Factors Influencing Hotel Customers' Intention To Use A Fingerprint System

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology
Factors influencing hotel customers intention to use a fingerprint system

Jungsun (Sunny) Kim Bo Bernhard
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA, Mr Muhamad Aswad Mohd Noor At 10:51 03 March 2015 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
Jungsun (Sunny) Kim Bo Bernhard , (2014),"Factors influencing hotel customers intention to use a
fingerprint system", Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 98 - 125
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-11-2013-0031
Downloaded on: 03 March 2015, At: 10:51 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 92 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 217 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Jin Young Im, Murat Hancer, (2014),"Shaping travelers attitude toward travel mobile applications",
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 177-193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
JHTT-11-2013-0036
Ahmet Bulent Ozturk, Murat Hancer, (2014),"Hotel and IT decision-maker characteristics and information
technology adoption relationship in the hotel industry", Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 5
Iss 2 pp. 194-206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-12-2013-0038
Sofia Reino, Andrew J. Frew, Nicole Mitsche, (2014),"A benchmarking framework for eTourism capability
of destinations industries", Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 126-142 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-05-2013-0015
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-9880.htm
JHTT
5,2
Factors influencing hotel

customers intention to use a
fingerprint system
98
Received 4 November 2013
Revised 10 February 2014
Accepted 14 February 2014
Jungsun (Sunny) Kim and Bo Bernhard

William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to extend the technology acceptance model (TAM) to explore the factors
influencing a hotel customers intention to use a fingerprint system instead of a traditional keycard
system and the moderating factors (i.e. gender and age) on the relationships between the proposed
factors and the customers intention to use fingerprint technology. When hotels add new technologies,
the potential vulnerability of their systems also increases. Underestimating such risks can possibly
result in massive losses from identity theft and related fraud for hoteliers. Customers who are aware of
these risks may become more open to innovative methods of identification or verification, such as
biometrics.
Design/methodology/approach The online survey instrument was developed based on TAMs.
The authors collected complete 526 responses from hotel customers and tested the hypotheses using
structural equation modeling.
Findings This study found seven factors (i.e. perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective
norm, perceived convenience, perceived data security, perceived property security and personal
concerns) which significantly influence a hotel customers intention to use fingerprint technology.
Gender and age played important moderating roles in the relationships between some of these factors
and the intention to use.
Practical implications Recommendations are made as to how hotels can benefit from the
implementation of biometrics, particularly fingerprint systems. For example, a hotels marketing
campaign can be more effective by emphasizing the advantages of fingerprint technology related to
data security and convenience for younger consumers (i.e. Gen X and Gen Y).
Originality/value Both educators and practitioners will benefit from the findings of this empirical
study, as there are very few published studies on a customers fingerprint technology acceptance in the
hotel context.
Keywords Security, Consumer behavior, Biometrics, Customer privacy,
Fingerprint technology acceptance model, Hospitality technology
Paper type Research paper
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

Technology
Vol. 5 No. 2, 2014
pp. 98-125
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1757-9880
DOI 10.1108/JHTT-11-2013-0031
1. Introduction
In the USA, identity theft and related fraud were reported to approach US$48 billion,
with 8.4 million adult victims in 2007 (Javelin and Better Business Bureau, 2007).
According to the latest report from Javelin Strategy and Research (2011), the number of
identity fraud victims decreased to 8.1 million adults and total annual fraud also
decreased to US$37 billion in 2010. Nevertheless, consumer out-of-pocket costs
increased significantly, mainly due to the types of fraud that were successfully
perpetrated and an increase in friendly fraud (i.e. fraud perpetrated by people
previously known to the victim). Since 2005, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2011)
has tracked 2,838 data breaches involving 543 million of records containing sensitive
personal information in the USA (e.g. Social Security numbers, financial accounts and
drivers license numbers). As an example, TJX a parent company of T.J. Maxx has
incurred a cost of US$246 million and still counting, due to a data breach of 45 million
credit and debit files in 2006 (Skorupa and Lorden, 2008). The costs include improving
its computer systems, dealing with lawsuits and investigations (e.g. a US$41 million
settlement with Visa) and other claims stemming from the thefts (Huffman, 2007).
September 11, 2001, the day when the New York World Trade Center towers were
destroyed, remains a defining date in the personal lives and in the history of the USA.
The secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, criticized
the fact that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers used American identification documents
that they had obtained fraudulently, which enabled them to move freely around this
country (Anonymous, 2006). From the 9/11 attacks, both the government and the
travelers realized that the ports of entry and identification methods were vulnerable and,
in turn, increased their interest in security issues.
The hospitality industry is not safe from these types of risks, as the following cases
indicate (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2011, 2012). In September 2006, a hotel
customers laptop computer holding the names and Social Security numbers of
approximately 50,000 current and former General Electric (GE) employees was stolen
from a locked hotel room while he was traveling on business. In August 2008, an
employee at a McDonalds restaurant took credit and debit cards from drive-through
customers and used a card skimmer hidden near the window to swipe the cards and
record their numbers. Then, the information on the device was downloaded and used to
make new cards either in the names of the persons to which the original cards belonged
or in the name of the perpetrator (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, 2012).
In 2009, the suicide bombers at the JW Marriott and nearby Ritz-Carlton hotels in
Jakarta, Indonesia, killed eight people and injured 53. These luxury hotels were the
perfect locations to attack for the bombers who attempted to destabilize the country
after the election, as these hotels were seen as symbols of the countrys new economic
growth (Wright, 2009). In February 2010, the Wyndham Hotels and Resorts suffered a
serious damage to its reputation, sending an open letter to customers about an incident
when hackers broke into its computer systems and stole customer names and payment
card information. The total number of customers affected by this hacking incident is
considered to be large, as 37 hotels under this hotel group were affected (Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, 2011). Although Wyndham offered the customers free online credit
monitoring services for a year, this type of service only warns consumers when
unauthorized accounts are established using their names, not when unauthorized
charges are posted to their existing accounts (Roberts, 2010).
The vulnerability of systems in the hospitality industry was also clearly addressed
by a study of Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS) (Cougias and
Cobanoglu, 2008), which showed that only 40 per cent of the participants (hotel and
restaurant managers) regularly test security systems and monitor all access to network
resources and customer data. Unfortunately, this high level of vulnerability in the
hospitality industry has not declined. A study by Trustwave (2010), a global compliance
and security firm, revealed that the hospitality industry accounted for 38 per cent of all
breaches investigated by the company, representing the most breached industry in
2009. A more stunning result was that the hospitality and food and beverage sectors
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
99
JHTT
5,2
made up 51 per cent of the companys investigation clients, but only 7 per cent were
penetration-testing clients. In other words, the hospitality industry has not been
proactive in their approach to identify existing problems. Instead, they were more likely
to wait until the breach occurred and struggle to fix the problems after they were
identified (Trustwave, 2010; Verizon, 2012).
100
1.1 Availability, applicability and standards of biometrics

