APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
CHIPKNIP PART 1
C1. Have you ever charged your chipknip/chipper?
yes
no (go to internet banking)
I do not know (go to internet banking)
C2. How often do you use your chipknip/chipper to pay with?
every day every week every month
less than once a month I do not know
C3. What bank is your chipknip/chipper registered with?
Postbank or ING (go to part 2) other bank (go to part 2) I do not know (go to part 2)
PART 2
The following questions are to be answered on a five-option Likert scale (a rating scale measuring the strength of agreement with a clear statement): strongly agree – agree – neither agree nor disagree – disagree – strongly disagree. The references, indicated by the ciphers in the straight brackets, can be found below the questionnaire.
Relative advantage
C4 Using chipknip enables me to accomplish payments more quickly [2].
C5 Using chipknip makes it easier for me to make my payments [2].
C6 I am satisfied with the results that the chipknip gives me [6].
CRA1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CRA2 The above (the advantage chipper/chipknip has over paying monetarily) has had an important influence on my adoption decision [no reference].
Perceived ease of use
C7 Learning to operate (recharge and pay with) chipknip has been easy for me [1].
C8 Using chipknip is often frustrating [1, 2, 3].
C9 Overall, I believe that chipper is easy to use [1,2,4,5,7].
CP1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CP2 The above (the ease of use of the chipper/chipknip) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Compatibility
C10 It has been easy for me to integrate chipknip into my style of doing my banking business [no reference].
C11 In the past, I have made use of rechargeable chip cards, like telephone cards [no reference].
C12 I often use a PIN-card to do my payments [no reference].
CC1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CC2 The above (the way chipknip/chipper fits in my style) has played an important role in my
CRD1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CRD2 The above (the result demonstrability of the chipper/chipknip) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Trialability
C15 I have had a great deal of opportunity to try chipknip before I decided to adopt [2].
C16 I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various uses of chipknip [2].
C17 Before deciding whether to use chipknip, I was able to properly try it out [2].
C18 I it easy to recover from mistakes when using the chipknip [8].
CT1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CT2 The above (whether I was able to try chipknip out) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Image
C19 People who I deem important use the chipknip [2].
C20 People in my environment who use chipknip have a high profile [2].
C21 People who I deem important (family, friends) think that I should use the chipknip [5]
CS1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CS2 The above (the image of chipper/chipknip) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Voluntariness
C22 My friends and family expect me to use chipknip [2].
C23 Shopkeepers expect me to use chipknip [2].
C24 The bank expects me to use chipknip [2]
C25 I have no choice but using the chipknip [no reference].
CV1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
CV2 The above (the fact that I felt pushed or not to adopt chipper/chipknip) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
INTERNET BANKING PART 1
If an interviewee uses both internet banking and pc banking, the interviewee will be regarded as an internet banker.
I1. Do your currently use internet banking?
yes (go to question 3) no
I do not know
I3. How often do you use your internet banking (check balance, make payments etc.)?
every day every week every month
less than once a month I do not know
I4. What bank is the administrator of your internet banking account/pc banking account?
Postbank or ING other bank
PART 2
The following questions are to be answered on a five option Likert scale (a rating scale measuring the strength of agreement with a clear statement): strongly agree – agree – neither agree nor disagree – disagree – strongly disagree. The references, indicated by the ciphers in the straight brackets, can be found below the questionnaire.
Relative advantage
I3 Using internet banking enables me to accomplish my banking business more quickly [2].
I4 Using internet banking makes it easier for me to do my banking business [2].
I5 I am satisfied with the results that internet banking gives me [6].
IRA1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IRA2 The above (the advantage internet banking has over ordinary banking) has had an important influence on my adoption decision [no reference].
Perceived ease of use
I6 Using internet banking is often frustrating [1, 2].
I7 Overall, I believe that internet banking is easy to use [1,2,4,5,7].
I8 Internet banking provides helpful guidance in performing my banking business [4].
I9 Internet banking is rigid and inflexible to work with [1].
IP1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IP2 The above (the ease of use of internet banking) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Compatibility
I10 I think that using internet banking fits well with the way I like to do my banking business [2].
I11 I am well-versed in using the internet [no reference].
I12 In the past, I made some credit card payments (for f.i. flight tickets) over the internet [no reference].
I13 I often make purchases on the internet [no reference].
IC1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IC2 The above (the way internet banking fits in my style) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Result demonstrability
I14 I would have no difficulty telling others about the consequences of using internet banking [2,5].
I15 The results of using internet banking are apparent to me [2,5].
