Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

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

Determining factors and impacts of the intention to adopt mobile banking

app in Cameroon: Case of SARA by afriland First Bank
Jean Robert Kala Kamdjoug a, *, Serge-Lopez Wamba-Taguimdje b, Samuel Fosso Wamba c,
Ingrid Bive’e Kake a
a
GRIAGES, Department of Management and Information Systems, Catholic University of Central Africa, Nkolbisson, 11628, Yaoundé, Cameroon
b
University of Grenoble, IAE– Domaine Universitaire, 525 Avenue Centrale, B.P. 47, 38040, Grenoble Cédex 9, France
c
Department of Information, Operations and Management Sciences, Toulouse Business School, Toulouse, 1 Place Alphonse Jourdain, Toulouse, 31068, France

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

Keywords: This study aims to know what are the factors determining the adoption of M-Banking app among customers in
M-Banking Cameroon. In other words, what are the factors that influence users in their decisions to adopt and use a system
Financial inclusion or technology such as the MBanking app, and indirectly, what is the impact of this use on both the customers and
Rational perception
financial inclusion? The research model developed relying on a combination of Technology Acceptance Model
Terminal security
(TAM ), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology ( UTAUT2 ), Information System Success Model (
Behavioral control
Exploitative/explorative use ISSM ), and Protection Motivation Theory ( PMT ) and other constructs; it was then tested with a sample of 223
Cameroon users of the “ SARA” M-Banking app of the financial institution called “ Afriland First Bank” . Findings revealed
that: (1) utilitarian expectation, hedonic motivation, and status gain, habit, and perceived privacy concern have a
significant influence on the intention to adopt M-Banking apps; and (2) the exploitative/explorative use of this
technology has an impact on user’s loyalty and satisfaction but also contributes strongly to fostering financial
inclusion in Cameroon. Also, the Multi-group analysis was performed on the sample using 2 gender-based groups
(males, n=121; females, n=102).

1. Introduction expectations (Alkhowaiter, 2020; Shankar and Jebarajakirthy, 2019;

In the digital age, some companies in the financial sector are strug­
gling to maintain their value and relevance in a constantly evolving
sector. Indeed, many of the technological evolutions of the digital age
have opened the way to new players, who sometimes do not even come
from the banking and financial sector (Alkhowaiter, 2020; Stamoulis
et al., 2002; Wamba-Taguimdje et al., 2020). FinTech firms, composed
of start-ups in finance and other fields, are in serious competition with
banks and are taking a growing share of the participatory financing
market, which was previously reserved for financial institutions (Fer­
may et al., 2018; Phan et al., 2020). The latter is challenging existing
market leaders by offering, for example, dematerialized services and
disruptive technologies (Alkhowaiter, 2020; Fermay et al., 2018; Sta­
moulis et al., 2002). The technological revolution in information and
communication systems has led to the emergence of remote banking,
thus pushing banks and Fintech organizations to develop multi-channel
distribution systems for their services to meet customers’ diverse
Stamoulis et al., 2002). On the African continent, we note the emergence
of promising new forms of technology (Mobile Money [Banking, Pay­
ment, and Transfer], Mobile Wallet, E-Banking) that are being devel­
oped and implemented by organizations in the Telecom/Banking sectors
(Fonchamnyo, 2013; Fosso et al., 2020; Nso, 2018; Tsanga, 2018).
Despite its technological backwardness characterized by a significant
digital divide, Africa has been able to build on existing infrastructures to
develop innovative technologies, such as Mobile Money, to promote the
financial inclusion of individuals (Germain, 2019; Lashitew et al., 2019;
N’Dri and Kakinaka, 2020). This technology allows individuals to
receive, keep, and spend money using a mobile phone without having a
bank account (Germain, 2019; Lashitew et al., 2019; N’Dri and Kaki­
naka, 2020). As an integral part of the operating strategies of financial
companies, Mobile Money/Wallet is generally based on four (04) ele­
ments, namely: Technology, Product, Customer, and Geographical
Area (Fosso et al., 2020; Okello et al., 2018; Stamoulis et al., 2002).
Through investment in several types of terminals, it helps provide the

* Corresponding author. GRIAGES - FSSG UCAC and CeRTIA - FSA ULaval.

E-mail addresses: jrkala@ucac-icy-fssg.net (J.R. Kala Kamdjoug), Serge-Lopez.Wamba-Taguimdje@etu.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr (S.-L. Wamba-Taguimdje), s.fosso-
wamba@tbs-education.fr (S.F. Wamba), ingridkake@yahoo.fr (I.B. Kake).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102509
Received 7 December 2020; Received in revised form 1 February 2021; Accepted 10 February 2021
Available online 27 February 2021
0969-6989/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
means that are needed by customers, whether they are natural or legal
persons, to make self-use of the bank’s products and services and to be
fully autonomous in their activities with the bank (Nso, 2018; Okello
et al., 2018; Stamoulis et al., 2002).
Capturing the advantage of innovations in Information Technology
(IT) is a priority, an opportunity for developing or underdeveloped
countries like Cameroon. This is how M-Banking has gained popularity
in recent years in Africa (Kufandirimbwa et al., 2013; Nyangosi et al.,
2009; Okello et al., 2018). This system, commonly referred to as
“E-Banking”, makes it possible to quickly provide banking services to a
wide range of customers via the Internet (Nyangosi et al., 2009; Shah
and Siddiqui, 2006; Stamoulis et al., 2002). In Cameroon, these services
are accessible via an app installed on a mobile phone. Thus, the term
M-Banking is more appropriate because individuals perform many of the
same activities as “E-Banking” using a smartphone or tablet instead of a
desktop computer. In addition to being an emulation of E-Banking on a
mobile terminal, M-Banking technology also allows the consumer to log
on to a bank’s mobile website and use an M-Banking app and SMS
Banking (Amin and Ramayah, 2010; Bive’e, 2020; Nazaritehrani and
Mashali, 2020). By analogy to the physical wallet, an M-Banking is a
virtual wallet through which both individuals and companies can send
or receive money, make payments on all kinds of e-Commerce sites
easily and conveniently via mobile app (Leong et al., 2020; Singh and
Sinha, 2020; Singh et al., 2020). Its main challenge revolves around
lowering the cost of banking products as well as improving the quality of
service provided to customers through innovative and customizable
technical solutions (Leong et al., 2020; Singh and Sinha, 2020; Singh
et al., 2020). To build customer loyalty, the adoption of the Internet as a
distribution channel enables financial institutions and FinTech organi­
zations to benefit from the opportunity to offer their customers better
quality services with high added value for products, reliable informa­
tion, and commercial relations (Nazaritehrani and Mashali, 2020; Nso,
2018; Shankar and Jebarajakirthy, 2019; Stamoulis et al., 2002).
With this in mind, “Afriland First Bank” has developed the “SARA by
Afriland”, an M-Banking app to equip its customers and non-customers
with a mobile wallet/account. “SARA by Afriland” is the mobile
bank’s digital app that offers two distinct options: “SARA” Banking, and
“SARA” Money (Aloys, 2020; Bive’e, 2020; Fonchamnyo, 2013; Yan­
nick, 2019). “SARA” Banking provides services for customers who have
an account at the bank while “SARA” Money provides services for cus­
tomers who don’t have an account at the bank, it’s a kind of electronic
wallet (Aloys, 2020; Bive’e, 2020; Fonchamnyo, 2013; Yannick, 2019).
Thus, if this app is installed on a smartphone/tablet, its main advantage
will reside in the two options (Table 1). Indeed, the M-Banking app like
“SARA by Afriland” aims to develop self-service at home to achieve the
financial inclusion of individuals without a bank account.
Currently, the bank has nearly seventeen (17) thousand customers
who have subscribed to the app and a little more than nine (09) thou­
sand active customers (Aloys, 2020; Bive’e, 2020; Fonchamnyo, 2013;
Yannick, 2019). The difference between the number of subscribers and
Table 1
Options and features of the “SARA by Afriland” M-Banking app.
Options Functions
“SARA” Make internal bank transfers (i.e. between accounts within the
Banking same bank), external bank transfers (from an Afriland account to an
account at another bank); consult the account balance, transaction
history; request a checkbook; consult a current credit; consult the
various ATMs and branches of the bank in the desired city; consult
term deposits and their negotiable instruments.
“SARA” Create a tontine and contribute to it; consult the balance of their
Money electronic wallet; make transfers from one Afriland wallet to
another, from one wallet to a bank account (whether or not it is
from Afriland); make cash withdrawals from a bank agent; obtain a
statement of the transactions carried out.
Source: Adapted from Yannick (2019), Bive’e (2020), and Aloys (2020).
2
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
the number of customers who are active on the app is explained by the
obligation for the subscriber to go to the bank for app activation. Failure
to do means that the various operations offered by the app cannot be
accessed and taken advantage of (Aloys, 2020; Bive’e, 2020; Fon­
chamnyo, 2013; Yannick, 2019). Many competing products exist in the
environment. The main competing products from among those offered
in the domestic market are: “SG connect” and “YUP” mobile app from
“Société Générale", a mobile app offered by banks (“ECOBANK, CCA,
UBA”) and micro-finance institutions (“Express Union”); and finally we
have solutions offered by telecommunication operators such as “Orange
Money” from Orange Cameroon and “MTN Mobile Money” from MTN
Cameroon which compete with the “SARA” Money option (Bive’e, 2020;
Fonchamnyo, 2013; Nso, 2018; Tsanga, 2018; Valence, 2017).
Compared to its competitors, “SARA by Afriland” primarily offers the
advantage of being not only a mobile app linked to the bank account but
also a mobile wallet for individuals who do not have a bank account.
This is a great advantage because it offers both a mobile wallet and
mobile money services (M-Banking). Moreover, it offers several services
that others do not, such as the ability to view a current credit (Bive’e,
2020). Furthermore, the “SARA” app is linked to another product (the
banking agent), which gives a third party the possibility to offer banking
services in a decentralized manner (Bive’e, 2020). It also offers a rather
special means of payment, via related technologies that are integrated
into the bank’s services, such as the QR code. It allows transactions to be
made from a bank account to a “wallet”, between two “wallets”, without
the need to enter a password but only by scanning the code. Considering
the possibilities offered by the “SARA” M-Banking app, this technology
can be somewhat considered a catalyst for increased financial inclusion
in Cameroon (Bive’e, 2020; Fonchamnyo, 2013; Nso, 2018; Valence,
2017). With an estimated population of twenty-five (25) million,
Cameroon displays very low financial inclusion indicators. According to
Demirguc-Kunt et al. (2018), and Hoosuite (2020), 27% of people living
in Cameroon have an account with a financial institution, 3.0% a credit
card (2.2% men and 3.9% women), and 15% a mobile money account.
Some 5.6% make online purchases and/or pay bills online (4.7% of men
and 6.5% of women).
According to Chandra et al. (2010), Bruque and Moyano (2007), and
Nso (2018), the adoption of IT is an essential step in the use of
M-Banking by individuals, as they have the choice to accept and use the
innovation offered to them to improve and optimize their daily activ­
ities. Through this study, we will identify the factors determining the
adoption and use of the M-Banking app, particularly in an environment
where this type of initiative is increasingly observed, and we will
eventually analyze their direct impact on financial inclusion. Indeed,
our study will make it possible to answer questions such as: What are the
factors determining the adoption of M-Banking app among customers in
Cameroon? What are the causes that influence users in their decisions to
adopt a system or technology such as the M-Banking app, and to use it?
What is the impact of the adoption of M-Banking on the customers and
financial inclusion?
To answer these questions and complete the literature review on the
M-Banking app, we will start with an overview of financial inclusion in
Africa with the Mobile Money, followed by the theoretical background
and research model, the methodology and measurement model, then we
will present our findings and analysis, the discussion, implications,
limitations, and recommendations.
2. Mobile money (banking): a perspective for financial inclusion
in africa
Financial inclusion refers to the possibility for individuals and
companies/organizations to access at a lower cost a range of useful and
relevant financial products and services (transactions, payments, sav­
ings, credit, and insurance) offered by reliable, competent, and
responsible providers (Della Peruta, 2018; Ouma et al., 2017; Zins and
Weill, 2016). Besides, financial inclusion is the set of measures put in
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
place to fight banking and financial exclusion. It encompasses a whole
range of financial products and services (microinsurance with all the
possible variants linked to insurance [climate risk, death], the various
credit products, pensions, savings products, money transfers) and
non-financial products and services (training [in business management,
risks, governance], decision-making software, technical advice and
expertise, financial education and awareness-raising) made accessible to
the poor (Alexandra, 2017; Bive’e, 2020; Della Peruta, 2018; Ouma
et al., 2017; Zins and Weill, 2016). Access to a current account is the first
step towards full financial inclusion, paving the way for depositing
money and sending and receiving payments (Alexandra, 2017; Mushtaq
and Bruneau, 2019; N’Dri and Kakinaka, 2020). Financial inclusion aims
to increase access to affordable and responsible (not) banking and (not)
financial products and services for populations excluded from main­
stream banking (Alexandra, 2017; Bive’e, 2020; Mushtaq and Bruneau,
2019; Zins and Weill, 2016).
To include as many people as possible in the financial system and
provide them with appropriate banking services, a range of products and
services have been developed, the best known of which is “microcredit”
(Alexandra, 2017; Mushtaq and Bruneau, 2019; Zins and Weill, 2016).
But today there are financial services that meet needs that go far beyond
microcredit: money transfers, micro-savings, micro-insurance, and
micro-pension. Well designed and in the hands of ambitious and
responsible actors, these products and services have enormous potential
in terms of leveraging the development of African countries (Alexandra,
2017; Mushtaq and Bruneau, 2019; Ouma et al., 2017). Today, with
digitalization, a new opportunity is being offered to populations with the
advent of new complementary (supports/catalysts/diffusion) technolo­
gies such as mobile phones technologies (USSD, SMS, NFC, GSM, etc
…),1 Mobile (Electronic) Money/Wallet, and E-banking (Alexandra,
2017; Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018; Germain, 2019; Hammerschlag et al.,
2020; Mushtaq and Bruneau, 2019). The remoteness of financial in­
stitutions, the lack of infrastructure, the technological backwardness,
and especially the cost of services are major obstacles to the banking of
populations in Africa (Germain, 2019; Orange, 2018; Ouma et al.,
2017). Infrastructure is quite costly and cumbersome to put in place,
especially for African countries that are lagging technologically (Bive’e,
2020). However, with the advent of digitalization, this obstacle can be
overcome because it is not necessary to physically go to an institution to
carry out financial transactions (Germain, 2019; Orange, 2018; Ouma
et al., 2017). With digitalization, many of these operations could be
performed remotely via mobile phones (apps) or the Internet. This
practically reconstituted proximity brings financial services closer to the
most remote and isolated populations, facilitating and improving their
access to financial services at a lower cost (Adaba et al., 2019; Ham­
merschlag et al., 2020). It also promotes accessibility by facilitating use
even for the digitally illiterate by adapting products to the specific needs
of customers, while reducing the digital divide between Africa and other
continents (Germain, 2019; Orange, 2018; Ouma et al., 2017).
In that way, banks and telecom companies are increasingly devel­
oping Mobile/Electronic solutions to simplify operations and facilitate
their relationship with customers. As an illustration, we have Safaricom
(a subsidiary of the Vodafone group) in Kenya, with M-Pesa a micro-
finance and money transfer product allowing subscribers to access a
wide range of financial services otherwise reserved for bank account
holders from their mobile phone using a Personal Identification Number
(PIN) and a secure SMS (Burns, 2018; Ndung’u, 2018; Osah and Kyobe,
2017). Orange and MTN, Africa’s leading telecommunications com­
panies, which are present in 22 African countries, have taken over this
very flourishing market by offering Mobile Money solutions respectively
(Bive’e, 2020; Gsma, 2018; Orange, 2018). Later these two (02)
1
USSD: Unstructured Supplementary Service Data, SMS: Short Message
Service, NFC: Near-field Communication, GSM: Global System for Mobile
Communications.
3
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
companies launched the Mowali joint venture, which enables full
interoperability of payments across the continent between different
Mobile Money platforms (Gsma, 2018; Orange, 2018). Thanks to
Mowali, these two companies can be presented as key vectors of (1) the
digital transformation based on digital technologies that have experi­
enced considerable growth in recent years; (2) the financial inclusion of
low-income populations by offering low-cost, simple, and advantageous
money transfer services; (3) and also as leaders in collaboration between
industry players (Gsma, 2018; Orange, 2018).
The use of mobile money is an integral part of the daily routine of
millions of Africans, to the point where credit institutions are also
providing mobile finance solutions to individuals even if they do not
have a bank account. This is the case of banks such as “ECOBANK, UBA,
AFRILAND FIRST BANK, Société Générale”, whose aim is to broaden the
scope of their activities and make them sustainable.
This boost in digitalization — which implies the digitalization of
payments — has had an explosive effect on Mobile Wallet(s)/Money
apps (Lashitew et al., 2019; N’Dri and Kakinaka, 2020; Ouma et al.,
2017; Singh and Sinha, 2020). Mobile wallets have reached new heights
this year, to the point where digital transactions account for the majority
(57%) of the value of Mobile Money transactions (Alexandra, 2017;
Bive’e, 2020; Nika, 2020). Mobile Money is set to flourish, especially on
the African continent where less than a third (only 42.61% of people
aged 15 and over have a bank account) of the population has an account
with an official financial institution (Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018; Ger­
main, 2019; Nika, 2020). With 1.04 billion (bn) accounts (↑10.2%)
already registered, 372 million (m) active accounts (↑13.6%), 37.1bn
transaction volume (↑21.8%), and 690.1bn (USD) transaction value
(↑26%), the Mobile Money industry is increasingly gaining momentum
while the path to financial inclusion is open in most low-income coun­
tries, whose financial inclusion rates are the lowest in the world
(Demirguc-Kunt et al., 2018; Fosso et al., 2020; Nika, 2020). Mobile
Money agents have seven times (07x) more reachable than ATMs and
twenty (20x) times more reachable than bank branches (Per 100,000
adults: 1 Banks, 33 ATMs, 228 Mobile Money agents) (Demirguc-Kunt
et al., 2018; Nika, 2020). The use of smartphones continues to grow
rapidly in the region, reaching 50% of total connections by 2020,
prompting some African banks to develop Mobile apps to simplify op­
erations and facilitate their relationship with their customers (Bive’e,
2020; Gsma, 2018).
Despite pressures from globalization and the opportunities offered by
new technologies, the local context and traditional African knowledge
are not sufficiently taken into account (Bive’e, 2020; Ogar and Ogar,
2020). Providers of telephone-based technologies such as Mobile Mon­
ey/Wallet (through mobile apps) are trying to take into account these
particular elements of the African context. Today, the Covid-19
pandemic is testing the limits of societies and economies around the
world and is likely to deal with a particularly severe blow to African
countries, which are lagging far behind in all areas (Gilbert et al., 2020;
Kanu, 2020; Kickbusch et al., 2020; Shereen et al., 2020). In such a
global pandemic situation, Mobile Money (Banking, Transfer, Payment)
and digital payment remain an important tool in the lives of Africans
(Akinyemi and Mushunje, 2020). This is particularly true at these
COVID-19 times Mobile Money/Wallet transactions and services can be
carried out from one’s mobile phone and all this while respecting the
COVID-related instructions by the World Health Organization (Aki­
nyemi and Mushunje, 2020; De’, Pandey and Pal, 2020). Moreover,
Mobile Money/Wallet contributes to reducing the inequalities created
by traditional financial services and the digital divide to ensure
cost-effective financial inclusion for all individuals (Adaba et al., 2019;
Dong et al., 2018; Fosso et al., 2020). Moreover, with the many ad­
vantages offered by these technologies based on cell phones, it becomes
necessary to study this phenomenon to understand it, to better supervise
it for efficient development. Thus, in this article, we have focused on
M-Banking apps.
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