The aforementioned statistics and examples clearly suggest that it is time for hospitality
operators to give more thought to how securely their customers data are managed and
what technology should be used to meet their customers demands and security
requirements. Among diverse technologies, biometrics has the potential to play a role in
solving the existing vulnerability in hospitality security systems. Biometrics is the
automated use of physiological or behavior characteristics, such as a fingerprint, iris,
hand geometry or voice, to determine or verify identity (Nanavati et al., 2002).
Proponents have never had trouble explaining the benefits of biometric technology, as
each person has a unique set of biological features, and its validity has been established
in the legal system as an authoritative means of proving identification (Kasavana, 2005).
As this novel technology has not been commonly implemented by hospitality
companies, hotel operators may be concerned about the availability, applicability and
standards of biometrics. Biometric devices have been in the marketplace for over two
decades, and hardware average prices decreased tenfold (US$5,124 to US$547)
(Wayman, 2007). In addition, the biometrics industry revenues are expected to escalate
beyond US$9 billion in 2014 (International Biometric Group, 2008). The applicability of
biometrics has been proven over the past four decades. Hand geometry in the University
of Georgias dormitory food service area (1970s), fingerprints for a drivers license in the
State of California (1980s), hand geometry for a border crossing system (1990s) and iris
recognition for frequent travelers at Schiphol Airport in The Netherlands (2000s) are
prime examples (Wayman, 2007). To develop national regulations in biometrics,
standards development organizations and government agencies have collaborated.
Biometric core technology companies have also provided ongoing innovation in
modality and sensor development, capture and authentication devices and matching
algorithms, as well as methodologies, while being forced to engineer to established
industry standards (Most, 2008).
1.2 Purposes of this study
According to the 2004 Identity Management Survey (Electronic Data System, 2005),
consumers want identification methods to be as convenient and secure as possible, and
they are more open to alternative identification verification methods, such as biometrics.
However, there are critical issues to be considered from the customers point of view,
such as privacy. These issues might be the primary reason why biometric technology is
not ubiquitous in the hospitality industry, despite the fact that this technology has been
available since the early 1960s (Wayman, 2007). There are important social implications
in the collection, processing and distribution of customers biometric traits that cause a
certain degree of friction between security interests and customers privacy (Song et al.,
2007). Another privacy issue is related to the inherent discomfort individuals may feel
when they encounter biometric technology (e.g. scanning eyes). The reasons could be
rooted from users cultures, religions or concerns about physical harm (Nanavati et al.,
2002). A very few published studies have empirically explored the relationship between
influential factors and the consumers intention to use biometrics based on the extended
technology acceptance model (TAM) (James et al., 2006; Morosan, 2011, 2012a, 2012d).
Although these studies provide solid frameworks for other researchers to further
investigate biometric technology adoption, the major limitation addressed was their
lack of generalizability, as the samples were collected from only students or students,
faculty and staff at a university. Thus, this study seeks to collect data from general hotel
customers who have stayed at a hotel over the past 12 months and explore additional
influential factors to develop and test a comprehensive biometrics acceptance model. In
other words, the proposed model in this study will validate the variables adapted from
existing technology acceptance and biometric acceptance models and explore new
moderating variables which could influence the customers biometric technology
adoption.
Each biometric technology has advantages and disadvantages in terms of its
performance, distinctiveness, intrusiveness, device size and cost (Riley and Kleist, 2005).
This study focuses on fingerprint technology, as it has the greatest share of the global
biometrics market and is expected to be the major source of overall market revenues by
2015 (International Biometric Group, 2008; Vrankulj, 2013). This study will help
practitioners to understand their customers perceptions with regard to fingerprint
technology, particularly in the area of convenience, security and privacy. With a better
understanding of consumer behavior based on their age and gender, hotel operators will
be able to develop proper strategies to increase their target customers acceptance levels
and, in turn, increase the return on their investment in fingerprint systems.
2. Literature review
The literature review is separated into three parts. The first section describes an
overview of biometrics, fingerprint technology and its applications in the hospitality
industry. In the second section, existing TAMs were reviewed, appropriate
determinants (factors) of an individuals intention to use biometrics were selected and
the hypotheses of this study were proposed. Finally, summarizing the hypotheses, this
study presents a research model of factors affecting customers fingerprint technology
usage intention (Figure 1).
2.1 Biometric technology and fingerprint technology
Most security systems rely on passwords or personal identification numbers to ensure
validation of an authorized user. There is a common vulnerability associated with these
non-biometric techniques: verification can be lost, stolen, duplicated or guessed.
Whenever biometric technology is used, the basic concept of verification remains the
same: a personal characteristic, such as fingerprints, is measured and evaluated. The
operation of a biometric system may be either in the verification or identification mode
(Maltoni et al., 2003). In the verification mode, the system validates a users identity by
comparing the captured biometric data with the individuals own biometric template
stored in the system database. An individual claims a particular identity usually via a
PIN, a user name or a smart card, and the system conducts a one-to-one comparison to
determine whether the claim is true or not (i.e. Does this biometric data belong to the
user?). This mode is mainly used to prevent multiple users from using the same identity
(e.g. time attendance systems to prevent buddy punching) (Jain et al., 2008). In the
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
101
JHTT
5,2
Perceived Convenience
(No key to carry; Ease & quick
access to rooms)
Perceived ease
of use
102
Perceived Property Security

(Property and room security)
Perceived
usefulness
Intention to use a
fingerprint system
Perceived Data Security

