The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.

com/0265-2323.htm

IJBM 28,5

Mobile banking rollout in emerging markets: evidence from Brazil
Pedro Cruz
ISG Business School, CIGEST/ID þ Research Units, Lisbon, Portugal

342

˜ Lineu Barretto Filgueiras Neto and Pablo Munoz-Gallego
´ ´ Departamento Administracion y Economıa de la Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain, and

Tommi Laukkanen
Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to investigate the perceived obstacles to the adoption of mobile banking services among Brazilian internet users and search for patterns according to socio-demographics variables. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected through an online survey involving the internet banking customers of a major Brazilian bank. A total of 3,585 usable cases were collected from customers who do not use any kind of mobile devices (cell phones, PDAs or Smartphones) to access electronic banking services. The main reasons for rejecting the service were explored using multidimensional scaling, while chi-square tests were used to assess differences between socio-demographic variables. Findings – The results indicate that the majority of respondents do not use any kind of mobile banking service. Perception of cost, risk, low perceived relative advantage and complexity were revealed to be the main reasons behind the reluctance to use the service. The influence of other background factors is less evident. Practical implications – The research has practical implications, as it suggests guidance strategies and presents directions for service enhancement as a key to overcoming the perceived obstacles to m-banking adoption. Originality/value – This is the first empirical research exploring mobile banking resistance factors in Brazil. Keywords Mobile communication systems, Banking, Consumer behaviour, Internet, Marketing strategy, Brazil Paper type Research paper

Introduction Over the past decade, consumers have embraced new digital mobile devices at a remarkable pace. With an internet connection, it is now possible to gain ubiquitous access to personal and business information, stay in touch with social networks and
International Journal of Bank Marketing Vol. 28 No. 5, 2010 pp. 342-371 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0265-2323 DOI 10.1108/02652321011064881

The authors would like to thank the Brazilian bank directives and the University of Salamanca (Spain) for the survey implementation and financial support in travel expenses. This work was supported by National Science and Technology Foundation (FCT, Portugal) and ID þ Research Unit (University of Aveiro/ University of Porto, Portugal).

make life more efficient. The latest mobile devices (cell phones, PDAs, smartphones . . .) not only provide for voice or text messaging, but also allow watching television, accessing the internet, conducting mobile banking and retail transactions, playing multimedia files and using browsing services. The mobile channel is now a multi-faceted interactive network based on various mobile delivery technologies, such as SMS (text messaging), MMS (multimedia messaging), wireless broadband access to the internet (e.g., Wi-Fi, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HSPA and WiMax), Bluetooth or Near Field Communication (NFC). Mobile devices, also called handheld devices, take the form of cell phones, smartphones (including Blackberries and iPhones), PDAs, Pocket PCs, tablet PCs or multimedia readers with wireless (or any other way of connecting to online banking services). Although e-books were not included in the study, they could be classified as a mobile device within the context of studies on mobile services. The classification criterion is based on the devices’ readiness and portability (Kaasinen et al., 2009). Cell phones are rapidly becoming a reasonable alternative to PCs, and the challenge now is to deliver services according to consumers’ perception of value and trust (KPMG International, 2009). This growing convergence has given the consumer a demand power that has applied pressure to the mobile channel for telecommunications and media companies, carriers, content providers, handset manufacturers, as well as to financial service companies. M-services, or mobile services, are the range of services provided and accessed by a mobile device (Shin, 2009). Mobile banking is the evolutionary step to follow internet banking. Mobile banking services, like SMS banking, thin-client applications (downloaded applications) or direct access to online banking (with fewer choices and restricted graphics), provide a full range of banking operations, with the value of immediate accessibility with reduced customer reliance on internet access (wireless or internet providers). Recently, banks have also started offering applications that are accessed through the iPhone App Store, for example, providing a framework for offline use of banking web sites (Banks, 2009). Mobile banking caters for financial transactions using a mobile device (cell phones, PDAs, smartphones . . .), such as viewing account balances, making transfers between accounts, or paying bills. Generally speaking, mobile banking operations can be categorized as mobile accounting, mobile brokerage and mobile financial information services. Most services in the categories designated as accounting and brokerage are transaction-based, such as domestic and international fund transfers, commercial and bill payment processing, cell phone recharging, micro-payment handling or asset management. Mobile financial information services are basically non-transaction-based services of an informational nature. However, these services may be essential for conducting transactions – for instance, a balance check might be in order before ordering a money transfer. Some examples of current non-transaction-based mobile services are as follows: monitoring of recent transactions, alerts on account activity or the passing of set thresholds, access to loan and card statements and the status of checks, among others. If a bank is not directly involved in the instrumental gratification of a service offered, it is usually called a “mobile payment”. Nysveen et al. (2005a) present examples of such services, such as payments through overhead priced SMS (for ring tones, logos, etc.), prepaid account loading (used for cinema tickets, transportation, parking . . .) or a charge made to the subscriber’s account (credit card or invoice-based payment mechanism).

Mobile banking rollout

343

IJBM 28,5

344

Despite the rapid rollout of mobile services over the past decade, mobile transactions, including mobile banking and payments, have not been used as much as expected (Kleijnen et al., 2007). It is clear that mobile use for banking purposes has not reached a level of maturity. KPMG International (2009) conducted a survey on 4,190 consumers with mobile devices (PDAs, cell phones or Blackberries) in 19 countries throughout the world. A slight majority (51 percent) of respondents reported that they were aware of their bank’s services via mobile devices. However, only a minority (19 percent) of consumers worldwide use their mobile device for banking purposes or payments (KPMG International, 2009). This figure is especially low for European countries (5 percent) and Latin America (7 percent). Why is such a simple and popular device still underused for accessing banking services? What are the obstacles that customers face when using such services? What are the bank strategies that can be developed to overcome this reluctance? This study seeks to answer some of the questions posed, specifically in terms of the Brazilian scenario. The rollout of mobile services in less developed markets Industrial competitiveness and sustained economic growth are compromised in markets where information is poor, scarce and inefficiently communicated (Geertz, 1978). The prices of commodities are hard to obtain in remote villages without landline telephone connections, and this stops traders reaching wider markets (Lars-Hendrik and Waverman, 2001). As cell phones have spread, even in the poorest parts of the world, a new economic benefit is becoming apparent: using them to access financial services, not just for telecommunications networks. Mobile services can effectively replace physical transportation or specific transactions. In addition, in continents such as Africa, only 15-20 percent of families have a formal bank account (Comninos et al., 2008). Accordingly, m-banking can act in favor of the “unbanked” poor population. Their inclusion in the formal economy is a real possibility by using mobile services. Transacting with mobile services can also generate a personal record that can act as a basis for assessing creditworthiness and accessing micro-loans or other financial services. Pioneering projects in India, the Philippines or Kenya, focusing on domestic and international remittances, have shown the way (Comninos et al., 2008). On average, four out of ten people in Brazil have no bank account (FEBRABRAN, 2009). This means a very large potential for the development of mobile banking in this country since there are few computers connected to the internet, as opposed to widespread cell phone penetration. According to ANATEL (2009), the Brazilian market has 154 million cell phone users, which means an approximate 80 percent mobile penetration rate. Moreover, according to Schnoor and Monte (2008), the use of 3G services is in the minority in Brazil, given that they were first provided only as recently as 2007, and their expansion is expected to take off over the next eight years. Recent figures note that only 0.80 percent of cell phones are third generation (UMTS or 3G), with the vast majority corresponding to an older technology: in 2009, 89 percent of cell phones are GSM technology-based (ANATEL, 2009). Therefore, and taking into account these technological limitations of the Brazilian market, mostly due its infancy in mobile broadband infrastructures and handset technology, typical of an emerging economy, it is an immediate priority for financial institutions to directly transform non-internet users into m-banking users. Given the specificity of the Brazilian market, one might also consider the possibility of drawing the “unbanked” population into formal transactions based on mobile solutions, as happened in the Philippines with the

Carlsson et al. which represented a value as low as 1.. such as mobile banking. available data show that this positive trend turned negative in 2004-2006. questionable relative advantage.5 percent of total ATM transactions). by 2008 mobile banking figures were residual. more advanced services.“G-Cash” money transfer solution. like Finland. it has become clear that the real usage of financial mobile applications lags way behind the projected scenarios (Walden et al. 2006). have yet to find their way into the everyday lives of consumers (Walden et al. However. when exploring the reasons for rejecting the service it is also vital to understand. relevant conclusions will be drawn from Mobile banking rollout 345 . Alongside.. 2005a).25 (Walden et al. there is evidence of an ambiguous path in mobile services. the precise motives for this. games and news services) are popular in Europe (Mylonopoulos and Doukidis. when compared to other electronic channels: only 1. Even in countries perceived to be technologically advanced markets. independently of mobile device technology. m-payments and books tickets in the future. The revenue value of mobile services in Finland more than doubled between 2003 and 2007 (predicted). and from the perspective of a still immature market. These values forecasted an exponential increase in the mobile service market.3 percent of internet banking transactions (or 0. 2009): a low penetration of m-payment customers in Finland is evidence of how much still needs to be done to bring m-services to a mass audience. Despite certain prognoses claiming a resounding success. Finnish users would be quite willing to use m-banking services. 2007). with the annual growth rate varying between 3 and 25 percent (Snellman. in step with the “natural” increase in the rate of mobile service penetration. music downloads. Our analysis revealed that there is an overall consumer perception that the use of these services is expensive. Additionally. 2006). recent figures on financial services are not so optimistic. however. MMS. The results of a longitudinal study conducted in Finland (2003-2006) reveal that. from January to September 2009 the mobile penetration figures among internet banking users seemed to decrease (to 0. from 150 million euros to over 330 million euros. Operations like checking share prices and m-shopping are services with a degree of acceptance below 0. followed by a presentation of the empirical results. The latter has been successful. The paper proceeds as follow: a literature review is presented on technological innovation. 2007). This study seeks to analyze the reasons underscoring the private customer segment that explain the reluctance to adopt mobile banking operations in a major Brazilian bank. Additionally. The less than optimal growth rate in m-service expansion due to low investment by firms is not exclusive to the Brazilian market. Basic mobile services (SMS. The same pattern was found in a comparative study between China and Finland (Zhong.. 2007). 2003.4 percent of total clients used mobile banking services..8 percent). On the other hand.. According to the bank under study. data collection and analysis methodology will be addressed. with a direct approach. risky and relatively complex to use. in 2003. we find evidence that the adoption of certain customer guidance strategies (showing the benefits and service facilities) could help to overcome some of the perceived obstacles. Finally. Simultaneously. Determinants and attributes of the innovations made will be illustrated. firms’ revenues will be ensured and investments in infrastructures are expected in the medium term. It is therefore crucial to understand the driving forces behind consumers’ intentions to use mobile services and adapt the services to meet their expectations accordingly (Nysveen et al. Nevertheless. briefly describing prior research related to mobile services and relevant results.

