The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-2323.htm

IJBM
28,5 The role of information in mobile
banking resistance
Tommi Laukkanen
372 Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland, and
Vesa Kiviniemi
IT-Centre, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – Adopting technological service innovations entails substantial learning effort requiring
information and guidance from the provider. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of
information and guidance offered by a bank on five adoption barriers – usage, value, risk, tradition,
and image – in a mobile banking context.
Design/methodology/approach – The measurement development and hypotheses were based on
consumer resistance theory and the earlier literature on internet and mobile banking. A large empirical
study on bank customers with 1,551 effective observations was conducted. The measure items were
validated by measurement model and hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling.
Findings – The results show that the information and guidance offered by a bank has the most
significant effect on decreasing the usage barrier, followed by image, value and risk barriers
respectively. The information and guidance showed no effect on the tradition barrier.
Originality/value – This paper provides further understanding of how the information and
guidance of a bank affect consumer attitudes and resistance in particular, on mobile banking. It also
has implications for management in overcoming resistance to mobile banking.
Keywords Innovation, Consumer behaviour, Information management, Mobile communication systems,
Banking
Paper type Research paper

International Journal of Bank
Marketing
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2010
pp. 372-388
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0265-2323
DOI 10.1108/02652321011064890
Introduction
There is rationale for being positive that mobile banking can take off in the foreseeable
future, but from the consumer perspective there are some barriers still to overcome.
Knowledge intensive innovations, like technological innovations, often entail
considerable learning effort from the consumer (Saaksjarvi, 2003). Thus, the
innovation adoption process imposes change on the consumer, and resistance to
change is a normal consumer response to innovations (Ram, 1987, 1989). Earlier
literature on innovations has largely suffered from pro-change bias (Ram, 1987; Rogers,
2003; Sheth, 1981) assuming that all innovations are always good and should be
adopted by all members of a social system (Rogers, 2003). This refers to the modernist
thinking of rational consumer always searching for more and more efficient ways to
practise. Consequently a large number of the studies in the field have aimed to explore
technology acceptance, time of adoption, adopter categories, and the rate of innovation
diffusion. However, in the present post-modern conditions like fragmentation of the
markets and loss of commitment by consumers, we need alternative methods to
understand and predict consumer behaviour.
Although the above mentioned studies provide crucial contribution to the
technology adoption, it seems that resistance to innovations and those individuals who
resist change are overlooked or have received inadequate attention. As marketers we Mobile banking
need to realise that a decision not to buy is a real consumption choice. Understanding resistance
the reasons for this behaviour could be vital in the successful development,
implementation and marketing of innovations as it is argued that adoption only begins
after a consumer has overcome the initial resistance to the innovation (Ram, 1987).
Therefore, there is always some resistance before adoption or the ultimate rejection
decision (Kuisma et al., 2007), but adoption and resistance can also coexist (Ram, 1987). 373
In order to overcome the resistance, we need to identify the sources of resistance and
develop strategies to reduce that resistance. Rogers (2003) argues that one must focus
on the communication process to understand changes caused, for instance, by an
innovation. In the context of innovations, communicability refers to the ease with
which the benefits of the product can be demonstrated to consumers, and the lower the
communicability of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance is likely to be
(Ram, 1987). Earlier literature has claimed that in case of banking technologies, for
example, some non-adopters have suffered from lack of information (Kuisma et al.,
2007), knowledge (Gerrard et al., 2006), and training (Kuisma et al., 2007; Mattila et al.,
2003).
The main object of our study is therefore to explore how information about an
innovation affects consumer resistance to the innovation in terms of five barriers,
namely usage, value, risk, tradition, and image derived from earlier literature. More
specifically our focus is on mobile banking services which provide true mobility,
ubiquity, and temporal and spatial flexibility to the service consumption, but which are
still marginally adopted. The contribution of the study is therefore twofold: to focus on
mobile banking which is a less researched context among financial services, and to
lean on innovation resistance theory which is largely a neglected perspective in
adoption and diffusion literature.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, by recapping the earlier
literature we discuss the reasons that may cause resistance to mobile banking adoption
and consequently build hypotheses for our study. Thereafter, the data and methods
used are presented. Finally, we provide the results of the study, draw conclusions, and
present the implications for management.

