Dergiler / Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Extending TAM and UTAUT for Meta-Banking Adoption Intention: Roles of Technostress, AR/VR Experience, and Perceived Value

Hakan Kaya(Municipality of Kestel)0000-0002-0812-4839
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2026-03-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These insights enhance technology adoption theory by weaving in psychological and cultural aspects into the TAM/UTAUT framework, while also providing practical guidance for creating user-friendly and trust-building AR/VR banking solutions.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study examines the determinants of meta-banking adoption by extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to include technostress, AR/VR experience, and perceived value.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Data from 312 respondents with prior AR/VR exposure were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM), and multi-group SEM.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These insights enhance technology adoption theory by weaving in psychological and cultural aspects into the TAM/UTAUT framework, while also providing practical guidance for creating user-friendly and trust-building AR/VR banking solutions.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:AR/VR · Measurement invariance · Meta-Banking

Abstract

This study examines the determinants of meta-banking adoption by extending the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to include technostress, AR/VR experience, and perceived value. Data from 312 respondents with prior AR/VR exposure were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM), and multi-group SEM. The measurement model met the necessary reliability and validity standards (with Cronbach’s α at least 0.74, CR at least 0.83, and AVE at least 0.56), and confirmed discriminant validity through HTMT, which was below 0.85. The CFA indices showed a good fit, with values like χ²/df at 2.8, CFI at 0.96, RMSEA at 0.049, and SRMR at 0.041. Testing for measurement invariance demonstrated that both configural, metric, and scalar invariance were upheld among users of Islamic and conventional banking. The findings indicate that factors such as perceived ease of use, usefulness, facilitating conditions, and compatibility all positively affect perceived value. In contrast, technostress has a negative influence on it. Moreover, perceived value is a strong predictor of adoption intention, with trust in technology playing a crucial moderating role. Multi-group analysis further shows that Islamic banking users have a stronger connection between perceived usefulness, ease of use, and their intention to adopt compared to conventional banking users. These insights enhance technology adoption theory by weaving in psychological and cultural aspects into the TAM/UTAUT framework, while also providing practical guidance for creating user-friendly and trust-building AR/VR banking solutions.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kaya, H. (2026). Extending TAM and UTAUT for Meta-Banking Adoption Intention: Roles of Technostress, AR/VR Experience, and Perceived Value. Sakarya University Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.35377/saucis...1700912

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (41)

  1. I. Lee, and Y. J. Shin, “Metaverse and financial services: A new frontier for innovation,” Journal of Financial Innovation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 45–60, 2021.
  2. A. F. Aysan, G. Gozgor, and Z. Nanaeva, “Technological perspectives of Metaverse for financial service providers,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 202, p. 123323, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123323
  3. H. Yaseen, M. Ayoub, C. Hattar, A. Al-Adwan, and M. Alsoud, “Factors influencing meta-banking adoption: An empirical research,” Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 811–829, 2025. doi: 10.1108/jfra-12-2023-0765
  4. K. Ooi et al., “Banking in the metaverse: A new frontier for financial institutions,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, vol. 41, no.7, pp. 1829–1846, 2023. doi: 10.1108/ijbm-03-2023-0168
  5. P. Gomber, R. J. Kauffman, C. Parker, and B. W. Weber, “On the fintech revolution: Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption, and transformation in financial services,” Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 220–265, 2018. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766
  6. L. Nguyen, D. Duc, T. Dang, and D. Nguyen, “Metaverse banking service: Are we ready to adopt? A deep learning-based dual-stage SEM-ANN analysis,” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, p. 6617371, 2023. doi: 10.1155/2023/6617371
  7. D. Gursoy, L. Lu, R. Nunkoo, and D. Deng, “Metaverse in services marketing: An overview and future research directions,” The Service Industries Journal, vol. 43, pp. 1140–1172, 2023. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2023.2252750
  8. F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989. doi: 10.2307/249008
  9. V. Venkatesh, and F. D. Davis, “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies” Management Science, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 186–204, 2000. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  10. I. Bajwa, S. Rehman, A. Iqbal, Z. Anwar, M. Ashiq, and M. Khan, “Past, present and future of fintech research: A bibliometric analysis” SAGE Open, vol. 12, 2022. doi: 10.1177/21582440221131242
  11. N. Yathiraju, and B. Dash, “Big data and metaverse revolutionizing the futuristic fintech industry,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2023. doi: 10.5121/ijcsit.2023.15101
  12. M. Zainurin, M. Masri, M. Besar, and M. Anshari, “Towards an understanding of metaverse banking: A conceptual paper,” Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 178–190, 2023. doi: 10.1108/jfra-12-2021-0487
  13. M. Al-Afeef, H. Jaradat, R. Al-Smadi, and M. Shbail, “Nurturing trust in Islamic banking within the metaverse for market success,” Journal of Islamic Marketing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 509–531. 2026. doi: 10.1108/JIMA-01-2024-0040
  14. V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003. doi: 10.2307/30036540
  15. H. Alkasasbeh, M. Oudat, I. Abu-AlSondos, and L. Alhawamdeh, “Metaverse finance: shaping the future of Islamic fintech solutions in UAE,” Journal of Islamic Marketing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 551–569. 2026. doi: 10.1108/jima-01-2024-0039
  16. V. Dubey, A. Mokashi, R. Pradhan, P. Gupta, and R. Walimbe, “Metaverse and banking industry - 2023 the year of metaverse adoption,” Technium: Romanian Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology, vol. 4, no. 10, 2022. doi: 10.47577/technium.v4i10.7774
  17. E. Castronova, “Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games”. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
  18. D. Yermack, “Corporate governance and blockchains,” Review of Finance, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 7–31, 2017. doi: 10.1093/rof/rfw074
  19. M. A. Shah, and F. Uddin, “Exploring security and privacy challenges for banks in the evolving landscape of the metaverse,” in Metaverse Security Paradigms, pp. 280–303, IGI Global, 2024. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-3824-7.ch011
  20. B. Dhashanamoorthi, “Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence in banking and financial services,” International Journal of Science and Research Archive, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 272–279, 2023. doi: 10.30574/ijsra.2023.10.2.0947
  21. S. M. M. Rahman, K. J. Yii, E. K. Masli, and M. L. Voon, “The blockchain in the banking industry: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis,” Cogent Business & Management, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 2407681, 2024. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2407681
  22. S. Sarkar, “Banking in metaverse - opportunities and challenges,” The Management Accountant Journal, vol. 58, no. 01, pp. 63–67, 2023. doi: 10.33516/maj.v58i1.63-67p
  23. J. Dumlao, “Exploring meta-banking adoption trends: Insights,” Kaggle, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/code/jocelyndumlao/exploring-meta-banking-adoption-trends-insights/notebook
  24. G. Baptista, and T. Oliveira, “A weight and a meta-analysis on mobile banking acceptance research,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 63, pp. 480–489, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.074
  25. H. Alshurafat, O. Arabiat, and M. Shehadeh, “The intention to adopt metaverse in Islamic banks: an integrated theoretical framework of TAM and religiosity intention model,” Journal of Islamic Marketing, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 462–485. 2024. doi: 10.1108/jima-10-2023-0310
  26. A. Wijanarko, A. Syafitri, and D. Andreswari, “Employing the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) to evaluate customer readiness for future adoption of the metaverse in virtual branch digital banking services,” IJCSE, vol. 1, no. 02, pp. 41–45, 2024. doi: 10.70656/ijcse.v1i02.109
  27. M. Tariq, S. Z. Maryam, and W. A. Shaheen, “Cognitive factors and actual usage of Fintech innovation: Exploring the UTAUT framework for digital banking,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 15, p. e35582, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35582
  28. L. Chen, J. Jia, and C. Wu, “Factors influencing the behavioral intention to use contactless financial services in the banking industry: An application and extension of UTAUT model,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 14, p. 1096709, 2023. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096709
  29. J. Phiri, “Technology adoption as a factor for financial performance in the banking sector using UTAUT model,” African Journal of Commercial Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 121–130, 2024. doi: 10.59413/ajocs/v4.i2.5
  30. N. Kaur, S. Saha, V. Agarwal, and S. Gulati, “Metaverse and fintech: Pathway for innovation and development,” in Proc. 2023 3rd Int. Conf. Innovative Practices in Technology and Management (ICIPTM), 2023, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICIPTM57143.2023.10117956
  31. H. Alhanatleh, A. Khaddam, and A. Alzghoul, “Measuring factors affecting consumer attitudes toward metaverse adoption: Islamic banking services setting,” Banks and Bank Systems, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 205–219, 2024. doi: 10.21511/bbs.19(4).2024.16
  32. B. A. Khan, H. Pirkkalainen, and M. Salo, “Technostress in Work-Related Use of Social Virtual Reality,” in ECIS 2024 Proceedings, 2024, p. 15. [Online]. Available: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2024/track24_socialmedia/track24_socialmedia/15/
  33. V. Kumar, B. Rajan, U. Salunkhe, and S. G. Joag, “Relating the dark side of new‐age technologies and customer technostress,” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 2240–2259, 2022. doi: 10.1002/mar.21738
  34. J. T. Gironda, “Review of advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modelling,” Journal of Marketing Analytics, vol. 12, pp. 108–109, 2024. doi: 10.1057/s41270-023-00275-x
  35. C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981. doi: 10.2307/3151312
  36. J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2013. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587
  37. J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–135, 2015. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  38. A. S. Mastana, “A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM),” Wisdom Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 62–64, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://so19.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/WJHS/article/view/1373
  39. G. W. Cheung, and R. B. Rensvold, “Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance,” Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 233–255, 2002. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  40. F. F. Chen, “Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 464–504, 2007. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
  41. R. M. Baron, and D. A. Kenny, “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1173–1182, 1986. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173