MB Vs Barriers

Mei Ngan Wong
Barriers to Customer
Participation in Mobile Banking
In the Case of Hong Kong
Business Administration
Master’s Thesis
30 ECTS
Term: Spring 2017

Supervisor: Bertrand Pauget
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
As a starting point of my thesis paper, I would like to express my sincere

appreciations to all those people who help and support me for the
accomplishment of this thesis.
The utmost gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Bertrand Pauget. I

would like to thank him for his invaluable advice, encouragement and
guideline throughout every stage of my thesis. He has been very helpful
whenever I have questions and provided me with lots of useful feedback and
inspiration for my thesis. His experience, kindness and patience are critical for
the completion of my thesis. Thank you, Professor Bertrand Pauget!
Additionally, I appreciate and thanks to my friends who supported and shared

their knowledge and experience in this research area (mobile banking) with me
while I was writing my thesis. Their insights are useful for my thesis. I also
appreciate all the Hong Kong respondents who took part in the survey of this
thesis.
Furthermore, a special thank and appreciation go to my beloved family,

boyfriend and friends for their greatest support, encouragement and love
throughout the thesis and my study journey. They are the staunch backing of
mine when I encounter any ups and downs.
Finally, I would like to thank you Karlstad University for providing me a

diversified and unforgettable learning experience in Sweden. With all the
opportunities and challenges here, it allows me to grow both professionally
and personally.
Mei Ngan Wong

ABSTRACT
Purpose – The aim of this thesis is to investigate the resistance factors

influencing the customer participation intention to co-create value in the
context of mobile banking in Hong Kong and suggest practical solution
accordingly.
Design/Methodology/approach – The value measurement and hypotheses

are developed based on the Innovation Resistance Theory and previous
literature. This study adopts a quantitative research approach. An online
survey was implemented to collect data for the analysis of barrier significance
and significant differences in barriers between mobile banking users and non-
users in Hong Kong. 181 responses are collected and all are usable.
Findings – The empirical results in this study reveal that risk barrier is the
most intense barrier that negatively influences customer participation intention
in mobile banking in Hong Kong, followed by tradition and value barrier, and
lastly by usage barrier. Image barrier is insignificant in this case. It is also
discovered that there are significant differences in barriers and customer
participation intention between users and non-users.
Practical implications – This study provides useful and practical implications

for managers and marketers in developing strategies to overcome barriers to
customer participation in value co-creation through mobile banking and other
innovations.
Originality/value – Majority of the innovation adoption-based studies are

conducted from a positive approach, while innovation resistance is neglected
and thus less developed. This research study rectifies this shortcoming by
empirically investigating the barriers preventing customer participation to co-
create value in the mobile banking context in Hong Kong.
Keywords Mobile banking, Value co-creation, Customer participation,

Innovation resistance theory, Consumer behavior, Hong Kong
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Problem Discussion .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Purpose and Research Question ..................................................................................... 4
1.4. Thesis Structure ................................................................................................................. 5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................6
2.1. Mobile banking .................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Value Co-creation ............................................................................................................. 7
2.3. Innovation Resistance Theory ........................................................................................ 8
2.3.1. Usage Barrier............................................................................................................ 9
2.3.2. Value Barrier .......................................................................................................... 10
2.3.3. Risk Barrier............................................................................................................. 11
2.3.4. Tradition Barrier .................................................................................................... 12
2.3.5. Image Barrier ......................................................................................................... 13
2.4. Research Model ............................................................................................................... 14
3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 15
3.1. Research Strategy and Design ....................................................................................... 15
3.2. Data Collection Method................................................................................................. 16
3.3. Questionnaire Design ..................................................................................................... 17
3.4. Variable Measurement .................................................................................................... 19
3.5. Reliability and Validity .................................................................................................... 19
3.5.1. Reliability ................................................................................................................ 19
3.5.2. Validity .................................................................................................................... 21
3.6. Ethical considerations .................................................................................................... 22
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... 24
4.1. Data Frequency of the Sample ...................................................................................... 24
4.2. Measurement Instrument Validation and Reliability ................................................. 26
4.2.1. Measurement Validity ........................................................................................... 26
4.2.2. Measurement Reliability ....................................................................................... 27
4.3. Regression Analysis......................................................................................................... 28
4.4. Users and Non-Users Comparison .............................................................................. 30
4.5. Summary of Important Results ..................................................................................... 31
5. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 33
5.1. Usage Barrier.................................................................................................................... 33
5.2. Value Barrier .................................................................................................................... 35
5.3. Risk Barrier....................................................................................................................... 36
5.4. Tradition Barrier .............................................................................................................. 38
5.5. Image Barrier ................................................................................................................... 40
6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 41
6.1. Significant Barriers and Solutions ................................................................................. 41
6.2. Contribution and Implication ....................................................................................... 42
6.3. Limitation and Future Research ................................................................................... 43
7. REFERENCE .......................................................................................... 45
8. APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 52
List of Figures
Figure 1: Research Model and Hypothesis........................................................................ 14
Figure 2: Result Summary .................................................................................................... 32
List of Tables
Table 1: Questionnaire Summary ....................................................................................... 19
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Profile ..................................................... 24
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Mobile Banking Usage ............................................... 25
Table 4: Convergent Validity Result and Construct Descriptive................................... 26
Table 5: Discriminant Validity Result ................................................................................ 27
Table 6: Internal Reliability Result ..................................................................................... 28
Table 7: Regression Model Summary ................................................................................ 29
Table 8: Hypothesis Test Coefficients ............................................................................... 29
Table 9: Constructs comparison between users and non-users ..................................... 31
Table 10: Variable Measurements....................................................................................... 52
List of Abbreviations
AVE Average variance extracted
CP Customer participation
DOI Diffusion of Innovation Theory
IB Image barrier
RB Risk barrier
TAM Technology Acceptance Model
TB Tradition Barrier
UB Usage barrier
VB Value barrier
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background and research gap of this paper in the context of mobile
banking in Hong Kong. Then it describes the research aim, objectives and research questions
of this research paper. Lastly, the structure of the paper will be presented.
1.1. Background
Innovation and customer participation are considered as important drivers for

business success nowadays (Ahlstrom 2010; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004).
Thanks to the fast technology development, it creates numerous opportunities
for companies to integrate different service technology as a form of service
innovation in their business and engage customers to co-create value. Service
innovation is beneficial to the market in term of more efficient and effective
service delivery and facilitating service idea generation (Van der Aa & Elfring
2002). In the banking sector, many banks already dedicate more effort to
better serve their customers through service innovation to sustain its
competitive advantages (Miller et al. 2007).
Mobile banking is a service technology introduced by banks nowadays. It

refers to an innovative and interactive communication channel between banks
and bank customer with the use of mobile devices (Barnes & Corbitt 2003). It
is service-centric and the customer value is co-created through interaction and
dialogue (Riedl et al. 2011; Rust & Kannan 2003). It is believed that mobile
banking will play an important role in banking industry due to its
characteristics in terms of interactivity, convenience and ubiquity (Laukkanen
2008 Dec). Customers can use mobile banking to make invoice payment,
money transfer, stock trading and other investments. Banks can benefit from
the cost cutting in store expenses, better handling of consumption demand,
better service quality and minimizing poor personal interactions (Dean 2008).
On the other hand, customers can benefit from the time and money savings,
more flexible and higher accessibility to service offerings (Cunningham et al.
2008; Meuter et al. 2000).
Mobile banking acting as a service delivery medium has fundamentally altered

the nature and role of services, service delivery and value creation (Bitner et al.
2000). It has also led to a significant shift in way of interaction - from a
traditional interpersonal-based to a technological-based interaction (Yang &
Park 2011). According to Vargo and Lusch (2008; 2004), the purpose of
1
interaction is to facilitate value co-creation. In order words, with the use of
service technology, banks provide mobile banking as a platform to their
customers to interact with them with the purpose to value co-creation (Muñiz
& Schau 2011; Vargo & Lusch 2004). Banks empower the customers to
perform somethings which are traditionally carried out by the banks (Prahalad
& Ramaswamy 2004). Participation of customers, who are value co-creators
and value decision-makers, play a more vital role than ever in the value co-
creation process via mobile banking.
Many previous research focusing on the positive aspects of adoption has

provided valuable clues for banks in formulating their strategies in banking
technology innovation (Yu & Chantatub 2016). Factors affecting customer
participation in innovations, such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-
use, subjective norm and relative advantages, were investigated (Gurtner et al.
2014). Unfortunately, not every technology innovation, which can be
beneficial to other actors such customers and society, are accepted quickly.
Previous studies also support that 40%-90% innovations have failed
(Gourville 2006). In the case of the banking industry, even though banks are
aware of those adoption cues, the customer participation in mobile banking to
co-create value has grown relatively slower than expected (Yu & Chantatub
2016; Shaikh & Karjaluoto 2015). Hong Kong mobile banking is one example.
Although Hong Kong is one of the world biggest financial hubs, the usage rate
of mobile banking is growing relatively low when comparing to other banking
alternatives such as automated teller machines (ATMs) and internet banking. It
is even more noticeable when comparing to other countries like Sweden and
Netherlands. According to a survey done by Bain/Research Now Retail
Banking NPS Surveys (2016), only around 30% of the interaction happened
through mobile banking in a quarter in Hong Kong, while it is almost double
(nearly 60%) in Sweden.
Technology innovation adoption only occurs when initial barriers have

overcome (Yu & Chantatub 2016; Ram 1987). These barriers can result in
diffusion-delay or even rejection decision (Kuisma et al. 2007). Hong Kong
customers are less active in participating the value co-creation process via
mobile banking, even though many of them own a smart-phone. Therefore, it
is important to identify the sources of resistance about customer engagement
in mobile banking to interact with banks to co-create value. Such information
will be valuable for marketers and bank managers to develop marketing
strategies as well as reduce resistance and increase customer participation in
2
mobile banking. To identify the resistance factors, Innovation Resistance
Theory developed by Ram and Sheth (1989) is used. It has been proven to be
useful in previous studies to investigate the adoption barriers in the context of
online banking and mobile banking (e.g. Laukkanen 2016; Yu & Chantatub
2016; Gurtner et al. 2014; Rammile & Nel 2012; Laukkanen & Kiviniemi
2010).
1.2. Problem Discussion
Nowadays, customers are proactively engaged in the value co-creation network

and process (Meuter et al. 2005). The market is challenged by those active and
informed customers. Many companies try to involve customers in their value
creation process (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). Thanks to the rapid
technology development, companies can benefit from embracing different
service technology in their business operation. Mobile banking is commonly
used in banking industry hoping to transfer some tasks done by banks
traditionally to customers to co-create value. However, customer participation
in mobile banking to co-create value with banks is still relatively low in Hong
Kong, for example when compared to Sweden. In order to create value to
customers through mobile banking, it is essential for customers to adopt
mobile banking to interact with banks.
In the past few decades, adoption-based research focusing on positive aspects

of innovation adoption have dominated (Rammile & Nel 2012;
Rotchanakitumnuai & Speece 2003). However, previous research literature
adopting consumer innovation adoption approach has suffered from pro-
change bias, which assuming all innovation are value-added and will be used
by customers gradually (Rogers 2010; Kuisma et al. 2007; Ram 1987). The pro-
change assumption is not always valid because many innovations in the
marketplace have failed to be adopted by customers (Yu & Chantatub 2016;
Laukkanen et al. 2007). It is argued that even when an innovation, such as
mobile banking, can bring more benefits than existing banking service
alternatives, customers still may resist mobile banking if it requires a high level
of change, conflicts to their beliefs and involves high learning cost (Garcia et
al. 2007). Therefore, positive factors affecting innovation adoption behavior
are not always useful in explaining mobile banking resistance behavior or
rejection behavior of customers (Gurtner et al. 2014).
Encouraging customers to participate in mobile banking for value co-creation

is not an easy task. One must first overcome some initial resistance for mobile
3
banking adoption (Kuisma et al. 2007). When one starts using mobile banking,
adoption and resistance can also coexist (Yu & Chantatub 2016). In other
words, customer resistance and adoption are two sides of the blade to
determine the successful commercialization of mobile banking. Although the
importance of customer resistance to innovation is recognized in management
practice and scientific research, customer resistance to innovation has received
insufficient attention (Heidenreich & Handrich 2015; Laukkanen & Kiviniemi
2010; Garcia et al. 2007; Ram 1989; Sheth 1981). Limited research analyzed
customer adoption behavior from a resistance approach (Laukkanen 2016; Yu
& Chantatub 2016; Laukkanen & Kiviniemi 2010).
1.3. Purpose and Research Question
Based on the current market needs and research gap, there is a need to
understand the adoption behavior of mobile banking to co-create value from a
resistance approach. The purpose of this paper is to use an adoption resistance
approach to investigate how resistance factors influence Hong Kong customer participation
intention in mobile banking to co-create value. More specifically, the objectives of this
paper can be breakdown into the followings:
- Evaluating the Innovation Resistance Theory from Ram and Sheth

(1989) in the scope of mobile banking in Hong Kong
- Investigating the relationship between the five barriers and customer

participation intention
- Examining whether mobile banking users and users differ in barriers

and customer participation intention
- Suggesting possible strategies to alleviate the barriers accordingly
Therefore, two research questions are developed based on the aims:
RQ1: What barriers affect the customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-
create value in Hong Kong?
RQ2: Are there any difference in barriers and customer participation intention between the
mobile banking users and non-users?
4
1.4. Thesis Structure
Chapter 1: Introduction explains the research background, outline the research

purpose and research questions as well as thesis structure. In Chapter 2:
Theoretical Framework, literature review based on previous research relevant
to this study is provided. It is used to serve as a reference and general
framework for the subject matter and empirical part of this study. Based on
the previous research studies, a research model and hypothesis are outlined for
this study. Chapter 3: Methodology outlines the research methodology, which
includes the research strategy, research design, data collection method and
procedure, variable measurement, data analysis methodology, reliability and
validity of the research. In Chapter 4: Result and Analysis, the findings of the
empirical case study are presented. Consecutively, in Chapter 5: Discussion,
the empirical findings are analyzed and discussed by linking with the literature
and theories. Finally, Chapter 6: Conclusion provides a summary of this
research findings, contribution, managerial implication, limitation and
recommendations for future research.
5
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The objective of this chapter is to present previous researches related to this study, including
Mobile banking, Value Co-creation and Innovation Resistance Theory including usage
barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier and image barrier. Based on the
literature review, a research model and hypotheses of this study are developed and presented.
2.1. Mobile banking
Mobile banking was introduced by Merita Nordbanken (Currently Nordea) in

Finland as early as in the 1990s for bank customers to check the balance and
make payments via mobile devices (Barnes & Corbitt 2003). As the mobile
device market grows rapidly, more and more bank customers are exposed to
mobile technologies (Suoranta & Mattila 2004). Previous research studies used
different names to refer to mobile banking, such as pocket banking, branchless
banking and m-banking (Shaikh & Karjaluoto 2015). Despite various
terminology used, scholars generally define mobile banking as an innovative
communication channel for banks and customers to interact via a mobile
device like smart-phone or personal digital assistant (PDA) (Shaikh &
Karjaluoto 2015; Barnes & Corbitt 2003). They mention that it is different
from telephone banking as mobile banking focuses on data communication
which excludes voice dial-up related service (Barnes & Corbitt 2003). Mobile
banking allows bank customers to perform various financial activities (e.g. bill
payment, transfer money and stock trading) and non-financial activities (e.g.
balance inquiry, PIN change and checkbook request) (Shaikh & Karjaluoto
2015).
Due to rapid technology development, many banks take advantage of the

wireless technology to co-create value together with their customers and create
competitive advantages via service innovation. It is believed that mobile
banking can provide enhanced value, convenience and other numerous
remarkable benefits for both banks and bank customers (Suoranta & Mattila
2004; Herzberg 2003). With the application of mobile banking, banks can
provide an alternative and innovative banking channel for customers to carry
out activities and co-create value in a more easy and secure manner
(Laukkanen 2007). Also, similar to online banking and other bank self-service
technologies, mobile banking can help companies to improve service
consistency, customer demand management and reduce staff expenses and
workload (Dean 2008; Ding et al. 2007). On the other side, mobile banking
6
allows bank customers to benefit from time-saving, availability, convenience
and feeling of control as they access a wide range of banking services
whenever and wherever without direct involvement of bank employees
(Cunningham et al. 2008; Laukkanen & Lauronen 2005). As a result, better
customer satisfaction and valuable experience are created, and provision of
service is more efficient with the adaptation of mobile banking (Koksal 2016;
Ding et al. 2007).
2.2. Value Co-creation
In traditional marketing, value is embedded in goods or services during

production by companies (Gummerus 2013). However, Prahalad and
Ramaswamy (2000) as well as Vargo and Lusch (2004) recognize that there is a
changing role of customers and companies in the market. They introduce the
concept of value co-creation which suggests value is co-created by both
companies and customers via interaction and collaboration instead of solely by
companies. Galvagno and Dalli (2014, p644) suggest that value co-creation is
“the joint, concurrent, peer-like process of producing new value, both
materially and symbolically”. It is also defined as an interactive process in
which two or more actors integrating resources to co-create value for mutual
benefits (Frow et al. 2015). The interaction between different actors rather
than the internal production process is the center of value creation
(Gummerus 2013). It is supported by Bendapudi and Leone (2003) that
interaction, engagement, experience and self-service are considered to be
critical components of value co-creation.
In value co-creation, consumers take up an active role in creating value

collaboratively with companies throughout different stages of the value co-
creation process but not only passively receive value (Vargo & Lusch 2016;
Kohler et al. 2011; Payne et al. 2009; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004).
Meanwhile, companies act as facilitators of value co-creation by offering
products and value propositions as an input of value co-creation process
(Vargo & Lusch 2016; Vargo et al. 2008; Payne et al. 2008). They integrate
various resources like staff knowledge and skills to provide service offerings in
a form of value proposition to customers (Grönroos 2009; Vargo & Lusch
2008). Value is co-created only when customers apply their own resources like
technological knowledge and time together with the value proposition offered
by companies (Vargo & Lusch 2016; Edvardsson et al. 2011). Grönroos and
Voima (2013) suggest that the value co-creation process can be divided into
7
three spheres: provider sphere, which companies act as value facilitator by
applying resources to create potential value; customer sphere, referring
customers as value co-creator through applying their own resources when
using offered resources from companies; joint sphere, where actors interact to
co-e value.
Moreover, previous studies have shown that customer engagement can deliver
value for both service providers and customers and lead to higher customer
satisfaction (Yim et al. 2012; Dong et al. 2008). Customers can contribute their
own resources to co-create value with companies via customer participation in
for example mobile banking (Schau et al. 2009). Customer participation is
conceptually aligned with value co-creation (Grönroos 2011). This is
supported by Brodie et al. (2013) who argued that customer engagement or
customer participation is referring to value co-creation. In the context of
mobile banking, customer participation via mobile devices is an important
factor in value co-creation process, since it requires a high level of customer
activities but low level of bank activities (Wünderlich et al. 2013). As the banks
and customers’ role becomes blurrier, encouraging bank customers to
participate in mobile banking to co-create value is believed to be vital for
enhancing the competitiveness of banks (Jaakkola & Alexander 2014).
However, there is limited research focusing on innovation such as mobile
banking and customer engagement in innovations to co-create value
(Fernandes & Remelhe 2016).
2.3. Innovation Resistance Theory
Different researchers have tried to understand the importance of innovation

and identify potential adoption barriers (Brahim 2015). Ram & Sheth’s (1989)
early work provides a comprehensive framework to identify the potential
source of resistance to innovation adoption. Two main types of barriers have
been identified, namely functional barriers and psychological barriers (Antioco
& Kleijnen 2010; Herbig & Day 1992; Ram & Sheth 1989). The functional
barriers consist of usage barrier, value barrier and risk barrier. The
psychological barriers include tradition barrier and image barrier (Ram &
Sheth 1989; Ram 1987). Functional barriers occur when an innovation requires
customers to have significant changes and such change is perceived as
disruptive by customers; while psychological barriers refer to the resistance
emerged from conflicts between an innovation and customers’ beliefs
(Molesworth & Suortti 2002; Ram & Sheth 1989).
8
This framework has been used in some previous research studies to investigate
the adoption resistance of banking technologies (e.g. Yu & Chantatub 2016;
Laukkanen 2016; 2008 Dec; Brahim 2015; Rammile & Nel 2012; Laukkanen &
Kiviniemi 2010; Laukkanen et al. 2007). Therefore, applying the innovation
resistance theory may be suitable for studying the resistance factors for
customer participation in mobile banking in this study because of the similar
nature.
2.3.1. Usage Barrier
The usage barrier is connected to the functional usability of innovations.

Usage barrier comes into place when technology innovation does not match
with the existing habits, workflows or practices of customers, so customers
need to spend more effort in learning and utilizing it (Ram & Sheth 1989).
They argued innovations which cause changes in customer routine require a
relatively long time to be accepted by customers and usage barrier is a
common reason for customers to resist technology innovation. Besides, usage
barrier is similar to the concept of ease-of-use in Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) introduced by Davis et al. (1989), which measures how easy
customers consider in using an innovation. Perceived ease-of-use in TAM is
closely related to the idea of complexity in Diffusion of Innovation Theory
(DOI) (Al-Jabri & Sohail 2012; Wu & Wang 2005; Teo & Pok 2003; Davis
1989), which refers to perceived difficulty in using and understanding an
innovation (Roger 2003).
In the context of mobile banking, since mobile devices are relatively small and
include slower transaction speeds, small screens and keypads, it is troublesome
to interpret text and graphics, as well as enter data (Lee & Chung 2009; Bruner
& Kumar 2005). Therefore, this impairs the service usability of mobile
banking and lead to usage barrier (Laukkanen & Kiviniemi 2010; Lee & Chung
2009; Laukkanen 2008 Dec). For example, according to the studies by
Laukkanen (2007) and Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005), bank customers find
transaction service via mobile banking is time consuming and difficult as
mobile devices with small screens can process and display only limited amount
of transaction informational. They suggested that this causes usage barrier and
influence the overall mobile banking resistance from bank customers. Besides,
some early studies show that complexity and perceived ease-of-use influence
bank customers’ intention to use mobile banking (Lee et al. 2012; Kuisma et
al. 2007; Gerrad & Cunningham 2003). Hence, when bank customers have
9
perception that mobile banking is complex and difficulty to use, they won’t
value the service so much and use it as a mean to co-create value with banks
leading to a usage barrier. Therefore,
H1: Usage barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
2.3.2. Value Barrier
The second functional barrier is value barrier. Value barrier is driven from
undesired performance-to-cost value of an innovation comparing with its
substitutes (Rammile & Nel 2012; Ram & Sheth 1989). It is common that
customers assess the perceived values differently for different service offerings
and only accept to use the alternative with higher value to co-create value with
banks (Lian & Yen 2013). In order words, when customers think they cannot
benefit from using the innovation, they are not willing to alter their ways of
conducting their tasks and value creation (Ram & Sheth 1989). Value barrier is
cognate to the idea of perceived usefulness in TAM (Laukkanen & Kiviniemi
2010), which is defined as degree of improvement perceived by an individual
when adopting an innovation (Davis et al. 1989). While perceived usefulness is
similar to the concept of relative advantages in DOI (Al-Jabri & Sohail 2012;
Wu & Wang 2005), which refers to the degree of perceived superiority of a
specific innovation compared with other alternatives (Roger 2003; Moore &
Benbasat 1991).
Previous research results show that relative advantage and perceived

usefulness of an innovation can influence the intention to use. This is also
applicable to the internet banking and mobile banking context (Lee et al. 2012;
Alsajjan & Dennis 2010). For example, mobile banking allows bank customers
to have more control over the value co-creation process as they can perform
transactions and check accounting balance whenever and wherever they are via
mobile device (Laukkanen & Lauronen 2005; Jayawardhena & Foley 2000). It
is more likely that customers will adopt the innovation to co-create value when
the perceived usefulness or relative advantage of mobile banking by customers
is high (Brown et al. 2003). On the other hand, when an innovation cannot
provide greater potential advantages than existing options to customer, the
likelihood for customers to change their behavior is low (Ram & Sheth 1989).
In fact, lack of acceptance from customers, who perceive the benefit is lower
than the cost of learning a new technology, is a common reason for value
barrier and lead to innovation failure (Laukkanen et al. 2007). It is supported
10
by the previous research findings showing that, for example, financial cost
considerations, i.e. degree of perceived economical value/cost, have a negative
impact on mobile banking adaptation intention (Laukkanen & Kiviniemi 2010;
Kuisma et al. 2007; Luarn & Lin 2005). Also, Laukkanen’s (2008 Dec) research
findings indicate that usage barrier is one of the most intense and perceived
resistance for customers to participate in mobile banking, even throughout
different age groups.
H2: Value barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking
to co-create value.
2.3.3. Risk Barrier
Every innovation has certain degree of perceived risk as uncertainty is inherit

in all innovations (Ram & Sheth 1989). Those risk is based on the perception
of customers (Laukkanen et al. 2007). Risk barrier can be defined as the degree
of perceived risk related to a specific innovation (Ram & Sheth 1989).
Customers’ decision making and behavior are explained by the concept of
perceived risk since 1960s (Bashange 2015). In the past, risk barrier was mainly
about product quality or fraud, but nowadays perceived risk refers to any
physical, social, financial or functional risk associated to an innovation (Im et
al. 2008; Molesworth & Suortti 2002; Forsythe & Shi 2003; Ram & Sheth
1989). Previous research studies on online banking and mobile banking has
identified three most important type of risks that affect customers’ adoption
of the technology: privacy and security, reliability and self-efficacy (Laukkanen
& Kiviniemi 2010).
According to Laurn and Lin (2005), privacy and security concerns about
mobile banking are very common for bank customers. Security risks also
occurs when some bank customers worry about the losing PIN
codes/password, mobile devices and bank account being hacked via stolen
PIN codes/password (Poon 2008; Kuisma et al. 2007; Coursaris et al. 2003).
Therefore, privacy and security about customers’ financial information and
personal details are a vital element for the success of mobile banking
(Laukkanen et al. 2007; Brown et al. 2003). Banks should try to gain trust
from their customers to lower their fears (Lee & Chung 2009). While reliability
is another important risk factors in internet banking and mobile banking. It
refers to how reliable a technology innovation can perform a task accurately
and consistently (Lee et al. 2003). Due to mobile device’s limited memory
capacity, computation power and battery life, some bank customers express
11
their concerns about losing connection when they perform service activities to
co-create value (Poon 2008; Kuisma et al. 2007; Siau & Shen 2003). On the
other hand, self-efficacy, referring to customers’ individual confidence of their
ability to adopt an innovation, influence the resistance of innovation adoption
(Luarn & Lin 2005; Liao & Cheung 2002; Agarwal et al. 2000). Prior research
shows that some customers resist to use online banking or mobile banking
because they are not confident that they can perform bank activities without
mistakes (Yu & Chantatub 2016; Kuisma et al. 2007; Laukkanen 2007;
Laukkanen & Lauronen 2005; Jo Black et al. 2001). They think it is less likely
to encounter problems when using bank branch service instead of mobile
banking (Akinci et al. 2004).
H3: Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
2.3.4. Tradition Barrier
Tradition barrier occurs when an innovation cause deviation from established

culture or contradict to customers’ existing value and norm (Ram & Sheth
1989; Roger 2005). It is very likely that customers will resist any technology
innovation that are incompatible with value of the customers and required
changes in tradition (Rammile & Nel 2012). The concept of tradition barrier is
similar to the idea of compatibility in DOI, which refers to the extent of
consistency about using an innovation and the culture, customers’ value and
norm (Roger 2005). Hence, when there is any inconsistency, customers can
feel uncomfortable using an innovation such as self-service technology like
internet banking or mobile banking, and cause frustration (Parasuraman 2000)
or even technophobia (Meuter et al. 2003). These mental traits of bank
customers are also connected to the technology readiness, i.e. mental readiness
to engage and accept an innovation (Parasuraman 2000).
In the context of self-service technology in banking sector, some customers do

not want to use mobile banking to co-create value with banks when carrying
out their banking activities (Luakkanen et al. 2007; Gerrard et al. 2006). For
example, some customers are relationship-oriented, so they enjoy dealing with
bank personnel and need social interaction. Self-service technology such as
mobile banking and internet banking changes the way of interactions from
interpersonal-based to technological-based, resulting in lack of social
dimension and trigger tradition barrier of customers (Mattila et al. 2003).
Previous research studies have also indicated that strong desire for social
12
interaction from its culture may create dissatisfaction towards an internet
banking or mobile banking service and hinder customers from using self-
service technologies (Srijumpa et al. 2007; Walker et al. 2002; Gerrard et al.
2006; Marr & Prendergast 1993). It is consistent with the study results from
Luakkanen et al. (2007) and Heinonen (2004) that customers’ preference for
human interaction with bank personnel is driven from a need for informal and
personal relationship. The tradition barrier can outweigh the advantages of
adopting a service innovation (Luakkanen 2016) and negatively influence the
intention for participating in mobile banking to co-create value (Al-Jabri &
Sohail 2012).
H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile

banking to co-create value.
2.3.5. Image Barrier
Based on Ram and Sheth (1989), image barrier can be defined as the
stereotyped thinking regarding relevant innovation which negatively influences
customer adoption. Since every technological innovation expresses a certain
identity from its origin in terms of its brand, product/service category, country
of origin and so on, any adverse association linked to these identities by
customers can cause negative image resulting image barrier to adopt
(Luakkanen et al. 2007; Ram & Sheth 1989). Therefore, image barrier is a very
perceptual factor depending on customers’ perceptions (Laukkanen &
Kiviniemi 2010).
In the 1990s, an unfavorable hard-to-use image of desktop computers and

internet causes an image barrier for online banking adaptation (Rammile &
Nel 2012). This is related to the various anxiety of customers towards desktop
computers or adverse state of thinking towards technology tools (Laukkanen
& Kiviniemi 2010; Meuter et al. 2003). Even after many years, some Internet
banking non-users still hold an unfavorable belief and attitudes about using
the internet as a service channel for value co-creation (Kuisma et al. 2007). It
is also the case for mobile banking because some bank customers may think
technology is hard to handle leading to a hard-to-use image of technology in
general. It is supported by some previous research result indicates that
customers who have a perception that technology is difficult to use develop an
image barrier negatively influencing the mobile banking adaptation
(Laukkanen 2016; Luakkanen et al. 2007). Lian and Yen (2013) also found a
similar result that image barrier can have a significant impact on the online
13
banking adoption for non-adopter. Bank users do not support online banking
because of their own adverse impression about online services (Lian et al.
2012).
H5: Image barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
2.4. Research Model
Based on prior theoretical research, a research model and hypothesis for this
study is developed and shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Research Model and Hypothesis
H1: Usage barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

mobile banking to co-create value.
H2: Value barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H3: Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H5: Image barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

14
3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology used in this research paper, which comprises of
research strategy, research design and research method with data collection method,
questionnaire design and variable measurements. In the end of the chapter, reliability and
validity, and ethical considerations of this research will be present also.
3.1. Research Strategy and Design
With reference to Burns and Bush (2013), research strategy should be determined
based on the research objective and research question. There are mainly two
types of research approaches, namely qualitative and quantitative approach, to
create a deeper understanding of a problem (Bryman & Bell 2015).
Quantitative research approach focus on numerical data and mathematical
approach to show variable relationships (Fisher 2007) and understand a
problem by using statistical analysis (Burns & Bush 2013). In this research
study, the aim is to investigate the influence of innovation barriers on
customer intention to engage in mobile banking to co-create value for the
benefit of bank managers and marketers. In order to understand the
relationships of different variables, numerical data and statistical analysis are
well-suited to achieve the goal. Therefore, a quantitative strategy is chosen as
the research strategy in this paper to test the hypothesis. Besides, since this
study is interested in understanding the problem from a customer perspective,
the target group of bank customers in Hong Kong are relatively large and
heterogeneous. Quantitative strategy allows larger coverage and the researcher
reaching more respondents within a limited timeframe to create a more
representative picture. Also, the research question is aiming at a board
audience. Quantitative approach allows generalization, so the research results
may be more useful in not only mobile banking but also be generalized to
other bank technology innovations for bankers and marketers (Bryman & Bell
2015; Burns & Bush 2013).
A suitable research design is also critical because it can influence the choice of
data collection technique, data type and sampling method (Hair et al. 2010). It
helps to match the methodology with the research question and aim (Churchill
& Iacobucci 2004). In this research paper, a descriptive research design is
chosen to describe specific characteristics of existing mobile banking
phenomena in Hong Kong. Descriptive research concerns about the
occurrence frequency and relationship between two or more variables. It is
15
commonly guided by hypotheses about the topic (Churchill & Iacobucci
2004). In this case, it can be used to determine the customer intention of
participating in mobile banking to co-create value on a sample from a
population. Descriptive research design is suitable in this study as there is a
clear research problem, research question as well as theoretical concepts based
on previous literature (Malhotra 2010). Also, descriptive research helps to
collect data to identify relationships between barriers variables and customer
resistance and test the hypothesis. In this paper, a cross-sectional study is
adopted. Cross-sectional design studies a sample at only one point in time
(Bryman & Bell 2015). Cross-sectional study also refers to survey research
which respondents are questioned about their reactions, thinking or feelings in
a set of structured questions (Bryman & Bell 2015). It is used instead of a
longitudinal study as the aim of this research is not attempting to study trends
and there is a time constraint.
3.2. Data Collection Method
According to Burns and Bush (2010), researchers should identify the data type
or source of information needed to help to answer the research question.
There are two main data collection methods for information needed: primary
source which refers to collect first-hand data about a specific topic, and
secondary source which refers to collect existing information (Malhotra 2010).
In this research study, secondary data is used only in the literature review to
get familiar with the research topic and formulate hypotheses using reliable
academic research studies. In formal marketing research investigation, primary
data is needed for this study to answer the research question. Relevant
secondary data are not applicable as they are not available.
An online survey is applied as the primary data collection method. According

to Malhotra (1999), in a survey, respondents can be asked verbally, in written
form or through a computer to response a set of questions about their
demographic, attitude, behavior and others. Through a standard and structure
survey, researchers can prepare the formal questionnaire and pre-arrange the
question order. Survey is used in this study as it is a commonly used tool to
understand customer perception and adoption behavior about online banking
or mobile banking (e.g. Yu & Chantatub 2016; Laukkanen 2016; Laukkanen &
Kiviniemi 2010; Kuisma et al. 2007). A structure and closed question with
predefined choices are adopted in the questionnaire to increase convenience in
comparison (Bryman & Bell 2015). The target population in this study is Hong
16
Kong residence. The survey is distributed online in different social platforms
in Hong Kong to reach the targets. The survey is completed anonymously.
The survey is distributed online as it is a cost effective and time-saving way to
reach respondents across a broad geographical area in Hong Kong. Moreover,
it allows respondents to take their time to answer the survey in a stress-free
and comfortable environment to improve questionnaire completion rate
(Bryman & Bell 2015).
Before sending the survey, a review done by a university supervisor and a pilot
test with twenty potential respondents have been carried out. During the pilot
test, respondents are first asked to complete the questionnaire, then they are
requested to comment on the questionnaire in term of question sequence,
clarity of question and instruction, length of the questionnaire and any other
suggestion (Hair et al., 2010). Based on the feedback, the wordings and
content of few questions have been modified for the sake of clarity. After that
the questionnaire was open for two weeks gathering 182 responses in total. All
182 responses are without missing values, so they are effective for this study.
3.3. Questionnaire Design
Questionnaire design in this section concerns about the wording and content
of questions, the structure of questionnaire and response format.
Wording and Content: The questions in this questionnaire are designed to be

simple to understand to avoid ambiguous and misunderstand while completing
it by respondents (Bryman & Bell 2015; Kassim 2001). Also, the questionnaire
in this study is designed to be as short as possible to maintain the interest and
attention of respondents throughout survey (Burns 2000). The questionnaire
was written in both Traditional Chinese and English as they are the official
languages in Hong Kong. Respondents can easily understand the questionnaire
in a language they are familiar with. Therefore, all these can enhance the
likelihood of response and completion from respondents.
Structure: The questionnaire begins with less complex factual questions and
progress to opinion-sought questions. The questionnaire is divided into two
sections. The first section covers respondents’ demographic information such
as age and gender, and general information about respondents’ mobile banking
activities. The second section of the questionnaire consists six sets of
questions regarding the six constructs in the research model, namely usage
barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier, image barrier and customer
17
participation intention. Opinions on different dimensions of the variables are
asked. In total, there are twenty-six items in the questionnaire. In specific,
there are two questions each for demographic information and mobile banking
activities. usage barrier measurement contains four items. Value barrier
measurement consists of three items. Risk barrier measurement has six items.
Tradition barrier measurement and image barrier measurement each include
three items. Customer participation intention measurement is also composed
of three items.
Response Format: In this questionnaire, two types of response format are

used - multiple choice and likert scale. Multiple choice format is used to collect
information about the respondents’ demographic information and mobile
banking activities. Since those questions are factual questions about the
respondents and their behavior, it is unsuitable to use likert scale as the
response format (Bryman & Bell 2015). Yet, likert scale response format is
administered in this research to evaluate attitudinal statements for the six
constructs. It is used to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement
about the statements related to the six constructs by respondents (Aaker et al.
2011). Likert scale has been widely examined in both social science and
marketing research (Garland 1991). It is appropriate and popular in research
designs using questionnaires or surveys since it is easy to construct and code
later for data analysis (Bymann & Bell 2015; Hair et al. 2010; Burns & Bush
2000).
According to Jonung and Malhotra (2007), choosing a suitable scale is

important also as it can influence the data analysis later. Although there is no
precise rule for an ideal number of scale points, many researchers agree that
five to seven points scale is best in capturing opinions (Aaker et al. 2011). A
five-point likert scale is adopted in this research to evaluate all opinion items
for the six constructs by respondents to indicate their degree of agreement,
where 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly disagree. This number of scale is
chosen as it works as good as other points scale (Sekaran 2000; Parasuraman
1991). It is supported by other researchers that an increase in the number of
scale points does not increase the rating reliability (Elmore & Beggs 1975) and
may even lead to confusion for respondents (Aaker et al. 2011). Also,
consistent scale – a five-point scale is adopted throughout the questions to
reduce confusion (Jonung & Malhotra 2007).
Table 1 is the summary of questionnaire design with questionnaire structure,

number of construct items, type of question and variable.
18
Table 1: Questionnaire Summary
Construct Type of Variable N of Type of Question
items
Section 1
Demographic Information NA 2 Multiple choice
Mobile Banking Activity NA 2 Multiple choice
Section 2
Usage Barrier Independent Variable 4 Likert-scale
Value Barrier Independent Variable 3 Likert-scale
Risk Barrier Independent Variable 6 Likert-scale
Tradition Barrier Independent Variable 3 Likert-scale
Image Barrier Independent Variable 3 Likert-scale
Customer Participation Dependent Variable 3 Likert-scale
Total 26
3.4. Variable Measurement
According to Burns (2000), formulating appropriate questions and variable

measurements are difficult, looking at prior research paper for researched
items can be useful. The questionnaire in this study was based on the
innovation resistance theory from Ram & Sheth (1989) and the existing
literature on mobile technology and internet/mobile banking. This means the
variable measurement in this research survey is operationalized based on the
previous empirical literature with necessary modification to fit in the context
of this study. The constructs in this research include the five innovation
adoption barriers (usage barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier and
image barrier) and customer participation intention. The scales used to
measure resistance factors are adopted from e.g. Lian and Yen (2013),
Rammile and Nel (2012) and Laukkanen and Kiviniemi (2010). The scales
used to measure customer participation intention is adopted from e.g. Chan
and Wang (2016) and Fernandes and Remelhe (2016). More detail information
about the variable measurement items and literature reference are displayed in
Appendix I.
3.5. Reliability and Validity
3.5.1. Reliability
According to Bryman and Bell (2015), reliability refers to the measure
consistency of a concept. In other words, it measures the degree of random
errors of a measure (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). There are many variables can
influence the reliability of a concept measure, such as sample size,
19
questionnaire design and variable measurements. There are three prominent
factors can be used to examine the reliability of a measure: Stability, Internal
reliability and Inter-observer consistency (Bryman & Bell 2015).
Stability refers to how stable a measure is over time (Bryman & Bell 2015). It
is considered to be stable when there is little variation in the results obtained
between the original and the re-administered measurements at different time
(Hair et al. 2010). Therefore, it is also known as test-retest reliability (Malhotra
2010). Due to the time constrict, it is impossible to conduct any retest to
measure the stability in this study. However, according to Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975), reliability should not be a big problem when appropriate instruments
are used to measure respondents’ attitude and behavior intentions. In this
research study, author uses the literature-based variable measurements to
measure the six constructs. They have been tested over time in different
researches (e.g. Yu & Chantatub 2016; Rammile & Nel 2012; Laukkanen &
Kiviniemi 2010; Laukkanen et al. 2007), so they should be relatively stable.
Also, the consumer attitude, behaviour and development of mobile banking
cannot be changed easily in the coming few years, so as the customer
participation intention via mobile banking to co-create value. Therefore, there
should be little deviation in the results obtained over time.
Internal reliability refers to consistency of indicators (Bryman & Bell 2015). In

this study, it measures the reliability of the likert scale, where scores for
different items are used to calculate the score of the six constructs (Malhotra
2010). According to Malhotra (2010), there are two ways to test the internal
consistency, including split-half reliability and Cronbach’s alpha. He suggests
that the correlation can be affected by the sample size and how the groups are
split in split-half reliability but not in Cronbach's alpha. Hence, Cronbach’s
alpha is used to check the internal reliability in this study. In Cronbach’s alpha,
a coefficient greater than or equal to 0.6 indicates acceptable internal
consistency (Malhotra 2010; Flynn et al. 1994). The higher the value, the better
the internal reliability. In this study, all the Cronbach’s alpha values exceed 0.6.
This suggests the scales are reliable and similar result is likely to gather in re-
tests (Malhotra 2010). The Cronbach's alpha test result would be mentioned
more explicitly in the next chapter.
Inter-observer consistency is about the consistency of subjective judgement

involved in research activities such as observation recording and translating
data into categories (Bryman & Bell 2015). This research study uses a
structured self-completed questionnaire through online survey instrument, so
20
all data is input by respondents and stored automatically in a systematic format
in the system without researcher involvement. Also, the questionnaire only
includes close-ended questions instead of open-ended questions based on past
research studies. There is no need for further translation for the responded
results. Therefore, the inter-observer consistency is high in this study. Also,
the overall reliability is relatively high in this paper.
3.5.2. Validity
Validity and reliability is interrelated. When a measurement does not fulfil the
reliability, the validity of it cannot be accepted either (Bryman & Bell 2015).
Validity means how well the indicators is measuring what it is designed to
measure (Bryman & Bell 2015). It indicates the accuracy of a measure and the
degree of truthful reflection of a score about a concept (Zikmund & Babin
2010). In general, validity can be evaluated in the aspects of Content validity
and Construct validity (Malhotra 2010).
Content validity, also known as face validity (Bryman & Bell 2015), indicates
how well a scale’s ability to measure the constructs (Hair et al. 2010). It is
based on a systematic but relatively subjective evaluation by researchers
(Malhotra 2010). In this research study, the constructs and variable
measurements of this research are adopted from previous literatures. This
means they have been defined and tested in previous literatures and
questionnaires, so the content of this research is validated (Churchill &
Iacobucci 2004). Besides, an academic professor was sought to provide
opinions about the measurement scale of the questionnaire before pre-testing.
After that 20 potential respondents participated in the pilot test to give
feedback to minimize misunderstanding and enhance survey quality. The
survey is modified accordingly. Thus, the content validity is high in this
research paper.
Construct validity concerns about to which extent the scale is really measuring
the constructs (Malhotra 2010). It is recommended to develop hypothesis and
measure scale based on existing literatures and theories to increase construct
validity (Bryman & Bell 2015). In this research paper, the hypothesis is
deduced from existing theories and literature related to Innovation Resistance
Theory, online/mobile banking and consumer behaviour. The variable
measurements are also adopted from previous researches. These increase the
construct validity of this paper. Moreover, construct validity includes both
convergent validity and discriminant validity (Malhotra 2010). Convergent
21
validity refers to the degree of positive correlation between items measuring
the same construct; while discriminant validity means the ease of
differentiating two dissimilar constructs (Hair et al. 2010; Malhotra 2010).
In this study, a factor analysis and Pearson correlation coefficients is used to

establish construct validity as suggested by Zikmund and Babin (2010). More
specifically, factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) are used to
evaluate the convergent validity, while discriminant validity is evaluated by
comparing the AVE of each constructs with the squared correlations between
different constructs (Hair et al. 2010) and Pearson correlation coefficients
(Bryman & Bell 2015). Factor loadings and AVE equal to or above 0.5 indicate
acceptable convergence level (Hair et al. 2010). Discriminant validity is
established when square root of AVE is greater than the correlation between
constructs (Zikmund & Babin 2010). Pearson correlation coefficient lower
than 0.8 can also prove the high construct validity of the independent
constructs (Bryman & Bell 2015). In this study, all factor loadings and AVE
are larger than 0.5, all AVE is larger than the squared correlations and Pearson
correlation coefficients are lower than 0.8. Therefore, the convergent and
discriminant validity is established, i.e. construct validity is proved high. The
results for construct validity and correlation analysis would be mentioned
more explicitly in the next chapter.
3.6. Ethical considerations
Ethical consideration cannot be ignored when collecting and analyzing data in

a research study as it is directly connected to the integrity of the research
(Bryman & Bell 2015). Researchers should ensure the study is conducted
without any harm to participants and integrity of participants (Jakobsson
2014). There are four main areas of ethical concerns: information concern,
consent concern, confidentiality concern and use requirement concern (Mason
1986). Information concern is related to the provision of research purpose
voluntarily to participants (Bryman & Bell 2015). Consent concern refers to
participants’ willingness to contribute to a research (Mason 1986; Kassim
2001). Confidentiality concern is about the participants’ anonymity and
confidentiality of data (Bryman & Bell 2015; Mason 1986). Use requirement
concern is referring to the use of collected data in a research (Mason 1986).
Ethical considerations are taken into accounts by the author during survey
design and implementation in this study. In this research study, the
information about the purpose of this research study is provided when inviting
22
potential participants in social media posts and in the introduction of the
questionnaire. This is in line with the information concern. Regarding the
consent concern, no participant was forced to respond in this study. All
participants are invited to participate based on their willingness. They have the
rights to choose to participate by clicking the link of the online survey and end
anytime without interference or stress. Moreover, in the introduction of the
survey, it states clearly that participants are guaranteed protections of
anonymity and information confidentiality. This means no identity data will be
revealed and all data obtained in this research is held strictly confidential. The
online self-completion survey also further enhances the anonymity of this
research. Hence, confidentiality is ensured in this study. Besides, participants
are guaranteed that the collected data will not be used by third parties but only
be used in this research paper in the introduction of the survey. This addresses
the use requirement concern in this study. Therefore, by taking the four main
ethical concerns into consideration in this research, it is reasonable to say this
research study is carried out within the ethical framework.
23
4. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
This chapter includes five main sections. The first section is frequencies of the sample related
to the respondent profile and mobile banking usage pattern. Then, it is followed by
measurement instrument validation and reliability, continued with regression analysis and
finally ends up with the comparison between users and non-users.
4.1. Data Frequency of the Sample
After collecting the questionnaire survey, the data were imported into a
statistical software – SPSS version 22. There are in total 181 respondents
participate in the survey. All the questionnaires are completed without missing
value and used for further analysis. In the following section, the respondent
profile and mobile banking usage pattern will be presented.
Respondent profile: Respondents profile presents the basic demographic

information about the respondents in this survey. Table 2 displays the
descriptive statistics of the respondent profile. Based on the result from 181
Hong Kong respondents in this survey, female respondents account for 75
(41.4%) and male respondents stand for 106 (58.6%) of the total respondents.
Regarding the age distribution, there are only 5 respondents (2.8%) belong to
the age group equal or lower than 20, 128 respondents (70.7%) are between
21-30 years old, 13 of the total respondents (7.2%) are from age group of 31-
40, 9 respondents (5%) are within the age of 41-50 and 26 respondents
(14.4%) are older than 50 years old.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Respondent Profile
Measure Value Frequency Percentage
Female 75 41.4
Gender
Male 106 58.6
≤20 5 2.8
21-30 128 70.7
Age 31-40 13 7.2
41-50 9 5.0
>50 26 14.4
Majority of the respondents (73.5%) in this study belongs to the age group
below or equal to 30. In general, young people in Hong Kong are more
educated and are frequent users of internet and technology, while the elderlies
are less educated and less capable of using internet. Since the survey is
distrusted online through different social platforms, it reaches and attracts
more respondents from young people than the old people. In other words,
24
majority of our respondents may have high technological readiness. It is very
likely that they have adopted online banking previously. Besides, there are
more male respondents than female respondents in this study. Men in Hong
Kong are more aware of and interested in technology than females normally.
Hence, the topic of this survey may be more appealing to males, leading to the
variance in gender distribution.
Mobile banking usage pattern: Mobile banking usage pattern underlies the
respondents’ overall mobile banking activities, such as mobile banking
experience and mobile banking usage activities in the past 6 months. Table 3
presents the descriptive statistics about the mobile banking experience of the
respondents and the usage in the past six months. From the total of 181 cases,
76 respondents are mobile banking non-users who stated that they have never
used mobile banking before, which accounts for 42% of the total respondents.
105 respondents are mobile banking users who have mobile banking
experience previously. More specifically, 15 respondents (8.3%) are new users
which have started using it within one year ago. There are 40 respondents
(22.1%) have used mobile banking for one to two years. 50 respondents
(27.6%) are mature users of mobile banking who have at least 3-year
experience. It is also noticed that 32.1% of the male respondents and 21.3% of
the female respondents have at least 3-year experience in mobile banking.
While 37.7% of the male respondents and 48.0% of the female respondents
have never used mobile banking before.
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Mobile Banking Usage
Measure Value Total Female Male
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Years of 0 76 42 36 48.0 40 37.7
Experience <1 15 8.3 5 6.7 10 9.4
1-2 40 22.1 18 24 22 20.8
≥3 50 27.6 16 21.3 34 32.1
Used in past Yes 92 50.8
6 months No 89 49.2
For the mobile banking activities in the past six months, in total 92
respondents (50.8%) reported that they participated in mobile banking
activities in the past six months. 89 respondents (including 76 non-users and
13 users) did not conduct any mobile banking activities in the past six months,
accounting for 49.2%. As mentioned earlier, adoption and resistance can
coexist (Yu & Chantatub 2016). It is very likely that the 13 non-frequent users
have been experiencing resistance when using mobile banking services, leading
25
to the low participation rate in mobile banking or even rejection if barriers
remain unsolved.
4.2. Measurement Instrument Validation and Reliability
4.2.1. Measurement Validity

The construct validity of the measurement includes both convergent validity
and discriminant validity (Malhotra 2010). Factor analysis is performed to
investigate whether the items are really measuring the constructs. As
mentioned previously, the factor loading indicates the degree of convergence
with an acceptable level equal to or above 0.5; while AVE is a summary
indicator for the convergence, which need minimum value of 0.5 to establish
convergent validity (Hair et al. 2010). Table 4 summarizes the constructs,
construct items, factor loadings and AVE value after the test. Also, it displays
the descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviation (S.D.) of
each construct. In this study, one item from customer participation construct
is deleted due to its low factor loading value, which is below the acceptable
level of 0.5. After the adjustment, all factor loading and AVE values obtained
are above the minimum level of 0.5 as illustrated. Therefore, the convergent
validity in this study gets established.
Table 4: Convergent Validity Result and Construct Descriptive
Construct Items Factor Loading AVE Mean S.D.
Usage Barrier UB1 0,825 0.675 2.4489 0.9181
UB2 0,853
UB3 0,828
UB4 0,779
Value Barrier VB1 0,798 0.574 2.6630 0.9256
VB2 0,735
VB3 0,739
Risk Barrier RB1 0,592 0.618 3.4024 0.9495
RB2 0,814
RB3 0,858
RB4 0,798
RB5 0,826
RB6 0,801
Tradition Barrier TB1 0,855 0.591 2.2947 0.7875
TB2 0,781
TB3 0,658
Image Barrier IB1 0,911 0.728 2.8913 0.9033
IB2 0,882
IB3 0,761
Customer Participation CP1 0,793 0.646 3.1547 1.0426
CP3 0,814
26
On the other hand, discriminant validity is tested by examining the square root
of AVE and correlations between different constructs. When square root of
AVE is greater than the correlations, discriminant validity is proven (Zikmund
& Babin 2010). Besides, according to Brotherton (2008), correlation analysis
can measure how well the constructs are related to each other to ensure the
discriminant validity. In other words, to detect multi-collinearity between
variables. It can be carried out with Pearson’s correlation method. A Pearson’s
correlation coefficient above 0.8 is viewed as correlated (Bryman & Bell 2015).
Since all the constructs are supposed to be independent constructs, the
Pearson’s correlation coefficient should be lower than the value of 0.8. Table 5
displays the correlation matrix with Pearson correlation coefficients of
constructs and square roots of AVEs. In this study, all the square roots of
AVE exceed the correlation coefficients. Also, according to the Pearson’s
correlation, all correlation coefficient values are within the value of -0.8 and
0.8. These indicate that the constructs are not highly related to each other, so
these constructs measure differently. Hence, the discriminant validity is
proven, i.e. there is no multi-collinearity.
Table 5: Discriminant Validity Result
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. UB 0.822
2. VB 0.774** 0.758
3. RB 0.318** 0.353** 0.786
4. TB 0.527** 0.544** 0.451** 0.769
5. IB 0.473** 0.567** 0.562** 0.572** 0.853
6. CP -0.637** -0.750** -0.429** -0.475** -0.548** 0.804
Notes: The diagonal displays the square root of AVE;
UB=Usage Barrier; VB=Value Barrier; RB=Risk Barrier; TB=Tradition Barrier; IB=Image
Barrier; CP=Customer Participation; N=181;
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4.2.2. Measurement Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha is used to evaluate the internal reliability of the scales. The
reliability test is carried out for each construct respectively based on the
collected data. A Cronbach’s Alpha value which is greater or equal to 0.6 is
generally acceptable for demonstrating internal reliability (Malhotra 2010;
Flynn et al. 1994). Higher the value indicates higher consistent of the variable
measurements. Table 6 summarizes the constructs, its number of items and
Cronbach’s Alpha value after the test. The Cronbach’s Alpha value for all
constructs exceed the minimum value of 0.6. The construct Usage Barrier
(UB) featured the largest value for Cronbach Alpha (0.887), then followed by
27
the construct Risk Barrier (RB) (0.882), Customer Participation (CP) (0.879),
Value Barrier (VB) (0.795), Image Barrier (IB) (0.747) and lastly Tradition
Barrier (TB) (0.653). Therefore, it can be concluded that the internal reliability
is supported.
Table 6: Internal Reliability Result
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha Number of items
Usage Barrier 0.887 4
Value Barrier 0.795 3
Risk Barrier 0.882 6
Tradition Barrier 0.653 3
Image Barrier 0.747 3
Customer Participation 0.879 2
4.3. Regression Analysis
In order to test the hypotheses in this study, regression analysis is conducted.

The regression analysis is run to test the relationship between the five barriers
and customer participation intention. The five barriers including usage barrier,
value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier and image barrier are the
independent variables while customer participation intention is the dependent
variable.
Overall Model: In Table 7, it displays the overall model summary, including

the relevant R values and the F-test results. R2 is a multiple coefficient of
determination which indicates the degree of goodness-of-fit of the regression
model and adjusted R2 value determines also the model fitness with
adjustment depends on the number of variables in the model (Mendenhall &
Boudreau 2012). In this study, the result from the model summary shows that
adjusted R2=0.616, meaning 61.6% of the sample variation in customer
participation intention is explained by the model. This indicates the model has
a relatively good enough goodness-of-fit and predictive power. F statistic test
is used to evaluate the utility of the regression model (Mendenhall & Boudreau
2012). In the F-test result, it shows p=0.000 which is lower than the significant
level at p<0.05. This implies that the overall regression model is statistically
useful for predicting the customer participation intension, i.e. at least one of
the variables in the model are useful.
28
Table 7: Regression Model Summary
Model R R2 Adj R2 R2 Change F Sig.
Regression 0.792 0.627 0.616 0.627 58.853 0.000***
Notes: Dependent Variable: Customer Participation;
Predictors: Usage Barrier, Value Barrier, Risk Barrier, Tradition Barrier, Image Barrier;
N=181; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; p<0.001
Each Barrier: Then T statistic are used to assess the five barriers (usage
barrier, value barrier, risk barrier, tradition barrier and image barrier) separately
to determine whether they are contributing to the predictive relationship. In
other words, it helps to test the five hypotheses in our study. In Table 8, it
shows the hypothesis test results of the five barriers based on t-test, including
data of Beta (B) coefficients, values for standard deviation of the sampling
distribution and t-test results. According to Mendenhall and Boudreau (2012),
Beta coefficients indicates the relationship between the independent variable
and the dependent variable, i.e. to what extend the dependent variable is
explained by the independent variable. The higher value of beta implies a
stronger relationship. When a beta value is > 0, it indicates a positive
relationship, vice versa (i.e. <0, negative relationship). In this study, a
significant level of p<0.05 is used to evaluate the hypothesis test results.
Table 8: Hypothesis Test Coefficients
Unstandardized Coefficients t Sig.
Variables B Std. Error
H1: Usage Barrier -0.216 0.101 -2.139 0.034*
H2: Value Barrier -0.580 0.106 -5.469 0.000***
H3: Risk Barrier -0.268 0.075 -3.594 0.000***
H4: Tradition Barrier -0.269 0.091 -2.958 0.004**
H5: Image Barrier 0.035 0.098 0.357 0.722
Notes: Dependent Variable: Customer Participation;
N=181; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Hence, for the functional barriers of Innovation Resistance Theory, the usage
barrier is measured to have a significant negative relationship with customer
participation intention with p=0.034* and B=-0.216. i.e. H1 (Usage barrier
negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-
create value) is supported. The value barrier is measured to have the strongest
significance and negative relationship (P=0.000***; B=-0.580), explaining 58%
of the customer participation intention in the model. i.e. H2 (Value barrier
negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-
create value) is supported. The risk barrier has a significant negative
relationship towards customer participation intention with p=0.000*** and
29
B=-0.269. i.e. H3 (Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation
intention in mobile banking to co-create value) is supported.
For the psychological barriers of Innovation Resistance Theory, the tradition

barrier is also the significant barriers having a significant negative relationship
towards customer participation intention (P=0.004**; B=-0.269). i.e. H4
(Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in
mobile banking to co-create value) is also supported. However, the image
barrier is not a significant determinant of customer participation intention,
with p=0.722. i.e. H5 (Image barrier negatively relates to customer
participation intention in mobile banking to co-create value) needs to be
rejected.
Moreover, the standard error is the standard deviation of the sample. Smaller
the standard error implies more representative the sample (Nolan & Heinzen
2011). In this study, the standard error is within the range of 0.075-0.106
which indicates that the sample (N=181) can still be representative of the
overall Hong Kong population.
4.4. Users and Non-Users Comparison
The response of mobile banking users and non-users are compared more in
details. Non-users include all the respondents without any mobile banking
experience (with years of experience = 0), while users include the other
respondent (with years of experience ¹ 0, i.e. <1; 1-2; ≥3).
Independent sample T test is applied to analysis the critical barriers and their
differences among users and non-users of mobile banking in Hong Kong.
Table 9 shows the mean comparison and t test results for the users and non-
users. The result shows that mobile banking users differ significantly from
mobile banking non-users in terms of all barriers (usage barrier, value barrier,
risk barrier, tradition barrier and image barrier) and customer participation
intention as all t-test results show p=0.000***. All barrier means are higher for
non-users than those of users. This indicates that in general mobile banking
non-users experience higher level of barriers than mobile banking users. Risk
barrier is perceived as the most intense barriers for both mobile banking non-
users and users, with mean equal to 3.7346 and 3.1619 respectively. Value
barrier (mean=3.1053) and tradition barrier (mean=3.3947) are also the critical
barriers for non-users to customer participation intention in mobile banking.
30
Although usage barrier is an important determinant for customer participation
intention, it seems that usage barrier is not an obstacle to either of the users or
non-user (mean less than 3). Customer participation intention are much higher
for users than those of non-users, which reflecting the true reality in this case.
The differences will be discussed more in detail in the later chapter.
Table 9: Constructs comparison between users and non-users
Non-user a User b
Constructs Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Sig.
Usage Barrier 2.8257 0.80521 2.1762 0.90134 0.000***
Value Barrier 3.1053 0.76441 2.3429 0.90282 0.000***
Risk Barrier 3.7346 0.88241 3.1619 0.92723 0.000***
Tradition Barrier 3.3947 0.73779 2.5270 0.83689 0.000***
Image Barrier 2.5614 0.71224 2.1016 0.78599 0.000***
Customer Participation 2.5263 1.00630 3.9810 1.03060 0.000***
Notes: a N=76; b N=105;
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001
4.5. Summary of Important Results
In respect of the outcome of the analysis, the research model based on

Innovation Resistance Theory is proven to be useful in explaining some of the
variances in customer participation intention to co-create value via mobile
banking. Within the Innovation Resistance Theory, all functional barriers
(including usage barrier, value barrier and value barrier) and one of the
psychological barriers (tradition barrier) turn out to be significant determinants
of customer participation intention in value co-creation via mobile banking. In
other words, H1-H4 are supported while H5 is rejected based on the result of
this study. Value barrier is most significant barriers, followed by risk barrier
and tradition barrier, then lastly usage barrier in predicting customer
participation intention. While image barrier is not a significant determinant in
this case. Moreover, there are significant differences in all the barriers between
mobile banking users and non-users. The proposed research model introduced
in Chapter 2 has been updated based on the analysis results between the five
barriers and customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-create
value. It is presented in Figure 2 with the summary of all hypotheses and their
analytical results.
31
Figure 2: Result Summary
Hypotheses Results
H1: Usage barrier negatively relates to customer participation Supported

intention in mobile banking to co-create value.
H2: Value barrier negatively relates to customer participation Supported

H3: Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation Supported

H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation Supported

H5: Image barrier negatively relates to customer participation Rejected

32
5. DISCUSSION
The purpose of this chapter is to further elaborate the result analysis and link it with the
previous literature and theoretical framework of this research paper. Each barrier of the
Innovation Resistance Theory (i.e. each hypothesis) is discussed individually with practical
solutions for overcoming the barriers.
In this research study, the Innovation Resistance Theory is used as our

research model basis. The results from the model summary indicate that the
Innovation Resistance Theory contains quite many useful information in
explaining and predicting the customer participation intention to co-create
through mobile banking. In general, mobile banking users have higher
customer participation intention in using mobile banking to co-create value
than non-users as expected. Also, all functional barriers are significant barriers,
namely usage barrier, value barrier and risk barrier. In psychological barriers,
tradition barrier is significant but image barrier is insignificant. In the
following section, a more detailed discussion would be made on each barrier
respectively.
5.1. Usage Barrier
H1: Usage barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
According to the research results, usages barrier is a significant determinant of

customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-create value. This is
coherent with the research studies done by Yu and Chantatub (2016), Lee et
al. 2012, Laukkanen (2008 Dec), Laukkanen et al. (2007), and Gerrad and
Cunningham (2003). As Ram and Sheth (1989) mentioned, usage barrier is a
common cause for customer resistance in using new technologies. In mobile
banking, the value co-creation takes place in the mobile banking user interface,
which is part of the banking application (Alafeef et al. 2012). The mobile
banking interface is the platform for communication and interaction between
the users, banks, service providers and other relevant actors to co-create value
(Bajwa & Chaudhary 2006). This means interaction and value co-creation are
restricted in a platform without high level of usability. Therefore, the service
usability of mobile banking interface in terms of design, ease-of-use, speed and
complexity heavily influences the customer participation intention to co-create
value. Moreover, it is noticed that most respondents in this study are young
people in Hong Kong, so they are more educated, i.e. have higher ability to
33
use technology. Also, mobile banking has been introduced in Hong Kong for
few years already. With the rapid technology development in Hong Kong, it is
believed that the mobile banking service platform has improved since then to
enhance the service usability. Thus, usage barrier is the least significant barrier
in determining customer participation intention and the degree of usage
barrier is not high for Hong Kong customers in this study.
Although usage barrier is not a serious problem for mobile banking users or
non-users in Hong Kong, there is still a significant different in usage barrier
between them. The result shows that non-users encounter higher level of
usage barrier than users, especially in term of actual operating procedures. It
may be because users already have gained first-hand experiences in using
mobile banking and made themselves familiar with how to use it. They possess
more real knowledge and skill in using it, so they feel lower degree of the
usage barrier than non-users. While non-users who have no experience in
mobile banking depends more on the operating instructions in mobile banking
if any. Yet, in most cases, no clear and precise step-by-step instructions are
provided in mobile banking applications. Customers need to depend on
learning by doing to again the necessary skill and knowledge to use mobile
It is encouraged that banks should focus on the mobile banking interface

design quality and information display to further lower the usage barrier
(Alafeef et al. 2012). Effective strategies that can achieve the target includes
create an easy-to-use and user friendly interface, provide user tutorial and step-
by-step instructions through mobile banking application. This can reduce
customer learning time and can gradually change the perception of customers
about the usability of mobile banking (Yu & Chantatub 2016). Also, the
mobile banking interface is the first point of contact between customers and
banks. The first impression is critical for the customer participation and the
development of an overall good image of mobile banking among customers.
Moreover, more information about how to operate mobile banking to co-
create should be given customers, especially non-users. Banks are advised to
create more informative video to introduce and explain the use of mobile
banking. This can increase customers’ competence in interacting with mobile
banking more efficiently and effectively to co-create value.
34
5.2. Value Barrier
H2: Value barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking
to co-create value.
According to the result in this study, value barrier is concluded to have a

significant negative influence on customer participation intention in mobile
banking to co-create value. The studies from Yu and Chantatub (2016), Lian
and Yen (2013), Laukkanen et al. (2007), Kuisma et al. (2007); Luarn and Lin
(2005) match with the result of this study that value barrier is significant
determinant for customer behavior intention. Value barrier is related to the
performance-to-cost value of mobile banking (Rammile & Nel 2012). For
Hong Kong people, they are known for their busy lifestyle, especially true for
younger generation. Effectiveness and Efficiency is highly valued in Hong
Kong society. They rely heavily on technology that can provide them with fast,
convenience and good solution to match with their living style and needs.
Therefore, value barrier can have a huge impact on their customer
participation intention to use certain technology, in this case mobile banking,
to co-create value.
Furthermore, different customers use mobile banking for different reasons

and services. The value is evaluated based on one’s personal perspective, i.e.
mobile banking is valuable to one person may not be as valuable to another
person (Gurtner et al. 2014). In this case study, it is noticed that there is a
significant different in the perspective of value barrier between mobile banking
users and non-users. For mobile banking non-users, they experience higher
degree of value barrier than users. They have doubt about the use value of
mobile banking. They do not think mobile banking can provide them with
more value in term of performance and function than other banking
alternatives, since mobile banking in Hong Kong only provides limited type of
services to customers. It is believed that majority of the respondents, who are
young people, in this study have already adopted online banking. They would
compare online banking with mobile banking. It is considered as a supplement
rather than a replacement for existing banking alternatives such as online
banking (Wang et al. 2012). Also, they do not think mobile banking can
improve their control in their financial accounts. Yet, mobile banking users
have more user experience and actual knowledge about mobile banking. They
are more aware of the benefits from using mobile banking and more familiar
with how to use it to generate most value to them. This can be the mean
35
reason for the significant different in value barrier between mobile banking
users and non-users.
Although mobile banking cannot entirely replace the traditional banking

services, it provides an alternative and more control, and therefore improve
the overall customer experience (Salomann et al. 2006). Banks are advised to
emphasize the value obtained in using mobile banking to co-create value in
comparison with other banking alternatives (Yu & Chantatub 2016; Rammile
& Nel 2012). This can be achieved using advertising and personal
communication to enable banks to better communicate and inform potential
users and current users, and meet their needs (Elbadrawy & Aziz 2011). Also,
the customers nowadays are more informed and educated, so they are more
eager to involve in the value creation process. In the context of banking
industry, this implies that most mobile banking customers seek for more
control in their transaction (Bakar 2014). It is recommended to tangiblize
these values before any mobile banking non-users would consider trying to
participate, for example building autonomy value upon the control value.
5.3. Risk Barrier
H3: Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
The analysis result indicates that risk barrier is the most significant and intense
barrier to customer participation intention among both users and non-users.
Every innovation inherits certain level of perceived risk (Ram & Sheth 1989).
It is found to be a common barrier for new technology adoption. The
previous study results also support this, e.g. Yu and Chantatub (2016), Antioco
and Kleijnen (2010), Laukkanen (2008 Dec), Kuisma et al. (2007) and
Luakkanen et al. (2007). This can be explained by the risk factors such as
privacy and security, self-efficacy and reliability (Laukkanen & Kiviniemi
2010). In Hong Kong, people tend to have a high level of uncertainty
avoidance, meaning people are more risk adverse and caution is appreciated by
nature (Wood & Wilberger 2015). The use of mobile banking to co-create
value is related to their actual financial matter. The financial risk is the most
important factor in banking activities. Hong Kong customers are more careful
about that to avoid any financial loss. Any uncertainty in the mobile banking
security and reliability can result in rejection or infrequent use of mobile
banking to co-create value. Therefore, risk barrier is the most significant and
36
serious barrier for customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-
create value in Hong Kong.
More specifically, even though Hong Kong has an advanced technological

development, it still faces the cyber space security risk like many other
countries. Customers are concerned about the privacy and security of mobile
banking the most. They are afraid the mobile banking login information may
be lost or account being hacked. Also, the money and person information
would be stolen and misused more easily. This can create an enormous
financial loss to them. Therefore, they are uncertain about the mobile banking
privacy and security in general. Besides, customers are worried about the
reliability of the internet connection and battery life of their mobile device
when using mobile banking (Kuisma et al. 2007). The risk of interrupting the
interactions, such as account transactions and bank services, is an undesirable
factor to co-create value via mobile banking. It is because the time and effort
from customers would be in vain and they need to perform the activities again.
Although most respondents are well-educated, customers still do not have
absolute confidence in themselves to conduct mobile banking services without
mistake (Laukkanen 2007; Luarn & Lin 2005). Since all the service instructions
are irreversible and related to actual financial matter in mobile banking
application, customers can easily suffer financial loss when they make mistake.
Nevertheless, it is also noticed that there is a significant different in risk barrier

among mobile banking users and non-users in Hong Kong. Non-users
encounter higher risk barrier than non-users. Compared to current users, non-
users are less knowledgeable about mobile banking and more risk aversion
(Lam & Shankar 2014). Therefore, they have lower risk tolerance and higher
level perceived risk. On the other hand, mobile banking users are innovation
adopters, which have higher risk tolerance. They also have higher
competencies and experience in using mobile banking to minimize the risk of
making mistake. Hence, they encounter lower level of risk barrier than mobile
banking non-users. Despite the significant different, risk barrier is the most
important and serious barrier for mobile banking users and non-users in Hong
Kong.
In order to lower the risk barrier, banks are suggested to enhance the
knowledge-based trust and institution-based trust. Knowledge-based trust
derives from accumulation of personal experience and knowledge resulting
from interaction (Yu & Chantatub 2016). Banks should focus on fostering a
long term mutual relationship with customers to enhance the customer trust.
37
Also, banks can introduce mobile banking service trial for free as a demo, so
customers can try the mobile banking application with a fictitious account to
gain some experiences beforehand. With sufficient interactions between banks
and customers, non-users are encouraged to turn into users, and users would
increase the frequency in using mobile banking to co-create value. Regarding
institution-based trust, it is based on rules, regulations and legal protections
(Yu & Chantatub 2016). Developing a secure cyber space is a big and pressing
challenge for promoting mobile banking in Hong Kong. Banks are
recommended to improve the privacy and security of the mobile banking
application through regulations and governmental laws. They need to work
collaboratively with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) to raise
public awareness, build customer trust and confidence, as well as enforce
customer protection.
5.4. Tradition Barrier
H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile

Based on the analysis result, the hypothesis is accepted. This means people
who are more concern about the tradition and its conflict to new technology
tend to less willing to participate in mobile banking to co-create value. This is
contradicting to the previous studies from Yu and Chantatub (2016), Lin
(2011) and Luakkanen et al. (2007). However, the research result is consistent
with the results from Lian and Yen (2013) and Antioco and Kleijnen (2010)
that tradition barrier has a significant negative impact on customer
participation intention in mobile banking to co-create value. The tradition
barrier to participating in value co-create via mobile banking may arise since
customers are accustomed to conduct banking activities in the established
means. Due to the high-power distance in Hong Kong culture (Barnes et al.
2015), there is a high different in power between bank customers and
employees in this case, meaning bank customers are expected to be served by
bank employees rather than serve themselves. They are reluctant to change
their established tradition (Rammile & Nel 2012). Also, they think co-creating
value in mobile banking contradict their existing value and norm. Although
young people in Hong Kong are becoming more individualistic nowadays, the
whole society is still influenced the most by collectivism. This means that
Hong Kong people are more people-oriented. They treasure and seek for
personal relationship (gangxi) (Barnes et al. 2015), even in the context of
38
banking activities. They prefer visiting physical bank branches and talking with
staff personnel, i.e. they prefer to co-create value through personal and social
interaction as it is more enjoyable. All these deviations negatively influence the
customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-create value.
Furthermore, a significant different also exist in tradition barrier between

mobile banking users and non-users. In this study, non-users show a higher
tendency of more attached to their tradition and resistance to change. This
leads to a higher level of tradition barrier. While users are already technology
adopters. They are less constricted by the established way of doing things,
more willing to change and adopt new technologies. They are not aware of any
big discrepancy between mobile banking and their existing value and norm
(Antioco & Kleijnen 2010). Therefore, mobile banking users experience less
degree of tradition barrier than mobile banking non-users in Hong Kong.
In order to promote value co-creation through mobile banking, it is important

for banks to overcome the tradition barrier. As Oly Ndubisi and Sinti (2006)
stated, customers have already developed their personal banking norm,
accounting and finance management mechanisms, and lifestyle before the
introduction of mobile banking. Whether they would accept or reject the
mobile banking as the new mode of value co-creation depends on the extent
mobile banking accommodates or rejects all or some of their traditional values.
In other words, banks in Hong Kong must try to align the value proposition
of mobile banking to customer value and tradition (Yiu et al. 2007). They can
build an interactive interface and include real time customer services via toll
free calls or instant messages in the mobile banking platform (Lian & Yen
2013; Lian et al. 2012). This provides customers a choice for personal
interaction and help when using mobile banking to co-create value if needed.
Banks should also provide information to non-users that mobile banking
services will match their daily routine and values through different
communication channels (Antioco & Kleijnen 2010). Less uncomfortable
feeling and frustration would occur when customers confront with mobile
banking application.
39
5.5. Image Barrier
H5: Image barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile banking to
co-create value.
Based on the analysis result, this hypothesis is rejected. This implies that image
barrier are not relevant in predicting the customer participation intention in
mobile banking to co-create value. The result is dissident from earlier studies
done by e.g. Yu and Chantatub (2016), Lian and Yen (2013), Lian et al. (2012),
Laukkanen et al. (2007) which all revealed a significant correlation between the
image barrier and the customer behavior intention. Yet, the research study
done by Elbadrawy et al. (2012) supported this result. Image barrier is related
to customer’s stereotyped thinking of new technology application (Ram &
Sheth 1989), in this case mobile banking. In Hong Kong, technology and
innovation development are well-developed and advanced. Many people have
the experience of using and integrating different kind of technologies in their
daily life, for example, smart phones, computers, smart home kits and many
more. This is especially true for most of the respondents in this study.
Therefore, both mobile banking users and non-users in this study generally
have a positive image about mobile banking and new technology. In other
words, image barrier is not a critical barrier determinant toward customer
participation intention comparing to other barriers in Hong Kong. The
significant different in image barrier between mobile banking users and non-
users is probably because the users adopt mobile banking earlier than the non-
users. The mobile banking users are more positive and open minded towards
new technology in general. Despite the significant difference, image barrier is
not a problem for both users and non-users in mobile banking adaptation in
Hong Kong.
40
6. CONCLUSION
This chapter will discuss the conclusion drawn from the result and discussion according to the
research aim and research questions stated earlier. More specifically, it answers the research
questions, discuss the contribution and managerial implication of this study. At the end of
the chapter, limitation and future research recommendation are presented.
6.1. Significant Barriers and Solutions
Motivated by the imperative need to understand the low customer

participation in mobile banking to co-create value in Hong Kong, this paper
investigates the topic from a mobile banking resistance approach. The research
study shows that overall the Innovation Resistance Theory is useful to explain
the customer participation intention in mobile banking to co-create value in
Hong Kong. Four out of five barriers in the Innovation Resistance Theory are
concluded to be significant determinants which negatively influence the
customer participation intention. The four significant barriers include all three
functional barriers - usage barrier, value barrier and risk barrier, and one out of
two psychological barriers - tradition barrier. The image barrier in
psychological barriers is proven to be insignificant in this case. The most
influential variable is risk barrier, followed by value barrier and tradition
barrier, then by usage barrier. Furthermore, by comparing mobile banking user
and non-users, this study discovers that there is a significant different in their
perception about the five barriers and their participation intention. Mobile
banking non-users generally experience higher degree of barriers and lower
degree of customer participation intention than mobile banking users. The
Hong Kong mobile banking non-users confront usage barrier, value barrier,
risk barrier and tradition barrier. On the other hand, the Hong Kong mobile
banking users mainly undergo risk barrier.
Banks are recommended to adopt various marketing strategies to reduce the

reluctance of Hong Kong customers to participation in value co-creation
through mobile banking. In order to reduce the usage barrier, it is suggested to
focus on the mobile banking interface design quality and information display.
Instruction video and tutorial can be provided to customers, especially non-
users. Regarding the value barrier, communication channels can be used to
better inform the customers about the value of mobile banking. It is also
important to tangiblize the values. With the aim to alleviate the risk barrier for
both users and non-users, knowledge-based trust and institution-based trust
41
need to be developed. These can be achieved through focusing on long term
relationship, free demo and enforcement of rules and regulations. Concerning
about the tradition barriers, aligning the mobile banking value proposition
with customer values and provision of optional customer service in mobile
banking can help to lessen the barriers. In addition, information about mobile
banking in terms of the value proposition, usage, security issues should be
communicated to the customers.
6.2. Contribution and Implication
As mentioned earlier, most adoption-based researches are conducted from a

positive approach, while customer innovation resistance has generally been
neglected. This research study may rectify this shortcoming by examining the
barriers that affect customer intention to use mobile banking to co-create
value. Also, this research study further strengthens the Innovation Resistance
Theory scope of application. This study not only explore the major barriers for
customer participation in mobile banking to co-create value, but also
investigate the discrepancy between users and non-users. Furthermore, this
research study has contributed to the pressing and prevailing discussion about
customer participation intention of value co-creation in mobile banking.
Customer participation and resistance are both essential elements for the
successful commercialization of mobile banking in Hong Kong. Since positive
approach adoption-based researches have dominated, this empirical study can
be beneficial to banks in better devising the mobile banking strategies and
services.
Banks need to constantly examine the customer participation behavior and

design appropriate strategies accordingly. It is vital for banks to create a
customized marketing plan depending on each context in order to eliminate or
reduce the potential barriers. In this study, significant barriers and actual
barriers of customer participation intention for both users and non-users have
been identified. These various factors and respective solutions discussed in
this paper could offer a practical guideline for banks. Besides, banks should
focus on different barriers when dealing with different customers such as users
or non-users. Those information is useful to facilitate the mobile banking
value proposition framing and enhance their positioning in an evolving Hong
Kong market. It is also encouraged for banks to shift the mind-set away from
creating value for customers to co-creating value with customers by taking
advantage of mobile banking.
42
When devising mobile banking strategies, the biggest question for banks is:
how much the customers trust the banking system? Hence, the first priority
for banks in Hong Kong is to overcome the risk barrier for both users and
non-users. As mentioned earlier, knowledge-based trust can be easily increased
by banks through the mean of focusing on long term relationship with
customers, free demo and provision of mobile banking information. However,
the cyber space security requires the establishment of institution-based trust.
In the case of mobile banking, it requires collaboration with the Hong Kong
Monetary Authority (HKMA) to set up and enforce rules and regulations.
Although it is a time consuming and challenging task for both banks and the
government, it is essential for the long-term success of mobile banking or
other cyber space related technologies in the future.
6.3. Limitation and Future Research
In this research study, there are few potential limitations. Firstly, the sample
techniques could have an influence on the research analysis result. The result
shows that majority of the respondents in this study are young people. Since
online survey was applied as the approach to reach the targeted Hong Kong
population, some groups of the people may be excluded from this study. For
example, the online survey cannot reach the internet non-users, especially the
elderlies with limited technology skills. This creates a sample bias and may
influence the result of the study. Also, due to the time limit, only 181 samples
are collected in this study. The sample size is relatively small in comparison to
the whole Hong Kong population, which may influence the study result.
Moreover, generalizing the findings to other countries need to be careful. As
this study focuses on the Hong Kong market, different countries may have
different cultural settings, lifestyles and social values. These factors can have a
great impact on the behavior and perception of customers, so the final
findings may vary. Lastly, the generalizing the findings to other mobile device
applications also need to be caution. Since mobile banking application
concerns about the actual financial matters of customers, other mobile
technologies may not have the same context. Customers may have distinct
needs and perceptions for different mobile device applications.
The result of this research study can be worked as a basis ground for further
research about customer participation in mobile banking to co-create value in
the future. It would be valuable to extend this quantitative study by
distributing questionnaires physically to include more respondents from
43
different age group and non-internet users. Also, more responses can be
collected to increase the sample size and sample representativeness of Hong
Kong population. Other variables such as age and gender can be also included
in the research analysis to investigate whether those factors have an impact on
customer participation intention and perceptions of barriers. Also, it will be
interesting to replicate this study in another context, for example in different
cultures and countries. Besides, since this research was a quantitative study, a
complementary qualitative study could be useful to provide banks with a
better understanding of this topic. The qualitative study could focus on the
customer perspective and/or bank perspective to understand deeper their
decision-making process. This can provide banks with a broader picture, so
they can design the marketing campaigns more effectively and efficiently to
address the concerns and barriers of customers.
44
7. REFERENCE
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS quarterly, 665-694.
Ahlstrom, D. (2010). Innovation and growth: How business contributes to society. The
Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 11-24.
Alafeef, M., Singh, D., & Ahmad, K. (2012). The influence of demographic factors and user
interface on mobile banking adoption: a review. Journal of applied sciences, 12(20), 2082.
Al-Jabri, I. M., & Sohail, M. S. (2012). Mobile banking adoption: Application of diffusion of
innovation theory.
Alsajjan, B., & Dennis, C. (2010). Internet banking acceptance model: Cross-market
examination. Journal of Business Research, 63(9), 957-963.
Akinci, S., Aksoy, Ş., & Atilgan, E. (2004). Adoption of internet banking among
sophisticated consumer segments in an advanced developing country. International journal of
bank marketing, 22(3), 212-232.
Antioco, M., & Kleijnen, M. (2010). Consumer adoption of technological innovations:
Effects of psychological and functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence of
content situation. European Journal of Marketing, 44(11/12), 1700-1724.
Bain/Research Now Retail Banking NPS Surveys (2016). Customer Loyalty in Retail Banking:
Global Edition 2016. Available at: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/customer-
loyalty-in-retail-banking-2016.aspx [Accessed 18 Mar. 2017].
Bajwa, I. S., & Chaudhary, M. A. (2006). A Language Engineering System for Graphical User
Interface Design (LESGUID): A Rule based Approach. In Information and Communication
Technologies, 2006. ICTTA'06. 2nd (Vol. 2, pp. 3582-3586). IEEE.
Bakar, A. R. A. (2014). Determining the Self-Service Technology Adoption in Saudi Arabia:
A Multi-Industry Approach. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(3), 111.
Barnes, S. J., & Corbitt, B. (2003). Mobile banking: concept and potential. International Journal
of Mobile Communications, 1(3), 273-288.
Barnes, B. R., Leonidou, L. C., Siu, N. Y., & Leonidou, C. N. (2015). Interpersonal Factors
as Drivers of Quality and Performance in Western–Hong Kong Interorganizational Business
Relationships. Journal of International Marketing, 23(1), 23-49.
Bashange, L. (2015). Assessment of the risk awareness for mobile banking users in Tanzania, a case of
CRDB Mbagala branch Temeke Municipality Dar Es Salaam (Doctoral dissertation, The Open
University Of Tanzania).
Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation
in co-production. Journal of marketing, 67(1), 14-28.
Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in service
encounters. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 28(1), 138-149.
Brahim, S. B. (2015). Typology of Resistance to e Banking adoption by Tunisian. Journal of
Electronic Banking Systems, 2015, 1.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105-114.
45
Brown, I., Cajee, Z., Davies, D., & Stroebel, S. (2003). Cell phone banking: predictors of
adoption in South Africa—an exploratory study. International journal of information
management, 23(5), 381-394.
Bruner, G. C., & Kumar, A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet
devices. Journal of business research, 58(5), 553-558.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2013). Marketing research. Pearson Higher Ed.
Churchill, G. A., & Iacobucci, D. (2004). Marketing research: Methodological foundations
Thomson Corporation. South Western, Ohio.
Coursaris, C., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2003). M-commerce in Canada: an interaction
framework for wireless privacy. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des
Sciences de l'Administration, 20(1), 54-73.
Cunningham, L. F., Young, C. E., & Gerlach, J. H. (2008). Consumer views of self-service
technologies. The Service Industries Journal, 28(6), 719-732.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Dean, D. H. (2008). Shopper age and the use of self-service technologies. Managing Service
Quality: An International Journal, 18(3), 225-238.
Ding, X., Verma, R., & Iqbal, Z. (2007). Self-service technology and online financial service
choice. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(3), 246-268.
Dong, B., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created
service recovery. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 123-137.
Dunphy, S., & Herbig, P. A. (1995). Acceptance of innovations: The customer is the
key!. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 6(2), 193-209.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service
exchange and value co-creation: a social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39(2), 327-339.
Elbadrawy, R., & Aziz, R. A. (2011). Resistance to mobile banking adoption in Egypt: A
cultural perspective. International Journal of Managing Information Technology, 3(4), 9.
Elbadrawy, R., El Aziz, R. A., & Hamza, M. (2012). Towards an Egyptian Mobile Banking
Era. Computer Technology and Application, 3(11).
Fain, D., & Roberts, M. L. (1997). Technology vs. consumer behavior: The battle for the
financial services customer. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 11(1), 44-54.
Fernandes, T., & Remelhe, P. (2016). How to engage customers in co-creation: customers’
motivations for collaborative innovation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(3-4), 311-326.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research.
Fisher, C. (2007). Researching and writing a dissertation: a guidebook for business students. Pearson
Education.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations management, 11(4),
339-366.
46
Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet
shopping. journal of Business research, 56(11), 867-875.
Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing Co-creation Design: A
Strategic Approach to Innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463-483.
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature
review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643-683.
Garcia, R., Bardhi, F., & Friedrich, C. (2007). Overcoming consumer resistance to
innovation. MIT Sloan management review, 48(4), 82.
Gerrard, P., & Barton Cunningham, J. (2003). The diffusion of internet banking among
Singapore consumers. International journal of bank marketing, 21(1), 16-28.
Gerrard, P., Barton Cunningham, J., & Devlin, J. F. (2006). Why consumers are not using
internet banking: a qualitative study. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(3), 160-168.
Gourville, J. T. (2006). Eager sellers & stony buyers. Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 98-106.
Gummerus, J. (2013). Value creation processes and value outcomes in marketing theory:
strangers or siblings?. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 19-46.
Grönroos, C. (2009). Marketing as promise management: regaining customer management
for marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 351-359.
Grönroos, C. (2011). A service perspective on business relationships: The value creation,
interaction and marketing interface. Industrial marketing management, 40(2), 240-247.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: making sense of value creation and
co-creation. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 41(2), 133-150.
Gurtner, S., Reinhardt, R., & Soyez, K. (2014). Designing mobile business applications for
different age groups. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 177-188.
Heidenreich, S., & Handrich, M. (2015). What about passive innovation resistance?
Investigating adoption-related behavior from a resistance perspective. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 32(6), 878-903.
Heinonen, K. (2004). Reconceptualizing customer perceived value: the value of time and
place. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 14(2/3), 205-215.
Herbig, P. A., & Day, R. L. (1992). Customer acceptance: the key to successful introductions
of innovations. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 10(1), 4-15.
Jayawardhena, C., & Foley, P. (2000). Changes in the banking sector–the case of Internet
banking in the UK. Internet Research, 10(1), 19-31.
Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value
co-creation: a service system perspective. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 247-261.
Jakobsson, A. (2014). To See Possibilities–A Study of Advocates for the Undocumented
Migrants in Sweden. choice, 51, 245-267.
Jo Black, N., Lockett, A., Winklhofer, H., & Ennew, C. (2001). The adoption of Internet
financial services: a qualitative study. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 29(8), 390-398.
Jonung, M., & Malhotra, M. (2007). Attitudes towards Sustainable Development and Corporate Social
Responsibility among Future Business Leaders in Bangalore, India. Stockholm School of Economics.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2010). MDA: A global perspective, 7th
ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
47
Herzberg, A. (2003). Payments and banking with mobile personal devices. Communications of
the ACM, 46(5), 53-58.
Im, I., Kim, Y., & Han, H. J. (2008). The effects of perceived risk and technology type on
users’ acceptance of technologies. Information & Management, 45(1), 1-9.
Kassim, N. M. (2001). Determinants of customer satisfaction and retention in the cellular phone market of
Malaysia. Southern Cross University.
Kohler, T., Fueller, J., Matzler, K., Stieger, D., & Füller, J. (2011). Co-creation in virtual
worlds: The design of the user experience. MIS quarterly, 773-788.
Koksal, M. H. (2016). The intentions of Lebanese consumers to adopt mobile
banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(3), 327-346.
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T., & Hiltunen, M. (2007). Mapping the reasons for resistance to
Internet banking: A means-end approach. International Journal of Information Management, 27(2),
75-85.
Lam, S. Y., & Shankar, V. (2014). Asymmetries in the effects of drivers of brand loyalty
between early and late adopters and across technology generations. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28(1), 26-42.
Laukkanen, T., & Lauronen, J. (2005). Consumer value creation in mobile banking
services. International journal of mobile Communications, 3(4), 325-338.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M., & Laukkanen, P. (2007). Innovation resistance
among mature consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 419-427.
Laukkanen, T. (2007). Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value
perceptions. Business process management journal, 13(6), 788-797.
Laukkanen, T. (2008, December). Determinants of mobile banking resistance: A preliminary
model. In Proceedings of ANZMAC (Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy) Conference,
Sydney, Australia, December (pp. 1-3).
Laukkanen, T., & Kiviniemi, V. (2010). The role of information in mobile banking
resistance. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28(5), 372-388.
Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business
Research, 69(7), 2432-2439.
Lee, K. C., & Chung, N. (2009). Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with
mobile banking in Korea: A modified DeLone and McLean’s model perspective. Interacting
with computers, 21(5), 385-392.
Lee, Y. K., Park, J. H., Chung, N., & Blakeney, A. (2012). A unified perspective on the
factors influencing usage intention toward mobile financial services. Journal of Business
Research, 65(11), 1590-1599.
Lian, J. W., Liu, H. M., & Liu, I. L. (2012). Applying innovation resistance theory to
understand user acceptance of online shopping: The moderating effect of different product
types. Computer Technology and Application, 3(2).
Lian, J. W., & Yen, D. C. (2013). To buy or not to buy experience goods online: Perspective
of innovation adoption barriers. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 665-672.
Liao, Z., & Cheung, M. T. (2002). Internet-based e-banking and consumer attitudes: an
empirical study. Information & Management, 39(4), 283-295.
48
Lissitz, R. W., & Green, S. B. (1975). Effect of the number of scale points on reliability: A
Monte Carlo approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(1), 10.
Luarn, P., & Lin, H. H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use
mobile banking. Computers in human behavior, 21(6), 873-891.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing Research: An AppliedOrientation (6th Edition ed.). Pearson.
Marr, N. E., & Prendergast, G. P. (1993). Consumer adoption of self-service technologies in
retail banking: is expert opinion supported by consumer research?. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 11(1), 3-10.
Mason, R. O. (1986). Issues & Opinons Four Ethical Issues of the Information
Age. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 10(1).
Mattila, M., Karjaluoto, H., & Pento, T. (2003). Internet banking adoption among mature
customers: early majority or laggards?. Journal of services marketing, 17(5), 514-528.
Mendenhall, W., & Boudreau, N. S. (2012). A second course in statistics: regression analysis (7th
Edition ed.). Pearson.
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Roundtree, R. I., & Bitner, M. J. (2000). Self-service
technologies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service
encounters. Journal of marketing, 64(3), 50-64.
Meuter, M. L., Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., & Roundtree, R. (2003). The influence of
technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Journal of
Business Research, 56(11), 899-906.
Meuter, M. L., Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Brown, S. W. (2005). Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer trial of self-service
technologies. Journal of marketing, 69(2), 61-83.
Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). The use of knowledge for technological
innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 307-325.
Molesworth, M., & Suortti, J. P. (2002). Buying cars online: the adoption of the web for
high-involvement, high-cost purchases. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2(2), 155-168.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information systems
research, 2(3), 192-222.
Muñiz, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2011). How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-
generated content. Business Horizons, 54(3), 209-217.
Nolan, S. A., & Heinzen, T. (2011). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Macmillan.
Oly Ndubisi, N., & Sinti, Q. (2006). Consumer attitudes, system's characteristics and internet
banking adoption in Malaysia. Management Research News, 29(1/2), 16-27.
Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure
readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of service research, 2(4), 307-320.
Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of
the academy of marketing science, 36(1), 83-96.
Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., & Knox, S. (2009). Co-creating brands: Diagnosing and
designing the relationship experience. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 379-389.
49
Poon, W. C., Yong, G. F. D., & Lam, W. H. P. (2008). An insight into the attributes
influencing the acceptance of Internet banking: The consumers' perspective. International
Journal of Services and Standards, 5(1), 81-94.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard business
review, 78(1), 79-90.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in
value creation. Journal of interactive marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Ram, S. (1987). A model of innovation resistance. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume
14.
Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem
and its solutions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2), 5-14.
Rammile, N., & Nel, J. (2012). Understanding resistance to cell phone banking adoption
through the application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). African Journal of Business
Management, 6(1), 86.
Riedl, C., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2011). Why e-service development is different: a
literature review. e-Service Journal, 8(1), 2-22.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rotchanakitumnuai, S., & Speece, M. (2003). Barriers to Internet banking adoption: a
qualitative study among corporate customers in Thailand. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 21(6/7), 312-323.
Rust, R. T., & Kannan, P. K. (2003). E-service: a new paradigm for business in the electronic
environment. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 36-42.
Salomann, H., Kolbe, L., & Brenner, W. (2005). Self-services in customer relationships:
balancing high-tech and high-touch today and tomorrow. E-service Journal, 4(2), 65-84.
Schau, H. J., Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of marketing, 73(5), 30-51.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. J. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. John
Wiley & Sons.
Shaikh, A. A., & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). Mobile banking adoption: A literature
review. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 129-142.
Sheth, J. N. (1981). An integrative theory of patronage preference and behavior (pp. 9-28). College of
Commerce and Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
Siau, K., & Shen, Z. (2003). Building customer trust in mobile commerce. Communications of
the ACM, 46(4), 91-94.
Srijumpa, R., Chiarakul, T., & Speece, M. (2007). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction in service
encounters: retail stockbrokerage and corporate banking in Thailand. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 25(3), 173-194.
Suoranta, M., & Mattila, M. (2004). Mobile banking and consumer behaviour: New insights
into the diffusion pattern. Journal of financial services marketing, 8(4), 354-366.
Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. The Journal of Marketing, 54-60.
Teo, T. S., & Pok, S. H. (2003). Adoption of WAP-enabled mobile phones among Internet
users. Omega, 31(6), 483-498.
50
Walker, R. H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R., & Francis, H. (2002). Technology-enabled service
delivery: An investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(1), 91-106.
Wang, C., Harris, J., & Patterson, P. G. (2012). Customer choice of self-service technology:
the roles of situational influences and past experience. Journal of Service Management, 23(1), 54-
78.
Wood, V. R., & Wilberger, J. S. (2015). Globalization, Cultural Diversity and Organizational
Commitment: Theoretical Underpinnings. World, 6(2), 154-171.
Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of
the revised technology acceptance model. Information & management, 42(5), 719-729.
Wünderlich, N. V., Wangenheim, F. V., & Bitner, M. J. (2013). High tech and high touch: a
framework for understanding user attitudes and behaviors related to smart interactive
services. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 3-20.
Van der Aa, W., & Elfring, T. (2002). Realizing innovation in services. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 18(2), 155-171.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal
of marketing, 68(1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal
of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service
systems and service logic perspective. European management journal, 26(3), 145-152.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of
service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.
Yang, M., & Park, K. H. (2011). Self-service technologies (SSTs): determinants of adoption
and its post-usage outcomes from a focal company perspective. International Journal of Services
and Operations Management, 8(3), 305-321.
Yim, C. K., Chan, K. W., & Lam, S. S. (2012). Do customers and employees enjoy service
participation? Synergistic effects of self-and other-efficacy. Journal of marketing, 76(6), 121-140.
Yiu, C. S., Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2007). Factors affecting the adoption of Internet Banking
in Hong Kong—implications for the banking sector. International Journal of Information
Management, 27(5), 336-351.
Yu, C. S., & Chantatub, W. (2016). CONSUMERS'RESISTANCE TO USING MOBILE
BANKING: EVIDENCE FROM THAILAND AND TAIWAN. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce Studies, 7(1), 21.
Zikmund, W. G., & Babin, B. J. (2010). Exploring marketing research: Sampling designs and
sampling procedures. South-Western Cengage Learning: Long Island, NY, USA.
51
8. APPENDIX
8.1. Variable Measurements
Table 10: Variable Measurements
Construct Measure items Literature reference
Usage UB 1: I think mobile banking services are user- Kuisma et al. (2007)
Barrier friendly. (-) Laukkanen and
(UB) UB 2: I think the use of mobile banking services is Kiviniemi (2010)
convenient. (-) Laukkanen et al. (2007)
UB 3: I think mobile banking services are fast. (-) Lee and Chung (2009)
UB 4: I think procedures in mobile banking Rammile and Nel (2012)
services is clear. (-)
Value VB 1: I think the use of mobile banking services is Brahim (2015)
Barrier cost-efficient. (-) Brown et al. (2003)
(VB) VB 2: I think mobile banking have better functions Kuisma et al. (2007)
than other banking alternatives. (-) Laukkanen and
VB 3: I think the use of mobile banking services Kiviniemi (2010)
increases my ability to control my financial Laukkanen et al. (2007)
matters by myself. (-) Luarn and Lin (2005)
Risk Barrier RB 1: I am concerned that while I am using Brahim (2015)
(RB) mobile banking services, the battery of the Brown et al. (2003)
mobile device will run out or the connection Kuisma et al. (2007)
will be interrupted. Laukkanen and
RB 2: I am afraid of making mistakes while I am Kiviniemi (2010)
using mobile banking services. Laukkanen et al. (2007)
RB 3: I fear that mobile banking login information Luarn and Lin (2005)
may be lost and end up in the wrong hands Poon (2008)
or hacked. Rammile and Nel (2012)
RB 4: I think mobile banking is secure. (-)
RB 5: I think my money would be stolen more
easily if I use mobile banking.
RB 6: I feel safe providing personal information
over mobile banking. (-)
Tradition TB 1: I get used to the established way of doing Brahim (2015)
Barrier (TB) my banking services instead of using Gerrard et al. (2006)
mobile banking. Heinonen 2004
TB 2: I like going to physical bank branches and Laukkanen and
talk with the staff. Kiviniemi (2010)
TB 3: It is more enjoyable to use mobile banking Laukkanen et al. (2007)
than personal customer service. (-) Lian and Yen (2013)
Rammile and Nel (2012)
Image IB 1: I think it is difficult to learn how to use a Brahim (2015)
Barrier (IB) new technology. Kuisma et al. (2007)
IB 2: I have the impression that mobile banking is Laukkanen & Kiviniemi
difficult to use. (2010)
IB 3: I have a positive image of mobile banking. Laukkanen et al. (2007)
(-)
Customer CP 1: I intend to use mobile banking in the future. Fernandes and Remelhe
Participation CP 2: I will share my feedbacks and comments (2016)
(CP) about my user experience with banks when Brahim (2015)
using mobile banking. Lian and Yen (2013)
CP 3: I will use mobile banking to handle my Chen and Wang (2016)
financial matters frequently.
(-) Inverted variables / Reversed scale
52

MB Vs Barriers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MB Vs Barriers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mei Ngan Wong

In the Case of Hong Kong

Term: Spring 2017

As a starting point of my thesis paper, I would like to express my sincere

The utmost gratitude goes to my supervisor, Professor Bertrand Pauget. I

Additionally, I appreciate and thanks to my friends who supported and shared

Furthermore, a special thank and appreciation go to my beloved family,

Finally, I would like to thank you Karlstad University for providing me a

Mei Ngan Wong

Purpose – The aim of this thesis is to investigate the resistance factors

Design/Methodology/approach – The value measurement and hypotheses

Practical implications – This study provides useful and practical implications

Originality/value – Majority of the innovation adoption-based studies are

Keywords Mobile banking, Value co-creation, Customer participation,

Innovation and customer participation are considered as important drivers for

Mobile banking is a service technology introduced by banks nowadays. It

Mobile banking acting as a service delivery medium has fundamentally altered

Many previous research focusing on the positive aspects of adoption has

Technology innovation adoption only occurs when initial barriers have

1.2. Problem Discussion

Nowadays, customers are proactively engaged in the value co-creation network

In the past few decades, adoption-based research focusing on positive aspects

Encouraging customers to participate in mobile banking for value co-creation

1.3. Purpose and Research Question

- Evaluating the Innovation Resistance Theory from Ram and Sheth

- Investigating the relationship between the five barriers and customer

- Examining whether mobile banking users and users differ in barriers

- Suggesting possible strategies to alleviate the barriers accordingly

Therefore, two research questions are developed based on the aims:

Chapter 1: Introduction explains the research background, outline the research

2.1. Mobile banking

Mobile banking was introduced by Merita Nordbanken (Currently Nordea) in

Due to rapid technology development, many banks take advantage of the

2.2. Value Co-creation

In traditional marketing, value is embedded in goods or services during

In value co-creation, consumers take up an active role in creating value

2.3. Innovation Resistance Theory

Different researchers have tried to understand the importance of innovation

2.3.1. Usage Barrier

The usage barrier is connected to the functional usability of innovations.

2.3.2. Value Barrier

Previous research results show that relative advantage and perceived

2.3.3. Risk Barrier

Every innovation has certain degree of perceived risk as uncertainty is inherit

2.3.4. Tradition Barrier

Tradition barrier occurs when an innovation cause deviation from established

In the context of self-service technology in banking sector, some customers do

H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in mobile

2.3.5. Image Barrier

In the 1990s, an unfavorable hard-to-use image of desktop computers and

2.4. Research Model

Figure 1: Research Model and Hypothesis

H1: Usage barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H2: Value barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H3: Risk barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H4: Tradition barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

H5: Image barrier negatively relates to customer participation intention in

3.1. Research Strategy and Design

3.2. Data Collection Method

An online survey is applied as the primary data collection method. According

3.3. Questionnaire Design

Wording and Content: The questions in this questionnaire are designed to be

Response Format: In this questionnaire, two types of response format are