مقاومت در برابر بانکداری موبایلی
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Literature review
3. Methodology
4. Data analyses and results
5. Theoretical and managerial implications
6. Limitations and future directions
References
Abstract
This study investigates mobile banking resistance among elder individuals. More specifically, and on the basis of cognitive age as a moderator, a multigroup analysis was conducted to compare the relationships between psychological and functional barriers. Data was collected from 425 elder mobile banking non-users, and SmartPLS 3 was used to assess the structural model and run a multigroup analysis. The results indicate that tradition and image barriers affect usage, value, and risk barriers. In turn, all barriers influence resistance behavior. Furthermore, cognitive age was found to moderate these relationships. The study sheds light on the relationships between psychological and functional barriers and their effects on resistance behavior. In addition, it highlights the heterogeneity between cognitively young elders and cognitively old elders regarding their perceptions of mobile banking barriers.
Introduction
Mobile banking is a value-added service that has many advantages for customers, including ubiquity, convenience, and cost-efficiency (Lin, 2011). However, customers remain skeptical about its adoption, despite the initial expectations of academics and practitioners (Claudy et al., 2015). It could therefore be more interesting to explore the reasons for resistance than the reasons for adoption (Laukkanen, 2016). Although research on the diffusion of innovation perspective has produced a rich and valuable body of cumulative knowledge, many scholars assume that it has little to say about resistance behavior and fail to consider the reasons against technology acceptance (Claudy et al., 2015). It should be noted that resistance should not necessarily be treated as the mere opposite of adoption (i.e., non-adoption), but rather as a specific form of behavior that may manifest as rejection, postponement, or opposition (Kleijnen et al., 2009). Previous research shows that the inhibitors to adoption are not necessarily enablers for resistance, which proves that resistance is conceptually distinct from non-adoption (Claudy et al., 2015; Kleijnen et al., 2009). Indeed, “extensive research shows that people’s motives to adopt and reasons to resist innovation differ qualitatively, and they influence people’s decisions in different ways” (Claudy et al., 2015, p. 528). More specifically, people resist innovation for different reasons (reasons against), regardless of other reasons for adoption (e.g., perceived relevance, positive attitude, and felt desire) (Claudy et al., 2015; Ram and Sheth, 1989).