3. Theoretical background and research model Table 2

Description of the IS/IT Theories and Models used in the study.
Like other innovations in information technology, M-Banking is a IS/IT Theories and Models Descriptions
revolution that aims to make people’s lives easier; and this stimulates
TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Resulting from a combination of the
the curiosity of researchers. As with any other technology, research that Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) cognitive Theory of Reasoned Action and
has already been done shows that the drivers for adoption of a mobile- Expectation Theory, the TAM model makes
based technology such as Mobile Wallet/Money (Banking) vary it possible to explain IT user behavior and
depending on the context of the study. This is the case of a study by perceived performance. More specifically, it
is generally used to explain and predict the
Malaquias and Hwang (2019), which shows that in developed countries determinants of the acceptance and
such as the USA, social influence plays an important role in determining adoption or non-adoption of technology,
the use of technology, whereas in emerging economies such as Brazil and similarly the individual behavior of
perceived ease of use is the main determinant. Singh and Sinha (2020) users of this technology. The construct at
the center of this model is behavioral intent
demonstrated that factors in the intention to use, adoption, and
because it is this intent that triggers the
recommendation of Mobile Wallet services in India are: “ease of use, behavior and then actual use. This use is
usefulness, perceived risk, attitude”; and that user satisfaction and often measured in terms of satisfaction/
recommendation of the Mobile Wallet are conditioned by stress and trust/loyalty of the users of the technology,
social influence. Furthermore, technological innovation is a critical time, quality of decisions. Song et al. (2015)
applied TAM to demonstrate that the
driver for promoting financial inclusion in Africa because of the op­ rational perception factors influence the
portunities it offers in the area of financial services (Hammerschlag adoption of mobile technology by the
et al., 2020). Well aware of the importance of the social framework of Chinese. Chong, Chan, and Ooi (2012) used
the individuals who adopt and use these innovative technologies, Okello this model with other theories to
understand and predict consumer decisions
et al. (2018) have demonstrated that social networks have a significant
to adopt mobile commerce in China and
and positive moderating effect on the relationship between mobile Malaysia. Also, several authors have
money usage and financial inclusion. In some contexts, such as in South adopted this model for studies on the use of
Africa, the adoption of these innovative technologies (WeChat wallet cell phone technology as a medium for
app) is conditioned by trust, security, and privacy (Matemba and Li, accessing services/products. This is the case
of mobile shopping (Groβ, 2018; Natarajan
2018). In sub-Saharan African countries, such as Cameroon, speed, cost,
et al., 2017), and mobile commerce (Akram
mobiquity, perceived usefulness, security, social influence and interop­ et al., 2020; Chi, 2018).
erability, network quality and age have a significant and statistical UTAUT (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Resulting from the consolidation of a
impact on the acceptability of mobile money (Tsanga, 2018). Further­ Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh meticulous literature review of classical
et al., 2012) models (social cognitive theory, innovation
more, in other contexts, task-technology fit (TTF) is the best IS theory to
diffusion theory, technology acceptance
be used to predict the user’s intention to continue using mobile money model, the theory of planned behavior, the
services (example: M-Pesa) (Osah and Kyobe, 2017). Besides, the tech­ model of PC utilization, motivational
nological capabilities of mobile money services must correspond to the model, the theory of reasoned action, a
tasks that the user has to perform daily, to facilitate its adoption and use combined theory of planned behavior/
technology acceptance model) generally
by the user (Osah and Kyobe, 2017). Song, Sawang, Drennan, and
used to explain IS/IT usage behavior, the
Andrews (2015) suggest that eight (08) important concepts, grouped UTAUT model aims to explain user
into three (03) categories, influence users’ intentions to adopt mobile intentions to use an IS and subsequent usage
technology or technology-based on mobile terminals: rational behavior. Baabdullah, Alalwan, Rana,
Kizgin, and Patil (2019) use UTAUT2 to
perception (utilitarian expectation, hedonic expectation, status gain,
identify that consumer use of M-Banking in
status loss avoidance), behavioral control (cost, quality concern), and Saudi Arabia is affected by factors such as
social influence (normative influence, external influence). Jebar­ performance expectancy, facilitating
ajakirthy and Shankar (2021) demonstrate that convenience dimensions conditions, and hedonic motivation.
(access, transaction, benefit, and post-benefit) influence customer Extending UTAUT2 with trust construct,
Alalwan et al. (2017) explore factors
intention to adopt M-Banking. Moreover, Chaouali and Souiden (2019)
influencing the adoption of mobile banking
tried to see how psychological barriers (transaction and image) and by Jordanian bank customers. Through this
functional barriers (usage, value, and risk) affect M-Banking resistance model, Ramírez-Correa et al. (2019) show
within elder individuals. In the case of M-Banking apps, Muñoz-Leiva the importance of habit when analyzing the
acceptance of online games on mobile
et al. (2017) shows that their adoption depend mainly on the attitude
devices.
toward using mobile apps. Whereas satisfaction, trust and expectancy ISSM (Baabdullah et al., 2019; As far as IS evaluation is concerned, the
confirmation are the three (03) mainly factors which directly affecting Delone and McLean, 2003; Zhou, ISSM model is essential. This model is
continuance intention toward M-Banking apps (Poromatikul et al., 2013) widely used in information systems
2019). In Africa context (South African), Thusi and Maduku (2020) research to provide a general and
comprehensive definition of IS success that
demonstrates that the millennials’ intention to adopt M-Banking apps
covers different perspectives on the
depends mainly on the habit, performance expectancy, perceived risk, evaluation of information systems. The
facilitating conditions, and institution-based trust; while millennials’ model can be interpreted as follows: a
M-Banking app behaviour is influenced by the behavioural intention, system can be evaluated in terms of
perceived risk, and facilitating conditions. information, system, and service quality;
these characteristics influence subsequent
All these studies are generally based on IS/IT theories and models use or intent to use and user satisfaction.
about the adoption, use, and impact of IT such as the Technology Use of the system will result in some net
Acceptance Model (TAM), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of benefits that will influence (positively or
Technology (UTAUT), Information System Success Model (ISSM) and negatively) user satisfaction and the
subsequent use of the system/technology.
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and others. Table 2 gives a syn­
This model was used by Baabdullah et al.
thetic description of these theories, which are very important in infor­ (2019) to measure the loyalty and
mation system research, and Fig. 1 sketches our research model (continued on next page)
developed from the literature review. This research model was used to

