hernandez, J. (2010), “Mobile banking: proposition of an integrated
adoption intention framework”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 5,
pp. 389-409.
Raechel, J. and Bruce, P. (2008), “The impact of internet banking on business -customer
relationships (are you being self-served?)”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26
No. 7, pp. 465-482.
Rahman, Z. (2003), “Internet-based supply chain management: using the internet to revolutionize
your business”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 23 No. 6,
pp. 493-505.
Rahman, Z. (2004), “A model for the sales and distribution of e-services”, Services Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Ram, S. (1987), “A model of innovation resistance”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 208-212.
Riivari, J. (2005), “Mobile banking: a powerful new marketing and CRM tool for financial services
companies all over Europe”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 11-20.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Sarel, D. and Marmorstein, H. (2003), “Marketing online banking services: the voice of the
customer”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 106-119.
Sarel, D. and Marmorstein, H. (2004), “Marketing online banking to the indifferent consumer: a
longitudinal analysis of bank’s actions”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 231-243.
Sayar, C. and Wolfe, S. (2007), “Internet banking market performance: Turkey versus the UK”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 122-141.
Selim, H.M. (2003), “An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course web sites”,
Computers & Education, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 343-360.
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vrat, P. (2005), “Service quality models: a review”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 913-949.
IJBM Shi, W., Shambare, N. and Wang, J. (2007), “The adoption of internet banking: an institutional
theory perspective”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 272-286.
33,2
Shih, Y. and Fang, K. (2006), “Effects of network quality attributes on customer adoption
intentions of internet banking”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 61-77.
Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of
competing models”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 144-176.
120 Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. (2004), “Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for
an augmented technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 6,
pp. 747-762.
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
Walker, R.H., Margaret C.-L., Robert H. and Heather F. (2002), “Technology-enabled service
delivery: an investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 91-106.
Wang, C., Harris, J. and Patterson, P.G. (2012), “Customer choice of self-service technology: the
roles of situational influences and past experience”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Wentzel, J.P., Diatha, K.S. and Yadavalli, V.S.S. (2013), “An application of the extended
technology acceptance model in understanding technology-enabled financial service
adoption in South Africa”, Development Southern Africa, Vol. 30 Nos 4/5, pp. 659-673.
Xue, M., Hitt, L.M. and Chen. P. (2011), “The determinants and outcome of internet banking
adoption”, Management Science, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 291-307.
Yen, H.R. (2005), “An attribute-based model of quality satisfaction for internet self-service
technology”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 641-659.
Yoon H.S. and Steege, L.M.B. (2013), “Development of a quantitative model of the impact of
customers’ personality and perceptions on internet banking use”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 1133-1141.
Yousafzai, S., Foxall, G. and Pallister, J. (2010), “Explaining internet banking behaviour: TRA,
TPB, or TAM?”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1172-1202.
Yousafzai, S.Y. (2012), “A literature review of theoretical models of internet banking adoption at
the individual level”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 215-226.
Further reading
Paradi, J.C. and Ghazarian-Rock, A. (1998), “A framework to evaluate video banking kiosks”,
Omega, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 523-540.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This article has been cited by:
1. Huong Thi Thanh Tran, James Corner. 2016. The impact of communication channels on mobile
banking adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing 34:1, 78-109. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
2. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Amit Kumar Agrawal, Zillur Rahman. 2015. Tourist behaviour towards
self-service hotel technology adoption: Trust and subjective norm as key antecedents. Tourism
Management Perspectives 16, 278-289. [CrossRef]
3. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Zillur Rahman. 2015. Self-service innovativeness scale: introduction,
development, and validation of scale. Service Business . [CrossRef]
4. Arun Kumar Kaushik, Zillur Rahman. 2015. Are Street Vendors Really Innovative Toward Self-
service Technology?. Information Technology for Development 1. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)