Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Technology readiness, mobile payments and

gender- a reflective-formative second order
approach

Juan Fernando Tavera-Mesías, Aaron van Klyton & Alexander Zuñiga

Collazos

To cite this article: Juan Fernando Tavera-Mesías, Aaron van Klyton & Alexander Zuñiga Collazos
(2022): Technology readiness, mobile payments and gender- a reflective-formative second order
approach, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2022.2054729

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2054729

Published online: 29 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2054729

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Technology readiness, mobile payments and gender- a reflective-formative

second order approach
a b
Juan Fernando Tavera-Mesías , Aaron van Klyton and Alexander Zuñiga Collazosc
a
Departamento de Ciencias Administrativas, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia; bAnisfield
School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ, USA; cFacultad de Ciencias Económicas, University of San Buenaventura, Cali,
Colombia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines the formation of technology readiness among lower-income urban consumers Received 17 November 2020
and its influence on the acceptance of mpayment apps for digital money. Using Partial Least Accepted 4 March 2022
Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), we analysed 625 survey responses collected in
KEYWORDS
four Colombian cities. We found that perceived usefulness is the main direct antecedent of Urban consumers; gender;
intention to use, but gender differences were observed. For women, two hypotheses were not reflective-formative second-
significant: TR’s influence over perceived ease of use and perceived ease of use over the order construct; m-
intention to use, leaving a more straightforward but narrow pathway for influencing intention payments; financial
to use. Men presented a more comprehensive range of pathways, with all hypotheses inclusion; mobile banking
significant. This is an important finding because women from lower-income households are the
main target of government financial inclusion strategies. Innovatively, we evaluated the
technology readiness construct in an aggregated way, isolating the importance of each
dimension. We found optimism to be more relevant, which indicates that the users are less
insecure about technology, akin to the Rogerian concept of innovators. Therefore, managers
should develop market penetration strategies based on optimism rather than security
conditions and develop app attributes that are link to perceived ease of use before focusing on
usefulness.

1. Introduction would be more exposed to middle-class consumption

Mobile payments applications (m-payments apps) are
seen as a solution to financial inclusion; however,
there is a significant disparity in its uptake, particularly
for lower-income consumers in developing markets.
This technology’s flexibility offers agency for some
users; however, there are some limitations in that
assumption. Lower-income consumer groups are
socio-economically disadvantaged, less educated, are
unbanked or underbanked, and more likely to conduct
transactions in cash and derive some income from
informal labour (Jagtap 2019). To better support these
consumers, governments prioritised the use of mobile
banking (Dodgson et al. 2013, 2015). However, digital
illiteracy, technology inexperience, and poor facilitating
conditions prevent many from fully participating in m-
payments (Hasan et al. 2019; Hsieh, Rai, and Keil 2008;
Mathur et al. 2018).
Our study considers these phenomena in the South
American country of Colombia. In urban settings, as
opposed to rural localities, lower-income consumers
habits and digitally-enabled activities. As such, they
would likely strive to fulfil higher-level needs, including
the areas of communication and technology (Rangan,
Chu, and Petkoski 2011; Srivastava 2012; Subrahman-
yan and Gomez-Arias 2008). We posit that technology
readiness is one factor that supports this aspiration.
Only 20% of Colombians identify as non-technology
users, yet mobile penetration reached 133%. Regular
access to the internet is possible for just over 25% of
the lower-income classes, but this percentage rises
through freely accessible networks in cities.1
The success of technology interventions partly relies
on users’ perceptions. The literature empirically sup-
ports this notion for the technology acceptance model
(TAM) (Pipitwanichakarn and Wongtada 2019), the
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(UTAUT) (Hussain et al. 2018), integrated TAM and
UTAUT models (Hossain and Jamil 2015), and cluster
analysis and analysis of variance (Dahana, Kobayashi,
and Ebisuya 2018). However, this present study is one
of the few to utilise the Technology Readiness Index

CONTACT Aaron van Klyton vanklyton@gmail.com Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, NJ
07430, USA
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
(TRI) (Parasuraman and Colby 2001) to understand the
interactions between lower-income consumers and
mobile banking technology, with a gender focus. Readi-
ness is a combination of technology-related beliefs, both
positive and negative, that determine a person’s propen-
sity to use technology-based services (Parasuraman and
Colby 2001). The four dimensions of the index serve as
drivers and inhibitors of technology adoption and are
antecedents of acceptance and intention behaviours– a
phenomenon usually studied by the TAM. Despite the
enhanced facilitating conditions that cities offer over
rural areas and the models described above, the deter-
minants of acceptance and use of m-payment technol-
ogies remain unclear in explaining the less than
optimal uptake of the innovation for lower-income
consumers.
We assert that the critical insights on the acceptance
and intention to use mobile banking applications may
lie in individual differences and personality traits. We
propose a framework to model the relationship between
TRI and TAM and then test it on a survey sample of 625
urban users from the four largest cities in Colombia. We
found that the integration of TR as a second-order
reflective-formative construct and as an antecedent of
TAM beliefs was significant for three of the four dimen-
sions of TR. Moreover, we proposed and tested hypoth-
eses related to gender and found significant differences
between men and women. Our inclusion of gender as
a covariate was essential because key financial inclusion
initiatives in Colombia that utilise digital payments aim
to support vulnerable women. In sum, we found that
while men followed a model that replicates extant the-
ory and studies, women presented a narrower model
with a singular route for influencing their intention to
use m-payments apps. Furthermore, TR’s influence
over perceived usefulness was significant only for
men. In like manner, perceived ease of use directly
influenced the intention to use only for men.
Our contributions include being the first to model
and apply technology readiness (TR) as a second-
order reflective-formative construct in a mobile banking
context, a critical contribution for examining the idio-
syncrasies of lower-income urban consumers in emer-
ging markets. Second, we give much-needed attention
to the overlooked technological needs of these consu-
mers, particularly for financial inclusion strategies and
policies, which we found should be differentiated for
men and women. Moreover, mainstream TR literature
integrates income as a demographic component of the
technology segment profiles (namely, paranoids and
laggards) but ignores this aspect within the model,
much less so in mobile banking literature. We continue
our discussion with the literature review, case
background, hypothesis model, methodology, findings,
and conclusions.
2. Literature review
2.1. Technology readiness
Technology readiness measures the patterns of technol-
ogy belief based on individual differences in user atti-
tude to accept new technology (Parasuraman and
Colby 2001). The index has four dimensions, two of
which– innovativeness and optimism– are said to foster
greater technology use, while the other two– insecurity
and discomfort– work to hinder it. This model’s
strength is partly in its focus on individual propensities
rather than system-wide (Parasuraman and Colby
2001).
2.2. Innovativeness
The literature has broadly found that innovativeness
positively impacts technology adoption. Goldsmith
and Hofacker (1991) measured this dimension
using the time of adoption, both cross-sectionally
and through self-reporting. Time adoption stemmed
from Rogers, Rogers, and Shoemaker (1971), who
asserted that early adopters were more innovative
than other users. In TR, innovativeness is associated
with being a technological pioneer and thought lea-
der (Parasuraman and Colby 2001, 38), such that
these users would want to be at the ‘forefront of try-
ing new technology-based products or services’. The
need for stimulation can drive innovativeness, as it
motivates users to acquire new information (i.e.
novelty-seeking) and expressions of uniqueness
(Roehrich 2004).
Agarwal and Prasad (1998) argued that personal
innovation does not change according to the situation
or context. Moreover, it has a significant moderated
effect on compatibility and moderates both the antece-
dents and consequences of perceptions, motivating
users to change their behaviour in order to benefit
from a new technology. Kuo, Liu, and Ma (2013)
found that respondents were more concerned with the
technology’s innovativeness than its ease of use, high-
lighting the significance of innovativeness for using
health technology products. The dimension also had a
positive and significant effect on ease of use and per-
ceived usefulness for self-service technologies (Huy
et al. 2019) and for early users of mobile devices for
business services Hallikainen, Alamäki, and Laukkanen
(2019). These users faced problems and found solutions
before others, reminiscent of ‘explorers’ (Parasuraman

