| Literature DB >> 35570943 |
Jiale Zhu1, Manyi Wang1.
Abstract
Many firms in the modern world utilize m-banking systems to communicate with their consumers. The word m-banking refers to a widespread method of providing financial services and localization to customers. Since m-banking is important to both banks and users, it has been included in numerous literary works. As a result, embracing financial services via the m-banking platform is critical. This article's technique is mostly descriptive research that investigates common views, current situations, modern tactics, tangible emerging consequences, etc. The main objective here is to analyze the benefits of this study by investigating the past. Since this article analyzes what exists and is descriptive, the data is being retrieved by conducting a cross-sectional survey method about different features that are relevant by sampling the population. The main aim of this study is to explore the adoption of mobile banking technology by consumers. Based on the values of different variables such as affective commitment (AC), transaction convenience (TC), perceived ease of use (PEU), perceived reliability (PR), pre and post benefits (PPB), service, system, and information quality (SSIQ), bank trust (BT), and profitability (P), the inter-relationship between them and the adoption of m-banking technique by the users in banking technology. The model is investigated by examining the hypothesis and identifying the relationship that exists between these different parameters. A simple linear regression method is implemented using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.Entities:
Keywords: banking; financial service; mobile banking; mobile technology; transaction convenience
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35570943 PMCID: PMC9099017 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.879342
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Demographic analysis.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Female | 54.50 | 121 |
| Male | 45.49 | 101 |
|
| ||
| 1–20 | 3 | 25 |
| 20–30 | 59 | 120 |
| 30–40 | 15 | 14 |
| >40 | 23 | 63 |
| Education | ||
| Master of science | 12 | 25 |
| Bachelor of science | 15 | 32 |
| Engineering | 20 | 57 |
| Medicine | 18 | 60 |
| Diploma | 40 | 85 |
| Associate degree | 17 | 14 |
| PhD | 5 | 7 |
Participant details.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| State-owned | 3.25 |
| Joint-stock | 2.14 |
| Postal savings | 3.25 |
| Agricultural bank | 2.52 |
| Commercial city bank | 1.54 |
Figure 1Usage analysis of m-banking application (A) Users using m-banking during the day and (B) users' friends and references using mobile banking.
Figure 2Conceptual modeling structure.
Measurement instrument to analyze different parameters.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Bank trust | The bank helps me to use the mobile device of the consumer for accessing the services |
| Pre and post benefit convenience | The m-banking resolves the problems in a fast manner |
| Service, system, and information quality (SSIQ) | Convenient access of m-banking services |
| Transaction convenience | Easier to complete the transaction |
| Perceived ease of use | Usability of mobile devices for banking |
| Perceived reliability | To select the supporting technology for mobile banking |
| Portability | Increased customer interaction Increased customer visit |
Hypothesis testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affective commitment | 0.78 | 0.58 | 0.77 | |||||||
| Transaction convenience | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.55 | 0.94 | ||||||
| Perceived ease of use | 0.97 | 0.88 | 0.62 | 0.68 | 0.95 | |||||
| Perceived reliability | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.96 | ||||
| Pre and post benefits | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.66 | 0.53 | 0.97 | |||
| Service, system, and information quality | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.47 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.92 | ||
| Bank trust | 0.87 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 0.52 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.83 | |
| Profitability | 0.83 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.42 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.46 | 0.39 | 0.80 | 0.84 |
The results of the linear regression test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affective commitment | Interaction | H1 | 0.000 | 0.297 | Accepted |
| Transaction Convenience | Interaction | H2 | 0.000 | 0.339 | Accepted |
| Perceived ease of use | Satisfaction | H3 | 0.000 | 0.333 | Accepted |
| Perceived reliability | Interaction | H4 | 0.000 | 0.172 | Accepted |
| Pre and post benefits | Interaction | H5 | 0.000 | 0.242 | Accepted |
| Service, system, and information quality | Satisfaction | H6 | 0.000 | 0.430 | Accepted |
| Bank trust | Interaction | H7 | 0.000 | 0.347 | Accepted |
| Profitability | Interaction | H8 | 0.000 | 0.230 | Accepted |
Descriptive data analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Affective commitment | 1.208 | 2.52 | 5 | 1 |
| Transaction convenience (TC) | 1.081 | 3.36 | 5 | 1 |
| Perceived ease of use (PEU) | 1.061 | 3.21 | 5 | 1 |
| Perceived reliability (PR) | 1.689 | 2.92 | 5 | 1 |
| Pre and post benefits (PPB) | 1.393 | 2.67 | 5 | 1 |
| Service, system, and information quality (SSIQ) | 1.206 | 2.79 | 5 | 1 |
| Bank trust (BT) | 0.955 | 3.31 | 5 | 1 |
| Profitability (P) | 1.220 | 3.10 | 5 | 1 |