Prior research and hypotheses development

Mobile services and their consumption have lately become a burning issue among
information systems (IS) and marketing scholars (Wang et al., 2006). At the same time
many service providers are making substantial investments to take advantage of the
business opportunities offered by wireless technology. It seems that delivering
value-added mobile services to customers is becoming increasingly important in
gaining a competitive edge in the marketplace (Wang et al., 2006). In the financial
services sector, for example, mobile banking represents an additional service for
certain occasions adding the element of true mobility to internet banking used over
fixed networks. Thus, we define mobile banking as:
[. . .] an interaction in which a customer is connected to a bank via a mobile device such as cell
phone, smartphone or personal digital assistant (PDA).
It has to be noted that the interaction does not necessarily need to involve transactions
like bill paying, money transfer between accounts or stock exchange, as mobile
IJBM banking can, in its simplest form, be only an SMS request of an account balance, for
28,5 example. However, from the perspective of banks that develop mobile banking, a great
number of customers should use these services in order to produce a return on
investment (Lee and Chung, 2009). Therefore, it has been argued that whereas today
internet banking services provide huge economic benefits for the banks, mobile
services serve rather as a way to offer customers value added (Laukkanen et al., 2007).
374 The value of mobile banking for consumers is in its immediate location-free access
to banking services enabling time savings, real-time information, and enhanced
feelings of control (Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005). The services today enable bank
customers, for example, to request their account balance and the latest transactions of
their accounts, to transfer funds between accounts, to make buy and sell orders on the
stock exchange and to receive portfolio and price information. However, while internet
banking innovation has diffused well in many countries and recent studies indicate
high user satisfaction (e.g. Pikkarainen et al., 2006) it appears that a number of
consumers are not yet willing to adopt or frequently use mobile banking services.
To explore different barriers to mobile banking adoption among bank customers we
relied on the seminal work by Ram and Sheth (1989) in which they present a theoretical
framework for consumer resistance. They suggest two core resistance constructs –
functional and psychological. They further categorise three constructs namely usage
barrier, value barrier, and risk barrier among the functional barriers, and two
constructs, namely tradition barrier and image barrier among the psychological
barriers. This framework has been applied in some of the earlier studies regarding
banking technologies (Fain and Roberts, 1997; Laukkanen et al., 2007, 2008, 2009; Cruz
et al., 2009) and is therefore considered suitable for this study also.
Prior research has shown that some internet banking non-users feel that they have
not received enough information from the bank and so suffer from lack of knowledge
(Gerrard et al., 2006; Kuisma et al., 2007) and training (Kuisma et al., 2007; Mattila et al.,
2003) concerning the innovation. This might well also be the case in mobile banking, so
we expect that information about the service has a decreasing effect on the adoption
barriers (Figure 1).

The usage barrier

Ram and Sheth (1989) suggest that among functional barriers the usage barrier comes
into operation when an innovation is not compatible with existing workflows, practices
or habits. In the context of technological innovations, however, this construct is

Figure 1.
Research model and
hypotheses
comparable to complexity which, according to Rogers (2003), refers to the degree to Mobile banking
which an individual considers an innovation to be relatively difficult to understand and resistance
use. As a part of the TAM model ease-of-use represents the degree to which an
individual considers an innovation to be free of effort (Davis et al., 1989). This concept
closely corresponds to the concept of complexity (Davis, 1989; Teo and Pok, 2003; Wu
and Wang, 2005) and is also relative to the usage barrier.
In the mobile banking context the small size of mobile devices including small 375
screens and tiny multifunction keypads may be troublesome to use and impair the
usability of the service. Indeed, it has been argued that the reason behind the belated
dissemination of mobile banking is in the system limitations, such as tiny screens and
keypads and slower transaction speeds, compared to computer based internet banking
(Lee and Chung, 2009). Earlier studies show that smaller screens appear adequate in
information-based mobile services, like requesting account balance, but those banking
services involving transactions require a bigger screen size (Laukkanen, 2007a). For
example, some bank customers consider bill payment via mobile phone to be difficult
and time consuming as the device enables only a limited amount of information
processing and hence, the whole bill is not visible on the display inhibiting the progress
in the service process (Laukkanen, 2007b; Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005). However,
significant differences in channel attribute preferences exist between users and
non-users of mobile banking (Laukkanen, 2007c). Moreover, some studies highlight the
importance of simple authorisation mechanisms in internet banking and report
inconvenience due to changing PIN codes among some bank customers as the codes
need to be carried along (Kuisma et al., 2007).
The usage barrier mainly implies the role of functional usability of an innovation.
Earlier studies show that those reporting functional resistance to banking technologies
appear to be more dissatisfied with the information and guidance offered by the bank
than others, and suggest careful one-to-one customer education from the service
provider in order to decrease the resistance (Laukkanen et al., 2009). Consequently we
hypothesise:
H1. Information and guidance offered by the bank has a negative effect on the
usage barrier.

The value barrier

The value barrier refers to the performance and monetary value of an innovation in
comparison to its substitutes (Ram and Sheth, 1989). This concept is related to Rogers’
(2003) concept of relative advantage defined as the perceived superiority of an
innovation to the product or service it follows. Then again, relative advantage is
similar to the concept of perceived usefulness (Wu and Wang, 2005) which refers to an
individual’s perception that using a specific innovation improves his/her performance
(Davis et al., 1989). Consequently, Brown et al. (2003) showed that the greater the
perceived advantage that mobile banking offers over other ways of banking, the more
likely mobile banking is to be adopted. One such advantage is the option to check the
movements or transactions of an account wherever wanted, increasing customers’
feeling of control over their financial affairs (Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005).
However, if an innovation does not offer superior performance to existing alternatives,
it is not worthwhile for consumers to change their behaviour (Ram and Sheth, 1989).
For example, financial cost considerations, i.e. the extent to which an individual
IJBM believes that using mobile banking is uneconomical, have been found to have a
28,5 negative effect on the intention to use mobile banking (Luarn and Lin, 2005).
The value barrier, for its part, can be lowered by providing significant performance
value and value-for-money over existing alternatives (Ram and Sheth, 1989).
Consequently, Gerrard et al. (2006) suggest that by educational programs describing
the advantages of internet banking banks could influence those customers who
376 currently see no need to use internet banking services. Thus we hypothesise:
H2. Information and guidance offered by the bank has a negative effect on the
value barrier.