4
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
Table 2 (continued )
IS/IT Theories and Models Descriptions
satisfaction of M-Banking consumers in
Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Zhou (2013) shows
that information quality, systems quality,
and services quality are the crucial factors
for examining continuance intention for
mobile payment services.
PMT (Charki et al., 2011; Floyd et al., According to Floyd et al. (2000), “the
2000; Rogers, 1975) protection motivation concept involves any
threat for which there is an effective
recommended response that can be carried out
by the individual”. As developed by Rogers
(1975) from the theory of expected value,
then revised to include reward and
self-efficacy components, this theory, as this
theory aimed to explain the consequences of
fear appeals on health, attitudes, and
behaviors. Also, they wanted to
demonstrate that communications that
provoke fear in individuals have a
significant impact on their choice of
behavior. This theory is used in this study to
deal with notions such as security in
financial transactions made through
M-Banking apps, fears about the mobile
phone, as this tool contains personal and
financial information about individuals (
Mombeuil, 2020; Shareef et al., 2018).
understand how the concepts related to the rational perception of users,
mobile terminal security, and behavioral control can contribute to the
intention to adopt the M-Banking app and as well its use. Moreover, this
model was also used to know if the M-Banking app fostering financial
inclusion.
3.1. Rational perception of M-Banking app
According to Song et al. (2015), Rational perception refers to the
attributes of using an M-Banking app to influence adoption. To have a
rational perception of things is to privilege the fact of being able to
measure, quantify, and delimit them in a precise way. When we have a
Fig. 1. Research model.
5
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
rational perception of the Mobile Wallet, we focus on measuring it and
all that results from it, such as the perceived quality of the system and
services, status gain, perceived usefulness, mobility, and adaptability,
which are, according to Park and Joon (2013), important factors in the
acceptance and intention to use technology by users. Our study took an
exploratory approach, drawing on the existing literature on the
M-Banking (apps), Mobile Money (Wallet) to determine the most
influential factors of rational perception in the intention to adopt this
technology by consumers. We thus have to identify the following as
determinants: Utilitarian Expectation (UE), Hedonic Expectation
(HE), Status Gains (SG), and Status Loss Avoidance (SLA).
Utilitarian Expectation is “the extent to which using the M-Banking
app is perceived as providing benefits to the user” (Davis, 1989; Kavota
et al., 2020; Song et al., 2015). It is often defined as the extent to which
an individual believes that the use of a particular system or IT would
improve his or her job performance (Davis, 1989; Kavota et al., 2020;
Song et al., 2015). If the use of an M-Banking app is perceived to be very
comprehensive, then this is the technology where the user believes there
is a positive relationship between usage and performance in these daily
activities (Davis, 1989; Kavota et al., 2020; Ntsafack et al., 2018). We
then formulate the following hypothesis:
H1. Utilitarian Expectation has a positive influence on the Intention to
Adopt the M-Banking app.
Hedonic Expectation is “the extent to which using the M-Banking app
is perceived as pleasuring the user” (Alalwan et al., 2017; Song et al., 2015;
Venkatesh et al., 2012). Introduced in the UTAUT2 model, it demon­
strates that the overall user experience of the technology is as important
as the internal beliefs and associated utility of the technology in con­
sumer adoption (Alalwan et al., 2017; Song et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al.,
2012). Song et al. (2015) argue that consumers often use mobile tech­
nology services for hedonistic fun. The hedonic expectation has a posi­
tive influence on the intention to adopt the Mobile technologies/services
and also on its Utilitarian Expectation (Song et al., 2015). Therefore, we
hypothesize that:
H2a. Hedonic Expectation has a positive influence on the Intention to
Adopt the M-Banking app.
H2b. The Hedonic Expectation has a positive influence on the
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
Utilitarian Expectation.
Status Gains: “the extent to which using an M-Banking app is perceived
as increasing the user’s status” (Song et al., 2015). According to Rogers
(2004) in his theory of innovation diffusion, the desire to obtain status is
an important reason for the adoption of innovation by individuals. In­
novations thus occupy a special place among products capable of
expressing identity, as individuals adopt new personal technologies not
only for what they do (“their functional value”), but also for what they
mean (“their symbolic value”) (Karahanna et al., 1999; Larson and
Shevchenko, 2010; Venkatesh and Brown, 2001). Innovations and new
technologies have the potential for so-called “grey” identity signage, as
they allow the user to express him/herself to other adopters and
non-adopters by, for example, signaling his/her status or need for
uniqueness (Bagozzi and Lee, 2002). For Karahanna et al. (1999),
Venkatesh and Brown (2001), and Song et al. (2015), individuals may
perceive their social image as improved if their innovation adoption
behaviors are considered socially desirable. We, therefore, make the
following hypothesis:
H3a. Status Gains has a positive influence on the Intention to Adopt
the M-Banking app.
H3b. Status Gains has a positive influence on the Hedonic Expectation.
H3c. Status Gains has a negative influence on Utilitarian Expectation.
Status Loss Avoidance: “the extent to which using an M-Banking app is
perceived as avoiding the user’s loss of status” (Bao et al., 2003; Song et al.,
2015). This loss of status can be a very serious issue and can affect an
individual’s ability to function effectively in social life, which means
that avoiding loss of status becomes one of the main concerns of con­
sumers exposed to a technology (Bagozzi and Lee, 2002; Bao et al., 2003;
Song et al., 2015). For example, it is noted that some consumers often
feel compelled to adopt technology such as M-Banking. The adoption of
new technologies can also be determined by an individual’s need for
identification (Bagozzi and Lee, 2002). This identification is either a
characteristic of interpersonal or group relationships, thus reinforcing a
person’s social identity and solidifying his or her membership in a
group. Thus, we assume that the status loss avoidance is positively
related to the intention to adopt Mobile Wallet and utilitarian
expectation:
H4a. Status Loss Avoidance has a negative influence on the Intention
to Adopt the M-Banking app.
H4b. Status Loss Avoidance has a positive influence on Utilitarian
Expectation.
3.2. Terminal and app security
Considered as an emulation of E-Banking services on a mobile app,
M-Banking is subject to individuals’ concerns about security (for both
the mobile device and the stored data). Like any app on mobile phones,
Mobile Banking users can theoretically be exposed to data or cell phone
theft, identity theft (Tu et al., 2015). Combining protection-motivation
with social learning theories, Tu et al. (2015) examine the roles of key
information sources in the development of threat assessment and
adaptation, considering the loss and theft of mobile devices as an
increased risk. Knowledge about countermeasures, social influences, and
threat experience influence not only user adaptation and threat assess­
ment but also the intentions to adapt to information security risks in case
of loss or theft of a mobile device (Shareef et al., 2018; Tu et al., 2015).
Lee and Larsen (2009), Johnston and Warkentin (2010), and Tu et al.
(2015) define the threat as an “external factor that triggers a physiological
response and whose existence is independent of whether an individual per­
ceives it or not”. Threat assessment is often examined through perceived
vulnerability and perceived severity (Johnston and Warkentin, 2010;
Lee and Larsen, 2009; Tu et al., 2015; Workman et al., 2008). Further­
more, with the explosion of 3G/4G/5G networks and the growing use of
6
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
mobile terminals imposed as a preferred means of access for our leisure,
work application, or part of our social life, privacy concerns are
becoming increasingly important and should be considered in threat
assessment (Dinev and Hart, 2004; Dolnicar and Jordaan, 2007; Jung,
2017; Shareef et al., 2018). This privacy threat refers to perceptions of
opportunistic behavior related to the spread of personal information
transmitted over the Internet. Mobile phones allow access to a
phenomenal amount of sensitive information, especially for pro­
fessional/personal use (financial transactions) (Shareef et al., 2018). If
any of this information falls into the wrong hands, whether through
malware or because a device is lost or stolen, it can have a devastating
effect on an individual’s activities (Gu et al., 2017; Jung, 2017; Tu et al.,
2015; Virginie, 2016). It is therefore important to know how to secure
your mobile device. If these devices are not deployed, used, and
managed properly by users, they can present significant security threats
(Jung, 2017; Tu et al., 2015; Virginie, 2016). In this study, we tried to
see whether the notions of threat perceptions (Perceived Severity,
Perceived Vulnerability, and Perceived Privacy Concern) related to the
security of mobile terminals used for accessing users’ mobile accounts
can be key factors in the adoption and intention to use the “SARA”
M-Banking app.
Perceived Vulnerability (PV) refers to “the subjectively estimated
conditional probability that the threat event will occur, provided there is no
adaptive behavior or no existing behavioral arrangement” (Boss et al., 2015;
Dinev and Hart, 2004; Tu et al., 2015; Workman et al., 2008). By
thinking of himself or herself as the center of attention, an individual
comes to believe that he or she is special and unique (Boss et al., 2015;
Workman et al., 2008). Workman et al. (2008) and Singh et al. (2020)
explored the IS security field to show how this sense of invulnerability
can influence users to take fewer security precautions. Perceived
Severity (PS) refers to “the degree of physical harm, psychological harm,
social threat, economic harm, and danger to oneself and others” (Liang and
Xue, 2009; Tu et al., 2015; Workman et al., 2008). It assesses M-Banking
app users’ perception of fear to the extent that they believe a threat will
cause significant damage (Boss et al., 2015; Liang and Xue, 2009; Tu
et al., 2015; Workman et al., 2008). Perceived Privacy Concern (PPC)
refers to perceptions of opportunistic behavior related to the spread of
personal data transmitted over the Internet (Mombeuil, 2020; Shareef
et al., 2018). These concerns are perceived at several levels in the case of
the M-Banking app, Mobile Wallet (Dinev and Hart, 2004; Dolnicar and
Jordaan, 2007; Jung, 2017; Mombeuil, 2020). Shaw and Sergueeva
(2019) identifies several concepts that makeup users’ perceived privacy
concerns: perceived privacy protection; perceived risk and perceived
transaction risk. These concepts help explain the perceived privacy
concerns (confidentiality, integrity, availability, and protection of users’
personal and financial data by the service provider) of individuals in
their intention to adopt information technologies (M-Banking app)
(Matemba and Li, 2018; Mombeuil, 2020; Shaw and Sergueeva, 2019;
Workman et al., 2008).
Therefore, we can posit that:
H5. There is a significatively relationship between Perceived Severity
and Perceived Privacy Concern.
H6. There is a significatively relationship between Perceived Vulner­
ability and Perceived Privacy Concern.
H7a. Perceived Severity is significatively related to the Intention to
Adopt the M-Banking app.
H7b. Perceived Vulnerability is significatively related to the Intention
to Adopt the M-Banking app.
H7c. Perceived Privacy Concern is significatively related to the
Intention to Adopt the M-Banking app.
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
3.3. Behavior control
Concerning the adoption and use of new technologies, several studies
have demonstrated the influence of internal factors, which are specific
to each individual (example: psychological factors), and external fac­
tors, which do not depend on an individual (example: the characteristics
of a mobile app). These behavioral control factors generally play a
critical role in a person’s intention to use technology. In this study, we
chose as a variable Habit (HA) and Quality Concern (QC), because the
study is carried out in a context characterized by the popularization of
Mobile Money services.
Habit (HA) is defined as the extent to which individuals tend to
automatically adopt relatively permanent and stable behaviors that
become second nature as a result of learning (Baptista and Oliveira,
2015; Farah Maya, Hasni Muhammad Junaid and Abbas Abbas, 2018;
Venkatesh et al., 2012). Thus, we can observe that habit is associated
with automaticity and repetition in the execution of an action. Indeed, it
is a power that facilitates the effort in the use of technology such as the
M-Banking app (Baabdullah et al., 2019; Ramírez-Correa et al., 2019).
Moreover, understanding the habit is key to increasing the use and
intention to adopt the technology by individuals (Farah Maya et al.,
2018; Ramírez-Correa et al., 2019). Repeated use of the M-Banking app
can gradually increase or decrease additivity in the use of this service
(Baabdullah et al., 2019; Baptista and Oliveira, 2015; Farah Maya et al.,
2018). We therefore hypothesize:
H8a. Habit has a positive influence on the intention to adopt the M-
Banking app.
Quality Concern (QC) is “the extent to which one perceives poor quality
to inhibit him/her to use an M-Banking app” (Krafft et al., 2017; Song et al.,
2015). Quality Concern is essential to increase the adoption and use of a
technology/service/product, and especially very important for the
technology/service/product supplier because low utilization rates could
lead to a high working capital ratio of the service provided and a loss by
one or more suppliers (Mehta et al., 2018; Song et al., 2015). In some
countries, such as China, the quality concern is an indispensable lever in
the process of adopting and using technology, to the point of surpassing
other characteristics (Song et al., 2015). Accordingly, we can
hypothesize:
H8b. Quality Concern has a negative influence on the intention to
adopt the M-Banking app.
3.4. Adoption intention for, use, and impacts of M-Banking app
3.4.1. Intention to adopt M-Banking app
Adoption intention is defined as the strength of an individual’s
intention to adopt and use the M-Banking app or technology in general
in the more or less distant future (Venkatesh and Brown, 2001; Ven­
katesh et al., 2003). Another definition describes it as planning to
experiment or regularly use banking services on a mobile app (Natarajan
et al., 2017; Venkatesh and Brown, 2001; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Thus,
adoption intention finally refers to the frequency and manner in which
an individual intends to use technology in general or the M-Banking app
in particular (Natarajan et al., 2017; Ramírez-Correa et al., 2019). It is
widely used in the literature to predict an individual’s adoption and use
of a technology based on the constructs of perceived rationality and
behavioral control of the TAM and UTAUT models (Natarajan et al.,
2017; Ramírez-Correa et al., 2019; Song et al., 2015). The use of banking
services via a mobile phone such as Mobile Money/Wallet is already
becoming pervasive and beneficial to users (Mombeuil, 2020; Singh and
Sinha, 2020). We have tried in this study to understand the exploitati­
ve/explorative and prolonged use of the M-Banking “SARA by Afriland”
app, among other adopters. Especially since this solution proposed by
this institution is part of a market dominated respectively by Orange and
MTN (and which already has adequate infrastructure, flexible and
optimized for the deployment of Mobile Money technology) (Bive’e,
7
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
2020). Thus, in this study, we have focused on how individuals who
have adopted the M-Banking app use them effectively. This use effi­
ciency is characterized by using more of the system’s functions to
accomplish tasks (exploitative use) and looking for new ways to use the
system’s functions (explorative use) (Azoulay-Schwartz et al., 2004;
Osiyevskyy and Dewald, 2015; Sun et al., 2019). The following hy­
potheses are therefore formulated:
H9a. Intention to Adopt the M-Banking app has a positive influence on
its Exploitative Use.
H9b. Intention to Adopt the M-Banking app has a positive influence on
its Explorative Use.
3.4.2. Exploitative/explorative use of M-Banking app and impacts
Due to the presence of several mobile banking solutions in our study
context, we felt it was worthwhile to achieve an in-depth study of the use
of the M-Banking app by customers. Besides, it was imperative to
explore the Explorative and Exploitative Use of the M-Banking app.
Exploitative Use (ETU) refers to using more of the system’s functions to
accomplish daily tasks (Azoulay-Schwartz et al., 2004; Osiyevskyy and
Dewald, 2015; Sun et al., 2019). Also, by making greater use of the
features of the M-Banking app, users are motivated to gain more expe­
rience, usefulness, and knowledge about it. In the case of M-Banking,
users use the multifunction app for a wide variety of purposes and at a
pace that is unique to each user. As a result, a user can only engage in
activities of a more exploratory nature if he or she already has an
overview of the application obtained through exploratory use. There­
fore, the use of exploitation by individuals should influence the use of
exploration in the context of M-Banking (Azoulay-Schwartz et al., 2004;
Osiyevskyy and Dewald, 2015; Sun et al., 2019). So, the Explorative
Use (ERU) refers to the use of the M-Banking app to search for new ways
of using its functionalities. This implies that users actively review the use
of their M-Banking app in response to changes in the context of use as a
means of achieving a better match between the app and the context in
which they use it. In other words, through explorative use, users always
try to check if some new features of the technology they are using can be
linked to new tasks/services in their context. So, Higher levels of
experience and knowledge will improve the ability of these M-Banking
app users to use the system more creatively, making it a place for
innovation (Koo et al., 2015; Sun et al., 2019). Indeed, these uses can
influence the users’ intention to innovate, because they have a good
perception of the ability to analyze the tasks offered to them by the
M-Banking app (Haerem and Rau, 2007; Koo et al., 2015; Sun et al.,
2019). This exploitation/exploration of the technology allows users to
discover features that meet their personal/professional needs (Koo et al.,
2015; Sun et al., 2019). Thus, in the long term, these uses will foment
increased user satisfaction/loyalty, which will increase both usage
intention and reciprocal use (Delone and McLean, 2003; Venkatesh
et al., 2003). Therefore, we set forth the following hypotheses:
H10. Exploitative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive influence on
its Explorative Use
H11a. Exploitative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive effect on
users’ Intention to Innovate.
H11b. Explorative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive effect on
users’ Intention to Innovate.
H12 (a-b). Exploitative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive in­
fluence on Loyalty and User Satisfaction.
H12 (c-d). Explorative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive in­
fluence on Loyalty and User Satisfaction.
Since the start of their deployment, Mobile Money services have
become an increasingly important part of financial transactions in Af­
rican countries. Mobile money’s spread has been encouraged by an
impressive upsurge in the number of mobile phone subscribers. Through
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
its various uses and functionalities, a technology like M-Banking sheds
more light on how an economy evolves, including the influence on
financial inclusion (Burns, 2018; Etim, 2014; Ndung’u, 2018). Finan­
cial Inclusion (FI) defines the possibility for individuals and companies
to have access at a lower cost to a whole range of useful financial
products and services adapted to their needs (transactions, payments,
savings, credit, and insurance) offered by reliable and responsible ser­
vice providers (Ndung’u, 2018; Okello et al., 2018; Zaffar et al., 2019).
Financial inclusion is the set of measures put in place to combat banking
and financial exclusion (Ndung’u, 2018; Okello et al., 2018; Zaffar et al.,
2019). It seeks to facilitate access to low-cost financial products and
services such as microcredit for populations excluded from the tradi­
tional banking system (Okello et al., 2018). In this study, we have used
the 04 financial inclusion constructs (Access, Usage, Quality/R­
elevance, Welfare) to cover all aspects of this concept. Each construct
respectively refers to: (1) the ability of financial institutions to provide
financial products and services taking into account regulations, the level
of technology and market requirements; (2) the frequency and duration
of use of financial products and services; (3) the ability of the financial
service or product to meet the needs of consumers (e.g., the degree of
product relevance, safety, consumer protection); and (4) the ability of
the financial service or product to improve the lives of consumers from
an economic, financial and social perspective (N’Dri and Kakinaka,
2020; Okello et al., 2018; Zins and Weill, 2016). Chaix and Torre (2015),
Okello et al. (2018), Zaffar et al. (2019), and Talom and Tengeh (2020)
have shown how the rapid adoption of mobile telephony in developing
countries is influencing the payment habits of their populations, as well
as their financial inclusion through mobile payment service­
s/technologies. Thus, we formulate the following hypotheses:
H13. (a-d)Exploitative Use of the M-Banking app has a positive in­
fluence on Financial Inclusion (Access, Usage, Quality / Relevance,
Welfare).
H14. (a-d)Explorative Usage of the M-Banking app has a positive in­
fluence on Financial Inclusion (Access, Use, Quality/Relevance,
Welfare).
4. Methodology and measurement model
To test the hypotheses, we built a research model that used a
Fig. 2. Methodology process.
8
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
hypothetic-deductive approach based on quantitative data. This
approach is widely used in the social and management sciences,
particularly in IS/IT studies (Babones, 2015; Chatterjee, 2019; Die­
gmann et al., 2017). According to Babones (2015), compared to tradi­
tional positivist approaches, the quantitative approach produces results
that are both more meaningful and understandable applicable. To better
understand all the facets of our study, we divided this approach into four
steps (Fig. 2): conceptual development, refinement of the conceptual
framework, data collection, and data analysis and discussion.
4.1. Conceptual development
From the review of the literature on the adoption and use of the
Mobile Money and M-Banking app, we note that there are several the­
ories and models for IT acceptance, use, and impacts. The adaptation of
these theories to a given study depends on the prevailing context. In our
case, we have paid particular attention to a set of variables coming from
models and theoretical foundations such as TAM, PMT, UTAUT2, ISSM.
These theories and models are widely used in the IS field to explain or
verify the factors determining the adoption and use of a given technol­
ogy, including especially an M-Banking app, by individuals. This liter­
ature review is a very important step as it enables us to define the scope
of our study and develop our research model and the questionnaire. The
model is developed based on theories that allow us to better understand
and measure the impact of the elements we are studying. The ques­
tionnaire was designed using our research model, which is made up of
nineteen (19) constructed, eighty-four (96) items. To measure our items,
we used the Likert scale with seven (07) levels (1 = Strongly disagree, 2
= Disagree, 3 Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 =
Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree) (Kavota et al., 2020;
Wanko et al., 2019). While providing a range of responses to a given
question or statement, this scale is commonly used to measure attitude
(Kavota et al., 2020; Wanko et al., 2019). We then designed the ques­
tionnaire in Microsoft Word before editing it in the Google Forms online
application to generate the link enabling easy distribution of the ques­
tionnaire while limiting errors during the design and completion pro­
cess. The completed questionnaire was then followed by a pre-test, a
phase that took place on April 8–19, 2019, and consisted of distributing
our questionnaire to a few people from various fields (with little or no
knowledge of scientific research in management) to verify if our
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