(Information Privacy)
Subjective
Norm
Figure 1.
Theoretical framework of
this study
Personal Concerns
(Privacy, Discomfort & Physical
harm)
Moderating variables: Gender, Age,
identification mode, the system recognizes an individual by searching all templates in

the database for a match. Therefore, it conducts a one-to-many comparison to establish
an individuals identity without having to claim an identity (i.e. Whose biometric data is
this?). The purpose of using this mode is to prevent a single person from using multiple
identities. For example, this type of system keeps terrorists from using counterfeit IDs
because everyone in the government database has only one unique ID based on their
fingerprints (Jain et al., 2008).
People are usually hesitant about using biometrics because of privacy concerns such
as storing their biometric images somewhere. Understanding the way biometric
technologies work and the process of biometric matching will be helpful for end-users
(e.g. customers) and operators (e.g. hotel managers) to recognize them as a friend to both
security and privacy. The key fact in the process is that biometric systems store and
compare biometric templates, not biometric data. Templates are proprietary to each
vendor and each technology, and this is beneficial from a privacy perspective.
Theoretically, biometric data (e.g. fingerprint images) cannot be reconstructed from
biometric templates. Biometric templates are not only compressions of biometric data,
but also extractions of distinctive features, and these features are inadequate to
reconstruct the full biometric images or data (Chirillo and Blaul, 2003; International
Biometric Group, 2007; Nanavati et al., 2002).
There are different types of biometrics depending on which characteristic is
measured: physical characteristics such as a fingerprint, face, iris or hand geometry; or
behavioral traits such as voiceprint or signature. The most commonly used biometric
technology is finger-scan technology, which accounts for 67 per cent of total biometric
technologies (International Biometric Group, 2008). Hotels have also incorporated this
technology into their operations as a recent study by Bilgihan et al. (2013) with US hotel
managers and owners revealed that the most commonly utilized biometric application in
hotels is fingerprint scanning, followed by hand geometry and palm print scanning,
signature recognition and face recognition. With a high level of accuracy, easy-to-use
devices and flexible deployment in a range of environments, fingerprint technology is
used in a broad range of physical access and logical access applications. Strong
finger-scan solution can process thousands of users with a very low false match and can
verify nearly 100 per cent of users with one or two placements of fingers. More
specifically, the false rejection rate (FRR) is approximately 0.1 per cent, and the false
acceptance rate (FAR) is approximately 1 per cent (Wilson et al., 2003). This technology
also offers an option to enroll with multiple fingers, which will reduce the rate of failure
to enroll (Maltoni et al., 2003). Table I compared the FRR and FAR of fingerprint
technology with other major biometrics using different traits.
In terms of the process of obtaining, storing and matching data, fingerprints are a
distinctive feature and, with few exceptions, remain invariant over the lifetime of a
subject. The general processes to use fingerprint systems include:
acquiring a users fingerprint image;
processing the fingerprint image;
locating distinctive characteristics;
creating the users fingerprint template; and
matching the templates.
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
103
During the last step, the templates cannot be manually read as anything resembling the
users fingerprint. Instead, vendor algorithms are required to process the templates and
to determine the similarity between the stored template (i.e. the reference template) and
the observed template of the user (Nanavati et al., 2002; Ratha et al., 2001). One of the
most fascinating facts is that unique templates are generated every time a user presents
the individuals biometric data. Two immediately successive placements of a finger on
a biometric device generate different templates. These templates, when processed by a
vendors algorithm, are recognizable as being from the same person, but are not
identical. For instance, users generally change positioning and pressure while placing
their fingerprints on biometric devices. Such changes will result in creating different
biometric templates (Chirillo and Blaul, 2003; Nanavati et al., 2002).
A major disadvantage of fingerprint technology is the users concerns about a Big
Brother criminal detection scenario, as this technology has been largely used for forensic
purposes (Riley and Kleist, 2005). A technical challenge with large-scale fingerprint
recognition systems is that they require an enormous amount of computation resources,
especially when operating in the identification mode. Furthermore, as other
authentication techniques, fingerprint technology is not totally spoof-proof. The main
potential threat for fingerprint systems is that hackers may attack the communication
Biometric trait
Fingerprint
Iris
Face
Hand
False rejection rate (%)
False acceptance rate (%)
0.10
0.99
10.00
3.90
1.00
0.94
1.00
1.00
Table I.
False rejection rate (FRR)
and false acceptance rate
(FAR)
JHTT
5,2
104
channels or the database of enrolled templates (Maltoni and Cappelli, 2008). To protect
users from this threat, other researchers have suggested cancelable biometrics which
allows a user to choose non-invertible transformation functions to be used on the
original biometric sample. In this case, the system generates multiple variants (i.e.
distorted biometric images) to represent the same person (Bolle et al., 2002; Connie et al.,
2005).
Another major concern in implementing a biometric system would be whether the
system can accurately differentiate between the users fingerprint and the fingerprint
replicas. Biometric market leaders have provided solutions to detect and prevent fake
fingers and combination of fake and real fingers using sensor technology such as optical
scanners. The optical scanners have the advantages of higher accuracy, shorter
processing time and robustness compared to silicon sensors. In particular, the optical
scanners are able to detect fake fingers by performing two operations. First they capture
the fingerprint image and taking various impedance measurements (i.e. opposition to
flow of alternating current) at different locations of the skin. These measurements are
then used to classify different types of skins and discriminate real fingers from fake ones
that use various materials such as gelatin and silicon (SAFRAN, 2010; Shimamura et al.,
2008).
Examples of fingerprint applications in the service industry include ATMs, time
attendance, door locks in hotels, electronic lockers in amusement parks, physical access
control in airports and payment systems in school cafeterias, restaurants or
supermarkets (International Biometric Group, 2007; Nanavati et al., 2002; Pease, 2003).
Biometric fingerprint door lock systems have been already deployed at properties in
Europe, such as at Hotel Palafitte near Lausanne, Switzerland. This technology is
known to benefit customers with increased convenience, property and room security in
a hotel and security of customer data (Pease, 2003). At the same time, this system will
benefit the hotel management in various modes of implementation.
One possible procedure is that hotels scan each guests fingerprint at the front desk
and transfer the data directly to the guest door. Hotels would save money related to
keycard purchases, which is about 10 to 15 per card, and labor costs tied to card
dispensing and tracking (Whitford, 1999). Another possible application is combining a
biometric scheme with a possession-based authentication system, such as a smart card.
A front desk agent would encode each guests fingerprint on a smart card. The card can
be used in conjunction with a door scanner that provides a real-time finger reading and
confirms a match with the fingerprint encoded on the card. As most templates occupy
less than one kilobyte, such small file sizes allow not only for very rapid matching,
transmission and encryption, but also for storing the templates on small devices (Riley
and Kleist, 2005). Researchers have emphasized that a self-contained biometric card will
ensure the privacy of the cardholder (Kasavana, 2005; Maltoni et al., 2003), as it operates
autonomously as the fingerprint recognition is performed on the card itself. Hence, no
external database is accessed and the scanned fingerprint never leaves the card. For
purchase transaction purposes, Kroger, a US supermarket chain, has deployed
fingerprint scanners in its stores to help customers render payment after a purchase.
Customers can enroll their index fingers along with details of their credit/debit cards. In
the enrollment process, the customers driver licenses are required to validate their
identities (Jain et al., 2008). As an example of airport application, the USA Visitor and
Immigration Status Indicator Technology (USA-VISIT) is a border security system that
has been deployed at 115 airports. To validate the visitors travel documents at the port
of entry, the system requires them to have their left and right index fingers scanned by
a fingerprint sensor. To ensure that the USA-VISIT database is compatible with the
ten-print database maintained by the FBI, the system might use all ten fingers of a
visitor (Jain et al., 2008).
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
2.2 Theoretical foundation and hypotheses development