The risk barrier

The theory of perceived risk has been applied to explain consumer behavior and
decision-making since the 1960s (Taylor, 1974). In recent decades the definition of
perceived risk has changed as people have engaged in online transactions. Initially
perceived risk was primarily related to fraud or product quality, but today perceived
risk is related to financial, psychological, physical, or social risks in online transactions
(Forsythe and Shi, 2003; Im et al., 2008).
Following Ram and Sheth (1989) the risk barrier refers to the degree of risks inherent
in an innovation. These risk perceptions usually arise due to the uncertainty related to
the degree of discrepancies between people’s judgements and actual behaviour, i.e. if a
technology fails to deliver its expected outcome, it will cause loss to the user (Im et al.,
2008). Dunphy and Herbig (1995) note that the diffusion of innovation usually takes
longer the more risk adverse the innovation is. The prior research on mobile banking and
other banking technologies has identified different types of risks. Firstly, there appear to
be privacy and security concerns regarding mobile banking among some consumers
(Luarn and Lin, 2005). A portable list of PIN codes may also pose security threats as the
list may be lost (Kuisma et al., 2007). For instance, Poon (2008) report that some bank
customers fear that the hackers may get access to their bank account via PIN numbers.
Indeed, safety measures of personal details and financial information are one of the
critical factors for the success of mobile banking (Brown et al., 2003), especially among
mature consumers (Laukkanen et al., 2007).
Second, reliability referring to the “degree to which a person believes a new
technology will perform a job consistently and accurately” is an extremely important
risk-related factor in technology-based financial service innovations (Lee et al., 2003).
Mobile phones, for example, may be limited in computational power, memory capacity
and battery life, limiting the use of mobile services (Siau and Shen, 2003).
Finally, self-efficacy is evinced as a major risk factor predicting resistance to
technological innovations (Ellen et al., 1991). It refers to the confidence the individual
has in his/her ability to use a specific technology (Agarwal et al., 2000). Ellen et al.
(1991) argue that when faced with an alternative that the individual feels less capable
of handling, he/she may resist the alternative due to feelings of inadequacy or
discomfort possibly arising from the anticipated change. In mobile banking the data
input and output mechanisms may hinder the individual’s confidence to use the service
as some consumers appear to be afraid that they may make mistakes when conducting
their bank affairs via a mobile phone (Laukkanen, 2007b; Laukkanen and Lauronen,
2005). Consequently, in their mobile banking study Luarn and Lin (2005) defined
perceived self-efficacy as the assessment of one’s ability to use mobile banking.
 Lee and Chung (2009) state that it is in the best interest of mobile banking service Mobile banking
providers to gain the trust of their customers. They argue that providing reliable and resistance
appropriate information are effective ways of gaining the trust of customers.
Therefore, we hypothesise:
H3. Information and guidance offered by the bank has a negative effect on the risk
barrier.
377
The tradition barrier
Functional and technical issues do not provide a comprehensive explanation to
innovation resistance. It has been noted that some satisfaction/dissatisfaction with
electronic financial services is not tied to the technology itself, but rather to the type of
personality (Srijumpa et al., 2002). For example, if there is a desire or sensed need for
personal contact, willingness to adopt technology-enabled service delivery is lower
(Walker et al., 2002). Tradition and image barriers are more often created through
conflicts with customers’ prior beliefs and values than actual usage of the innovation
(Ram and Sheth, 1989). These mental traits of consumers are associated to a broader
discussion in literature about technology readiness, referring to customers’ mental
readiness to accept new technologies (Parasuraman, 2000).
Those innovations that are inconsistent with values and require changes in traditions
and lifestyles are most likely to be resisted by consumers (Dunphy and Herbig, 1995).
Thus, the tradition barrier arises when an innovation is incompatible with an individual’s
existing values, norms and past experience (Ram and Sheth, 1989), and may block the
adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). The tradition barrier appears to be conceptually
related to the concept of compatibility from the theory of innovation diffusion.
In the online banking context the tradition barrier may arise, for example, if an
individual perceives online banking to be very different from the way he/she has been
accustomed to paying bills (Fain and Roberts, 1997). Alternatively, a customer may
need social interaction and enjoy talking to bank personnel, and complain that internet
banking lacks a social dimension in terms of human interaction (Gerrard et al., 2006;
Mattila et al., 2003). Prior research has shown that a strong desire to deal with human
tellers may discourage an individual from adopting self-service technologies in
banking (Marr and Prendergast, 1993) and lack of human contact may cause
dissatisfaction in internet financial services (Srijumpa et al., 2002, 2007). It may be that
in mobile banking the tradition barrier arises if consumers simply prefer to deal
directly with the bank clerk instead of using new banking technologies.
Psychological resistance, derived from the traditions of consumers could be broken
down, for instance, by using change agents (Ram and Sheth, 1989). Laukkanen et al.
(2009) suggest that marketer should take the role of a change agent by using
face-to-face contact to have a great personal influence on consumers and their
traditions. Consequently we hypothesise:
H4. Information and guidance offered by the bank has a negative effect on the
tradition barrier.