questionnaire was easily understandable by everyone (Akram et al., had, as useable results, 223 respondents (above the minimum sample
2020; Kavota et al., 2020; Mombeuil, 2020). During this phase, the size) out of 600 users surveyed, a response rate of 37.2%. Subsequently,
criticisms and remarks made by participants were considered, and cor­ the data analysis was done on the SmartPLS (v. 3.3.2) software
rections made to our questionnaire to render it less inconsistent and (Chaouali and Souiden, 2019; Koay et al., 2020), based on the steps of
more understandable (Akram et al., 2020; Kavota et al., 2020; Mom­ assessing measurement model quality in partial least squares structural
beuil, 2020). Some fifteen (15) people with various profiles were equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using confirmatory composite analysis
therefore selected for the pre-test phase. Thanks to our pre-test, we were (CCA) for reflective research model initiated by (Hair et al., 2020; Tar­
able to make some modifications, in particular: (1) we reviewed the nanidis et al., 2015). We applied the PLS Algorithm, Bootstrapping, and
measurement scales of our constructs and the shape of some questions Consistent PLS Algorithms through the different calculation procedures
that seemed redundant; (2) the size of our questionnaire was modified: of SmartPLS. Indeed, for each step related to CCA, we respect the rec­
we went from twelve (12) to ten (10) pages; (3) we redefined some items ommendations enacted by Geisser (1974), Stone (1974), Henseler et al.
without however moving away from the initial idea as defined by the (2015), Hair et al. (2016), Hair et al. (2019), Hair et al. (2020) and
author so that they are more understandable; (4) and finally, we Chaouali and Souiden (2019) for the (1) assessment of construct reli­
answered the question as to why the questionnaire is oriented to users of ability and fiability; (2) assessment of construct validity; and (3)
the M-Banking app and not to all customers of the bank. assessment of the validity of relationships between latent variables; and
(4) multi-group analysis.
4.2. Refinement of the conceptual framework
5. Results and analysis
Once the research model and questionnaire were designed, we con­
ducted a pilot test (Kapoor and Vij, 2018; Kavota et al., 2020). This test Our dataset includes two hundred and twenty-three (223) observa­
aimed at verifying the robustness, reliability, and accuracy of our tions that constitute the responses to the questionnaire we submitted to
research model using a minimum sample of our study population users of the “SARA by Afriland First Bank” app. Table 3 presents the
(Kapoor and Vij, 2018; Kavota et al., 2020). Thus, we verified whether unique characteristics of our study population.
each item measured the corresponding construct. Furthermore, this test
allowed us to verify the adequacy of the relationships between con­
structs, that is, to ensure that there is no ambiguity for the respondent 5.1. Assessing measurement model
(Kapoor and Vij, 2018; Kavota et al., 2020). The purpose of this step is to
give credit to the answers collected and to verify the correlation between Table 4 summarizes the assessment of the measurement model.
the problem treated and the selected sample. No changes were made to Whether it is Alpha Cronbach, Composite Reliability, and Average
our baseline items after the pilot test was taken into account. Thus, we Variance Extracted (AVE), we can notice that the acceptability thresh­
were able to proceed with the collection of data from users of the olds of these indicators are all respected. Moreover, the careful obser­
“SARA” M-Banking app, via our questionnaire made up of nineteen (19) vation of all our items (Table A1) shows that they contribute well to the
constructed to which we added questions related to demographics. To formation of our constructs, this being materialized by the fact that each
ensure that the results from the structural equation method are robust of our indicators has an “Outer Loading” higher than the thresholds as
and generalize the model, it is essential to determine the minimum recommended by Hair et al. (2016), Ramírez-Correa et al. (2019), Koay
sample size. To do so, we used the GPower (v.3.1.9.4) software from et al. (2020) and Hair et al. (2020). Furthermore, Table A1 shows that
Faul et al. (2007). Thus, to calculate the size of our sample, we have the multicollinearity is not a problem in our study, because all VIF values of
following input data: Effect size f2 = 0.15, Power (1-β err pob) = 0.8, the items are less than 5 (Kapoor and Vij, 2018; Koay et al., 2020;
probability α err = 0.05, the number of predictors = 19 (Faul et al., Ramírez-Correa et al., 2019). Overall, we can conclude that our items
2009; Faul et al., 2007; Sarstedt et al., 2014). After analyzing these contribute well to the formation of our latent variables.
parameters, the software returns one hundred and fifty-three (153) as The distinction of each construct from the others is demonstrated in
the minimum sample size for testing the hypotheses of our research. Table 5 following the Fornell-Larcker criterion approach, which com­
pares the value of the square root of the AVE (along the diagonal) to the
4.3. Data collection correlations of the latent variables (Bawack and Kala, 2020; Hair et al.,
2016, 2020; Henseler et al., 2015; Koay et al., 2020). In addition to this
We designed our questionnaire in a Microsoft Word file (Appendix). criterion, Henseler et al. (2015), Hair et al. (2020), and Koay et al.
We then formatted it on Google Forms so that we could submit it elec­ (2020) recommends testing the homogeneity of our search model by
tronically using information technology to users of the “SARA by Afri­ using the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). So,
land First Bank “M-Banking app. We also worked closely with the staff at
“AFRILAND First Bank” to reach as many users as possible. We then sent Table 3
the link to the online questionnaire (by email and WhatsApp) to users to Sample demographics description.
complete it via a cell phone, computer, or other suitable electronic de­ Sample No. Of Category Frequency Rel. Frequency
vices via an Internet connection. We sent this link to about 500 users of categories per category per category
(%)
the app, a quarter of whom were employees of “AFRILAND First Bank”
because they could easily distribute the questionnaire to “SARA” app Age (years) 5 <25 40 18%
users. Putting our questionnaire on Google Forms allows firstly to 26–35 93 42%
36–45 38 17%
perform several checks such as the missing values test to check the
45–50 23 10%
validity of the answers and secondly to receive the answers ready for >50 29 13%
analysis as a CSV extension in an Excel file. Gender 2 Male 121 54%
Female 102 46%
Highest 4 Secondary 2 1%
4.4. Data analysis and discussion
educational Bachelor 78 35%
level degree
Once the collection was stopped and the data gathered, we embarked Master’s 108 48%
on data processing. We checked the missing data in our file. We also degree and
noted the absence of atypical responses (when a respondent had the above
Other 35 16%
same answer to almost all questions). At the end of our collection, we

9
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table 4

Note: AC = Access, HE=Hedonic Expectation, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, HA=Habit, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of Innovation, PPC=Perceived Privacy Concern,
PS=Perceived Severity, PV=Perceived Vulnerability, QC = Quality Concern, QU = Quality, SG=Status Gains, SLA=Status Loss Avoidance, US=User Satisfaction, UE=Utilitarian Expectation, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/
0.842
Assessment of the measurement model.

WB
Constructs Cronbach’s Composite Average Variance
alpha Reliability Extracted (AVE)

0.763
0.385
Access 0.917 0.928 0.518

USG
Hedonic 0.746 0.855 0.664
Expectation
Explorative Use 0.760 0.845 0.577

0.829
0.760
0.322
Exploitative Use 0.907 0.929 0.686

US
Habit 0.828 0.883 0.654
Intention to Adopt 0.873 0.908 0.663
Locus if Innovation 0.813 0.891 0.733

0.787
0.686
0.622
0.276
Loyalty 0.809 0.887 0.725

UE
Perceived Privacy 0.898 0.921 0.662
Concern
Perceived Severity 0.795 0.878 0.706

− 0.005
Perceived 0.868 0.919 0.790

0.804
0.144

0.112
0.397
Vulnerability

SLA
Quality Concern 0.857 0.891 0.671
Quality 0.889 0.915 0.644
Status Gains 0.880 0.925 0.805

0.897
0.651
0.179
0.031
0.203
0.346
Status Loss 0.816 0.843 0.648

SG
Avoidance
User Satisfaction 0.846 0.897 0.686
Utilitarian 0.897 0.919 0.619

0.802
0.237
0.128
0.625
0.738
0.695
0.365
Expectation

QU
Usage 0.927 0.938 0.582
Welfare/Wellbeing 0.798 0.879 0.708

0.818
0.134
0.160
0.088
0.192
0.085
0.117
0.220
QC
Table 6 shows compliance with this criterion, with coefficients taking
into account all the thresholds identified by the previous authors. So, We
can see that each coefficient in the table is less than 0.85 or 0.9, which

0.889
0.256
0.108
0.032
0.206
0.209
0.314
0.190
0.166
PV

are the recommended thresholds (Hair et al., 2019, 2020; Henseler et al.,
2015; Koay et al., 2020).

***The diagonal is the square root of the AVE of the Latent variable and indicates the highest in any column or row.
0.840
0.673
0.318
0.125
0.035
0.076
0.214
0.253
0.144
0.109
PS

5.2. Assessment of the structural model

The first indicator to verify in the assessment of the structural model

0.814
0.576
0.473
0.609
0.160
0.147
0.173
0.225
0.147
0.148
0.167
PPC

is the determination coefficient (R2) because the purpose of the PLS-SEM

method is to determine the prediction level of the research model
(Bawack and Kala, 2020; Hair et al., 2020; Koay et al., 2020; Ramír­
0.852
0.181
0.125
0.170
0.102
0.630
0.156
0.021
0.564
0.714
0.686
0.190
ez-Correa et al., 2019). As shown in Table 7 almost all latent variables
LO

have a coefficient of determination greater than or equal to 0.25 except

Welfare (WB) and Hedonic Expectation (HE). Obviously, this explains
the fact that use (Exploitative and Explorative) alone is not enough to
0.856
0.569
0.149
0.151
0.231
0.161
0.633
0.197
0.137
0.569
0.607
0.537
0.256
explain the Welfare (financial inclusion) of individuals using mobile
LI

banking technology. Indeed, the other constructs of financial inclusion

(Access, Usage, and Quality/Relevance) have been explained correctly
Assessment of the discriminant validity using Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

0.814
0.611
0.622
0.286
0.304
0.279
0.147
0.665
0.022
0.065
0.666
0.709
0.629
0.314

by the Exploitative/Explorative use of M-Banking apps. Furthermore,

IA

with R2 = 0.685 we can say that intention to adopt M-Banking app has
been well explained by all our variables as the most determining factors
0.815
0.417
0.395
0.346
0.164
0.186
0.249
0.182
0.370
0.377
0.240
0.422
0.351
0.292
0.396

(the personal perception of the user, terminal security, and behavioral

HE

control, respectively). Furthermore, we can assume the Exploitative and

Explorative use of the M-Banking app was able to explain the different
constructs of financial inclusion, except WB (R2 = 0.183), where their
0.809
0.522
0.564
0.576
0.470
0.049
0.134
0.225
0.138
0.543
0.258
0.159
0.667
0.616
0.494
0.364
HA

contribution is weak. Moreover, the Exploitative and Explorative use of

the M-Banking app explains very well the user satisfaction and loyalty of
the M-Banking app “SARA”.
0.828
0.484
0.252
0.661
0.626
0.715
0.200
0.130
0.220
0.086
0.571
0.104
0.042
0.587
0.672
0.640
0.207
ETU

Using the Bootstrapping method, we performed the analyses pre­

sented in Fig. 3 and summarized in Table 8. This table shows the values
that allow us to test the hypotheses of our research model. It shows that
0.759
0.484
0.502
0.390
0.491
0.359
0.391
0.119
0.219
0.352
0.178
0.437
0.137
0.192
0.434
0.547
0.458
0.339
ERU

22 out of the 32 hypotheses were supported. UE (β = 0.465, p < 0.001),

HE (β = 0.224, p < 0.01), SG (β = 0.456, p < 0.001), PPC (β = 0.277, p <
0.01), and HA (β = 0.247, p < 0.001) are significantly associated with
0.715
0.538
0.492
0.508
0.438
0.570
0.494
0.475
0.155
0.233
0.333
0.075
0.615
0.275
0.286
0.495
0.625
0.669
0.486

the intention to adopt M-Banking app. Conversely, SLA (β = 0.055, p =

AC

0.582), QC (β = -0.167, p = 0.193), PS (β = 0.040, p = 0.188), and PV (β

Wellbeing.

= -0.119, p = 0.509) have no influence on individual’s intention to

Table 5

adopt M-Banking app. IA (β1 = 0.740, β2 = 0.374, p1 < 0.01, p2 < 0.01)
ERU

USG
ETU

PPC

SLA

WB
QU
HA

QC
HE
AC

UE
LO

PV

US
SG
PS
IA
LI

was able to explain 54.7% of the variance of exploitative use and 39.8%

10
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table 7

Notes: AC = Access, HE=Hedonic Expectation, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, HA=Habit, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of Innovation, PPC=Perceived Privacy Concern,
PS=Perceived Severity, PV=Perceived Vulnerability, QC = Quality Concern, QU = Quality, SG=Status Gains, SLA=Status Loss Avoidance, US=User Satisfaction, UE=Utilitarian Expectation, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/
0.443
R Square values.
USG
Construct R2 R Square Adjusted Result

Access 0.445 0.440 Moderate

Explorative Use 0.399 0.394 Moderate

0.859
0.385
UE

Exploitative Use 0.547 0.545 Moderate

Hedonic Expectation 0.208 0.205 Weak
Intention to Adopt 0.685 0.672 Moderate
Locus of Innovation 0.521 0.516 Moderate

0.779
0.678
0.314
Loyalty 0.682 0.679 Moderate
SU

Perceived Privacy Concern 0.438 0.432 Moderate

Quality 0.442 0.437 Moderate
Utilitarian Expectation 0.260 0.250 Weak

0.144
0.087
0.149
0.467
User Satisfaction 0.668 0.665 Moderate
SLA

Usage 0.514 0.510 Moderate

Welfare/Wellbeing 0.183 0.176 Weak
0.793
0.204
0.068
0.226
0.419
SG

of the variance of explorative use. Furthermore, the results also revealed

that ERU (β1 = 0.495, β2 = 0.208, β3 = 0.242, β4 = 0.435, p1 < 0.001, p2
< 0.01, p3 < 0.01, p4 < 0.001) and ETU (β1 = 0.253, β2 = 0.576, β3
0.264
0.160
0.688
0.851
0.759
0.415

0.495, β4 = − 0.012, p1 < 0.001, p2 < 0.001, p3 < 0.001, p4 is not sig­
QU

nificant) were crucial determinants for fostering financial inclusion, as

they accounted for 45.5%, 51.4%, 44.2% and 18.4% (weak), respec­
tively, for all four financial inclusion constructs (AC, USG, QU, and WB).
0.153
0.200
0.211
0.213
0.139
0.145
0.275
QC

Conversely, ETU could not explain the construct welfare of financial

inclusion.
Through the Consistent PLS Bootstrapping, we evaluated the medi­
0.327
0.156
0.099
0.239
0.253
0.376
0.221
0.220

ation between constructs (Hair et al., 2019, 2020; Jebarajakirthy and

PV

Shankar, 2021; Nitzl et al., 2016). We used a mediator model developed

by Nitzl et al. (2016) to categorize the mediation between our latent
variables. Table 9 shows all our verified mediations are partials
0.804
0.386
0.166
0.086
0.122
0.252
0.308
0.175
0.147

(complementary).
PS

With the sample re-use technique in SmartPLS (Blindfolding pro­

cedure), we evaluated Stone-Geisser’s Q2 value based on the recom­
0.659
0.523
0.712
0.191
0.176
0.208
0.245
0.209
0.178
0.192

mendation of Hair et al. (2016), Ramírez-Correa et al. (2019), Koay et al.

PPC

(2020), and Hair et al. (2020). This coefficient helps in assessing and
evaluating the criterion for the cross-validated predictive relevance of
the Partial Least Square path model (Geisser, 1974; Hair et al., 2016;
0.225
0.157
0.210
0.124
0.741
0.186
0.110
0.660
0.871
0.799
0.241

Koay et al., 2020; Stone, 1974). Indeed, Table 10 shows that the Q2
LO

values for AC, ERU, ETU, HE, IA, LI, LO, PPC, QU, UE, US, USG, and WB
are 0.155, 0.147, 0.294, 0.092, 0.355, 0.282, 0.365, 0.225, 0.217,
0.705
0.178
0.186
0.289
0.190
0.744
0.239
0.149
0.658
0.728
0.627
0.330

0.106, 0.346, 0.250 and 0.075, respectively. So, based on the results
LI

presents in Table 10, we affirmed that all endogenous constructs of our

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

research model have a Q2 value larger than zero (Hair et al., 2016, 2020;
Koay et al., 2020). Once reassured of Q2, we also evaluated the effect
0.725
0.750
0.325
0.362
0.328
0.181
0.752
0.172
0.157
0.746
0.822
0.700
0.368

size, f2. This allows researchers to establish the intensity of relationships

IA

among latent variables that are linked (Groβ, 2018; Hair et al., 2020;
Koay et al., 2020). Generally, this intensity is categorized through the f2
0.510
0.498
0.456
0.215
0.247
0.314
0.219
0.457
0.459
0.299
0.512
0.439
0.358
0.508

value ranges as small (0.020–0.149), medium (0.150–0.349), and large

HA

(0.350 and beyond) (Groβ, 2018; Hair et al., 2020; Koay et al., 2020).
Table 11 shows that PS (0.010), PV (0.002), QC (0.018), and SLA (0.003)
do not affect intention to adopt M-banking app while SG (0.054), PPC
0.651
0.623
0.679
0.541
0.098
0.197
0.265
0.151
0.613
0.316
0.224
0.759
0.708
0.534
0.435
ETU

(0.041), HE (0.036), and HA (0.060) all have small effects on IA;

whereas UE (0.210) has a medium effect on IA. Furthermore, ERU
(0.053, 0.051, 0.133, 0.084, respectively) has small effects on QU, USG,
0.532
0.312
0.738
0.728
0.828
0.223
0.170
0.256
0.131
0.622
0.132
0.120
0.645
0.766
0.697
0.233

US, and WB, while ETU (0.264, 0.408, 0.447, 0443, 0.742) is having a
ERU

medium effect on QU and a large effects on USG, US, LI, and LO

respectively.
0.558
0.592
0.497
0.569
0.419
0.486
0.156
0.264
0.423
0.210
0.512
0.175
0.209
0.507
0.653
0.531
0.429
HE

5.3. Multigroup analysis

Based on the criteria set by Sarstedt et al. (2011), Henseler et al.