The model seems to be too parsimonious. 2005). understandable and even expected to coexist with adoption behavior (mostly in situations in which a change is 346 . trialability and observability). Davis postulated that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are relevant determinants of attitude toward the use and intention to use a personal computer. 1996. as its explained variance is typically around 40 percent (Venkatesh and Davis.. result demonstrability. Literature review The adoption and dissemination of innovation in ICT has been widely studied through holistic models (Lin. Research in the field is far from unanimous concerning the approaches used and conceptualization (Tornatzky and Klein. In mobile service contexts. This approach considers that prior research on innovation adoption and dissemination has a “pro-innovation bias” as it is based on the principle that all innovations are good and should be automatically adopted by all consumers (Rogers. Moore and Benbasat (1991) stated. visibility. like the overall perceived risk (Bauer. Meuter et al. adding perceived risk as a relevant determinant. 1974). 1989). 2000). 2005a). 1991. TAM has been a reference in adoption and behavioral models centered on internet or mobile contexts (Childers et al. by contrast. Moore and Benbasat. A key purpose of the TAM was also to analyze the impact of external factors on internal beliefs. 1998) and some other critics show that TAM is insufficient to explain all kinds of technology. Certain other perspectives. Taylor and Todd. presented comprehensive insights on the adoption process in technological contexts. added relevant perspectives to the literature on diffusion and adoption research (Meuter et al. In spite of these limitations. rather than in everyday life. quantitative structural models such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA). where a cost is involved (usually a connection charge and a service fee). 2001. developed in the 1970s (Fishbein and Ajzen. 1995). 2003... very few studies explicitly (and accurately) present the five characteristics as defined by Rogers’ (2003) perceived innovation characteristics (relative advantage. Gefen et al. Bouwman et al.. 2007).. (2005) developed a model that explained consumer readiness to use self-service technologies (SST) and their constructs were also different from Rogers’ (2003) work. compatibility.. 1972) or perceived characteristics of innovating (Moore and Benbasat. Karjaluoto et al. with fairly general constructs (Doll et al. as relevant perceived characteristics of innovating (PCI) in personal work station adoption..5 the results and both theoretical contributions and recommendations for the financial sector will be provided. Based on the DOI theory. Jacoby and Kaplan. Even when based on Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovation (DOI). which provides an explanation on the determinants of acceptance of technology and behaviors. resource availability should also be incorporated. 1960. TAM is most often used in work-related contexts that do not imply any cost to the user (Nysveen et al. Studies using the TRA. 1991. the technology acceptance model (TAM). Gefen et al. 2009). 1982. trialability and image.. argues that “resistance to change is a normal consumer response”. 2000. 1991). the extended TAM or the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Venkatesh et al. such as the internet (Hoffman and Novak. ease of use.. 2003). complexity. attitudes and intentions (Davis et al.. Gefen and Straub. 2002. relative advantage. 1991).. 2003). 2003).IJBM 28. Ram (1987). as predicted by the perceived control construct from the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen. Another approach has focused directly on the motives underlying the resistance to innovation adoption (Ellen et al. Pedersen and Nysveen. such factors as compatibility. Extensions to the TRA were systematized by Davis (1986) into the TAM. 2003).

According to this perspective. brand. country of origin. 2007) and thus conceptualization has a straightforward approach with some exploratory emphasis. arguing that there is a lack of understanding of the motivations and circumstances that induce consumers to adopt and use mobile devices. which is the positive or negative perception of the product image. Walden et al. In addition. there are several unexplored dimensions related to the understanding of factors influencing mobile service usage.. most studies on the background of mobile services have not used the mobile service studied (mobile banking) and the resistance perspective was not adopted. (2009). the greater a person’s routine. 2005a. 2005. Without clear insight on the value of services for the user. (2005b) posit. our constructs are based on an integration of various theoretical points of view that focus on consumers’ motives for using mobile services. or the difficulty in using new technologies. The value barrier is another functional barrier. Carlsson et al. Table I summarizes some of the studies applied to the internet and mobile banking contexts. the image barrier. m-commerce will be underused. As Nysveen et al. People resist the use of a new product by creating barriers to adoption at both functional and psychological levels. seeking a comprehensive explanation for consumer adoption. thus capturing a wider understanding of consumers’ motivations in the adoption of (or resistance to) mobile banking services. Mobile banking is no exception. Ram and Sheth (1989) conclude that many products simultaneously record a high level of innovation and rate of failure. using the model of Ram and Sheth (1989). Sarker and Wells (2003) and Knutsen (2005) suggest that industry goals and consumer needs are not in step.. Given that this research focuses exclusively on an analysis of the reasons that lead a potential user to avoid the adoption of m-banking services. An integration of various theoretical perspectives may provide a richer understanding of the mobile services phenomenon (Nysveen et al.imposed on the consumer). this barrier is the most common cause of resistance to innovation. may be an obstacle to the adoption of innovations. The studies revealed significant differences between users and non-users according to barrier levels. habits and routines. measured the barriers to the adoption of mobile banking in Finland and Portugal.. According to these authors. taking into account the comparative cost between similar or substitute products. The risk barrier is related to the uncertainty surrounding the secure use of the innovation. (2007) and Cruz et al. Konana and Balasubramanian. One of the psychological barriers involves tradition – consumers fear that innovation will lead to changes in their routine and reduce any control already in place. Mobile banking rollout 347 . (2005) contend that the development of mobile technology and its corresponding adoption are asynchronous. we should single out those factors of greatest significance for our analysis. We should highlight the fact that academic empirical research on mobile services (where mobile banking is included) is relatively new (Merisavo et al. respectively. 2005). 2007). Finally. given its relevance and the scope of the context of applicability. company. Some studies on mobile services highlight the relevance of the specificity of a certain innovation and its corresponding adoption process (Carlsson et al. being defined as the consumer perceptions of a product’s practical benefits. the higher the barrier of tradition. Ram (1987) states that resistance to innovation is a normal consumer response and that marketers have the professional responsibility to understand this process. Internet surveys conducted by Laukkanen et al. which may be economic or simply pleasurable. Accordingly. The first is the usage barrier that is related to a person’s perception about everything that is in conflict with their work.. there are three functional barriers.

Tanzania. Cote d’Ivoire. Research ICT Africa’s 2007/8 (www. China. Ghana. (2004) Laukkanen (2007a) ¨ Kivijarvi et al. France. South Africa. Germany. 2008) Cruz et al. Sinkkonen and Kivijarvi (2007. (2007. South Africa. Namibia. Russia.researchictafrica. b17 sub-Saharan African countries: Benin. 2008) Hernandez and Mazzon (2007) Laukkanen. Botswana. Burkina Faso. Korea and Taiwan Table I. Brazil. India. Rwanda. Hong Kong. (2007) Comninos et al. (2008)a Laukkanen (2007b) Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) ¨ Laukkanen. UK. (2009) Crabbe et al. Turkey. Research on electronic banking services (internet and mobile banking) Data collection procedure In-depth interviews and mailed questionnaire Face-to-face questionnaire Survey by postal mail Qualitative in-depth interview Internet survey (Finnish and Portuguese bank web sites) Questionnaire applied to bank customers (face-toface) Postal survey Semi structured in-depth interview technique Web survey on mobile banking users Face-to-face questionnaire Internet survey (Finnish bank web site) Internet survey (Portuguese bank web site) Face-to-face questionnaire Web survey and face-to-face questionnaire Authors Karjaluoto et al. Saudi Arabia. 2009) Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005) Laukkanen (2007a) Lee et al.5 E-distribution channel Countries Finland Singapore Finland Finland Finland and Portugal Brazil Finland Finland South Korea 17 countriesb Finland Portugal Ghana 19 countriesc Internet banking Mobile banking Notes: aLongitudinal studies without theoretical background. Nigeria. Spain. USA. e-Access & Usage Household Survey. (2002a. Kenya. Cameroon. Senegal. Sinkkonen and Laukkanen (2008. Mozambique. The Netherlands. (2009) KPMG International (2009)a . Uganda and Zambia.348 IJBM 28. cCanada. Mexico. Italy. b) Gerrard and Cunningham (2003) Pikkarainen et al. Ethiopia.net).

