Role of Online & Offline Mode of Transactions of Various Banking Services

Nikita Soni, Ritik Gupta, Madhura Sinnarkar, Athul krishna PK,

Shivani Gupte.
MBA 1st Year Students.
Group No.10

Reliability
Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

N %
Cases Valid 133 100.0
a
Excluded 0 .0
Total 133 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Cronbach's Alpha Standardized Items N of Items
.713 .760 12

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

b1 on 1 on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5 on 6 on 7 avg off avg on on 8 off 1
b1 1.000 .296 .289 .044 .211 -.321 .081 .247 -.243 .171 .044 .078
on 1 .296 1.000 .616 .451 .380 -.184 .327 .509 -.116 .738 .359 .139
on 2 .289 .616 1.000 .465 .495 -.239 .357 .461 -.100 .747 .348 .166
on 3 .044 .451 .465 1.000 .474 .017 .325 .491 .055 .748 .290 .196
on 4 .211 .380 .495 .474 1.000 -.270 .286 .350 -.281 .620 .297 .020
on 5 -.321 -.184 -.239 .017 -.270 1.000 -.040 -.297 .319 -.021 -.268 -.053
on 6 .081 .327 .357 .325 .286 -.040 1.000 .320 -.151 .601 .297 .050
on 7 .247 .509 .461 .491 .350 -.297 .320 1.000 .001 .648 .279 .243
avg off -.243 -.116 -.100 .055 -.281 .319 -.151 .001 1.000 -.053 -.088 .628
avg on .171 .738 .747 .748 .620 -.021 .601 .648 -.053 1.000 .563 .200
on 8 .044 .359 .348 .290 .297 -.268 .297 .279 -.088 .563 1.000 .157
off 1 .078 .139 .166 .196 .020 -.053 .050 .243 .628 .200 .157 1.000

Inter-Item Covariance Matrix

b1 on 1 on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5 on 6 on 7 avg off avg on on 8 off 1
b1 1.023 .240 .250 .034 .150 -.326 .070 .197 -.153 .080 .038 .072
on 1 .240 .641 .421 .276 .215 -.147 .224 .321 -.058 .272 .249 .101
on 2 .250 .421 .728 .303 .298 -.204 .261 .310 -.053 .293 .257 .129
on 3 .034 .276 .303 .583 .255 .013 .213 .295 .026 .263 .192 .136
on 4 .150 .215 .298 .255 .497 -.191 .173 .195 -.124 .201 .181 .013
on 5 -.326 -.147 -.204 .013 -.191 1.005 -.034 -.235 .199 -.010 -.233 -.048
on 6 .070 .224 .261 .213 .173 -.034 .736 .216 -.081 .237 .220 .039
on 7 .197 .321 .310 .295 .195 -.235 .216 .622 .000 .235 .190 .174
avg off -.153 -.058 -.053 .026 -.124 .199 -.081 .000 .388 -.015 -.048 .356
avg on .080 .272 .293 .263 .201 -.010 .237 .235 -.015 .212 .224 .084
on 8 .038 .249 .257 .192 .181 -.233 .220 .190 -.048 .224 .749 .124
off 1 .072 .101 .129 .136 .013 -.048 .039 .174 .356 .084 .124 .825

Summary Item Statistics

Maximum /
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.710 2.639 4.391 1.752 1.664 .184 12
Item Variances .667 .212 1.023 .811 4.831 .055 12
Inter-Item Covariances .115 -.326 .421 .747 -1.293 .027 12
Inter-Item Correlations .209 -.321 .748 1.069 -2.328 .081 12
Analysis: In our research, Cronbach alpha is 0.713 therefore it is a relevant. Because Cronbach’s alpha should be relevant if
it is near to 0.7 or 0.8.

Regression

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
b1 3.54 1.011 133
avg on 3.73402 .460158 133
avg off 3.496 .6231 133

Correlations
b1 avg on avg off
Pearson Correlation b1 1.000 .171 -.243
avg on .171 1.000 -.053
avg off -.243 -.053 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) b1 . .024 .002
avg on .024 . .272
avg off .002 .272 .
N b1 133 133 133
avg on 133 133 133
avg off 133 133 133

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method
b
1 avg off, avg on . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: b1
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb
 Change Statistics Durbin-Watson
Std. Error of the
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Estimate R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a
1 .290 .084 .070 .975 .084 5.985 2 130 .003 2.188

a. Predictors: (Constant), avg off, avg on

b. Dependent Variable: b1

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11.384 2 5.692 5.985 .003b
Residual 123.639 130 .951
Total 135.023 132
a. Dependent Variable: b1
b. Predictors: (Constant), avg off, avg on

