Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Impact of online convenience on mobile banking adoption intention: A

moderated mediation approach
Charles Jebarajakirthy a, Amit Shankar b, *
a
Department of Marketing, Griffith Business School, Gold Coast Campus Griffith University, QLD, 4222, Australia
b
Indian Institute of Management Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam, 530 003, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study to investigate the effect of online convenience dimensions on mobile banking (m-
Convenience banking) adoption intention using a comprehensive moderated mediation framework. A total of 446 responses
Mobile banking from Indian banking users were received using systematic sampling. The covariance-based structural equation
Adoption intention
modelling and PROCESS macro were used to examine the hypotheses. The results indicated that access conve­
Perceived hedonic values
Perceived utilitarian values
nience, transaction convenience, benefit convenience, and post-benefit convenience have a crucial impact on m-
Perceived security concern banking adoption intention. The perceived hedonic values and perceived utilitarian values mediate the effects of
convenience dimensions on m-banking adoption intention. The study’s findings will help banks to identify which
dimension/s of online convenience they should focus on over m-banking platforms to enhance adoption inten­
tion. As, “Convenience” plays a crucial role in mobile commerce adoption intention. This study attempts to
examine how convenience dimensions affect m-banking adoption intention.

1. Introduction In previous literature, the majority of studies examined the positive

Information and communication technology advancement and the
proliferation of internet and mobile phone users have changed service
delivery methods. Hence, organisations have adopted several innovative
channels to reach out to their consumers. Similarly, banks deliver
banking services via several technological-oriented delivery platforms
(online banking, m-banking, near field communication) (Hoehle et al.,
2012; Mullan et al., 2017; Shankar et al., 2020). Among all banking
service delivery channels, m-banking is a cost-effective and innovative
channel to deliver banking services to consumers (Moser, 2015). In
recent times, there has been significant growth in m-banking adoption
across the globe (Baptista and Oliveira, 2016; Arcand et al., 2017).
Currently, 0.8 billion people are using m-banking services across the
globe, and it is expected to reach 1.8 billion users by 2020 (Mullan et al.,
2017). The m-banking platform not only provides benefits to consumers
but also provides several benefits to banks. Banks prefer the m-banking
channel because of cost-effectiveness and better reachability among
consumers (Shankar et al., 2019), whereas consumers prefer m-banking
over other banking channels due to availing convenient services anytime
from anywhere (Laukkanen and Kiviniemi, 2010; Shankar and Jebar­
ajakirthy, 2019).).
impact of several socio-psychological variables (perceived ease of use,
perceived behaviour control, subjective norm, attitude, trust, perfor­
mance expectancy, perceived usefulness, ubiquity) and negative impact
of several perceived risks (privacy and security risk, financial risk,
functional risk, time risk, psychological risk) on m-banking adoption
intention (Chen and He, 2013; Shaikh and Karjaluoto, 2015). However,
the majority of consumers adopt m-banking to reduce their efforts in
availing banking services via other service delivery platforms, such as
physical branch banking (Beauchamp and Ponder, 2010). As today’s
banking users are more time-starved, they tend to use m-banking, which
enables them to reduce the time required to perform banking activities.
Hence, based on the preceding discussion, it appears that convenience is
a motivator of m-banking adoption and usage. A lack of understanding
of how online convenience impacts consumer adoption of online service
delivery channels, such as m-banking, is problematic for financial ser­
vice providers. Banks are keen to know how they can enhance online
convenience over m-banking platforms to enhance the m-banking
adoption rate and usage while delivering banking services via the
m-banking platform. But, limited efforts were made in literature made to
investigate the effect of the convenience dimensions adoption behaviour
in m-banking context (Lee, 2015). This study make a contribution to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: c.jebarajakirthy@griffith.edu.au (C. Jebarajakirthy), ashankar@iimv.ac.in (A. Shankar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102323
Received 3 June 2020; Received in revised form 15 September 2020; Accepted 3 October 2020
Available online 19 October 2020
0969-6989/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
literature by examining how online convenience affects m-banking
adoption behaviour.
Online convenience has been added to the marketing literature
recently (Berry et al., 2002; Reimers and Chao, 2014); this literature
suggests that online convenience is a multidimensional construct (Jiang
et al., 2013; Duarte et al., 2018), as consumers’ perception of online
convenience is context-specific phenomenon and can vary from one
context to another (Jiang et al., 2013). Much of the existing multidi­
mensional convenience literature has been limited to brick-and-mortar
retailing (Reimers and Chao, 2014) and online retailing (Jiang et al.,
2013).
Though limited efforts were made to investigate the effects of online
convenience on customer responses, the majority of studies considered
customer convenience a second order construct and examined the effect
of convenience on consumer behaviour (Jiang et al., 2013; Duarte et al.,
2018). The effects of online convenience dimensions on adoption
intention have not yet been investigated in detail. Though online con­
venience is likely to play a crucial role in m-banking adoption intention,
the literature has not yet demonstrated how different dimensions of
customer convenience affects consumer’s m-banking adoption behav­
iour. This indicates a significant gap in the growing body of m-banking
adoption behaviour literature. This gap hinders banks to effectively
serve the growing m-banking market. A lack of understanding of how
different online convenience dimensions drive consumer adoption of
m-banking is one of the crucial issues in front of banks and they are keen
to know how they can enhance m-banking adoption rate by providing
online convenience over m-banking platforms. To address this research
gap, we investigate how different dimensions of online convenience
impact consumer adoption intention in m-banking context. Specifically,
we propose and empirically test a conceptual model that demonstrates
the role of online convenience dimensions in driving adoption intention
in m-banking context. In addition, we examine how perceived hedonic
values and perceived utilitarian values mediate the association between
online convening and consumers’ adoption intention in m-banking
context. We have also examined how the mediating effects of perceived
hedonic values and perceived utilitarian values are moderated by con­
sumers’ perceived security concern.
Our study has academic and practical contributions. Academically,
this study enriches the literature by examining the impact of online
convenience dimensions on technology-based service delivery channels,
such as m-banking adoption intention. Further, the extant literature
does not explain the association between convenience dimensions and
m-banking adoption using comprehensive moderated-mediation
approach. Thus, the study proposes a comprehensive moderate media­
tion framework to examine how online convenience dimensions affect
consumer adoption behaviour in m-banking context. Overall, our study
contributes to online convenience and consumer behaviour literature,
particularly literature on the consumer behaviour in the m-banking
context.
Due to busy schedules and long working hours (Alreck and Settle,
2002), consumers do not want to visit a bank to avail banking services
and prefer online channels (Shankar and Kumari, 2016; Kaur et al.,
2020). At the same time, consumers prefer online banking channels over
offline banking channels to reduce time required (Shankar et al., 2019).
Hence, online convenience plays crucial role in consumer channel
choice decision for availing banking services and banks are keen to know
how they can provide convenient services over m-banking platforms to
enhance the adoption and usage rate (Kaur et al., 2020a). The findings of
the study suggest specific online convenience dimension that banks
should respond with to enhance m-banking adoption.
2. Literature review
2.1. M-banking
Due to technological advancement, several innovative channels have
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
involved themselves in retail banking to reach out to their consumers.
Compared to other banking platforms, m-banking is one of the most
convenient platform to deliver banking services with greater ubiquity
and localisation (Shankar et al., 2020). Over m-banking platforms,
consumers avail banking services using mobile phones (Laukkanen,
2016; Shankar et al., 2020a) in. In recent years, m-banking has emerged
as a valuable mobile commerce application for both banks and con­
sumers. Banks can reach out to mass consumers in a cost-effective
manner through m-banking platforms (Shankar and Kumari, 2016).
On the other hand, consumers can perform all banking activities, such as
performing transactions, checking bank account balances, making in­
vestments, requesting cheque books, getting account statements, and
paying utilities bills (Shareef et al., 2018; Shankar and Jebarajakirthy,
2019; Shankar et al., 2020). M-banking is beneficial for banks and
consumers; hence, several efforts were made in the literature to inves­
tigate adoption intention behaviour in m-banking context (Safeena
et al., 2012; Giovanis et al., 2019; Shankar et al., 2020). The majority of
studies explored different enablers (perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use, compatibility, facilitating conditions, subjective norms,
perceived behavioural control, perceived benefits, trust, social influ­
ence, attitude) and inhibitors (privacy concern, security risk, financial
risk, uncertainty, unavailability, costs) of m-banking adoption intention
and usage behaviour (Shaikh and Karjaluoto, 2015). This is because
convenience in availing banking services through m-banking platform
plays a crucial role (Jeong and Yoon, 2013; Alalwan et al., 2016; Shareef
et al., 2018) and banks are keen to know how they can enhance
m-banking adoption rate. Hence, it is important to explore how online
convenience affects m-banking adoption behaviour. Hence, this study
attempts to investigate the effects of different dimensions of online
convenience on m-banking adoption intention using moderated medi­
ation approach.
2.2. Online convenience
The “convenience” refers to “the total time and efforts an individual
spent to avail a service or purchase a product” (Copeland, 1923).
Similarly, in the m-banking context, convenience may be defined as a
total sum of time and effort consumers spent to avail banking services
using m-banking platforms (Lee, 2015). Bank consumers want to spend
minimum time and effort to avail banking services; hence, banks focus
on convenience aspects (Shaheed, 2004; Shankar and Rishi, 2020).
Banks focus on delivering banking services using different innovative
channels to enhance consumer convenience. In the previous literature,
several studies explored time saving (Berry et al., 2002) and effort
saving (Emrich et al., 2015) aspects of convenience in delivering prod­
ucts and services. These studies found that lack of convenience is the
major reason for consumer churn rate (Seiders et al., 2007; Ray et al.,
2019). Hence, in previous literature, several attempts were made to
examine how convenience impacts consumer behaviour in different
contexts (Farquhar and Rowley, 2009; Srivastava and Kaul, 2014;
Duarte et al., 2018). However, the majority of studies conceptualised
convenience as a unidimensional construct or second order construct
(Berry et al., 2002; Duarte et al., 2018; Yuen et al., 2019) in different
contexts. Scant efforts were made to examine how different dimensions
of online convenience impact consumer response (Jiang et al., 2013) and
limited attempts were made in online service delivery, particularly in
the m-banking context. Hence, this study explores the impact of di­
mensions of convenience on m-banking adoption intention. In the
banking context, consumers adopt and use m-banking channel to save
their time and efforts (Shankar and Rishi, 2020). In other words, con­
venience plays crucial role in consumers preference of m-banking for
performing their transactions (Kaura, 2013; Shankar and Rishi, 2020).
Consumers can collect huge amount of information about banking
products and perform the banking transactions in single click from
anywhere (Shankar et al., 2020). Whereas, consumers have to visit the
branch for making transaction offline which requires time efforts and
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
cost. Over m-banking platform, consumers can also avail banking ser­
vices anytime whereas, for availing banking services through branch
banking, consumers have to visit a bank physically, which requires time
and effort. Hence, consumers prefer online platforms for availing
banking services. Access convenience (Roy et al., 2018), search conve­
nience (Benoit et al., 2017), evaluation convenience (Shankar and Rishi,
2020), transaction convenience (Jiang et al., 2013), benefit convenience
(Shankar and Rishi, 2020), and post-benefit convenience (Duarte et al.,
2018) are major dimensions of convenience that motivate consumers to
adopt m-banking platforms for availing banking services.
2.3. Theoretical support
The study uses stimulus-organism-response (S–O-R) theory, as pro­
posed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) to provide a theoretical base for
examining the relationship between convenience dimension and
m-banking adoption intention. The S–O-R model has been extensively
used in marketing, especially in consumer behaviour literature
(Dedeoglu et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2020; Talwar et al., 2020). The S–O-R
model advocates that environmental cues (stimuli) affect the cognitive
state (organism) and consumers’ behaviour (response) is driven by the
cognitive state of the consumers. In our study, the dimensions of online
convenience work as stimuli, which stimulate the consumers’ cognitive
state (perceived hedonic values and perceived unitarian values and
cognitive state drive consumer responses in a form of m-banking
adoption intention (Fig. 1).
3. Hypothesis development
3.1. Access convenience
Access convenience is “consumers’ perception of minimal effort and
time needed to avail the services” (Benoit et al., 2017, p. 528). However,
in the online services context, accessibility of the website, product
availability over online platforms, time, and place flexibility are the
major elements of online access convenience (Duarte et al., 2018; Roy
et al., 2018). In the context of online service delivery, access conve­
nience is a crucial driver of overall online service convenience (Jiang
et al., 2013). Consumers spend time and efforts to visit the bank to avail
the banking services due to non-accessibility or non-awareness of the
m-banking services (Shankar and Datta, 2018). In the branch banking
context, consumers have to visit the bank branch to avail banking ser­
vices (Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004). Further, to avail online banking
services, users must have a personal computer, laptop or tablet, whereas
users can avail banking services using mobile phones anytime from
anywhere (Shankar et al., 2020a). As limited awareness is one of the
crucial reasons for the slow pace of m-banking services’ adoption rate,
banks should make their consumers aware by placing advertisements on