The image barrier

As innovations attain a certain identity from their origins, such as the product category
to which they belong, the unfavourable associations regarding these identities give rise
IJBM to the image barrier (Ram and Sheth, 1989). This is a highly perceptual issue of an
28,5 individual and in the case of technological innovations, for example, may derive from
negative image of a new technology in general and of a product class such as mobile
banking in particular. In the late 1990s Fain and Roberts (1997) stated that the image
barrier in online banking emerges from a negative hard-to-use image of computers and
the internet. This is related to so-called anxiety towards computers (Kay, 1993) and
378 negative state of mind about technology tools (Meuter et al., 2003). This may also be the
case in mobile banking today as some consumers may perceive the mobile technology
to be too difficult to use and therefore instantly form a negative image of the service
related to the technology. We suggest that information and guidance from the bank has
a decreasing effect also on the image barrier. Thus we hypothesise:
H5. Information and guidance offered by the bank has a negative effect on the
image barrier.
Ram and Sheth (1989) divided the five adoption barriers into functional and
psychological. Therefore, in addition to H1-H5, we assume that the functional barriers
including the usage, value and risk barriers are correlated. We likewise assume that the
psychological barriers including tradition and image barriers are correlated.

Empirical study
We tested our hypotheses using data from an online survey among the internet
banking customers of a large bank in Finland. A questionnaire that was based on the
theory of innovation resistance and the existing literature on internet and mobile
banking was placed in the log-out page of the bank’s online service. Thus the sampling
method comprised a sample of volunteers. The questionnaire was open for 72 hours
generating 2,060 responses in total, of which 1,551 were effective for this study, i.e.
without missing values.

Measure items
The five adoption barriers based on the literature on innovation resistance were
examined with 16 statements derived from prior internet and mobile banking studies.
Moreover, the perceived information and guidance offered by the bank was measured
with three statements derived from earlier studies on banking technologies. A
seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7) was used
in all statements. The measure items with related literature are shown in Table I.

Data analysis
In the data analysis phase the scales of positively formed statements were inverted so
that the scales of all statements were comparable; consequently the higher the mean of
a statement, the higher the resistance of the respondent. In addition, the model was
specified according to that presented in Figure 1 and following the hypotheses settings
defined. Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step approach was utilised.
First, the reliability of the measurement instrument was examined using the
measurement model that specifies the relationship of latent variables and observed
indicators. Thereafter, the hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling
(SEM). The typical steps, including model specification and identification, parameter
estimation, hypotheses testing and model fit examination, were taken into the
 Mobile banking
Construct Measure item Internet/mobile banking literature
resistance
Usage barrier In my opinion, mobile banking services are Kuisma et al. (2007)
easy to use (2) Laukkanen (2007a, b)
In my opinion, the use of mobile banking Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005)
services is convenient (2) Lee and Chung, 2009
In my opinion, mobile banking services are 379
fast to use (2 )
In my opinion, progress in mobile banking
services is clear (2 )
The use of changing PIN codes in mobile
banking services is convenient (2)
Value barrier The use of mobile banking services is Brown et al. (2003)
economical (2 ) Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005)
In my opinion, mobile banking does not Luarn and Lin (2005)
offer any advantage compared to handling
my financial matters in other ways
In my opinion, the use of mobile banking
services increases my ability to control my
financial matters by myself (2)
Risk barrier I fear that while I am paying a bill by mobile Brown et al. (2003)
phone, I might make mistakes since the Kuisma et al. (2007)
correctness of the inputted information is Laukkanen (2007b)
difficult to check from the screen Laukkanen and Lauronen (2005)
I fear that while I am using mobile banking Lee et al. (2003)
services, the battery of the mobile phone will Luarn and Lin (2005)
run out or the connection will otherwise be Poon (2008)
lost
I fear that while I am using a mobile
banking service, I might tap out the
information of the bill wrongly
I fear that the list of PIN codes may be lost
and end up in the wrong hands
Tradition barrier Patronising in the banking office and Fain and Roberts (1997)
chatting with the teller is a nice occasion on Gerrard et al. (2006)
a weekday Marr and Prendergast (1993)
I find self-service alternatives more pleasant Mattila et al. (2003)
than personal customer service (2) Srijumpa et al. (2002, 2007)
Image barrier In my opinion, new technology is often too Fain and Roberts (1997)
complicated to be useful Kuisma et al. (2007)
I have such an image that mobile banking
services are difficult to use
Information In my opinion, there is enough information Gerrard et al. (2006)
available about mobile banking services Kuisma et al. (2007)
I feel that the bank has guided me enough Mattila et al. (2003)
related to mobile banking services
I feel that when needed, I will get enough
guidance from the bank related to mobile
banking services
Table I.
Note: (2 ) Reversed scale Measure items
IJBM modelling. The analysis was performed using Amos 16.0 software. In the hypothesis
28,5 testing, p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Measurement instrument validation

