| Literature DB >> 32023278 |
Wan-Rung Lin1, Yi-Hsien Wang1, Yi-Min Hung1.
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to propose a research model to explore the key factors affecting consumers' willingness to use online banking. There are two stages in this research. Firstly, the decision making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) and analytic network process (ANP) were used to explore the key factors of companies in operation of online banking. Secondly, the structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to explore the key factors of consumers' actual use of online banking. The results showed differences in the factors that companies and consumers adopted. Based on the findings, companies can adjust their business strategies and improve the consumers' willingness of online banking usage. The primary factor valued by both companies and consumers is trust. Hence, in the business of internet banking, the companies must strengthen areas such as liquidity monitoring, information security, and compliance with financial regulations, in order to reduce risks and gain customers' trust.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32023278 PMCID: PMC7001960 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227852
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Technology acceptance model.
Comparison table of RIs.
| Order of the matrix | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI | 0 | 0 | 0.52 | 0.89 | 1.11 | 1.25 | 1.35 | 1.40 | 1.45 | 1.49 |
Measurement indexes for goodness of fit of SEM.
| Type | Name of index | Range | Acceptable value | Critical value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Fit Index | Chi-Square value | -- | The smaller, the better | |
| Chi-Square value/ DOF | -- | <5 | <3 | |
| RMSEA | 0–1 | <0.1 | <0.05 | |
| RMR | 0–1 | <0.1 | <0.05 | |
| SRMR | 0–1 | <0.1 | <0.05 | |
| Comparative Fit Index | NFI | 0–1 | >0.9 | >0.95 |
| NNFI | 0–1 | >0.9 | >0.95 | |
| IFI | 0–1 | >0.9 | >0.95 | |
| CFI | 0–1 | >0.9 | >0.95 | |
| RFI | 0–1 | >0.9 | >0.95 | |
| Parsimonious Fit Index | PGFI | 0–1 | >0.5 | Close to 1 |
Fig 2Applications of DEMATEL-ANP-SEM.
Total-relation matrix.
| Perceived usefulness | Perceived ease of use | Perceived risk | Trust | Satisfaction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | 0.311 | 0.447 | 0.379 | 0.604 | 0.698 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.471 | 0.308 | 0.413 | 0.592 | 0.702 |
| Perceived risk | 0.455 | 0.421 | 0.294 | 0.640 | 0.726 |
| Trust | 0.482 | 0.428 | 0.459 | 0.374 | 0.435 |
| Satisfaction | 0.387 | 0.409 | 0.361 | 0.562 | 0.395 |
Comparison table of total-relation matrix.
| Sum of columns (D) | Sum of rows (R) | Combined sum of rows and columns (D+R) | Difference between the sums of rows and columns (D-R) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | 2.439 | 2.106 | 4.545 | 0.333 |
| Perceived ease of use | 2.486 | 2.013 | 4.499 | 0.473 |
| Perceived risk | 2.536 | 1.906 | 4.442 | 0.630 |
| Trust | 2.178 | 2.772 | 4.950 | -0.594 |
| Satisfaction | 2.114 | 2.956 | 5.070 | -0.842 |
Fig 3Structural relation diagram of dimensions.
Order of dimensions.
| Ranking | Name of dimensions | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Trust | 0.361 |
| 2 | Perceived risk | 0.313 |
| 3 | Satisfaction | 0.154 |
| 4 | Perceived usefulness | 0.102 |
| 5 | Perceived ease of use | 0.069 |
Fig 4Structural relation diagram of dimensions.
Descriptive statistics of samples.
| Sample characteristics | Number of people | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 177 | 47.45% |
| Female | 196 | 52.55% | |
| Age | 18–20 years old | 11 | 2.95% |
| 21–30 years old | 67 | 17.96% | |
| 31–40 years old | 120 | 32.17% | |
| 41–50 years old | 114 | 30.56% | |
| 51–60 years old | 61 | 16.35% | |
| Occupation | Manufacturing industry | 32 | 8.58% |
| Service industry | 89 | 23.86% | |
| Finance and insurance | 116 | 31.10% | |
| Information technology | 61 | 16.35% | |
| Education | 14 | 3.75% | |
| Student | 30 | 8.04% | |
| Other industry | 31 | 8.31% | |
| Internet banking use experience | Less than one year | 135 | 36.19% |
| One to two years | 106 | 28.42% | |
| Above two years | 132 | 35.39% | |
| Internet banking use frequency | At least one time per week | 148 | 39.68% |
| At least one time per month | 135 | 36.19% | |
| At least one time per year | 90 | 24.13% | |
| Internet banking access | Desktop (Notebook) PC | 142 | 38.07% |
| Mobile device (smartphone, tablet PC) | 231 | 61.93% | |
Reliability analysis of dimensions.
| Name of dimension | Cronbach's α value |
|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | 0.869 |
| Perceived ease of use | 0.861 |
| Perceived risk | 0.734 |
| Trust | 0.890 |
| Satisfaction | 0.870 |
Validity analysis (factor loading) of dimensions and item analysis.