different digital and social media platforms. Banks should also provide
m-banking services in the absence of internet to enhance accessibility
(Shankar et al., 2020a). Over m-banking platforms, there are several
options to avail banking services, hence, consumers perceive m-banking
is more accessible compared to branch banking and, in turn, intend to
adopt it. Further, over m-banking platforms, consumers receive flexi­
bility in terms of timing and geographical location. Hence, they prefer to
use m-banking (Shankar et al., 2020). Accordingly, we hypothesise the
following:
H1. : Access convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.2. Search convenience
Search convenience refers to “the time and effort required to identify
and collect information about a specific product or service” (Benoit
et al., 2017, p. 528). Technology advancement and internet penetration
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
have provided several online avenues to the consumers to search for
information in a few clicks (Gensler et al., 2012; Islam et al., 2019).
Hence, consumers tend to search for information online platforms before
availing banking services (Shankar et al., 2020). Over online banking
platforms, consumers can search for banking information by spending
minimal time and effort (Verhoef et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2018).
Consumers have to visit a branch to get information about banking
services in the branch banking context, which requires time, effort, and
cost, whereas, over m-banking platforms, consumers can avail infor­
mation anytime from anywhere (Huang et al., 2009). Consumers can
also avail a wider range of banking product information over m-banking
platforms, which helps them in making a rational choice (Kang, 2018).
Further, consumers can access the online reviews of existing consumers
over m-banking platforms (Lee and Jin Ma, 2012), which helps them in
availing suitable banking services. If consumers perceive that they can
search banking services related information in a convenient manner
over m-banking platforms, they tend to adopt it. Accordingly, we
hypothesise the following:
H2. : Search convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.3. Evaluation convenience
Evaluation convenience is defined as the “availability easy-to-
understand and detailed product descriptions” (Jiang et al., 2013).
Evaluation of product information, price comparison, product perfor­
mance, and brand comparison play a crucial role in consumers’ decision
making related to buying (Duarte et al., 2018). Before making a final
purchase decision, consumers tend to evaluate product specifications in
detail (Gensler et al., 2012). In branch banking, consumers collect in­
formation about a specific bank product and compare it with similar
products’ time efforts and cost. Meanwhile, over m-banking platforms,
consumers can not only easily get detailed information about products
but also compare the performance of similar banking products (Shankar
et al., 2020a). Further, consumers can access the experiences of existing
consumers about product performance, which helps them in making
wise decisions (Shankar et al., 2020). Consumer can also engage in
discussions with existing bank consumers to discuss the pros and cons of
a particular product for better product evaluation. Consumers can get
updated information, online reviews, and relevant content over
m-banking platforms, which helps them in selecting suitable banking
products (Jun and Palacios, 2016). Accordingly, we hypothesise the
following:
H3. : Evaluation convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.4. Transaction convenience
Transaction convenience refers to the “speed and ease with which
consumers can complete the transaction (Benoit et al., 2017, p. 528).
Minimising time and effort required for performing the transaction is the
key element of transaction convenience (Jiang et al., 2013). Easy
checkout, uninterrupted process, transaction confirmation, several op­
tions, and price inconsistency are the major elements of online trans­
action convenience (Jiang et al., 2013; Reimers and Chao, 2014;
Mahapatra, 2017). If consumers need to make any transactions in a
branch banking context, they have to visit the branch, which requires
time, effort, and cost. Further, consumers have to wait in a long queue
for availing banking services. Moreover, consumers can perform the
transaction during specific banking hours only (Shankar and Kumari,
2016). In comparison, consumers using m-banking can perform the
transaction anytime from anywhere in few clicks only (Wolfinbarger and
Gilly, 2001. Further, over the m-banking platform, consumers can
schedule future transactions and perform several transactions simulta­
neously and quickly in a convenient manner (Shankar et al., 2020a).
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
Further, if a consumer faces issues during a transaction, or experiences a
failed transaction, several options such as a toll free number, live chat,
and email are available to get consumer support and resolve the issue.
Accordingly, we hypothesise the following:
H4. : Transaction convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.5. Benefit convenience
Benefit convenience refers to “the time and effort required to avail
the core benefits of service” (Berry et al., 2002, p. 7). Immediate
possession, timely delivery of promised services, and attitude of bank
employees are the major elements of benefit convenience (Jiang et al.,
2013). There is a time difference in purchasing and possession of
products over online platforms, which leads to uncertainty about
possession and perceived delay in product delivery (Noble et al., 2005;
Aw, 2019). However, over online platforms, consumer do not have to
visit a physical store to possess the product. Hence, they can avail the
services from anywhere in a few clicks (Jiang et al., 2013). Similar to the
banking context, consumers have to visit the banks to avail the banking
services and sometimes consumers have to visit the banks many times to
avail a specific service, which requires time and effort. Over m-banking
platforms, consumers can avail immediate possession of banking ser­
vices without spending time and effort (Alba et al., 1997). Sometimes,
consumers need to avail banking services on an urgent basis, but in a
branch banking context, they can avail banking services during banking
hours only. Over m-banking platforms, they can perform transactions
any time they need it (Laukkanen, 2016). Further, consumers can avail
banking services only during a specific time, while over m-banking
platforms they can avail banking services any time (Shankar et al.,
2020a). Hence, benefit convenience may motivate consumers to adopt
m-banking services. Accordingly, we hypothesise the following:
H5. : Benefit convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.6. Post-benefit convenience
Post-benefit convenience is defined as “the time and effort required
to contact a service provider availing specific services” (Berry et al.,
2002, p. 8). After sales services have a crucial impact on consumers’
service evaluation (Jiang et al., 2013). Consumers need quick and
effective solutions for issues they face after availing the services (Duarte
et al., 2018). In the context of branch banking, if they face any issues,
consumers have to visit the branch to get it resolved (Kaura, 2013),
which requires time and effort. Over m-banking planforms, consumers
can contact the customer support team in a more convenient manner
(Shankar et al., 2020a). Further, in branch banking consumers can
contact the employees by visiting the bank only, but there are several
options, such as email, live chat, and toll-free numbers to contact the
bank service providers over m-banking platforms (Shankar et al.,
2020a). Moreover, on m-banking platforms, consumers can check the
status of their complaints in a few clicks, which is not possible in branch
banking (Shankar and Kumari, 2016). Effective complaint management,
live complaint tracking facilities, several options to contact the support
team, and effective fulfilment of warranty are the crucial post-benefit
facilities that stimulating m-banking adoption behaviour. Accordingly,
we hypothesise the following:
H6. : Post-benefit convenience positively impacts m-banking adoption
intention.
3.7. Mediating impact of perceived hedonic values
The perceived value refers to “the consumer’s perception of the
utility they will receive after service consumption” (s, p. 14). Perceived
4
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
value is the trade-off between value received after consumption and
perceived cost to avail the services (Lee et al., 2009). Banks are now
delivering banking services using different innovative online channels to
enhance consumers’ experience (Amin, 2016). These online delivery
channels provide several hedonic benefits to consumers (Park et al.,
2012; Kaur et al., 2018; Tandon et al., 2020). Hedonic values are defined
as “an overall assessment of experiential benefits and sacrifices” (Overby
and Lee, 2006, p. 1161). Over m-banking platforms, consumers not only
can easily access, search, and evaluate online information but also
perform transactions with enjoyment and in a convenient manner
(Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007; Zhou, 2012; Kaur et al.,
2020b). In the branch banking context, for availing banking services,
consumers have to visit the branch, which requires time, resources, and
effort. Further, consumers have to wait in a queue, which can be a hectic
and painful activity (Shankar et al., 2020a). Over m-banking platforms,
it is convenient to access banking services in a few clicks only, which
enhances consumers’ hedonic values (Mazaheri et al., 2010). Further,
there is a huge amount of information available over m-banking plat­
forms, which is easy to access, search, and process; this provides a he­
donic information processing experience (Lim and Dubinsky, 2004).
Further, consumers enjoy the interactive interface, application naviga­
tion, and audio-visual content over m-banking platforms (Kim et al.,
2008). Consumer also enjoy a variety of services on a single platform
and receive several options to contact the support team, which is fun for
them (Shankar et al., 2020a). Hence, due to online convenience, con­
sumers receive hedonic values over m-banking platforms, which leads to
adoption intention (Ha and Jang, 2010; Chaouali et al., 2019).
Accordingly, we hypothesise the following:
H7. : Perceived hedonic values mediate the association between
perceived consumer convenience relating to a) access, b) search, c)
evaluation, d) transaction, e) benefit, f) post-benefit and m-banking
adoption intention.
3.8. Mediating impact of perceived utilitarian values
Functional performance and utilitarian performance are the primary
drivers of consumer choice for products and services (Zauner et al.,
2015; Dhir et al., 2020; Sahu et al., 2020). The utilitarian values refer to
“the overall assessment of functional benefits and sacrifices” (Overby
and Lee, 2006, p. 1161). Consumers perceive relative advantages of
m-banking channel compared to other banking service delivery channels
(Berraies et al., 2017). Over m-banking platforms, consumers can search
and evaluate information in a convenient manner, which helps them in
making rational decisions (Lee et al., 2009). Further, compared to
branch banking, over m-banking platforms consumers can save time,
effort, and resources in availing banking services (Shankar et al.,
2020a), which provides utilitarian values to the consumers. Consumers
can also compare different banking services without spending much
time and effort, which helps consumers in making wise banking de­
cisions (Park et al., 2012). Consumer also receive several functional
benefits, such as performing transactions, making investments, and
obtaining account information in a convenient manner over m-banking
platforms, which provides utilitarian values to the consumers (Chaouali
et al., 2019). Further, transactional costs over m-banking platforms are
less compared to other channels of banking (Shankar et al., 2020).
Consumers can also avail banking services at anytime from anywhere,
which provides them perceived utilitarian values (Koenig-Lewis et al.,
2010). As consumers receive several functional benefits in availing
banking services over m-banking platforms, they prefer to adopt
m-banking services (Chaouali et al., 2019). Accordingly, we hypothesise
the following:
H8. : Perceived utilitarian values mediate the association between
perceived consumer convenience relating to a) access, b) search, c)
evaluation, d) transaction, e) benefit, f) post-benefit and m-banking
adoption intention.
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
3.9. Moderating impact of perceived security concern
Perceived security concern is defined as “consumer concern about
safety and security transaction and personal information shared over the
platform” (Hussien and Abd El Aziz, 2013, p. 561). Consumers avoid
using online platforms for services because of perceived privacy and
security issues associated with the platform (Lee et al., 2009; Shankar
and Kumari, 2019; Talwar et al., 2020a). Consumers prefer channels
that are safe for performing transactions and that protect the informa­
tion shared by the consumers (Ahmad Al-Hawari, 2014; Jebarajakirthy
et al., 2020). Hence, some consumers still feel vulnerable about using
m-banking platforms and prefer to visit branches to avail banking ser­
vices (Chou et al., 2016). Consumers with high privacy and security
concerns receive less hedonic and utilitarian values over m-banking
platforms and prefer to visit branches for performing transactions (Chou
et al., 2016), because they afraid their personal and financial informa­
tion being misused and shared over m-banking platforms (McCole et al.,
2010; Frasquet et al., 2015). On the other hand, consumers with less
concerns about privacy and security not only enjoy online banking
transactions but also receive several functional benefits (Frasquet et al.,
2015) and prefer to use m-banking platforms for availing banking ser­
vices. Further, some consumers distrust m-banking platforms due to
perceived privacy and security risks associated with m-banking services
and prefer to visit a bank branch to make transactions (Ahmad and Sun,
2018). Moreover, due to the absence of face-to-face interactions with
bank employees, consumers with high perceived security risks receive
less perceived values in availing the banking services over m-banking
platforms compared to consumers with less perceived security risks.
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
Accordingly, we hypothesise the following:
H9. : Perceived security concern moderates the mediation effects of
perceived hedonic values on the relationship between perceived con­
sumer convenience relating to a) access, b) search, c) evaluation, d)
transaction, e) benefit, f) post-benefit and m-banking adoption
intention.
H10. : Perceived security concerns moderate the mediation effects of
perceived utilitarian values on the relationship between perceived
consumer convenience relating to a) access, b) search, c) evaluation, d)
transaction, e) benefit, f) post-benefit and m-banking adoption
intention.
4. Method
4.1. Sampling and data collection procedure
Responses were collected via a face-to-face survey using a structured
questionnaire from a sample of banking users. Respondents were
sourced from five major cities (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, and
Jaipur) of India. A total of 5 branches and 5 ATMs were randomly
selected from each city. The systematic sampling method was used to
collect the responses. Every fifth consumer who visited the branch/ATM
was approached to fill the questionnaire. A total of 800 respondents (20
respondents each branch/ATM) were approached and 479 responses
(response rate = 59.8%) were received and, after deleting invalid re­
sponses, a total of 446 responses (44.4% female) were used for further
analysis. The data collection was exercised between August to December
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

