Kaushik 2015

International Journal of Bank Marketing
Innovation adoption across self-service banking technologies in India

Arun Kumar Kaushik Zillur Rahman
Article information:
Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)
To cite this document:

Arun Kumar Kaushik Zillur Rahman , (2015),"Innovation adoption across self-service banking
technologies in India", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 96 - 121
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2014-0006
Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 14:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 113 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 755 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Florian Moser, (2015),"Mobile Banking: A fashionable concept or an institutionalized channel in
future retail banking? Analyzing patterns in the practical and academic mobile banking literature",
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 162-177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJBM-08-2013-0082
Ali Saleh Al-Ajam, Khalil Md Nor, (2015),"Challenges of adoption of internet banking service in
Yemen", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 2 pp. 178-194 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJBM-01-2013-0001
Vishal Mishra, Sridhar Vaithianathan, (2015),"Customer personality and relationship satisfaction:
Empirical evidence from Indian banking sector", International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 Iss 2
pp. 122-142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2014-0030
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emeraldsrm: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.
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
Received 14 January 2014
Revised 5 May 2014
15 May 2014
Accepted 18 June 2014
Arun Kumar Kaushik and Zillur Rahman

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology,
Roorkee, India
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the various antecedent beliefs predicting customers
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
International Journal of Bank

Marketing
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2015
pp. 96-121
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/IJBM-01-2014-0006
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
roles in the banking services delivery process.
Information technology (IT) and the internet have emerged as a dynamic medium
for channeling transactions between customers and firms in virtual marketplaces
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
customers access their bank accounts, transfer funds, review transaction details,
pay their bills online, and conduct transactions electronically virtually anytime and
anywhere. Additionally, there are several other advantages of this, such as cost savings
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).
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
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).
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
97
IJBM
33,2
98
2. Prior research and theoretical background

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
(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-ItYourself) 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).
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).
2.3 Types of SST
There are different types of SSTs available in different sectors in the marketplace, but
the majority of studies on SSTs primarily emphasized on the customer satisfaction
that derived from adopting and using SSTs (Meuter et al., 2000). Many of these studies
focussed on new and single SSTs in a specific context, adopters attitude and intention
(Curran et al., 2003; Dabholkar, 2000; Plouffe et al., 2001) and the technological readiness
of SSTs (Parasuraman, 2000; Liljander et al., 2006; Lin and Hsieh, 2006). In a crucial
study, Meuter et al. (2000) conceptualized the various SST options and presented
different technology interfaces (i.e. telephone-based technologies and interactive voice
response systems, internet-based interfaces, interactive kiosks, and video technologies)
along with their end use such as customer service, transactions, and customer self-help.
Different SSTs allow service providers to design and develop more advanced and
user-friendly machines with multiple functions. Technological advancements provide
firms with the flexibility to select an appropriate type of technology interface that suits
their purpose. A few basic types of SSTs that are commonly accepted in different
sectors are discussed below:
2.3.1 SSKs. SSKs are the most widely accepted SST that offers numerous services
to consumers in new and optimum ways (Wentzel et al., 2013). While SSKs have been
around for quite some time, more and more financial institutions are adopting them.
Initially, they resemble an ATM, but they are capable of performing numerous
additional services. These additional services go beyond the capacities of IB and handle
operations that previously required human interaction during working hours. These
banking kiosks offer bank customers the ability to check current funds, print passbooks,
pay bills, submit cheques, deposit and withdraw cash, and many other features. In a
survey conducted by Celent Research in 2012, it was found that nearly two-thirds of
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 Taylors 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
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
99
IJBM
33,2
100
or marginal workers must be offered mobile banking if the traditional financial

