Examining the adoption of mobile banking: Empirical evidence from Indonesian Muslim students

  • Received March 17, 2022;
    Accepted May 24, 2022;
    Published June 27, 2022
  • Author(s)
  • DOI
    http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.17(2).2022.12
  • Article Info
    Volume 17 2022, Issue #2, pp. 138-149
  • TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
  • Cited by
    4 articles
  • 639 Views
  • 267 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The shifting trend toward m-banking services has caused competition, as multiple banks compete to convince customers to adopt m-banking services, and so must deliver excellent services. As a result, banks must prioritize meeting client expectations and providing high-quality services to compete. This study aims to examine the factors influencing Muslim students’ intentions to use mobile banking (m-banking) in Islamic banks (IB), conventional banks (CB), and conventional Islamic banks in Indonesia (ICB). The study sample consisted of 315 Muslim students who use m-banking in Islamic banks, 369 Muslim students who use conventional banks, and 207 Muslim students who use conventional Islamic banks. The partial least square (PLS) method was used to evaluate the unified theory of acceptance and the use of technology (UTAUT) on Muslim students’ intention in using m-banking. Based on the value of the coefficient of determinant (R2), the UTAUT model in this study is classified as a moderate model. This study reveals that facilitating conditions (FC), habit (HA) and performance expectancy (PE) affect Muslim students’ intentions to use m-banking at Islamic and conventional banks. Meanwhile, the intentions of Muslim students who use m-banking in conventional Islamic banks is influenced by effort expectancy (EE), FC, HA and PE. Surprisingly, social influence (SI) has no effect on Muslim students’ intentions to use mobile banking at Islamic, conventional, and Islamic conventional banks.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Respondents’ profile
    • Table 2. Factor loadings
    • Table 3. CA, CR and AVE
    • Table 4. Discriminant validity
    • Table 5. Hypotheses testing
    • Conceptualization
      Heri Sudarsono, Priyonggo Suseno
    • Formal Analysis
      Heri Sudarsono, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie, Priyonggo Suseno
    • Investigation
      Heri Sudarsono, Muamar Nur Kholid, Aidha Trisanty
    • Methodology
      Heri Sudarsono, Muamar Nur Kholid, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie
    • Supervision
      Heri Sudarsono, Priyonggo Suseno
    • Writing – original draft
      Heri Sudarsono, Aidha Trisanty
    • Writing – review & editing
      Heri Sudarsono, Muamar Nur Kholid
    • Software
      Muamar Nur Kholid, Aidha Trisanty
    • Validation
      Muamar Nur Kholid, Priyonggo Suseno
    • Visualization
      Muamar Nur Kholid, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie
    • Data curation
      Aidha Trisanty, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie
    • Project administration
      Aidha Trisanty, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie
    • Resources
      Aidha Trisanty, Jannahar Saddam Ash Shidiqie, Priyonggo Suseno