0.588
0.490
0.532
0.529
0.601
0.534
0.517
0.202
0.272
0.369
0.144
0.643
0.320
0.327
0.504
0.664
0.702
0.588

(2016), Chaouali and Souiden (2019), we perform a multi-group anal­

AC

ysis with MGA function in SmartPLS based on the bootstrapping pro­

Wellbeing.

cedure. We test if pre-defined data groups (Female and Male) have

Table 6

significant differences in their group-specific parameter estimates. Like

ERU

USG
ETU

PPC

SLA

WB
QU
HA

QC
HE
AC

UE
LO

PV

SU
SG
PS
IA
LI

in the case of Jaradat and Faqih (2014), who demonstrated that the

11
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Fig. 3. Structural modeling results.

Table 8
Hypotheses testing.
Hypothesis Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) Path Coefficients T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P -values Remarks

H1: UE - > IA 0.431 0.430 0.095 0.465 4.524 0.000**** Supported

H2a: HE - > IA 0.159 0.150 0.060 0.224 2.672 0.008*** Supported
H2b: HE - > UE 0.413 0.413 0.078 0.528 5.315 0.000**** Supported
H3a: SG - > IA − 0.225 − 0.208 0.077 − 0.288 2.926 0.004*** Supported
H3b:SG - > HE 0.377 0.380 0.057 0.456 6.639 0.000**** Supported
H3c: SG - > UE − 0.009 0.003 0.079 − 0.058 0.113 0.910NS Unsupported
H4a: SLA - > IA 0.048 0.027 0.087 0.055 0.551 0.582NS Unsupported
H4b: SLA - > UE 0.050 0.037 0.118 0.034 0.427 0.669NS Unsupported
H5: PS - > PPC 0.472 0.472 0.074 0.630 6.374 0.000**** Supported
H6: PV - > PPC 0.156 0.157 0.072 0.040 2.160 0.031NS Unsupported
H7a: PS - > IA 0.101 0.092 0.077 0.126 1.318 0.188NS Unsupported
H7b: PV - > IA − 0.047 − 0.031 0.071 − 0.119 0.661 0.509NS Unsupported
H7c: PPC - > IA 0.209 0.193 0.075 0.277 2.782 0.006*** Supported
H8a: HA - > IA 0.246 0.243 0.079 0.247 3.124 0.002*** Supported
H8b: QC - > IA − 0.114 − 0.085 0.088 − 0.167 1.303 0.193NS Unsupported
H9a: IA - > ETU 0.661 0.662 0.042 0.740 15.862 0.000**** Supported
H9b: IA - > ERU 0.303 0.306 0.073 0.374 4.142 0.000**** Supported
H10: ETU - > ERU 0.283 0.281 0.078 0.302 3.611 0.000**** Supported
H11a: ETU - > LI 0.591 0.589 0.059 0.693 10.000 0.000**** Supported
H11b: ERU - > LI 0.073 0.079 0.066 0.048 1.105 0.270 NS Unsupported
H12a: ETU - > LO 0.686 0.685 0.053 0.815 12.860 0.000**** Supported
H12b: ETU - > US 0.532 0.530 0.059 0.560 8.938 0.000**** Supported
H12c: ERU - > LO 0.059 0.062 0.053 0.019 1.102 0.271NS Unsupported
H12d: ERU - > US 0.290 0.292 0.063 0.353 4.607 0.000**** Supported
H13a: ETU - > AC 0.303 0.305 0.071 0.253 4.263 0.000**** Supported
H13b: ETU - > USG 0.547 0.548 0.059 0.576 9.219 0.000**** Supported
H13c: ETU - > QU 0.470 0.471 0.064 0.495 7.317 0.000**** Supported
H13d: ETU - > WB 0.056 0.055 0.075 − 0.012 0.746 0.456NS Unsupported
H14a: ERU - > AC 0.392 0.392 0.077 0.495 5.117 0.000**** Supported
H14b: ERU - > USG 0.193 0.191 0.071 0.208 2.724 0.007*** Supported
H14c: ERU - > QU 0.210 0.210 0.068 0.242 3.095 0.002*** Supported
H14d: ERU - > WB 0.312 0.317 0.086 0.435 3.625 0.000**** Supported

Notes: AC = Access, HE=Hedonic Expectation, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, HA=Habit, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of
Innovation, PPC=Perceived Privacy Concern, PS=Perceived Severity, PV=Perceived Vulnerability, QC = Quality Concern, QU = Quality, SG=Status Gains, SLA=­
Status Loss Avoidance, US=User Satisfaction, UE=Utilitarian Expectation, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/Wellbeing. ****P < 0.001; ***P < 0.01; **P < 0.05; *P < 0.1;
NS
P > = 0.1.

12
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table 9
Assessment of mediations.
Paths Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T Statistics (|O/STDEV|) P -values Result

ETU - > ERU - > AC 0.149 0.148 0.065 2.285 0.023** Complementary (partial mediation)
IA - > ETU - > ERU 0.223 0.222 0.090 2.466 0.014** Complementary (partial mediation)
ETU - > ERU - > LI 0.014 0.014 0.031 0.467 0.640NS Direct-only (no mediation)
ETU - > ERU - > LO 0.006 0.007 0.026 0.223 0.823NS No effect (no mediation)
ETU - > ERU - > QU 0.073 0.067 0.035 2.104 0.036** Complementary (partial mediation)
ETU - > ERU - > US 0.106 0.102 0.046 2.337 0.020** Complementary (partial mediation)
ETU - > ERU - > USG 0.063 0.059 0.037 1.706 0.089* Complementary (partial mediation)

Notes: Notes: AC = Access, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of Innovation, QU = Quality, US=User
Satisfaction, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/Wellbeing. ****P < 0.001; ***P < 0.01; **P < 0.05; *P < 0.1, NSP > = 0.1.

value for the exploitative use was 54.7% (pooled data), 68.4% (female),
Table 10
and 48.3% (male); the explorative use: 39.9% (pooled data), 41.3%
Predictive relevance, Q2.
(female), and 43.5% (male); the loyalty: 68.2% (pooled data), 93.1%
Constructs SSO SSE Q2 (=1-SSE/ Remarks (female), and 54.7% (male); and for financial inclusion (AC, USG, QU,
SSO)
WB): 44.5%, 51.4%, 44.2%, 18.3% (pooled data, respectively), 49.5%,
Access 2453.000 2071.824 0.155 Medium 58.7%,48%, 17.3% (female, respectively) and 46.6%, 50.5%,49.9%,
Explorative Use 892.000 760.648 0.147 Small
23.5% (male, respectively). Concerning the Q2 for different groups, all
Exploitative Use 1338.000 944.467 0.294 Medium
Hedonic Expectation 669.000 607.672 0.092 Small values were above zero, thus justifying once more the high predictive
Intention to Adopt 1115.000 718.731 0.355 Large relevance of the three research models (global, female, and male).
Locus of Innovation 669.000 480.627 0.282 Medium
Loyalty 669.000 424.633 0.365 Large 6. Discussions, implications, limitations, and recommendations
Perceived Privacy 1338.000 1036.419 0.225 Medium
Concern
Quality 1338.000 1047.411 0.217 Medium 6.1. Discussions
Utilitarian Expectation 1561.000 1395.190 0.106 Small
User Satisfaction 892.000 583.561 0.346 Large As we hypothesized, some constructs of rational perception of users
Usage 2453.000 1839.912 0.250 Medium
(UE, HE, SG), mobile terminal security (PPC), and behavioral control
Welfare/Wellbeing 669.000 619.126 0.075 Small
(HA) have significant relationships with the intention to adopt the M-
Notes: SSE: the sum of the square observations, and SSO: The sum of the square Banking app. So, H1, H2a, H3a, H7c, and H8a are verified. As soon as an
prediction errors. individual perceives that the M-Banking app is useful and/or pleasant,
he/she develops more easily an intention to adopt it. This observation is
acceptance behavior of mobile-based technology (example: mobile consistent with the various studies on the IT/IS subject such as Ven­
payment) differs according to gender. The purpose of this analysis is to katesh et al. (2012) and Baabdullah et al. (2019). Status gain has a
find out whether behavior differs according to the gender of the users of positive effect on the user’s hedonic expectation, when an individual
the M-Banking apps. We estimate the research model separately once for perceives that the use of an M-banking app positively influences his
the group of female users and once for the group of male users. Table 12 status or is strongly encouraged by relationships with other users, his
also reports the path coefficients, t-value, and p-values per group as behavior will be positively impacted (Song et al., 2015). He or she will
estimated by SmartPLS software. In exploring the role of gender as a tend to adopt behavior that is favorable to the intention to use and to the
moderator with the multi-group analysis, we note that only hypothesis use itself (Rogers, 2004). Moreover, the habit positively reinforces the
H3a (|Δβ| = 0.343, p < 0.05), and H14b (|Δβ| = 0.273, p < 0.05) is intention to adopt an M-Banking app (Baabdullah et al., 2019; Ven­
accepted. Indeed, it means that there were significant differences be­ katesh et al., 2012). However, the quality concern doesn’t influent an
tween these two clusters (Female and Male) concerning the effects of individual’s intention to adopt the M-Banking app (H8b). Maybe
Status Gain on Intention to adopt M-Banking app, and of Explorative Use because this kind of technology has become an asset for individuals in
of M-Banking app on Financial Inclusion (Usage). Furthermore, as this context characterized by an abundance of efficient mobile money
shown in Table 12, the Intention to adopt M-Banking app achieved an R2 (banking, payment and transfer) solutions.
value of 68.5% (pooled data), 70% (female), and 80.8% (male); the R2 In any financial transaction, customers need first and foremost to be

Table 11
Effect Size, f.2.
AC ERU ETU HE IA LI LO PPC QU UE US USG WB

ERU 0.184 0.007 0.005 0.053 0.133 0.051 0.084

ETU 0.110 0.063 0.443 0.742 0.264 0.447 0.408 0.003
HA 0.060
HE 0.036 0.178
IA 0.073 0.774
PPC 0.041
PS 0.010 0.186
PV 0.002 0.020
QC 0.018
SG 0.165 0.054 0.000
SLA 0.003 0.002
UE 0.210

Notes: AC = Access, HE=Hedonic Expectation, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, HA=Habit, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of
Innovation, PPC=Perceived Privacy Concern, PS=Perceived Severity, PV=Perceived Vulnerability, QC = Quality Concern, QU = Quality, SG=Status Gains, SLA=­
Status Loss Avoidance, US=User Satisfaction, UE=Utilitarian Expectation, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/Wellbeing.

13
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table 12
Partial least squares multigroup (PLS-MGA) analysis results.
Overall sample G1: Female G2: Male Female - Male Hyp

Path t-Value p -values Path t-Value p-Value Path t-Value p-Value Path |t-Value| p-Value Sig? S/NS

H1: UE - > IA 0.465 4.524 0.000 0.470 3.110 0.002 0.393 3.213 0.001 − 0.077 0.403 0.688 No NS
H2a: HE - > IA 0.224 2.672 0.008 0.225 2.118 0.034 0.172 2.518 0.012 − 0.052 0.426 0.671 No NS
H2b: HE - > UE 0.528 5.315 0.000 0.552 6.071 0.000 0.315 2.589 0.010 − 0.237 1.523 0.129 No NS
H3a: SG - > IA − 0.288 2.926 0.004 − 0.077 0.713 0.476 − 0.421 3.834 0.000 − 0.343 2.221 0.027 Yes S
H3b: SG - > HE 0.456 6.639 0.000 0.270 2.673 0.008 0.485 7.615 0.000 0.215 1.865 0.064 No NS
H3c: SG - > UE − 0.058 0.113 0.910 − 0.009 0.099 0.922 − 0.035 0.244 0.807 − 0.025 0.143 0.887 No NS
H4a: SLA - > IA 0.055 0.551 0.582 0.092 0.804 0.422 0.090 0.894 0.372 − 0.002 0.014 0.989 No NS
H4b: SLA - > UE 0.034 0.427 0.669 0.088 0.550 0.583 0.067 0.359 0.720 − 0.021 0.086 0.932 No NS
H5:PS - > PPC 0.630 6.374 0.000 0.411 3.369 0.001 0.526 5.091 0.000 0.115 0.730 0.466 No NS
H6: PV - > PPC 0.040 2.160 0.031 0.091 0.748 0.454 0.216 2.274 0.023 0.125 0.828 0.409 No NS
H7a: PS - > IA 0.126 1.318 0.188 0.043 0.404 0.686 0.150 1.455 0.146 0.107 0.717 0.474 No NS
H7b: PV - > IA − 0.119 0.661 0.509 − 0.116 1.194 0.233 − 0.018 0.182 0.856 0.098 0.707 0.481 No NS
H7c: PPC - > IA 0.277 2.782 0.006 0.009 0.087 0.931 0.282 2.350 0.019 0.273 1.690 0.092 No NS
H8a: HA - > IA 0.247 3.124 0.002 0.208 1.916 0.056 0.305 2.660 0.008 0.097 0.609 0.543 No NS
H8b: QC - > IA − 0.167 1.303 0.193 0.011 0.065 0.949 − 0.108 1.004 0.316 − 0.120 0.597 0.551 No NS
H9a: IA - > ETU 0.740 15.862 0.000 0.734 11.308 0.000 0.623 12.484 0.000 − 0.111 1.386 0.167 No NS
H9b: IA - > ERU 0.374 4.142 0.000 0.465 3.223 0.001 0.227 2.544 0.011 − 0.238 1.455 0.147 No NS
H10: ETU - > ERU 0.302 3.611 0.000 0.106 0.712 0.476 0.382 4.022 0.000 0.276 1.619 0.107 No NS
H11a: ETU - > LI 0.693 10.000 0.000 0.706 9.387 0.000 0.517 6.495 0.000 − 0.189 1.720 0.087 No NS
H11b: ERU - > LI 0.048 1.105 0.270 − 0.007 0.084 0.933 0.141 1.388 0.165 0.148 1.096 0.274 No NS
H12a: ETU - > LO 0.815 12.860 0.000 0.776 14.631 0.000 0.633 7.374 0.000 − 0.142 1.362 0.175 No NS
H12b: ETU - > US 0.560 8.938 0.000 0.495 4.916 0.000 0.564 8.062 0.000 0.069 0.575 0.566 No NS
H12c: ERU - > LO 0.019 1.102 0.271 0.092 1.918 0.055 0.033 0.342 0.732 − 0.060 0.531 0.596 No NS
H12d: ERU - > US 0.353 4.607 0.000 0.355 3.410 0.001 0.250 3.802 0.000 − 0.105 0.882 0.379 No NS
H13a: ETU - > AC 0.253 4.263 0.000 0.211 1.667 0.096 0.409 5.824 0.000 0.197 1.420 0.157 No NS
H13b: ETU - > USG 0.576 9.219 0.000 0.509 5.819 0.000 0.634 9.221 0.000 0.125 1.141 0.255 No NS
H13c: ETU - > QU 0.495 7.317 0.000 0.467 4.454 0.000 0.491 6.137 0.000 0.024 0.182 0.856 No NS
H13d: ETU - > WB − 0.012 0.746 0.456 − 0.088 0.757 0.449 0.152 1.513 0.131 0.240 1.579 0.116 No NS
H14a: ERU - > AC 0.495 5.117 0.000 0.495 4.457 0.000 0.301 3.078 0.002 − 0.194 1.324 0.187 No NS
H14b: ERU - > USG 0.208 2.724 0.007 0.314 3.099 0.002 0.042 0.461 0.645 − 0.273 2.026 0.044 Yes S
H14c: ERU - > QU 0.242 3.095 0.002 0.253 2.303 0.021 0.186 2.088 0.037 − 0.067 0.484 0.629 No NS
H14d: ERU - > WB 0.435 3.625 0.000 0.360 3.025 0.003 0.294 2.643 0.008 − 0.067 0.412 0.681 No NS

R2 Q2 R2 Q2 R2 Q2

Access 0.445 0.155 0.495 0.159 0.465 0.164

Explorative Use 0.399 0.147 0.413 0.170 0.435 0.137
Exploitative Use 0.547 0.294 0.684 0.340 0.483 0.269
Hedonic Expectation 0.208 0.092 0.103 0.043 0.342 0.147
Intention to Adopt 0.685 0.355 0.700 0.354 0.808 0.377
Locus of Innovation 0.521 0.282 0.659 0.356 0.476 0.254
Loyalty 0.682 0.365 0.931 0.462 0.547 0.298
Perceived Privacy Concern 0.438 0.225 0.269 0.136 0.626 0.309
Quality 0.442 0.217 0.480 0.225 0.449 0.230
Utilitarian Expectation 0.260 0.106 0.446 0.182 0.154 0.056
User Satisfaction 0.668 0.346 0.676 0.362 0.675 0.350
Usage 0.514 0.250 0.587 0.294 0.505 0.234
Welfare/Wellbeing 0.183 0.075 0.173 0.061 0.235 0.097

Notes: AC = Access, HE=Hedonic Expectation, ERU = Explorative Use, ETU = Exploitative Use, HA=Habit, IA=Intention to Adoption, LO = Loyalty, LI = Locus of
Innovation, PPC=Perceived Privacy Concern, PS=Perceived Severity, PV=Perceived Vulnerability, QC = Quality Concern, QU = Quality, SG=Status Gains, SLA=­
Status Loss Avoidance, US=User Satisfaction, UE=Utilitarian Expectation, USG=Usage, WB= Welfare/Wellbeing. S: significant(p < 0.05), NS: non-significant.

assured that the transaction system/technology is secure and that their
financial information is not exposed to the risk of loss or fraud (Matemba
and Li, 2018; Shaw and Sergueeva, 2019; Workman et al., 2008).
Indeed, M-Banking as an e-wallet limits the risk of theft by reducing the
use of cash. Also, the services offered through M-Banking apps allow
users to avoid the liquidity risk associated with banks and microfinance
institutions (Matemba and Li, 2018; Shaw and Sergueeva, 2019;
Workman et al., 2008). Despite these advantages, users remain sensitive
to the notions of security linked to privacy and to the cell phone, which
is the device used to access financial services/products. Indeed, this
study shows that PPC influences individuals in their intention to adopt
M-Banking (H7c). On the other hand, PS and PV are not sufficient factors
that encourage the intention to adopt M-Banking apps (H7a, H7b), even
if these two factors strongly encourage PPC (H5, H6).
Furthermore, the intention to adopt positively influences the
exploitative and explorative use of the M-Banking app (H9a, H9b).
When an individual intends to adopt an M-Banking app, this can lead to
an exploratory or exploitative use of the app in this context
characterized by the presence of several providers of efficient mobile
money solutions. So, the intention to adopt an M-Banking app would be
to know and discover the (new) functionalities of the system that are
correlated with their daily financial activities. This often, as our study
shows, leads to individual satisfaction and loyalty, because they find
that the currently known functionalities of the system meet their needs,
and those that are not yet known could be even more innovative.
Therefore, H10, H11a, H12a, H12b, and H12c are supported. This desire
to push the use of an M-Banking app even further indirectly contributes
to financial inclusion. Chaix and Torre (2015), Okello et al. (2018),
Zaffar et al. (2019), Talom and Tengeh (2020), and Fosso et al. (2020)
have already demonstrated that financial services based on mobile
technologies (mobile wallet/money/banking/transfer/payment) are
very useful in promoting financial inclusion in Africa. In this study, it is
proved that the exploitative/explorative use of the M-Banking app en­
hances financial inclusion; indeed, H13 (a, b, c) and H14 (a, b, c, d) are
eventually supported. The M-Banking app allows individuals to access
reliable, regulated, and less expensive financial products/services that

14
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
meet their needs.
Furthermore, a careful analysis of the results of the bootstrapping
obtained during the multi-group analysis shows differences between the
two groups (Table 12). We remark that the UE (H1) and HE (H2a) and
the common factors that influence the intention to adopt the M-Banking
app, with a stronger effect on the female than men. But We find that
among males, SG (H3a) and PPC (H7c) strongly influence their intention
to adopt M-Banking, which is not the case with females, as only UE and
HE are the main factors influencing their intention to adopt the M-
Banking app. Hence, men give more consideration to SG and PPC factors
than to UE and HE factors. Indeed, the effect of intention to adopt M-
Banking on Explorative/Exploitative was stronger for females than
males. So, we can assume that once they adopt the M-Banking app, the
majority of males only use its basic functions for their daily activities,
while females have a deeper understanding of the different functions of
the M-Banking app, including those useful for their financial activities.
This is demonstrated by hypotheses H12c and H14b, where explorative
use (ERU) of M-Banking app has an impact on loyalty and usage only
among females and not among males.
6.2. Theoretical and practical implications
At the theoretical level, our study makes several contributions
regarding the intention to adopt an M-Banking app by individuals or
consumers, and the wider use (exploitative and explorative) of this
technology to promote financial inclusion in underdeveloped countries.
We focused on identifying the factors that determine the intention to
adopt an M-Banking app in the Cameroonian financial environment. The
TAM, PMT, UTAUT2, and ISSM models and theories were used to
measure the intention of potential users to adopt the “SARA” M-Banking
app. At the end of our study, we were able to explain the intention to use
“SARA” at 68.50% (R2 = 0.6850) and to indicate that factors such as
Utilitarian Expectation, Hedonic Expectation, Status Gain, Perceived
Privacy Concern, and Habit significantly explained such intention. We
then strove to identify the impact of intention on the use of the M-
Banking app for consumers in a Cameroonian context and, finally, to
know what the impact of this use was on both individuals and financial
inclusion. At the end of our study, we were able to explain Exploitative
use at 39.90% (R2 = 0.399) and Exploratory use at 54.70% (R2 =
0.5470). Our study shows that M-Banking apps are a catalytic tool for
financial inclusion. Moreover, the use of the M-Banking apps could
explain to more than 25% (AC [44.50%, R2 = 0.445], QU [44.20%, R2 =
0.442] and USG [51.40%, R2 = 0.514]) some financial inclusion con­
structs. Furthermore, in addition to the constructs related to rational
perception and behavioral control — which are generally used for the
literature review for studies dealing with the same subject — we have
added constructs related to the perception of security issues concerning
the mobile terminal and consumers’ financial data. Indeed, by inte­
grating the latter, we were able to explore an important aspect of
financial services. Thus, our research model can serve as a basis for
future research on financial services/products based on mobile
technology.
Our study, which focuses on M-Banking apps in a Cameroonian
context, in addition to contributing to the evolution of IS/IT research,
also has contributions at the practical/managerial level. This study
could therefore help managers of credit institutions and Fintech orga­
nizations in the choice of solutions that can satisfy user customers and
improve financial inclusion. Better still, business leaders/managers will
find in this study the necessary levers for a successful implementation of
M-Banking apps that are tailored to the specific needs of consumers. The
critical elements that are generally put forward by users for the adoption
and use of M-Banking apps were also examined. These elements may be
important not only for decision-makers but also for tool vendors as they
will be better informed about the development of such tools and thus
improve their business strategies. Furthermore, the major concerns of
15
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
users of M-Banking apps about the management of their private data
were also reviewed, together with related security issues. These may
help providers of services/products to implement effective policies to
protect their private/financial data and those of their customers to
reassure them and encourage them to adopt the technology. In terms of
(exploitative and explorative) use of the M-Banking app, women and
girls have a higher frequency and duration of use of financial products
and services than men, and thus the loyalty of these female users is
influenced. Indeed, the multi-group analysis reveals that the intention of
females to adopt the M-Banking app is guided by factors such as are UE
and HE, while the males are typically attracted by UE, HE, SG, and PPC.
As a result, there is a need for M-Banking technology providers to rely on
the four (04) factors related to M-Banking app to increase its adoption
rate among the two groups (female, male).
6.3. Limitations and recommendations
In our research work, we have been able to observe limitations or
inadequacies that may have been a real hindrance to our study. Firstly,
the fact that our study was focused on the “SARA” M-Banking app, and
therefore only concerned “Afriland First Bank’s” customers, considerably
restricts our target group and could hinder the generalization of our
results. Secondly, the lack of a qualitative exploratory study that would
have allowed us to study the factors and steps involved in setting up an
M-Banking app. Nevertheless, we believe that correcting these short­
comings could be a better study in the future. With this in mind, an
extension of our research to the field of the M-Banking app in Africa, and
not just that of “Afriland First Bank” in particular, would broaden the
study’s target population. We recommend adopting a mixed approach (a
qualitative and a quantitative approach). Thus, the qualitative approach
would allow, through interviews with resource persons who are experts
in the field, to obtain richer information on the subject while the
quantitative approach would help to understand the phenomenon at the
scale of a larger population. Therefore, a mixed approach would
contribute to a deeper and more elaborate understanding of the phe­
nomenon of key determinants of M-Banking app adoption, use, and their
impacts on consumers and financial inclusion. Finally, we recommend
studies on the factors involved in the implementation of M-Banking apps
in the Cameroonian environment, either by taking the case of other
credit institutions or by conducting a study on the scale of all Camer­
oonian financial/Fintech institutions and the whole Africa context. This
would therefore entail the inclusion of theories related to cultural and
psychological aspects to better circumscribe and characterize this
concept of M-Banking. Indeed, although the literature on this field is
developed in other continents, in Africa it is still scarcely available.
Besides, it is an innovative market and promoter in the financial field in
Africa, this kind of study would be a plus in a developing country like
Cameroon.
7. Conclusion
The financial sector plays an important role in participating in the
economic development of a country through efficient financial services
and products it offers to the population. In recent years, Africans have
gradually adopted innovative Mobile Banking technologies, services/
products. This is demonstrated by the presence of a multitude of
financial services/products on mobile phones. Since its deployment,
services/products such as M-Banking have become increasingly impor­
tant in financial transactions across African countries. Its spread has
been encouraged by the explosion in the number of cell phone sub­
scribers. Through its various uses, M-Banking contributes to making
visible many dimensions of the economy and the functioning of coun­
tries, such as its influence on financial inclusion. In the case of our study,
we chose the users of the “SARA” M-Banking app as the target audience
because: (1) it is a product of “Afriland First Bank”, which posted a
balance sheet total of 1011 billion Central African CFA franc in 2018,
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

and ranks first among the fifteen banks operating in Cameroon; and (2)
this product is available to any individual with or without a bank ac­
count, with the possibility of carrying out transactions with people who
have another mobile money solution. We developed a research model
based on the literature review, so the testing of research hypotheses was
done on a sample of users of the M-Banking “SARA by Afriland First
Bank” app, following the PLS-SEM approach. This study outline results
with implications at both the managerial/practical and theoretical
levels. The results of our research work will be very useful both for
managers of credit institutions and for developers of M-Banking apps.
better still, the simple fact that this study has been able to demonstrate
the influence of the use of M-Banking apps on financial inclusion, should
be an asset for underdeveloped countries, as they are generally char­
acterized by a high level of financial exclusion of the population. These
countries should develop complementary policies, services, and prod­
ucts to promote the adoption of this technology by their populations and
thereby reduce inequalities related to financial inclusion between
individuals.
Notes and disclosures
The authors did not receive any financial support for this research.
All the tools used in this study were acquired personally by the authors,
without the help of any organization.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jean Robert Kala Kamdjoug: Idea generation, Theory building: a
selection of relevant theories Guide for literature review and concep­
tualization, Conceptualization, Research methodology, Discussion,
Framing of theoretical and practical contributions, Supervision of the
whole process, Writing an original draft, Review original draft. Serge-
Lopez Wamba-Taguimdje: Literature review, Research methodology,
Data collection, Data curation, and analysis, Discussion, Writing an
original draft, Review original draft, Editing original draft, Finalize the
paper. Samuel Fosso Wamba: Theory building: a selection of relevant
theories, Guide for literature review and conceptualization, Review
original draft, Validation. Ingrid Bive’e Kake: Research methodology,
Data collection, Data curation, Writing an original draft.
Declaration authorship contribution statement
None.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Afriland First Bank Cameroon
and its staff, who provided us with the necessary facilities during the
collection of data, and more particularly the contact with experienced
users of this innovative technology. We would also like to thank GRIA­
GES and CeRTIA (https://urlz.fr/e98Z) for putting competent experts in
management sciences and information technology at our disposal.
Finally, we are extremely grateful to the editor and anonymous re­
viewers for their comments and suggestions that have resulted in the
current version of the article.

Appendix
Table A1
Measurement instrument - Questionnaire. Please indicate the agreement to which you perceive that you have implemented each of the following measures on a seven-
point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree).

Constructs Measurement Items VIF Outer

Loadings

Utilitarian Expectation (UE) UE1 The SARA M-Banking app makes it easier for me to do my banking transactions. 2.175 0.776
(Davis, 1989) Kavota et al. (2020), and (Singh and UE2 SARA’s M-Banking app gives me more control over my finances; 3.319 0.832
Sinha, 2020) UE3 SARA’s M-Banking app allows me to manage my finances more efficiently; 3.367 0.792
UE4 The SARA M-Banking app is a good way to manage my accounts. 3.078 0.834
UE5 The SARA M-Banking app is more user-friendly than other existing channels such as 1.558 0.673
bank branches, ATMs, and telephone banking.
UE6 The SARA M-Banking app eliminates time constraints so that I can use banking 2.877 0.800
services whenever I want.
UE7 The SARA M-Banking app eliminates geographical limitations and increases the 2.379 0.788
flexibility of mobility, thus allowing me to conduct my operations in any location
with an internet connection.
Status Gains (SG) SG1 Having the SARA M-Banking app is a status symbol 1.838 0.873
Song et al. (2015) SG2 People using the SARA M-Banking app have more prestige than those who do not. 3.677 0.911
SG3 People using the SARA M-Banking app have a high profile. 3.462 0.906
Status Loss Avoidance (SLA) SLA1 Use of updated technology like the SARA M-Banking app can prevent loss of status 1.708 0.977
Song et al. (2015) SLA2 Using obsolete technology will damage my social prestige. ns ns
SLA3 I would lose face if most of the people I know used the SARA M-Banking app and I 1.952 0.683
didn’t.
SLA4 To avoid losing face, I would use the SARA M-Banking app. 1.816 0.722
Perceived Severity (PS) PS1 My lost or stolen mobile devices would cause major financial losses 1.533 0.799
(Workman et al., 2008) and (Liang and Xue, 2009) PS2 Confidential information stored on my lost or stolen mobile devices could be exposed 1.761 0.816
and, as a result, my privacy could be violated.
PS3 Unauthorized third parties could access my services through lost or stolen mobile 1.896 0.902
devices.
Perceived Vulnerability (PV) PV1 There is a good chance that my mobile device is lost or stolen. 1.945 0.824
(Dinev and Hart, 2004) and (Workman et al., 2008) PV2 The data stored in my lost or stolen mobile device will likely be lost. 3.261 0.929
PV3 I will likely lose access to services through my lost or stolen mobile device. 2.578 0.910
Perceived Privacy Concern (PPC) PPC1 I am concerned that the information I submit via the SARA M-Banking app will be 2.350 0.794
(Dinev and Hart, 2004) and (Dolnicar and Jordaan, used.
2007) PPC2 When I shop online, I am concerned that my account information may be stolen while 2.447 0.816
using SARA M-Banking app
PPC3 I have concerns about submitting information on the SARA M-Banking app because 2.518 0.834
of the other options available to me
(continued on next page)

16
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table A1 (continued )
Constructs Measurement Items VIF Outer
Loadings

PPC4 I am concerned about submitting SARA M-Banking information because it could be 2.468 0.836
used for unintended purposes.
PPC5 When I use the SARA M-Banking app, I feel that cycles and actions are tracked and 3.208 0.800
monitored.
PPC6 When I use the SARA M-Banking app, I feel like I am being monitored. 2.945 0.800
Hedonic Expectation (HE) HE1 Using M-Banking services as offered by SARA is fun. 1.322 0.727
(Baabdullah et al., 2019) and (Song et al., 2015) HE2 The use of M-Banking services as offered by SARA is pleasant. 1.722 0.867
HE3 The use of M-Banking services as offered by SARA is fun. 1.639 0.844
Habit (HA) HA1 Using the SARA M-Banking app has become a habit for me. 1.692 0.759
(Baabdullah et al., 2019), (Farah Maya et al., 2018), HA2 I am addicted to using the SARA M-Banking pp. 2.167 0.768
(Venkatesh et al., 2012) and (Baptista and Oliveira, HA3 I have to use the SARA M-Banking app. 2.492 0.822
2015) HA4 Using the SARA M-Banking app has become natural for me. 2.082 0.880
Quality Concern (QC) QC1 By using the SARA M-Banking app, I am concerned that the company is collecting too 2.155 0.801
(Song et al., 2015), (Delone and McLean, 2003), much personal information about me.
(Baabdullah et al., 2019) and (Krafft et al., 2017) QC2 By using the SARA M-Banking app, I am concerned that the company may use my 3.025 0.804
personal information for purposes other than those for which I provided the
information.
QC3 By using the SARA M-Banking app, I am concerned that the company may share my 2.715 0.813
personal information with other parties.
QC4 By using the SARA M-Banking app, I am concerned about my privacy within this 1.636 0.854
company.
Intention to Adoption (IA) IA1 You were used to using the M-Banking app such as SARA 1.921 0.783
(Kavota et al., 2020), (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) and IA2 You are interested in the security offered by the SARA M-Banking app. 2.579 0.828
(Singh and Sinha, 2020) IA3 You are interested in the insurance offered by the SARA M-Banking app. 2.002 0.779
IA4 You are interested in the services offered by the SARA M-Banking app. 2.845 0.872
IA5 You are interested in the money transfer and service payment possibilities offered by 2.265 0.806
the SARA M-Banking app.
Exploitative Use (ETU) ETU1 The use of my phone has been integrated into my regular banking practices. 2.263 0.781
(Luo and Ling, 2013), (Koo et al., 2015) and (Huang ETU2 The use of my phone is an integral part of my normal bank account management 3.941 0.886
et al., 2017) routine.
ETU3 I make full use of the services available on my SARA M-Banking app to perform my 4.304 0.885
banking transactions.
ETU4 I use most of the services available on my SARA M-Banking app to perform my 3.351 0.857
banking transactions.
ETU5 I am making full use of the services available on my SARA M-Banking app to 2.187 0.804
accommodate my banking.
ETU6 I use all the functions available on my smartphone to help me with my banking. 1.748 0.748
Explorative Use (ERU) ERU1 I often use more features than the average SARA M-Banking app user to manage my 1.691 0.739
(Luo and Ling, 2013), (Koo et al., 2015) and (Huang bank account.
et al., 2017) ERU2 I often use the more complex services of the SARA M-Banking app installed on my 1.921 0.778
phone to carry out my banking transactions.
ERU3 I am trying to use the SARA M-Banking app in an innovative way to manage my bank 1.663 0.779
account.
ERU4 I often look for new functions in the SARA M-Banking app to manage my bank 1.312 0.741
account.
Locus of Innovation (LI) LI1 Requirements or needs to reflect structured tasks. 2.998 0.892
Haerem & Rau (2007) LI2 I think my needs can be solved by using a certain method. 3.608 0.931
LI3 I believe that there are fundamental similarities between the responses to these 1.455 0.734
requirements.
LI4 I feel that I have a mental picture to guide you in your response to the above ns ns
requirements.
User Satisfaction (US) US1 I am generally pleased with SARA M-Banking app services. 1.547 0.753
(Baabdullah et al., 2019), US2 I am very satisfied with SARA M-Banking app services. ns ns
(Wanko et al., 2019) and (Groβ, 2018) US3 I am happy with SARA M-Banking app 2.813 0.851
US4 I am satisfied with the way that the SARA M-Banking app has carried out 3.038 0.872
transactions.
US5 Overall, I was satisfied with the SARA M-Banking app 1.906 0.833
Loyalty (LO) LO1 I will recommend using the SARA M-Banking app to other people 2.012 0.871
(Baabdullah et al., 2019), (Troiville et al., 2019) and LO2 I intend to continue using the SARA M-Banking app. 2.402 0.905
(Chi, 2018) LO3 I prefer using the SARA M-Banking app above other banking channels. 1.536 0.773
Financial inclusion constructs
Access (AC) AC1 There are many financial services delivery channels nearby this household 2.209 0.685
Okello et al. (2018) AC2 There are many financial institution branches nearby this household 2.046 0.637
AC3 The initial account opening fees charged by the financial institution is affordable 2.658 0.777
AC4 The account maintenance fees charged by the financial institution is affordable ns ns
AC5 The minimum balance on a savings account required by the financial institution is 2.931 0.678
affordable
AC6 The loan fees charged by the financial institution is affordable 2.274 0.655
AC7 The minimum loan amount offered by the financial institution is satisfactory 2.919 0.686
AC8 The numbers of documents required by the fin financial institution to open an 3.386 0.718
account are few
AC9 The number of days taken by the financial institution to process loan applications is 3.439 0.779
favorable
AC10 In this household, we are not discriminated against by the financial institution in its 1.847 0.720
service provision
(continued on next page)

17
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509

Table A1 (continued )
Constructs Measurement Items VIF Outer
Loadings

AC11 The location to submit the loan application required by the financial institution is 2.381 0.756
favorable
AC12 The fees charged on payment services offered by the financial institution is 2.930 0.762
affordable
Usage (USG) USG1 The cost of making a trip to the financial institution is low 2.078 0.740
Okello et al. (2018) USG2 The paper work requirements by the financial institution is favorable 2.539 0.784
USG3 The fees charged by the financial institution on use of its services are favorable 2.688 0.783
USG4 The level of service provision by the financial institution is very good 2.684 0.757
USG5 The financial institution always provide its services on regular basis 2.927 0.785
USG6 The financial institution always provide its financial services at convenient hours 3.562 0.811
USG7 Members of this household trust financial products and services offered by the 2.231 0.741
financial institution
USG8 The products and services provided by the financial institution are user friendly 1.981 0.683
USG9 The process of getting financial services from the financial institution is easy 3.511 0.833
USG10 It takes us less time to reach the financial institution to get the services 3.050 0.793
USG11 The interest on deposit services offered by the financial institution is attractive for us 1.701 0.662
Quality/Relevance (QU) QU1 The savings product provided by the financial institution suits our needs. 2.036 0.755
Okello et al. (2018) QU2 The loan product provided by the financial institution suits our needs 3.474 0.863
QU3 The payment services provided by the financial institution suits our needs 3.084 0.810
QU4 The savings product provided by the financial institution is safe for us 2.997 0.848
QU5 The loan product provided the financial institution is safe for us 2.233 0.774
QU6 The payment services provided by the financial institution is safe for us 1.959 0.756
Welfare/Wellbeing (WB) WB1 The products and services offered by the financial institution have improved our 1.441 0.827
Okello et al. (2018) standard of living.
WB2 The products/services offered by the financial institution have increased our income. 2.563 0.880
WB3 The products and services offered by the financial institution allowed us to acquire 2.159 0.816
more assets.
Note: n.s: not significant.

References Bive’e, K.I., 2020. E-Banking et performance des établissements de crédit : cas de SARA
by Afriland First Bank (Master 2 Master Thesis). Catholic University of Central
Africa.
Adaba, G.B., Ayoung, D.A., Abbott, P., 2019. Exploring the contribution of mobile money
Boss, S.R., Galletta, D.F., Lowry, P.B., Moody, G.D., Polak, P., 2015. What do systems
to well-being from a capability perspective. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 85 (4),
users have to fear? Using fear appeals to engender threats and fear that motivate
e12079 https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12079.
protective security behaviors. MIS Q. 39 (4) https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2015/
Akinyemi, B.E., Mushunje, A., 2020. Determinants of mobile money technology adoption
39.4.5, 837-U461.
in rural areas of Africa. Cogent Social Sciences 6 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/
Bruque, S., Moyano, J., 2007. Organisational determinants of information technology
23311886.2020.1815963.
adoption and implementation in SMEs: the case of family and cooperative firms.
Akram, U., Ansari, A.R., Fu, G., Junaid, M., 2020. Feeling hungry? let’s order through
Technovation 27 (5), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mobile! examining the fast food mobile commerce in China. J. Retailing Consum.
technovation.2006.12.003.
Serv. 56, 102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102142.
Burns, S., 2018. M-Pesa and the ‘market-Led’Approach to financial inclusion. Econ. Aff.
Alalwan, A.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., 2017. Factors influencing adoption of mobile
38 (3), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecaf.12321.
banking by Jordanian bank customers: extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int. J. Inf.
Chaix, L., Torre, D., 2015. Le double rôle du paiement mobile dans les pays en
Manag. 37 (3), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002.
développement. [The Dual Role of Mobile Payment in Developing Countries]. Rev.
Alexandra, Z., 2017. L’inclusion financière en Afrique. Retrieved from. http://www.
Econ. Paris 66 (4), 703–727. https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.664.0703.
bsi-economics.org/820-inclusion-fi-afrique-az.
Chandra, S., Srivastava, S.C., Theng, Y.-L., 2010. Evaluating the role of trust in consumer
Alkhowaiter, W.A., 2020. Digital payment and banking adoption research in Gulf
adoption of mobile payment systems: an empirical analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf.
countries: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 53, 102102. https://doi.
Syst. 27 (1), 29. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02729.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102102.
Chaouali, W., Souiden, N., 2019. The role of cognitive age in explaining mobile banking
Aloys, O., 2020. Santé publique : la vigoureuse méthode d’Afriland First Bank pour
resistance among elderly people. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 342–350. https://
barrer la voie au coronavirus. Retrieved from. https://economieducameroun.com/sa
doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.009.
nte-publique-la-vigoureuse-methode-dafriland-first-bank-pour-barrer-la-voie-au
Charki, N.B., Josserand, E., Charki, M.H., 2011. Analyse des interprétations d’un SIIO en
-coronavirus/.
post-adoption et effets sur l’usage: jeux de discours et stratégies de contournement.
Amin, H., Ramayah, T., 2010. SMS banking: explaining the effects of attitude, social
Syst. Inf. Manag. 16 (3), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.3917/sim.113.0007.
norms and perceived security and privacy. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 41 (1),
Chatterjee, D.S., 2019. Explaining customer ratings and recommendations by combining
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2010.tb00291.x.
qualitative and quantitative user generated contents. Decis. Support Syst. 119,
Azoulay-Schwartz, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., 2004. Exploitation vs. exploration:
14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.02.008.
choosing a supplier in an environment of incomplete information. Decis. Support
Chi, T., 2018. Understanding Chinese consumer adoption of apparel mobile commerce:
Syst. 38 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(03)00061-7.
an extended TAM approach. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44, 274–284. https://doi.
Baabdullah, A.M., Alalwan, A.A., Rana, N.P., Kizgin, H., Patil, P., 2019. Consumer use of
org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.019.
mobile banking (M-Banking) in Saudi Arabia: towards an integrated model. Int. J.
Chong, A.Y.-L., Chan, F.T.S., Ooi, K.-B., 2012. Predicting consumer decisions to adopt
Inf. Manag. 44, 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.09.002.
mobile commerce: cross country empirical examination between China and
Babones, S., 2015. Interpretive quantitative methods for the social sciences. Sociology 50
Malaysia. Decis. Support Syst. 53 (1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(3), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038515583637.
dss.2011.12.001.
Bagozzi, R.P., Lee, K.-H., 2002. Multiple routes for social influence: the role of
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
compliance, internalization, and social identity. Soc. Psychol. Q. 65 (3), 226–247.
information technology. MIS Q. 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3090121.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., 1989. User acceptance of computer
Bao, Y., Zhou, K.Z., Su, C., 2003. Face consciousness and risk aversion: do they affect
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35 (8), 982–1003.
consumer decision-making? Psychol. Market. 20 (8), 733–755. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.
10.1002/mar.10094.
De’, R., Pandey, N., Pal, A., 2020. Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: a
Baptista, G., Oliveira, T., 2015. Understanding mobile banking: the unified theory of
viewpoint on research and practice. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 102171. https://doi.org/
acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Comput.
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171.
Hum. Behav. 50, 418–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024.
Della Peruta, M., 2018. Adoption of mobile money and financial inclusion: a
Bawack, R.E., Kala, K.J.R., 2020. The role of digital information use on student
macroeconomic approach through cluster analysis. Econ. Innovat. N. Technol. 27
performance and collaboration in marginal universities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 54,
(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1322234.
102179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102179.

18
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
Delone, W.H., McLean, E.R., 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 (4), 9–30. https://doi.org/
10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., Hess, J., 2018. Base de données
Global Findex 2017 : mesurer l’inclusion financière et la révolution technico-
financière. Retrieved from. http://www.worldbank.org/https://openknowledge.wor
ldbank.org/handle/10986/29510.
Diegmann, P., Basten, D., Pankratz, O., 2017. Influence of communication on client
satisfaction in information system projects: a quantitative field study. Proj. Manag. J.
48 (1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800106.
Dinev, T., Hart, P., 2004. Internet privacy concerns and their antecedents-measurement
validity and a regression model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 23 (6), 413–422. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01449290410001715723.
Dolnicar, S., Jordaan, Y., 2007. A market-oriented approach to responsibly managing
information privacy concerns in direct marketing. J. Advert. 36 (2), 123–149.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360209.
Dong, Y., Chung, M., Zhou, C., Venkataraman, S., 2018. Banking on “mobile money”: the
implications of mobile money services on the value chain. Manuf. Serv. Oper.
Manag. 21 (2) https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2018.0717.
Etim, A.S., 2014. Mobile banking and mobile money adoption for financial inclusion.
Research in Business Economics Journal 9, 1, 10.1.1.646.6930.
Farah Maya, F., Hasni Muhammad Junaid, S., Abbas Abbas, K., 2018. Mobile-banking
adoption: empirical evidence from the banking sector in Pakistan. Int. J. Bank
Market. 36 (7), 1386–1413. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2017-0215.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A.-G., 2009. Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 41
(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., Buchner, A., 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav.
Res. Methods 39 (2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.
Fermay, A.H., Santosa, B., Kertopati, A.Y., Eprianto, I.M., 2018. The development of
collaborative model between fintech and bank in Indonesia. In: Paper Presented at
the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on E-Commerce, E-Business and
E-Government, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3234781.3234783.
Floyd, D.L., Prentice-Dunn, S., Rogers, R.W., 2000. A meta-analysis of research on
protection motivation theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30 (2), 407–429. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x.
Fonchamnyo, D.C., 2013. Customers’ perception of e-banking adoption in Cameroon: an
empirical assessment of an extended TAM. Int. J. Econ. Finance 5 (1), 166–176.
Fosso, W.S., Queiroz, M.M., Blome, C., Sivarajah, U., 2020. Fostering financial inclusion
in developing countries: predicting user acceptance of mobile wallets in Cameroon.
J. Global Inf. Manag.
Geisser, S., 1974. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 61 (1),
101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101.
Germain, K., 2019. La digitalisation pour accélérer l’inclusion financière en Afrique.
Retrieved from. https://www.contrepoints.org/2019/04/30/342918-la-digitali
sation-pour-accelerer-linclusion-financiere-en-afrique.
Gilbert, M., Pullano, G., Pinotti, F., Valdano, E., Poletto, C., Boëlle, P.-Y., Altmann, M.,
2020. Preparedness and vulnerability of African countries against importations of
COVID-19: a modelling study. Lancet 395 (10227), 871–877. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30411-6.
Groß, M., 2018. Heterogeneity in consumers’ mobile shopping acceptance: a finite
mixture partial least squares modelling approach for exploring and characterising
different shopper segments. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 40, 8–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.002.
Gsma, 2018. Unlocking Mobile Money Interoperability and Merchant Payments across
Africa through Mowali. Mobile for Development. Retrieved from. https://www.gsm
a.com/mobilefordevelopment/uncategorized/unlocking-mobile-money-interoper
ability-and-merchant-payments-across-africa-through-mowali/.
Gu, J., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Zhang, C., Ling, H., 2017. Privacy concerns for mobile app
download: an elaboration likelihood model perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 94,
19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.10.002.
Haerem, T., Rau, D., 2007. The influence of degree of expertise and objective task
complexity on perceived task complexity and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 (5),
1320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1320.
Hair, J.F., Howard, M.C., Nitzl, C., 2020. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-
SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J. Bus. Res. 109, 101–110. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2016. A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., Ringle Christian, M., 2019. When to use and how to
report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/
EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hammerschlag, Z., Bick, G., Luiz John, M., 2020. The internationalization of African
fintech firms: marketing strategies for successful intra-Africa expansion. Int. Market.
Rev. 37 (2), 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-05-2019-0130.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43 (1),
115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2016. Testing measurement invariance of
composites using partial least squares. Int. Market. Rev. 33 (3), 405–431. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IMR-09-2014-0304.
Hoosuite, 2020. Digital 2020 Cameroon. Retrieved from. https://datareportal.com/rep
orts/digital-2020-cameroon.
19
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
Huang, C.D., Goo, J., Nam, K., Yoo, C.W., 2017. Smart tourism technologies in travel
planning: the role of exploration and exploitation. Inf. Manag. 54 (6), 757–770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.11.010.
Jaradat, M.-I.R.M., Faqih, K.M., 2014. Investigating the moderating effects of gender and
self-efficacy in the context of mobile payment adoption: a developing country
perspective. International Journal of Business Management science 9 (11), 147.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p147.
Jebarajakirthy, C., Shankar, A., 2021. Impact of online convenience on mobile banking
adoption intention: a moderated mediation approach. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 58,
102323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102323.
Johnston, A.C., Warkentin, M., 2010. Fear appeals and information security behaviors:
an empirical study. MIS Q. 34 (3), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.2307/25750691.
Jung, A.R., 2017. The influence of perceived ad relevance on social media advertising: an
empirical examination of a mediating role of privacy concern. Comput. Hum. Behav.
70, 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.008.
Kanu, I.A., 2020. COVID-19 and the economy: an African perspective. Journal of African
Studies and Sustainable Development 3 (2). https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.2.18801.43362.
Kapoor, A.P., Vij, M., 2018. Technology at the dinner table: ordering food online through
mobile apps. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 43, 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.04.001.
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W., Chervany, N.L., 1999. Information technology adoption
across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs.
MIS Q. 183–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751.
Kavota, J.K., Kamdjoug, J.R.K., Wamba, S.F., 2020. Social media and disaster
management: case of the north and south Kivu regions in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 52, 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijinfomgt.2020.102068.
Kickbusch, I., Leung, G.M., Bhutta, Z.A., Matsoso, M.P., Ihekweazu, C., Abbasi, K., 2020.
Covid-19: how a virus is turning the world upside down. BMJ 369, m1336. https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1336.
Koay, K.Y., Tjiptono, F., Sandhu, M.S., 2020. Digital piracy among consumers in a
developing economy: a comparison of multiple theory-based models. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 55, 102075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102075.
Koo, C., Chung, N., Kim, H.-W., 2015. Examining explorative and exploitative uses of
smartphones: a user competence perspective. Inf. Technol. People 28 (1), 133–162.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2013-0063.
Krafft, M., Arden, C.M., Verhoef, P.C., 2017. Permission marketing and privacy
concerns—why do customers (not) grant permissions? J. Interact. Market. 39,
39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2017.03.001.
Kufandirimbwa, O., Zanamwe, N., Hapanyengwi, G., Kabanda, G., 2013. Mobile money
in Zimbabwe: integrating mobile infrastructure and processes to organisation
infrastructure and processes. Online Journal of Social Science Research 2 (2),
92–110.
Larson, D.W., Shevchenko, A., 2010. Status seekers: Chinese and Russian responses to US
primacy. Int. Secur. 34 (4), 63–95. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.2010.34.4.63.
Lashitew, A.A., van Tulder, R., Liasse, Y., 2019. Mobile phones for financial inclusion:
what explains the diffusion of mobile money innovations? Res. Pol. 48 (5),
1201–1215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.12.010.
Lee, Y., Larsen, K.R., 2009. Threat or coping appraisal: determinants of SMB executives’
decision to adopt anti-malware software. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 18 (2), 177–187. https://
doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.11.
Leong, L.-Y., Hew, T.-S., Ooi, K.-B., Wei, J., 2020. Predicting mobile wallet resistance: a
two-staged structural equation modeling-artificial neural network approach. Int. J.
Inf. Manag. 51, 102047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102047.
Liang, H., Xue, Y., 2009. Avoidance of information technology threats: a theoretical
perspective. MIS Q. 33 (1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650279.
Luo, Y., Ling, H., 2013. Exploration and exploitation of information systems usage and
individual performance. Procedia Computer Science 22, 863–872. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.169.
Malaquias, R.F., Hwang, Y., 2019. Mobile banking use: a comparative study with
Brazilian and U.S. participants. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 44, 132–140. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.004.
Matemba, E.D., Li, G., 2018. Consumers’ willingness to adopt and use WeChat wallet: an
empirical study in South Africa. Technol. Soc. 53, 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2017.12.001.
Mehta, S.B., Roy, S., Yang, H.-C., 2018. “Product on stopper” in a lyophilized drug
product: cosmetic defect or a product quality concern? J. Pharmaceut. Sci. 107 (6),
1736–1740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2018.02.001.
Mombeuil, C., 2020. An exploratory investigation of factors affecting and best predicting
the renewed adoption of mobile wallets. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 55, 102127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102127.
Muñoz-Leiva, F., Climent-Climent, S., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., 2017. Determinants of
intention to use the mobile banking apps: an extension of the classic TAM model.
Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC 21 (1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sjme.2016.12.001.
Mushtaq, R., Bruneau, C., 2019. Microfinance, financial inclusion and ICT: implications
for poverty and inequality. Technol. Soc. 59, 101154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techsoc.2019.101154.
N’Dri, L.M., Kakinaka, M., 2020. Financial inclusion, mobile money, and individual
welfare: the case of Burkina Faso. Telecommun. Pol. 44 (3), 101926. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.101926.
Natarajan, T., Balasubramanian, S.A., Kasilingam, D.L., 2017. Understanding the
intention to use mobile shopping applications and its influence on price sensitivity.
J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 37, 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2017.02.010.
J.R. Kala Kamdjoug et al.
Nazaritehrani, A., Mashali, B., 2020. Development of E-banking channels and market
share in developing countries. Financial Innovation 6 (1), 12. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40854-020-0171-z.
Ndung’u, N., 2018. The M-Pesa technological revolution for financial services in Kenya: a
platform for financial inclusion. In: Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and
Inclusion, vol. 1. Elsevier, pp. 37–56.
Nika, N., 2020. State of the industry report on mobile money 2019. Retrieved from. htt
p://www.gsma.com/http://www.gsma.com/mobilemoney.
Nitzl, C., Roldan, J.L., Cepeda, G., 2016. Mediation analysis in partial least squares path
modeling: helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Ind. Manag. Data
Syst. 116 (9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302.
Nso, M.A., 2018. Impact of technology on E-banking; Cameroon perspectives. Int. J. Adv.
Netw. Appl. 9 (6), 3645–3653.
Ntsafack, F.W., Kamdjoug, J.R.K., Wamba, S.F., 2018. Exploring Factors Affecting Mobile
Services Adoption by Young Consumers in Cameroon, Cham.
Nyangosi, R., Arora, J., Singh, S., 2009. The evolution of e-banking: a study of Indian and
Kenyan technology awareness. Int. J. Electron. Finance 3 (2), 149–165. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJEF.2009.026357.
Ogar, T.E., Ogar, J.N., 2020. Globalization in Africa and beyond: the quest for global
ethics. GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis 1 (2),
38–47. http://gnosijournal.com/index.php/gnosi/article/view/36.
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.
J. Afr. Bus. 19 (3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2017.1416214.
Orange, 2018. Orange et MTN lancent l’interopérabilité du mobile money sur le
continent africain afin d’accélérer le développement des services financiers mobiles.
Communiqués de presse. Retrieved from. https://www.orange.com/fr/Press-Room/co
mmuniques/communiques-2018/Orange-et-MTN-lancent-l-interoperabilite-du-mobi
le-money-sur-le-continent-africain-afin-d-accelerer-le-developpement-des-services-fi
nanci.
Osah, O., Kyobe, M., 2017. Predicting user continuance intention towards M-pesa in
Kenya. African Journal of Economic Management Studies 8 (1), 36–50. https://doi.
org/10.1108/AJEMS-03-2017-148.
Osiyevskyy, O., Dewald, J., 2015. Explorative versus exploitative business model change:
the cognitive antecedents of firm-level responses to disruptive innovation. Strategic
Entrepreneurship Journal 9 (1), 58–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1192.
Ouma, S.A., Odongo, T.M., Were, M., 2017. Mobile financial services and financial
inclusion: is it a boon for savings mobilization? Review of Development Finance 7
(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdf.2017.01.001.
Park, E., Joon, K.K., 2013. User acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services: an
application of extended technology acceptance model. Program 47 (2), 188–205.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00330331311313762.
Phan, D.H.B., Narayan, P.K., Rahman, R.E., Hutabarat, A.R., 2020. Do financial
technology firms influence bank performance? Pac. Basin Finance J. 62, 101210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2019.101210.
Poromatikul, C., De Maeyer, P., Leelapanyalert, K., Zaby, S., 2019. Drivers of
continuance intention with mobile banking apps. Int. J. Bank Market. 38 (1),
242–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-08-2018-0224.
Ramírez-Correa, P., Rondán-Cataluña, F.J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., Martín-Velicia, F., 2019.
Analysing the acceptation of online games in mobile devices: an application of
UTAUT2. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2019.04.018.
Rogers, E.M., 2004. A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusion model.
J. Health Commun. 9 (Suppl. 1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10810730490271449.
Rogers, R.W., 1975. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 91 (1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223980.1975.9915803.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., 2011. Multigroup Analysis in partial least squares
(PLS) path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results. In: Marko, S.,
Manfred, S., Charles, R.T. (Eds.), Measurement and Research Methods in
International Marketing, vol. 22. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 195–218.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Henseler, J., Hair, J.F., 2014. On the emancipation of PLS-
SEM: a commentary on rigdon (2012). Long. Range Plan. 47 (3), 154–160. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.02.007.
Shah, M.H., Siddiqui, F.A., 2006. Organisational critical success factors in adoption of e-
banking at the Woolwich bank. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 26 (6), 442–456. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2006.08.003.
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-03-2018-0063.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jretconser.2018.03.003.
Shaw, N., Sergueeva, K., 2019. The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce:
extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 45, 44–55. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.024.
20
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61 (2021) 102509
Shereen, M.A., Khan, S., Kazmi, A., Bashir, N., Siddique, R., 2020. COVID-19 infection:
origin, transmission, and characteristics of human coronaviruses. J. Adv. Res. 24,
91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2020.03.005.
Singh, N., Sinha, N., 2020. How perceived trust mediates merchant’s intention to use a
mobile wallet technology. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 52, 101894. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101894.
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. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 50, 191–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.05.022.
Song, J., Sawang, S., Drennan, J., Andrews, L., 2015. Same but different? Mobile
technology adoption in China. Inf. Technol. People 28 (1), 107–132. https://doi.org/
10.1108/ITP-10-2013-0187.
Stamoulis, D., Kanellis, P., Martakos, D., 2002. An approach and model for assessing the
business value of e-banking distribution channels: evaluation as communication. Int.
J. Inf. Manag. 22 (4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(02)00011-7.
Stone, M., 1974. Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J. Roy.
Stat. Soc. B 36 (2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x.
Sun, H., Wright, R.T., Thatcher, J., 2019. Revisiting the impact of system use on task
performance: an exploitative-explorative system use framework. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst.
Online 20 (4), 3. https://doi.org/10.17705/1.jais.00539.
Talom, F.S.G., Tengeh, R.K., 2020. The impact of mobile money on the financial
performance of the SMEs in douala, Cameroon. Sustainability 12 (1), 183. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su12010183.
Tarnanidis, T., Owusu-Frimpong, N., Nwankwo, S., Omar, M., 2015. A confirmatory
factor analysis of consumer styles inventory: evidence from Greece. J. Retailing
Consum. Serv. 22, 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.07.001.
Thusi, P., Maduku, D.K., 2020. South African millennials’ acceptance and use of retail
mobile banking apps: an integrated perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 111, 106405.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106405.
Troiville, J., Hair, J.F., Cliquet, G., 2019. Definition, conceptualization and measurement
of consumer-based retailer brand equity. J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 50, 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.04.022.
Tsanga, R.C.N.N., 2018. What about acceptability of mobile money in sub-saharan
Africa? The case of Cameroon. J. Bus. 6 (1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.12691/jbms-6-
1-2.
Tu, Z., Turel, O., Yuan, Y., Archer, N., 2015. Learning to cope with information security
risks regarding mobile device loss or theft: an empirical examination. Inf. Manag. 52
(4), 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.03.002.
Valence, A.E., 2017. The Impact of E-Banking On Commercial Banking Operations in
Cameroon:(case Study: UBA Cameroon). Master thesis. University of BUEA.
academia.edu. Retrieved from. https://www.academia.edu/37460469/A_Research_
Paper_on_The_Impact_of_E_Banking_on_commercial_Banking_Operations_A_Study_on_
United_Bank_for_Africa_UBA_Cameroon?sm=b.
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S.A., 2001. A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in
homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Q. 25 (1), 71–102.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3250959.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27 (3), 425–478. https://doi.
org/10.2307/30036540.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X., 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Q. 36 (1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.
Virginie, G., 2016. Sécurité dans le téléphone mobile. Techniques de l’ingénieur Sécurité
des SI : services et applications, base documentaire : TIB315DUO (ref. article : h5385).
Wamba-Taguimdje, S.-L., Wamba, S.F., Wanko, C.E.T., Kamdjoug, J.R.K., 2020.
Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: the business value of AI-
based transformation projects. Bus. Process Manag. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/
BPMJ-10-2019-0411. ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).
Wanko, C.E.T., Kamdjoug, J.R.K., Wamba, S.F., 2019. Study of a successful ERP
implementation using an extended information systems success model in Cameroon
universities: case of CUCA. In: Paper Presented at the World Conference on
Information Systems and Technologies.
Workman, M., Bommer, W.H., Straub, D., 2008. Security lapses and the omission of
information security measures: a threat control model and empirical test. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 24 (6), 2799–2816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.04.005.
Yannick, E., 2019. Sécurisation des frais de scolarité et d’examens: Afriland First Bank Le
Choix du Minesec. Retrieved from. https://afrique-infos.cm/securisation-des-frais-
de-scolarite-et-dexamens-afriland-first-bank-le-choix-du-minesec/.
Zaffar, M.A., Kumar, R.L., Zhao, K., 2019. Using agent-based modelling to investigate
diffusion of mobile-based branchless banking services in a developing country.
Decis. Support Syst. 117, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.015.
Zhou, T., 2013. An empirical examination of continuance intention of mobile payment
services. Decis. Support Syst. 54 (2), 1085–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2012.10.034.
Zins, A., Weill, L., 2016. The determinants of financial inclusion in Africa. Review of
Development Finance 6 (1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdf.2016.05.001.