and Colby 2001) or early birds (Von Hippel, 1986). For
using e-payments, high personal innovativeness was
shown to have a 76% likelihood of leading to higher per-
ceived ease of use for Ghanaian farmers (Acheampong
et al. 2017). Pattansheti et al. (2016) found a positive
relationship between innovativeness and perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness, which partly con-
tradicts the findings of Kuo, Liu, and Ma (2013). Chit-
ungo and Munongo (2013) found that personal
innovativeness positively influenced mobile banking
adoption in rural Zimbabwe. However, the effect was
marginal because of a lack of ‘quickness’ in the speed
of adoption. While ‘quickness’ is an opaque term, in a
rural context of a developing country, it could relate
to the time of adoption (Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991).
2.3. Optimism
Optimism captures specific positive feelings that can
help users overcome negative information regarding a
technology, supporting intention to use. Optimism
also enhances a user’s perception of service quality
and satisfaction with self-service technologies (Hwang
and Good 2014). Studies have attributed this dimension
to affording a sense of control over a technology
encounter (Bateson 2000; Dabholkar 1996). Kamble,
Gunasekaran, and Arha (2019) found that perceived
efficiency, better control, and flexibility constitute opti-
mism for technology users (see also Khatri, Samuel, and
Dennis 2018), while Huy et al. (2019) found that opti-
mism and innovativeness positively influenced per-
ceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. However,
Nugroho and Fajar (2017) pointed out that different
sectors yielded different results. In their study on e-
learning, optimism influenced perceived ease of use
but not perceived usefulness. In comparison, Kuo, Liu,
and Ma (2013) found that optimism positively
influenced perceived ease of use and usefulness of
mobile electronic medical record systems. Applying
TRI 2.0, Hallikainen and Laukkanen (2016) found that
optimism positively affects perceived ease of use and
perceived usefulness for digital B2B procurement in
healthcare. Lastly, in the context of mobile banking
and e-payment services, Acheampong et al. (2017) and
Pattansheti et al. (2016) used an integrated TAM and
TRI to find that optimism positively influenced per-
ceived ease of use of the technology.
2.4. Insecurity
Insecurity can become a negative influence on inten-
tion and actual use of technology. Rather than having
an outright fear of technology, Parasuraman and
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 3
Colby (2001) characterised insecurity as feeling vul-
nerable about conducting a technology-based trans-
action, including the perception of malfunction, a
lack of performance, or perceived risk regarding the
‘harmful consequences’ of using technology– factors
that can incubate insecurity (Parasuraman and
Colby 2014).
Even the threat of a cyber network attack or identity
theft can trigger insecurity among users, which, as You-
safzai, Pallister, and Foxall (2003) pointed out, implies
that some people perceive risk even before using tech-
nology. Many studies relate insecurity with ease of use
and perceived usefulness (TAM constructs) across sec-
tors of health (Bettiga, Lamberti, and Lettieri 2020;
Kuo, Liu, and Ma 2013), tourism (Pradhan, Oh, and
Lee 2018), e-commerce (Hansen, Saridakis, and Benson
2018; McCloskey 2004), mobile advertising (Lin and
Kim 2016), and self-service technology acceptance
(Curran and Meuter 2005; Dabholkar 1996; Lin and
Chang 2011). Higher levels of perceived insecurity can
lead to lower perceived ease of use and usefulness. How-
ever, Hansen, Saridakis, and Benson (2018) showed that
the presence of additional security protocols could lead
to lower perceived risk and lower perceived ease of use
as the protocols may give the perception that the app is
more challenging to use.
For mobile banking, perceived risk– a manifes-
tation of insecurity– negatively influenced perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness (Acheampong
et al. 2017; Raza, Umer, and Shah 2017). Ozturk
et al. (2017) constructed perceived risk as uncertainty
and a heightened perception of loss when a mobile
payment system does not meet expectations. They
found that privacy concerns significantly influenced
intention to use rather than perceived risk. They
reasoned that users might not perceive technology
as risky if they trusted the credit card company
underwriting the digital transaction. When security
was of greater concern than usefulness, insecurity
had a negative impact on perceived ease of use but
was not statistically related to perceived usefulness
(Kuo, Liu, and Ma 2013; Pattansheti et al. 2016).
Finally, Gbongli, Xu, and Amedjonekou (2019) inte-
grated self-efficacy and technology anxiety– another
form of insecurity– into TAM and found a significant
and positive influence on perceived ease of use on
mobile banking adoption. For newer mobile banking
users, particularly from unbanked and underbanked
population segments (Rana, Luthra, and Rao 2018;
David-West, Ihenachor, and Kelikume 2018), we
would expect insecurity to be salient for two reasons,
the lack of technology experience and the lack of
banking experience.
4 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
2.5. Discomfort
Discomfort can cause would-be users to perceive tech-
nologies as exclusionary, thus inhibiting use and produ-
cing paranoia of sorts (Parasuraman and Colby 2001). It
emerges when the person feels like he or she does not
have control over the technology or is overwhelmed
by it, making the person less receptive to it (Humbani
and Wiese 2018), producing a significant negative
impact on perceived ease of use (Kuo, Liu, and Ma
2013; Walczuch, Lemmink, and Streukens 2007).
Some technology users reported that overdepen-
dence on technology produced a dehumanising effect,
leading to diminished relations with others (Parasura-
man and Colby 2014), contributing to a negative
relationship between discomfort and perceived utility.
Chen and Lin (2018) found that discomfort had a nega-
tive effect on perceived ease of use but a positive effect on
the perceived usefulness of dietary and fitness apps. They
reasoned that a higher health consciousness would
make users more willing to tolerate anxiety or discom-
fort for using fitness apps. Huy et al. (2019) found
that discomfort influenced the perceived usefulness of
self-service technologies, but Kamble, Gunasekaran,
and Arha (2019) found that it had no direct effect on
perceived ease of use or perceived usefulness on users
of Blockchain technology. Their findings suggest that
these respondents would not be dissuaded from using
blockchain even if they felt some discomfort. In both
Chen and Lin (2018) and Kamble, Gunasekaran, and
Arha (2019), the particular orientation of the users
had a mitigating effect on discomfort.
Lin and Chang (2011) integrated TR and TAM and
found that discomfort led to a lower perception of utility
for mobile banking users despite believing that self-ser-
vice technology would afford them more control.
Acheampong et al. (2017) found that personal discom-
fort had a direct, positive and significant influence on
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use for e-pay-
ment adoption in Ghana. In contrast, Martens, Roll, and
Elliott (2017) hypothesised that even if one feels discom-
fort, they still could perceive utility from a technology;
however, their study found that this relationship was
significant between constructs. Finally, Humbani and
Wiese (2018) found an insignificant relationship
between discomfort and intention to use mobile pay-
ments. Nonetheless, their study did not incorporate
ease of use and usefulness as mediators of these
relationships.
The relationship between TR or its dimensions and
TAM beliefs is well described in the literature but few
studies model TR as a second-order construct. It
would be expected that in a mobile payment context,
TR would be a significant antecedent of perceived ease
of use and perceived usefulness, given that these four
dimensions and the construct itself may alter the per-
ception of utility and the effort involved in adopting
mobile banking apps for purchasing with digital
money. Hence, we measure each dimension of TR to
improve the understanding of TR beyond a purely
theoretical context. When modelled in this formative
way in relation to the second-order construct, the
weight of each dimension over the construct becomes
salient, emphasising the relative importance of each
dimension for lower-income mobile banking users in
urban settings in a more nuanced way. The above dis-
cussion of the applications and outcome of TR lead us
to the first set of hypotheses:
H1: TR dimensions form Technology Readiness mobile
payment and digital money apps.
H1a: Discomfort is a significant and formative dimen-
sion of TR
H1b: Insecurity is a significant and formative dimen-
sion of TR
H1c: Innovativeness is a significant and formative
dimension of TR
H1d: Optimism is a significant and formative dimen-
sion of TR
H2: TR has a positive influence on Perceived Ease of
Use (PEU) of mobile payment and digital money apps
H3: TR has a positive influence on Perceived Usefulness
(PU) of mobile payment and digital money apps.
2.6. Technology acceptance literature
Despite best design intentions, active engagement with
technology tools from customers does not always
ensue. Therefore, the factors that determine (and pro-
mote) user acceptance of m-payments still merits con-
sideration. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is a
helpful starting point to explain human behaviour
(Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), particularly in proposing
that intention to use is the best predictor of actual
behaviour (Christie 1981; Swanson 1982). The TRA
underwrote the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
(Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989), which remains
the dominant framework for explaining technology
use behaviour. However, various studies have extended
this model to different technology usage scenarios. For
example, Venkatesh (1999) found that TAM consist-
ently explained a substantial proportion of variance
(typically around 40%) in intention to use and actual
use. TAM has been used to explain acceptance and

