BUSI 331 Week 6 Marketing Research Report Part 3: Data Submission Example

Riverbend Credit Union Mobile App Study, Part 3: Coded Survey Data, Tables and Figure

Response and Coding

Of 1,000 members invited, 162 completed the survey, a response rate of 16.2 percent. Responses were coded in Excel with one row per respondent, Likert items coded 1 to 5, yes and no coded 1 and 0, and missing answers left blank, following the data preparation steps Malhotra (2015) describes. The codebook and raw data will appear in Appendix II of the final study.

Table 1: Use of Transaction Features by Age Group

Use of both transaction features falls steadily with age. More than half of respondents aged 18 to 34 had deposited a check with the app in the past three months, compared with one third of those aged 35 to 54 and only 14 percent of those 55 and over. Bill payment follows the same pattern at a higher level, suggesting that members are generally more comfortable paying bills through the app than depositing checks. Overall, about one in three respondents had used the deposit feature, close to the credit union's internal estimate that fewer than one in four app users had. The somewhat higher figure in the survey may reflect that active app users were more willing to respond. These results address research question 3, showing that usage differs sharply by age, and they suggest that any campaign to increase deposit use should give particular attention to older members, who are also the group most likely to visit branches.

Figure 1, a bar chart of the deposit column by age group, shows the decline from 53 percent to 14 percent at a glance.

Table 2: Mean Agreement Scores, Depositors Compared With Non-Depositors

Members who have not deposited through the app differ most from depositors in their worries and their knowledge, not in their view of the app's usefulness. Both groups agree the feature would save time, though depositors agree more strongly. The largest gaps appear for worry that a deposit might be lost or rejected, 3.8 compared with 2.3, for knowing when funds will be available, 2.5 compared with 3.9, and for preferring a teller, 3.7 compared with 2.1. Non-users are not unconvinced that the app works; they are unsure what happens after they press deposit. These are differences in means from a modest sample, so they indicate direction rather than precise size. They answer research questions 1 and 2, pointing to perceived risk and uncertainty about fund availability as stronger barriers than ease of use. That pattern echoes Laukkanen (2016), who found that perceived risk shaped consumers' rejection of mobile banking, and it qualifies the emphasis Davis (1989) placed on usefulness, which both groups here largely accept.

Table 3: Changes That Would Encourage Mobile Deposits Among Non-Depositors

Respondents could select more than one option, so percentages total more than 100. The most popular change, chosen by 55 percent of non-depositors, was a text confirming each deposit, followed by faster fund availability at 47 percent. Both address the uncertainty revealed in Table 2. Fewer non-depositors wanted a tutorial or help from staff, consistent with Table 2's finding that ease of use is a smaller barrier. About one in eight said none of the changes would help, suggesting a group that prefers branch banking regardless of the app's features. These results give the credit union concrete, inexpensive options to test and will shape the recommendations in Part 4.

References

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Laukkanen, T. (2016). Consumer adoption versus rejection decisions in seemingly similar service innovations: The case of the Internet and mobile banking. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2432-2439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.013

Malhotra, N. K. (2015). Essentials of marketing research: A hands-on orientation. Pearson.