MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342954641 · doi:10.4172/1204-5357.1000128

A Mobile Banking Adoption Model in the Jordanian Market: An Integration of TAM with Perceived Risks and Perceived Benefits

2015· article· en· W2342954641 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khasawneh MHA

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk perceptionMobile bankingTechnology acceptance modelPerceptionOrder (exchange)Conceptual modelExternal variableMobile phoneSample (material)VariablesMarketingConstruct (python library)Knowledge managementBusinessComputer sciencePsychologyUsabilityTelecommunicationsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although consumer perceptions of the risks of adopting e-banking have been studied by many researchers, the perceived risk variable has only been examined as a single construct, which fails to reveal the actual attributes of perceived risk and clarify why consumers refuse to use such banking services. In order to provide a more comprehensive clarification of the perceived risks of adopting m-banking in Jordan, a more in-depth study of the characteristics of the perceived risks was conducted. The current research is designed to integrate the five dimensions of the perceived risk with the TAM in order to present a more comprehensive model of m-banking acceptance and adoption in Jordan. As such, a conceptual model and 8 hypotheses are tested with a sample of 404 mobile phone users, and analysed quantitatively. The findings of the current study provided support for the research model and for most of the hypotheses regarding the relationship among the model’s variables. In particular, the research model presented in this paper is unique in that it synergistically combines the TAM variables along with perceived benefits, the various dimensions of perceived risks, attitude and behavioral intention in evaluating the decision to adopt m-Banking.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Internet Banking and CommerceSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207