A six-construct measurement model was first established before modelling the structural
relationships defined by the hypotheses. This step was done in order to confirm and
380 validate the measurement instrument and to define the relations between observed and
unobserved variables. Overall, the fitted measurement model provides a fairly
reasonable fit (NFI ¼ 0:95, RFI ¼ 0:93, IFI ¼ 0:95, CFI ¼ 0:95, RMSEA ¼ 0:059).
Moreover, the internal consistency of the constructs, measured with Cronbach’s alpha,
ranged from 0.58 to 0.94, which can be considered acceptable as Nunnally (1967)
suggests that the minimally acceptable construct reliability for preliminary research
should be in the range of 0.5 to 0.6. Composite reliabilities of the constructs ranged from
0.59 to 0.96 and average variance extracted varied from 45 percent to 76 percent.
Similarly, the composite reliabilities and average variance extracted can be considered
acceptable in this context although the reliability varies noticeably between the
constructs.
Discriminant validity, which is the extent to which a construct is truly distinct from
other constructs (Hair et al., 1998), was tested by comparing the AVE of each construct
with squared correlations between the constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As
suggested by Farrell (2010), CFA correlation matrix was used for assessing
discriminant validity as a correlation matrix that does not take measurement error into
account may lead to misleading results. The results indicate that discriminant validity
exists between constructs with one exception. It seems that discriminant validity may
not properly exist between the usage barrier and the value barrier as the AVE for value
barrier (0.45) is lower than the squared correlation between usage barrier and value
barrier (0.53). This indicates correlation between these two constructs. As discussed
above, the usage barrier parallels perceived ease-of-use quite closely, likewise value
barrier parallels perceived usefulness. The earlier literature has shown that these two
concepts, ease-of-use and usefulness, correlate with each other. Davis (1989) suggested
that perceived ease-of-use might be an antecedent to usefulness. Later on this is
verified by a number of TAM studies (e.g. Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh and Davis,
2000). Moreover, in their study on internet banking barriers Laukkanen et al. (2008)
showed that the usage and value barriers are distinct constructs, as suggested by the
theory. Based on the evidence of the earlier literature these two constructs are
considered separate in this study. However, this is taken into consideration in our
model as usage and value barriers are assumed to correlate. Table II presents the
average variance extracted of the constructs and the correlations and squared
correlations between the constructs. Standardised loadings of the measurement model
are shown in Table III.

Results
The main results of the fitted model are represented in Figure 2 along with the arrows
expressing the associations of observed and latent variables. The ovals represent latent
variables and rectangles stand for observed variables. The one-way arrows represent
the directed associations and the two-way arrows describe the correlations of the
variables. The values above the arrows are standardised regression coefficients or
 Mobile banking
Scale Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
resistance
1. Usage barrier 4.23 1.51 0.76 0.53 0.12 0.02 0.29 0.25
2. Value barrier 4.58 1.50 0.73 0.45 0.08 0.01 0.18 0.18
3. Risk barrier 4.05 1.67 0.34 0.28 0.62 0.02 0.29 0.05
4. Tradition barrier 3.37 1.63 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.42 0.07 0.00
5. Image barrier 3.40 1.66 0.54 0.42 0.54 0.26 0.62 0.14 381
6. Information 3.68 1.43 2 0.50 20.42 2 0.22 20.02 2 0.38 0.52
Cronbach’s a 0.94 0.69 0.86 0.58 0.76 0.76
Composite reliability 0.96 0.71 0.86 0.59 0.77 0.76
Average variance extracted (%) 76 45 62 42 62 52
Table II.
Notes: Goodness-of-fit statistics: x 2(139) ¼ 880.17, p , 0:001, NFI ¼ 0.95, RFI ¼ 0.93, IFI ¼ 0.95, Reliability and validity
CFI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.059; correlations are below the diagonal, squared correlations are above the statistics of the
diagonal, AVE estimates are on the diagonal constructs

correlations ranging from 2 1 to 1. The abbreviations, such as e1 or ef1, are error terms
belonging to the model. The parameter estimates along with the test statistics and
p-values are shown in Table IV.
The parameter estimates in Figure 2 and Table IV show that the information and
guidance offered by the bank is significantly negatively related to all the functional
barriers including usage (b ¼ 20:55, p , 0:001), value (b ¼ 20:45, p , 0:001) and
risk (b ¼ 20:27, p , 0:001) barriers. Thus, H1-H3 are supported. Moreover, the
results show that the information and guidance offered by the bank also significantly
lowers the image barrier (b ¼ 20:46, p , 0:001) but not the tradition barrier
(b ¼ 20:05, p , 0:157). Thus, among psychological barriers the data and the findings
give support to H5 but not to H4. The magnitudes of the effects indicate that the
information and guidance offered by the bank has the strongest effect on decreasing
the usage barrier, while image, value and risk barriers follow in that order. The
correlations of functional barriers and psychological barriers were all significant as
assumed. The association of usage and value barriers had the greatest magnitude
among the correlations.
The chi-square test, testing the equality of empirical and theoretical (modelled)
covariance matrices, suggests rejecting the model (p , 0:001). This can be considered
a typical phenomenon with larger sample sizes due to the conservativeness of the
statistical test (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980). However, NFI ¼ 0:92, RFI ¼ 0:91,
IFI ¼ 0:93, CFI ¼ 0:93, and RMSEA ¼ 0:071 suggest a fairly reasonable fit of the
model. Therefore, in the light of these fit indices the model seems to achieve a
reasonably good concordance with the data.

