Factor analysis on perceived risks

The principal component analysis was done on all items on perceived risks. This was done to determine whether the factors can be grouped into security risk, privacy risk, performance risk, financial risk, and social risk. There were 29 items measuring the aspect on perceived risks. The data were appropriate for factor analysis since the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity gave a chi- square value of 3635.599 with a p-value of less than 0.001 indicating sufficient correlations. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was 0.912, exceeding the recommended value of 0.5 (see Appendix G). The principal component analysis revealed a four-factor solution which accounted for 67.5% of the total variation and therefore the factor solution was robust as proposed by Pallant (2013) (see Appendix G for more information). The perceived risk construct consisted of five dimensions of risk (security, privacy, performance, financial and social risk) which were reduced to four constructs. The next paragraph discusses the factor loading for factor 1.

Two factors which are security and privacy risk emerged as a single factor (factor 1). Factor 1 consisted of all the items on security and privacy risk and therefore it was named “security and privacy risks”. The eigenvalue was 6.54, accounting for 22.5% of the total variation. The next paragraph discusses the factor loading for factor 2.

Factor 2 was named “financial risks” since it consisted of all the items on financial risk. The eigenvalue was 5.17 and it accounted for 17.8% of the total variation. The next paragraph discusses the factor loading for factor 3.

Factor 3 was named “performance risks” since it consisted of all the items on performance risk. The eigenvalue was 4.28 and it accounted for 14.8% of the total variation. The next paragraph discusses the factor loading for factor 4.

Factor 4 was all the items on social risk and they accounted for 12.4% of the total variation with an eigenvalue of 3.58. The next paragraph discusses the conclusions of perceived risk dimensions.

It can be noted that all the perceived risks were factored into their respective dimensions except security and privacy risks that were combined. Table 4.11 shows the factor loading on each of the factors.

82

Table 4.11: Factor loadings for perceived risk dimensions

Factor Label

Statements Loadings Variance

explained as % Factor 1: Security and privacy risk

Q12.1c) Fake e-banking web servers may be shown online.

0.815 22.5%

Q12.1b) I do not feel secure sending personal information through e-banking.

0.760

Q12.1d) Because of the vulnerability of e- banking, my account may be hacked.

0.746

Q12.1a) I am worried about using e-banking because other people may be able to access my account.

0.727

Q12.1f) Due to fraudulent SIM-swap activities, criminals may gain access to my account.

0.710

Q12.2c) Personal information may be stolen by others when using e-banking.

0.703

Q12.2b) E-banking cannot keep my personal data private.

0.670

Q12.1e) If I lose my cell phone or laptop; criminals may be able to crack into my e- banking account.

0.667

Q12.2a) A hacker may hack into my private information when using e-banking.

83

Factor Label

Statements Loadings Variance

explained as %

Q12.2d) I do not feel totally secure by providing personal privacy information through e-banking.

0.650

Q12.2e) If I lose my phone or laptop; criminals may crack into my e-banking information.

0.595

Factor 2: Financial risk

Q12.4d) I may lose money through fake e- banking web servers.

0.778 17.8%

Q12.4a) I am afraid that I will lose money due to careless mistakes such as wrong input of account number.

0.764

Q12.4c) When transaction errors occur, I worry that I may not get a refund from the bank.

0.744

Q12.4e) - I may lose money due to hackers, hacking my account.

0.743

Q12.4b) I am afraid that if I put wrong amount of money I will lose my money.

0.699

Q12.4f) Due to fraudulent SIM-swap activities, mobile network operators will claim no liability to my financial loss.

0.693

Q12.4g) I worry that commercial banks will not accept liability for any loss occurred due to fraudulent SIM-swap activities.

0.582

Q12.3f) Due to high volume transactions on the bank’s system, I am afraid my creditors will penalise me if my payments are delayed.

84

Factor Label

Statements Loadings Variance

explained as %

Factor 3: Performance risk

Q12.3c) - I am afraid that the e-banking system may break down while I conduct banking transactions.

0.861 14.8

Q12.3d) E-banking may not perform well because of slow speed.

0.802

Q12.3e) Because of slow speed; e-banking may process payments incorrectly.

0.660

Q12.3a) I am afraid of pressing the wrong button, when doing transactions on e- banking.

0.647

Q12.3g) I am concerned about the time it takes for the money to reflect into beneficiary’s account.

0.611

Q12.3b) E-banking server may not perform well or process transactions incorrectly.

0.549

Factor 4: Social risk

Q12.5c) By using e-banking, I am afraid that I will not be able to interact with bank staff.

0.839 12.4

Q12.5b) When transaction errors occur, I worry that my family, friends, and colleagues would blame me.

0.797

Q12.5a) If my bank account encountered fraud or is hacked, I am worried that I would be blamed or laughed at by my family, friends and colleagues.

0.787

Q12.5d) E-banking services have reduced our normal interaction with our bank’s business account manager.

0.749

Source: SPSS

The next subsection discusses the factor loading for attitude towards and intention to use e- banking.

85