2019. The results in Table 1 show that 30.7% were between 15 and 30
years, 30% were between 31 and 45 years, 18.2% were between 46 and
60, and the rest were over 60 years. Approximately 25.8% of the re­
spondents had a monthly income of less than USD 200, around 30.5%
had an income between USD 201–400, around 27.6% had an income
between USD 401–600, and the rest had income above USD 600. Finally,
regarding education, 14.3% had a secondary or below qualification,
22% had a higher secondary degree, 28.9% had a bachelor’s degree, and
34.8% had a postgraduate degree. We have asked two screening ques­
tions: “Do you possess a bank account?” and “Do you have mobile
internet services?” The respondents who qualified for the screening
questions were allowed to fill the questionnaire.
4.2. Instrument development
The items measuring study constructs were obtained from previous
related studies. However, the wording of the questions was modified to
make it suitable for the study context. The three items measuring access
convenience was adapted from Jiang et al. (2013). The three items
measuring search convenience were obtained from Beauchamp and
Ponder (2010). The three items measuring evaluation convenience and
three items measuring transaction convenience were taken from Jiang
et al. (2013). The three items measuring benefits convenience and three
items measuring post-benefit convenience were taken from (Chang
et al., 2010). The four items measuring perceived utilitarian values and
four items measuring hedonic values were measured using four items
each, taken from Voss et al. (2003). Three items measuring perceived
security concern were obtained from Ranganathan and Ganapathy
(2002). Three items measuring m-banking adoption intention were
adapted from Shankar et al. (2020). Apart from study variables, con­
sumer demographics such as age, education, and employment status also
influence adoption intention (Shankar et al., 2020). We have controlled
the effects of above demographic variables. Items were measured on a
5-point Likert scale. The survey instrument was content validated by
verifying the content from a group of experts, comprising one professor
of marketing, one professor of information systems, and two IT officers
of banks. Slight modifications were made as per suggestions received by
the experts.
Table 1
Demographic profiles of the respondents (n = 446).
Category N %
4.3. Common method bias
Since our data for both dependent and independent constructs were
gathered from the same respondents, this might result in common
method bias (CMB). We, therefore, checked for CMB using several
methods. First, a theoretically unrelated marker variable, was added in
the questionnaire (Malhotra et al., 2006). The correlation between the
marker variable and study variables found to be low. Hence, the results
do not have the effect of CMB (Malhotra et al., 2006). Second, we
assessed the proposed factor solution for common method bias using
Harman’s one-factor test and latent factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Harman’s one-factor test indicated appropriate loading of all the items
in their respective constructs as well as no predominance of a single
factor in explaining most of the variance. Further, common latent factor
test indicates that the differences in the factor loading of the items on the
underlying latent construct is not more than 0.2 (Podsakoff et al., 2003)
when comparing our proposed model with and without common latent
factor.
5. Results
5.1. Reliability and validity of the measurement model
The reliability and validity of the study construct was examined by
performing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 24. The
Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated to examine the reliability of the
constructs. The Cronbach’s alpha value for all study constructs were
above 0.7, confirming the reliability of the study constructs (Hair et al.,
2017). The validity of the measurement model was established by
examining the convergent validity and discriminant validity. The results
in Table 2 indicated that the average variance extracted (AVE) value for
all constructs was above 0.5, and composite reliability (CR) value for all
study constructs was above 0.7, confirming the convergent validity of
the measurement model (Hair et al., 2017). Further, the square root of
the AVE value of each variable was compared with the correlation co­
efficient of other study constructs to examine discriminant validity
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results in Table 3 indicate that the
square root of the AVE value of each construct was greater than corre­
sponding correlation coefficients, which confirms discriminant validity
of the measurement scale (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
5.2. Hypothesis testing

Gender We tested hypotheses 1 to 6 by estimating a structural model using

Male 248 55.6 covariance-based (CB) structural equation modelling (Byrne, 2010). The
Female 198 44.4
mediation effects (H7–H8) and moderated mediation effects (H19–H10)
Age were examined using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013).
15–30 years 137 30.7
31–45 years 174 39.0
46–60 years 81 18.2
Above 60 54 12.1 5.3. Structural model
Income (monthly)
Less than USD 200 115 25.8 The SEM results indicated a good model fit (CMIN/DF = 2.625 (p <
USD 201-400 136 30.5 0.001), CFI = .94, GFI = .90, AGFI = .85, NFI > = 0.91, TLI = .93,
USD 401-600 123 27.6 RMSEA > = 0.06.) (Hair et al., 2017). The results of path analysis pre­
Above USD 600 72 16.1
sented in Table 4 indicated that access convenience (β = 0.17, p < 0.05),
Educational Qualification transaction convenience (β = 0.27, p < 0.05), benefit convenience (β =
Secondary or below qualification 64 14.3 0.30, p < 0.001), and post-benefit convenience (β = 0.31,p < 0.001)
Higher Secondary 98 22.0
significantly impact adoption intention in m-banking context. Hence,
Bachelor’s Degree 129 28.9
Postgraduate Degree or higher 155 34.8 H1, H4, H5, and H6 were accepted. However, search convenience (β =
0.02, p > 0.05) and evaluation convenience (β = 0.06, p > 0.05) have no
Occupation
Unemployed 34 7.6 significant impact on m-banking adoption intention. Hence, H2 and H3
Government or semi-government sector 116 26.0 were rejected. The results also indicate the value of variance inflation
Private sector 120 26.9 factor (VIF) for all the constructs is below 0.5 and tolerance value is less
Self-employment 128 28.7 than 0.2, which indicates the absence of multi-collinearity (Hair et al.,
Retired 48 10.8
2017).

6
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
Table 2
Measurement model summary.
Construct
Access convenience (AVE = .60,
CR = .82, α = .82)
Search convenience (AVE = .52,
CR = .76, α = .76)
Evaluation convenience (AVE =
.70, CR = .87, α = .87)
Transaction convenience (AVE
= .66, CR = .85, α = .85)
Benefit convenience (AVE = .74,
CR = .90, α = .89)
Post-benefit convenience (AVE
= .73, CR = .89, α = .89)
Perceived utilitarian values
(AVE = .66, CR = .89, α = .88)
Perceived hedonic values (AVE
= .70, CR = .90, α = .89)
Perceived security concern (AVE
= .66, CR = .85, α = .85)
Mobile banking adoption
intention (AVE = .72, CR =
.89, α = .89)
Items
I can avail mobile banking services
anytime I want.
I can avail mobile banking services
wherever I am.
The mobile banking services are always
accessible.
It is easy to navigate over mobile banking
platform.
I can find what I wanted over mobile
banking platform without having to look
elsewhere.
The mobile banking platform provides
useful information.
The mobile banking platform provides
detailed services specifications.
Mobile banking platform provides
sufficient information to identify
different products.
Mobile banking platform provides
interactive interface by using icons,
images, and moving pictures.
I find it easy to complete the transaction
over mobile banking platform.
I am able to avail service quickly over
mobile banking platform.
It takes little effort to complete the
transactions over mobile banking
platform.
I am able to get the benefits of banking
service over mobile banking platform
with little effort.
The time required to receive the benefits
of banking service over mobile banking
platform is reasonable.
It is easy to avail banking services over
mobile banking platform.
Mobile banking platform quickly resolves
problem/s I have with the service.
It is easy for me to obtain follow up
service over mobile banking platform.
When I have questions about banking
service, mobile banking platforms
provide suitable solution.
Mobile banking provides effective
services.
Mobile banking offers helpful services.
Mobile banking offers excellent and
useful services.
Mobile banking makes life easier for the
customers.
Mobile banking is like fun for me.
Mobile banking excites me personally.
I am pleased with the mobile banking
services.
I always enjoy the mobile banking
services.
I think Mobile banking ensure the safe
transmission of its users’ information.
I think Mobile banking shows great
concern for the security of any
transactions.
I think that my financial information will
not be intercepted by unauthorized third
parties over mobile banking platform.
I intend to use mobile banking in future.
I plan to use mobile banking.
I expect that, I would use mobile banking
in future.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
5.4. Mediation analysis
FL The mediation analysis was performed using model 4 in process
macro. Bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CIs) with 5000
.82
resamples was executed with a 5% level of significance to examine the
.73 significance of mediation effects. The results of mediation effects are
represented in Table 5 and indicate that both perceived hedonic values
.77 and perceived utilitarian values significantly meditate the association
between perceived consumer convenience relating to access, search,
.73 evaluation, transaction, benefit, post-benefit and m-banking adoption
intention. Hence, H7a, H7b, H7c, H7d, H7e, H7f, H8a, H8b, H8c, H8d,
.74
H8e, and H8f were accepted.
.68 5.5. Moderated mediation analysis
.84 The moderation effect of perceived security concern on indirect ef­
fects of convenience dimensions on adoption intention via perceived
.85
hedonic values and perceived utilitarian values were examined using
boot estimates from the 5000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2013). The high
.82 and low levels of perceived security concern were obtained by adding
one standard deviation (+SD) and subtracting one standard deviation
(-SD) from the mean value, respectively. The results of moderated
.76 mediation analysis are presented in Table 6. The results indicated that
conditional indirect effects of access convenience (− 0.011; LLCI =
.83
− 0.0715 and ULCI = 0.0528), search convenience (0.001; LLCI =
.84 − 0.0563 and ULCI = 0.0561), evaluation convenience (− 0.008; LLCI =
− 0.0255 and ULCI = 0.0371), transaction convenience (− 0.012; LLCI =
− 0.0855 and ULCI = 0.0556), benefit convenience (0.001; LLCI =
.90 − 0.0533 and ULCI = 0.0529), and post-benefit convenience (0.001;
LLCI = − 0.034 and 0.035) on m-banking adoption intention through
hedonic values were not significantly varied at high and low perceived
.91
security concern levels. Hence, H9a, H9b, H9c, H9d, H9e, and H9f
were rejected.
.78 The results indicate that conditional indirect effects of access con­
venience (− 0.039; LLCI = − 0.0698 and ULCI = − 0.0157), transaction
.83 convenience (− 0.045; LLCI = − 0.0801 and ULCI = − 0.0214), and post-
benefit convenience (− 0.05; LLCI = − 0.0788 and ULCI = − 0.0252) on
.87 m-banking adoption intention via perceived utilitarian values were
.86
significantly varied at high and low perceived security concern levels.
Hence, H10a, H10d, and H10f were accepted (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). How­
ever, conditional indirect effects of search convenience (− 0.034; LLCI =
.84 − 0.0855 and ULCI = 0.0008), evaluation convenience (0.013; LLCI =
− 0.0213 and ULCI = 0.0489), and benefit convenience (− 0.018; LLCI =
.80 − 0.0654 and ULCI = 0.031) on m-banking adoption intention through
.85 perceived utilitarian values were not significantly varied at high and low
.76
perceived security concern levels. Hence, H10b, H10c, and H10e were
rejected.
Finally, to examine the predictive validity of the findings, the total
.88
.92 sample was randomly divided into two subsamples. The results indi­
.92 cated that the correlation between the predicate score of the main
sample and subsample is .65, indicting the predictive validity of the
.57 proposed model (Woodside, 2013).
.82 6. Discussion
.85
With this study, we have proposed a comprehensive moderated
mediation framework to investigate the influence online convenience
.76 dimensions on adoption intention in m-banking context. The results
indicated that access, transaction, benefit and post-benefit convenience
significantly affect m-banking adoption intention. The findings are in
.88 accordance with findings of previous literature (Jiang et al., 2013;
.87
Duarte et al., 2018; Roy et al., 2018). Consumers tend to adopt
.80
m-banking services because they think they can avail banking services
24 × 7 from anywhere using m-banking platforms. Further, consumers
may be motivated to adopt m-banking because they perceive that they
can avail banking services and perform transactions in only a few clicks
7
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

Table 3
Discriminant validity.
Constructs AC SC EC TC BC PBC UV HV PSC MBAI

Access convenience (AC) .77

Search convenience (SC) .58** .72
Evaluation convenience (EC) .02* .17* .84
Transaction convenience (TC) .35** .35** .09* .81
Benefit convenience (BC) .57** .55** .18* .58** .86
Post-benefit convenience (PBC) .21** .57** .21** .52** .55** .85
Utilitarian values (UV) .32** .32** .45** .27** .53** .52** .81
Hedonic values (HV) .49** .46** .32** .44** .39** .20* .58** .84
Perceived security concern (PSC) .32** .31** .31** .35** .4** .38** .52** .47** .81
Mobile banking adoption intention (MBAI) .42** .39** .34** .41** .53** .57** .59** .46** .52** .91

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, Diagonal value indicates the square root of AVE of individual latent construct.

Finally, the findings of the moderated mediation analysis suggested

Table 4
Direct path.
Path В SE
Access convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.17*
Search convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.02ns
Evaluation convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.06ns
Transaction convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.27*
Benefit convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.30***
Post-benefit convenience → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.31***
Access convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.29*
Search convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.06ns
Evaluation convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.35***
Transaction convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.473***
Benefit convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.351***
Post-benefit convenience → Perceived utilitarian values 0.31***
Access convenience → Perceived hedonic values 0.31***
Search convenience → Perceived hedonic values − 0.01ns
Evaluation convenience → Perceived hedonic values 0.25***
Transaction convenience → Perceived hedonic values − 0.25ns
Benefit convenience → Perceived hedonic values 0.25***
Post-benefit convenience → Perceived hedonic values 0.35***
Perceived utilitarian values → Mobile banking adoption 0.22***
intention
Perceived hedonic values → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.22***
Age → Mobile banking adoption intention − 0.02ns
Gender→ Mobile banking adoption intention 0.07ns
Education qualification → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.04ns
Income → Mobile banking adoption intention 0.06ns
Notes: ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; ns = not significant, Fit indices
CMIN/DF = 2.625 (p < 0.001), CFI = 0.94, GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.85, NFI = 0.91,
TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit
index, AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index, NFI = normed fit index, TLI =
Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.
using m-banking planforms. Consumers also perceive that over
m-banking platforms, there are several methods available to contact the
customer support team if they face any issues.
Further, results indicate that search convenience and evaluation
convenience have no significant impact on m-banking adoption inten­
tion. The findings are in accordance with findings of previous studies
(Reimers and Chao, 2014). Because all banks provide similar products
and services, search convenience and evaluation convenience have less
impact on consumers’ decision making regarding channel choice for
availing banking services.
The results also indicated that perceived hedonic values and
perceived utilitarian values significantly mediate the impact of di­
mensions of online convenience on adoption intention. The findings are
in accordance with findings of previous studies (Park et al., 2012; Kacen
et al., 2013; Reimers and Chao, 2014). Accessing the banking services at
any time and from anywhere, the availability of online information,
quick transactions, easy evaluation of banking services, availing banking
services immediately, and several options to connect with support team
not only provide enjoyment but also provide utility to the consumers
and so they tend to adopt the m-banking services.
that the mediating impact of all convenience dimensions via perceived
hedonic does not vary at high and low levels of consumers’ perceived
security concern. However, the mediating effect of utilitarian values
0.11 between access, transaction, post-benefit convenience, adoption inten­
0.16 tion vary at high and low levels of consumers’ perceived security
0.05 concern. Consumers with high security concern receive less utilitarian
0.23
0.06
values in accessing banking services, performing transactions, and
0.07 receiving after sales support compared to consumers with less perceived
0.19 security concern. To the best of our knowledge, in the existing literature
0.21 no study has examined the moderating effect of perceived security
0.05
concern on mediating effects of perceived hedonic values and perceived
0.27
0.07 utilitarian values between dimensions of convenience and adoption
0.08 intention. However, moderating effect of perceived security concern was
0.19 examined in previous studies (McCole et al., 2010).
0.21
0.05
0.27
7. Implication
0.07
0.08 7.1. Theoretical implications
0.06
From the theoretical perspective, we offer several contributions to
0.05
0.09 the extent literature. Online convenience is key to provide effective
0.06 online services. Hence, several attempts were made in the literature to
0.03 examine the impact of online convenience on consumer behavioural
0.08 intention (Jiang et al., 2013; Duarte et al., 2018; Pham et al., 2018).
However, in m-banking context, the impact of online convenience on
consumer response is still in its infancy and a comprehensive framework
rarely exists. Thus, it is warranted to investigate the role of online
convenience in m-banking context. Our study contributes to deepening
the understanding of how convenience impacts consumer behavioural
intention in general and in the m-banking adoption intention context, in
particular.
Further, this study proposes online convenience as a multi-
dimensional first order construct, and examines the relative impact of
each dimension on m-banking adoption. However, in extent literature,
majority of the studies considered online convenience as unidimensional
or second order variable (Berry et al., 2002; Duarte et al., 2018; Yuen
et al., 2019) and its impact on consumer behavioural intention was
examined. Considering online convenience as a first order construct and
investigating the direct and indirect impact of convenience dimension
on adoption intention, this study advances the online convenience
literature.
Further, drowning S–O-R theory to explain the effects convenience
dimensions on adoption intention is another academic contribution of
this study. The S–O-R theory posits that consumers respond to envi­
ronmental cues cognitively. Similar to the m-banking context, conve­
nience dimensions work as environmental cues, which affects cognitive
states of mind, and they perceive utilitarian and hedonic values and, in
turn, respond in the form of m-banking adoption intention. Hence, the
study extends the S–O-R model literature by using it to examine the
convenience–m-banking adoption intention relationship.

8
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

Table 5
Mediation effects of perceived hedonic values and perceived utilitarian values.
Hypothesis Effect BootSE Bootstrap 95% CIs Result

Lower Upper

Access convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 3860 0.045 0.2947 0.4718 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.1756 0.0504 0.0767 0.2746
Search convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 0.367 0.0492 0.2622 0.456 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.1428 0.0506 0.0433 0.2423
Evaluation convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 0.2027 0.0355 0.1351 0.2733 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.0822 0.0332 0.017 0.1473
Transaction convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 0.4252 0.0512 0.3254 0.5238 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.1621 0.0559 0.0523 0.2719
Benefit convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 0.336 0.0409 0.2578 0.4173 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.3964 0.0422 0.3134 0.4794
Post-benefit convenience → HV → MBAI Indirect 0.318 0.0406 0.2388 0.3994 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.3281 0.0393 0.251 0.4053
Access convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.2056 0.0399 0.1235 0.2807 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.356 0.0507 0.2564 0.4556
Search convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.2115 0.0421 0.1264 0.2899 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.2983 0.0525 0.1951 0.4015
Evaluation convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.2376 0.0384 0.1668 0.3208 Full Mediation
Direct 0.0473 0.0387 − 0.0287 0.1233
Transaction convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.216 0.0408 0.1335 0.2968 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.3713 0.0563 0.2606 0.482
Benefit convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.2355 0.0322 0.1755 0.3016 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.4969 0.043 0.4124 0.5813
Post-benefit convenience → UV → MBAI Indirect 0.2053 0.0279 0.151 0.2613 Partial Mediation
Direct 0.4408 0.0377 0.3667 0.5148
HV= Perceived hedonic values; UV= Perceived utilitarian values; MBAI = Mobile banking adoption intention

7.2. Managerial implications

Table 6
Moderation effects of perceived security concern.
Apart from providing a theoretical contribution, this study provides
Paths Effect SE Bootstrap 95% CIs several managerial implications to banks. M-banking is one of the
Lower Upper innovative and cost-effective channels for delivering banking services.
Access convenience → HV → MBAI − 0.0111 0.03 − 0.0715 0.0528 Hence, banks want to deliver banking services using mobile banking
Search convenience → HV → MBAI 0.0005 0.03 − 0.0563 0.0561 platforms. Banks are aware that convenience is major motivator in
Evaluation convenience → HV → 0.0085 0.02 − 0.0255 0.0371 consumer’s channel choice decisions for availing banking services.
MBAI Hence, they are keen to know how they can provide convenient services
Transaction convenience → HV → − 0.0127 0.04 − 0.0855 0.0556
MBAI
to increase the pace of m-banking adoption. The study’s findings have
Benefit convenience → HV → MBAI − 0.0445 0.03 − 0.1068 0.0188 implications for banks in enhancing m-banking adoption intention by
Post-benefit convenience → HV → 0.0002 0.03 − 0.0533 0.0529 providing online convenience. Additionally, the findings provide deep
MBAI insight to banks about which dimension/s of convenience they should
Access convenience → UV → MBAI − 0.0388 0.01 − 0.0698 − 0.0157
focus on to enhance the intent to adopt m-banking.
Search convenience → UV → MBAI − 0.0342 0.02 − 0.0855 0.0008
Evaluation convenience → UV → 0.013 0.02 − 0.0213 0.0489 As access convenience plays a crucial role, banks should provide
MBAI access to most of their services over online platforms, which they can use
Transaction convenience → UV → − 0.0454 0.01 − 0.0801 − 0.0214 at any time and from anywhere. Further, to enhance the transaction
MBAI convenience, banks should provide robust mechanisms to reduce the
Benefit convenience → UV → MBAI − 0.0175 0.02 − 0.0654 0.031
number of failed transactions. They should also provide confirmation
Post-benefit convenience → UV → − 0.0493 0.01 − 0.0788 − 0.0252
MBAI documents to consumers as proof of transactions/investments and to
reduce uncertainty. To enhance the benefit convenience, the banks
HV = Perceived hedonic values; UV = Perceived utilitarian values; MBAI =
should ensure that consumers can avail all banking services over m-
Mobile banking adoption intention; PCS = Perceived security concern.
banking platforms. Further, to enhance post-benefit convenience, banks
should provide 24 × 7 customer support across different means (mail,
Apart from the effects of convenience dimensions, we investigated live chat, and phone). Most importantly, banks should ensure an effi­
the meditating effects of perceived hedonic values and perceived utili­ cient complaint management system and enhance transparency so
tarian values between the convenience dimension and adoption inten­ consumers can track the status of complaints online.
tion, which has not been examined in the m-banking context. Further, the findings suggest that perceived hedonic values and
Accordingly, these mediation effects further enhance the understanding perceived utilitarian values scientifically mediate the relationship be­
of consumption value the m-banking context. tween convenience dimensions and adoption intention. Hence, banks
Finally, the moderating effects of perceived security concern on the should focus on providing hedonic benefits over m-banking platforms by
mediating effect of perceived hedonic values and perceived utilitarian providing an interactive interface. Banks should also provide several
values between the convenience dimension and adoption intention have benefits such as easy access, quick transfers, error-free transactions, and
been investigated, which is rarely found in existing m-banking adoption better after-sale services over m-banking platforms to enhance consumer
literature. Hence, this study provides new avenues of research in perceived utilitarian values, so they can adopt and use m-banking. The
examining the impact of online convenience on consumer adoption findings also suggest that consumers’ perceived security concern has a
intention behaviour by proposing a comprehensive moderated media­ significant moderating impact on mediating effects of perceives utili­
tion model. tarian values on online convenience-adoption intention relationship.
Consumers with low perceived security concern perceived more

9
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

Fig. 2. Moderating effects of perceived security concern on mediating role of utilitarian values on the association between access convenience and m-banking
adoption intention.

Fig. 3. Moderating effects of perceived security concern on mediating role of utilitarian value on the association between transaction convenience and m-banking
adoption intention.
Note: PSC = Perceived security concern.

utilitarian values over m-banking platforms and therefore tend to adopt
m-banking, compared to consumers with high perceived security
concern. Hence, banks should enhance the awareness of m-banking se­
curity mechanisms and ensure secure transactions over m-banking
platforms to enhance m-banking adoption intention.
8. Limitations and directions for future research
The study has limitations that future researchers may resolve. The
responses were collected from Indian banking consumers only. In future,
researchers can replicate this research framework in other countries for
better generalisation of the findings. Further, due to technological
advancement in the banking context, consumers’ behaviour is a dy­
namic phenomenon and, hence, another limitation is, this study relies on
the cross-sectional survey-based data, which does not enable detecting
cause and effect relationships between variables (Hair et al., 2017).
Future researchers can use alternative methods, such as longitudinal
study or experimental study, to overcome this limitation.
Our study has opened multiple avenues for future research. First, we
used hedonic values and utilitarian values as mediators. However,
consumers also seek other benefits while choosing a channel, such as
social benefits, which can be considered as mediating variables for

10
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323

Fig. 4. Moderating effects of perceived security concern on mediating role of utilitarian value on the association between post-benefit convenience and m-banking
adoption intention.
Note: PSC = Perceived security concern.

future studies. Second, future studies can use different moderating
variables, such as consumer involvement and personal innovativeness,
for more insightful findings. Third, it is interesting to see differences in
channel switching behaviour based on customer demographic profiles
(age, gender, income, and location). In future, studies could be con­
ducted between contrasting groups of consumers (young and elder
consumers, male and female consumers, rural and urban consumers)
and the results could be compared. Finally, In this study, we have used
S–O-R theory to examine the effects of online convenience on m-banking
adoption intention. Future studies can use different theories e.g.,
behavioural reasoning theory, elaboration likelihood model for exam­
ining the effects of online convenience on m-banking adoption intention.
References
Ahmad, W., Sun, J., 2018. Modeling consumer distrust of online hotel reviews. Int. J.
Hospit. Manag. 71, 77–90.
Al-Hawari, M.A.A., 2014. Does customer sociability matter? Differences in e-quality, e-
satisfaction, and e-loyalty between introvert and extravert online banking users.
J. Serv. Market. 28 (7), 538–546.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Williams, M.D., 2016. Consumer adoption of
mobile banking in Jordan: examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived
risk and self-efficacy. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 29 (1), 118–139.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., Wood, S., 1997.
Interactive home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to
participate in electronic marketplaces. J. Market. 61 (3), 38–53.
Alreck, P.L., Settle, R.B., 2002. The hurried consumer: time-saving perceptions of
Internet and catalogue shopping. J. Database Mark. Cust. Strategy Manag. 10 (1),
25–35.
Amin, M., 2016. Internet banking service quality and its implication on e-customer
satisfaction and e-customer loyalty. Int. J. Bank Market. 34 (3), 280–306.
Arcand, M., PromTep, S., Brun, I., Rajaobelina, L., 2017. Mobile banking service quality
and customer relationships. Int. J. Bank Market. 37 (5), 1068–1089.
Aw, E.C.X., 2019. Understanding the webrooming phenomenon. Int. J. Retail Distrib.
Manag. 47 (10), 1074–1092.
Baptista, G., Oliveira, T., 2016. A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking
acceptance research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 63, 480–489.
Beauchamp, M.B., Ponder, N., 2010. Perceptions of retail convenience for in-store and
online shoppers. Market. Manag. J. 20 (1), 49–65.
Benoit, S., Klose, S., Ettinger, A., 2017. Linking service convenience to satisfaction:
dimensions and key moderators. J. Serv. Market. 31 (6), 527–538.
Berraies, S., Yahia, K.B., Hannachi, M., 2017. Identifying the effects of perceived values
of mobile banking applications on customers. Int. J. Bank Market. 35 (6),
1018–1038.
Berry, L.L., Seiders, K., Grewal, D., 2002. Understanding service convenience. J. Market.
66 (3), 1–17.
Byrne, B.M., 2010. Multivariate Applications Series. Structural Equation Modeling with
AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, second ed. Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group, New York, US.
Chang, K., Chen, M., Hsu, C., Kuo, N., 2010. The effect of service convenience on post-
purchasing behaviours. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 110 (9), 1420–1443.
Chaouali, W., Lunardo, R., Yahia, I.B., Cyr, D., Triki, A., 2019. Design aesthetics as
drivers of value in mobile banking: does customer happiness matter? Int. J. Bank
Market. 38 (1), 219–241.
Chen, Y., He, W., 2013. Security risks and protection in online learning: a survey. Int.
Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 14 (5), 108–127.
Chou, S.Y., Shen, G.C., Chiu, H.C., Chou, Y.T., 2016. Multichannel service providers’
strategy: understanding customers’ switching and free-riding behavior. J. Bus. Res.
69 (6), 2226–2232.
Copeland, M.T., 1923. Relation of consumers’ buying habits to marketing methods. Harv.
Bus. Rev. 1 (2), 282–289.
Dedeoglu, B.B., Bilgihan, A., Ye, B.H., Buonincontri, P., Okumus, F., 2018. The impact of
servicescape on hedonic value and behavioral intentions: the importance of previous
experience. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 72, 10–20.
Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Rajala, R., 2020. Continued use of mobile instant messaging apps: a
new perspective on theories of consumption, flow, and planned behavior. Soc. Sci.
Comput. Rev. 38 (2), 147–169.
Duarte, P., e Silva, S.C., Ferreira, M.B., 2018. How convenient is it? Delivering online
shopping convenience to enhance customer satisfaction and encourage e-WOM.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44, 161–169.
Emrich, O., Paul, M., Rudolph, T., 2015. Shopping benefits of multichannel assortment
integration and the moderating role of retailer type. J. Retailing 91 (2), 326–342.
Farquhar, J.D., Rowley, J., 2009. Convenience: a services perspective. Market. Theor. 9
(4), 425–438.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Frasquet, M., Mollá, A., Ruiz, E., 2015. Identifying patterns in channel usage across the
search, purchase and post-sales stages of shopping. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 14
(6), 654–665.
Gensler, S., Verhoef, P.C., Böhm, M., 2012. Understanding consumers’ multichannel
choices across the different stages of the buying process. Market. Lett. 23 (4),
987–1003.
Giovanis, A., Assimakopoulos, C., Sarmaniotis, C., 2019. Adoption of mobile self-service
retail banking technologies. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 47 (9), 894–914.
Ha, J., Jang, S.S., 2010. Perceived values, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions: the role
of familiarity in Korean restaurants. Int. J. Hospit. Manag. 29 (1), 2–13.
Hair Jr., J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P., 2017. Advanced Issues in Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling. Sage publications.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Methodology in the Social Sciences. Introduction to Mediation,
Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach.
Hoehle, H., Scornavacca, E., Huff, S., 2012. Three decades of research on consumer
adoption and utilization of electronic banking channels: a literature analysis. Decis.
Support Syst. 54 (1), 122–132.

11
C. Jebarajakirthy and A. Shankar
Huang, P., Lurie, N.H., Mitra, S., 2009. Searching for experience on the web: an empirical
examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. J. Market. 73
(2), 55–69.
Hussien, I.M., Abd El Aziz, R., 2013. Investigating e-banking service quality in one of
Egypt’s banks: a stakeholder analysis. TQM J. 25 (5), 557–576.
Islam, H., Jebarajakirthy, C., Shankar, A., 2019. An experimental based investigation
into the effects of website interactivity on customer behavior in on-line purchase
context. J. Strat. Market. 1–24.
Jebarajakirthy, C., Yadav, R., Shankar, A., 2020. Insights for luxury retailers to reach
customers globally. Market. Intell. Plann.
Jeong, B.K., Yoon, T.E., 2013. An empirical investigation on consumer acceptance of
mobile banking services. Bus. Manag. Res. 2 (1), 31–40.
Jiang, L., Yang, Z., Jun, M., 2013. Measuring consumer perceptions of online shopping
convenience. J. Serv. Manag. 24 (2), 191–214.
Jun, M., Palacios, S., 2016. Examining the key dimensions of mobile banking service
quality: an exploratory study. Int. J. Bank Market. 34 (3), 307–326.
Kacen, J.J., Hess, J.D., Chiang, W.Y.K., 2013. Bricks or clicks? Consumer attitudes
toward traditional stores and online stores. Global Economics and Management
Review 18 (1), 12–21.
Kang, J.Y.M., 2018. Showrooming, webrooming, and user-generated content creation in
the omnichannel era. J. Internet Commer. 17 (2), 145–169.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Bodhi, R., Singh, T., Almotairi, M., 2020. Why do people use and
recommend m-wallets? J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 56, 102091.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Chen, S., Malibari, A., Almotairi, M., 2020b. Why do people purchase
virtual goods? A uses and gratification (U&G) theory perspective. Telematics Inf.
101376.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Rajala, R., Dwivedi, Y., 2018. Why people use online social media
brand communities. Online Inf. Rev. 42 (2), 205–221.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., Singh, N., Sahu, G., Almotairi, M., 2020a. An innovation resistance
theory perspective on mobile payment solutions. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55,
102059.
Kaura, V., 2013. Antecedents of customer satisfaction: a study of Indian public and
private sector banks. Int. J. Bank Market. 31 (3), 167–186.
Kim, C., Zhao, W., Yang, K.H., 2008. An empirical study on the integrated framework of
e-CRM in online shopping: evaluating the relationships among perceived value,
satisfaction, and trust based on customers’ perspectives. J. Electron. Commer. Org. 6
(3), 1–19.
Kim, M.J., Lee, C.K., Jung, T., 2020. Exploring consumer behavior in virtual reality
tourism using an extended stimulus-organism-response model. J. Trav. Res. 59 (1),
69–89.
Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Moll, A., 2010. Predicting young consumers’ take up of
mobile banking services. Int. J. Bank Market. 28 (5), 410–432.
Laukkanen, T., 2016. Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar
service innovations: the case of the Internet and mobile banking. J. Bus. Res. 69 (7),
2432–2439.
Laukkanen, T., Kiviniemi, V., 2010. The role of information in mobile banking resistance.
Int. J. Bank Market. 28 (5), 372–388.
Lee, H.H., Jin Ma, Y., 2012. Consumer perceptions of online consumer product and
service reviews: focusing on information processing confidence and susceptibility to
peer influence. J. Res. Indian Med. 6 (2), 110–132.
Lee, M.Y., Kim, Y.K., Fairhurst, A., 2009. Shopping value in online auctions: their
antecedents and outcomes. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 16 (1), 75–82.
Lee, S.H., 2015. The impact of convenience value of mobile banking service on customer
satisfaction and Re-usage intention: the moderate effect of technology anxiety. J. of
Inf. Technol. Serv. 14 (2), 1–14.
Lim, H., Dubinsky, A.J., 2004. Consumers’ perceptions of e-shopping characteristics: an
expectancy-value approach. J. Serv. Market. 18 (7), 500–513.
Mahapatra, S., 2017. Mobile shopping among young consumers: an empirical study in an
emerging market. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 45 (9), 930–949.
Malhotra, N.K., Kim, S.S., Patil, A., 2006. Common method variance in IS research: a
comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag. Sci.
52 (12), 1865–1883.
Mazaheri, E., Richard, M.O., Laroche, M., 2010. Investigating the moderating impact of
hedonism on online consumer behavior. J. Global Acad. of Market. Sci. 20 (2),
123–134.
McCole, P., Ramsey, E., Williams, J., 2010. Trust considerations on attitudes towards
online purchasing: the moderating effect of privacy and security concerns. J. Bus.
Res. 63 (9–10), 1018–1024.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, pp. 216–217.
Moser, F., 2015. Mobile Banking: a fashionable concept or an institutionalised channel in
future retail banking? Analyzing patterns in the practical and academic mobile
banking literature. Int. J. Bank Market. 33 (2), 162–177.
Mullan, J., Bradley, L., Loane, S., 2017. Bank adoption of mobile banking: stakeholder
perspective. Int. J. Bank Market. 35 (7), 1154–1174.
Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.A., Weinberger, M.G., 2005. Consumer derived utilitarian value
and channel utilization in a multi-channel retail context. J. Bus. Res. 58 (12),
1643–1651.
Overby, J.W., Lee, E.J., 2006. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping
value on consumer preference and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 59 (10–11), 1160–1166.
Park, E.J., Kim, E.Y., Funches, V.M., Foxx, W., 2012. Apparel product attributes, web
browsing, and e-impulse buying on shopping websites. J. Bus. Res. 65 (11),
1583–1589.
12
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 58 (2021) 102323
Pham, Q., Tran, X., Misra, S., Maskeliūnas, R., Damaševičius, R., 2018. Relationship
between convenience, perceived value, and repurchase intention in online shopping
in Vietnam. Sustainability 10 (1), 1–14.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903.
Ranganathan, C., Ganapathy, S., 2002. Key dimensions of business-to-consumer web
sites. Inf. Manag. 39 (6), 457–465.
Ray, A., Dhir, A., Bala, P.K., Kaur, P., 2019. Why do people use food delivery apps (FDA)?
A uses and gratification theory perspective. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 51, 221–230.
Reimers, V., Chao, F., 2014. The role of convenience in a recreational shopping trip. Eur.
J. Market. 48 (11/12), 2213–2236.
Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., 2004. A typology of online shoppers based on shopping
motivations. J. Bus. Res. 57 (7), 748–757.
Roy, S.K., Shekhar, V., Lassar, W.M., Chen, T., 2018. Customer engagement behaviors:
the role of service convenience, fairness and quality. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44,
293–304.
Safeena, R., Date, H., Kammani, A., Hundewale, N., 2012. Technology adoption and
Indian consumers: study on mobile banking. International Journal of Computer
Theory and Engineering 4 (6), 1020.
Sahu, A.K., Padhy, R.K., Dhir, A., 2020. Envisioning the future of behavioral decision-
making: a systematic literature review of behavioral reasoning theory. Australas.
Market J.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á., 2007. The concept of perceived value: a
systematic review of the research. Market. Theor. 7 (4), 427–451.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L., Grewal, D., 2007. SERVCON: development and
validation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 35
(1), 144–156.
Shaheed, A., 2004. How convenience has changed the nation. Brand Strategy May (182),
44–46.
Shaikh, A.A., Karjaluoto, H., 2015. Mobile banking adoption: a literature review.
Telematics Inf. 32 (1), 129–142.
Shankar, A., Datta, B., 2018. Factors affecting mobile payment adoption intention: an
Indian perspective. Global Bus. Rev. 19 (3_Suppl. l), S72–S89.
Shankar, A., Jebarajakirthy, C., 2019. The influence of e-banking service quality on
customer loyalty: a moderated mediation approach. Int. J. Bank Market. 37 (5),
1119–1142.
Shankar, A., Kumari, P., 2016. Factors affecting mobile banking adoption behavior in
India. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 21 (1), 1–24.
Shankar, A., Kumari, P., 2019. A study of factors affecting mobile governance (mGov)
adoption intention in India using an extension of the technology acceptance model
(TAM). S. Asian J. Manag. 26 (4), 71–94.
Shankar, A., Rishi, B., 2020. Convenience matter in mobile banking adoption intention?
Australas. Market J.
Shankar, A., Datta, B., Jebarajakirthy, C., 2019. Are the generic scales enough to measure
service quality of mobile banking? A comparative analysis of generic service quality
measurement scales to mobile banking context. Serv. Market. Q. 40 (3), 224–244.
Shankar, A., Datta, B., Jebarajakirthy, C., Mukherjee, S., 2020a. Exploring mobile
banking service quality: a qualitative approach. Serv. Market. Q. 41 (2), 182–204.
Shankar, A., Jebarajakirth, C., Ashaduzzaman, Md, 2020. How do electronic word of
mouth practices contribute to mobile banking adoption? J. Retailing Consum. Serv.
52, 101920.
Shareef, M.A., Baabdullah, A., Dutta, S., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., 2018. Consumer
adoption of mobile banking services: an empirical examination of factors according
to adoption stages. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 43, 54–67.
Srivastava, M., Kaul, D., 2014. Social interaction, convenience and customer satisfaction:
the mediating effect of customer experience. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 21 (6),
1028–1037.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Mäntymäki, M., 2020a. Why do people purchase from
online travel agencies (OTAs)? A consumption values perspective. Int. J. Hospit.
Manag. 88, 102534.
Talwar, S., Dhir, A., Khalil, A., Mohan, G., Islam, A.N., 2020. Point of adoption and
beyond. Initial trust and mobile-payment continuation intention. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 55, 102086.
Tandon, A., Dhir, A., Kaur, P., Kushwah, S., Salo, J., 2020. Behavioral reasoning
perspectives on organic food purchase. Appetite 154, 104786.
Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., Vroomen, B., 2007. Multichannel customer management:
understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. Int. J. Res. Market. 24 (2),
129–148.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Market. Res. 40 (3), 310–320.
Wang, J., Yang, Z., Brocato, E.D., 2018. An investigation into the antecedents of
prepurchase online search. Inf. Manag. 55 (3), 285–293.
Wolfinbarger, M., Gilly, M.C., 2001. Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun. Calif.
Manag. Rev. 43 (2), 34–55.
Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling
for a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis, and
crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66, 463–472.
Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Ma, F., Wong, Y.D., 2019. The determinants of customers’ intention
to use smart lockers for last-mile deliveries. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 49, 316–326.
Zhou, T., 2012. Understanding users’ initial trust in mobile banking: an elaboration
likelihood perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (4), 1518–1525.