Mobile-banking adoption by Iranian bank clients

Adoption of Mobile Banking in Jordan: Exploring Demographic Differences on Customers’ Perceptions

“…Perceived benefits and governmental regulations have been confirmed as the key positive enablers of customer attitudes towards Mobile banking in Indonesia [29]. In line with this, customers were found to be more motivated to use Mobile banking if they recognised Mobile banking as being useful in their daily life, compatible with their habits and other technologies, and less expensive [18,42]. By the same token, customer intention to adopt Mobile banking was significantly determined by the role of perceived usefulness, monetary cost, self-efficacy and perceived ease of use [23].…”

“…Later, Zhou [43] empirically supported the considerable role of a bank's reputation, information quality, self-efficacy, service quality, and system quality in shaping the customers' initial trust in Mobile banking. More recently, Hanafizadeh et al [18] all supported the crucial role of perceived usefulness and ease of use in motivating customers to adopt Mobile banking.…”

Continuous mobile banking usage and relationship commitment – A multi-country assessment

“…Previous research has examined the effects of various antecedents of RC in the context of the business-to-business (B2B) financial services industry (Theron et al, 2008), supply chain management (Abdullah and Musa, 2014), social media (Ma and Chan, 2014), information technology services (Park et al, 2012), and ebanking (Sanchez-Franco, 2009). The majority of these studies are quantitative in nature and were conducted in a single country context (Hanafizadeh et al, 2014;Akturan and Tezcan, 2012;Zhou, 2012). Despite the availability of a substantial quantity of research in the area of information systems adoption and usage, literature dealing with experienced m-banking users from the RC perspective is missing.…”

An Integrated Fuzzy Ahp and Aras Model to Evaluate Mobile Banking Services

“…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…”