Consumers' Acceptance Intentions to Use Cashback Systems: A Case of SNAPnSAVE Application in South Africa

Recently, a cashback application called SNAPnSAVE was established in South Africa to reward customers after their online shopping. Considering several advantages of the application, such as increase in merchants' sales and improvement of customers' satisfaction, we have established a theoretical model that captures psychological factors explaining customers' acceptance levels to use the application. Building on the extended technology acceptance model (TAM), the proposed model shows that trust, perceived risk, and developer's reputation significantly impact customers' behavioral intentions to accept the SNAPnSAVE application. Of these factors, developer's reputation has never been explored by previous studies. Our findings suggest that developers should focus on branding their products, gaining trust from customers, and lowering unnecessary perceived risks encountered by technology users during financial transactions. Furthermore, given the sluggish growth of mobile-based rewarding systems in Africa, the findings may be extended and used by developers to design products that meet specific demands of even a larger market in the continent. The study cautions that TAM, in its original form, cannot be directly deployed in the African context because of some cultural and habitual differences between Africa and other (developed) continents.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[3]  James C. Anderson,et al.  STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING IN PRACTICE: A REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED TWO-STEP APPROACH , 1988 .

[4]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  On the evaluation of structural equation models , 1988 .

[5]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[6]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies , 2000, Management Science.

[7]  B. Byrne Structural equation modeling with EQS : basic concepts, applications, and programming , 2000 .

[8]  J. Eiser,et al.  Trust, Perceived Risk, and Attitudes Toward Food Technologies , 2002 .

[9]  Bo K. Wong,et al.  The Impact of Power Distance on Email Acceptance: Evidence from the PRC , 2003, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[10]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Quo vadis TAM? , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Richard P. Bagozzi,et al.  The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Dale Goodhue,et al.  Comment on Benbasat and Barki's "Quo Vadis TAM" article , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[15]  J. Hair Multivariate data analysis : a global perspective , 2010 .

[16]  Rupak Rauniar,et al.  Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook , 2014, J. Enterp. Inf. Manag..

[17]  Mark R. Lehto,et al.  User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[18]  Donatella Persico,et al.  Adapting the Technology Acceptance Model to evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[19]  Eunil Park,et al.  An Integrated Adoption Model of Mobile Cloud Services: Exploration of Key Determinants and Extension of Technology Acceptance Model , 2014, Telematics Informatics.

[20]  Linda G. Wallace,et al.  The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective , 2014, Inf. Manag..

[21]  Eunil Park,et al.  Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: An application of extended technology acceptance model , 2014, Telematics Informatics.

[22]  Abdul R. Ashraf,et al.  The Application of the Technology Acceptance Model under Different Cultural Contexts: The Case of Online Shopping Adoption , 2014 .

[23]  A. Joshi,et al.  Likert Scale: Explored and Explained , 2015 .

[24]  Andrew S Phelps,et al.  Pairwise comparison versus Likert scale for biomedical image assessment. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  David Yong Gun Fie,et al.  Adopting e-finance: decomposing the technology acceptance model for investors , 2015 .

[26]  Yong Liu,et al.  Understanding perceived risks in mobile payment acceptance , 2015, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[27]  Francisco J. García-Peñalvo,et al.  An Empirical Assessment of a Technology Acceptance Model for Apps in Medical Education , 2015, Journal of Medical Systems.

[28]  Rupert Ward,et al.  Developing a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[29]  Ejaz Ahmed,et al.  Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students' Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[30]  Hye-Young Yoon,et al.  User Acceptance of Mobile Library Applications in Academic Libraries: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model , 2016 .

[31]  Ali Ali,et al.  Determinants of Continuance Intention to Use Mobile Money Transfer: An Integrated Model , 2017 .

[32]  Kim K. P. Johnson,et al.  Consumer adoption of smart in-store technology: assessing the predictive value of attitude versus beliefs in the technology acceptance model , 2017 .

[33]  Xiaohui Chen,et al.  Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..