use of of electronic and mobile banking services (Muta-
har et al. 2018; Sánchez-Torres et al. 2018; Sharma et al.
2017). Perceived ease of use and usefulness– core con-
structs of TAM– were found to be direct determinants
of the intention to use mobile payments technologies
(Bailey et al. 2017; Muñoz-Leiva, Climent-Climent,
and Liébana-Cabanillas 2017), particularly when
mediated through attitude towards usage (Chi 2018)
while, Di Pietro et al. (2015) and Tan et al. (2014)
obtained a direct influence of both antecedents without
a mediating effect. Furthermore, perceived ease of use
was also found to be an antecedent of intention to use
and as an indirect influence on intention when mediated
by perceived usefulness (Liébana-Cabanillas, Muñoz-
Leiva, and Sánchez-Fernández 2018). Huy et al. (2019)
found a positive and significant influence of perceived
ease of use on usefulness for self-service technologies
in luxury hotels in Vietnam.
Explaining the intention to use mobile payment apps
should incorporate the relationships associated with
TAM. The effort that potential and actual users perceive
with the adoption of m-banking would influence the
notion of utility and the benefits derived from using
the technology. When effort is minimal and usefulness
is higher, potential and actual users would develop
intention to use m-payment apps. This implies that
the decision to adopt mobile apps would become
more front of mind. Therefore, we posit the following
hypotheses:
H4: Perceived Ease of Use has a positive effect on Per-
ceived Usefulness (PU) of mobile banking apps.
H5: Perceived Ease of Use has a positive influence on
Intention to Use (IU) mobile payment and digital
money applications.
H6: Perceived Usefulness has a positive influence on
Intention to Use (IU) mobile payment and digital
money applications.
2.7. TAM and gender
Riquelme and Rios (2010) found that gender and risk
were complementary variables for the intention to use
mobile banking and that ease of use had a stronger
influence on females (with gender as a moderating vari-
able). In later work, Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-Fer-
nández, and Muñoz-Leiva (2014) developed four
hypotheses related to gender and ease of use, attitude,
intention, and trust– essentially including gender as a
variable in traditional models of technology acceptance.
Moreover, ease of use and perceived usefulness were
greater for men on the intention to use mobile banking,
but the coefficient linking usefulness and attitude was
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 5
higher for women. Furthermore, the influence of per-
ceived trust on attitude was significantly stronger for
women. Finally, Glavee-Geo, Shaikh, and Karjaluoto
(2017) found that while perceived ease of use was posi-
tive and significant for both males and females, only
perceived usefulness influenced intention to use when
mediated through attitude– findings support the need
to segment marketing messages to maximise impact.
Gender was also significant in determining mobile
banking usage for low-income users in Senegal, with
women being less likely to adopt m-banking but once
they did were more likely to use it than men (Fall,
Orozco, and Akim 2020). They reasoned that this may
have been due to m-banking affording self-empower-
ment over one’s finances and some degree of indepen-
dence. Kalinić et al. (2019) employed gender as a
moderator variable in an extended TAM model and
found that men were more likely to use mobile pay-
ments, namely peer-to-peer. Men were less influenced
by perceived risk than women but more influenced by
the social environment. In contrast, Chawla and Joshi
(2020) found no statistical significance for males or
females with respect to perceived usefulness on attitude
nor on the intention to use for mobile wallets. Drawing
from this work, we posit the following hypotheses:
H7: The influence of Perceived Ease of Use on the
Intention to Use mobile payment and digital money
apps is more significant for men than for women.
H8: The influence of Perceived Ease of Use on Per-
ceived Usefulness is significantly stronger among
women.
H9: The influence of Perceived Usefulness on Intention
to Use is significantly stronger among women.
2.8. TRI and gender
Unlike the TAM, fewer studies of technology readiness
explicitly examine gender. However, this should be
given attention as it has an essential role in market seg-
mentation and empowerment for mobile banking
(van.Klyton, Tavera-Mesías, and Castaño-Muñoz
2021). For example, Halim (2012) examined gender
and self-service technologies at an Asian airport and
found no statistical significance for either gender on dis-
comfort or optimism; but, males were significantly more
driven by innovativeness than females. Furthermore,
females had a higher mean value than males for insecur-
ity, meaning males would more readily embrace new
technologies. This present study contributes to our evol-
ving perspective on gender concerning the four TR
dimensions since this early work.
6 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
Na, Lee, and Yang (2021) examined technology
readiness and used gender as a moderating variable,
assessing differences regarding technology-based self-
services. They found that optimism and innovativeness
were significantly stronger in men than women, but dis-
comfort was stronger for women. However, neither gen-
der showed statistical significance with respect to
insecurity. Humbani and Wiese (2018) found discom-
fort not to be a significant inhibitor for intention to
use mobile phones in South Africa and that insecurity
negatively influenced adoption. Simiyu and Kohsuwan
(2019) conducted a cross-national study on mobile
banking adoption in Kenya and Australia. They inte-
grated TRI with the TAM constructs of perceived use-
fulness and ease of use and found that, for both
countries, insecurity was positive and significant on per-
ceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. However,
optimism positively affected Kenyans’ perceived useful-
ness and ease of use. In Kenya, discomfort was sup-
ported for all hypotheses except perceived ease of use,
while innovativeness was not supported in Australia.
Their most notable finding was that discomfort was
not significant for Kenya, which they attributed to its
developing economy status (i.e. they may be more
accustomed to struggle). Surprisingly, however, the
authors did not point out that the pervasiveness of
mobile money, namely, M-Pesa, may have mitigated
discomfort for using mobile technologies more broadly.
Rojas-Méndez, Parasuraman, and Papadopoulos
(2017) conducted a cross-country study in the US and
Chile and found that while optimism was not significant
for t-test differences in gender, innovativeness was
higher for males and discomfort and insecurity higher
for females. Gender, age, and education were better pre-
dictors in Chile, an emerging country, than in the US.
Given the cultural similarities between Chile and
Colombia, we believe that gender is an appropriate
lens for understanding technology acceptance. Hum-
bani and Wiese (2018) examined mobile payment adop-
tion in South Africa and were able to explain 54.9% of
the variance of gender as a moderating variable, but
that this only had an effect on the convenience of adopt-
ing mobile-payment services and no effect on the four
dimensions of the TR. Curiously, they found that
females place less emphasis on convenience compared
to males, which in some ways can be related to the dis-
comfort dimension of TR for women in developing
countries. Blasko, Lum, and Campbell (2020) found
that despite females’ manifesting higher levels of inse-
curity and discomfort for using the Google maps app,
they also manifested higher perceived usefulness of
navigation than men. They alluded this to a perceived
sense of direction afforded by the technology. This
finding could also be interpreted as a form of empower-
ment for women similar to findings for mobile banking
usage (e.g. Fall, Orozco, and Akim 2020; van.Klyton,
Tavera-Mesías, and Castaño-Muñoz 2021).
2.9. TAM and TRI integration
The integration of TAM and TRI (TRAM) was popu-
larised in the literature by Lin, Shih, and Sher (2007),
who argued that individual-specific components of the
technology acceptance decision outside of work settings
requires a more robust approach than TAM alone. Inte-
grating individual different variables facilitates the
identification and qualification of nuanced ‘psychologi-
cal processes of the perceptions of a technology’s value’
(Lin, Shih, and Sher 2007, pg. 642). This is key because
the intention to use mobile banking products on a
voluntary basis would be influenced by both system
components (e.g. perceived usefulness and ease of use)
and personality characteristics, making readiness a cau-
sal antecedent. This approach enables a nuanced under-
standing of the precarity of lower-income consumers,
particularly in urban settings, who are the main targets
of financial inclusion initiatives based on mobile bank-
ing. It has implications for current use and continual
use of the technology. Moreover, integrating TRI with
TAM is helpful because it offers the advantage of inter-
preting beliefs from an individual perspective rather
than being specific to a particular system. Lai and Lee
(2020) used TAM and TRI to examine the adoption
and use of building information modelling technology.
They found that while both usefulness and ease of use
of TAM were significant in explaining differences
between adopters and non-adopters, but only innova-
tiveness of TR was significant.
Blut and Wang (2020) found that the positive dimen-
sions of TR, innovativeness and optimism, had a more
substantial effect on technology acceptance than the
negative dimensions of insecurity and discomfort. Sun
et al. (2020) integrated two dimensions of readiness–
optimism and innovativeness– with perceived useful-
ness and ease of use from TAM to find TR’s positive
and significant influence on technology acceptance.
Their study examined the perceptions of technology
from the user perspective rather than predicting behav-
iour (i.e. intention to use or actual use) and argued that
the implications of their findings could enhance per-
formance in an organisation.
As the studies indicate, there is support for the
relationship between technology readiness and technol-
ogy acceptance with respect to gender. However, the
presence of inconsistencies in the literature merits a
revisiting of gender differences, especially in the context

of lower-income consumers in developing countries.
Furthermore, Parasuraman and Colby (2001) argued
that dimensions of TR may vary between persons.
This means that modelling TR as a second-order
reflective-formative construct may lead to identifying
particularities in the conformation of TR among
lower-income consumers as well as differences in the
conformation of TR between genders. If gender
differences are found, modelling TR as a second-order
construct may influence the TAM constructs in line
with such differences. In this light, we put forth the
following:
H10: The influence of Technology Readiness on Per-
ceived Ease of Use of mobile payment and digital
money apps is more significant for men than for
women.
H11: The influence of Technology Readiness on the
Perceived Usefulness mobile payment and digital
money apps is more significant for men than for
women
We conceptualise the relationships and hypotheses as
shown in Figure 1 below:
2.10. Case background
This research uses technology readiness to understand
how personality traits interact with and influence tra-
ditional TAM beliefs for lower-income urban consu-
mers in Colombia. In addition to bank marketing
strategies to raise awareness for technological pro-
ducts, the government also administered several subsi-
dies programmes facilitated through m-payment apps,
including Familias en Acción, Jóvenes en Acción, Pro-
tección al Adulto Mayor. Furthermore, the Value
Added Tax compensation was also facilitated through
digital means. In addition, during the COVID-19 pan-
demic, the government distributed a new subsidy,
Ingreso solidario, to support lost wages or support
for lower-income, vulnerable communities not
included in the subsidies as mentioned above. There-
fore, we believe that failure to understand or address
the gaps in the uptake of these mobile banking inno-
vations could result in ‘a more deeply entrenched
imbalance with historically privileged and historically
disenfranchised groups’ (Servon and Horrigan 1997,
62). To engage with these themes, we conducted an
online survey between August and September 2019
in the Colombian cities of Bogotá, Medellin, Cali,
and Barranquilla. The cities have the highest popu-
lation densities and are hubs for economic and finan-
cial activity and technology dissemination, including a
high mobile device penetration. Therefore, respon-
dents would likely have access to internet services–
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 7
mitigating facilitating conditions– and be more
exposed to digital technology than rural areas.
3. Methodology
3.1. Instrument development
The survey instrument was developed based on technology
readiness literature on m-payments. The scales for the four
dimensions were drawn from the TR model (Parasuraman
and Colby 2001) and included four items each. Following
Lee (2009), we included items related to financial and
security risk to further draw meaningful inferences for
the TR dimension of insecurity within the context of the
respondents. We also developed items for this construct
based on Parasuraman and Colby’s (2014) characterisation
of insecurity, derived from the perception of technology
malfunction or the harmful consequences of using tech-
nology. In addition, we integrated scales from the TAM
(Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989) and some adap-
tations from Taylor and Todd (1995) for perceived useful-
ness, ease of use, and intention to use. Lee (2009) was used
as a guide for adapting these scales to the mobile banking
context. The scale items and associated literature appear in
the Appendix.
We tailored the wording of the scales for the latent
constructs to fit the context of these respondents. We
pre-tested the survey questions with three Colombia-
based mobile commerce and e-marketing scholars to
ensure question clarity, the appropriateness of the
instrument length, and to mitigate any semantic pro-
blems. We then worked with the Colombia-based mar-
ket survey company to conduct a pilot test on a small
sub-sample of 40 respondents. We tested this data for
internal and content validity (Hair et al. 2016) before
proceeding to the broader data collection exercise. All
items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, ran-
ging from 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘strongly
agree’. The same company executed the fieldwork by
delivering 200,000 emails to their opt-in database of
people above 18 years old that lived in estratos 2 and
3, using a non-probability sampling approach. We
obtained an open-email rate near to 3% and within
those that opened the email, a complete response rate
of 9%. After we performed outlier identification and
depuration, our revised survey yielded a sample of 625
analysable responses. Segmenting the lower-income
consumers was facilitated through Colombia’s unique
socio-economic stratification system.2 In brief, the gov-
ernment allocates six residential classes (estratos), with 5
and 6 representing the wealthiest and 1 and 2 the poor-
est.3 Estratos 1–3 received subsidies for the cost of utili-
ties and the upper three estratos are taxed a premium as
8 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
Figure 1. Conceptual Research Framework.
a form of wealth redistribution (Tavera-Mesías, van.K-
lyton, and Zuñiga-Collazos 2021; van.Klyton and Cas-
taño-Muñoz 2017). Therefore, our focus was on
residents who lived in estratos 1–3; however, most of
the sample came from 2 and 3, consistent with urban
populations in Colombia.4 The target residents consti-
tute lower-income consumers, with less experience
with technology, fewer economic resources to connect
to the internet (i.e. data plans), less experience with
banks, and more participation in the informal labour
market (with cash payments) (Baishya and Samalia
2020; Srivastava 2019).
3.2. Characteristics of the sample
The sample comprised 61% males and 39% females;
60% of respondents stated they were in formal employ-
ment, but 26% also claimed to engage in informal
employment (see Table 8). Education levels varied
with bachelors’ degrees at 36%, 2-year-degree at 21%,
and high school graduates or high school dropouts at
29%. The income level was between $275 and $825
(61% of the sample). Most respondents would fall into
the ‘lower-income’ segment (Rangan, Chu, and Pet-
koski 2011), also congruent with data collected. Refer
to Table 1.
3.3. Statistical analysis
The research model shown in Figure 2 was analysed
using Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Model-
ling (PLS) approach and SmartPLS 3.0 software. PLS
was used because the study represents a new measure-
ment instrument for Colombia’s m-payments and the
approach allows for the incorporation of a reflective-
formative second-order construct and reflective con-
structs (Aldas-Manzano and Jiminez 2017; Chin 1998;
Hair et al. 2014). As Hair et al. (2014) argued, covari-
ance based SEM is not as appropriate for formative
structures and PLS-SEM would be better for this and
when exploratory research is being conducted.
3.4. Outer model assessment
Incorporating Technology Readiness as a reflective-for-
mative second-order construct requires special treat-
ment (Duarte and Amaro 2018; Hair et al. 2017; Nitti
and Ciavolino 2014). In this analysis, TR was presented
as a ‘phantom’ variable (Becker, Klein, and Wetzels
2012), meaning that no items were associated with it.
We resolved this by using the repeated indicators
method because TR was also an independent construct
(Hair et al. 2017). We obtained indicators representing
each dimension after running the PLS algorithm and
estimating the latent variable values for each obser-
vation. The final model was then executed by eliminat-
ing the observed indicators and its first-order constructs
and replacing them with the new indicators of Discom-
fort, Innovativeness, Optimism and Risk, modelled as
formative indicators of the original second-order
construct.
After configuring TR as the first-order construct with
four formative indicators (latent variable value for each
dimension), we assessed the significance of the weights
and loadings for the four TR dimensions. The results
yielded significant weights with adequate values and
loadings for three indicators, with discomfort as an
exception. Therefore, we eliminated discomfort from
the last model while, as recommended by Hair et al.
(Hair et al. 2017), retaining and discussing the
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 9