IRD1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IRD2 The above (the result demonstrability of internet banking) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Trialability
I16 I have had a great deal of opportunity to try internet banking applications before I decided to adopt internet banking [2].
I17 I know where I can go to satisfactorily try out various uses of internet banking [2].
I18 Before deciding whether to use internet banking, I was able to properly try it out [2].
I19 I it easy to recover from mistakes when using internet banking [8].
IT1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IT2 The above (whether I was able to try out internet banking) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Image
I20 People who I deem important use internet banking [2].
I21 People in my environment who use internet banking have a high profile [2].
I22 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use internet banking [5].
II1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
II2 The above (the image of internet banking) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
Voluntariness
I23 Friends and family expect me to use internet banking [2].
I24 The bank expects me to use internet banking [2].
I24 I have no choice but using internet banking [no reference].
IV1 The above has had a positive / positive nor negative / negative effect on my adoption decision [4].
IV2 The above (whether I felt pushed or not to adopt internet banking) has played an important role in my adoption decision [no reference].
REFERENCES
[1] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989); User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models, management science 35, pp. 982 – 1003.
[2] Moore, G.C. and Bebasat, I. (1991); Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an IT-innovation, information systems research, September issue pp. 192 – 222
[3] Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (1999); Information technology adoption across time: a cross – sectional comparison of pre – adoption beliefs, MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), pp. 767 – 783
[4] Templeton, G. F. and Byrd, T.A. (2003); Determinants of the relative advantage of a structured SDM during the adoption stage of implementation, Information technology and management, vol. 4, pp. 409 – 428
[5] Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000); A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies, Management science, 2 (46) pp. 186 – 204
[6] Green, S.G. and Taber, T.D. (1980); The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group process, Organizational behaviour and human performance, 25, pp. 97 – 106
[7] Gowan, J.A. and Downs, M. (1994); Video conferencing human – machine interface: a field study, Information and management, 27 (6), pp. 341 – 356
[8] Chin, J.P, Diel, V. and Norman, K. (1988); Development of an instrument measuring user satisfaction of the human – computer interface, CHI’88 conference proceedings ACM, New York, USA, pp. 213 – 218
APPENDIX B
Component matrix for chipknip
Characteristic measured
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Relative advantage q1 -,507 -,501 ,450 ,198 4,232E-02 ,183 1,250E-02 -3,392E-02
Relative advantage q2 -,624 -,489 ,400 ,139 ,104 5,013E-02 ,136 -,148
Relative advantage q3 -,545 -,105 2,021E-02 ,193 ,134 1,348E-02 -,212 ,513
Perc. ease of use q1 ,412 6,246E-02 ,418 -,151 ,262 ,328 2,583E-02 ,316
Perc. ease of use q2 -,173 ,292 ,650 -5,090E-02 -,360 ,223 1,293E-02 -,245
Perc. ease of use q3 -,384 ,125 ,269 ,187 ,105 ,273 -,301 ,125
Compatibility q1 -,482 -,134 ,155 -,174 6,113E-02 -,579 ,193 -,169
Compatibility q2 -,176 9,795E-02 3,951E-02 ,237 ,342 ,406 ,459 ,301
Compatibility q3 ,446 ,233 ,408 -5,603E-02 -,278 -,141 -,105 ,382
Result demonstr.q1 ,286 -,176 -1,547E-02 ,759 -,478 -9,547E-03 8,050E-02 4,497E-02 Result demonstr.q2 ,296 -,151 -1,687E-04 ,667 -,480 -5,978E-02 7,323E-02 5,295E-02
Trialability question 1 -,306 ,645 -,262 ,399 -,135 ,203 ,126 -,161
Trialability question 2 -,360 ,617 -,214 ,353 -,110 ,235 9,296E-02 -,260
Trialability question 3 -,291 ,416 -,376 ,158 -,314 -,145 -4,468E-03 ,397
Trialability question 4 ,117 -,282 -,465 ,374 ,321 -2,098E-02 -,117 -5,366E-02
Image question 1 ,150 ,350 ,388 ,146 ,563 -,396 5,044E-02 2,476E-03
Image question 2 ,683 -2,328E-02 -5,174E-02 ,118 ,527 ,203 -2,729E-02 -9,196E-02
Image question 3 ,170 ,352 ,398 ,122 ,455 -,355 -,154 -,145
Voluntariness q1 9,536E-02 ,348 ,152 -4,587E-02 -7,412E-02 -,201 ,678 ,173
Voluntariness q2 ,640 -,143 -3,065E-02 -3,846E-02 ,193 -,140 ,275 -1,982E-02
Voluntariness q3 ,728 -,161 4,244E-02 -,114 1,689E-02 ,448 ,245 -,170
Voluntariness q4 ,571 ,388 ,217 3,383E-02 -,155 ,114 -,300 -,112
Table B1 : component matrix resulting from factor analysis regarding the answers for chipknip. Extraction method: principal component analysis. Q1 stands for the first question asked for measuring this attribute, q2 for the second, etc.
Component matrix for internet banking
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Relative advantage q1 ,426 -,220 ,284 ,444 ,286 -5,963E-02 -,185
Relative advantage q2 ,833 -8,918E-02 8,641E-02 -,263 ,175 8,926E-02 -,108 Relative advantage q3 ,846 -8,868E-02 -3,824E-02 -,280 -3,462E-02 8,997E-03 -,151 Perc. ease of use q1 ,781 ,281 -1,067E-02 -,229 -,189 4,456E-02 6,522E-02 Perc. ease of use q2 ,800 6,128E-02 -8,135E-02 -,367 -5,312E-02 4,636E-02 -1,310E-02
Perc. ease of use q3 ,745 ,105 -,133 3,072E-02 ,237 ,272 -9,289E-03
Perc. ease of use q4 ,728 ,295 5,561E-02 -,176 -,245 -5,211E-02 3,670E-02
Compatibility q1 ,617 ,106 -,299 ,103 8,416E-02 ,156 ,284
Compatibility q2 ,297 -,174 8,146E-02 ,617 -,175 ,292 9,466E-02
Compatibility q3 -3,708E-02 3,900E-02 ,778 -7,587E-02 -8,674E-02 -,240 ,249
Compatibility q4 ,166 ,491 ,327 ,356 -,391 -,406 ,205
Result demonstr. q1 ,271 ,688 2,071E-02 ,260 ,460 -6,056E-02 -,143
Result demonstr. q2 ,262 ,495 -,177 ,322 ,525 -,108 -3,076E-02
Trialability question 1 -,626 ,586 -,194 -,169 -1,951E-02 ,119 5,811E-02 Trialability question 2 -9,560E-03 ,550 -,599 ,194 -,371 4,950E-02 -9,181E-02 Trialability question 3 -,623 ,586 -,128 -,179 -6,989E-03 ,118 3,084E-02
Trialability question 4 -,540 -,147 ,376 -,210 ,180 ,153 -,326
Image question 1 -4,083E-02 -,123 ,517 -2,559E-02 9,254E-02 -,477 ,258
Image question 2 -,433 -6,312E-02 ,423 -,179 ,284 ,331 ,390
Image question 3 ,131 ,342 ,495 -,225 -,205 ,258 ,331
Voluntariness q1 ,215 -,629 -,364 ,173 -6,363E-02 -9,331E-03 ,437
Voluntariness q2 -,103 ,109 ,462 ,319 2,649E-02 ,491 ,230
Voluntariness q3 -4,578E-04 ,103 ,332 -,243 ,597 -,231 ,413
Table B1 : component matrix resulting from the factor analysis regarding the answers for internet banking.
Extraction method : principal component analysis. Q1 stands for the first question asked for measuring this attribute, q2 for the second, etc.
APPENDIX C
Descriptive statistics for the “importance” variables
Characteristic N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Relative advantage for chipknip 94 1 5 4,02 ,384
Perceived ease of use for chipknip 94 1 5 2,54 ,191
Compatibility for chipknip 94 1 5 3,65 ,221
Result demonstrability for chipknip 94 1 5 3,61 ,228
Trialability for chipknip 94 1 5 3,21 ,482
Image for chipknip 94 1 5 4,00 ,305
Voluntariness for chipknip 94 1 5 2,61 ,106
Relative advantage for internet banking
94 1 5 2,62 ,270
Perceived ease of use for i-banking 94 1 5 3,16 1,094
Compatibility for i-banking 94 1 5 2,55 1,045
Result demonstrability for i-banking 94 1 5 3,21 ,982
Trialability for i-banking 94 1 5 2,91 ,261
Image for i-banking 94 1 5 4,05 ,421
Voluntariness for i-banking 94 1 5 2,54 ,152
Valid N (listwise) 94
Table C1: descriptive statistics for the importance of the attributes for chipknip (attributes starting with a C) and internet banking (starting with an I). Note that the length of the corresponding bar presented in figure 5.1 is 6 minus the value shown in this table to make the figure easier to interpret.
Correlation table chipknip
RAA RA+ PUA PU+ COA CO+ RDA RD+ TRA TR+ STA ST+ VOA Relative advan-
tage answers Rel. advantage Positive/negative
.399**
Perc. ease of use answers
.110 .018
Perc. ease of use +/-
-.083 -.084 .191*
Compatibility answers
.066 .099 .077 .076
Compatibility +/- .322** -.012 .001 .081 .110
Result demon- strability answers
.101 .029 -.088 -.011 -.113 .001
Result demon- strability. +/-
-.021 -.001 .011 .045 -.124 .072 .717**
Trialability answers -.009 .022 .012 .041 .009 .012 -.100 .021
Trialability +/- .001 .055 .033 .001 .042 .081 .011 .009 -.061
Image answers .003 .063 .004 .001 .051 -.003 .041 .118 .061 -.098
Image +/- -.055 -.051 .011 .022 .011 .091 .052 .019 .045 .238* .071
Voluntariness answers
.044 -.103 .055 .094 .101 -.033 .088 .001 .131 .001 .014 -.017 Voluntariness +/- .011 .051 .052 .066 -.099 -.104 .092 -.078 -.012 .012 .053 .031 .596**
Table C2: correlations (single tailed) between the appreciation of a certain attribute for chipknip and the answer to the question whether it positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision. Correlations significant on the 5% level are marked with a single asterisk, those significant on the 1% level with a double asterisk. The variables that are formed by a characteristic followed by “answers” measure the appreciation a that attribute.
The variables that are formed by a characteristic followed by “+/-“ measure whether this characteristic positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision.
Correlation table internet banking
RAA RA+ PUA PU+ COA CO+ RDA RD+ TRA TR+ STA ST+ VOA Relative advan-
tage answers
1
Rel. advantage Positive/negative
.294** 1
Perc. ease of use answers
.114 .201* 1
Perc. ease of use +/-
.062 .034 .618** 1
Compatibility answers
.101 .025 .001 .023 1
Compatibility +/- .025 .069 .023 .001 .158 1
Result demon- strability answers
.032 .070 .011 -.003 .129 .266 1
Result demon- strability. +/-
.012 .102 .013 .006 -.019 .035 .051 1
Trialability answers .002 .028 .000 .001 .030 .056 .055 .140 1
Trialability +/- -.023 .013 .023 -.026 .105 .044 .067 .011 .212* 1 Image answers -.025 .033 .186* .069 .000 .098 .099 .056 .190 .092 1
Image +/- .025 -.009 .011 .011 .015 .091 -.066 .089 -.021 .058 -.021 1
Voluntariness answers
.078 .032 .056 .065 .012 .022 -.118 .081 .050 .063 -.021 .066 1 Voluntariness +/- .011 -.004 .023 .078 .088 -.023 .001 -.020 .060 .055 .025 .080 .300**
Table C3: correlations (single tailed) between the appreciation of a certain attribute for internet banking and the answer to the question whether it positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision. Correlations significant on the 5% level are marked with a single asterisk, those significant on the 1% level with a double asterisk. The variables that are formed by a characteristic followed by “answers” measure the appreciation a that attribute. The variables that are formed by a characteristic followed by “+/-“ measure whether this characteristic positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision.
APPENDIX D:
ANOVA assessments
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 83,100 1 83,100 76,379 ,002
Within Groups 269,364 186 1,088
Relative advantage
Total 352,464 187
Between Groups 1,501 1 1,501 ,849 ,656
Within Groups 235,639 186 1,768
Perceived ease of use
Total 239,140 187
Between Groups 4,547 1 4,547 2,220 ,284
Within Groups 189,450 186 2,007
Compatibility
Total 193,997 187
Between Groups 8,531 1 8,531 3,876 ,076
Within Groups 211,111 186 2,201
Result
demonstrability
Total 219,641 187
Between Groups ,008 1 ,008 ,003 ,992
Within Groups 321,932 186 2,402
Trialability
Total 321,940 187
Between Groups 6,716 1 6,716 2,992 ,251
Within Groups 561,858 186 2,245
Image
Total 568,574 187
Between Groups 3,255 1 3,255 1,750 ,531
Within Groups 939,124 186 1,860
Voluntariness
Total 942,379 187
Table E: analysis of variance between the assessments of perceived innovation characteristics for chipknip and internet banking.
APPENDIX E:
ANOVA importance
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 94,090 1 94,090 89,111 ,000
Within Groups 196,394 186 1,056
Relative advantage
Total 290,484 187
Between Groups 3,324 1 3,324 1,843 ,176
Within Groups 335,585 186 1,804
Perceived ease of use
Total 338,910 187
Between Groups 7,537 1 7,537 3,310 ,084
Within Groups 212,266 186 2,277
Compatibility
Total 219,803 187
Between Groups ,133 1 ,133 ,131 ,717
Within Groups 188,096 186 1,011
Result
demonstrability
Total 188,229 187
Between Groups ,148 1 ,148 ,101 ,800
Within Groups 258,932 186 1,465
Trialability
Total 259,080 187
Between Groups ,516 1 ,516 ,161 ,883
Within Groups 1049,968 186 3,205
Image
Total 1050,484 187
Between Groups ,255 1 ,255 ,101 ,801
Within Groups 294,064 186 2,525
Voluntariness
Total 294,319 187
Table E: analysis of variance between the importance of perceived innovation characteristics for chipknip and internet banking.
APPENDIX F
Correlations
CK trialability answers
CK trialability positive/negative
Pearson Correlation 1 -,061
Sig. (1-tailed) , ,302
Trialability answers for chipknip
N 94 94
Pearson Correlation -,061 1
Sig. (1-tailed) ,302 ,
Trialability positive/negative
N 94 94
Table F1: correlation (single tailed) and its significance between the appreciation of trialability for chipknip and the answer to the question whether it positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision.
Correlations
IB Image answers Image
positive/negative
Pearson Correlation 1 -,021
Sig. (1-tailed) , ,420
Image answers for internet banking
N 94 94
Pearson Correlation -,021 1
Sig. (1-tailed) ,420 ,
Image positive/negative
N 94 94
Table F2:correlations (single tailed) and its significance between the appreciation of image for internet banking and the answer to the question whether it positively or negatively influenced the adoption decision.
APPENDIX G
ANOVA first and second half of the random check
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Region 140,391 1 140,391 247,965 ,000
CK relative advantage ,393 1 ,393 ,654 ,423
CK perceived ease of use 1,113 1 1,113 1,999 ,161
CK compatibility ,856 1 ,856 4,641 ,054
CK result demonstrability ,899 1 ,899 ,605 ,439
CK trialability ,000 1 ,000 ,000 ,990
CK status ,407 1 ,407 ,768 ,383
CK voluntariness 2,634 1 2,634 5,633 ,104
IB relative advantage ,000 1 ,000 ,000 ,990
IB perceived ease of use ,393 1 ,393 ,655 ,421
IB compatibility 2,254 1 2,254 3,691 ,058
IB result demonstrability ,649 1 ,649 ,468 ,495
IB trialability ,000 1 ,000 ,000 ,990
IB status ,856 1 ,856 4,641 ,054
IB voluntariness ,533 1 ,533 1,896 ,172
CK importance of relative advantage ,044 1 ,044 ,045 ,832
CK positive/negative for relative advantage ,287 1 ,287 ,437 ,510
CK importance of perc ease of use 2,673 1 2,673 2,092 ,131
CK positive/negative for perc ease of use ,512 1 ,512 1,432 ,234
CK importance of compatibility ,341 1 ,341 ,269 ,605
CK positive/negative for compatibility ,802 1 ,802 3,384 ,069
CK importance of result demonstrability ,383 1 ,383 ,377 ,541
CK positive/negative for result demonstrability 1,533 1 1,533 2,713 ,103
CK importance of trialability ,383 1 ,383 ,377 ,541
CK positive/negative for trialability ,074 1 ,074 ,109 ,742
CK importance of status 6,938 1 6,938 6,983 ,010
CK positive/negative for status ,065 1 ,065 ,174 ,678
CK importance of voluntariness 1,263 1 1,263 ,738 ,393
CK positive/negative for voluntariness ,031 1 ,031 ,049 ,825
IB importance of relative advantage 3,367 1 3,367 3,006 ,086
IB positive/negative for relative advantage ,264 1 ,264 ,731 ,395
IB importance of perc ease of use ,065 1 ,065 ,174 ,678
IB positive/negative for perc ease of use ,012 1 ,012 ,022 ,881
IB importance of compatibility ,264 1 ,264 ,240 ,626
IB positive/negative for compatibility ,201 1 ,201 ,292 ,590
IB importance of result demonstrability 1,426 1 1,426 1,485 ,226
IB positive/negative for result demonstrability ,136 1 ,136 ,498 ,482
IB importance of trialability 2,667 1 2,667 2,000 ,161
IB positive/negative for trialability ,037 1 ,037 ,073 ,788
IB importance of status ,278 1 ,278 ,409 ,524
IB positive/negative for status ,076 1 ,076 ,174 ,678
IB importance of voluntariness ,394 1 ,394 ,295 ,588