Coefficientsa
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Correlations Collinearity Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Zero-order Partial Part Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 3.570 .863 4.135 .000
avg on .349 .185 .159 1.890 .061 .171 .164 .159 .997 1.003
avg off -.381 .136 -.235 -2.793 .006 -.243 -.238 -.234 .997 1.003
a. Dependent Variable: b1

Coefficient Correlationsa
Model avg off avg on
1 Correlations avg off 1.000 .053
avg on .053 1.000
Covariances avg off .019 .001
avg on .001 .034
a. Dependent Variable: b1

Collinearity Diagnosticsa
 Variance Proportions
Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index (Constant) avg on avg off
1 1 2.969 1.000 .00 .00 .00
2 .025 10.888 .02 .20 .75
3 .006 22.087 .98 .80 .24

a. Dependent Variable: b1

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 2.19 4.14 3.54 .294 133
Residual -2.796 1.645 .000 .968 133
Std. Predicted Value -4.608 2.055 .000 1.000 133
Std. Residual -2.867 1.687 .000 .992 133
a. Dependent Variable: b1

Charts
In the above diagram
Analysis: This table provides the R & R2 values. The R values represent the simple correlation & is 0.290 which indicates a
low degree correlation. The R2 values indicates how much of the total version in the dependent variable (Banking Services),
can be explained by independent variable (Online & Offline Mode of Transactions). The value of R2 is 0.084 which indicates
8.4% of the variance in Banking Services can be explained by Online & Offline Mode of Transactions. A positive coefficient
indicates a positive relationship which means both dependent & independent variable increases. There is positive regression as
the diagram is much less scattered.

Correlations

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
b1 3.54 1.011 133
on 1 3.78 .801 133
on 2 3.92 .853 133
on 3 3.91 .763 133
on 4 4.39 .705 133
on 5 2.64 1.003 133
on 6 3.68 .858 133 Correlations
on 7 4.08 .789 b1 133 on 1 on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5 on 6 on 7 on 8 off 1 off 2
b1
on 8 Pearson Correlation
3.44 .865 1331 .296** .289** .044 .211* -.321** .081 .247** .044 .078 -.383**

off 1 Sig. (2-tailed)