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample. relationship with its own indicators than another con-
Gender: Male: 61%; Female Education Non high school struct present in the model (Aldas-Manzano and Jimi-
39% level graduate: 8%
Occupation Employees: 60% High school graduate: nez 2017). Next, we applied the Fornell and Larcker
21% criterion (1981) to assess discriminant validity, calculat-
Informal employees: 2-year degree: 34%
26%
ing the square root of each average variance extracted
Unemployed: 6% Bachelor’s degree: and comparing it with the correlations coefficients
36% within constructs. As presented in Table 7, the AVE
Retired: 3% Master or PhD: 1%
Student: 3% Income USD$275 or less: 19% Square root was bigger than the correlations estimated
Entrepreneur: 2% USD$276-USD$550: for each comparison.
25%
n= 625 USD$551-USD$825: In addition, the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio
36% (HTMT) (Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2015) was cal-
Above USD$825: 19%
culated, given its superior performance for detecting
lack of discriminant validity, namely in providing a
higher specificity and sensitivity rate over the Fornell-
significant weights of the other TR dimensions instead Larcker criterion. The HTMT establishes a ratio of the
of the loadings. The adequate significance of weights correlations between indicators of the same construct
partially confirms the first hypotheses, supporting the versus the correlations between the indicators of each
relevance of each dimension evaluated and its relative construct and indicators of different constructs, all pre-
importance on the formation of TR, again with discom- sent in a multitrait-multimethod matrix. Table 4 also
fort as the exception. presents results below the maximum value expected
Table 2 presents the criteria used for assessing the (see Table 2), indicating that the outer model presented
reliability and validity of the thresholds for each indi- discriminant validity.
cator or value of the model. Table 5 shows the test for collinearity, whereby we
After eliminating discomfort and following the cri- presented the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each
teria for reliability and convergent validity, all factor indicator for values under five and tolerance (TOL)
loadings between constructs and their indicators were above 0.2, which assured no collinearity problems
adequate and significant. Cronbach’s Alpha, composite (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011).
reliability, and average variance extracted were calcu- The predictive validity is presented in Table 6, where
lated for each construct and found to be consistent determination coefficients (R2) were calculated for each
with the minimum thresholds, as shown in Table 2. dependent construct. We obtained moderate results (IU
Given that the model is a formative construct, we calcu- R2 = 0.409; PEU R2 = 0.259; PU R2 = 0.453). Further-
lated the weightings and significance for the TR dimen- more, the blindfolding test results satisfied the threshold
sions. Table 3 presents the values obtained from the of greater than zero Q2 values (Franke and Sarstedt
estimations as evidence that reliability and convergent 2019; Geisser 1974; Hair et al. 2019): IU Q² = 0.340;
validity were present. PEU Q² = 0.211; PU Q² = 0.338.
Discriminant validity was assessed to assure that each As described in Table 3, optimism emerges as the
reflectively measured construct had a stronger leading dimension in this model concerning the

Figure 2. Reflective Formative Research Framework.

10 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.

Table 2. Criteria for PLS-SEM reliability and validity.

Validation stages
Measurement instrument for
reflective constructs
Instrument of measure for
formative constructs
Structural model
Source: Hair et al. (2017).
Indicators
Internal consistency: Cronbach’s Alpha (CA).
Reliability: Compound reliability (CR).
Convergent validity: Average variance extracted (AVE).
Convergent validity: Size of the loads and significance.
Discriminant validity: Square roots of extracted variance
(AVE)
Diagnosis of multicollinearity: Variance inflation of factor
(VIF) and tolerance index (TOL).
Weight and load analysis: Significant weight, loads,
standardised coefficients or significant load.
Coefficient of determination (value).
Significance of structural relationships
Predictive relevance
Minimum criteria
=>0.70 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994)
=>0.70 (Fornell and Larcker 1981)
=>0.5 (Fornell and Larcker 1981)
=>0.6 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) and p < 0.001
=>Values below the diagonal (Chin 1998; Fornell and
Larcker 1981).
=<5 (VIF) and => 0.20 (TOL) (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt
2011)
p < 0.001 (see Hair et al. 2014)
=<0.75 and => 0.51 relevant, =< 0.50 and => 0.26,
moderate, and < 0.25 weak (Hair et al. 2014)
p < 0.05
Q2 > 0 (Stone 1974; Geisser 1974; Tenenhaus et al., 2005).

Table 3. Reliability and convergent validity for the model for the whole sample.
Loadings / P Cronbach’s Composite Average Variance Extracted
Construct Items Weights T Stats Values Alpha Reliability (AVE)
Perceived Ease of Use EOU1 0.914 77.122 0.000 0.899 0.937 0.831
EOU2 0.920 89.139 0.000
EOU3 0.901 58.847 0.000
Intention to Use m- IU1 0.890 55.627 0.000 0.912 0.945 0.851
payment IU2 0.956 211.296 0.000
IU3 0.920 114.614 0.000
Technology Readiness Innovativeness 0.442 5.396 0.000 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Insecurity 0.215 2.725 0.003
Optimism 0.656 8.441 0.000
Perceived Usefulness PU1 0.869 69.167 0.000 0.892 0.925 0.755
PU2 0.864 56.454 0.000
PU3 0.900 95.203 0.000
PU4 0.841 46.838 0.000

confirmation of TR (w = 0656; p < 0.01). Innovativeness the original sample were drawn to derive T-tests yield-
follows (w = 0.442; p < 0.01), while insecurity obtained ing the T statistic and P values mentioned above. Fur-
the lowest weight (w = 0.215; p < 0.01) between the thermore, all hypotheses of the inner model were
dimensions, manifesting less importance on the for- supported, as presented in Table 8. TR was found to
mation of TR. These results are similar to the calculated be a significant antecedent of Perceived Usefulness (β
means of each dimension of TR, where optimism was = 0.166; p < 0.05) and Perceived Ease of Use (β = 0.509;
the biggest mean and insecurity was the lowest. Discom- p < 0.05). Perceived Ease of Use was a significant antece-
fort, as mentioned above, did not present a significant dent of Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.573; p < 0.05), and
weight, allowing us to support H1b, H1c, and H1d, both, Perceived Ease of Use (β = 0.215; p < 0.05) and
while H1a was not supported. Perceived Usefulness (β = 0.477; p < 0.05) were signifi-
We implemented bootstrapping to evaluate the stat- cant antecedents of intention to use. For the general
istical significance of the estimations from the PLS sample, perceived usefulness was the main direct ante-
algorithm. Five thousand random subsamples from cedent of intention to use.
We executed a Multigroup Analysis (MGA) to com-
Table 4. Discriminant validity for the whole sample: Fornell-
pare the influence of gender as a moderator variable.
Larcker Criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratios. The two groups were confirmed, and a measurement
Intention to use Perceived Perceived invariance parametric test was executed (see Table 7).
m-payment apps Ease of Use Usefulness We found that all differences between factor loadings/
Intention to use m- 0.922 0.580 0.679 weights from men and women were not significant at
payment apps
Perceived Ease of 0.529 0.912 0.734 p < 0.01. Only UPT3 presented a marginal significance
Use at a p < 0.05 threshold (p = 0.045), but not both genders.
Perceived 0.619 0.658 0.869
Usefulness
Next, the model fit indicators were calculated but not
Technology 0.430 0.509 0.458 analysed, given that the inclusion of a formative con-
Readiness struct impedes the execution of consistent PLS, which
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 11

Table 5. Collinearity test for the formative construct. between men and women for H2, H4, and H6. On the
VIF TOL other hand, H3 and H5 did not seem significant in
Innovativeness 1.322 0.756 affirming that those relationships were contrasting, as
Insecurity and Risk 1.028 0.973
Optimism 1.294 0.773 is evidenced in Table 8.
Once the path differences between genders were
identified, we analysed the particularities of those differ-
Table 6. Predictive accuracy and predictive relevance. ences with the results presented in Table 9. When ana-
R² Q² (=1-SSE/SSO) lysing the influence of perceived ease of use over the
Intention to use m-payment apps 0.409 0.340 intention to use m-payment, the difference between
Perceived Ease of Use 0.259 0.211 men and women was not affirmed because the path sig-
Perceived Usefulness 0.453 0.338
Technology Readiness n.a. n.a.
nificance of women was found to be not significant at a
threshold of p-Value lower than 0.05, while it was sig-
nificant for men. In this situation, H7 is partially sup-
could be comparable to a covariance-based SEM. Fur- ported. However, perceived ease of use, as an
thermore, the model fit criteria and thresholds are in antecedent of PU, was higher for women (β = 0.645)
their early stages of research and are not always ben- than for men (β = 0.457). As well, the influence of per-
eficial for PLS-SEM (Hair et al. 2017) (for additional ceived usefulness on Intention to Use m-payment was
support, see the SRMR table in the Appendix). also higher for women (β = 0.619) than for men (β =
We assumed that the model was comparable and 0.394), which allowed us to conclude that H8 and H9
assessed the path differences between gender. A para- are supported.
metric test was executed for assessing if the path values We found some particularities for TR as an antece-
differences between genders were significant. This test dent of ease of use and usefulness. While the influence
was consistent with the PLS-MGA results, confirming of TR over usefulness was higher for men (β = 0.268;
that the estimated paths were significantly different p < 0.05) than women (β = 0.097; p > 0.05), and it was

Table 7. Measurement invariance parametric test

Outer Loadings/Weights difference t-Value (|Man vs Woman|) p-Value (Man vs Woman)
FU1 <- Perceived Ease of Use −0.009 0.325 0.373
FU2 <- Perceived Ease of Use 0.030 1.399 0.081
FU3 <- Perceived Ease of Use 0.005 0.137 0.445
IU1 <- Intention to Use m-payment apps −0.004 0.119 0.453
IU2 <- Intention to Use m-payment apps −0.008 0.729 0.233
IU3 <- Intention to Use m-payment apps −0.008 0.443 0.329
Innovativeness -> Technology Readiness * −0.060 0.564 0.286
Insecurity and Risk -> Technology Readiness * −0.123 0.623 0.267
Optimism -> Technology Readiness * 0.132 1.277 0.101
UPT1 <- Perceived Usefulness −0.044 1.511 0.066
UPT2 <- Perceived Usefulness −0.041 1.332 0.092
UPT3 <- Perceived Usefulness −0.037 1.701 0.045
UPT4 <- Perceived Usefulness −0.069 1.592 0.056
* Only weights are presented for TR indicators.

Table 8. PLS-MGA and Parametric test for assessing the path differences between genders.
PLS-MGA Parametric Test
p-Value original 1- p-Value new
Path Coefficients-diff tailed (Man vs (Man vs Path Coefficients-diff t-Value(|Man p-Value (Man
Hypothesis (Man - Woman) Woman) Woman) (Man - Woman) vs Woman|) vs Woman)
Perceived Ease of Use -> 0.101 0.174 0.174 0.101 1.002 0.158
Intention to Use m-
payment apps
Perceived Ease of Use -> −0.188 0.983 0.017 −0.188 1.961 0.025
Perceived Usefulness
Perceived Usefulness -> −0.225 0.987 0.013 −0.225 2.345 0.010
Intention to Use m-
payment apps
Technology Readiness -> 0.055 0.271 0.271 0.055 0.548 0.292
Perceived Ease of Use
Technology Readiness -> 0.171 0.033 0.033 0.171 1.679 0.047
Perceived Usefulness
12 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.

Table 9. Inner model hypothesis testing.

Total Dataset (N = 625) Men (n = 363) Women (n = 207)
Path t- p- Path t- p- Path t- p-
Coefficient Value Value Coefficient Value Value Coefficient Value Value
Perceived Ease of Use -> Intention to Use m- 0.215 4.627 <0.001 0.239 4.239 <0.001 0.137 1.504 0.066
payment apps
Perceived Ease of Use -> Perceived Usefulness 0.573 13.911 <0.001 0.457 7.193 <0.001 0.645 10.430 <0.001
Perceived Usefulness -> Intention to Use m- 0.477 10.913 <0.001 0.394 7.340 <0.001 0.619 7.206 <0.001
payment apps
Technology Readiness -> Perceived Ease of 0.509 11.570 <0.001 0.535 7.901 <0.001 0.480 7.952 <0.001
Use
Technology Readiness -> Perceived 0.166 3.948 <0.001 0.268 3.926 <0.001 0.097 1.547 0.061
Usefulness

Figure 3. Men and women graphical final models.

not significant for women, which let us affirm that H11
is supported. The influence of TR on ease of use was sig-
nificant for both genders, but it does not present signifi-
cant differences, so H10 is not supported. Figure 3
illustrates the different pathways for men and women.
4. Discussion
As theorised, we found that while H1b, H1c, and
H1d were supported in the general model; however,
H1a was not, hence the discomfort dimension was
dropped from the model, and the other three dimen-
sions were retained in the reflective-formative struc-
ture. Dropping discomfort is in line with Humbani
and Weise (2018), who found significant influences
of TR dimensions on behavioural intention to use
m-payment services, except for discomfort. From a
methodological perspective, the second-order reflec-
tive-formative approach proved helpful in under-
standing the formation of the TR construct and
afforded a consideration of TR in its aggregate
form. In alignment with Duarte and Amaro (2018),
we revealed the relationship of the weights of the
first-order construct as they impacted the second-
order, providing a more nuanced understanding of
how lower-income urban consumers develop propen-
sities toward technology.
Cenfetelli and Bassellier (2009) argued that many
constructs in the management literature had been
measured as reflective when their actual nature was for-
mative. Our model confirmed Lin et al.’s (2007) finding
that the influence of TR over the intention to use was
mediated by perceived ease of use and perceived useful-
ness, rather than proposing a direct effect. This was evi-
denced by the significance associated with H2, H3, H4,
H5, and H6– all supported in the general model, thus
affirming the results of Mutahar et al. (2018) and
Sharma et al. (2017). Moreover, we showed that useful-
ness was the main antecedent of intention to use, but
technology readiness as a construct yielded a high
effect on the intention to use. This is relevant because
the model itself does not propose a direct effect. Lastly,
ease of use was relevant and significant in its influence
over intention, typical for users lacking technology
experience. In sum, the proposed model confirms that
integration of TAM and TR is relevant for explaining
the acceptance of m-payment apps.
Moving on from the general model, we also revealed
key differences in gender for the acceptance and use of
m-payments. While men seem to follow regular
relations between constructs, women present a simpler,
more direct configuration of relationships. For women,
the presence of TR is directly related to perceived ease of
use, which means that if women are more optimistic
and innovative and less insecure about technologies,
then they should perceive that learning how to use m-
payment apps would require less effort. TR does not
directly influence perceived usefulness for them, but it

does indirectly via perceived ease of use. In other words,
the greater the perception that m-payment apps are
easier to use, the more valuable women would perceive
the apps. In thinking about the antecedents of the inten-
tion to use, while for men, both TAM beliefs are signifi-
cant, only perceived usefulness is relevant for women.
Therefore, H7 was partially supported because the
relationship between perceived ease of use was signifi-
cant for men and not for women, which is in line with
findings from Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-Fernández,
and Muñoz-Leiva (2014) but contradicts findings of
Riquelme and Rios (2010).
Nonetheless, the magnitude of the path coefficients
was not different among the genders. Our findings
also showed that the influence of perceived ease of use
on perceived usefulness was more significant for
women (0.645) than for men (0.457), confirming H8
and affirming the findings of Riquelme and Rios
(2010). This means that women only present one path-
way for assuring the (indirect) influence of ease of use
over the intention to use, which increases the relevance
for ease of use. This also implies that ease of use is of
higher importance for women, which should be con-
sidered in product design.
We found that the influence of perceived usefulness
over the intention to use was more significant for
women (0.619) than for men (0.394), which supports
H9. By not directly influencing perceived ease of use
over intention, perceived usefulness constitutes the
only direct antecedent of intention to use m-payment
for women.
In exploring gender differences in the relationship of
TR and the TAM beliefs, our findings show that H11
was supported because the influence of TR over per-
ceived usefulness was more significant for men (0.268)
in magnitude while the path coefficient for women
was not significant. This finding is contrary to Blasko,
Lum, and Campbell (2020). Furthermore, the influence
of TR on perceived ease of use presented a non-signifi-
cant difference between men (0.535) and women
(0.480), implying that H10 was not supported. In this
way, TRAM was fully supported for men but partially
supported for women, a relevant finding for a compre-
hensive understanding of the influence of personality
traits associated with the use of technologies on m-pay-
ment app acceptance.
5. Conclusion
The current study proposed integrating the TAM into
the TR model and using a reflective-formative approach
to isolate and analyse the impact of TR as a construct
independent of its four dimensions, focusing on the
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 13
experiences and realities of lower-income urban consu-
mers in a developing country. Our findings revealed
some critical theoretical implications. The prevailing
assumption in the literature appears to be that these
consumers face little pressure to keep up with trends
and hence would be considered technology adoption
laggards (Tsikriktsis 2004). However, this case suggests
that if only the dimensions of TR are considered, lower-
income consumers could be seen as pioneers within
Parasuraman and Colby’s (2001) original technology
profile segmentation– or innovators (by default) in a
Rogerian sense. To explore this, we incorporated TR
and TAM for m-payment usage to develop a compre-
hensive measurement of the enablers and inhibitors of
a consumer’s predisposition to technology (Parasura-
man 2000). Our results indicated that TR has a signifi-
cant indirect relationship with intention to use. These
findings are in alignment with the literature (Mukerjee,
Deshmukh, and Devi Prasad 2019; Nagdev, Rajesh, and
Misra 2019), but here, our second-order reflective-for-
mative approach afforded an understanding of how
each dimension of TR weighed on its formation. This
allowed us to explore the particular characteristics of
urban lower-income potential users in an emerging
market context.
We found that the particularities between genders
were relevant for mobile payments acceptance and
use. This finding is important because women constitute
the primary government target for m-payment technol-
ogy adoption in delivering subsidies and financial sup-
port for economic reactivation. The mediating
relationships that emerged in the women’s model
seem to simplify the route to acceptance and usage
through a singular pathway for intention to use. For
both genders, discomfort with technology was not stat-
istically significant for the formation of TR, which aligns
with findings from Humbani and Wiese (2018). How-
ever, optimism and innovativeness may represent the
two dimensions most relevant for building a propensity
for accepting and using new mobile banking technol-
ogies. Women with high TR may perceive the apps to
be easier to learn how to use, leading to the perception
of benefits and utilities. Moreover, ease of use, per se,
would not guarantee the intention to use m-payment
apps, but perceived usefulness would help female users
to develop an intention to use.
Men would have a stronger proclivity toward finding
different routes to develop an intention to use the apps.
Moreover, TR may influence both perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use. Once the male user perceives
these two TAM beliefs, there may be a positive influence
on intention. The relationships between constructs
suggest that strategies directed towards men could be
14 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
more easily successful. However, they are not the pri-
mary recipients of the government subsidy strategies
on which the growth of m-payment applications
among lower-income users has been supported. The
existence of more routes of influence of the different
variables on the intention to use m-payment opens
more possibilities for success. In this way, our findings
concerning men are closer to the original theories and
empirical evidence.
As stated above, women presented a narrower route
to m-payment usage. Therefore, financial inclusion
strategies by public policymakers should be differen-
tiated for women to better cater to their perceptions
of ______. who try to facilitate financial inclusion and
m-payments for women must differentiate their strat-
egies towards this population target. One effective way
would be using communication messages that encou-
rage optimism about technology targeted at innovative
and early adopting women users because they are
becoming better versed in both the use of technology
and financial products. Furthermore, these users could
encourage less innovative women to join the initiative
by example and through saving circles that tend to be
dominated by women in the community. The causality
represented in the model implies that once technology
readiness is present for women, ease of use would be
the next point for designing relevant and appropriate
user experiences. If learning how to use technology is
effortless, the perception of the utility of m-payment
will be higher, and the intention to adopt and use
these types of solutions will be magnified. Hence, the
relevance of women for the success of the m-payment
marketing strategies in society is unavoidable, mainly
because they allocated some 70% of the budget to
family-related matters.5 Furthermore, the nature of the
configuration of homes often includes single mothers;
however, when women are heads of the house, house-
hold and education expenditures grow.6
Decision making related to implementation of
mobile banking solutions in this context should take
into account that TR does not include discomfort as a
significant dimension. In other words, the perception
of not having control over the mobile payment apps
or feeling overwhelmed by it, is not so relevant for
these Colombian users. Moreover, they do not appear
to experience a sentiment of paranoia or exclusion.
Rather, they seem open to building their readiness
with an emphasis on optimism. Hence, managerial
efforts should reinforce optimism by using marketing
communications oriented toward developing the per-
ception of better control over the encounter with m-
payment apps. Managers should also evidence technol-
ogy characteristics associated with flexibility, for
instance, the wide range of solutions for paying bills
digitally, buying in-stores with digital money, keeping
track of savings, and sending money, among others.
Versatility and control should be important embedded
messages for campaigns. If perceptions and feelings
around m-payment apps change, then, in time, TR
become stronger and the process of acceptance and
use would be supported by it.
Once TR is increased, gender differences may
become more salient. The unique and singular pathway
for intention to use for women would imply that strat-
egies should focus on that pathway because it would also
be relevant for men. To that end, live demonstrations,
simulations and free-trial money could be used as tactics
to improve perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use. Moreover, opinion leaders and testimonials may
reinforce the message of low effort and high utilities of
m-payment apps, leading to intention to use and actual
use of the mobile banking solutions.
6. Limitations and future directions
This work does not elaborate on longer-term marketing
strategies that generate or enhance intergenerational
brand loyalty among lower-income consumers, particu-
larly as they attempt to achieve higher-order needs.
Therefore, future research should examine product
development that facilitates the transition of these con-
sumers into mainstream population segments. Innova-
tiveness is challenging to apply in a context where
they are usually not pioneers or first adopters due to
resource deficits. However, the shift towards free or
low-cost products affords a rethinking of innovative-
ness. If innovativeness is present for lower-income
urban users, future research could study personality
traits rather than behavioural and social comparisons.
Future research should also explore differences in gen-
ders concerning loyalty and continuance of use,
especially in the absence of government subsidies.
Lastly, the sample was not designed with a probabilistic
approach, given that we targeted a specific group of con-
sumers, which may limit the generalisability of the
results, thus leaving the door open for probabilistic
sampling in this arena.
Notes
1. https://www.larepublica.co/internet-economy/
aumenta-cobertura-de-internet-pero-mitad-de-la-
poblacion-lo-usa-para-entretenerse-2977746; accessed
January 15, 2021.
2. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/116-espanol/
informacion-georreferenciada/2419-estratificacion-

socioeconomica-metodologia; accessed January 15,
2020.
3. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2014/09/
140919_colombia_fooc_estratos_aw; accessed January
15, 2020.
4. https://www.larepublica.co/economia/este-es-el-mapa-
de-los-estratos-en-las-grandes-ciudades-del-pais-
2866032; accessed January 15, 2021.
5. https://www.portafolio.co/amp/economia/finanzas/las-
mujeres-gastan-mas-pero-sus-preferencias-no-han-
cambiado-521001; accessed August 15, 2021.
6. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/
2019/04/SituacionConsumo.pdf; accessed August 15,
2021.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by British Council.
ORCID
Juan Fernando Tavera-Mesías http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
1392-9535
Aaron van Klyton http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4663-9849
References
Acheampong, P., L. Zhiwen, H. K. Asante Antwi, and P.
Boateng Sarpong. 2017. “Hybridising an Extended
Technology Readiness Index with Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) to Predict E-Payment Adoption in
Ghana.” American Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 5
(2): 172–184.
Agarwal, R., and J. Prasad. 1998. “A Conceptual and
Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the
Domain of Information Technology.” Information
Systems Research 9 (2): 204–215. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior (Revised Edition). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Pearson.
Aldas-Manzano, J., and E. Jiminez. 2017. Análisis
Multivariante Aplicado con R. 2a ed. Madrid, Spain:
Ediciones Paraninfo, S.A.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Y. Yi. 1988. “On the Evaluation of
Structural Equation Models.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 16 (1): 74–94. [online]. Accessed 24
September 2020. doi:10.1007/BF02723327.
Bailey, A. A., I. Pentina, A. S. Mishra, and M. S. Ben Mimoun.
2017. “Mobile Payments Adoption by US Consumers: An
Extended TAM.” International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 45 (6): 626–640. doi:10.1108/
IJRDM-08-2016-0144.
Baishya, K., and H. V. Samalia. 2020. “Extending Unified
Theory of Acceptance and use of Technology with
Perceived Monetary Value for Smartphone Adoption at
the Bottom of the Pyramid.” International Journal of
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 15
Information Management 51: 102036. doi:10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2019.11.004.
Bateson, J. E. G. 2000. “Perceived Control and the Service
Experience.” In Handbook of Service Marketing and
Management, edited by T. Swartz, and D. Iacobucci, 127–
144. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Becker, J.-M., K. Klein, and M. Wetzels. 2012. “Hierarchical
Latent Variable Models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for
Using Reflective-Formative Type Models.” Long Range
Planning 45 (5): 359–394. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001.
Bettiga, D., L. Lamberti, and E. Lettieri. 2020. “Individuals’
Adoption of Smart Technologies for Preventive Health
Care: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.” Health
Care Management Science 23 (2): 203–214. doi:10.1007/
s10729-019-09468-2.
Blasko, D. G., H. C. Lum, and J. Campbell. 2020. “Gender
Differences in Perceptions of Technology, Technology
Readiness, and Spatial Cognition.” Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
64 (1): 1395–1399. doi:10.1177/1071181320641333.
Blut, M., and C. Wang. 2020. “Technology Readiness: A Meta-
Analysis of Conceptualisations of the Construct and its
Impact on Technology Usage.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 48 (4): 649–669. doi:10.1007/s11747-
019-00680-8.
Cenfetelli, R. T., and G. Bassellier. 2009. “Interpretation of
Formative Measurement in Information Systems
Research.” MIS Quarterly 33 (4): 689–707. doi:10.2307/
20650323.
Chawla, D., and H. Joshi. 2020. “The Moderating Role of
Gender and age in the Adoption of Mobile Wallet.”
Foresight (los Angeles, Calif ) 22 (4): 483–504. doi:10.
1108/FS-11-2019-0094.
Chen, M.-F., and N.-P. Lin. 2018. “Incorporation of Health
Consciousness Into the Technology Readiness and
Acceptance Model to Predict app Download and Usage
Intentions.” Internet Research 28 (2): 351–373. doi:10.
1108/IntR-03-2017-0099.
Chi, T. 2018. “Understanding Chinese Consumer Adoption of
Apparel Mobile Commerce: An Extended TAM
Approach.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44
(C): 274–284. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/joreco/
v44y2018icp274-284.html.
Chin, W. W. 1998. “The Partial Least Squares Approach for
Structural Equation Modeling.” In Modern Methods for
Business Research, edited by G. A. Marcoulides, 295–336.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Chitungo, S. K., and S. Munongo. 2013. “Extending the
Technology Acceptance Model to Mobile Banking
Adoption in Rural Zimbabwe.” Journal of
Business Administration and Education 3 (1): Article 1.
https://www.infinitypress.info/index.php/jbae/article/view/
100.
Christie, B. 1981. Face to File Communication: Psychological
Approach to Information Systems. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Curran, J. M., and M. L. Meuter. 2005. “Self-Service
Technology Adoption: Comparing Three Technologies.”
Journal of Services Marketing 19 (2): 103–113. doi:10.
1108/08876040510591411.
Dabholkar, P. A. 1996. “Consumer Evaluations of new
Technology-Based Self-Service Options: An Investigation
16 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
of Alternative Models of Service Quality.” International
Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1): 29–51. doi:10.
1016/0167-8116(95)00027-5.
Dahana, W. D., T. Kobayashi, and A. Ebisuya. 2018.
“Empirical Study of Heterogeneous Behavior at the Base
of the Pyramid: The Influence of Demographic and
Psychographic Factors.” Journal of International
Consumer Marketing 30 (3): 173–191. doi:10.1080/
08961530.2017.1399308.
Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw. 1989. “User
Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of
Two Theoretical Models.” Management Science 35 (8):
982–1003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151.
David-West, O., N. Ihenachor, and I. Kelikume. 2018. “A
Resource-based View of Digital fFnancial Services (DFS):
An Exploratory Study of Nigerian Providers.” Journal of
Business Research: 88513–526. [online]. Accessed 1
February 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0148296318300341.
Di Pietro, L., R. Guglielmetti Mugion, G. Mattia, M. F. Renzi,
and M. Toni. 2015. “The Integrated Model on Mobile
Payment Acceptance (IMMPA): An Empirical
Application to Public Transport.” Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 56: 463–479.
doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.05.001.
Dodgson, M., D. Gann, I. Wladawsky-Berger, and G. George.
2013. From the Digital Divide to Inclusive Innovation: The
Case of Digital Money (pp. 1–17). RSA Action and
Research Centre. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_
research.
Dodgson, M., D. Gann, I. Wladawsky-Berger, N. Sultan, and
G. George. 2015. “Managing Digital Money.” Academy of
Management Journal 58 (2): 325–333. doi:10.5465/amj.
2015.4002.
Duarte, P., and S. Amaro. 2018. “Methods for Modelling
Reflective-Formative Second-Order Constructs in PLS:
An Application to Online Travel Shopping.” Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology 9 (3): 295–313.
doi:10.1108/JHTT-09-2017-0092.
Fall, F.-S., L. Orozco, and A.-M. Akim. 2020. “Adoption and
use of Mobile Banking by low-Income Individuals in
Senegal.” Review of Development Economics 24 (2): 569–
588. doi:10.1111/rode.12658.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1): 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312.
Franke, G., and M. Sarstedt. 2019. “Heuristics Versus Statistics
in Discriminant Validity Testing: A Comparison of Four
Procedures.” Internet Research 29 (3): 430–447. doi:10.
1108/IntR-12-2017-0515.
Gbongli, K., Y. Xu, and K. M. Amedjonekou. 2019. “Extended
Technology Acceptance Model to Predict Mobile-Based
Money Acceptance and Sustainability: A Multi-Analytical
Structural Equation Modeling and Neural Network
Approach.” Sustainability 11 (13): 3639. doi:10.3390/
su11133639.
Geisser, S. 1974. “A Predictive Approach to the Random Effect
Model.” Biometrika 61 (1): 101–107. doi:10.1093/biomet/
61.1.101.
Glavee-Geo, R., A. A. Shaikh, and H. Karjaluoto. 2017.
“Mobile Banking Services Adoption in Pakistan: Are
There Gender Differences?” International Journal of Bank
Marketing 35 (7): 1090–1114. doi:10.1108/IJBM-09-2015-
0142.
Goldsmith, R. E., and C. F. Hofacker. 1991. “Measuring
Consumer Innovativeness.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 19 (3): 209–221. doi:10.1007/
BF02726497.
Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2016.
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation
Modeling (Second Edition). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications. Inc.
Hair, J. F., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2011. “PLS-SEM:
Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 19 (2): 139–152. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190202.
Hair, J. F., J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle. 2019.
“When to use and how to Report the Results of PLS-
SEM.” European Business Review 31 (1): 2–24. doi:10.
1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hair, J. F., M. Sarstedt, L. Hopkins, and G. V. Kuppelwieser.
2014. “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM): An Emerging Tool in Business Research.”
European Business Review 26 (2): 106–121. doi:10.1108/
EBR-10-2013-0128.
Hair, J. F., M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and S. P. Gudergan. 2017.
Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (1 Edition). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publications. Inc.
Halim, N. A. 2012. “Technology Readiness and Users
Satisfaction Towards Self-Service Technology at
Malaysian Airport.” Information Management and
Business Review 4 (8): 453–460. doi:10.22610/imbr.v4i8.
1000.
Hallikainen, H., A. Alamäki, and T. Laukkanen. 2019. “Lead
Users of Business Mobile Services.” International Journal
of Information Management 47: 283–292. doi:10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2018.10.018.
Hallikainen, H., and T. Laukkanen. 2016. “How Technology
Readiness Explains Acceptance and Satisfaction of Digital
Services in B2b Healthcare Sector?” Pacific Asia
Conference on Information Systems (PACIS) 12: 294–306.
Hansen, J. M., G. Saridakis, and V. Benson. 2018. “Risk, Trust,
and the Interaction of Perceived Ease of use and Behavioral
Control in Predicting Consumers’ use of Social Media for
Transactions.” Computers in Human Behavior 80: 197–
206. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.010.
Hasan, R., Y. Liu, P. J. Kitchen, and M. Rahman. 2019.
“Exploring Consumer Mobile Payment Adoption in the
Bottom-of-the-Pyramid Context: A Qualitative Study.”
Strategic Change 28 (5): 345–353. doi:10.1002/jsc.2289.
Henseler, J., C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2015. “A new
Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in
Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1): 115–135. doi:10.
1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Hossain, M. M., and M. R. Jamil. 2015. “Consumer
Acceptance of More-Than-Voice (MTV) Services:
Evidence from the Bottom of Pyramid in Bangladesh.”
Journal of Developing Areas 49 (5): 25–39. https://ideas.
repec.org/a/jda/journl/vol.49year2015issue5pp25-39.html.
Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., A. Rai, and M. Keil. 2008. “Understanding
Digital Inequality: Comparing Continued Use Behavioral