Concluding discussion
Earlier literature has shown that limited supply of relevant information or possible
misinformation is likely to discourage innovation adoption (Wilton and Pessemier,
1981). Indeed, it has been argued that it is necessary that banks, for example, make
their customers aware of the available banking technologies and explain how they add
value relative to other ways of conducting banking services (Sathye, 1999). This paper
addressed the role of information and guidance offered by the bank in decreasing
consumer resistance to the latest innovation in banking technologies i.e. mobile
IJBM
Standardised
28,5 Measure items of the constructs loadings

Usage barrier
V1 In my opinion, mobile banking services are easy to use (2) 0.93
V2 In my opinion, the use of mobile banking services is convenient (2) 0.94
382 V3 In my opinion, mobile banking services are fast to use (2) 0.86
V4 In my opinion, progress in mobile banking services is clear (2) 0.90
V5 The use of changing PIN codes in mobile banking services is convenient (2) 0.72
Value barrier
V6 The use of mobile banking services is economical (2) 0.62
V7 In my opinion, mobile banking does not offer any advantage compared to
handling my financial matters in other ways 0.59
V8 In my opinion, the use of mobile banking services increases my ability to
control my financial matters by myself (2 ) 0.80
Risk barrier
V9 I fear that while I am paying a bill by mobile phone, I might make mistakes
since the correctness of the inputted information is difficult to check from the
screen 0.85
V10 I fear that while I am using mobile banking services, the battery of the mobile
phone will run out or the connection will otherwise be lost 0.79
V11 I fear that while I am using a mobile banking service, I might tap out the
information of the bill wrongly 0.89
V12 I fear that the list of PIN codes may be lost and end up in the wrong hands 0.58
Tradition barrier
V13 Patronising in the banking office and chatting with the teller is a nice occasion
on a weekday 0.60
V14 I find self-service alternatives more pleasant than personal customer service (2) 0.69
Image barrier
V15 In my opinion, new technology is often too complicated to be useful 0.77
V16 I have such an image that mobile banking services are difficult to use 0.81
Information
V17 In my opinion, there is enough information available about mobile banking
services 0.70
V18 I feel that the bank has guided me enough related to mobile banking services 0.80
Table III. V19 I feel that when needed, I will get enough guidance from the bank related to
Standardised loadings of mobile banking services 0.65
the measure items Note: (2 ) Reversed scale

banking. We applied the five adoption barriers namely usage, value, risk, tradition and
image suggested by Ram and Sheth (1989) and empirically tested the effect of
information and guidance to the barriers using structural equation modelling (SEM).
The study showed that information and guidance about mobile banking has the
strongest effect on decreasing the usage barrier followed by image, value and risk
barriers respectively. Thus, the results supported H1-H3 and H5. However, the
information and guidance about mobile banking did not show a statistically significant
effect on the tradition barrier and thus the results did not give support to H4.
 Mobile banking
resistance

383

Figure 2.
Structural equation model
and standardised
estimates

Effect Beta SE Standardised beta Significance

Information ! usage barrier 2 0.59 0.04 20.55 p , 0:001

Information ! value barrier 2 0.58 0.05 20.45 p , 0:001
Information ! risk barrier 2 0.27 0.03 20.27 p , 0:001
Information ! tradition barrier 0.06 0.04 20.05 p ¼ 0.157
Information ! image barrier 2 0.57 0.04 20.46 p , 0:001
Usage barrier $ value barrier 0.95 0.06 0.65 p , 0:001 Table IV.
Usage barrier $ risk barrier 0.28 0.04 0.23 p , 0:001 Summary of model
Risk barrier $ value barrier 0.28 0.05 0.19 p , 0:001 parameter estimates and
Image barrier $ tradition barrier 0.43 0.07 0.27 p , 0:001 test statistics