3.91 .908 133 .001 .001 .614 .015 .000 .354 .004 .617 .370 .000

off 2 Sum of Squares

3.08 and Cross-products
.977 135.023
133 31.699 32.955 4.496 19.850 -43.015 9.278 26.045 5.060 9.496 -49.955
Covariance 1.023 .240 .250 .034 .150 -.326 .070 .197 .038 .072 -.378
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
on 1 Pearson Correlation .296** 1 .616** .451** .380** -.184* .327** .509** .359** .139 -.277**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .034 .000 .000 .000 .110 .001
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 31.699 84.677 55.602 36.383 28.338 -19.466 29.624 42.398 32.865 13.383 -28.602
Covariance .240 .641 .421 .276 .215 -.147 .224 .321 .249 .101 -.217
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
on 2 Pearson Correlation .289 .616 1 .465 .495 -.239 .357 .461 .348 .166 -.282**
 Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000 .000 .056 .001
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 32.955 55.602 96.090 40.008 39.301 -26.970 34.444 40.910 33.880 17.008 -31.090
Covariance .250 .421 .728 .303 .298 -.204 .261 .310 .257 .129 -.236
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
** ** ** ** ** ** *
on 3 Pearson Correlation .044 .451 .465 1 .474 .017 .325 .491 .290 .196 -.112
Sig. (2-tailed) .614 .000 .000 .000 .850 .000 .000 .001 .024 .200
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 4.496 36.383 40.008 76.917 33.692 1.669 28.120 38.992 25.323 17.917 -11.008
Covariance .034 .276 .303 .583 .255 .013 .213 .295 .192 .136 -.083
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
on 4 Pearson Correlation .211* .380** .495** .474** 1 -.270** .286** .350** .297** .020 -.377**
Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .000 .000 .000 .002 .001 .000 .001 .819 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 19.850 28.338 39.301 33.692 65.669 -25.233 22.812 25.699 23.932 1.692 -34.301
Covariance .150 .215 .298 .255 .497 -.191 .173 .195 .181 .013 -.260
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
** * ** ** ** **
on 5 Pearson Correlation -.321 -.184 -.239 .017 -.270 1 -.040 -.297 -.268 -.053 .456**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .034 .006 .850 .002 .649 .001 .002 .547 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-products -43.015 -19.466 -26.970 1.669 -25.233 132.677 -4.519 -31.030 -30.707 -6.331 58.970
Covariance -.326 -.147 -.204 .013 -.191 1.005 -.034 -.235 -.233 -.048 .447
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
** ** ** ** ** **
on 6 Pearson Correlation .081 .327 .357 .325 .286 -.040 1 .320 .297 .050 -.239**
Sig. (2-tailed) .354 .000 .000 .000 .001 .649 .000 .001 .569 .006
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 9.278 29.624 34.444 28.120 22.812 -4.519 97.098 28.556 29.075 5.120 -26.444
Covariance .070 .224 .261 .213 .173 -.034 .736 .216 .220 .039 -.200
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
on 7 Pearson Correlation .247 .509 .461 .491 .350 -.297 .320 1 .279 .243 -.225**
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .005 .009
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 26.045 42.398 40.910 38.992 25.699 -31.030 28.556 82.090 25.120 22.992 -22.910
Covariance .197 .321 .310 .295 .195 -.235 .216 .622 .190 .174 -.174
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
on 8 Pearson Correlation .044 .359** .348** .290** .297** -.268** .297** .279** 1 .157 -.259**
Sig. (2-tailed) .617 .000 .000 .001 .001 .002 .001 .001 .071 .003
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 5.060 32.865 33.880 25.323 23.932 -30.707 29.075 25.120 98.827 16.323 -28.880
Covariance .038 .249 .257 .192 .181 -.233 .220 .190 .749 .124 -.219
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
* **
off 1 Pearson Correlation .078 .139 .166 .196 .020 -.053 .050 .243 .157 1 -.128
Sig. (2-tailed) .370 .110 .056 .024 .819 .547 .569 .005 .071 .142
Sum of Squares and Cross-products 9.496 13.383 17.008 17.917 1.692 -6.331 5.120 22.992 16.323 108.917 -15.008
Covariance .072 .101 .129 .136 .013 -.048 .039 .174 .124 .825 -.114
 N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133
off 2 Pearson Correlation -.383** -.277** -.282** -.112 -.377** .456** -.239** -.225** -.259** -.128 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .001 .200 .000 .000 .006 .009 .003 .142
Sum of Squares and Cross-products -49.955 -28.602 -31.090 -11.008 -34.301 58.970 -26.444 -22.910 -28.880 -15.008 126.090
Covariance -.378 -.217 -.236 -.083 -.260 .447 -.200 -.174 -.219 -.114 .955
N 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
avg off 3.496 .6231 133
avg on 3.73402 .460158 133
b1 3.54 1.011 133

Correlations
avg off avg on b1
avg off Pearson Correlation 1 -.053 -.243**
Sig. (2-tailed) .544 .005
Sum of Squares and Cross- 51.248 -2.008 -20.229
products
Covariance .388 -.015 -.153
N 133 133 133
avg on Pearson Correlation -.053 1 .171*
Sig. (2-tailed) .544 .049
Sum of Squares and Cross- -2.008 27.950 10.525
products
Covariance -.015 .212 .080
N 133 133 133
b1 Pearson Correlation -.243** .171* 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .005 .049
Sum of Squares and Cross- -20.229 10.525 135.023
products
 Covariance -.153 .080 1.023
N 133 133 133
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Analysis: Using the Karl Pearson’s method, we are doing the correlations and regressions and it can be seen that Average of
Online Mode of transaction with Average value of Offline Mode of transactions is significant. Here, it can be seen that
Banking Services is more affected by the Offline mode transaction rather than Online mode of transactions.

 On1(I feel financially secure while dealing online mode of transaction) is highly correlated with On2 (E payment
systems are better than cash.) as there is significant level of correlation that is 0.616 which is nearer to 1.
 On3 (I feel online transaction helps to reduce cost of operations) is highly correlated with On7(I will recommend
Internet Banking to my friends or relatives when they need the related information.) as there is significant level of
correlation that is 0.491
 On6 (I received prompt responses to my request by e-mail or service line.) is highly correlated with On2(E payment
systems are better than cash.) as there is significant level of correlation that is 0.357
 On7 (I will recommend Internet Banking to my friends or relatives when they need the related information.) is highly
correlated with On2(E payment systems are better than cash.) as there is significant level of correlation that is 0.509
 Off1(I feel people use offline mode of transaction due to lack of awareness of online mode of transaction) is correlated
with On7 (I will recommend Internet Banking to my friends or relatives when they need the related information.) as
there is significant level of correlation that is 0.243
 Off 2(I believe face to face contact instead of an electronic contact.) is highly correlated with On5(Online banking is
complicated to use.) as there is significant level of correlation that is 0.456

Anova
One way
 Descriptive
b1
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
1.500 1 2.00 . . . . 2 2
1.625 1 3.00 . . . . 3 3
2.875 2 3.50 .707 .500 -2.85 9.85 3 4
3.000 2 4.00 1.414 1.000 -8.71 16.71 3 5
3.125 2 2.00 1.414 1.000 -10.71 14.71 1 3
3.250 8 3.63 .744 .263 3.00 4.25 3 5
3.375 10 3.30 1.059 .335 2.54 4.06 1 5
3.500 15 3.13 .915 .236 2.63 3.64 1 5
3.625 21 3.67 .913 .199 3.25 4.08 1 5
3.750 13 3.69 .855 .237 3.18 4.21 3 5
3.875 14 4.00 1.038 .277 3.40 4.60 1 5
4.000 16 3.19 1.109 .277 2.60 3.78 1 5
ANOVA
4.125 11 4.09 .944 .285 3.46 4.73 3 5
4.250
b1 5 3.20 1.483 .663 1.36 5.04 1 5
4.375 8 3.75Sum of Squares.707 df .250 3.16
Mean Square F4.34 Sig. 3 5
4.500
Between Groups 2 4.00 25.732 .000 17 .000 4.00
1.514 4.00
1.593 .077 4 4
4.625 1 2.00 . . . . 2 2
Within Groups 109.291 115 .950
4.875 1 5.00 . . . . 5 5
Total 135.023 132
Total 133 3.54 1.011 .088 3.37 3.71 1 5

Analysis: There is no significant value of online mode transaction as the value is more than 0.005 between the groups.
Because the significant value should be less than 0.005.

Means Plots
One-way

Descriptives
b1
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
2.0 4 3.75 .500 .250 2.95 4.55 3 4
2.5 9 3.67 1.225 .408 2.73 4.61 1 5
ANOVA
3.0 33 3.85 1.004 .175 3.49 4.20 1 5
b1
3.5 40 3.63 .979 .155 3.31 3.94 1 5
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
4.0 36 3.33 .926 .154 3.02 3.65 1 5
Between Groups 11.227 6 1.871 1.904 .085
4.5 7 2.71 1.254 .474 1.55 3.87 1 4
Within Groups 123.796 126 .983
5.0 4 3.00 .816 .408 1.70 4.30 2 4
Total 135.023 132
Total 133 3.54 1.011 .088 3.37 3.71 1 5
Analysis: There is no significant value of offline mode transaction as the value is more than 0.005 between the groups.
Because the significant value should be less than 0.005.

Means Plots

Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .800
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 395.391
df 55
Sig. .000
Analysis: The KMO value is 0.800 which means the sample is adequate because it is closer to 1. The Bartlett’s Test is
significance(p<0.001) and the factor analysis is appropriate.

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 3.878 35.252 35.252 3.878 35.252 35.252 3.246 29.506 29.506
2 1.464 13.306 48.558 1.464 13.306 48.558 1.997 18.159 47.665
3 1.026 9.325 57.884 1.026 9.325 57.884 1.124 10.219 57.884
4 .921 8.372 66.256
5 .764 6.948 73.204
6 .705 6.407 79.611
7 .630 5.729 85.341
8 .490 4.455 89.796
9 .458 4.167 93.962
10 .346 3.150 97.112
11 .318 2.888 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Analysis: The eigenvalues of first three factor is more than 1 that is component 1, component 2, component 3 with values
3.878,1.464,1.026 respectively (i.e.,35.252%,13.306%,9.325%). So, it has large amount of variance where as in rest of the
factors there is small amount of variance.

Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
on 2 .776
on 1 .749
on 7 .709
on 4 .680
on 3 .635 .520
on 8 .557
off 2 -.551 .551
on 6 .525
on 5 .445 -.664
b1 .429 -.556
off 1 .886
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a. 3 components extracted.