Models of the Socio-Economically Advantaged and
Disadvantaged.” MIS Quarterly 32 (1): 97–126. doi:10.
2307/25148830.
Humbani, M., and M. Wiese. 2018. “A Cashless Society for
All: Determining Consumers’ Readiness to Adopt Mobile
Payment Services.” Journal of African Business 19 (3):
409–429. doi:10.1080/15228916.2017.1396792.
Hussain, J., A. Ul Hassan, H. S. Muhammad Bilal, R. Ali, M.
Afzal, S. Hussain, J. Bang, O. Banos, and S. Lee. 2018.
“Model-based Adaptive User Interface Based on Context
and User Experience Evaluation.” Journal on Multimodal
User Interfaces 12 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1007/s12193-018-
0258-2.
Huy, L. V., P. T. H. Nguyen, L. Pham, and R. Berry. 2019.
“Technology Readiness and Satisfaction in Vietnam’s
Luxury Hotels.” International Journal of Management and
Decision Making 18 (2): 183–208. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.
2019.098648.
Hwang, J., and L. Good. 2014. “Intelligent Sensor-Based
Services Success: The Role of Consumer Characteristics
and Information.” European Journal of Marketing 48 (3/
4): 406–431. doi:10.1108/EJM-11-2011-0689.
Jagtap, S. 2019. “Key Guidelines for Designing Integrated
Solutions to Support the Development of Marginalised
Societies.” Journal of Cleaner Production 219: 148–165.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.340.
Kalinić, Z., F. J. Liébana-Cabanillas, F. Muñoz-Leiva, and V.
Marinković. 2019. “The Moderating Impact of Gender on
the Acceptance of Peer-to-Peer Mobile Payment
Systems.” International Journal of Bank Marketing 38 (1):
138–158. doi:10.1108/IJBM-01-2019-0012.
Kamble, S., A. Gunasekaran, and H. Arha. 2019.
“Understanding the Blockchain Technology Adoption in
Supply Chains-Indian Context.” International Journal of
Production Research 57 (7): 2009–2033. doi:10.1080/
00207543.2018.1518610.
Khatri, V., B. M. Samuel, and A. R. Dennis. 2018. “System 1
and System 2 Cognition in the Decision to Adopt and
use a new Technology.” Information & Management 55
(6): 709–724. doi:10.1016/j.im.2018.03.002.
Kuo, K.-M., C.-F. Liu, and C.-C. Ma. 2013. “An Investigation
of the Effect of Nurses’ Technology Readiness on the
Acceptance of Mobile Electronic Medical Record
Systems.” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
13: 88. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-88.
Lai, Y. L., and J. Lee. 2020. “Integration of Technology
Readiness Index (TRI) Into the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) for Explaining Behavior in Adoption of
BIM.” Asian Education Studies 5 (2): 10. doi:10.20849/aes.
v5i2.816.
Lee, M.-C. 2009. “Factors Influencing the Adoption of
Internet Banking: An Integration of TAM and TPB with
Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit.” Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 8 (3): 130–141.
doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006.
Liébana-Cabanillas, J. F., J. Sánchez-Fernández, and F. Muñoz-
Leiva. 2014. “Role of Gender on Acceptance of Mobile
Payment.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 114 (2):
220–240. doi:10.1108/IMDS-03-2013-0137.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., F. Muñoz-Leiva, and J. Sánchez-
Fernández. 2018. “A Global Approach to the Analysis of
User Behavior in Mobile Payment Systems in the new
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 17
Electronic Environment.” Service Business 12 (1): 25–64.
doi:10.1007/s11628-017-0336-7.
Lin, J. C., and H. Chang. 2011. “The Role of Technology
Readiness in Self-Service Technology Acceptance.”
Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 21
(4): 424–444. doi:10.1108/09604521111146289.
Lin, C. A., and T. Kim. 2016. “Predicting User Response to
Sponsored Advertising on Social Media via the
Technology Acceptance Model.” Computers in Human
Behavior 64: 710–718. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.027.
Lin, C.-H., H.-Y. Shih, and P. J. Sher. 2007. “Integrating
Technology Readiness Into Technology Acceptance: The
TRAM Model.” Psychology & Marketing 24 (7): 641–657.
doi:10.1002/mar.20177.
Martens, M., O. Roll, and R. Elliott. 2017. “Testing the
Technology Readiness and Acceptance Model for Mobile
Payments Across Germany and South Africa.” International
Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
(IJITM) 14 (06): 1–19. https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitmx/
v14y2017i06ns021987701750033x.html.
Mathur, M. K., R. Mehta, S. Swami, and S. Bhatnagar. 2018.
“Exploring the Urban BoP Market.” In Bottom of the
Pyramid Marketing: Making, Shaping and Developing BoP
Markets, edited by R. Singh, 199–212. Emerald Publishing
Limited. doi:10.1108/978-1-78714-555-920181012.
McCloskey, D. 2004. “Evaluating Electronic Commerce
Acceptance with the Technology Acceptance Model.”
Journal of Computer Information Systems 44 (2): 49–57.
doi:10.1080/08874417.2004.11647566.
Mukerjee, H. S., G. K. Deshmukh, and U. Devi Prasad. 2019.
“Technology Readiness and Likelihood to Use Self-
Checkout Services Using Smartphone in Retail Grocery
Stores: Empirical Evidences from Hyderabad, India.
Business Perspectives and Research 7 (1): 1–15. [online].
Accessed 23 September 2020. doi:10.1177/
2278533718800118.
Muñoz-Leiva, F., S. Climent-Climent, and F. Liébana-
Cabanillas. 2017. “Determinants of Intention to use the
Mobile Banking Apps: An Extension of the Classic TAM
Model.” Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC 21 (1): 25–
38. doi:10.1016/j.sjme.2016.12.001.
Mutahar, A. M., N. M. Daud, T. Ramayah, O. Isaac, and A. H.
Aldholay. 2018. “The Effect of Awareness and Perceived
Risk on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM):
Mobile Banking in Yemen.” International Journal of
Services and Standards 12 (2): 180. https://www.academia.
edu/38282448/The_effect_of_awareness_and_perceived_
risk_on_the_technology_acceptance_model_TAM_
mobile_banking_in_Yemen.
Na, T.-K., S.-H. Lee, and J.-Y. Yang. 2021. “Moderating Effect
of Gender on the Relationship Between Technology
Readiness Index and Consumers’ Continuous Use
Intention of Self-Service Restaurant Kiosks.” Information
12 (7): 280. doi:10.3390/info12070280.
Nagdev, K., A. Rajesh, and R. Misra. 2019. “The Mediating
Impact of Demonetisation on Customer Acceptance for
IT-enabled Banking Services.” International Journal of
Emerging Markets. Ahead-of-print. [online]. Accessed 23
September 2020. doi:10.1108/IJOEM-05-2018-0263.
Nitti, M., and E. Ciavolino. 2014. “A Deflated Indicators
Approach for Estimating Second-Order Reflective Models
Through PLS-PM: An Empirical Illustration.” Journal of
18 J. F. TAVERA-MESÍAS ET AL.
Applied Statistics 41 (10): 2222–2239. doi:10.1080/
02664763.2014.909786.
Nugroho, M. A., and M. A. Fajar. 2017. “Effects of Technology
Readiness Towards Acceptance of Mandatory web-Based
Attendance System.” Procedia Computer Science 124:
319–328.
Nunnally, J. C., and I. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory.
3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Ozturk, A. B., A. Bilgihan, S. Salehi-Esfahani, and N. Hua.
2017. “Understanding the Mobile Payment Technology
Acceptance Based on Valence Theory: A Case of
Restaurant Transactions.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 29 (8): 2027–
2049. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0192.
Parasuraman, A. 2000. “Technology Readiness Index (Tri): A
Multiple-Item Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New
Technologies.” Journal of Service Research, doi:10.1177/
109467050024001.
Parasuraman, A., and C. L. Colby. 2001. Techno-Ready
Marketing: How and Why Your Customers Adopt
Technology (First Edition). Florence, MA: Free Press.
Parasuraman, A., and C. L. Colby. 2014. “An Updated and
Streamlined Technology Readiness Index: Tri 2.0.”
Journal of Service Research, doi:10.1177/
1094670514539730.
Pattansheti, M., S. Kamble, S. Dhume, and R. Rakesh. 2016.
“Development, Measurement and Validation of an
Integrated Technology Readiness Acceptance and
Planned Behaviour Model for Indian Mobile Banking
Industry.” International Journal of Business Information
Systems 22 (3): 316–342.
Pipitwanichakarn, T., and N. Wongtada. 2019. “Mobile
Commerce Adoption among the Bottom of the Pyramid:
A Case of Street Vendors in Thailand.” Journal of Science
and Technology Policy Management 10 (1): 193–213.
doi:10.1108/JSTPM-12-2017-0074.
Pradhan, M. K., J. Oh, and H. Lee. 2018. “Understanding
Travelers’ Behavior for Sustainable Smart Tourism: A
Technology Readiness Perspective.” Sustainability 10 (11):
4259. doi:10.3390/su10114259.
Rangan, V. K., M. Chu, and D. Petkoski. 2011, June 1. The
Globe: Segmenting the Base of the Pyramid. Harvard
Business Review, June 2011. https://hbr.org/2011/06/the-
globe-segmenting-the-base-of-the-pyramid.
Rana, N. P., S. Luthra, and H. R. Rao. 2020. “Key Challenges to
Digital Financial Services in Emerging Economies: The
Indian Context.” Information Technology & People 33
(1): 198–229. [online]. Accessed 6 May 2020. doi:10.1108/
ITP-05-2018-0243.
Raza, S. A., A. Umer, and N. Shah. 2017. “New Determinants
of Ease of use and Perceived Usefulness for Mobile Banking
Adoption.” International Journal of Electronic Customer
Relationship Management 11 (1): 44–65. doi:10.1504/
IJECRM.2017.086751.
Riquelme, H. E., and R. E. Rios. 2010. “The Moderating Effect
of Gender in the Adoption of Mobile Banking.”
International Journal of Bank Marketing 28 (5): 328–341.
doi:10.1108/02652321011064872.
Roehrich, G. 2004. “Consumer Innovativeness: Concepts and
Measurements.” Journal of Business Research 57 (6): 671–
677. https://coek.info/pdf-consumer-innovativeness-.html.
Rogers, E. M., R. M. Rogers, and F. F. Shoemaker. 1971.
Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach. Florence, MA: Free Press.
Rojas-Méndez, J. I., A. Parasuraman, and N. Papadopoulos.
2017. “Demographics, Attitudes, and Technology
Readiness: A Cross-Cultural Analysis and Model
Validation.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 35 (1):
18–39. doi:10.1108/MIP-08-2015-0163.
Sánchez-Torres, J. A., F.-J. A. Canada, A. V. Sandoval, and J.-
A. S. Alzate. 2018. “E-banking in Colombia: Factors
Favouring its Acceptance, Online Trust and Government
Support.” International Journal of Bank Marketing 36 (1):
170–183. doi:10.1108/IJBM-10-2016-0145.
Servon, L. J., and J. B. Horrigan. 1997. “Urban Poverty and
Access to Information Technology: A Role for Local
Government.” Journal of Urban Technology 4 (3): 61–81.
doi:10.1080/10630739708724567.
Sharma, S. K., S. M. Govindaluri, S. Al-Muharrami, and A.
Tarhini. 2017. “A Multi-Analytical Model for Mobile
Banking Adoption: A Developing Country Perspective.”
Review of International Business and Strategy 27 (1): 133–
148. doi:10.1108/RIBS-11-2016-0074.
Simiyu, S. C., and P. Kohsuwan. 2019. “Understanding
Consumers’ Mobile Banking Adoption Through the
Integrated Technology Readiness and Acceptance
Model (TRAM) Perspective.” HUMAN BEHAVIOR,
DEVELOPMENT and SOCIETY 20 (4): 29–40. https://
so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/hbds/article/view/179566.
Srivastava, S. 2012. “The Emerging Economies and Changing
Prospects of the Multicurrency Global Order: Avenues and
Challenges in Times Ahead.” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 37: 46–56. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.
03.274.
Srivastava, R. 2019. “Customer Expectations at the Urban
Bottom of Pyramid in India: A Grounded Theory
Approach.” In Business Governance and Society:
Analyzing Shifts, Conflicts, and Challenges, edited by F.
Rajagopal, and R. Behl, 55–73. Springer International
Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94613-9_5.
Stone, M. 1974. “Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of
Statistical Predictions.” Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society. Series B (Methodological) 36 (2): 111–147. [online].
Accessed 24 July 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2984809.
Subrahmanyan, S., and J. T. Gomez-Arias. 2008. “Integrated
Approach to Understanding Consumer Behavior at
Bottom of Pyramid.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 25
(7): 402–412. doi:10.1108/07363760810915617.
Sun, S., P. C. Lee, R. Law, and S. S. Hyun. 2020. “An
Investigation of the Moderating Effects of Current job
Position Level and Hotel Work Experience Between
Technology Readiness and Technology Acceptance.”
International Journal of Hospitality Management 90:
102633. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102633.
Swanson, E. B. 1982. “Measuring User Attitudes in MIS
Research: A Review.” Omega 10 (2): 157–165. https://
econpapers.repec.org/article/eeejomega/v_3a10_3ay_
3a1982_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a157-165.htm.
Tan, G. W.-H., K.-B. Ooi, S.-C. Chong, and T.-S. Hew. 2014.
“NFC Mobile Credit Card: The Next Frontier of Mobile
Payment?” Telematics and Informatics 31 (2): 292–307.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2013.06.002.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 19

Tavera-Mesías, J. F., A. van.Klyton, and A. Zuñiga-Collazos. von Hippel, E. 1986. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product
2021. “Social Stratification, Self-Image Congruence, and Concepts.” Management Science 32 (7): 791–805. [online].
Mobile Banking in Colombian Cities.” Journal of Accessed 26 April 2014. [Online]. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791.
International Consumer Marketing 0 (0): 1–20. doi:10. Venkatesh, V. 1999. “Creation of Favorable User Perceptions:
1080/08961530.2021.1955426. Exploring the Role of Intrinsic Motivation.” MIS Quarterly
Taylor, S., and P. A. Todd. 1995. “Understanding Information 23 (2): 239–260. doi:10.2307/249753.
Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models.” Walczuch, R., J. Lemmink, and S. Streukens. 2007. “The Effect
Information Systems Research 6 (2): 144–176. https:// of Service Employees’ Technology Readiness on
www.jstor.org/stable/23011007. Technology Acceptance.” Information & Management 44
Tenenhaus, M., V. E. Vinzi, Y. M. Chatelin, and C. Lauro. (2): 206–215. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.12.005.
2005. “PLS Path Modeling.” Computational Statistics & Yousafzai, S. Y., J. G. Pallister, and G. R. Foxall. 2003. “A
Data Analysis 48: 159–205. doi:10.1016/j.csda.2004.03. Proposed Model of e-Trust for Electronic Banking.”
005. Technovation 23 (11): 847–860. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972
Tsikriktsis, N. 2004. “A Technology Readiness-Based (03)00130-5.
Taxonomy of Customers: A Replication and Extension.”
Journal of Service Research 7 (1): 42–52. doi:10.1177/
1094670504266132.
van.Klyton, A., and W. Castaño-Muñoz. 2017. “Local Appendix
Information Services in Medellin: Technology,
Institutions, Communities and Power.” Technology in Table A1. Model fit indicators.
Society 50: 20–30. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.03.007. Saturated Model Estimated Model
van.Klyton, A., J. F. Tavera-Mesías, and W. Castaño-Muñoz. SRMR 0.0456949 0.0508075
2021. “Value co-Creation and co-Destruction in the First d_ULS 0.19001 0.2349074
Cashless Society in Colombia – a Middle-Range d_G 0.1480918 0.1520203
Theory Approach.” Information Technology & People, Chi-Square 581.01221 593.08943
NFI 0.8901086 0.8878244
Ahead-of-Print (ahead-of-print), doi:10.1108/ITP-05-2020-
0273.