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
million units by 2014. The increase in popularity for Samsung smart phones, Apple
i-Phones, Blackberry devices, and the introduction Goggles 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
and Bruce, 2008) in order to improve business-customer relationships, and to reduce
overall costs. However, service providers must have better knowledge about typical
mobile banking to add value to their marketing actions (Laukkanen and Pasanen,
2007). Despite the many advantages of m-commerce, the use of mobile banking is still in
its infancy and IB retains its first position as the most accepted channel in e-banking
(Laukkanen, 2007a, b; Laukkanen and Cruz, 2009).
3. Research model and hypotheses
3.1 Attitude
Eagly and Chaiken (1993) defined attitude as a psychological tendency that is
expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor. It is
never easy to measure the attitudes of people because their attitude toward technology
in general is not stable (Blackhall et al., 1999). However, it can be measured toward a
specific technology (Daamen et al., 1990). Past literature also shows an individuals
attitude toward adoption is strongly dependent on the type of SST (Dabholkar, 2000;
Plouffe et al., 2001; Curran and Meuter, 2005; Collier et al., 2014). Curran et al. (2003) also
mentioned the distinguishable attitudes of people toward different SSTs. Additionally,
as customers are more and more exposed to a wide range of SSTs implemented
by service firms, their past experiences influence their subsequent attitudes toward the
adoption of SSTs (Wang et al., 2012). Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. Attitudes toward different SSBTs (in the case of same service delivery) will
vary from one SSBT to another.
An important assumptions from innovation literature (Rogers, 2003) is highly adopted
innovation is perceived as more beneficial. In a recent study by Wang et al. (2012), it
was clearly mentioned that past positive experiences of users with one SST (e.g. online
flight check-in) might inspire a user to use another SST (e.g. online hotel reservation)
since both have similar technologies. Dimitriadis and Kyrezis (2011) also note that the
transaction type strongly influences customers attitude toward the adoption of distinct
technologies. Since we have included different technologies in our research, we propose
the following hypothesis for a comparative analysis:
H2. Attitudes toward highly adopted SSBT will be more positive that those poorly
adopted.
TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) clearly postulates that an individuals consciously
intended behavior is a result of his attitude toward performing the behavior (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980). Furthermore, the relationship between these two constructs has been
extensively researched over the last few decades (Taylor and Todd, 1995; Dabholkar,
1996; Legris et al., 2003; Celik, 2008). One of the most common findings is evidence
that supports attitude toward technology as a key antecedent to intention to adopt a
particular technology with a few salient antecedent beliefs predicting those attitudes
and intentions (Adams et al., 1992; Dabholkar, 1996; Davis et al., 1989; Eriksson
and Nilsson, 2007). A meta-analysis of empirical findings shows that an individuals
intentions to use/adopt an SST are primarily determined by his or her attitude toward
use (Meuter et al., 2005). Thus, we can propose that:
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
101
H3. Attitude toward a specific SSBT will affect behavioral intention to adopt or use
that SSBT.
3.2 Antecedent beliefs
In the present study, we have included four antecedent beliefs to predict attitudes
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
1
2
3
4
Ease of use Degree to which a user would find the use

of a particular technology to be free from
effort on their part
Perceived
Perceived usefulness is the subjective
usefulness probability that using the technology
would improve the way through which
one could finish a given work
Need for
An aspiration to keep personal contact
interaction with others during a service encounter
Perceived
A probability of certain outcomes given a
risk
behavior, and the danger and severity of
negative consequences from engaging in
those behaviors
Reference studies
Davis et al. (1989), Adams et al. (1992),
Dabholkar (1994), Igbaria et al. (1995)
Jackson et al. (1997), Mathieson (1991),
Taylor and Todd (1995)
Dabholkar (1992), Bateson (1985),
Meuter et al. (2000)
Peter and Tarpley (1975), Murray (1991),
Dabholkar (1996), Meuter and Bitner
Table I.
(1998), Gatignon and Robertson (1991)
Antecedent beliefs as
predictor of attitudes
IJBM
33,2
102
Customer interactions with service employees can develop interpersonal relationships

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
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:
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 individuals 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
Attitudes
toward SSTs
Intention to
adopt or use
SSTs
Ease of Use
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
103
Perceived
Usefulness
Need of
Interaction
Perceived
Risk
because of its history of introducing different and innovative technologies to deliver

quality service to its customers. Therefore, it also allows us to test our adoption model
across different technologies. Second, it is a widely distributed service industry
where customers are highly involved in the transaction process. Services offered by the
banking industry are similar throughout India, which increases the generalizability of
our research.
According to a recent report on payment systems by the Reserve Bank of India
(RBI), there has been a steady growth in the number of electronic transactions routed
via SSTs, resulting a dramatic fall in the number of paper-based transactions
(e.g. transactions through cheques/demand drafts) over the years. The upward trend of
electronic transactions in both numbers and values can easily found in the RBI annual
reports. In 2004-2005, the total number of electronic transactions were only 228.9
million with a value of Rs. 1,087.50 billion, have increased to 1159.84 million with a total
value of Rs. 22,075.33 billion in 2011-2012. This is more than the total value of paperbased transaction of Rs. 20,868.24 billion in 2011-2012. Thus, in recent years electronic
transactions are a preferred and secure medium by which people transact a large
amount of money. This shows importance of studying consumers perception
regarding the implementation of SSTs in the banking industry.
A survey instrument was designed to measure the four predictors of attitudes (ease
of use, PU, need for interaction, PR) along with attitude and intention constructs.
It consists of three sections with questions related to the antecedent beliefs and
subjects attitude toward each of the three SSBTs and intentions to adopt SSBTs.
In all three sections, each respondent was asked about the same antecedents or
predictors of attitudes, but only one of the three SSBTs in each section. It was typical
for respondents to answer all three sections, but on the other hand, it was necessary for
comparing the opinion of the same respondents for all three technologies.
4.2 Construct measurement
It was difficult to find an existing summated scale, especially with PR since risk
has been discussed under various terms like reliability (Dabholkar, 1996), accuracy and
Figure 1.
Antecedent-attitudeintention model
IJBM
33,2
104
recovery (Meuter and Bitner, 1998). Our instrument includes all four existing constructs,
i.e. ease of use, PU, need for interaction and PR, which were measured by a seven-point
Likert Scale with endpoints of 1 (strongly agree) and 7 (strongly disagree). All the items
under the risk construct were developed and used to answer questions about the
experience of bank customers regarding SSBTs. The attitude construct was measured by
a seven-point semantic differential scale with endpoints of very good/very bad, very
pleasant/very unpleasant and strongly like/strongly dislike. In each section, the construct
was measured by three items across all three categories of SSBTs. The reliability of
scale items as well as whole scale was determined by Cronbachs values, which are
shown in Table II.
4.3 Data collection
Pilot testing of the instrument was completed by a sample of 130 bank customers using
a convenience sampling technique before the final data collection. This study only
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 ones perception across all SSBTs.
The majority of customers (approx 54 percent) were adult students (e.g. masters
and doctoral students) because we can easily reach and target them. They are frequent
Description of scale items
Items adopted from
Pretest
Study
Cronbachs values
Ease of use
Davis et al. (1989), Dabholkar (1994)

0.90
0.81
Learning to use SST was easy
Finding SSTs difficult to use
Easy to become skillful by using SST
0.93
0.89
Adams et al. (1992), Davis et al.
Perceived usefulness
SST is useful for banking
(1989), Igbaria et al. (1996), Jackson
Using the SST improves the banking
et al. (1997)
Using the SST makes banking easier
Dabholkar (1996)
0.74
0.72
Need for interaction
Enjoy to see the working people at bank
Personal attention of bankers is not important
People do things for me that no machine could
Dabholkar (1996), Meuter and
0.79
0.76
Perceived risk
Felling secure while using the SST for
Bitner (1998), Murray (1991)
business in banking
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
0.93
0.91
Barki and Hartwick (1994),
Attitudes toward SSTs
Feeling good or bad about using the SST
Dabholkar (1996), Harrison et al.
Feeling pleasant or unpleasant while using
(1997)
the SST
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 s for all three SSTs
Antecedent beliefs (included in

Present study)
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
105
Table II.
Reliability analysis
of antecedent beliefs
and their scale items
IJBM
33,2
106
users of banking services because they have a monthly scholarship as income. Other
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
(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.
5. Core findings and discussion
5.1 Analysis of constructs reliability
Although the scales used to measure the antecedent beliefs and other behavioral
constructs were adopted from past literature and were pre-tested, they need to be
reviewed for reliability under the conditions of the current study. All the predictors
of attitude toward SSBTs were found reliable with sufficient values of Cronbachs as
shown in Table II.
In Table II, all the constructs and their corresponding items show high internal
consistency since Cronbachs for all constructs are higher than the minimum
satisfactory value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Cronbachs for each attitude scale across
all three SSBTs were 0.96 for ATMs, 0.91 for PB, and 0.93 for SSKs indicating a higher
overall internal consistency for all the scales.
5.2 Descriptive analysis
This section provides an analysis of primary responses collected from the field and
online survey. The respondents were 62 percent male and 38 percent female. The age
group ranged from 18 to 72 years old, with an average age of 38, which evidenced a
majority of young people in our research. Income and education levels were found
normally distributed across all three categories of SSBTs.
In addition, several other crucial issues were explored, such as how often they went
to their bank, usage rate of SSBTs, and their awareness of different SSBTs. More than
78 percent of the respondents have used ATMs, whereas only 13 percent have used PB
and 47 percent respondents had familiarity with SSKs. The SSKs are relatively new
technologies offered by banks to deliver services like passbook printing, token
machine, and cash deposits, etc. However, its usage rate is higher than PB but lower
than ATM banking. The majority of respondents (93 percent) mentioned they knew
about their banks ATM, but only 43 percent people indicated they use PB and 73
percent people responded positively about the availability of SSKs as an alternative to
using a banks live customer services. All these results are given in Table III.
Based on the facts given in Table III, we may conclude that ATMs are more widely
accepted SSBTs than the other two categories. A reason for this might be because
ATMs were introduced much earlier than the other two SSBTs, but still there might be
other reasons like making a single cash deposit (e.g. salary deposited once in one
month) but several withdrawals over the course of a month. People prefer to have cash
available and make withdrawals according to their requirements. For this, they use
ATMs more than a cash deposit kiosk. Despite the wide availability of PB for many
years, it has not achieved widespread adoption even though India is a country with
second largest number of phone users (approx 867.8 million phones in use up to 30
April, 2013) after China. The low usage rate of SSKs is somewhat understandable
because it is a new technology offered by a few banks at select branches. ATMs are
directly affected by the other two SSBTs. For example, using ATMs decreases the need
to visit a bank where SSBTs are available. For instance, a person requires a quick
transaction statement; he may prefer to use the ATM for the same purpose rather than
going and using a passbook printing kiosk available at the branch.
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
107
5.3 Test of hypotheses

Three attitude items for each SSBT were included in our study. Therefore, nine items
were included in the instrument for measuring attitudes toward the SSBTs. The
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 2-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
ATMs
Phone banking
SSKs
Response toward usage

Used
Never used
174
49
78%
22%
22
145
13%
87%
87
98
Response toward Awareness

Know that bank offers SST
Know that bank does not offer
Do not know whether bank offers or not
155
05
07
93%
03%
04%
72
38
57
43%
23%
34%
135
35
15
SSTs
Items to measure attitude
ATMs (SST 1)
Like/dislike
Pleasant/unpleasant
Good/bad
Like/dislike
Pleasant/unpleasant
Good/bad
Like/dislike
Pleasant/unpleasant
Good/bad
SSKs (SST 3)
Phone banking (SST 2)
Factor 1
Factor 2
47%
53%
Table III.
Usage and
73%
19% awareness regarding
different SSTs
8%
Factor 3
0.905
0.876
0.842
0.912
0.889
0.821
0.904
0.823
0.789
Table IV.
Results of
exploratory factor
analysis for attitude
measure
IJBM
33,2
108
across the different SSBTs. All these values exceed 0.5, the minimum acceptable values
indicating the validity of all constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Netemeyer et al.,
1997). If the average variance extracted for each construct is higher than the square
of the correlation between the constructs, then discriminant validity is demonstrated
(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). For each case in our
measurement model, the lowest average variance extracted is 0.71, which is much
higher than the highest squared correlation value (0.27). Therefore, it provides evidence
for discriminant validity between all our constructs. The results from the factor
analysis and correlation analysis of SEM provide evidence for three separate and
distinct attitudes toward each of the SSBTs supporting our first hypothesis (H1).
The average sum scores of attitude toward each of SSBTs were analyzed and
compared in Table V. The attitude construct was measured by a seven-point
differential scale with endpoints of the most positive attitude indicated by a value of 1
to the most negative indicated by a value of 7. The mean values of this attitude
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).
5.4 Test of antecedent beliefs hypotheses
As introduced earlier, there are four antecedent beliefs that were presumed to influence
attitudes toward each of the SSBTs. In our analysis, SEM plays a crucial role for testing
all the hypotheses of antecedent beliefs. The sample size of 619 respondents and a
minimum of 167 respondents for each of the SSBTs are adequate for applying the SEM
(Hair et al., 1998). Each of the models tested in our study consists of four similar
antecedent beliefs as main constructs with either three or four scale items, another
construct of attitudes toward SSBTs with three-scale items, and a single-item
construct intention to adopt or use SSBTs. Therefore, we have 17 observed variables
and 153 data points included in our model (Byrne, 2001). The number of estimated
Scale
Table V.
Paired sample t-test
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
ATM Scale
PB Scale
ATM Scale
SSK Scale
PB Scale
SSK Scale
Mean
Paired difference
Correlation
t-value
df
Sig.
2.73
4.32
2.73
3.36
4.32
3.36
1.59
0.37
18.26
109
0.000
0.63
0.28
7.23
109
0.000
0.96
0.43
11.02
109
0.000
parameters in each test for all three models of the three SSBTs is 44, which denotes 109
degrees of freedom for all three tests. Thus, this model is recursive in nature and its
identification should not be problematic (Hair et al., 1998).
5.4.1 ATM model. A total of 223 respondents replied to all the questions related to
ATMs. The 2-value of ATM model was 229.637 with degree of freedom 109, providing
a ratio of 2/dof giving a value 2.10, which is quite acceptable with a significant p-value.
The RMSEA value of 0.089 is a bit higher but lies within acceptable limits. The CFI
value of 0.95 is well acceptable. The R2-value showing the proportion of variance
explained by independent variables for dependent variables are 59.7 percent for attitudes
toward ATMs and 49.8 percent for behavioral intentions to adopt or use ATMs. Both
these values indicate their large effect sizes. The path analysis shows a significant path
(at the 0.001 level) from attitude toward ATMs to behavioral intention to adopt ATMs
supporting our third hypothesis (H3). In Figure 2, we find the path coefficient (0.213) from
ease of use to attitudes toward ATMs was also significant at the 0.05 level, while the path
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 2-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
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
109
Ease of Use
0.213**
Perceived
Usefulness
Need of
Interaction
0.617*
Attitudes
toward SSTs
0.019
0.037
Perceived
Risk
R 2 = 0.597
0.753*
Intention to
adopt or use
SSTs
R 2 = 0.498
2/ dof = 2.1
CFI = 0.95
RMSEA = 0.089
Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05
Figure 2.
ATMs model
IJBM
33,2
110
to intention is again significant at the 0.001 level and supports H3. In this case, only the
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 2-value of ATM model was 239.324 with same degree of freedom of 109, providing
a ratio of 2/dof for a value of 2.19, which is once again acceptable with a significant
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
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).
6. Conclusion and implications of study
6.1 Summary of findings
By comparing adoption behavior across different SSBTs, our findings clearly showed
how factors predicting customers attitude vary across these technologies. Table III
reveals how adoption varies from one technology to other by showing ATMs as the
most widely accepted SSBT (78 percent) followed by SSKs (47 percent) and PB (13
percent). The difference between ATMs and PB adoption implies the fundamental
difference in their appeal to service customers in the banking industry. In addition,
there is a significant difference between the mean attitude toward ATMs (2.73) and the
mean attitude toward SSKs (3.36) with ATMs being better thought of by customers
as compared to SSKs. Surprisingly PB, which has been available long before SSKs, has
not achieved widespread adoption by banking customers. Customers attitude toward
Ease of Use
0.113
Perceived
Usefulness
Need of
Interaction
0.043
Attitudes
toward SSTs
0.014
0.691*
Perceived
Risk
R 2 = 0.327
0.553*
Intention to
adopt or use
SSTs
R 2 = 0.192
2 / dof = 2.56
CFI = 0.90
Figure 3.
Phone banking model
RMSEA = 0.093
Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
Ease of Use
0.013
Perceived
Usefulness
Need of
Interaction
0.693*
0.614*
Intention to
adopt or use
SSTs
111
0.117
0.081
Attitudes
toward SSTs
Perceived
Risk
R 2 = 0.433
R 2 = 0.392
2 / dof = 2.19
CFI = 0.91
RMSEA = 0.083
Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05
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
Figure 4.
SSKs model
IJBM
33,2
112
has not. If we compare the models of these two SSBTs, it shows that not even a single
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,
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
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
customers 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.
6.2 Theoretical implications
While past studies have contributed a considerable amount to understanding as to why
customers adopt new technologies, our findings also contribute theoretically to the
literature in several ways. First, the present study shows that the basic TAM (Davis,
1989) can also be extended by adding two external variables (i.e. need to interaction and
PR) and is applicable in the context of banking technology adoption. Additionally, this
study contributes to technology adoption literature by including two external variables
while recent studies examined adoption with different variables like technology
readiness toward SSTs (Parasuraman, 2000; Lin and Hsieh, 2006), social environmental
variables (Shi et al., 2007), individuals psychological variables (Yoon and Steege, 2013),
and so on.
Second, with a few possible exceptions (e.g. Curran and Meuter, 2005) this study is
the only recent study that has compared different SSBTs in a developing country
with the objective to identify and differentiate key factors affecting attitude toward
adoption. Many studies reported that PR negatively affects technology adoption
(Kim et al., 2010; Lee, 2009; Grabner-Kruter and Faullant, 2008). However, in some
situations, customers are weighing risk and usefulness and are willing to make tradeoffs between these two (i.e. risk and usefulness) that motivates them to use or accept
new technology. These potential trades-offs, where a customer weighs the importance
and role of different factors in their adoption decision process, have not been widely
explored in past studies (Yoon and Steege, 2013). Our findings show that customers
with lower risk and security concern may be willing to trade off because of the high
PU as in the case of ATMs and SSKs.
6.3 Managerial implications
Our study also provides several implications for service providers. It supports the fact
that multiple factors are at work for different SSTs and some factors are more
influential than others under certain conditions. SSTs that are useful, well-planned, and
easy to use are more widely adopted by service consumers (e.g. Meuter et al., 2000; Yen,
2005). The findings of our study will help service providers plan and design effective
SSTs in order to provide more efficient consumer services. The majority of consumers
(34 percent in the case of PB) claimed they did not receive any information on PB from
their respective banks. Thus, banks need to pay more attention to how well they deliver
the message about the availability of SSTs and their advantages to consumers.
If the innovations and their associated advantages can be properly conveyed to
consumers, it will reduce resistance to innovation adoption (Ram, 1987). Hence,
effective communication strategies need to be developed to maximize customers
awareness of SSTs availability.
A close examination of all three SSBTs included in the present study show that
all three.
SSBTs can be differentiated in terms of their role in service encounters. Each of the
three technologies has different predictors of attitude. As mentioned earlier, the newest
SSBT (i.e. SSKs) had PU as a significant predictor, while the more established SSBTs
(i.e. ATMs and PB) had entirely different predictors. For instance, ATMs had PEOU
and PU as key predictors, while PB had PR as a significant predictor. Thus, the PU is
the common predictor for two of the most widely adopted SSBTs. This denotes that
any SST with usefulness has more chances of being adopted. Therefore, designers
must focus on effective technological functions and managers must communicate their
useful points to customers. PB has been introduced for many years, but has not been
widely adopted because of a risk factor. It seems logical that firms introducing a
relatively new SST would have to deal with a period of risk or uncertainty until
prospective adopters have learned about the operation and benefits of the new SST. To
make it more acceptable, bank managers must develop effective trial programs in order
to reduce the PR. Customer trialability (i.e. the degree to which a customer perceives the
bank offering a chance for him/her to try IB prior to any decision to adopt) is considered
a key variable in such a situation (Black et al., 2001). However, Puschel et al. (2010)
did not find any significant relationship between trialability and IB adoption.
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
113
IJBM
33,2
114
7. Limitations and future research directions

As in the case of any empirical research, there are various limitations to our study.
First, we have included three SSTs only from the banking industry. This limits the
generalizablity to other industries. Our model can also be implemented in studies using
multiple SSTs in various industries to provide additional support to our study. Second,
other factors like technology readiness, trust, and subjective norms could be included
to increase the predictive power of attitude construct. Next, the use of an online
questionnaire can increase response error because they may fill out the questionnaire
arbitrarily due to a lack of clarification assistance.
We have explored a relatively new area of research on consumers adoption of SSTs,
where approximately half of the variance in attitude toward SSTs can be explained by
constructs included in our study. However, it is crucial to identify the other key factors
that account for the other of the half variance. Another important suggestion for
further studies relates to the usage of multiple channels in service encounters. Service
consumers are not only faced various SSTs in service organizations, but also have
several SST modes of SSTs (Patrcio 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 consumers 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:
toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication, Human Communication
Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 99-112.
Black, N., Lockett, A., Winklhofer, H. and Ennew, C. (2001), The adoption of internet financial
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
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.
Celik, H. (2008), What determines Turkish customers acceptance of internet banking?,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 353-370.
Chan, S.C. and Lu, M.T. (2004), Understanding internet banking adoption and use behavior:
a Hong Kong perspective, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 21-43.
Chau, P.Y.K. and Hu, P.J. (2002), Examining a model of information technology acceptance by
individual professionals, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 191-229.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), The chain of effects from brand trust and brand
affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 81-93.
Chen, L.-D., Gillenson, M.L. and Sherrell, D.L. (2002), Enticing online consumers: an extended
technology acceptance perspective, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 705-719.
Collier, J.E., Sherrell, D.L., Babakus, E. and Horky, A.B. (2014), Understanding the differences of
public and private self-service technology, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 60-70.
Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Gerlach, J. (2009), A comparison of consumer views of
traditional services and self-service technologies, Journal of Service Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Curran, J.M. and Meuter, M.L. (2005), Self-service technology adoption: comparing three
technologies, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 103-113.
Curran, J.M., Meuter, M.L. and Surprenant, C.F. (2003), Intentions to use self-service technologies:
a confluence of multiple attitudes, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 209-224.
Daamen, D., van der Lans, I. and Midden, C. (1990), Cognitive structures in the perception of
modern technologies, Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 202-225.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1992), Role of affect and need for interaction in on-site service encounters, in
Sherry, J.F. and Sternthal, B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 563-569.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), Incorporating choice into an attitudinal framework: analyzing models of
mental comparison processes, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 100-118.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1996), Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: an
investigation of alternative models of service quality, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-51.
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
115
IJBM
33,2
Dabholkar, P.A. (2000), Technology in service delivery: implications for self-service and service
support, in Swartz, T.A. and Iacobucci, D. (Eds), Handbook of Service Marketing and
Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 103-110.
Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-201.
116
Davis, F.D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-339.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), User acceptance of computer technology: a
comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Dimitriadis, S. and Kyrezis, N. (2011), The effect of trust, channel technology, and transaction
type on the adoption of self-service bank channels, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 31
No. 8, pp. 1293-1310.
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,
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-Kruter, 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
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, B.D. (1995), Testing the determinants of microcomputer
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.
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
27, Hospitality and Tourism Complete database, spring, pp. 122-128.
Katuri, S. and Lam, M. (2006), Switching customers from branches to internet: a credit unions
journey, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 229-248.
Kaushik, A.K. and Rahman, Z. (2014), Perspectives and dimensions of consumer innovativeness:
a literature review and future agenda, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 239-263.
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M. and Lee, I. (2010), An empirical examination of factors influencing
the intention to use mobile payment, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 310-322.
Kolodinsky, J.M. (2004), The adoption of electronic banking technologies by US consumers, The
Kumar, A. (2010), Smartphone power: How can hotels harness and manage it? Hospitality
Upgrade, March 1, available at: www.hospitalityupgrade.com (accessed July 10, 2012).
Laukkanen, T. (2007a), Customer preferred channel attributes in multi-channel electronic banking,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 393-412.
Laukkanen, T. (2007b), Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 788-797.
Laukkanen, T. and Cruz, P. (2009), Comparing consumer resistance to mobile banking in Finland
and Portugal, in Filipe, J. and Obaidat, M.S. (Eds), E-Business and Telecommunications,
Springer, Berlin, pp. 89-98.
Laukkanen, T. and Pasanen, M. (2007), Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: how they
differ from other online users?, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 86-94.
Lee, J. and Allaway, A. (2002), Effects of personal control on adoption of self-service technology
innovations, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 553-572.
Lee, M. (2009), Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: an integration of TAM and
TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit, Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 130-141.
Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K. and Chen, Z., (2005), Acceptance of internet-based learning medium:
the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1095-1104.
Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P. (2003), Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model, Information & Management, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 191-204.
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
117
IJBM
33,2
118
Li, T. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), The impact of market knowledge competence on new product
advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62
No. 4, pp. 13-29.
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and Riel, A. (2006), Technology readiness and the
evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 177-191.
Lin, C.J. and Hsieh, P. (2006), The role of technology readiness in customers perception and
adoption of self-service technologies, International Journal of Service Industry
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-517.
Lui, T.W. and Piccoli, G. (2010), Integrating self service kiosks in a customer-service system,
Cornell Hospitality Report, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 4-20.
McKechnie, S., Winklhofer, H. and Ennew, C. (2006), Applying the technology acceptance model
to the online retailing of financial services, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 34 Nos 4/5, pp. 388-410.
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 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
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.

unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article 1695&context thesesdissertations (accessed June
28, 2012).
Ostrowski, C. (2010), Check-in kiosk risk/reward potential has polarizing effect on deployment,
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,
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.
Patrcio, 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.
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 banks 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,
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.
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
119
IJBM
33,2
120
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.
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.
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.
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.
About the authors
Arun Kumar Kaushik has received his PG Degree of Master of Business Administration and
Master of Commerce in Marketing specialization. He is a full time sponsored Research Scholar,
working on research area related to consumer innovativeness while pursuing his PhD in
marketing management at the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India.
Before this, he has worked as an Assistant Professor with reputed b-schools in India. He has more
than six years of experience in Academic and Corporate world. He has attended more than 15
international/national conferences and workshops. His areas of interest are marketing, consumer
behavior, and innovation. Arun Kumar Kaushik is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: arunkaushik.iitr@gmail.com
Dr Zillur Rahman has received his MBA and PhD Degrees in Business Administration.
Currently he is working as an Associate Professor at the Department of Management Studies,
Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee. He has more than 16 years of total experience in
academics. He has attended various international conferences in the USA, Switzerland, Germany,
Turkey, Poland, etc. He has several publications in reputed international journals. He has
published numerous research papers with heavy citation indices. He has organized several
workshops and conferences and has worked on many sponsored research projects. His research
interest is business strategy and international marketing. He was the recipient of the Emerald
Literati Club Highly Commended Award in 2004 and Emerald/AIMA research fund award in
2009 and 2012.
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
Innovation
adoption
across SSBTs
121
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 Selfservice Technology?. Information Technology for Development 1. [CrossRef]

Kaushik 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kaushik 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Bank Marketing

Innovation adoption across self-service banking technologies in India

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

To cite this document:

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of

Innovation adoption across

Arun Kumar Kaushik and Zillur Rahman

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

International Journal of Bank

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

2. Prior research and theoretical background

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

or marginal workers must be offered mobile banking if the traditional financial

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Ease of use Degree to which a user would find the use

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Customer interactions with service employees can develop interpersonal relationships

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

because of its history of introducing different and innovative technologies to deliver

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Description of scale items

Items adopted from

Davis et al. (1989), Dabholkar (1994)

Antecedent beliefs (included in

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

5.3 Test of hypotheses

Response toward usage

Response toward Awareness

Items to measure attitude

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Notes: *p<0.001; **p<0.05

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

7. Limitations and future research directions

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

professional papers/capstones, Las Vegas, p. 694, available at: http://digitalscholarship.

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by University of Arizona At 14:28 31 January 2016 (PT)

You might also like