| Dimension | Item | Factor loading | Average mean | Dimension average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | (1) Internet banking improves my efficiency in conducting financial transactions. | 0.88 | 4.20 | 4.05 |
| (2) Internet banking allows me to know about more banking businesses. | 0.73 | 3.81 | ||
| (3) Internet banking allows me to keep abreast of the latest banking services in a timely fashion. | 0.63 | 3.99 | ||
| (4) Internet banking allows me to use more banking services in a convenient manner. | 0.88 | 4.21 | ||
| Perceived ease of use | (1) I think it is effortless to learn to use Internet banking. | 0.83 | 4.21 | 4.24 |
| (2) In think it is effortless to be familiar with the operation of Internet banking. | 0.75 | 4.14 | ||
| (4) In think it is effortless to complete banking business via Internet banking. | 0.85 | 4.29 | ||
| (5) I think the interface process of Internet banking is clear and easy to understand. | 0.70 | 4.31 | ||
| Perceived risk | (1) I think the security measures of Internet banking for transactions are inadequate. | 0.60 | 4.09 | 4.13 |
| (2) In think Internet banking will be likely to leak consumers’ personal information to other institutions. | 0.68 | 4.19 | ||
| (3) I am afraid I will enter a wrong amount during online transactions. | 0.57 | 4.13 | ||
| (4) I think mistakes are likely to be made during transactions via Internet banking. | 0.57 | 4.06 | ||
| (5) I think Internet banking is likely to be subject to hacking, which will cause financial loss to consumers. | 0.57 | 4.17 | ||
| Trust | (1) I think Internet banking should employ a set of optimized security mechanisms to improve the security of transaction data. | 0.74 | 4.54 | 4.43 |
| (2) I think Internet banking should establish several backup systems to ensure normal use of Internet banking by consumers when the web is under attack. | 0.89 | 4.60 | ||
| (3) Internet banking will consider the interests and needs of users and provide the products and services they need. | 0.90 | 4.57 | ||
| (4) I think Internet banking should take precautionary measures for major events (such as malicious stealing of money). | 0.71 | 4.34 | ||
| (5) I think Internet banking should transfer the risk of potential loss due to major events to other vendors via insurance. | 0.71 | 4.12 | ||
| Satisfaction | (1) Banks have a good image and reputation. | 0.73 | 4.14 | 4.27 |
| (2) Internet banking can update the information on the web anytime. | 0.79 | 4.10 | ||
| (3) Internet banking has a stable and fast system. | 0.76 | 4.31 | ||
| (4) Customer service personnel have appropriate expertise and attitudes. | 0.74 | 4.38 | ||
| (5) Answers can be obtained regarding Internet banking in real time in case of any question. | 0.76 | 4.41 |
Goodness of fit indexes of the model.
| Type | Name of index | Judged value | Measured value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Fix Index | Chi-Square value/ DOF | <5 | 3.45 |
| RMSEA | <0.1 | 0.08 | |
| RMR | <0.1 | 0.05 | |
| SRMR | <0.1 | 0.05 | |
| Comparative Fit Index | NFI | >0.9 | 0.94 |
| NNFI | >0.9 | 0.95 | |
| IFI | >0.9 | 0.96 | |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.96 | |
| RFI | >0.9 | 0.93 | |
| Parsimonious Fit Index | PGFI | >0.5 | 0.67 |
Verification results of research hypotheses.
| Description of hypotheses | Verification results | Path coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: | Consumer perceived ease of use for Internet banking will influence perceived usefulness. | Supported | 0.51 |
| H2: | Consumer perceived ease of use for Internet banking will influence trust. | Supported | 0.54 |
| H3: | Consumer perceived ease of use for Internet banking will influence satisfaction. | Supported | 0.15 |
| H4: | Consumer perceived risk for Internet banking will influence trust. | Supported | 0.51 |
| H5: | Consumer perceived risk for Internet banking will influence satisfaction. | Supported | 0.40 |
| H6: | Consumer perceived usefulness for Internet banking will influence trust. | Supported | -0.50 |
| H7: | Consumer perceived usefulness for Internet banking will influence satisfaction. | Supported | 0.37 |
| H8: | Consumer trust with Internet banking will influence perceived usefulness. | Supported | 0.37 |
| H9: | Consumer satisfaction with Internet banking will influence trust. | Not supported | 0.13 |
*** refers to p<0.01,
** refers to p<0.05,
* refers to p<0.1.
Fig 5Diagram of research hypotheses.
Comparison table of the degree of recognition of the five dimensions by experts and consumers.
| Name of dimension | Expert | Consumer |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | 4 | 5 |
| Perceived ease of use | 5 | 3 |
| Perceived risk | 2 | 4 |
| Trust | 1 | 1 |
| Satisfaction | 3 | 2 |
Correlations among factors.
| Factor | Influence on other factors | Subject to influence of other factors |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness (A) | D, E | B |
| Perceived ease of use (B) | A, D, E | Nil |
| Perceived risk (C) | D, E | Nil |
| Trust (D) | A | A, B, C, E |
| Satisfaction (E) | D | A, B, C |
Fig 6Weight of factors.
Degree of recognition of the five factors by consumers.
| Factor | Score (1–5 scores) | Ranking |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness | 4.05 | 5 |
| Perceived ease of use | 4.24 | 3 |
| Perceived risk | 4.13 | 4 |
| Trust | 4.43 | 1 |
| Satisfaction | 4.27 | 2 |