Analysis: Before extraction SPSS has identified 11 linear components with 3 components having Eigen values greater than
1 that is 3.878 with variance % of 35.252%, 1.464 with Variance of 13.306% and 1.026 with the variance of 9.325%.
Therefore, it is clear that the first 3 factors explain relatively large amounts of variance.

Analysis: The scree plot at component 2 indicates a point of inflection on the curve. The curve is difficult to interpret
because the curve begins to tail off after 2 factors but there is another drop after 3 factors before a stable plateau is reached.
Since the variables are less than 30 and communalities after extraction are greater than 0.7 then we will retain all factors with
Eigen values above 1(Kaiser’s Criterion).
 The average of communalities will be found out by taking the total of the communalities and then dividing them by the number
of components. =6.377/11 = 0.5797

Correlation Matrixa
b1 on 1 on 2 on 3 on 4 on 5 on 6 on 7 on 8 off 1 off 2
Correlation b1 1.000 .296 .289 .044 .211 .321 .081 .247 .044 -.078 -.383
on 1 .296 1.000 .616 .451 .380 .184 .327 .509 .359 -.139 -.277
on 2 .289 .616 1.000 .465 .495 .239 .357 .461 .348 -.166 -.282
on 3 .044 .451 .465 1.000 .474 -.017 .325 .491 .290 -.196 -.112
on 4 .211 .380 .495 .474 1.000 .270 .286 .350 .297 -.020 -.377
on 5 .321 .184 .239 -.017 .270 1.000 .040 .297 .268 -.053 -.456
on 6 .081 .327 .357 .325 .286 .040 1.000 .320 .297 -.050 -.239
on 7 .247 .509 .461 .491 .350 .297 .320 1.000 .279 -.243 -.225
on 8 .044 .359 .348 .290 .297 .268 .297 .279 1.000 -.157 -.259
off 1 -.078 -.139 -.166 -.196 -.020 -.053 -.050 -.243 -.157 1.000 .128
off 2 -.383 -.277 -.282 -.112 -.377 -.456 -.239 -.225 -.259 .128 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) b1 .000 .000 .307 .007 .000 .177 .002 .308 .185 .000
on 1 .000 .000 .000 .000 .017 .000 .000 .000 .055 .001
on 2 .000 .000 .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .028 .000
on 3 .307 .000 .000 .000 .425 .000 .000 .000 .012 .100
on 4 .007 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .000 .000 .410 .000
on 5 .000 .017 .003 .425 .001 .325 .000 .001 .274 .000
on 6 .177 .000 .000 .000 .000 .325 .000 .000 .285 .003
on 7 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .002 .005
on 8 .308 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000 .001 .035 .001
off 1 .185 .055 .028 .012 .410 .274 .285 .002 .035 .071
off 2 .000 .001 .000 .100 .000 .000 .003 .005 .001 .071
a. Determinant = .045

Analysis: The determinant for the collected data is 0.045 which is greater than the necessary value of 0.00001. So,
multicollinearity is not a problem for this data. None of the acquired correlation coefficient values are greater than 0.9 which
again is proof that there is no singularity in the above data. Therefore, the acquired data and all the questions in the
questionnaire correlate fairly well and none of the correlation coefficients are particularly large which means there is no need
to consider eliminating any factor at this stage.
 Communalities
Initial Extraction
b1 1.000 .502
on 1 1.000 .581
on 2 1.000 .619
on 3 1.000 .674
on 4 1.000 .569
on 5 1.000 .639
on 6 1.000 .425
on 7 1.000 .563
on 8 1.000 .316
off 1 1.000 .870
off 2 1.000 .609
Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis:. In communalities any value less than 0.4 should be discarded.

b1 that is I use banking services on yearly, monthly, weekly, daily basis has a value of 50.2%
on1 I feel financially secure while dealing online mode of transaction has a value of 58.1%
on2 E payment systems are better than cash has a value of 61.9%
on3 I feel online transaction helps to reduce cost of operations has a value of 67.4%
on4 I feel online transaction helps to save time has a value of 56.9%
on5 Online banking is complicated to use has a value of 63.9%
on6 I received prompt responses to my request by e-mail or service line has a value of 42.5%
on7 I will recommend Internet Banking to my friends or relatives when they need the related information has a value of 56.3%
on8 When problems occur, the internet banking system guides me to solve them has a value of 0.316 which is less than 0.4 so
we will be discarding that variable
I feel people use offline mode of transaction due to lack of awareness of online mode of transaction has a value of 87.0%
(off1)
I believe face to face contact instead of an electronic contact has a value of 60.9% (off2).