Segmenting internet banking adopter and non‐adopters in the Turkish retail banking sector

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to identify perceptual, experience related, demographic, socio‐economic and situational characteristics of internet banking adopters and non‐adopters. In particular, perceptual differences between IB adopters and non‐adopters are to be examined. Design/methodology/approach Based on relevant literature and previous research that included interviews with leading internet banking managers in Turkey, a questionnaire was designed. Face‐to‐face questionnaires were distributed to 155 convenience samples of internet users. Findings There were significant differences between adopters and non‐adopters of the service in terms of their perceptual, experience and consumer related characteristics. Internet banking adopters perceived internet banking use as less risky, more user‐friendly and more useful compared to internet banking non‐adopters. Internet banking non‐adopters who intend to use the service in the future (i.e. later adopters) perceived internet banking use as less risky and more useful compared to non‐adopters who do not intend to use the service (i.e. laggards). Internet banking adopters were also found to have more experience with mobile internet, and have higher income and longer working hours. Practical implications The managerial implications of the study are that the banks in Turkey should reduce the risk perceptions of non‐adopters, particularly the ones who do not intend to use the service in the future (i.e. laggards). They should also motivate non‐adopter segments to have more experience with more general internet based services. The initial target to diffuse internet banking in Turkey should include the segments which have greater income and longer working hours. Originality/value This study applies the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to identify the perceptual differences between internet banking adopter and non‐adopter segments and sub‐segments in the Turkish context.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 61 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.