(ns) relationship not significant between behavior/intention (use/adopt) and the attribute. Laforet and Xyaoyan (2005) (2). (2003) (2 ). Pikkarainen et al. Carter and Belanger (2004) (ns). (2010) (þ ) Lee et al. Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005). (2005) (2). The original relationship sign was maintained. (2) negative relationship between behavior/intention (use/adopt) and the attribute. (1989) (þ ). Pikkarainen et al. Mattila et al. (2003) (2 ) Davis (1986). Good or bad communication can be reflected in the success or failure of the innovation diffusion process. Laforet and Xyaoyan (2005)(þ). Information is crucial in any innovation diffusion process. (2003) Lee et al. (2008) (þ). Lee et al.Measurement conceptualization (number of items and selected measurement scale) was simplified mainly due to three constraints: the mobile banking context (items adapted to a resistance-to-innovation context). Gerrard and Cunningham (2003) (ns). Wan et al. Davis (1989) (þ ).. 2003). It is related to the way information on innovation is disseminated through certain channels of communication for social system members (Rogers. Cruz et al. the resistance factor is classified into the following dimensions (see Table II and also Table III for the ensuing items measured): . (2009) (2 ) Mobile banking rollout 349 Lack of relative advantage Cost Perceived risk Unsuitable device Notes: (+) Positive relationship between behavior/intention (use/adopt) and the attribute. (2004) (þ ). Lee et al. Black et al. Resistance approach used in this work should be kept in mind when interpreting relations presented in the table (similar to innovation reversed scales) Table II. (2005) (þ ). Laukkanen (2007a). Putrevu (2001). ¨ Pikkarainen et al. Lee et al. Cruz et al. A literature review on innovation adoption attributes . (2003). (2001). Rogers (2003). Davis et al. (2005) (þ). (2005) (þ ). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) (þ). Brown et al. Davis (1989) (þ ). Considering the recent literature described earlier. Venkatesh and Davis (2000) (þ ). Meuter et al. when no sign is indicated it means the work is exclusively theoretical. (2005) (2 ). the country context (items adapted and simplified to a mobile early-stage scenario) and operative reasons. (1984)) and simultaneously provide more objective results on resistance motives that could be immediately incorporated into marketing decisions made by the bank. Rogers (2003). Rogers (2003) Davis et al. The last of these would both maximize the understanding of questions (reducing “cognitive bias” in line with Robertson et al. (2004) (2 ). Kivijarvi et al. (2004) (þ) Luarn and Lin (2005)(2). Meuter et al. (2003) (2). (2003) (2 ). The use of this kind of instrument (dichotomy measurement) provides direct insights similar to those obtained through a critical incident approach (Meuter et al. which is also valid in the internet banking context (Jun and Barriers/attributes Lack of information Lack of observability Complexity Authors and results Moore and Benbasat (1991). 2000). Hernandez and Mazzon (2006) (2 ). Wan et al. (2007). Meuter et al. (1989) (þ ). and taking into account that the questions involved solely non-users of m-banking services. Ho and Victor (1994) (þ ).

2005. 2000. it can be.. 2006.2 Q5c – The service does not provide me with any significany benefit regarding my frequent operations 805 22. 1989. 2004.000 574 16. Agarwal and Karahanna.186 33. 1986.IJBM 28.331 0.. documentation and user training support . during the initial phase of the innovation process (“knowledge” or “awareness” phase).6 – – Perceived risk Unsuitable device Complexity Lack of information (LI) Q5a – I didn’t know about m-banking Q5m – Lack of information about banking services using a mobile device Table III.4 387 10. * 350 Lack of relative advantage (LRA) Q5d – The mobile internet service is expensive 2. 1991). information and utility depiction play a crucial role in reducing consumer resistance. 1991. 2010). PEOU is one of the characteristics of innovation adoption most widely used in ICT contexts (Davis.5 622 17. 2004. Cai.2 0. Nysveen et al. Moore and Benbasat.480 0.713 0.178 0.5 Attributes Cost Reasons for not using m-banking services Frequency n % Phi (w) correlation r Sig. Moore and Benbasat (1991) included information-related concepts (labeled as “Communicability”) in the “Result Demonstrability” factor.000 230 6. 2000).. in theory. Alternatively. According to Roger’s (2003) DOI theory.1 0. meaningful icons.4 0. Moore and Benbasat. Hernandez and Mazzon.8 0. 2001. 2005b.335 0. 1989.1 Q5i – I do not trust the functionality of banking services using a mobile device Q5j – I am not convinced by the security of mobile banking Q5g – My cell phone/mobile device is inappropriate for banking operations Q5h – The cost of purchasing a mobile device suitable for these operations is too high Q5b – Its use is complicated Q5f – It requires knowledge and learning 474 13..05 level . Lack of Information was defined as the appropriate taxonomy as the study was focused on resistance to innovation. In a mobile services context. Pikkarainen et al. Venkatesh and Davis. Cruz et al.. Wan et al.012 56.000 951 26. determined by external variables such as intuitive menus. PEOU corresponds to the perception that the user has about the effort required for the use of new equipment or systems (Davis. Reasons for not using mobile banking services Lack of observability (LO) Q5k – Peer experience (not used or advice) Note: *The significance correlation was evaluated at 0. Davis et al.000 Q5e – The bank’s mobile service has high fees 976 27.000 Q5l – I prefer to do my transactions by other means/ways of access 1.0 94 2.3 0. Carter and Belanger.000 575 16. 1986.0 393 11.370 0.0 0. This construct was measured using two items (see Table III). user-friendly touch screens.

Venkatesh and Davis. Cost has been identified as a crucial factor in the adoption of mobile services (Carlsson et al. 2007a). for accessing the service (mobile operator charge) and a fee for a given operation (bank charge). Davis. Nysveen et al. where there are usually no costs for the user (Nysveen et al. 2009) and mobile banking services (Laukkanen et al. 2005a).. Laukkanen. 2006. 2003) or “usage barrier” (Ram and Sheth. 1991). as described in the work by Gerrard and Cunningham (2003). .. Rogers (2003) named its opposite attribute as complexity. 1989). When someone believes that the use of a service (such as mobile banking) could result in personal advantages. 2001). Given that this study focuses on the obstacles to mobile banking adoption. 2008.. 2005. 2005a.. and given that we are addressing barriers to service adoption. Unsuitable device is the perception customers have that their devices are not suitable for accessing banking services. Pikkarainen et al. Some research refers to this dimension as “perceived difficulty” (Mattila et al. Alongside PEOU. The perceived service cost (both mobile operator and bank fees) will be evaluated according to Luarn and Lin (2005) taxonomy (perceived financial cost) and will also be based on two questions (see also Table III). Innovations are typically developed with certain purposes in mind. Results show that those respondents with a “basic” cell phone (GSM or GPRS) have a significantly higher level of overall resistance Mobile banking rollout 351 . Taylor and Todd. 1993.... Venkatesh. Cruz et al. 2000. 2004. such as networks with full multimedia functions. The small size of the devices (screens and keypads) might inhibit the progress of the mobile banking service (Laukkanen and Lauronen. the complexity taxonomy will be applied to this dimension. 2006. 1989. Davis’ (1989) “perceived usefulness” is in relative terms. being the degree to which innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use. 1989). 2008).. (2009) studied resistance among internet banking customers. 2005a). and they must be perceived to fulfill their intended purposes better than their precursors if they are to be adopted (Moore and Benbasat. 2007. Sinkkonen and Laukkanen. Moore and Benbasat (1991) noted that the attribute of perceived cost has a major impact on buying behavior. the construct will be called Lack of relative advantage and measured with two items. Hernandez and Mazzon. in the mobile banking context there is usually a charge for services. perceived usefulness is a frequent construct in the adoption and usage of ICT. KPMG International (2009) conducted an extensive study in 19 countries and the majority of respondents (59 percent) highlighted cost as a main barrier for mobile banking adoption. 1995. 1999) and refers to the user’s perception that the use of new equipment or systems will increase work efficiency and productivity (Davis. Sinkkonen and Kivijarvi. Nysveen et al. ¨ Laukkanen.. Contrary to MAT conceptualizations. Our approach follows the later point of view. (2003) 3G (UMTS) or more advanced technologies offer customers greater value-added services at a higher speed. which could lead to higher adoption. . (Laukkanen et al. Originally. 2007). 2000). then its use will be encouraged (Black et al. and thus Moore and Benbasat (1991) and Gerrard and Cunningham (2003) employed the expression “Relative Advantage” to name this dimension. Several works have applied the later term to internet banking (Laukkanen.. Moore and Benbasat (1991) and Tornatzky and Klein (1982) argue that this construct has not been well explained or measured. This construct is commonly associated with extrinsic rewards (Igbaria. For Lee et al. especially in TAM models (Agarwal and Karahanna.

Roselius. 1974). 1999). 1998).. 1999). financial risk and time-loss risk (for a comprehensive review on risk conceptualizations. Meuter et al. We therefore expect some performance risk to be reflected in question Q5i (see Table III) as well as some financial risk (due to a possible safety or security breach) reflected in question Q5j. and after feedback from bank executives. two items were used. This attribute has not been extensively used but. situational normality (related to the belief that everything is provided in proper order . the background to mobile banking resistance has not been widely explored. when compared to more “advanced” mobile devices (3G cell phones. There is evidence of a positive relationship between the ability to communicate with others and the chances that it will be tried (Labay and Kinnear. . 2003). Perceived performance (specific transaction not executed with success) and financial risks are seemingly the greatest concerns about electronic payments (KPMG International. 2009). PDAs or Smartphones). confidentiality. see Mitchell. the higher the opposition to the adoption of the service will be. 1994) and provided some insights on perceived risk dimensions in a banking context. In order to obtain an operative and intuitive instrument for the bank. The uncertainty in this context (we are dealing with non-users of mobile banking services) arises from a predictive validity of the attributes (functionality and security. but kept the measured concept. The latter is ample enough to capture any apprehension regarding privacy. that is. 1972. . Based on a risk-component approach (Jacoby and Kaplan. how well they will predict future performance (Cox. performance risk. Accordingly.IJBM 28. 1971). Mitchell. the higher the risk perceived (Mitchell. this attribute is related to the compatibility of a client’s mobile device with the services provided by the bank and the perceived cost of that device. 1999). when describing perceived security. the decision was taken to concentrate solely on performance and financial risks. inspired by the Balasubramanian et al. 2005). Lack of observability involves the absence of an innovation’s degree of visibility to a certain social system (Rogers. the greater the expected probability of loss... In this research. as mentioned earlier. 1967. This means that peer opinion can influence a person’s decision to approve or reject an innovation. The higher the perception of the device’s inadequacy. According to the authors. 2001). (2003) study on online brokers. psychological risk. information disclosure or other security issue (legal or technological). and thus the lower the motivation to adopt an innovation (Meuter et al..functional component) and structural assurance (norms and integrity) should be assessed (McKnight et al. the greater the likelihood of adoption (Black et al. for example). 1981. Moore and Benbasat (1991) labeled the “Observability” concept as “Visibility”.5 352 . The more observed the innovation is in the community (concerning its use and benefits). Risk is a subjective-determined expectation of loss. 2003) or “uncertainty that the use of the innovation is secure”. 2005). such as physical risk. Perceived risk is defined as the “uncertainty about the outcome of the use of the innovation” (Gerrard and Cunningham. acting in a similar way to subjective norms in TRA (Fishbein and Ajzen. some research has focused on perceived risk in electronic payment methods (Ho and Victor.

. 2000). to a larger extent. 1992. According to Howcroft et al. Concerning age.. 2010). 2005b). among the female population. the findings state that older consumers have problems when adopting new technology (Harrison and Rainer. lack of relative advantage will be greater. Research has revealed that instrumental characteristics. we also consider the extent to which these factors differ depending on individual socio-demographic variables. 1981. especially regarding non-users. Gender was also stated as a relevant variable to describe motivations. age. Thus. 2008). 1987. Several studies indicate that the people who adopt new technologies generally tend to be male. proportionally. 2005b). monthly household income and education level. Labay and Kinnear. Dickerson and Gentry. perceived risk. 1992). behavior and market segmentation (Putrevu. 2002. elderly and wealthy people seem to avoid electronic channels in their service requirements. 2010. 2005a. 1999. Men appear more task-oriented than women (Gentile et al.Our goal. 1989. 2009. Davis et al. It is important to consider these differences. Karjaluoto et al. it seems plausible to argue for a stronger proportion of perceived usefulness of mobile services among men than among women (Nysveen et al. As stated before. is to verify whether these attributes influence the non-use of m-banking services. Venkatraman.. Nysveen et al. as they belong to the late majority or laggards in terms of adoption rates of new technology-based services (Gilly and Zeithaml.. According to Mattila et al. Garbarino and Strahilevitz (2004) argue that women perceive more risk in online purchases when compared to men. 2007. The same pattern was found by Laukkanen et al. describe men better than women (Davis et al... Following this reasoning. 2002b.. 1991). but also as guidelines for corporate market strategies. risk perceptions and Mobile banking rollout 353 . therefore.. The considered variables are: gender. b. Electronic banking services are typically motivated by goal achievement or rewards (Venkatesh. 1985. namely. and therefore. Cruz et al. Accordingly.. Meuter et al.. currently the larger consumer group in Brazil.. Cruz et al. 2001). (2007): mature internet banking customers revealed significantly higher concerns than younger ones regarding mobile banking attributes. Venkatesh and Morris (2000) found support for their arguments that women registered lower levels of self-efficacy and higher anxiety than men when dealing with electronic innovations. lack of relative advantage is assumed to be related to some extent to the opposite of perceived usefulness. Additionally.. thereby supporting the idea that older and high income people will find a lack in relative advantage in electronic services such as m-banking. Oumlil and Williams. Laukkanen and Pasanen. more educated and have a higher income than those who do not (Darian. Cruz et al. Laukkanen et al. 2010). possess more extrinsic and instrumental motives then women (Cruz et al. the most relevant to financial institutions. Sim and Koi. as specified in extrinsic or goal-directed behavior. Nysveen et al. (2003) mature internet banking customers present a significantly higher perceived difficulty in using computers and a higher level of perceived insecurity when compared with general bank customers. Hypotheses The impact of demographics on adoption behavior has been a subject of interest within the context of electronic services (Harrison and Rainer. 2010.. 2005. (2002). 2007) and. 1983. given that these variables are used not only in market segmentation. Cruz et al. 1989. complexity in mobile handling and sundry device issues (battery life or PIN codes). younger.

studying user behavior in an internet banking context. In line with previous research.IJBM 28.. assuming the same internet and service fees for all users. First. 2000. 2004) found social norms had a higher impact on behavioral intention for women than for men. In line with previous findings. 2005). Summary of hypotheses Age a a Income a a Education a a H2a (þ) H2b (þ ) a a H3a (2) H3b (2) H3c (2) a H4a (2) H4b (2 ) H4c (2) a H1e (þ F) H2c (þ) H3d (2 ) H4d (2) Note: a No theoretical support (independent tests and results will be merely exploratory for these relations) . namely.. Research methodology and sample description The research is based on several theoretical perspectives. theory of resistance to innovation and literature on banking technologies. Higher education may lead to a greater understanding and ability regarding self-service technologies (Meuter et al. the following hypotheses are formulated and systematized in Table IV. Household income and education were found to have a significant effect on the adoption of the internet as a banking channel (Karjaluoto et al. Cruz et al. Putrevu (2001) made a thorough description of gender differences in the information process and judgment. Female users are believed to be particularly influenced by peer opinion when it comes to mobile services (Towsend.. Mattila et al. perceived complexity. perceived relative advantage unsuitable device and cost. The questionnaire was posted on the web site of a large Brazilian bank. 2005b). found that women search for more information while men contract more. 2003). Higher income could also increase the opportunities for accessing updated devices (mobile devices in our case) and provide time-saving motivations. No problems related to internet-based surveys were applicable to the sample procedure.. to use electronic services (Meuter et al. Recent papers focusing on technology usage in the workplace (Venkatesh and Morris. This leads us to hypothesize that women will evaluate available information more intensively and thus have a proportionally higher lack of information barrier when compared to men (see Table IV).5 354 complexity are expected to occur with a significantly higher proportion among females (see Table IV for a summary of hypotheses). 2002b. among others. 2000. between September and October 2008. Nysveen et al. no repeat Gender (M – male. Skog. namely TAM. Respondents using less than 300 seconds to complete the survey were discarded from the data set. education levels and household income are expected to influence the proportion (percentage) of selected barriers. 2005) and thus to lower complexity perceptions. 2000. particularly mobile banking. 2002.. Venkatesh et al. F – female) H1a (þ F) H1b (þ F) H1c (þF) H1d (þ F) a a Barriers/demographics Lack of information Lack of observability Complexity Lack of relative advantage Cost Perceived risk Unsuitable device Table IV.. (2010). The hypotheses should be interpreted on an independent test approach (x 2 tests) as we are dealing with proportions (due to the dichotomized approach of measures). This last one has an implicit and logical argument that. the perceived cost will be lower for those with higher levels of income.

However.7 percent) have a household monthly income above R$2.3 17.000. Participants in our study reveal a high level of education.99 16.2 percent).99 4.693 1.5 47.4 0.585 607 1.018 3. Cruz et al. with the majority holding a university degree (47. 2009).529 1. 2008). 2010.585 % 70. given that a unique code was assigned to each respondent and multiple answers were not accepted. 2002b. the majority of respondents (46. Several studies (Howcroft et al.2 28.584 13 622 1251 728 629 269 72 3. Alongside.000. 2001.00 and over Total (valid) n 2.4 16.00-15.000.00 2. The same pattern was found for Japan (Flinders. 2008) have confirmed that a typical internet banking user is a relatively young male with a high level of education. The questionnaire included exclusively private customers and the questions presented in the study were addressed only to non-users of m-banking.5 8.5 7. 2002.5 Mobile banking rollout 355 Age Educational level Household monthly income (R$) Table V.999..2 percent of the respondents are within the 26-45 age range). Sample demographics .8 22. From the set of participants. Polatoglu and Ekin.00-9..0 1.00-5.99 6.6 29.4 34.999.2 18. 2005) and Portugal (Cruz et al..9 20.8 7.4 17.000 (see Table V).9 29. Accordingly.055 3.585 respondents replied that they did not use any kind of mobile banking service..6 percent) and relatively young (55. China (Laforet and Xyaoyan.questionnaires were allowed. The sample (non-users) is largely male dominated (70. exploring the reasons for the rejection of these services. we can say that the distribution of gender and age is consistent with the relevant sampling frame for the survey.000. in this research we will focus solely on non-users of m-banking services.8 4. Laukkanen and Pasanen.999.00-3. This value is Variables Gender Category Male Female Total (valid) Less than 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 Above 65 Total (valid) Primary level Secondary level Technical level University level Postgraduate level Total (valid) Less than 2. Laukkanen and Pasanen (2008) argue that Finnish mobile banking users are more likely to be middle-aged (30-49 years old). Karjaluoto et al.99 10. 3.5 2.069 796 673 279 161 3.999. The survey was made available to internet banking customers at the moment of logout.000.000. thereby avoiding the problems of random “walk-ins” (respondents outside the population of interest).4 14.584 50 519 305 1.

The perceived risk attribute accounted for the highest correlation between variables (w ¼ 0:71). and the response frequencies for each one are also reported (Table VI).162 in 2008 (Painel de ˆ Tenencias. MDS calculates the Euclidian distance between variables. As mentioned before. in line with previous statements by Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005). Given that we are working with non-metric binary variables.2 percent).5 356 considerably higher than the national Brazilian average (R$1.. We grouped the non-user factors according to the innovation attributes listed in Table III.5 percent) of rejection motives pointing to these attributes as barriers to the service adoption. we used the chi-square test. (2000) study).. 2008.3 percent) of replies singled out at least one of these motives as a possible obstacle to service adoption. . with a higher education and income level than the general population (Laukkanen and Pasanen. Karjaluoto et al. we accounted for a possible similarity (or dissimilarity) through a (MDS non-metric analysis (PROXSCAL method with PASW software). Lack of relative advantages aggregates the items “no significant benefit compared to my operations” (22. .8 percent) and “lack of information” (16 percent).IJBM 28. a common procedure considering the nature of variables (in line with the Meuter et al. Around 83 percent of rejection motives were related to service costs (at least one): “expensive internet access” (56. 1996.1 percent) and “bank service fees” (27. . 2003). and about 40 percent of responses concern “functionality confidence” (13.5 percent). By default.4 percent). predominantly male. Meuter et al. 2008). The correlations between variables within each attribute (factor) were obtained through the phi (w) coefficient. the Russell and Rao similarity algorithm was used (Lesot et al. These are among the main reasons for rejecting m-banking services. with more than half (55. as shown in Table VI: .4 percent) for the two variables: “its use is complicated” (11 percent) and “requires knowledge and learning” (6. Given that the variables explored are dichotomous. We verify that an internet consumer is younger. Around one-third (33. The correlation between items is positive and significant (w ¼ 0:33).. Complexity barrier registered an accumulated frequency of responses relatively low (17. These two items registered a high and significant correlation (w ¼ 0:48). we therefore explored the main reasons for service rejection among non-users of mobile banking services. 2002b. . .1 percent). 2009)). 2000). to assess which factors are related to socio-demographic variables.2 percent) or “service security” (26. Lack of information accounted for a low but significant correlation (w ¼ 0:18) between the variables “didn’t know of its existence” (10..4 percent) and “prefer other ways of access” (33. The cost barrier accounted for the highest accumulated percentage. Results The main reasons for mobile banking service rejection were explored through dichotomous questions (Table VI). Finally. commonly used when both variables are dichotomous (Glenberg.3 percent) and “cost of a suitable device” (16 percent) with w ¼ 0:37 correlation. The “unsuitable device” attribute is related to the questions “inappropriate” (17. The correlation between the items was positive and significant (w ¼ 0:34). Cohen et al. .

597 0. benefit regarding my frequent operations Q5l – I prefer to do my transactions by other means/ ways of access 805 1.089 0.044 0.2 0.002 0.5 0.0 6.953 0.003 0.971 0.085 0.000 0.186 474 951 622 574 393 230 387 575 94 16.2 0.144 0.540 13.4 0.028 0. Q5a – I didn’t know about m-banking Q5m – Lack of information about banking services using a mobile device Q5k – Peer experience (not used or advice) 0.080 0.000 0.014 0.000 0.115 0.8 16.000 0.397 0.000 0.224 0.400 33.1 27.054 0.000 0.992 0. *) Income 0.594 0.0 2.012 976 56.195 0.000 0.052 0.449 0.000 Q5i – I do not trust the functionality of banking services using a mobile device Q5j – I am not convinced by the security of mobile banking Q5g – My cell phone/mobile device is inappropriate for banking operations Q5h – The cost of purchasing a mobile device suitable for these operations is too high Q5b – Its use is complicated Q5f – It requires knowledge and learning.232 0.Attributes Q5d – The mobile internet service is expensive Q5e – The bank’s mobile service has high fees Q5c – The service does not provide me with any sig.000 0.709 0. Innovation resistance factors by socio-demographic variables .315 0.000 0.020 0.056 Education Cost Lack of relative advantage (LRA) Perceived risk Unsuitable device Complexity Lack of information Lack of observability Note: *The significance in the independence test was evaluated at 0.0 11.05 level Mobile banking rollout 357 Table VI.048 Main reasons for not using mobile banking services Frequency n % Gender Age x 2 (sig.859 0.001 0.000 0.217 22.856 0.091 0.6 17.157 0.370 2.4 10.1 0.013 0.052 0.081 0.3 26.005 0.000 0.

However. Attr2 (risk and LRA). Non-significant results were obtained across socio-demographic variables (Table VI). but also the less correlated.IJBM 28.090.5 . Similarity matrix between variables Normalized raw stress Stress-I Stress-II S-stress Dispersion accounted for (DAF) Tucker’s coefficient of congruence Table VII. PROXSCAL minimizes normalized raw stress . from where we obtain the following “spatial aggregation”: Attr1 (cost).. Attr3 (unsuitable device). where its two variables are not only the most remote variables. The results are shown in Figure 1.992249 Notes: aOptimal scaling factor ¼ 1.6 percent).015442 0.022293b 0. Figure 1 presents a two-dimensional map of variable affinity.887. Stress and fit measures 0. Table VII presents the raw stress and s-stress values. 1998). The lack of observability attribute was identified as “peer experience” and accounted for a marginal frequency (2.984558 0.237991a 0. the highest distance between variables was found in Attr5 (lack of information). Attr4 (complexity) and Attr5 (lack of information). boptimal scaling factor ¼ 0. 358 MDS technique helps to identify meaningful underlying dimensions by grouping them. the best resulting solution for these measures is obtained when both are Figure 1.124266a 0. As suggested by Uriel and ´ Aldas (2005). The two variables in complexity (Attr4) were very close to each other but far away from the other attributes. even with dichotomous variables (Hair et al.

related to the “perception of the cost of internet access and service fees”. lack of observability and complexity). a 0. Cost. and due to the fact that.near to zero.028 0. we can consider cost.4 30. has a significantly higher male proportion. As the category “under 18” has only 21 respondents. The results are summarized in Table VI. Table VIII presents the significant results (from chi-square test) from the cross-tabulation between gender (male/female) and resistance factors. meaning that men are more concerned about this attribute than women.Risk Total by category Variables Q5d Q5e Q5c Q5 l Q5j Female (%) 51.000 0.6 Mobile banking rollout 359 x 2 (sig. we found a 0. the lack of observability factor should be considered an isolated variable. The following steps will be made focusing on the significant relations obtained from Table VI.1 38. In this context. The variables in the factors (attributes) LRA and risk were well-correlated. indicating that our representation was well fitted to the answers given (see Table VII). accounting for the lowest frequency. we concluded that there was no statistical validity to be included.8 24.4 20.4 Male (%) 58. corroborating H1e.025 raw stress value is considered an excellent fit.2 28. As noted before (Table V). 73 percent of the respondents are aged under 45 and 90 percent are under 55. The lack of information factor had a weaker correlation between variables and a greater distance with other factors’ variables. we used the chi-square test for each variable. Table IX contains the significant variables (chi-square test) of cost.7 31. In our case. it is located as the most distant factor (more severe dissimilarity with other factors). Gender Attributes Cost LRA P.015 raw stress value.6 percent). Only relevant variables are analyzed in detail in order to explore the reasons for significant differences between category proportions. as no hypothesis was drawn.000 0. LRA.2 29. only significant relations from Table VI will be explored. Moreover. risk and complexity across age categories. crossing the rows (factors or attributes) with columns (socio-demographic variables). taking into consideration the results of the MDS and correlations. *) 0. Women find m-banking services not attractive when compared to alternative channels (taking Q5c and Q5 l accumulated responses). also presenting low-frequency responses. This result is exploratory-oriented. On the other hand. accordingly to H1d.000 Table VIII. spatially. The perceived risk perception is relatively higher for women.6 70.05 level . which led us to reject H1a. Gender seems to follow an independent distribution regarding other rejection motives (lack of information.013 0. *the significance in the independence test was evaluated at 0.0 24. the majority of respondents are male (70. unsuitable device and complexity as reliable and relevant factors. H1b and H1c. Innovation resistance factors by genders Notes: as mentioned before. we decided to group them in Attr2 (see Figure 1). Therefore. In order to explore for a possible relation between m-banking service usage and socio-demographic variables.4 23.

This “barrier” decreases significantly as age increases (see also Figure 2). Cost perception by age categories .9 11.1 7.6 18.4 Age 46-55 (%) 46.000 0.6 14. thus corroborating H2c.9 45. The perception that the use of m-banking is complicated and requires a specific learning process increases up to the age of 55 and then tends to stabilize. This relation was not supported previously by theory.7 35. in line with H2b (see Figure 3).9 16.05 level The perception of “high costs” involved in m-banking services carried the heaviest weight among the youngest respondents.3 20.3 11.2 33.6 30.000 0.7 29. older people perceived m-banking as more difficult to use.2 3.9 37.IJBM 28. The perception that the service is expensive (Q5e and Q5d) drops significantly as income increases (in line with H3c).7 38.8 18.1 24.5 13. *) 0.9 17. the youngest perceived it as less complicated to use (see also Figure 4).3 32.000 0.000 360 LRA P.3 19. Innovation resistance factors by age categories Total by category Note: *The significance in the independence test was evaluated at 0. The perceived lack of relative advantage obstacle (Q5c and Q5l) remains stable until the age of 35 and then increases significantly. as predicted by H2a.5 Attributes Cost Variables Q5d Q5e Q5c Q5 l Q5j Q5b Q5f 18-25 (%) 66.7 32.5 Above 65 (%) 31.0 36-45 (%) 57.9 7.7 12. risk Complexity Table IX.6 56-65 (%) 39.5 30.1 6.000 0.0 x 2 (sig.1 40. is in opposition to what was predicted by H3b.3 28.1 25.1 17.4 10. The responses related to the lack of safety (Q5j) are especially high among respondents older than 45 (except for the group of users over 65 years).8 38. in general.4 26-35 (%) 59. LRA relation with income. although significant.8 22.3 23.3 21.003 0. We conclude that.000 0. On the other hand. while both perceived LRA and lack of safety (Q5c and Q5j) increase with household monthly income level.2 12. Figure 2. thus being an exploratory result.8 22.0 32. In Table X we can appreciate significant differences between perception and income level frequencies.2 3.9 2.9 11.1 20.

and thus most likely representing the internet banking population.05 level). This result confirms H3d.Mobile banking rollout 361 Figure 3. 2008) and this study provides some insight in one of the biggest banks in South America. Relations between the education level and LRA or cost were not significant (at 0. at least. More than 75 percent of the respondents have. the perceived complexity is significantly higher for respondents with only primary schooling (Figure 5). in Brazil. Q5 l) and risk (Q5j) perceptions across age categories Figure 4. Table XI presents the significant variables for the attributes cost and complexity perception crossed by educational level. Demographics can play a significant role in earlier and later adopters (Laukkanen and Pasanen. a university degree (Table V) and the cost barrier due to high fees (internet access and bank fees) registers a higher frequency percentage as the respondents’ level of education increases (not supporting H4c). Among the reasons . in line with H4a. Perceived complexity by age categories The barrier due to unsuitable device (Q5g and Q5h) decreases significantly when household monthly income increases. which does not support H3a. at least. The opposite relation (positive) between income and the perception that “the use is complicated” (Q5b) is registered. Lack of relative advantage (Q5c. On the other hand. Discussion Results and managerial recommendations Our results emphasize several implications for marketing managers with regard to development of mobile banking services.

000 0.5 Attributes Cost LRA P.7 16.9 26.048 0.4 18.6 25.6 5.4 31.000-3.9 26.2 54.0 23. 2.001 0.3 10.000-9.8 .0 23.6 8.020 0.4 19.9 59.6 32.6 24.9 13.7 25.3 25.2 13.9 27.8 13.6 29.3 7.05 level.6 14.3 27.000 2.3 32.362 IJBM 28.000-15.7 9.000-5. risk Unsuitable device Complexity Total by category Notes: *The significance in the independence test was evaluated at 0.8 55.002 0.7 22.005 .2 10.5 x 2 (sig. 100 reais ¼ 40e ¼ $57 (approximate values according to average exchange rate in February 2010) Table X.6 15.000 0.999 10.4 17.999 56.000 41.4 18.0 22.9 17.999 Household monthly income (R$) 4. Resistance attributes by income levels Variables Q5d Q5e Q5c Q5j Q5g Q5h Q5b 57.4 29.999 6.2 12.) 0.4 24.3 19.1 15.8 $ 16.1 15.3 21.5 4.2 18.

0 22. this barrier affects mainly older people.0 10. complexity.) Q5d Q5e Q5b 38.4 0.7 11. The second explanation for not using the service was the low perception of relative advantages in comparison with personal contact in the branch and..5 57.6 14.2 10.7 23. with high incomes and lower education. we observe that the older a person is.044 Mobile banking rollout 363 Table XI.9 47. with a low income and high education level. have proven to be lower perceived obstacles.000 0. However. the lower the perception of cost as a problem (probably because older people have better jobs and higher income profiles than younger ones).4 51. Resistance barriers by education level Note: *Significant independence was evaluated at 0.2 9.05 level Figure 5. Regarding the perception that the service is too complex to use. 2006). the bank in question does not charge a fee for the use of its services.5 57. By contrast.9 28.Attributes Cost Complexity Total by category Educational level (frequency) Primary Secondary Technical University Postgraduate level level level level level Variables (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) x 2 (sig. finally. If we concentrate specifically on customer age. . cost was the most frequent factor.5 8. Effective communication strategies should give priority to this issue. however the highest the levels of lack of relative advantage and complexity of use. young. Perceived complexity by education level given by online banking customers for avoiding the use of m-banking.4 29. The perception of low value (relative advantage) was more significant for older and higher income people.0 12.7 29.0 1.6 20.2 56. The reason for non-use because of the perception of perceived risk had a higher influence among women between the ages of 35 and 55 and in the relatively high income bracket. Customers concerned with the cost are typically male. information about the service or peer’s opinion. as expected.014 0. which is in line with other studies about European countries (Carlsson et al. the perceived risk from its use. It is therefore a key variable (age) for segmenting and designing a different communication strategy. only mobile operators do.

There are several unexplored dimensions related to the understanding of factors influencing mobile service usage (Nysveen et al. 2005b) and this research is based on an integration of various theoretical models and perspectives (TAM. This finding is significant given that it implies that the cost of accessing the service is not a problem of knowledge or understanding (as it does not decrease with training or education) and this barrier can be modified only through objective proposals.IJBM 28. the cost barrier is not exclusively applied to low income classes. Currently. 2007). M-banking also provides new possibilities for offering banking services to customers who do not have regular access to the internet. The use of m-banking is in its infancy in Brazil. Finally. A more marketing oriented view would examine the motives why an innovation is not adopted by certain consumers (Laukkanen et al. if we look at the education level of the customers surveyed in the analysis.. TRA. the perception of the degree of difficulty of use was critical for respondents with only primary schooling.. such as cost cuts. This study presents an innovative model that captures a wider understanding of consumers’ motivations in their resistance to mobile banking services. rather than as a complementary channel to PC-based internet services. which would also standardize the technology among its customers. However. These measures could enhance role clarity (Meuter et al. m-banking non-users are the larger consumer group worldwide (KPMG International. Brazilian banks should look upon the cell phone as a potential channel in its own right. 2009) and. an investment in a virtual mobile operator could be an option. The worldwide penetration of mobile devices shows the potential of mobile services. It is therefore important to consider certain actions specifically targeting segments that do not use the internet. therefore. A way to change customers’ perception that the services are expensive could involve an agreement between banks and mobile operators to make the services more accessible. The background of mobile services is scarce in resistance perspectives as the pro-change bias is still the most used approach. and thus discouraging m-banking use. DOI and resistance to innovation).. Managers should consider improving the service through online customer-friendly assistance or by using combined channels (telephone or personal contact). internet access is much lower than cell phone penetration. If banks view this channel as a priority. normally assumed as the most profitable one.. mainly among the lower income class. The resistance related to “unsuitable devices”. 2005) and thus decrease perceived complexity. represents a commercial opportunity for the bank. This is crucial for the older and richer segment. registering a residual usage. 2005a). the perception of complexity when handling the mobile for service purposes increases in step with income level. Understanding the mechanism that drives consumers’ intentions to use mobile banking services is of vital importance for marketers and marketing managers when developing services and communication strategies (Nysveen et al.5 364 If we focus on household income. like Brazil. Having a device that is not technically adapted to banking services is a common objection among respondents in the lower income brackets. Theoretical contributions The study of the adoption of mobile banking services is very important for improving their diffusion. the most relevant to financial institutions. by selling the equipment directly to customers. Constructs were developed using taxonomies and scales were adapted to the . It seems clear that more educated people were the ones that had greater objections to the high cost of service access. In developing countries.

“Mobile banking: fluid finance”.. (2003). Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World. References Agarwal. I. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. Our future work will explore the barriers to the adoption of mobile banking services taking into account cultural differences through cross-cultural studies. Vol. Limitations and future research Although the data collection has revealed the effectiveness. Brown.. (2003). F. 1. Mobile banking rollout 365 . I. 179-211. Carlsson. (2001). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.. Future Banking. 381-94. (2005).. Banks. given that these kinds of customers could have a personal propensity to use new technologies. Black. “Cell phone banking: predictors of adoption in South Africa – an exploratory study”. “Customer satisfaction in virtual environments: a study of online investing”. and Karahanna. Vol. 77 No. 389-98. C. Walden. pp. P. 4. International Journal of Information Management. Bled. J. “The adoption of internet financial services: a qualitative study”. H. S. Ajzen. 2. D. June 6-8. L. Future research will seek to address those questions that remain unanswered. heterogeneity and randomness of our responses. 511-35. P. pp. the reasons for mobile banking resistance among customers that do not use the internet banking channel. Vol. pp.anatel. (2000). “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior”. 4. and Ennew. a straightforward approach with an operative results-driven orientation. 2009). 29 No. P. R. E. 2. Vol. (2007). available at: www. Repo. (1991). (2006). 665-94. N. R. N. The conceptualization has. J. Bauer. “Agencia Nacional de Telecomunicacoes”. 23 No.br ¸˜ (accessed June 25. “Consumer behavior as risk taking”. Bouwman. IL. and Walden. Childers. S. C. K. “The influence of perceived characteristics of innovating on e-government adoption”. 4. Telematics and Informatics. International Journal of Mobile Communication. a response bias could be considered. Davies. and Belanger. 2 No.. P.gov. 50 No. Winklhofer. Vol. pp. Management Science. Carlsson. 24 No. Z. (2004). and Menon. 49 No. pp. “The theory of planned behavior”.specific research problem (residual usage identified by the bank) and to the context of analysis (an early-stage market). 11-20. “Barriers and drivers in the adoption of current and future mobile services in Finland”. American Marketing Association. P. 390-8. ¨ Carlsson.S. H. and Bouwman. Electronic Journal of E-government. “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage”.A.pdf (accessed 18 January 2010). “Adoption of 3Gþ services in Finland”. namely. 24 No. and Stroebel. (Ed.. Therefore. pp. (1960). Proceedings of the 18th Bled eConference. F.). pp. it was focused exclusively on current internet banking users. and Carson. Balasubramanian. S. H. Carr. Vol. 871-9. Vol. in Hancock. 5. Vol. pp... ANATEL (2009). Chicago. Peck. Lockett. 4 No. consequently.. Journal of Retailing. Vol. banking-gateway. (2001). 7. Cajee. pp. C. (2009). A. 145-60. Konana. R. 369-85. C.. No. pp. “Adoption of mobile services across different technologies”. Hyvonen.. MIS Quarterly. 2..com/editorial/09-02/FBA006_036_Deutsche%20Bank. C. and Waldem. Molina-Castillo. Carter. available at: www. 8. T.

(1986). Crabbe. Vol. and Stork. and Laukkanen. Vol. Decision Sciences.net/new/images/uploads/RIA_Mobile-banking. J. 7. D. A. A. Davis. A. doctoral dissertation. “Federacao Brasileira de Bancos”. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 5. 225-35. P. Vol.. pp.. “Using Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis”.5 366 Cohen. and Munoz-Gallego. Vol. “In-home shopping: are there consumer segments?”.. 4.htm (accessed October 14. 515-43. Vol. Vol. 57 No. M. (2003). Vol. Paper 4.F. pp. pp. Davis. available at: www. 35 No. Vol.. P. 4. (1983). 2009). (1967). P. Bagozzi. Vol. 297-307. (1987). P. Standing. International Journal of E-services and Mobile Applications. F. 63 No. W. S.. and Sharma. Dickerson. 7 No. 2008). West. Ellen. 839-69. pp. C. (2009). M. available at: www. 3. Graduate School of Business Administration.. J. pp. M-banking the Unbanked. “Characteristics of adopters and non adopters of home computers”.. and Aiken. S. and Xiaodong. D. “Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria”.F. Vol. F.).. “Exploring the factors behind the resistance to mobile banking in Portugal”. Cox.computerweekly. W. 81 No. MA.febraban. 319-40. Flinders. I. Esselaar.com/Articles/2008/10/13/232634/e-bank-japan-sets-mobilebanking-example.O. 3rd ed. L. S. Darian. “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results”. M. H. Standing. (2004). MA. Doll. in Towards Evidence-based ICT Policy and Regulation. and Strahilevitz. 163-86. MIS Quarterly.pdf (accessed October 10. (1991). Hendrickson. Sloan School of Management. 13 No. Management Science. 982-1003. 9 No. “The audience as communicators”. (1989). Fishbein. pp. (2010). researchictafrica. E.. C. 2. (1989). September. M. 172-87. Munoz-Gallego. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Computer Weekly. (2009). perceived ease of use.S. . (2008). Davis. 2009).. “Resistance to technological innovations: an examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction”. Boston. 8 No. F. T.IJBM 28. “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models”. P. “Heavy users of e-banking and customer experience management”. K. (2008). London. 2. Harvard University. Comninos. Journal of Retailing. pp. “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation”.. “Perceived usefulness. 8. Journal of Consumer Research. Garbarino. pp. D. 10. pp. (Ed.br ¸˜ (retrieved April 15. T. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 768-75. available at: www. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Vol.W. Laukkanen. September. pp. (1974). and user acceptance of information technology”. ˜ Cruz. Psychological Review. “E-bank Japan sets mobile banking example”. pp. P. J. and Ajzen. R.C. Salo. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 4.org. 1. Cohen.D. International Journal of Electronic Business. Journal of Business Research. 1 No. and Gentry. 1. Ndiwalana.. pp. Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior. 187-209. FEBRABAN (2009). 59-74. ˜ Cruz. and Warshaw. and Karjaluoto. Cambridge. “An adoption model for mobile banking in Ghana”. (1998). 29 No. 16-35. Bearden. J. P. S. in Cox.. Vol.

Gefen.. Vol. Hoffman. Vol. Roto. D. Vol. 8. J. Jacoby.. European Management Journal. (2006). L. J. “Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments. A. (1978). (1994). Vol. K..N. pp. Vol. 20 No. pp. and Cai. pp. J.. Vol. S. “Adoption of internet banking: proposition and implementation of an integrated methodology approach”. R.F. Jarvenpaa. Hamilton.. “The key determinants of internet banking service quality: a content analysis”. ¨¨ ¨ Kaasinen. W. pp. 27 No. Harrison. Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila. and Kaplan. NJ. (2003). 19 No. “The relative importance of perceived ease-of-use in IS adoption: a study of e-commerce adoption”. 2nd ed. K. D. “Customers’ risk perceptions of electronic payment systems”. July. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 68 No. Gilly. and Noci. (2007). 1-30. Glenberg. 1. pp. 1.. 7. 1 No. T. “The influence of individual differences on skill in end-user computing”. 21 No. 2. Gentile. Learning from Data: An Introduction to Statistical Reasoning. G. M. Howcroft. and Straub. 276-91. Provo. and Shrestha.. Vol. L. L. (2003). S. pp. (2000). December. pp. pp. Maehr. V. 1. (2009). Association for Consumer Research.K. 28-32. “The components of perceived risk”. International Journal of Bank Marketing.. 1. UT. pp. P. Mahwah. E. Journal of Management Information Systems. American Economic Review. Roloff. 3. Mobile banking rollout 367 . Tatham. 12. pp. C. and Kauppi. pp. 395-410. 60. and Zeithaml. Englewood Cliffs. D. and Straub. D. Karahanna. and Black. Prentice-Hall. Hernandez. pp. S. “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model”. R. Vol. N. Igbaria. A. B. Vol. pp.. Karjaluoto. “Antecedents of online banking satisfaction and loyalty: empirical evidence from Finland”. Vol. (2002). 2. Hair. and Cunningham. C. Ho. 73-90.Geertz. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. V.. Gerrard. 25 No. “The diffusion of internet banking among Singapore consumers”.W. and Rainer. “The elderly consumer and adoption of technologies”. Anderson. 26-38. M. 9 No. International Journal of Electronic Finance. International Journal of Bank Marketing. V. 382-93. P. J. 5. Omega. D. and Mazzon. 16-28. (1992). Multivariate Analysis. 353-7. “Consumer attitude and the usage and adoption of home-banking in the United Kingdom”. and Novak. MIS Quarterly. Vol. “User acceptance of microcomputer technology: an empirical test”. T. R. Vainio. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction. Jun. (1996). International Journal of Bank Marketing. 72-88. pp. and Hewer. 51-90. 50-68. 21 No. J. International Journal of Bank Marketing.. (1998).M. T. Vol. Journal of Consumer Research. “How to sustain the customer experience: an overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer”. 253-69. 93-111. (1993). pp. conceptual foundations”. 3. Vol. Gefen. (1985). Journal of Marketing. (1996). H. 111-21. and Victor. Joshi. 12 No. International Journal of Bank Marketing. W. 4-23. NJ. Spillera. “User experience of mobile internet: analysis and recommendations”. (2009). Vol. 1 No. Vol. 4. E. (1972). (2001). 3 No. pp. 8.. “The bazaar economy: information and search in peasant marketing”.. 25 No. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. R. M.

“Consumers’ attitudes towards online and mobile banking in China”. 91 No.pdf (accessed July 15. (2007). P. T. M. Laforet. (2005). 346-61. M. 39 No. pp. 362-80. and Balasubramanian. T. “Factors underlying attitude formation towards online banking in Finland”. Journal of Financial Services Marketing. T. Edward Elgar Publishing.. T. 788-97. Knutsen. and Cruz. 2. 83 No. M.IJBM 28. pp. 2009). December. 16 No. (2008). 123-38. 4. pp. L. 505-24. and Xyaoyan.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ ArticlesPublications/Documents/Consumers-and-Convergence-III. Big Island. Sinkkonen.. “Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: a simultaneous approach”.A. (2007). “Effect of gender on trust in online banking: a cross-national comparison”. pp. and Karjaluoto. and Kinnear.G. Labay. 6. (2005). Laukkanen. 86-94. Kleijnen. R. P. Vol. (1981). 5. 6. (2007a).kpmg. Ruyter. Journal of Retailing. S. pp. Lars-Hendrik.. 4. 16. April 23. “Consumer trust in electronic service consumption: a cross-cultural comparison between Finland and Portugal”. Mattila. American Economic Review. 6 No. KPMG International (2009). Journal of Euromarketing. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-38). 8. Konana. Vol. “Consumer resistance to internet banking: postponers. Journal of Financial Services Marketing. and Pento. 325-38. K. 26 No. pp. “Consumer value creation in mobile banking services”. T. ¨ Kivijarvi. T. 13 No. 33-46. Laukkanen. Aldershot. Vol. 23 No. pp. Vol. and Wetzels. Decision Support Systems. and Lauronen. and Pento.. International Journal of Bank Marketing. (2001). 1. 5 No. M. Mattila. “Measuring mobile banking customers’ channel attribute preferences in service consumption”. International Journal Mobile Communications. M. HI.5 368 Karjaluoto. International Journal of Bank Marketing. Laukkanen. available at: www. Laukkanen. and Cruz. T. Vol.. “The social-economic-psychological model of technology adoption and usage: an application to online investing”. Laukkanen. S. Vol. pp. D. T. pp. 20 No. International Journal of Bank Marketing. P. . S. 3 No. M. Business Process Management Journal. (2002b). Journal of Consumer Research. ¨ Kivijarvi. H. 3. Trust and New Technologies: Perspectives from Marketing and Management. Vol. H. “Exploring the consumer decision process in the adoption of solar energy systems”. “Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions”.. “An assessment of value creation in mobile service delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness”. Vol. in Kautonen. T. H. L. 271-8. (2005). 909-23. Vol. opponents and rejectors”. pp. “M-service expectancies and attitudes: linkages and effects of first impressions”. International Journal of Mobile Communications. (2005). L. 4. “Mobile banking innovators and early adopters: How they differ from other online users?”. Laukkanen. (Eds). P. Vol. (2008). (2008). “Electronic banking in Finland: consumer reactions to a new delivery channel”. consumers and convergence III – survey report”. M. pp. “Consumer taking charge. T. 2. 51-65. Vol. Laukkanen. (2007b). Karjaluoto. (2002a). 440-55. 3. 261-72. T. pp. Vol. Vol. 13 No. and Pasanen. J. pp. and Waverman. and Laukkanen.

P. International Journal of Information Management. and Benbasat. (1991).. Pedersen. and growth”. 2 No. H.. I. 12 No. 7 No. Rifqi.. 7. M. (2007). A. pp. pp. “An interactive communication technology adoption model”. D. (2008). Lee. Vol. ¨ Merisavo. (2003). Salmenkivi. pp. Mylonopoulos. 2... pp. T. Vol. G. P. Vol. 345-65. (2007). “Similarity measures for binary and numerical data: a survey”. pp.. 63-84. N. Vol. pp. pp. (2005).. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. (2005a). Lee. 8 No. Roundtree.J. P. 2. Luarn. “Internet banking adoption among mature customers: early majority or laggards?”.I. 69 No. Journal of Services Marketing. P. S. European Journal of Marketing. 41-50. and Laukkanen. M. “Innovation resistance among mature consumers”. M. Kivijarvi. “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships”. M. “Introduction to the special issue: mobile business: technological pluralism. 24 No. Vol. Journal of Marketing. Karjaluoto. G.Laukkanen.. pp. (1998). Sinkkonen. 31 No. International Journal of Electronic Commerce. 330-43. Meuter. Vol. and Brown. Vol. Vol. and Lin. H. Keeling. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce. (2009). 2. “Using ZMET to explore barriers to the adoption of 3G mobile banking services”. S. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Soft Data Paradigms. S. McKnight. Ostron. Lin. Academy of Management Review. M. (2008). and Leppaniemi. “Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking”. Meuter. 514-28. 419-27. Lesot. 5-22. pp. Raulas. Bitner. 3. Kajalo. 163-95. 33 Nos 1/2. pp. and Benhadda.I. M.L. Journal of Consumer Marketing.. R. pp. (2005). M. C. H. ¨ Laukkanen.. 29 No. 50-64. (2003).. Communication Theory. McGoldrick. “Self-service technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology: understanding customers’ satisfaction with technology-based service encounters”. Vol.. Sinkkonen. 3. (1999). 309-20. Nysveen. Vol.A. Sinkkonen. 23. M. and Doherty. 6 No.C. 64 No. V. Vol.. 3. 17 No. L. H. 340-8. 1. J. (2007). and Kim. and Laukkanen.J. (2003).L. (2003). and Laukkanen. Moore. and Bitner. Vol.-W. Karjaluoto. pp. 111-8. 6. S. “Factors influencing the adoption behavior of mobile banking: a South Korean perspective”. P. Lee. 192-222. S. V.. 1. P. Computers in Human Behaviour. 873-91. S. S. Vol. 5. Vol. and Doukidis. social assimilation. Journal of Marketing. K. “Choosing among alternative service delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”. pp. Vol. N. 21 No. H. 33 No. Information Systems Research. Kivijarvi. S. M.E. (2000). ¨ Laukkanen. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. A. International Journal of Mobile Communications. 61-83.. “Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models”. Vol. “An emprirical study of the drivers of consumer acceptance of mobile advertising”. Virtanen. “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation”. pp. 6. M.. Vol. pp. T. “Segmenting bank customers by resistance to mobile banking”. 2.. T. M. 13 No. Cummings. and Pento. Mobile banking rollout 369 . “Intentions to use mobile services: antecendents and cross-service comparisons”. M. Journal of Interactive Advertising. and Thorbjornsen. 473-90. M. H. 3... 1 No. “Communication strategies to overcome functional and psychological resistance to internet banking”. Mattila. pp. T. 4. Ostrom.. H. Mitchell. and Chervany..

Private Talk. Advances in Consumer Research. “Mobiilipalvelumarkkinat Suomessa 2005. “Understanding mobile handheld device use and adoption”. Vol. (2005b). pp. (2006). 35-40.pdf (accessed November 14. in Katz. (1995). Polatoglu. Skog. Public Performance. available at: www. Mobile Communication. (2004). 2009). Karjaluoto.. 1-14. (2002). S. “Consumer acceptance of online banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model”. Sim. H. IL. 46 No. Oumlil. (1984). Putrevu. 208-12. and Monte.uol. 35.E. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 4. Vol. (2001). (Eds). A. 247-56. 115-24. (1987).. 10 No. Vol. J. Vol. 561-70.H. . S.E. MIS Quarterly. Foresman and Company. S. 22 No. 2. Pikkarainen. 5th ed. Norwegian School of Economics and Business. S. and Aakhus.. Free Press. March 3. 255-73. T. (1971). New York. V. Glenview. 14 No. Vol. 29-54. and Ward. “Singapore’s internet shoppers and their impact on traditional shopping patterns”. 224-35. 5-14. pp. January. Journal of Marketing.mintc. Rogers. Vol. Ram.. Cambridge University Press. Schnoor. Sarker.A. Perpetual Contact. 56-61. P. P. 3. “Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: implications for advertisers”. pp. (1989). Vol. pp. (2001). F. (2002). (2002). Journal of Services Marketing. gender and class”. (2009). B. Scott. E. pp. H. P. 12. “Consumer education programs for mature consumers”. “Mobiles and the Norwegian teen: identity. and Ekin. S. A.5 370 Nysveen. 156-65.IJBM 28. ¨ ¨ Snellman.L.pdf (accessed 29 November 2009). (2008). and Sheth. Diffusion of Innovations. S. Robertson. D. L. Pikkarainen. (2003). 17 No. J. 1. ˆ Painel de Tenencias (2009). “Using the theory of planned behavior to explain teenagers’ adoption of text messaging services”.globo. H. (2000). Ram. pp. pp. Internet Research.com/ economia/arquivos/Infoglobov5. pp. 19 No. 5. T. available at: http://oglobo.br (accessed May 3. D. Roselius. working paper. 3. 14 No. pp. and Pahnila. NY. T. “Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods”. J. Vol.. Bergen. Cambridge. 19 No. “Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience”. Vol. and Thorbjørnsen. H. S. Vol. 2. Journal of Global Information Management. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. (2003). International Journal of Bank Marketing. “Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender”. and Koi. “A model of innovation resistance”. Taylor. S. “A cross-national study of mobile internet services: a comparison of US and Korean mobile internet users”. and Todd. 1.com. 2009). Academy of Marketing Science Review. and Nysveen. “O que muda com a chegada do 3G”. Zielinski. “An empirical investigation of the Turkish consumer’s acceptance of internet banking services”. K. 4. Vol. and Wells. 9 No. and Williams. S. Liikenne. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 6 No. K. pp. “Pesquisa O Observador 2009”. “Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its solutions”. Pedersen.fi/fileserver/Julkaisuja%2022_2006. Wnews-UOL. Shin. T. pp. pp. M. Vol. Pedersen. 4.M. 232-43.ja viestintaministerion julkaisuja”. pp. Consumer Behavior. available at: http://wnews. Communications of the ACM. 14 No.

“A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes”.. 2. P. (2005). (1991). Bled. F. pp.pdf (accessed January 19. 2. (Eds). pp.uk/ asp/aspecis/20070179. in Osterle. pp. 1. “The impact of innovativeness and innovation type on adoption”. K. “Life in the real – mobile telephones and urban metabolis”. M. 1. Morris. and Ackerman. (2000). Thomson. 28-45. University of St Gallen. Journal of Retailing. and Majlender. C. pp. Vol. V. Vol. Vol. ´ ´ Uriel. (2000). Carlsson. (2009). Venkatesh. “Customers’ adoption of banking channel in Hong Kong”. 79-96. 27 No. Venkatesh. 83 No. pp. Venkatesh.Tornatzky. ´ ´ ´ Investigacion de Mercados. Vol. “User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view”. and Chow. Vol. and Winter. C. Zhong. (1999). Management Science. and Ackerman..K. T. Madrid. V. Venkatesh.. “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal fields studies”. 3. (2000).. 3. Walden. Sykes. 24 No. S. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 23 No. pp. C. E. pp. Morris. 2. (1982). 255-72.com/reprints . 1. Han. Morris. M. pp. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. P. Journal of Urban Technology. V. F. Wan. Corresponding author Pedro Cruz can be contacted at: pedrocruz@isg. V. Davis. 29 No. pp. Effective and Representative eSociety. M. R.P. J.. MIS Quarterly. 1. P. 425-77. A. 115-39. and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”. 23 No. pp. and Aldas.. 1st ed. W.G.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.. “A comparison of mobile payment procedures in Finnish and Chinese markets”. (2003). V. 67 No. Vol. L. H. 239-60. Venkatesh. V. 445-67. M. 186-204. “Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation”. economıa. pp. (2000). direccion de empresas y turismo. P. 46 No. Vol. 2010). “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender. J. (2005).. International Journal of Bank Marketing. Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Information Systems. social influence.M. 85-104. and Morris.lse. M. “The sleeping giant – a longitudinal study surveying the mobile service market in Finland”.pt Mobile banking rollout 371 To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight. Venkatraman. Vol. Vol.. (2007). Vol. and Davis. Luk. 1875-84. “Individual reactions to new technologies in the workplace: the role of gender as a psychological construct”. Inter.. Proceeding of the 22nd Bled eConference eEnablement: Facilitating an Open. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 2. Analisis Multivariante Aplicado: Aplicaciones al Marketing. “Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”. and Davis. 7 No. and Klein. Schelp. pp. MIS Quarterly. Towsend. J.emeraldinsight. 33-60. 51-67. G.ac. available at: http://is2. Venkatesh. (2004). St Gallen. MIS Quarterly. 34 No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful