Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking: Extending the UTAUT2 Model with Proactive Personality

Citation: Hilal, A.; Varela-Neira, C. Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking: Extending the UTAUT2 Model with Proactive Personality. Sustainability 2022,14, 14708. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su142214708 Academic Editor: Ionica Oncioiu Received: 15 June 2022 Accepted: 2 November 2022 Published: 8 November 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). sustainability Article Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Banking: Extending the UTAUT2 Model with Proactive Personality Ashraf Hilal and Concepción Varela-Neira * Department of Business and Marketing, University of Santiago de Compostela, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain *Correspondence: conchi.var[email protected] Abstract: Mobile banking is an innovative solution for improving financial inclusion; however, the use of this technology is still very limited in developing countries. Consequently, this study aims to investigate elements affecting mobile banking adoption in a developing country context by applying the well-known Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology two (UTAUT2) model. Since most existing investigations on mobile banking using the UTAUT2 neglect the effects of personality traits, this investigation extends the UTAUT2 with a new antecedent not considered in previous studies, the consumer proactive personality. This study empirically tests the proposed partial mediation model using path analysis with data collected from Lebanese bank customers who are current non-users of mobile banking. Results show a full mediation model, confirming that some UTAUT2 drivers fully mediate the effect that proactive personality has on consumer intention to adopt mobile banking and highlighting the relevance of proactive personality on all UTAUT2 drivers. This study expands the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology two and examines how a personality trait—proactive personality—relates to mobile banking adoption through the UTAUT2 perceptions in a developing country context. Keywords: mobile banking; adoption intention; proactive personality; UTAUT2; Lebanon 1. Introduction The traditional retail banking delivery system has changed because of innovations in information technology [ 1 , 2 ]. Nowadays, in addition to physical branches, banks use ATMs, telebanking, and electronic channels to deliver their services [ 3 ]. One of these electronic channels is mobile banking or m-banking. Mobile banking enables customers to access bank accounts at any time and place through mobile devices (e.g., smartphones) to, among other operations, view statements and account balances, transfer money, make bills and peer-to-peer payments, and sell stocks [ 4 , 5 ]. Other mobile-based innovations in banking services are mobile shopping apps (e.g., [6]) and mobile payment (e.g., [7,8]). Mobile banking is a self-service technology that benefits consumers and banks. Mobile banking enables banks to lower operating costs [ 9 ] and to gather data about bank consumers’ habits [ 10 , 11 ]. These advantages allow banks to improve their efficiency [ 2 , 12 , 13 ], productivity and profitability [14]. For consumers, some of the main advantages of mobile banking over conventional banking are ubiquity, immediacy, localization, instant connectivity, and proactive functionality [ 15 ]. Therefore, mobile banking provides convenience and real-time services [ 16 ], so that it is an efficient alternative to branch-visiting banking [ 17 , 18 ]. However, mobile banking also includes a wide variety of disadvantageous characteristics, such as privacy concerns, distrust, security risks, financial risks, and consumer uncertainty [ 5 , 19 ]. For these reasons, despite its advantages and the very high number of mobile phones in circulation, the adoption level of mobile banking is not up to the mark [20]. Sustainability 2022,14, 14708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214708 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 2 of 23 Currently, many users of banking services have not yet adopted mobile banking, especially in developing countries [ 21 ]. However, in these countries, the promotion of mobile banking can contribute to the deepening of financial services, facilitating financial inclusion and economic growth [ 22 ]. Since financial inclusion and economic growth at the global level are part of the millennium development goals and sustainable development goals, financial inclusion of basic financial services is a global necessity, especially in developing countries [ 23 ]. Thus, mobile banking deserves “the attention of banks located in developing countries” ([24], p. 133). To encourage the use of mobile banking by consumers, it is necessary to identify and understand the barriers that generate resistance to its adoption [ 20 ] and the drivers that lead to it [ 25 ]. This stream of research is part of the general framework of the acceptance and use of technological innovations, made up of several information systems/information technology (IS/IT) theories and models. Among these theories, a recent review of mobile banking [ 26 ] has found that the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM, [ 27 ]), followed by the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT, [ 28 ]) were the main conceptual frameworks and models adopted by scholars to explain consumers’ intentions of using mobile banking. Given that UTAUT is the result of a comprehensive review of the previously proposed technology adoption models and it “has proven to outperform the eight standalone models and provides a better prediction power” ([ 29 ], p. 774), our study is based on this theory. An important feature of UTAUT is that it considers the use of the new technology in an organizational context. To adapt the UTAUT model to the consumer context, Venkatesh et al. [ 30 ] proposed a new version of UTAUT known as UTAUT2. Thus, since our study targets consumer, it uses UTAUT2 as theoretical basis to explain the intention to adopt mobile banking by consumers who currently do not use this technology in their relationships with banks. This is in line with previous studies that examine the determinants of adoption and use of new technologies by consumers (e.g., [ 31 , 32 ]). Moreover, we focus on behavioral intentions because the results of Jadil et al.’s [ 10 ] meta-analysis showed that “usage intention is the most critical predictor of use behavior” (p. 354). Our study considers all antecedents of UTAUT2 except habit, which refers to the extent to which an individual believes that the behavior is set to be automatic [ 30 ]. To examine the role of habit, customers should have a rich experience in using such technology [ 33 ]. Hence, studies that consider habit (e.g., [ 34 ]) analyze the use of mobile banking by current users. Since our study explains the consumer intention to adopt mobile banking, consumers are not yet in the habit of using mobile banking and this habit cannot be measured. Our study proposes an extension of the UTAUT2 to explain consumers’ intentions to adopt mobile banking. In particular, our investigation adds proactive personality, an individual difference, as a direct antecedent of the UTAUT2 drivers and as an indirect antecedent of the behavioral intentions to adopt m-banking. Proactive personality is a personality variable that affects motivational aspects and processes [ 35 – 38 ]. Proactive personality has been studied in plenty of fields, such as employee behavioral and well-being outcomes, entrepreneurial behavior and co-worker emotions and behaviors [ 39 – 41 ] and has proven its effect on many outcomes regarding human behavior [42,43]. Although some studies on mobile banking have analyzed the relationship between behavioral intentions and personality variables, the lack of attention to personality variables in models such as the UTAUT2 is surprising, considering the results of the general psychological and technology acceptance research. While the first has shown that personality traits have an important impact on individual behavior [ 44 , 45 ], the second revealed their influence on internet usage [ 46 ] and mobile apps [ 47 ]. Additionally, in the Theory of Reasoned Action [ 48 ], one of the first theories used to explain the adoption of technological innovations, personality was explicitly identified as a relevant exogenous or external variable (see [49]). Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 3 of 23 In the mobile banking context, only a few TAM-based studies have analyzed the effect of personality variables as antecedents to exogenous model variables (for example, Gu et al. [ 50 ] and Singh and Srivastava [ 51 ] examined the impact of self-efficacy on perceived ease of use), but none have explicitly considered the mediating effect of these exogenous variables on the personality traits–intention to adopt a mobile banking relationship. This gap is even stronger in the UTAUT/UTAUT2-based studies because these models overlook personal, dispositional factors, in favor of perceptions [ 52 ], and the few investigations that have examined the influence of personality variables have only analyzed the direct relationship between personality variables and behavioral intention (for self-efficacy, see [ 53 ]) or have considered these variables as moderators (for innovativeness, see [54]). Therefore, our study, which expands UTAUT2, makes several relevant contributions to the mobile banking literature. First, it performs an updated review of the literature on mobile banking. Second, to the best of our knowledge, this is the only study that combines proactive personality with UTAUT2 in the mobile banking context. Therefore, it contributes to the scarce research that relates personality traits to behavioral intention of using mobile banking. Moreover, integrating proactive personality, expands UTAUT2. This extension follows the recommendation of Tamilmani et al. [ 55 ], who after making a systematic literature review and theory evaluation of UTAUT2, identified as lines of improvement the incorporation of exogenous mechanisms to increase its explanatory power. Third, previous investigations have mostly focused on technological perceptions and neglected the effects of personality traits on user adoption of mobile commerce [ 56 ]. An exception is Agyei et al. [ 57 ], who analyzed the effect of basic personality traits on TAM drivers, which in turn predicted the intention to adopt mobile banking. Nevertheless, the limited research on personality variables and adoption of mobile banking has focused mostly on direct effects without taking into consideration indirect ones [ 58 ]. In this line, our study examines the indirect relationship between proactive personality and behavioral intention through UTAUT2 drivers; that is, proposes and tests a partial mediation model in which the UTAUT2 drivers mediate the proactive personality–behavioral intention relationship. To the best of our knowledge, no study has analyzed the UTAUT2 drivers as mediators between a distal individual antecedent and the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses 2.1. M-Banking Concept Mobile banking has been defined in various ways. Tam and Oliveira [ 59 ], based on previous definitions, described mobile banking as “a service or product offered by financial institutions that makes use of portable technologies” (p. 1048). More recently, it has been defined as “the use of handheld devices to access banking information and/or conduct banking transactions via short message service (SMS) messaging services, downloadable applications and/or wireless application protocols to access financial and nonfinancial services” ([ 60 ], pp. 272–273). Therefore, mobile banking cannot exist without mobile devices and communication networks [61]. Developments in information and communication technology (ICT), a growing number of owners and users of mobile devices in their daily lives, and the possibility of establishing an effective and more efficient channel, led banks to integrate mobile banking among the services offered to their customers. Researchers have responded by devoting increasing attention to mobile banking, particularly analyzing its acceptance and use. Although mobile banking is considered a type of digital banking [ 62 ], and both innovations seem similar, Laukkanen [ 1 ] indicated that their adoption patterns and barriers to adoption are different. 2.2. M-Banking and Technological Innovation Acceptance Models The first studies on mobile banking were published at the turn of the millennium (e.g., [ 63 , 64 ]); however, there has been a strong increase in their number in recent years, “which is irrefutable proof of the growing popularity of mobile banking” ([26], p. 3). Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 4 of 23 The literature on mobile banking has resorted to the existing models and theories of technological innovation adoption and use, given that mobile banking is considered a technological innovation and these theories and models have been developed in various contexts that vary on “technology, user type, location, adoption time and task performed” ([55], p. 1). Table 1shows the empirical studies on the acceptance and use of mobile banking published from 2019 to January 2022. This literature review was carried out in several phases. First, an electronic search was conducted employing two prominent business/management databases to source literature, Business Source Premier Database and Scopus; the keywords used were mobile banking and m-banking, limiting the search to the title and/or abstract of the articles. Second, a manual search for articles was carried out in scholarly journals in the fields of IS and marketing. Third, another manual search was conducted by scrutinizing citations in previous literature reviews and meta-analysis studies in the field of mobile banking. Table 1. Empirical studies on mobile banking acceptance and use conducted from 2019 to January 2022 (except UTAUT/UTAUT2). Theories and Models Studies Technology Acceptance Model—TAM/TAM extensions [9,24,65–78] Task-Technology Fit—TTF [79] IS Success ModelDeLone and McLean IS Success model—D&M IS Success Model [80,81] Stimulus-organism-response—S-O-R [13,82,83] Theory of Consumption Values—(TCVs) [60] Innovation Resistance Model—IRM [20] Technology Continuance Theory—TCT [25,84] Elaboration Likelihood Model—ELM [2] Theory of Reasoned Actions—TRA [85] Extended expectation-confirmation model in IT domain (ECM-IT), developed from TAM and ECM [86] Self-determination Theory—SDT [87] Models without an explicit theory [88–91] Integration of Tan’s Failure Model (MBFM) and DeLone and Mclean’s Information Success model [92] Integration of TAM and TTF [93] Integration of TAM and cognitive antecedents [94] Integration of TAM and S-O-R [95] Integration of TAM and Diffusion of Innovations (DOI)—Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) [96] Integration of TAM, Social Influence Theory, and Social Cognitive Theory and Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) [97] Integration of TAM, DOI, and Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB) model [98] 2.3. M-Banking and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Two The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [ 28 ], was developed through a review and consolidation of the constructs of eight prominent theories that earlier research had employed to explain information systems usage behavior, including TAM, DoI/IDT, and the social cognitive theory (SCT). UTAUT incorporates three drivers—performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influencethat impact behavioral intention to use a technology innovation, while facilitating conditions and behavioral intention influence technology use. UTAUT also includes four key moderators: gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use. Since its appearance, the UTAUT model has gradually attracted researchers’ attention. In 2012, Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu extended UTAUT by adapting it to a consumer context. This extension, called UTAUT2, incorporates three key constructs from prior research on behavioral intention (hedonic motivation, price value, and habit); includes a Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 5 of 23 direct relationship between facilitating conditions and behavioral intention; and removed voluntariness as a moderator. Later, Venkatesh et al. [ 99 ] carried out a literature review not limited to mobile banking in the Web of Science, searching from papers from September 2003 until December 2014, to synthesize the literature on UTAUT. The 1267 UTAUT citations identified were classified into four groups: (1) general citation category, which includes papers that cited but not used UTAUT, with 1205 citations; (2) applications, which incorporate empirical studies that employed part or the full UTAUT, with 12 citations; (3) integrations, which contain studies that combine UTAUT with other theories, with 13 citations; and (4) extensions, with 37 citations. The extension papers group was then divided into four types: (1) new exogenous, which incorporates effects of external predictors on the exogenous variables in UTAUT, (2) new endogenous, which adds new predictors to intention and use or enriches the original UTAUT variables, (3) new moderating, which includes new moderating effects, and (4) new outcome mechanisms, which incorporate new consequences of intention and use. Focused on the mobile banking context, Tamilmani et al. [ 55 ] conducted a systematic literature review of UTAUT2 from papers from March 2012 to March 2017. These authors incorporated three new extensions to Venkatesh et al. (2016) classification: (5) new mediating, which adds new mediating variables between intention and new or the original UTAUT exogenous variables, (6) new external, which includes relationships among new variables that were not part of the original UTAUT2 model. and (7) new internal mechanisms, which enriches the existing UTAUT2 variables through new path associations. If both reviews are considered together, a total of seven extensions of the UTAUT2 theory result. Based on the literature review conducted in the mobile banking context for the period 2019–January 2022, Table 2shows the empirical UTAUT/UTAUT2-based studies that integrate one of these models fully or partially with another model of theoretical significance or that test these models incorporating new mechanisms. Table 2. Empirical UTAUT/UTAUT2-based studies on mobile banking acceptance and use conducted from 2019 to January 2022. Theories and Models Studies UTAUT/UTAUT extensions [3,29,49,100–102] Integration of UTAUT and TAM [103] Integration of UTAUT and IS Success Model [104] UTAUT2/UTAUT2 extensions [105–115] Integration of UTAUT2 and D&M IS Success Model [34] Our study is part of this last stream and attempts to improve the explanatory capacity of UTAUT2 by incorporating a new endogenous mechanism (proactive personality on behavioral intention) and six new exogenous mechanisms (proactive personality on performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation, and price value). That is, our model suggests that customer proactive personality is a distal antecedent of m-banking adoption behavioral intention, whose influence on behavioral intention occurs indirectly through the UTAUT2 drivers. 2.4. Mobile Banking and Proactive Personality The behavioral literature, especially in the psychological fields, has considered plenty dynamic relations and process interactions between people and the environment. People influence the environment, i.e., individuals influence their situations, and are not only passive recipients of environmental presses ([116]. Empirical studies have revealed many processes through which individuals can influence their environment; including selection (choosing situations in which to participate) [ 117 ] cognitive restructuring (perceiving and appraising environments) [ 118 ], evoca- Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 6 of 23 tion (evoking reactions from others) [ 119 ], and manipulation (trying to shape, alter, and change their interpersonal environment) [ 120 ]. However, changing a situation, taking actions, altering circumstances, or even affecting an environment depends on individual differences, so that individuals who take an active role in creating their own environment tend to have a proactive personality. The first description of proactive personality was simply a “disposition towards taking action to influence one’s environment”, which was primarily based on the person–situation relationship [ 121 ]. Another definition was later established by Crant [ 35 ], who described it as a narrow personality trait, derived from the Big Five personality traits, which refers to a tendency to identify opportunities and work on such impulses to help change situations and affect the environment. According to Bateman and Crant [ 121 ] proactive personality individuals tend to be (i) decision takers, (ii) problem solvers, (iii) forward thinkers, (iv) action-oriented individuals, (v) proactive goal setters, and (vi) new opportunity seekers. Conversely, people without a proactive personality flow with environmental conditions and tend to adapt to situations and express fear of change. Adopting mobile banking technologies may serve proactive personality individuals’ intentions to change situations and circumstances. According to Parker and Collins [ 38 ] and Lin et al. [ 37 ] proactive personality influences motivational aspects such as achieving new goals, seek new opportunities and modify the environment. Proactive personality individuals may consider adopting mobile banking technology as an opportunity to increase business or individual performance. In addition, proactive individuals are self-initiated individuals, i.e., “they seek change based on what they personally consider motivating” ([ 122 ], p. 828) where mobile banking solutions may be the case. Furthermore, for people who are action oriented, adopting mobile banking services will be a normal action to be involved in since they like changing the status quo. In addition, being forward thinkers, they do not wait for things and opportunities to come to them, instead they develop and take actions to acquire chances and capture opportunities faster and more efficiently than others [35]. Hence, Hypothesis H1 (H1): Customers’ proactive personality is positively related to their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.5. The Mediating Role of Performance Expectancy Performance expectancy represents an individual’s personal belief that using the new technology will deliver a set of benefits [ 28 ]. Some constructs and the corresponding previous theories that pertain to the unification of performance expectancy are perceived usefulness (TAM), relative advantage (IDT), and outcome expectations (SCT) [ 28 ]. Performance expectancy “underscores the dominant paradigm of extrinsic motivation in individual technology acceptance research” ([123], p. 222). According to Compeau and Higgins [ 124 ], people are intent to adopt new technology if they expect positive consequences in return for its use. Consequently, individuals are set to adopt mobile banking if they perceive this technology as valuable and useful [ 27 ]. In this line, previous research has found that customers’ intention to adopt new technologies is directly related to performance expectancy (e.g., [32,125,126]). On the other hand, the self-initiative attribute that distinguishes proactive individuals from passive ones stimulates and arouses their search and capture of opportunities [ 127 ]. Proactive people tend to seek opportunities rather than wait for chances to come [ 35 , 128 ]. According to Seibert et al. [ 129 ], proactive individuals seek new ideas to enhance their skills. Thus, proactive individuals who are future-oriented and opportunity seekers will probably identify mobile banking technologies as a new opportunity to enhance their skills. Moreover, since proactive individuals seek out new opportunities, they are more likely to adopt any new technology that may be distinct and more developed than previous ones. They will probably consider that adopting mobile banking technologies will open new Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 7 of 23 prospects and chances to perform better. Thus, proactive individuals will perceive mobile banking technology services as useful. Hence, Hypothesis H2 (H2): Performance expectancy mediates the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.6. The Mediating Role of Effort Expectancy Effort expectancy represents an individual’s belief regarding the ease of use of a new system [ 28 ]. Some constructs and the corresponding previous theories that pertain to the unification of effort expectancy are perceived ease of use (TAM) and ease of use (IDT) [ 28 ]. The level of difficulty of a new technology, i.e., the effort required for its use, is an essential predictor of the intention to accept this technology [ 27 ]. According to Lin [ 130 ], as individuals realize the simplicity of using mobile banking service, they are more willing to use it. Similarly, several authors have confirmed the impact of effort expectancy on customer intention to adopt new technologies (e.g., [32,125,131]). On the other hand, proactive individuals desire to acquire new ideas and knowledge about their environment more rapidly than others [ 121 ]. Therefore, proactive individuals carry out anticipatory actions to obtain additional information, seek new ideas, become aware of policies, and increase their knowledge and knowhow of processes and the environment [ 128 ]. In other words, proactive individuals seek cognition [ 129 ]. Another characteristic that stands for proactive personality is problem solving. Proactive individuals tend to be problem fixers [ 121 ]. They can gather social and political knowledge that helps them identify future risks and problems and tackle them immediately [ 122 ]. Moreover, Frohman [ 132 ] presented proactive individuals as self-initiators who see a problem and attack it without any previous recommendations on what to do. The foundation for these risky behaviors is their propensity to believe strongly that they can be successful in a specific task [ 133 ]. These characteristics will likely make proactive individuals less worried about the complexity of the new technology as they have probably overcome complex situations before. Therefore, proactive individuals will be more likely to view new technologies (mobile banking) as easier to use. Hence, Hypothesis H3 (H3): Effort expectancy mediates the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.7. The Mediating Role of Social Influence Social influence is defined as the extent to which an individual perceives that relevant others believe that he or she should adopt the new system [ 28 ]. Some constructs and the corresponding previous theories that pertain to the unification of social influence are subjective norm (in TRA, TAM2, TPB, and DTPB) and image (IDT). The effect of social influence over new technology adoption and use was demonstrated in several studies (e.g., [ 31 , 32 , 125 ]). The social pressure exerted by the surrounding environment, such as reference groups, family, opinionated leaders, friends, and colleagues, will influence customer behavioral intentions regarding new technologies [ 16 ]. In other words, if most of the individual’s social context is made up of mobile banking users this will encourage him/her to adopt mobile banking as well [ 14 ]. In this line, previous research has underlined social influence as a key determinant of behavioral intention toward mobile banking (e.g., [16,18]). On the other hand, from the interactional perspective, proactive individuals will be more effective in selecting and shaping their environment, so that it matches their needs and values [ 134 ]. Since proactive individuals are forward thinkers, action-oriented individuals, and new opportunity seekers [ 121 ], they are likely to select a social environment that matches these characteristics. At the same time, proactive individuals are more prone to request feedback [135]. Therefore, they will probably find more people that have adopted or are thinking of adopting mobile banking. Hence, Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 8 of 23 Hypothesis H4 (H4): Social influence mediates the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.8. The Mediating Role of Facilitating Conditions Venkatesh et al. ([ 28 ], p. 455) defined facilitating conditions as “the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system”. The more resources, help, and support available for people over the online banking channels, the more likely they will be to adopt it [ 16 ]. In this line, previous investigations have found a direct impact of facilitating conditions on customer behavior toward new technology (e.g., [34,125,136]). On the other hand, “proactive individuals may adopt a new technology after considering its facilitating conditions” ([ 137 ], p. 351). Thus, proactive individuals may consider the availability of resources and facilities while considering a new technology. However, as proactive individuals carry out anticipatory actions to obtain additional information, be aware of policies and increase their knowledge and knowhow of processes and the environment [ 128 , 129 ], they are more likely to have knowledge on the resources available. Moreover, as they can gather social and political knowledge [ 122 ], since they engage in more information exchange [ 138 ] and are very good at developing interpersonal relations [ 139 ], they will probably acquire more support and, as a result, perceive greater facilitating conditions for the use of a new technology, such as mobile banking. Hence, Hypothesis H5 (H5): Facilitating conditions mediate the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.9. The Mediating Role of Hedonic Motivation Hedonic motivation refers to the level of fun and pleasure derived from using new technology [ 30 ]. Under the UTAUT2 model, the hedonic motivation construct encompasses intrinsic utility concepts such as joy, fun, playfulness, entertaining, and enjoyment [ 30 ]. It is often regarded as an intrinsic stimulus that makes an individual use new technology services such as mobile banking. At the same time, existing research has supported the effect of hedonic motivation on customers’ intentions to use new technologies (e.g., [ 125 , 126 , 140 ]). On the other hand, proactive individuals are self-initiated individuals, i.e., “they seek change based on what they personally consider motivating” ([ 122 ], p. 828) This implies that proactive individuals seek new opportunities and modify the environment because they consider these actions entertaining or enjoyable. Some scholars, such as Lin et al. [ 37 ] and Parker and Collins [ 38 ], highlighted that proactive individuals are intrinsically motivated. In other words, proactive individuals are self-initiated individuals who tend to resolve threats, achieve goals, and alter situations because they consider such actions to be entertaining and fun. At the same time, Brown and Venkatesh [ 141 ] and Van der Heijden [ 142 ] indicated that innovative technologies comprise novelty seeking and uniqueness. Thus, it can be deduced that proactive individuals tend to seek personal novelty and uniqueness by using new technologies, which produces enjoyment and entertainment, and hedonically motivates them toward these technologies. Hence, Hypothesis H6 (H6): Hedonic motivation mediates the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. 2.10. The Mediating Role of Price Value Price value refers to the ratio of the cost of the technology versus the value it supplies, in other words, price value is positive when the benefits of using the new technology are perceived to be greater than the associated monetary cost [ 30 ]. This implies that new technology adoption is considered based on the cost–benefit analysis. Price value derives from the idea of perceived value [ 143 ]. Regarding the adoption of new technology, endusers are constantly comparing the cost incurred with the resulting savings and benefits Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 9 of 23 that they might derive from the new technology [ 144 ]. In the context of mobile technology, price value has been accounted to have a noteworthy effect on customer decision-making, satisfaction, and loyalty [ 145 , 146 ]. Similarly, previous research has found a positive effect of price value on behavioral intentions regarding new technologies (e.g., [32,61,147]. Proactive individuals are self-initiated individuals who seek change and new ideas to try to capture opportunities [ 122 , 127 ]. Therefore, they are likely to believe that mobile banking technology will open new opportunities and help them improve their skills and perform better. These will favor a more positive consideration regarding the value derived from mobile banking, in turn resulting in a better price-value ratio, which may influence the intention of adoption of new technologies. In other words, proactive individuals with their positive future orientation will probably reflect positively and optimistically regarding mobile banking price value, as they will perceive mobile banking technology as a beneficial new technological opportunity to its associated monetary cost. Hence, Hypothesis H7 (H7): Price value mediates the positive relationship between customers’ proactive personality and their intention to adopt mobile banking. The research model proposed is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1. Proposed model (hypotheses formulation). 3. Research Methodology 3.1. Sample According to our study objectives, all Lebanese individuals above 18 years old, who own a smart phone, have a bank account and are still non-users of mobile banking, are all units of analysis and members of the whole population. As a result, this shows that according to this study, a huge set of the Lebanese population can be considered. Therefore, the proposed hypotheses were studied in a convenient sample of Lebanese bank customers who have mobile devices with Internet access but are non-users of mobile banking. According to a study conducted in 2017 over the MENA countries regarding the adoption of digital banking, Lebanon recorded the lowest rates [ 148 ]. Hence, despite all investments and efforts exerted regarding new technologies in the Lebanese banking sector, Lebanese banking customers still demonstrate low interest toward online banking channels in general, and toward the adoption of mobile banking in particular [149,150]. Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 16 of 23 the support available. Making the necessary resources available to consumers for adopting mobile banking will make the system easier to use and increase usage intention. Finally, the significance of social influence on behavioral intentions indicates that banks should allocate resources and efforts toward a more active use of societal influence to motivate consumers. Advertising messages should encourage the use of mobile banking through testimonial celebrities. Banks should also improve their use of social media to promote interpersonal word-of-mouth communications to increase the adoption of mobile applications by consumers. 5.3. Limitations and Future Research Despite all the contributions made by this investigation, there are still some limitations. The main limitation is the possibility of common method bias in the obtained results since all constructs used are self-reported [ 170 ]. Another limitation of the study derives from the cross-sectional nature of the data, as the study was conducted at a specific moment in time, and, consequently, it would be necessary to carry out a longitudinal study to reaffirm the causal relationships. Furthermore, the current study has not considered cultural factors, which may be specific to the Lebanese culture, such as masculinity, femininity, communism, individualism, etc. These characteristics may play an important role in causing specific psychological concerns, adopting certain beliefs, and predicting behavior intentions [ 171 , 172 ]. Regarding future studies, researchers might duplicate the proposed model in a different innovation context. They could also study the impact of the Big Five personality traits alongside customer proactive personality on mobile shopping intention. As well, they may also consider investigating the effects of customer proactive personality in a cross-cultural context. Author Contributions: Writing—original draft and review, A.H., C.V.-N.; editing, C.V.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Universidade da Xunta de Galicia, grant number ED431B 2022/32. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Measurement scales used and properties. Items Standard Loading (λ) Mobile banking adoption intention (CR = 0.955; AVE = 0.875) I am very likely to adopt mobile banking in the future 0.957 * I plan to adopt mobile banking in the future 0.956 * I believe it is worthwhile for me to adopt mobile banking 0.893 * Effort expectancy (CR =0.875; AVE = 0.637) I would find mobile banking useful in my daily life 0.769 * Using mobile banking would increase my chances of achieving things that are important to me 0.810 * Using mobile banking would help me accomplish things more quickly 0.894 * Using mobile banking would increase my productivity 0.709 * Performance expectancy (CR = 0.906; AVE = 0.708) Learning how to use mobile banking would be easy for me 0.819 * Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 17 of 23 Table A1. Cont. Items Standard Loading (λ) My interaction with mobile banking would be clear and understandable 0.913 * I find mobile banking would be easy to use 0.828 * It would be easy for me to become skillful at using mobile banking 0.802 * Social influence (CR = 0.934; AVE = 0.826) People who are important to me think that I should use mobile banking 0.911 * People who influence my behavior think that I should use mobile banking 0.935 * People whose opinions that I value prefer that I use mobile banking 0.879 * Facilitating conditions (CR = 0.856; AVE = 0.604) I have the resources necessary to use mobile banking 0.720 * I have the knowledge necessary to use mobile banking 0.801 * Mobile banking is compatible with other technologies I use 0.774 * I can get help from others when I have difficulties using mobile banking 0.810 * Hedonic motivation (CR = 0.918; AVE = 0.788) Using mobile banking would be fun 0.877 * Using mobile baking would be enjoyable 0.910 * Using mobile banking would be very entertaining 0.875 * Price value (CR = 0.869; AVE = 0.689) Mobile banking is reasonably priced 0.814 * Mobile baking is a good value for the money 0.896 * At the current price, mobile baking provides a good value 0.776 * Proactive personality (CR = 0.946; AVE = 0.638) I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life 0.888 * Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change 0.784 * Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality 0.603 * If I see something I do not like, I fix it 0.693 * No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen 0.844 * I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition 0.861 * I excel at identifying opportunities 0.857 * I am always looking for better ways to do things 0.817 * If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen 0.788 * I can spot a good opportunity long before others can 0.809 * Note: S-B CHI-SQUARE: 1158.8003 (D.F. = 499) p< 0.001; CFI: 0.931; IFI: 0.932; RMSEA: 0.043. * p< 0.01. Appendix B Table A2. Discriminant validity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Intention to Adopt 0.875 2. Performance Exp. 0.054 0.708 3. Effort Exp. 0.014 0.453 0.637 Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 18 of 23 Table A2. Cont. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4. Social Influence 0.027 0.482 0.166 0.826 5. Facilitating Conditions 0.016 0.514 0.500 0.365 0.604 6. Hedonic Motivation 0.017 0.321 0.270 0.278 0.404 0.788 7. Price 0.005 0.281 0.192 0.187 0.321 0.200 0.689 8. Proactive Personality 0.013 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.638 Note: Values on the diagonal represent the AVE. Squared correlations are shown. Appendix C Table A3. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Intention to Adopt 2. Performance Exp. 0.853 3. Effort Exp. 0.626 0.681 4. Social Influence 0.592 0.671 0.397 5. Facilitating Conditions 0.679 0.708 0.705 0.586 6. Hedonic Motivation 0.448 0.564 0.514 0.493 0.643 7. Price 0.421 0.460 0.325 0.310 0.463 0.344 8. Proactive Personality 0.294 0.617 0.366 0.230 0.406 0.395 0.685 References 1. Laukkanen, T. Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. J. Bus. Res. 2016,69, 2432–2439. [CrossRef] 2. Shankar, A.; Jebarajakirthy, C.; Ashaduzzaman, M.D. How do electronic word of mouth practices contribute to mobile banking adoption? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020,52, 101920. [CrossRef] 3. Baabdullah, A.M.; Rana, N.P.; Alalwan, A.A.; Islam, R.; Patil, P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Consumers’ Adoption of Self-Service Technologies in the Context of the Jordanian Banking Industry. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2019,36, 286–305. [CrossRef] 4. Muñoz-Leiva, F.; Climent-Climent, S.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F. Determinants of intention to use the mobile banking apps: An extension of the classic TAM model. Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2017,21, 25–38. [CrossRef] 5. Shareef, M.A.; Baabdullah, A.; Dutta, S.; Kumar, V.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Consumer adoption of mobile banking services: An empirical examination of factors according to adoption stages. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018,43, 54–67. [CrossRef] 6. McLean, G.; Osei-Frimpong, K.; Al-Nabhani, K.; Marriott, H. Examining consumer attitudes towards retailers’ m-commerce mobile applications—An initial adoption vs. continuous use perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2020,106, 139–157. [CrossRef] 7. Flavián, C.; Guinaliu, M.; Lu, Y. Mobile payments adoption—Introducing mindfulness to better understand consumer behavior. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020,38, 1575–1599. [CrossRef] 8. Zhang, J.; Mao, E. Cash, credit, or phone? An empirical study on the adoption of mobile payments in the United States. Psychol. Mark. 2019,37, 87–98. [CrossRef] 9. Santini, F.D.O.; Ladeira, W.J.; Sampaio, C.; Perin, M.G.; Dolci, P.C. A meta-analytical study of technological acceptance in banking contexts. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019,37, 755–774. [CrossRef] 10. Jadil, Y.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. A meta-analysis of the UTAUT model in the mobile banking literature: The moderating role of sample size and culture. J. Bus. Res. 2021,132, 354–372. [CrossRef] 11. Sahoo, D.; Pillai, S. Role of mobile banking servicescape on customer attitude and engagement: An empirical investigation in India. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017,35, 1115–1132. [CrossRef] 12. Moser, F. M-banking: A fashionable concept or an institutionalized channel in future retail banking? Analyzing patterns in the practical and academic mobile banking literature. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2015,33, 162–177. [CrossRef] 13. Shankar, A.; Rishi, B. Convenience Matter in Mobile Banking Adoption Intention? Australas. Mark. J. 2020 ,28, 273–285. [CrossRef] 14. Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Williams, M.D. Customers’ intention and adoption of telebanking in Jordan. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2016 , 33, 154–178. [CrossRef] 15. Ha, K.-H.; Canedoli, A.; Baur, A.W.; Bick, M. Mobile banking—Insights on its increasing relevance and most common drivers of adoption. Electron. Mark. 2012,22, 217–227. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 19 of 23 16. Zhou, T.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B. Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010 ,26, 760–767. [CrossRef] 17. Akturan, U.; Tezcan, N. Mobile banking adoption of the youth market: Perceptions and intentions. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2012 ,30, 444–459. [CrossRef] 18. Chawla, D.; Joshi, H. Consumer perspectives about mobile banking adoption in India–a cluster analysis. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017 , 35, 616–636. [CrossRef] 19. Zhou, T. Examining mobile banking user adoption from the perspectives of trust and flow experience. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2011 , 13, 27–37. [CrossRef] 20. Chaouali, W.; Souiden, N. The role of cognitive age in explaining m-banking resistance among elderly people. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019,50, 342–350. [CrossRef] 21. Fall, F.S.; Orozco, L.; Akim, A. Adoption and use of mobile banking by low-income individuals in Senegal. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2020 , 24, 569–588. [CrossRef] 22. Kishore, S.V.; Sequeira, A.H. An empirical investigation on mobile banking service adoption in rural Karnataka. SAGE Open 2016 , 16, 2158244016633731. [CrossRef] 23. Siano, A.; Raimi, L.; Palazzo, M.; Panait, M. Mobile Banking: An Innovative Solution for Increasing Financial Inclusion in Sub-Saharan African Countries. Evidence from Nigeria. Sustainability 2020,12, 10130. [CrossRef] 24. Malaquias, R.F.; Hwang, Y. M-banking use: A comparative study with Brazilian and U.S. participants. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019 ,44, 132–140. [CrossRef] 25. Giovanis, A.; Athanasopoulou, P.; Assimakopoulos, C.; Sarmaniotis, C. Adoption of m-banking services. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019 , 37, 1165–1189. [CrossRef] 26. Ali, A.; Subramanian, R. Current Status of Research on Mobile Banking: An Analysis of Literature. Vision 2022 , 09722629211073268. [CrossRef] 27. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989,35, 982–1003. [CrossRef] 28. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.; Davis, G.; Davis, F. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003 ,27, 425–478. [CrossRef] 29. Albashrawi, M.; Kartal, H.; Oztekin, A.; Motiwalla, L. Self-Reported and Computer-Recorded Experience in Mobile Banking: A Multi-Phase Path Analytic Approach. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019,21, 773–790. [CrossRef] 30. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012,36, 157–178. [CrossRef] 31. Lee, S.W.; Sung, H.J.; Jeon, H.M. Determinants of Continuous Intention on Food Delivery Apps: Extending UTAUT2 with Information Quality. Sustainability 2019,11, 3141. [CrossRef] 32. Shi, Y.; Siddik, A.B.; Masukujjaman, M.; Zheng, G.; Hamayun, M.; Ibrahim, A.M. The Antecedents of Willingness to Adopt and Pay for the IoT in the Agricultural Industry: An Application of the UTAUT 2 Theory. Sustainability 2022,14, 6640. [CrossRef] 33. Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P. Factors influencing adoption of m-banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017,37, 99–110. [CrossRef] 34. Baabdullah, A.M.; Alalwan, A.A.; Rana, N.P.; Kizgin, H.; Patil, P. Consumer use of mobile banking (M-Banking) in Saudi Arabia: Towards an integrated model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,44, 38–52. [CrossRef] 35. Crant, J.M. Proactive behavior in organizations. J. Manag. 2000,26, 435–462. [CrossRef] 36. Grant, A.M.; Ashford, S.J. The dynamics of proactivity at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 2008,28, 3–34. [CrossRef] 37. Lin, S.H.; Lu, W.C.; Chen, M.Y.; Chen, L.H. Association between proactive personality and academic self–efficacy. Curr. Psychol. 2014,33, 600–609. [CrossRef] 38. Parker, S.K.; Collins, C.G. Taking Stock: Integrating and Differentiating Multiple Proactive Behaviors. J. Manag. 2010 ,36, 633–662. [CrossRef] 39. Chen, N.Y.-F.; Crant, J.M.; Wang, N.; Kou, Y.; Qin, Y.; Yu, J.; Sun, R. When there is a will there is a way: The role of proactive personality in combating COVID-19. J. Appl. Psychol. 2021,106, 199–213. [CrossRef] 40. Neneh, B.N. From entrepreneurial alertness to entrepreneurial behavior: The role of trait competitiveness and proactive personality. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2019,138, 273–279. [CrossRef] 41. Sun, J.; Li, Y.; Li, S.; Li, W.; Liden, R.C.; Zhang, X. Unintended consequences of being proactive? Linking proactive personality to coworker envy, helping, and undermining, and the moderating role of prosocial motivation. J. Appl. Psychol. 2020 ,106, 250–267. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 42. Hough, L.M.; Schneider, R.J. Personality traits, taxonomies, and applications in organization. In Individual Differences and Behavior in Organizations; Murphy, K.R., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 31–88. 43. Spitzmuller, M.; Sin, H.-P.; Howe, M.; Fatimah, S. Investigating the Uniqueness and Usefulness of Proactive Personality in Organizational Research: A Meta-Analytic Review. Hum. Perform. 2015,28, 351–379. [CrossRef] 44. Costa, P.; McCrae, R.R. The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Its Relevance to Personality Disorders. J. Pers. Disord. 1992 ,6, 343–359. [CrossRef] 45. Sharif, A.; Raza, S.A. The influence of hedonic motivation, self-efficacy, trust and habit on adoption of internet banking: A case of developing country. Int. J. Electron. Cust. Relatsh. Manag. 2017,11, 1–22. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 20 of 23 46. McElroy, J.C.; Hendrickson, A.; Townsend, A.M.; DeMarie, S.M. Dispositional Factors in Internet Use: Personality versus Cognitive Style. MIS Q. 2007,31, 809. [CrossRef] 47. Xu, R.; Frey, R.M.; Fleisch, E.; Ilic, A. Understanding the impact of personality traits on mobile app adoption. Insights from a large-scale field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016,62, 244–256. [CrossRef] 48. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude. Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975. 49. Giovanis, A.; Assimakopoulos, C.; Sarmaniotis, C. Adoption of mobile self-service retail banking technologies: The role of technology, social, channel and personal factors. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2019,47, 894–914. [CrossRef] 50. Gu, J.-C.; Lee, S.-C.; Suh, Y.-H. Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009 ,36, 11605–11616. [CrossRef] 51. Singh, S.; Srivastava, R. Predicting the intention to use m-banking in India. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018,36, 357–378. [CrossRef] 52. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.D. Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a Revised Theoretical Model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019,21, 719–734. [CrossRef] 53. Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.P.; Williams, M.D. Consumer adoption of mobile banking in Jordan: Examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk and self-efficacy. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016,29, 118–139. [CrossRef] 54. Mohammadi, H. A study of mobile banking loyalty in Iran. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015,44, 35–47. [CrossRef] 55. Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Wamba, S.F.; Dwivedi, R. The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021,57, 102269. [CrossRef] 56. Martín-San, S.; Jiménez, N.H.; Camarero, C.; San-Jose, R. The path between personality, self-efficacy, and shopping regarding games apps. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020,15, 59–75. [CrossRef] 57. Agyei, J.; Sun, S.; Abrokwah, E.; Penney, E.K.; Ofori-Boafo, R. Mobile Banking Adoption: Examining the Role of Personality Traits. SAGE 2020,10. [CrossRef] 58. Changchun, G.; Haider, M.J.; Akram, T. Investigation of the effects of task technology fit, attitude and trust on intention to adopt mobile banking: Placing the mediating role of trialability. Int. Bus. Res. 2017,10, 77–91. [CrossRef] 59. Tam, C.; Oliveira, T. Literature review of m-banking and individual performance. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017 ,35, 1044–1067. [CrossRef] 60. Karjaluoto, H.; Glavee-Geo, R.; Ramdhony, D.; Shaikh, A.A.; Hurpaul, A. Consumption values and mobile banking services: Understanding the urban–rural dichotomy in a developing economy. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2021,39, 272–293. [CrossRef] 61. Baptista, G.; Oliveira, T. Understanding mobile banking: The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with cultural moderators. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015,50, 418–430. [CrossRef] 62. Shaikh, A.A.; Glavee-Geo, R.; Karjaluoto, H. How relevant are risk perceptions, effort, and performance expectancy in mobile banking adoption? Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2018,14, 39–60. [CrossRef] 63. Barnes, S.J.; Corbitt, B. Mobile Banking: Concept and Potential. Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2003,1, 273–288. [CrossRef] 64. Laforet, S.; Li, X. Consumers’ attitudes towards online and mobile banking in China. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2005 ,23, 362–380. [CrossRef] 65. Akhtar, S.; Irfan, M.; Sarwar, A.; Asma; Rashid, Q.U.A. Factors influencing individuals’ intention to adopt mobile banking in China and Pakistan: The moderating role of cultural values. J. Public Aff. 2019,19, e1884. [CrossRef] 66. Albashrawi, M.; Motiwalla, L. Privacy and Personalization in Continued Usage Intention of Mobile Banking: An Integrative Perspective. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019,21, 1031–1043. [CrossRef] 67. Bermeo Giraldo, M.C.; Benjumea-Arias, M.L.; Valencia-Arias, A.; Montoya-Restrepo, I.A. Factors Determining the Use and Acceptance of Mobile Banking in Colombia. J. Telecommun. Digit. Econ. 2021,9, 44–74. [CrossRef] 68. Bustami, E.; Situngkir, S.; Yacob, S.; Octavia, A. Customers’ behavioral intention on mobile banking services in Indonesia. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2021,10, 353–362. [CrossRef] 69. Elhajjar, S.; Ouaida, F. An analysis of factors affecting mobile banking adoption. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020,38, 352–367. [CrossRef] 70. Hassan, H.; Wood, V.R. Does country culture influence consumers’ perceptions toward mobile banking? A comparison between Egypt and the United States. Telemat. Inform. 2020,46, 101312. [CrossRef] 71. Lee, J.; Ryu, M.H.; Lee, D. A study on the reciprocal relationship between user perception and retailer perception on platformbased mobile payment service. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019,48, 7–15. [CrossRef] 72. Malaquias, R.F.; Silva, A.F. Understanding the use of mobile banking in rural areas of Brasil. Technol. Soc. 2020 ,62, 101260. [CrossRef] 73. Milly, N.; Xun, S.; Meena, M.E.; Cobbinah, B.B. Measuring Mobile Banking Adoption in Uganda Using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM2) and Perceived Risk. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2021,09, 397–418. [CrossRef] 74. Naruetharadhol, P.; Ketkaew, C.; Hongkanchanapong, N.; Thaniswannasri, P.; Uengkusolmongkol, T.; Prasomthong, S.; Gebsombut, N. Factors Affecting Sustainable Intention to Use Mobile Banking Services. SAGE Open 2021,11. [CrossRef] 75. Nguyen, V.A.; Nguyen, T.P.T. An Integrated Model of CSR Perception and TAM on Intention to Adopt Mobile Banking. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020,7, 1073–1087. [CrossRef] 76. Rehman, Z.; Omar, S.; Zabri, S.; Lohana, S. Mobile Banking Adoption and its Determinants in Malaysia. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019,9, 4231–4239. [CrossRef] 77. Siyal, A.W.; Donghong, D.; Umrani, W.A.; Siyal, S.; Bhand, S. Predicting Mobile Banking Acceptance and Loyalty in Chinese Bank Customers. SAGE Open 2019,9. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 21 of 23 78. Tiwari, P.; Tiwari, S.K.; Gupta, A. Examining the Impact of Customers’ Awareness, Risk and Trust in M-Banking Adoption. FIIB Bus. Rev. 2021,10, 413–423. [CrossRef] 79. Tam, C.; Oliveira, T. Does culture influence m-banking use and individual performance? Inf. Manag. 2019 ,56, 356–363. [CrossRef] 80. Motiwalla, L.F.; Albashrawi, M.; Kartal, H.B. Uncovering unobserved heterogeneity bias: Measuring mobile banking system success. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,49, 439–451. [CrossRef] 81. Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, M. Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,44, 65–75. [CrossRef] 82. Chaouali, W.; Lunardo, R.; Ben Yahia, I.; Cyr, D.; Triki, A. Design aesthetics as drivers of value in mobile banking: Does customer happiness matter? Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019,38, 219–241. [CrossRef] 83. Jebarajakirthy, C.; Shankar, A. Impact of online convenience on mobile banking adoption intention: A moderated mediation approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021,58, 102323. [CrossRef] 84. Foroughi, B.; Iranmanesh, M.; Hyun, S.S. Understanding the determinants of mobile banking continuance usage intention. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019,32, 1015–1033. [CrossRef] 85. Chaouali, W.; El Hedhli, K. Toward a contagion-based model of m-banking adoption. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019 ,37, 69–96. [CrossRef] 86. Albashrawi, M. Mobile banking continuance intention: The moderating role of security and customization. J. Inf. Technol. Res. 2021,14, 55–69. [CrossRef] 87. Banerjee, S.; Sreejesh, S. Examining the role of customers’ intrinsic motivation on continued usage of mobile banking: A relational approach. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2021,40, 87–109. [CrossRef] 88. Komulainen, H.; Saraniemi, S. Customer centricity in m-banking: A customer experience perspective. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019 ,37, 1082–1102. [CrossRef] 89. Prodanova, J.; Ciunova-Shuleska, A.; Palamidovska-Sterjadovska, N. Enriching m-banking perceived value to achieve reuse intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2019,37, 617–630. [CrossRef] 90. Singh, S.; Srivastava, R.K. Understanding the intention to use mobile banking by existing online banking customers: An empirical study. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 2020,25, 86–96. [CrossRef] 91. Siyal, A.W.; Ding, D.; Siyal, S. M-banking barriers in Pakistan: A customer perspective of adoption and continuity intention. Data Technol. Appl. 2019,53, 58–84. [CrossRef] 92. Kamboj, S.; Sharma, M.; Sarmah, B. Impact of mobile banking failure on bank customers’ usage behaviour: The mediating role of user satisfaction. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2022,40, 128–153. [CrossRef] 93. Baabdullah, A.M.; Alalwan, A.; Rana, N.P.; Patil, P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. An integrated model for m-banking adoption in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019,37, 452–478. [CrossRef] 94. Sharma, S.K. Integrating cognitive antecedents into TAM to explain mobile banking behavioral intention: A SEM-neural network modeling. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019,21, 815–827. [CrossRef] 95. Chaouali, W.; Ben Yahia, I.; Lunardo, R.; Triki, A. Reconsidering the "what is beautiful is good" effect when and how design aesthetics affect intentions towards mobile banking applications. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019,37, 1525–1546. [CrossRef] 96. Owusu, G.M.Y.; Bekoe, R.A.; Addo-Yobo, A.A.; Otieku, J. Mobile Banking Adoption among the Ghanaian Youth. J. Afr. Bus. 2021 , 22, 339–360. [CrossRef] 97. Hong, I.B. Understanding and predicting behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking: The Korean experience. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 2019,27, 182–202. [CrossRef] 98. Ho, J.C.; Wu, C.-G.; Lee, C.-S.; Pham, T.-T.T. Factors affecting the behavioral intention to adopt mobile banking: An international comparison. Technol. Soc. 2020,63, 101360. [CrossRef] 99. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: A Synthesis and the Road Ahead. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2016,17, 328–376. [CrossRef] 100. Islam, M.S.; Karia, N.; Khaleel, M.; Fauzi, F.B.A.; Soliman, M.M.; Khalid, J.; Mamun, M.A.A. Intention to adopt mobile banking in Bangladesh: An empirical study of emerging economy. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2019,31, 136–151. [CrossRef] 101. Rachmawati, I.K.; Bukhori, M.; Majidah, Y.; Hidayatullah, S.; Waris, A. Analysis of use of mobile banking with acceptance and use of technology (Utaut). Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2020,9, 534–540. 102. Savi´c, J.; Pešterac, A. Antecedents of mobile banking: UTAUT model. Eur. J. Appl. Econ. 2020,16, 20–29. [CrossRef] 103. Le, H.; Ngo, C.; Trinh, T.; Nguyen, T. Factor affecting customers’ decision to use mobile banking service: A case of Thanh Hoa Province, Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020,7, 205–212. [CrossRef] 104. Albashrawi, M.; Motiwalla, L. An Integrative Framework on Mobile Banking Success. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2020 ,37, 16–32. [CrossRef] 105. Dhingra, S.; Gupta, S. Behavioural intention to use mobile banking: An extension of UTAUT2 model. Int. J. Mob. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2020,12, 1–20. [CrossRef] 106. Goularte, A.D.C.; Zilber, S.N. The moderating role of cultural factors in the adoption of mobile banking in Brazil. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2019,11, 63–81. [CrossRef] 107. Iskandar, M.; Hartoyo, H.; Hermadi, I. Analysis of factors affecting behavioral intention and use of behavioral of mobile banking using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 model approach. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 2020,10, 41–49. [CrossRef] 108. Kaplan, H.E.; Gürbüz, E. An extended UTAUT2 perspective—Determinants of mobile banking use intention and use behavior. Acad. Rev. Econ. Adm. Sci. 2021,14, 207–227. Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 22 of 23 109. Kwateng, K.O.; Atiemo, K.A.O.; Appiah, C. Acceptance and use of mobile banking: An application of UTAUT2. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019,32, 118–151. [CrossRef] 110. Marpaung, F.K.; Dewi, R.S.; Grace, E.; Sudirman, A.; Sugiat, M. Behavioral Stimulus for Using Bank Mestika Mobile Banking Services: UTAUT2 Model Perspective. Gold. Ratio Mark. Appl. Psychol. Bus. 2022,1, 61–72. [CrossRef] 111. Merhi, M.; Hone, K.; Tarhini, A. A cross-cultural study of the intention to use mobile banking between Lebanese and British consumers: Extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy and trust. Technol. Soc. 2019,59, 101151. [CrossRef] 112. Osman, S.; Leng, T.P. Factors influencing behavioural intention for mobile banking adoption among students of Universiti Putra Malaysia. Malays. J. Consum. Fam. Econ. 2020,24, 79–100. 113. Raza, S.A.; Shah, N.; Ali, M. Acceptance of mobile banking in Islamic banks: Evidence from modified UTAUT model. J. Islam. Mark. 2019,10, 357–376. [CrossRef] 114. Sankaran, R.; Chakraborty, S. Factors impacting mobile banking in India: Empirical approach extending UTAUT2 with perceived value and trust. IIM Kozhikode Soc. Manag. Rev. 2022,11, 7–24. [CrossRef] 115. Trinh, T.; Le, H.; Nguyen, N.H. Factors affecting private customers in adopting mobile banking in Vietnam. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020 , 10, 2769–2780. [CrossRef] 116. Buss, A.; Finn, S. Classification of personality traits. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987,52, 432–444. [CrossRef] 117. Schneider, B. Interactional Psychology and Organizational Behavior. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M., Eds.; JAI Press Inc.: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1982; Volume 5, pp. 1–31. 118. Lazarus, R.S. Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984. 119. Scarr, S.; McCartney, K. How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype environment effects. Child Dev. 1983 , 54, 424–435. 120. Buss, D.M.; Gomes, M.; Higgins, D.S.; Lauterbach, K. Tactics of manipulation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987 ,52, 1219–1229. [CrossRef] 121. Bateman, T.S.; Crant, J.M. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. J. Organ. Behav. 1993 , 14, 103–118. [CrossRef] 122. Parker, S.K.; Bindl, U.K.; Strauss, K. Making Things Happen: A Model of Proactive Motivation. J. Manag. 2010 ,36, 827–856. [CrossRef] 123. Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Prakasam, N.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The battle of Brain vs. Heart: A literature review and meta-analysis of “hedonic motivation” use in UTAUT2. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019,46, 222–235. [CrossRef] 124. Compeau, D.R.; Higgings, C.A. Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Inf. Syst. Res. 1995 ,6, 118–143. [CrossRef] 125. Faqih, K.M.; Jaradat, M.-I.R.M. Integrating TTF and UTAUT2 theories to investigate the adoption of augmented reality technology in education: Perspective from a developing country. Technol. Soc. 2021,67, 101787. [CrossRef] 126. Schmitz, A.; Díaz-Martín, A.M.; Guillén, M.J.Y. Modifying UTAUT2 for a cross-country comparison of telemedicine adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2022,130, 107183. [CrossRef] 127. Li, N.; Liang, J.; Crant, J.M. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010,95, 395–404. [CrossRef] 128. Major, D.A.; Turner, J.E.; Fletcher, T.D. Linking proactive personality and the Big Five to motivation to learn and development activity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006,91, 927–935. [CrossRef] 129. Seibert, S.E.; Kraimer, M.L.; Crant, J.M. What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Pers. Psychol. 2001,54, 845–874. [CrossRef] 130. Lin, H.-F. An empirical investigation of mobile banking adoption: The effect of innovation attributes and knowledge-based trust. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010,31, 252–260. [CrossRef] 131. Riquelme, H.E.; Rios, R.E. The moderating effect of gender in the adoption of mobile banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2010 ,28, 328–341. [CrossRef] 132. Frohman, A.L. Igniting organizational change from below: The power of personal initiative. Organ. Dyn. 1997 ,25, 39–53. [CrossRef] 133. Lin, S.; Chen, M. Feeling capable or being flexible? Personality, cognition, and behavior: A moderated mediation of trust-insupervisor internship. Curr. Psychol. 2022,41, 5088–5097. [CrossRef] 134. Seibert, S.E.; Crant, J.M.; Kraimer, M.L. Proactive personality and career success. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999,84, 416–427. [CrossRef] 135. Ashford, S.J.; Black, J.S. Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. J. Appl. Psychol. 1996 ,81, 199–214. [CrossRef] 136. Upadhyay, N.; Upadhyay, S.; Abed, S.S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Consumer adoption of mobile payment services during COVID-19: Extending meta-UTAUT with perceived severity and self-efficacy. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2022,40, 960–991. [CrossRef] 137. Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000,11, 342–365. [CrossRef] 138. Liu, X.; De Pater, I.E.; Ilies, R. Turning lemons into lemonade: The role of proactive personality and information exchange in limiting reciprocal negative affect transference in service encounters. J. Organ. Behav. 2021,42, 1282–1300. [CrossRef] 139. Shin, I. You reap what you sow: How proactive individuals are selected as preferred work partners. Curr. Psychol. 2022 . [CrossRef] Sustainability 2022,14, 14708 23 of 23 140. Bervell, B.B.; Kumar, J.A.; Arkorful, V.; Agyapong, E.M.; Osman, S. Remodelling the role of facilitating conditions for Google Classroom acceptance: A revision of UTAUT2. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2022,38, 115–135. [CrossRef] 141. Brown, S.A.; Venkatesh, V. Model of adoption of technology in the household: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household lifecycle. MIS Q. 2005,29, 399–426. [CrossRef] 142. Van der Heijden, H. User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems. MIS Q. 2004,28, 695. [CrossRef] 143. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988 , 52, 2–22. [CrossRef] 144. Alalwan, A.A. Mobile food ordering apps: An empirical study of the factors affecting customer e-satisfaction and continued intention to reuse. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020,50, 28–44. [CrossRef] 145. Lin, H.-H.; Wang, Y.-S. An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts. Inf. Manag. 2006 , 43, 271–282. [CrossRef] 146. Liu, F.; Zhao, X.; Chau, P.Y.K.; Tang, Q. Roles of perceived value and individual differences in the acceptance of mobile coupon applications. Internet Res. 2015,25, 471–495. [CrossRef] 147. Habib, A.; Alsmadi, D.; Prybutok, V.R. Factors that determine residents’ acceptance of smart city technologies. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2020,39, 610–623. [CrossRef] 148. IDAL Fintech Sector in Lebanon; IDAL Invest Lebanon: Beirut, Lebanon, 2017. 149. Arab2net. Digital banking adoption in MENA. 2016. Available online: https://www.arabnet.me/english/business-intelligence/ digital-banking-adoption-in-mena-2016-report (accessed on 2 February 2021). 150. Domat, C. Lebanese banks stand tall amid uncertainty. Glob. Financ. 2017,1, 1–3. 151. Bhattacherjee, A. Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, 2nd ed.; University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 2012. 152. Orlikowski, W.J.; Baroudi, J.J. Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991,2, 1–28. [CrossRef] 153. Sekaran, U. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003. 154. Zikmund, W.G. Exploring Marketing Research; Thomson/South-Western: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2009. 155. Bryman, A.; Bell, E. Business Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003. 156. Coakes, S.J. SPSS: Analysis without Anguish: Version 14.0 for Windows; John Wiley & Sons: Milton, QLD, Australia, 2006. 157. Kline, R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. 158. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2007. 159. Preston, C.C.; Colman, A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 2000,104, 1–15. [CrossRef] 160. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981,18, 39–50. [CrossRef] 161. Henseler, J.; Hubona, G.; Ray, P.A. Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016,116, 2–20. [CrossRef] 162. Bullock, H.E.; Harlow, L.L.; Mulaik, S. Causation issues in structural modeling research. Struct. Equ. Model. J. 1994 ,1, 253–267. [CrossRef] 163. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008,40, 879–891. [CrossRef] 164. Tamilmani, K.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of UTAUT2. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021,23, 987–1005. [CrossRef] 165. Martins, M.; Farias, J.S.; Albuquerque, P.H.M.; Pereira, D.S. Adoption of Technology for Reading Purposes: A Study of E-Books Acceptance. Braz. Bus. Rev. 2018,15, 568–588. [CrossRef] 166. Leonidou, L.C.; Kvasova, O.; Christodoulides, P.; Tokar, S. Personality traits, consumer animosity, and foreign product avoidance: The moderating role of individual cultural characteristics. J. Int. Mark. 2019,27, 76–96. [CrossRef] 167. Hirsh, J.B.; Dolderman, D. Personality predictors of Consumerism and Environmentalism: A preliminary study. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2007,43, 1583–1593. [CrossRef] 168. Bosnjak, M.; Bratko, D.; Galesic, M.; Tuten, T. Consumer personality and individual differences: Revitalizing a temporarily abandoned field. J. Bus. Res. 2007,60, 587–589. [CrossRef] 169. Meuter, M.L.; Bitner, M.J.; Ostrom, A.L.; Brown, S.W. Choosing among Alternative Service Delivery Modes: An Investigation of Customer Trial of Self-Service Technologies. J. Mark. 2005,69, 61–83. [CrossRef] 170. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003,88, 879–903. [CrossRef] 171. Constantiou, I.D.; Papazafeiropoulou, A.; Vendelø, M.T. Does culture affect the adoption of advanced mobile services? A comparative study of young adults’ perceptions in Denmark and the UK. ACM SIGMIS Database 2009,40, 132–147. [CrossRef] 172. Sukkar, A.A.; Hasan, H. Toward a model for the acceptance of Internet banking in developing countries. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2005 , 11, 381–398. [CrossRef]