The TAM (Davis, 1989) is an adaptation of the theory of reasoned action (TRA) model
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). The model specifies two beliefs, the perceived usefulness and
the perceived ease of use, as determinants of attitude toward usage intentions and
information technology (IT) usage. Davis (1989) defined perceived usefulness as the
prospective users subjective probability that using a specific application system will
increase his or her job performance within an organizational context, and ease of use as
the degree to which the prospective user expects the target system to be free of effort.
Attitude refers to feelings of favorableness or unfavorableness toward using the
technology. In turn, a users intention to use a system is the sole direct determinant of his
or her actual usage. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) explained the formation of an intention to
carry out a behavior is considered to be a necessary precursor to the behavior. Based on
the initial TAM, Davis et al. (1989) conducted a longitudinal study and found that the
perceived usefulness strongly influenced the users intention to use a system, explaining
more than 50 per cent of the variance in their intention to use. The perceived ease of use
had a significant indirect effect through the perceived usefulness on behavioral
intention. Attitudes only partially mediated the effects of these beliefs on behavioral
intention. Therefore, the final TAM (Davis et al., 1989) suggests a more parsimonious
causal structure that is powerful for explaining user behavior based on only three
theoretical constructs: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and behavioral
intention.
The TAM has received empirical support from additional IT research. For example,
Mathieson (1991) found that the TAM predicted behavioral intention of undergraduate
students to use a spreadsheet package slightly better than when the theory of planned
behavior was used. In a recent study, the TAM has been recommended as the most valid
model in studying not only employees but also consumers (Oh et al., 2009). Findings from
other studies also suggest that the final TAM is appropriate to examine a users adoption of
various technologies. For example, Ma and Liu (2004) conducted a meta-analysis on
26 empirical studies and found a statistically significant relationship between perceived
usefulness and technology acceptance (i.e. intention to use) as well as between perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use; however, the relationship between ease of use and
technology acceptance was non-significant.
There are a few published studies which theoretically tested biometric technology with a
frame of the TAM (James et al., 2006; Morosan, 2012a). In a study with the faculty, staff and
students at a university in the USA, James et al. (2006) confirmed that both perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use had significant effects on intention to use biometrics.
The implication is if individuals feel the biometric technology is useful and effortless in a
particular situation, they will be more likely to use this technology (James et al., 2006). In a
more recent study, Morosan (2012a, 2012b, 2012c, 2012d) surveyed graduate students at a
university in the USA and confirmed the positive influence of perceived usefulness and ease
of use on the respondents intention to use biometric technology when they stay at a hotel.
105
JHTT
5,2
106
Another study by Morosan (2012d) focused on travelers voluntary adoption of registered