These results suggest that the information and guidance offered by a bank has the most
significant effect on perceived functional usability of the innovation but also significantly
increases the positive image associated with the innovation. The results also suggest that
information and guidance significantly increase the perceived value added provided by
mobile banking and decrease the perceived risks related to the innovation.
In line with the literature (Ram and Sheth, 1989), our findings suggest that
functional barriers, including usage, value and risk, are correlated. Similarly the
psychological barriers, namely tradition and image, are correlated as expected. To
conclude, it appears that information and guidance has more influence on functional
than psychological barriers in the mobile banking context.
Communication methods can be classified along two dimensions: extent of marketer
control (high vs low) and type of influence on the consumer (personal vs impersonal)
(Ram, 1989). In this study we focused on those communication methods and strategies
IJBM that are under the marketer’s control, as low control, according to Ram (1989), refers to
28,5 information sources such as word-of-mouth, opinion leadership, government agencies
and consumer agency reports. Based on the earlier literature we developed a construct
called Information referring to the customer perceived adequacy of the information and
guidance about mobile banking offered by a service provider.
There are two broad categories of communication methods that the marketer can
384 use: change agents used for personal communication and mass media for impersonal
communication (Ram, 1989). Ram (1989) states that in the case of product innovations a
change agent is one who actively provides face-to-face information to potential
consumers in order to motivate them to adopt the innovation. He suggests that the
marketing firm or its representative may take on this role by actively attempting to
influence consumers. Mass media, for its part, includes marketer-controlled
communication methods such as advertisements, publicity releases or media reports
on the positive features of the innovation (Ram, 1989).
The results of the study showed that the information and guidance a bank offers
has the greatest influence on decreasing the usage barrier, which mainly implies the
functional usability of the innovation. If a bank customer, for example, perceives
mobile banking to be difficult to use he/she needs careful one-to-one customer
education from the bank personnel. Therefore, personal communication is needed.
However, the proper communication method for decreasing the value barrier might be
impersonal by using mass media or the internet service for informing customers of the
value added the innovation offers over existing alternatives. Previous studies describe
the value adding elements of mobile banking to bank customers. The studies show that
mobile banking increases efficiency and convenience in bill paying, for example, as the
service can be used wherever wanted enabling time savings and immediate reactions
to unexpected service need (Laukkanen, 2007b; Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005).
Moreover, the option to check the movements or transactions of an account wherever
wanted has been found to increase customers’ feeling of control over their financial
affairs (Laukkanen and Lauronen, 2005). Banks could use this information in their
communications to their customers.
To overcome the risk barrier mobile banking could be offered on a trial basis to
potential customers (Ram and Sheth, 1989) as it is suggested that the lower the trial
ability of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance is likely to be (Ram, 1987).
Some banks provide a trial service in which customers can see and try out free of
charge how the service functions without using their own accounts. From the
communication perspective this can be considered as guiding without personal
face-to-face or telephone contact.
The results showed that information and guidance had the second strongest effect
on lowering the image barrier. This shows that having information and guidance
available and also actively providing information significantly increases the positive
image of mobile banking. Therefore, banks should use both personal and impersonal
communication methods in their marketing actions. Customers visiting their bank
branch could be informed about the option to bank anytime anywhere via a mobile
device as nearly everyone today has a mobile phone in their pocket. Banks could also
market mobile banking for current internet banking users as a supplementary channel
for special situations. It is suggested that the most potential mobile banking users
among internet banking customers are those with high education and good income,
those working in a leading position, experts or entrepreneurs, and having long usage Mobile banking
experience and high usage frequency of internet banking (Laukkanen, 2007c). resistance
Some limitations are evident in this study. First of all, the study is based on a
theoretical framework of consumer resistance that has not been empirically tested in a
large scale. This study is one of the first attempts to empirically validate the five
adoption barriers suggested by Ram and Sheth (1989) over 20 years ago. Even though
some empirical evidence exists that these adoption barriers are distinct constructs, this 385
appears not to be explicit. Our validity statistics suggest that the usage and value
barriers may somewhat overlap and that their divergence is not necessarily
unequivocal. Therefore, further research is needed to verify measures of these two
constructs.
Moreover, the data were collected using an online questionnaire that was open for
72 hours in an online service of a bank. Since different people may bank online on
weekdays than at weekends, placing the survey on the banking site only for this
limited time period exposed the study to a potential bias. Also, the respondents were all
already using internet banking services so their attitudes to mobile banking may differ
significantly from those who are not at all acquainted with online banking services. In
addition, we must be careful with the generalisations of the findings as the data was
collected only among customers of a single bank in Finland. Customers of one bank
may exhibit different behavioural patterns from customers of other banks and,
furthermore, Finns may show different attitudes to technologies in general, and
banking technologies in particular, than people in other countries. Finally, one more
limitation in our study is that all the constructs were measured with one survey
conducted at the same time exposing the study to common method variance problem.
This problem could be excluded only by collecting data through different sources or
through a longitudinal survey.
More research is needed to enhance the validity of the adoption barriers. Both,
qualitative and quantitative research approaches in different empirical contexts are
welcome. Also cross-national studies in terms of construct validation are needed. In
addition, the common method variance problem should also be taken into account by
designing studies in which the data are collected through different sources or by using
longitudinal surveys. To conclude, understanding consumer resistance as a
phenomenon deserves more attention among academics and practitioners alike.

References
Agarwal, R., Sambamurth, V. and Stair, R. (2000), “Research report: the evolving relationship
between general and specific computer self-efficacy”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 418-30.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
Brown, I., Cajee, Z., Davies, D. and Stroebel, S. (2003), “Cell phone banking: predictors of adoption
in South Africa – an exploratory study”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 381-94.
IJBM Cruz, P., Laukkanen, T. and Muñoz, P. (2009), “Exploring the factors behind the resistance to
mobile banking in Portugal”, International Journal of E-services and Mobile Applications,
28,5 Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 16-35.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-40.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a
386 comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982-1003.
Dunphy, S. and Herbig, P.A. (1995), “Acceptance of innovations: the customer is the key!”,
Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 193-209.
Ellen, P.S., Bearden, W.O. and Sharma, S. (1991), “Resistance to technological innovations: an
examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 297-307.
Fain, D. and Roberts, M.L. (1997), “Technology vs consumer behavior: the battle for the financial
services customer”, Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 44-54.
Farrell, A.M. (2010), “Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and
Shiu (2009)”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63, pp. 324-7.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Forsythe, S.M. and Shi, B. (2003), “Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in internet
shopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 867-75.
Gerrard, P., Cunningham, J.B. and Devlin, J.F. (2006), “Why consumers are not using internet
banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 160-8.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Im, I., Kim, Y. and Han, H.-J. (2008), “The effects of perceived risk and technology type on users’
acceptance of technologies”, Information & Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Kay, R.H. (1993), “An exploration of theoretical and practical foundations for assessing attitudes
toward computers: the computer attitude measure (CAM)”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 371-86.
Kuisma, T., Laukkanen, T. and Hiltunen, M. (2007), “Mapping the reasons for resistance to
internet banking: a means-end approach”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 75-85.
Laukkanen, T. (2007a), “Measuring mobile banking customers’ channel attribute preferences in
service consumption”, International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 123-38.
Laukkanen, T. (2007b), “Internet vs mobile banking: comparing customer value perceptions”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 788-97.
Laukkanen, T. (2007c), “Customer preferred channel attributes in multi-channel electronic
banking”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 5,
pp. 393-412.
Laukkanen, T. and Lauronen, J. (2005), “Consumer value creation in mobile banking services”,
International Journal of Mobile Communications, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 325-38.
Laukkanen, P., Sinkkonen, S. and Laukkanen, T. (2008), “Consumer resistance to internet
banking: postponers, opponents and rejectors”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 440-55.
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S. and Laukkanen, P. (2009), “Communication strategies to overcome Mobile banking
functional and psychological resistance to internet banking”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 111-8. resistance
Laukkanen, T., Sinkkonen, S., Kivijärvi, M. and Laukkanen, P. (2007), “Innovation resistance
among mature consumers”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 419-27.
Lee, E.-J., Lee, J. and Eastwood, D. (2003), “A two-step estimation of consumer adoption of
technology-based service innovations”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 37 No. 2, 387
pp. 256-82.
Lee, K.C. and Chung, N. (2009), “Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with
mobile banking in Korea: a modified DeLone and McLean’s model perspective”,
Interacting with Computers, Vol. 21 Nos 5-6, pp. 385-92.
Luarn, P. and Lin, H.-H. (2005), “Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use
mobile banking”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 873-91.
Marr, N.E. and Prendergast, G.P. (1993), “Consumer adoption of self-service technologies in retail
banking: is expert opinion supported by consumer research”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Mattila, M., Karjaluoto, H. and Pento, T. (2003), “Internet banking adoption among mature
customers: early majority or laggards?”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5,
pp. 514-28.
Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Bitner, M.J. and Roundtree, R. (2003), “The influence of technology
anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 899-906.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A. (2000), “Technology Readiness Index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure
readiness to embrace new technologies”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4,
pp. 307-20.
Pikkarainen, K., Pikkarainen, T., Karjaluoto, H. and Pahnila, S. (2006), “The measurement of
end-user computer satisfaction of online banking services: empirical evidence from
Finland”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 158-72.
Poon, W-C. (2008), “Users’ adoption of e-banking services: the Malaysian perspective”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 59-69.
Ram, S. (1987), “A model of innovation resistance”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 208-12.
Ram, S. (1989), “Successful innovation using strategies to reduce consumer resistance: an
empirical test”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 20-34.
Ram, S. and Sheth, J.N. (1989), “Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and
its solutions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 5-14.
Rogers, E. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, New York, NY.
Saaksjarvi, M. (2003), “Consumer adoption of technological innovations”, European Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Sathye, M. (1999), “Adoption of internet banking by Australian consumers: an empirical
investigation”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 324-34.
Sheth, J.N. (1981), “Psychology of innovation resistance: the less developed concept (LDC) in
diffusion research”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 273-82.
Siau, K. and Shen, Z. (2003), “Mobile communications and mobile services”, International Journal
of Mobile Communications, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 3-14.
IJBM Srijumpa, R., Chiarakul, T. and Speece, M. (2007), “Satisfaction and dissatisfaction in service
encounters: retail stockbrokerage and corporate banking in Thailand”, International
28,5 Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 173-94.
Srijumpa, R., Speece, M. and Paul, H. (2002), “Satisfaction drivers for internet service technology
among stock brokerage customers in Thailand”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing,
Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 240-53.
388 Taylor, J.W. (1974), “The role of risk in consumer behaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 54-60.
Teo, T.S.H. and Pok, S.H. (2003), “Adoption of WAP-enabled mobile phones among internet
users”, Omega, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 483-98.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Walker, R.H., Craig-Lees, M., Hecker, R. and Francis, H. (2002), “Technology-enabled service
delivery: an investigation of reasons affecting customer adoption and rejection”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 91-106.
Wang, Y.-S., Lin, H.-H. and Luarn, P. (2006), “Predicting consumer intention to use mobile
service”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 157-79.
Wilton, P.C. and Pessemier, E.A. (1981), “Forecasting the ultimate acceptance of an innovation:
the effects of information”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 162-71.
Wu, J.-H. and Wang, S.-C. (2005), “What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the
revised technology acceptance model”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 5,
pp. 719-29.

Further reading
Heinonen, K. (2004), Time and Location as Customer Perceived Value Drivers, Economi och
Samhälle 124, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki.

Corresponding author
Tommi Laukkanen can be contacted at: tommi.laukkanen@uef.fi

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints