Mobile banking adoption its antecedents and post-adoption effects: the role of consumers status orientation in an African context

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed research model.

Table 2. Constructs and measurement items.

Constructs and measurement items		Adapted source
Habit (HA): α = 0.840 ; CR = 0.883 ; AVE = 0.669
HA1	Using the M-banking app has become a habit for me.	Song et al. (2015), Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
HA2	I am addicted to using the M-banking pp.
HA3	I have to use the M-banking app.
HA4	Using the M-banking app has become natural for me.
Hedonic expectation (HE): α = 0.829 ; CR = 0.857 ; AVE = 0.591
HE1	Using the M-banking app is entertaining	Song et al. (2015), Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
HE2	I expect to have fun by using the M-banking app
HE3	Using the M-banking app gives me pleasure
HE4	Using the M-banking app is interesting
HE5	Using the M-banking app makes me feel good
Intention to adopt (INAD): α = 0.821 ; CR = 0.825 ; AVE = 0.650
INAD1	I will use the M-banking app again	Bhattacherjee (2002), (Singh et al., 2020)
INAD2	I will encourage my friend to use the M-banking app
INAD3	In the future, I will continue using the M-banking app
INAD4	I will carry out more deals with the M-banking app in the coming years
Trust (TRUST): α = 0.826 ; CR = 0.829 ; AVE = 0.657
TRUST1	I think the M-banking app is trustworthy	Crosby et al., 1990, Arcand et al. (2017)
TRUST2	I believe the M-banking app provides safe and reliable services
TRUST3	The M-banking app meets its commitments to consumers
TRUST4	The channel is concerned with the best interests of the customer
Satisfaction (SAT): α = 0.863 ; CR = 0.865 ; AVE = 0.646
SAT1	I am generally satisfied with the transactions conducted through the M-banking app	Arcand et al. (2017)
SAT2	I am very satisfied with the transactions conducted by the M-banking app
SAT3	I am satisfied with the transactions carried out by the M-banking app
SAT4	I am satisfied with the way I conduct my transactions in the M-banking app
SAT5	Overall, I was satisfied with the transactions made by the M-banking app
Perceived privacy concern (PPC): α = 0.924 ; CR = 0.927 ; AVE = 0.724
PPC1	I am concerned that the information I submit via the M-banking app will be used for other purposes	Song et al. (2015), Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
PPC2	I am concerned that my account information may be stolen while using the M-banking app.
PPC3	I have concerns about submitting information on the M-banking app because of the other options available to me
PPC4	I am preoccupied with the amount of information provided on the M-banking app because it could be used for shameful purposes
PPC5	I have concerns about submitting information on the M-banking app because the company may share my personal information.
PPC6	When I use the M-banking app, I feel like I am being monitored.
Status gains (SG): α = 0.878 ; CR = 0.917 ; AVE = 0.801
SG1	Having the M-banking app is a symbol of social status	Song et al. (2015)
SG2	People using the M-banking app have more prestige than those who do not.
SG3	People using the M-banking app have a high profile.
Utilitarian Expectation (UTE): α = 0.768 ; CR = 0.791 ; AVE = 0.599
UTE1	Using M-banking eases my banking transactions	Singh et al., 2020, Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
UTE2	Using M-banking is more convivial/user-friendly
UTE3	The M-banking app eliminates time constraints
UTE4	The M-banking app eliminates geographical limitations, thus allowing me to conduct my operations in any location with an internet connection.
Modern status (OM): α = 0.828 ; CR = 0.830 ; AVE = 0.592
OM1	Striving to become a rich man would be one of the important goals in life.	Tambyah et al. (2009)
OM2	I admire people who can earn a high income.
OM3	I admire people who have a wide network of relationships, especially with important people.
OM4	It would be worth the considerable effort to obtain luxury products and services.
OM5	I would try to learn things that will help me earn a higher income.
Traditional status (OT): α = 0.812 ; CR = 0.834 ; AVE = 0,568
OT1	I respect people who are dedicated to their country and their people	Tambyah et al. (2009)
OT2	I respect people who always give priority to social benefit
OT3	I try to lead a simple life away from material goals
OT4	To earn the respect of others, I lead a clean life without worrying about fame and wealth
OT5	I respect people who care about others more than themselves
	I respect people who are dedicated to their country and their people
Financial availability (IFA): α = 0.938 ; CR = 0.939 ; AVE = 0.596
IFA1	There are many financial services delivery channels nearby this household	Okello et al. (2018); Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
IFA2	There are many financial institution branches nearby this household
IFA3	The initial account opening fees charged by the financial institution are affordable
IFA4	The account maintenance fees charged by the financial institution are affordable
IFA5	The minimum balance on a savings account required by the financial institution is affordable
IFA6	The loan fees charged by the financial institution are affordable
IFA7	The minimum loan amount offered by the financial institution is satisfactory
IFA8	The numbers of documents required by the fin financial institution to open an account are few
IFA9	The number of days taken by the financial institution to process loan applications is favorable
IFA10	In this household, we are not discriminated against by the financial institution in its service provision
IFA11	There are many financial services delivery channels nearby this household
IFA12	There are many financial institution branches nearby this household
Financial Quality (IFQ): α = 0.943 ; CR = 0.943 ; AVE = 0.636
IFQ1	The cost of travel to the financial institution is low	Okello et al. (2018), Kamdjoug et al. (2021)
IFQ2	The institution’s paperwork requirements are favorable
IFQ3	The fees charged by the financial institution when using its services are favorable
IFQ4	The level of service delivery by the institution is very good
IFQ5	The institution consistently provides its services regularly
IFQ6	The financial institution always provides its financial services at convenient times
IFQ7	Members of this household have confidence in the financial products and services provided by the financial institution
IFQ8	The products and services provided by the institution are user-friendly
IFQ9	The process of obtaining financial services from the financial institution is simple
IFQ10	It takes less time to reach the financial institution to obtain the services
IFQ11	The interest in the deposit services offered by the financial institution is attractive to us
Utility (IFU): α = 0.913 ; CR = 0.915 ; AVE = 0.697
IFU1	The savings product offered by the institution meets our needs.	Okello et al. (2018); Kamdoug et al. (2021)
IFU2	The loan product provided by the institution is suitable for our needs
IFU3	The payment services provided by the financial institution are adapted to our needs
IFU4	The savings product provided by the institution is safe
IFU5	The loan product provided by the institution is safe for us
IFU6	The payment services provided by the institution are safe for us

Table 1. Characteristics of the sample (n = 509).

Demographics	Categories	Frequency	Valid percentage
Age group (years)	18–35	240	47.2
	36–50	196	38.5
	51–65	58	11.4
	66 +	15	2.9
Highest educational level	Primary	10	2.0
	Secondary	185	36.3
	University 1st and 2nd cycle	209	41.1
	University 3rd cycle and +	75	14.7
	Others	30	5.9
Monthly income ($US)	<50$	120	23.6
	50 − 700$	324	63.7
	701–1300$	60	11.8
	>1300$	5	1.0
Gender	Male	349	68.6
	Female	160	31.4

Table 3. Assessment of homogeneity using Ratio Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) Criterion.

	HA	HE	IFA	IFQ	IFU	INAD	OM	OT	PPC	SAT	SG	TRUST
HE	0.618
IFA	0.173	0.479
IFQ	0.171	0.449	0.907
IFU	0.138	0.446	0.867	0.941
INAD	0.517	0.481	0.556	0.526	0.499
OM	0.388	0.501	0.679	0.641	0.590	0.638
OT	0.510	0.584	0.639	0.603	0.591	0.688	0.933
PPC	0.195	0.540	0.493	0.451	0.442	0.338	0.335	0.320
SAT	0.492	0.588	0.691	0.681	0.666	0.800	0.746	0.838	0.288
SG	0.542	0.669	0.204	0.161	0.140	0.183	0.189	0.238	0.527	0.201
TRUST	0.596	0.626	0.571	0.537	0.543	0.784	0.680	0.779	0.232	0.927	0.314
UE	0.697	0.675	0.586	0.587	0.570	0.793	0.689	0.753	0.312	0.836	0.304	0.853

Note: IFA, Financial availability; IFQ, Financial quality; IFU, Financial utility; TRUST, Trust; HE, Hedonic Expectation; HA, Habit; INAD, Intention to Adoption; PPC, Perceived Privacy Concern; SG, Status Gains; UE, Utilitarian Expectation; SAT, Satisfaction; OT, Traditional Status orientation; OM, Modern status orientation.

Table 4. Assessment of the discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

	HA	HE	IFA	IFQ	IFU	INAD	OM	OT	PPC	SAT	SG	TRUST	UE
HA	0.818
HE	0.509	0.769
IFA	0.167	0.435	0.772
IFQ	0.174	0.412	0.854	0.797
IFU	0.133	0.404	0.804	0.873	0.835
INAD	0.461	0.421	0.488	0.465	0.436	0.806
OM	0.338	0.421	0.600	0.569	0.518	0.526	0.769
OT	0.412	0.484	0.584	0.554	0.539	0.575	0.770	0.754
PPC	0.172	0.465	0.457	0.418	0.404	0.292	0.294	0.278	0.851
SAT	0.440	0.517	0.624	0.614	0.594	0.679	0.633	0.720	0.257	0.804
SG	0.434	0.549	0.192	0.152	0.132	0.162	0.163	0.179	0.479	0.178	0.895
TRUST	0.506	0.532	0.507	0.476	0.476	0.652	0.565	0.639	0.202	0.783	0.267	0.810
UE	0.560	0.547	0.518	0.519	0.496	0.633	0.554	0.603	0.267	0.683	0.224	0.671	0.774

Note: IFA, Financial availability; IFQ, Financial quality; IFU, Financial utility; TRUST, Trust; HE, Hedonic Expectation; HA, Habit; INAD, Intention to Adoption; PPC, Perceived Privacy Concern; SG, Status Gains; UE, Utilitarian Expectation; SAT, Satisfaction; OT, Traditional Status orientation; OM, Modern status orientation.

Figure 2. Structural model.

Table 5. R Squared and predictive relevance of the endogenous variables.

Constructs	R²	Q²predict	Conclusion
IFA	0.429	0.415	The model has good predictive power on Financial availability as R^2 (42.9%) is above 25% and Q^2 (0.415) is significantly larger than 0.
IFQ	0.392	0.379	The model has good predictive power on Financial quality as R^2(39.1%) is above 25%, and Q^2 (0.379) is larger than 0.
IFU	0.359	0.348	The model has good predictive power on Financial utility as R^2 (35.9%) is above 25%, and Q^2 (0.348) is larger than 0.
INAD	0.456	0.433	The model has good predictive power on intention to adopt e-banking as R^2 is above 25% (45.5%) and Q^2 (0.433) is larger than 0.
SAT	0.636	0.595	The model has good predictive power on satisfaction as R^2 is above 25% (63.6%) and Q^2 (0.595) is larger than 0.
TRUST	0.535	0.505	The model has good predictive power on Trust as R^2 is above 25% (53.5%) and Q^2 (0.505) is larger than 0.

Note: IFA, Financial availability; IFQ, Financial quality; IFU, Financial utility; INAD, Intention to Adoption e-banking; TRUST, Trust; and SAT, Satisfaction.

Table 6. Hypothesis testing.

	Original sample (O)	f^2	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	P values	Conclusion
HA -> INAD	0.198	0.036	0.182	0.050	3.722	0.000	Supported
HE -> INAD	0.061	0.004	0.074	0.058	1.193	0.273	Unsupported
INAD -> IFA	0.186	0.040	0.187	0.044	4.250	0.000	Supported
INAD -> IFQ	0.179	0.034	0.182	0.043	4.194	0.000	Supported
INAD -> IFU	0.160	0.026	0.163	0.044	3.686	0.000	Supported
INAD -> SAT	0.379	0.256	0.383	0.049	7.668	0.000	Supported
INAD -> TRUST	0.415	0.240	0.420	0.060	6.887	0.000	Supported
SG -> INAD	−0.146	0.023	−0.145	0.049	3.105	0.003	Supported
UE -> INAD	0.475	0.236	0.484	0.052	9.344	0.000	Supported
PPC -> INAD	0.172	0.036	0.69	0.047	9.152	0.000	Supported
Moderations
OM x INAD -> IFA	0.071		0.073	0.053	1.338	0.181	Unsupported
OM x INAD -> IFQ	0.087		0.088	0.059	1.455	0.143	Unsupported
OM x INAD -> IFU	0.124		0.124	0.051	2.441	0.015	Supported
OM x INAD -> SAT	0.023		0.020	0.044	0.527	0.594	Unsupported
OM x INAD -> TRUST	0.059		0.058	0.051	1.155	0.244	Unsupported
OT x INAD -> IFA	−0.133		−0.134	0.056	2.383	0.017	Supported
OT x INAD -> IFQ	−0.155		−0.156	0.063	2.437	0.014	Supported
OT x INAD -> IFU	−0.212		−0.212	0.052	4.086	0.000	Supported
OT x INAD -> SAT	−0.092		−0.087	0.041	2.242	0.025	Supported
OT x INAD -> TRUST	−0.052		−0.050	0.049	1.061	0.284	Unsupported

Note: IFA, Financial availability; IFQ, Financial quality; IFU, Financial utility; TRUST, Trust; HE, Hedonic Expectation; HA, Habit; INAD, Intention to Adoption; PPC, Perceived Privacy Concern; SG, Status Gains; UE, Utilitarian Expectation; SAT, Satisfaction; OT, Traditional Status orientation; OM, Modern status orientation.

Figure 3. The moderating slope of OMxINAD on Financial utility.

Figure 4. The moderating slope of OTxINAD on Financial availability.

Figure 5. The moderating slope of OTxINAD on Financial quality.

Figure 6. The moderating slope of OTxINAD on financial utility.

Figure 7. The moderating slope of OTxINAD on Satisfaction.

Song, J., Sawang, S., Drennan, J., & Andrews, L. (2015). Same but different? Mobile technology adoption in China. Information Technology & People, 28(1), 107–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2013-0187

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kamdjoug, K. J R., Wamba-Taguimdje, S.-L., Wamba, S. F., & Kake, I. B. (2021). Determining factors and impacts of the intention to adopt mobile banking app in Cameroon: Case of SARA by afriland First Bank. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102509

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2002.11045715

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singh, N., Sinha, N., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2020). Determining factors in the adoption and recommendation of mobile wallet services in India: Analysis of the effect of innovativeness, stress to use and social influence. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.022

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400306

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Arcand, M., PromTep, S., Brun, I., & Rajaobelina, L. (2017). Mobile banking service quality and customer relationships. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7), 1068–1089. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2015-0150

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tambyah, S. K., Nguyen, T. T. M., & Jung, K. (2009). Measuring status orientations: Scale development and validation in the context of an Asian transitional economy. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170206

 Google Scholar

Okello, C. B. G., Ntayi, J. M., Munene, J. C., & Malinga, C. A. (2018). Mobile money and financial inclusion in sub-Saharan Africa: The moderating role of social networks. Journal of African Business, 19(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2017.1416214

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.