16th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology 2014
DOI: 10.1109/icact.2014.6779165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors affecting the adoption of mobile banking: Sample of Turkey

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
7
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
3
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, it was proved to impact satisfaction of mobile banking users' attitudes positively. Next factors were found to be perceived usefulness and ease of use, which were also consistent with the previous research (Bidar et al, 2014;Chuah, 2016). This finding revealed that users adopted mobile banking and became satisfied with it when mobile banking service technology was perceived as more useful than traditional banking services and the usage of this service was easy.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Therefore, it was proved to impact satisfaction of mobile banking users' attitudes positively. Next factors were found to be perceived usefulness and ease of use, which were also consistent with the previous research (Bidar et al, 2014;Chuah, 2016). This finding revealed that users adopted mobile banking and became satisfied with it when mobile banking service technology was perceived as more useful than traditional banking services and the usage of this service was easy.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…In Zhou's et al (2010) study, social influence has significant effects on user adoption. In ad-dition, these findings are in parallel with the study of Bidar's et al (2014) study. Hence, Turkish clients may be influenced by new advertising methods, their society, and social networks and these interactions can lead their decisions.…”
Section: Discussion and Limitationssupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Adoption factors Luarn and Lin (2005) usefulness, convenience, credibility, self-efficacy, cost Laukkanen (2007) efficiency, convenience, safety Lee et al (2007) perceived risk, perceived usefulness, trust Laukkanen and Cruz (2008) usage, value, risk, tradition and image Kim et al (2009) relative benefits, trust, structural assurances Gu et al (2009) usefulness, convenience, trust Crabbe et al (2009) perceived credibility, facilitating conditions Püschel et al (2010) compatibility, convenience, relative benefit, visibility, demonstrability, image, triability, perceived behavioral control, facilitation condition, subjective norm, testability, intention Koenig-Lewis et al (2010) compatibility, perceived usefulness, risk, trust, cost Cruz et al (2010) cost, risk, perceived advantage, complexity Wessels and Drennan (2010) usefulness, risk, convenience, financial cost, compatibility Zhou et al (2010) task characteristics, technology characteristics, convenience conditions, task technology fit, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence Riquelme and Rios (2010) intention, perceived relative advantage, perceived risk, social norms, convenience, usefulness Singh et al (2010) usefulness, ease of use, subjective norms, self-efficacy, cost, safety, trust Lin (2011) perceived advantage, ease of use, compatibility, competence, benevolence, integrity Negash (2011) usefulness, convenience, enjoyment, network quality, security, privacy, trust, awareness, regulation, compliance Akturan and Tezcan (2012) risk, ease of use, usefulness, benefit Zhou (2012) structural assurance, ubiquity, ease of use, personal innovativeness Chen (2013) advantage, concurrency, trialability, complexity, different risk types, attitude, intention to use, brand image, brand awareness Hanafizadeh et al (2014) usefulness, ease of use, the need for interaction, risk, cost, compatibility with life style, credibility, trust Bidar et al (2014) usefulness, ease of use, security, privacy, compatibility, social influence, facilitating conditions, cost…”
Section: Authorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Altinirmak et al (2017) explored m-banking quality factors among Turkish banks and found Denizbank has the highest performance regarding response time, accuracy, trust and accessibility. From a customer perspective, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, security and privacy, compatibility, social influence, facilitating conditions and perceived cost were identified as predictors for the use of mbanking in Turkey (Bidar et al 2014).…”
Section: M-banking In Iran and Turkeymentioning
confidence: 99%