traveler biometric systems and collected data from staff, graduate students and alumni of a
private university in the USA who traveled by air during the past two years. This previous
study developed and empirically tested an extended TAM, in which air travelers intention
to use biometric systems is impacted by their perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and
other variables such as perceived security and perceived innovativeness toward IT. Overall,
relying on the TAM and the aforementioned previous research, the current study postulates
that hotel customers perceptions of fingerprint technology associated with its usefulness
and ease of use will significantly contribute to an increase or decrease in their intention to use
fingerprint technology at a hotel, leading to the following hypotheses:
H1. Customers perceived usefulness of fingerprint technology will influence their
intention to use a fingerprint system at a hotel.
H2. Customers perceived ease of use of fingerprint technology will influence their
intention to use a fingerprint system at a hotel.
Although the literature on technology adoption is rich in applications of the TAM,
researchers recognized the limitation of using this parsimonious model to capture all
aspects of new technology adoption in various contexts (Moon and Kim, 2001; Van der
Heijden, 2003). Therefore, several previous studies extended the TAM by adding
antecedents to the major constructs of the TAM (Agarwal and Prasad, 1998; Bruner and
Kumar, 2005; Morosan, 2011). In particular, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed an
extended TAM, referred to as the TAM2. The goal of their study was to include
additional key determinants of the TAMs perceived usefulness and usage intention
construct. One of the significant determinants of the usage intention in the TAM2 is the
subjective norm. This variable is originally proposed in the TRA and defined as an
individuals perception that most people who are important to the individual think the
person should or should not perform the behavior in question (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975, p. 302). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) argued that when important people to a user
consider the technology useful, the user tends to have the same idea an internalization
effect. Subject norm is also related to a compliance effect. Indeed, people often choose to
perform an action when important referents say they should, although they may not like
or believe it. By conducting a meta-analysis, Schepers and Wetzels (2007) further
demonstrated that a significant correlationship between subjective norm and
behavioral intention was supported by the majority previous studies inspired by TAM2
(19 of 21 published articles). Thus, this study proposes that when a hotel customers
important referents (e.g. family or friends) believe that using a fingerprint system is a
good idea and better way than using traditional systems at a hotel, the guest may be
more willing to use the fingerprint system, which leads to the following hypothesis:
H3. Subjective norm will influence customers intention to use a fingerprint system
at a hotel.
In addition to the subjective norm construct, the current study expands the TAM by
incorporating four new constructs to the perceived usefulness: perceived convenience,
perceived property security, perceived data security and personal concerns. In previous
research, these factors have shown to play critical roles in the customers biometric
technology acceptance decision-making process (James et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2008;
Morosan, 2011, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Murphy and Rottet, 2009). For example, the study
by Kim et al. (2008) confirmed that perceived convenience from utilizing biometric
technology was the largest divisive factor that differentiated between the advocates and
opponents of using biometrics, followed by perceived data security and perceived
physical security. Furthermore, the security factor was found to be a strong antecedent
of the perceived usefulness of biometric systems in a restaurant setting (Morosan, 2011).
That is, people who believe a biometric system will increase their convenience, physical
security and data security will be more likely to have positive opinions about using this
technology. Meanwhile, users personal concerns including invasion of privacy and
other harms will have a negative impact on their acceptance level of this technology
(Kim et al., 2008).
When customers use their fingerprints instead of a hotels traditional room keys, it
can improve customer convenience and data security. Customers who previously
enrolled their biometric data will receive their room numbers via e-mail without going
through the traditional registration process. Employees will be aware when customers
enter the assigned rooms, but be able to see only the last four digits of the customers
credit card numbers. This information was obtained from the customers previous visits
and stored with a proper encryption method. As a result, the customers will have more
convenient and safer experience by passing the check-in desk, without exposing credit
card information and carrying room keys. In addition, hotel customers can use a
fingerprint system to purchase products or services at the hotel property instead of
using credit cards. Thus, the system can reduce the possibility of credit card fraud, as
customers do not need to carry their credit cards and hand in to employees every
purchase. Protecting cardholders data and restricting physical access to cardholders
data are requirements to comply with the PCI DSS (Tenczar, 2008).
In regard to the enhanced property security, a fingerprint system provides hotel
customers with added security, as it allows only selected customers to access their
rooms or other facilities of the property and helps to establish a detailed record of access
(Creative Vision Electronics, 2004). Most hotels currently use a magnetic strip card key
to increase the security level; however, the security benefit of not imprinting the room
number on the card can be undermined by customers who choose to carry around their
key cards with a note or a key holder reminding them of their room numbers (Whitford,
1999).
Meanwhile, biometric technology has been objected to on the grounds of personal
privacy. This relates to an inherent discomfort individuals may feel when encountering
biometric technology. This reaction to biometrics often results from religious or
personal beliefs (Nanavati et al., 2002). Several religious groups criticize biometrics on
the ground that the individuals are forced to sacrifice a part of themselves to a godless
monolith in the form of the state (Woodward, 1997). There is an understandably odious
stigma associated with the forced branding and tattooing of human beings (Woodward
et al., 2003). A number of people are uncomfortable with the idea of eye-based biometrics
because they are concerned about damaging their eyesight. These concerns are
generated from the feeling of discomfort to the new technology rather than actual harms
(Nanavati et al., 2002). In summary, as hotel customers view a fingerprint system as
convenient, secure and non-invasive, this system may be perceived as able to achieve its
original purposes perfectly, with a positive influence on customers perception of
usefulness of this system, and in turn their intention to use it. Therefore, the current
study proposes the following hypotheses:
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
107
JHTT
5,2
H4. The four antecedents (i.e. perceived convenience, perceived property security,
perceived data security and personal concerns) will influence customers
perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system at a hotel.
H5. The four antecedents will have indirect effects on customers intentions to use a
fingerprint system at a hotel via their perceived usefulness of it.
108
As Straub (1994) criticized that the effects of gender had been overlooked in the TAM,
some studies have examined the role of gender in different settings. Gefen and Straubs
(1997) study examined the effect of gender regarding self-reported e-mail use, perceived
ease of use, usefulness and social presence. They found that women perceived a higher
value for the usefulness of e-mail than men, and men perceived a higher value for the
ease of use of e-mail than women. A study by Venkatesh and Morris (2000) provided a
basis for the integration of subjective norm, gender and experience into the TAM. Their
findings revealed that men consider perceived usefulness to a greater extent than
women in making their decisions in terms of the use of a new technology, both in the
short- and long-term (Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). Perceived ease of use, in contrast,
was more salient to women than men, both with initial training and over time with
increased experience with the technology. Interestingly, subjective norm did not have a
significant effect on mens decisions at any point in time; on the other hand, women
considered normative influences at the initial stage of the system introduction and after
one month of experience. After three months of experience, however, women also did not
place significant emphasis on subjective norm (Venkatesh and Morris, 2000). In general,
women exhibit more feminine traits such as tenderness (Bern, 1981), are more
expressive (Taylor and Hall, 1982) and are more attentive to social cues in the
environment, while men attend to other stimuli such as objects or visual patterns
(Williams and Best, 1982). In addition, women tend to be more accepting of others
evaluations, while men adopt a competitive and potentially overconfident attitude about
others evaluations (Roberts, 1991). However, the socialization patterns of women in
todays society are different from the past; thus, it is possible to argue that some of the
findings about women being more susceptible to influence than men may be dated.
Compared to older consumers, younger consumers (especially under 25) are
generally more interested in using new technology to find out about new products,
search for product information and compare alternatives (Wood, 2002). When online
shopping became mature, Perea et al. (2004) conducted an empirical study in this context
and found age as a relevant moderator between the two determinants in TAM
(perceived usefulness and ease of use) and consumers attitudes toward the technology.
Ratchford et al. (2001) explained that older consumers may perceive the benefits of using
new technology such as online shopping to be less than the cost of investing in the skills
required to do it effectively. In a meta-analysis study on the TAM, Schepers and Wetzels
(2007) compared previous studies TAM results by taking into account moderating
effects of a type of respondents (students vs non-students) and found that students (a
younger group) tend to be easily influenced by technology attributes and their peers
opinions than non-students (older users). As aforementioned studies validated age and
gender as moderating variables, this study expects hotel customers age and gender to
influence the relationships between their perceptions and acceptance levels of
fingerprint technology, which leads to the following hypothesis:
H6. The customers age and gender will have moderating effects on the relationships
between the proposed determinants (convenience, property security, data
security, privacy concerns, usefulness and subjective norm) and intention to use
a fingerprint system at a hotel.
3. Methodology
3.1 Sampling design
A survey was used to assess a population of US hotel customers. As it would be very
difficult to survey the whole population, this study was limited to customers from the
online sample. The sample was collected from the online survey companys panel
members. To increase the samples representativeness of population, the profile of the
members was requested to resemble that of the US population. The panel members
received a letter via e-mail, which led them to answer the survey questions, facilitated by
online survey software. Of the 8,700 questionnaires distributed, 685 were completed and
returned, showing a 7.87 per cent response rate. One hundred fifty-eight of the returned
questionnaires were excluded because the respondents were either less than 21 years of
age or have not stayed at a hotel within the past 12 months, and one partially completed
answer was also excluded. As a result, the researchers collected 526 completed
responses, with a 6.1 per cent of effective response rate.
3.2 Instrumentation
To measure a hotel customers perceptions of fingerprint technology and intention to
use it, the questionnaires were adapted from the extant literature discussed in the
previous section (Kim et al., 2008; Morosan, 2010; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Of the 25
questions, the last five items were related to customers traveling behavior and
demographic characteristics (gender, age, education, purpose of trip and type of hotel
usually stay) with a normal scale, and 20 questions addressed the various variables of
this study. In particular, the respondents were asked to rate their levels of agreement on
a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 as strongly disagree to 5 as strongly agree.
Sample items include:
giving me faster access to my room (Factor 1: perceived convenience);
keeping a property safer (F2: perceived property security);
protecting my personal information through encryption (F3: perceived data
security); and
making me personally uncomfortable (F4: personal concerns).
The entire measurement items of these four factors are listed in Table V.
The current study analyzed limitations of the instrument developed by Kim et al. (2008)
and developed a more comprehensive instrument. This previous study confirmed that the
four independent variables explained approximately 54 per cent of variance in the
acceptance level of biometrics. The relatively low R-square in the model suggests the
limitation of the parsimonious model. Thus, the current study incorporated additional
variables (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and subjective norm) integrating with
other IT acceptance models to improve the models specificity and explanatory utility in a
hotel context. These variables were measured using Question 17 through 19 (I would find a
fingerprint system is ease to use; I would find a fingerprint system is useful; and I believe my
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
109
JHTT
5,2
110
Table II.
Fit indices
friends and family are likely to have a positive opinion of a fingerprint system), and the
intention to use fingerprint system at a hotel was asked at Question 20.
3.3 Data analysis methods
The data were entered and analyzed in SPSS 16.0 and EQS 6.1 statistical software
packages. In the survey, Question 11 Using fingerprints makes me concerned about
my personal privacy. was a negative sentence. Thus, the order of the answer for this
sentence was reverse-coded. Nonresponse is a potential source of bias in survey studies,
and thus needs to be addressed (Fowler, 1993). In this study, the potential bias in the
survey was evaluated by comparing the responses of early and late respondents: mean
values of each item. The early respondents were defined as those who had completed the
questionnaire within the same day the survey was sent out, while the late respondents
were those who completed the questionnaire after that day. About 67 per cent of the
responses answered were from the early respondents, and 33 per cent were from the late
respondents. As a result of conducting independent t-tests, no significant differences
were found between the early and late respondents.
An examination of the proposed model was conducted using structural equation
modeling (SEM) in the EQS statistical package. SEM has been found to be superior to
other techniques, including multiple regression analysis, and is also used to test whether
the proposed model successfully accounts for the actual relationships observed in the
sample (Kline, 2006). Particularly, SEM can incorporate both unobserved variables
(latent variables) and observed variables. In addition, except the SEM methodology,
there are no widely and easily applied alternative methods for modeling multivariate
relationships to compare multi-groups (e.g. younger group vs older group) (Byrne, 2006).
As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the measurement model was
assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) first. Then the proposed structural
model was examined with the entire sample for overall goodness-of-fit and the
individual causal links (paths) to test the studys hypotheses (from H1 to H5). In
addition, to validate the proposed moderating effects (H6), this study compared the
paths in the structural model of male customers and those of females, as well as the
paths in the model of younger customers and older customers. Commonly reported fit
indices and their recommended values are presented in Table II (Segars and Grover,
1993; Byrne, 2006). Among those indices, Bentler (1990) suggests the comparative fit
index (CFI) should be the index of choice. Although researchers have defined good
model fit using different indices and ranges, CFI value of 0.90 or higher and root mean
Indices
Good fit
Chi-square
NNFI (non-normalized fit index)
CFI (comparative fit index)
Standardized RMR
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation)
p 0.05
0.90
0.90
0.10
0.10
Note: Chi-square is almost always sensitive to sample size (e.g. sample size larger than 200 can make
chi-square value statistically significant)
square error of approximation (RMSEA) value at or below 0.08 generally demonstrate

good fit (Browne and Cudeck, 1989).
4. Empirical findings
4.1 Descriptive statistics
The respondents male-to-female ratio was approximately 4:5, and the younger (age
between 21 and 42) to older group (over 43) ratio was about 5:4. With regard to the
education level, 2.3 per cent of the respondents had less than a high school diploma, 16.9
per cent had completed high school, 37.8 per cent had gone to college but did not
graduate and 43.0 per cent had a college degree. Regarding the type of hotels the
respondent usually stays in, 8.2 per cent of the respondents usually stay in upscale
hotels, about 75 per cent stay in mid-range hotels and 16.7 per cent stay in economy
hotels (see Table III for more details). Many of the respondents had somewhat positive
opinions about using a fingerprint system at a hotel (56 per cent of the respondents
agreed or strongly agreed, and 20 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed). Most
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a fingerprint system would be easy to use
and useful (82 and 72 per cent, respectively). Fifty-two per cent of the respondents
believed that their friends or family members would have positive opinions of using this
technology; however, one third of the respondents were not certain about how their
friends or family members would view this technology.
4.2 Measurement validity and reliability
As shown in Table IV, the pattern and direction of the correlations among constructs of
this study were as expected. For example, three antecedents of the perceived usefulness
(i.e. convenience, property security and data security) were positively correlated to each
other, and one antecedent (i.e. personal concerns) was negatively correlated to the other
antecedents. Using CFA in EQS software, the measurement model was tested including
these four factors. The initial model did not have a good fit to the data (with CFI 0.91
and RMSEA 0.11) mainly because one item designated to measure the perceived data
security factor (i.e. Item 11: using a fingerprint system makes me concerned about my
personal privacy) did not strongly indicate this factor (F3), with the lowest factor
loading value of 0.37. In addition, the Lagrange Multiplier (LM) test in the EQS output
suggested this item as a better indicator for Factor 4 (personal concerns) probably due to
the fact that the questions contains the word personal privacy.
After the modification (i.e. designating the Item 11 to measure Factor 4), the measurement
model was retested, and it showed an excellent fit to the data: 2 (97) 329.87, p 0.05, CFI
0.97, RMSEA 0.07. As demonstrated in Table V, all constructs showed satisfactory
scale reliability, as composite reliability of each construct exceeded the 0.7 thresholds
recommended by Hair et al. (2006). The standardized factor loadings of the measurement
model were all statistically significant and higher than 0.4, which indicates the validity of the
constructs. Convergent validity was also established (i.e. the latent factor is well-explained
by its observed variables), as all the indicators loaded on the proposed constructs
significantly, and the average variance extracted (AVE) in Table IV was above the
recommended value of 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Strong discriminant validity was
demonstrated, as the squared correlations between a pair of latent constructs were found to
be less than the AVE of each construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
111
JHTT
5,2
112
Table III.
Profile of the respondents
Demographic
Gender
Male
Female
234
292
44.5
55.5
Age
21-30
31-42
43-52
53-61
Over 61
158
133
99
44
92
30.0
25.3
18.8
8.4
17.5
Purpose of trips
Business
Leisure
Others
84
416
26
16.0
79.0
4.9
Education
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
12
89
199
226
2.3
16.9
37.8
43.0
Type of hotel
Upscale
Mid-range
Economy
43
395
88
8.2
75.1
16.7
Note: Total N 526

Factors
F1: Convienece
F2: Property security
F3: Data security
F4: Personal concerns
Table IV.
Correlation tablet with
AVE
F1
F2
F3
F4
0.69
0.75
0.59
0.43
0.76
0.78
0.55
0.78
0.58
0.53
Note: The values on the diagonal (in italic) represent the average variance extracted for each factor,
while the variables below the diagonal represent the correlations between each pair of factors
4.3 Structural model with entire sample

After identifying the well-fitting measurement model, the relationships between all
variables in the proposed model were tested using SEM. The result of maximum
likelihood estimation shows a good model fit to the entire sample data: 2 (149) 631.99,
p 0.05, CFI 0.94, RMSEA 0.07. Table VI presents the path coefficients () and
their significance to demonstrate each determinants level of impact on the customers
intention to use a fingerprint system at a hotel. The perceived ease of use was found to
have a significant influence on the perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system (
0.42, where indicates the estimated standardized path coefficient; p 0.05). The
perceived convenience and perceived data security were also found to have significant
Factor
Items
Description
F1: Convenience
CON1
CON2
Q1. Giving me faster access to my room

Q2. Reducing the inconvenience
associated with looking for a key
Q3. Providing convenience because it
eliminates the need to carry a key
Q4. Eliminating the time-consuming
process of replacing a lost key
Q5. Keeping a property safer
Q6. Reducing thieves ability to enter my
room
Q7. Keeping a room more secure
Q8. Serving as a more secure method to
identify people accessing my room
Q9. Protecting my personal information
through encryption
Q10. Protecting me from identity theft by
storing my information in a safe way
Q12. Reliably protecting my personal
information
Q11. Making me concerned about my
personal privacy
Q13. Making me personally uncomfortable
Q14. Making me personally uncomfortable
if mandatory
Q15. Worrying that scanning fingerprints
would cause me physical harm
Q16. Feeling overly invasive to body
CON3
CON4
F2: Property
security
PRO1
PRO2
PRO3
PRO4
F3: Data
security
DATA1
DATA2
DATA3
F4: Personal
concerns
PER1
PER2
PER3
PER4
PER5
Standardized
factor
Composite
loading
reliability
0.70
0.87
0.90
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
113
0.87
0.87
0.90
0.88
0.93
0.92
0.78
0.89
0.91
0.89
0.87
0.65
0.84
0.95
0.86
0.41
0.66
Note: Q11 was originally designated to F3, but the result of the measurement model test suggested this
item as a better indicator for F4. Thus, it was designated to measure F4 in the final measurement model
effects on the perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system ( 0.13 and 0.13,

respectively; p 0.05). The results indicate that the more strongly customers
believe that using a fingerprint system will increase their convenience and data
security levels at a hotel, the higher their perceived usefulness of this technology
will be. On the other hand, the perceived property security did not significantly
influence the perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system ( 0.13; p 0.05).
Meanwhile, the perceived personal concerns had a negative significant impact on
the perceived usefulness ( 0.24; p 0.05). This result indicates that the more
personal concerns customers feel while using a fingerprint system (i.e. privacy
concerns, uncomfortable feelings and concerns about physical harm), the less useful
the technology will be viewed.
As demonstrated in Table VI, the subjective norm (social influence) had a positive
direct impact on a consumers intention to use a fingerprint system at a hotel ( 0.28;
p 0.05). That is, when a users influential circle of people view this system positively,
Table V.
Measurement model
JHTT
5,2
114
Table VI.
Influence of perceived
ease of use, usefulness,
subjective norm,
convenience, security and
personal concerns on
intention to use
Impacts ()
Direct ()
On usefulness
Of ease of use
Of convenience
Of property security
Of data security
Of personal concerns
0.43*
0.14*
0.13
0.13*
0.24*
On intention to use
Of ease of use
Of usefulness
Of subjective norm
Of convenience
Of data security
0.15*
0.28*
0.15*
0.08
0.16*
0.28*
Indirect ()
Total ()
0.06*
0.02*
0.02
0.02*
0.04*
0.17*
0.10
0.18*
0.32*
Notes: N 526; * p 0.05
the user will be willing to use it. The perceived usefulness and perceived convenience
also had a positive direct effect on intention to use a fingerprint system ( 0.15 and
0.15, respectively; p 0.05). Similarly, perceived data security turned out to have
positive direct effects on intention to use ( 0.16; p 0.05). On the other hand, a
significant inverse direct effect of the personal concerns on the intention to use was
observed ( 0.28; p 0.05). Finally, the perceived ease of use, convenience and data
security had a significantly indirect effect on the usage intention through the perceived
usefulness. This result implies that these perceptions of a fingerprint system will have a
stronger impact on the customers intention to use when a fingerprint system is viewed
as useful. In summary, all causal paths specified in the hypothesized model were found
to be statistically significant, except one between the perceived property security and
usefulness. Approximately 73.5 per cent of variances (R2) in intention to use a
fingerprint system were explained by the proposed determinants in this study.
4.4 Structural models: males versus females
Both male and female structural models fit the data well: [X2 (147) 361.31, p 0.05,
CFI 0.94 and RMSEA 0.08 in males; X2 (148) 425.80, p 0.05, CFI 0.95 and
RMSEA 0.08 in females]. Table VII presents the path coefficients for each of the
subsamples so that the readers clearly see the magnitude of any differences between
men and women across each of the constructs. Both perceived ease of use and personal
concerns of a fingerprint system were found to have a significant influence on the
perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system at a hotel, while the perceived convenience
was found to have a significant impact on the perceived usefulness for only males. In
contrast, the perceived property security and the data security turned out to have a
non-significant impact on the perceived usefulness for both groups (p 0.05).
As shown in Table VII, both perceived usefulness and subjective norm (social
influence) had positive direct impact on the consumers intention to use a fingerprint
system at a hotel for both male and female groups (p 0.05). A significant inverse direct
Impacts ()
Male (n 228)
Direct
Indirect
Total
Female (n 287)
Direct
Indirect
Total
On usefulness
Of ease of use
Of convenience
Of data security
0.41*
0.20*
0.15
0.05
0.23*
0.43*
0.11
0.15
0.09
0.25*
On intention to use
Of ease of use
Of usefulness
Of subjective norm
Of convenience
Of data security
0.12*
0.33*
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.29*
0.05*
Diff
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
Diff
115
0.07*
Table VII.
Gender differences in the
salience of perceived ease
0.02
0.19
0.02
0.18
of use, usefulness,
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.11
subjective norm,
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.21*
Diff
0.03*
0.32*
0.04*
0.33*
personal concerns in
determining behavioral
Notes: * p 0.05; indicates the estimated standardized path coefficient; The Diff column indicates
the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between these two variables
intention
0.16*
0.21*
0.16
0.09
0.19*
0.29*
effect of the personal concerns on the intention to use was observed for both groups
(p 0.05). In contrast, the property security had non-significant direct effects on the
intention to use for both groups (p 0.05). Notably, the perceived convenience and data
security significantly influenced intention to use the biometric device for females only
( 0.16 and 0.19, respectively; p 0.05). In summary, in the model of males, 72.7
per cent of variances (R2) in the intention to use a fingerprint system at a hotel were
explained by the proposed determinants, and in the model of females, 75.1 per cent of
variances (R2) in intention to use were accounted for by them.
4.5 Structural models: younger versus older customers
To conduct multi-group analysis with appropriate sample size, the younger group was
regrouped by combining Generation Y and X groups. The older group was also
regrouped by combining baby boomer cohort and post-war cohort. Both models fit the
data well [X2 (154) 631.2, p 0.05, CFI 0.91 and RMSEA 0.08 in the younger
group; X2 (154) 595.9, p 0.05, CFI 0.92 and RMSEA 0.08 in the older group].
Table VIII presents the path coefficients for each of the subsamples so that the
magnitude of any differences between younger customers and older customers across
each of the constructs can be shown. The perceived ease of use and perceived property
security were found to have significant direct impact on the perceived usefulness of a
fingerprint system for both groups. Meanwhile, personal concerns had significant
inverse impact on the perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system for both groups.
These results indicate that both younger and older consumers believe a fingerprint
system will be useful because they are easy to use and can increase the security level of
hotel properties. Similarly, both groups had personal concerns (e.g. uncomfortable
feeling, concerns about their privacy or physical harm) which diminished the perceived
usefulness of a fingerprint system at a hotel.
JHTT
5,2
116
Table VIII.
Age differences in the
salience of perceived ease
of use, usefulness,
subjective norm,
personal concerns in
determining behavioral
intention
Impacts ()
Younger group (n 287)

Direct
Indirect
Total
Older group (n 232)

Direct
Indirect
Total
On usefulness
Of ease of use
Of convenience
Of data security
0.46*
0.12
0.20*
0.02
0.27*
0.25*
0.26*
0.22*
0.10
0.22*
On intention to use
Of ease of use
Of usefulness
Of subjective norm
Of convenience
Of data security
0.17*
0.42*
0.12*
0.11
0.26*
0.24*
0.08*
0.02
0.03*
0.01
0.05*
0.08*
0.17*
0.42
0.14*
0.15
0.26*
0.29*
Diff
0.04*
0.15*
0.30*
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.38*
Diff
0.04*
0.03
0.02
0.03*
0.04*
0.15*
0.30
0.16*
0.19*
0.11
0.56*
Diff
Diff
Diff
Notes: * p 0.05; indicates the estimated standardized path coefficient; The Diff column indicates
the moderating effect of age on the relationship between these two variables
As shown in Table VIII, both perceived usefulness and subjective norm (social
influence) had significant positive direct impact on consumers intention to use a
fingerprint system at a hotel for both groups. On the other hand, a significant inverse
direct effect of the personal concerns on the intention to use was observed in both groups
( 0.24 for younger group and 0.38 for older group). The perceived
convenience and data security were found to have significant direct effects on the
intention to use only for the younger group. This factor turned out to have a significant
indirect impact on the intention via the perceived usefulness for the older group.
Interestingly, the perceived property security had a significantly positive indirect effect
on the usage intention via the perceived usefulness only for the younger group. In
summary, in the model of younger consumers, 67.7 per cent of variances (R2) in intention
to use a fingerprint system were explained by the proposed determinants of this study;
and in the model of older consumers, 68.3 per cent of variances (R2) in intention to use
were explained by them.
5. Discussion
This study presents important contributions and implications for research and practice.
TAMs have been replicated and applied in a variety of settings for more than a decade.
However, extensions to the model have been limited. Specifically, research has not yet
investigated the mechanisms governing the impacts of subjective norm and other
variables on usage intention in a hospitality setting. Thus, the proposed extensions to
the TAM the integration of the subjective norm, convenience, security and personal
concerns, as well as the examination of gender and age differences represent important
theoretical advances in technology acceptance and usage, particularly for innovative
technology such as a fingerprint system. This study has addressed three main
questions. First, do the proposed determinants properly explain variances of intention to
use a fingerprint system at a hotel? Second, are men and women different with respect to
fingerprint technology adoption? Third, are older and younger consumers different
regarding the relationship between the proposed factors and their intention to use
fingerprint technology? Several interesting findings and practical implications are
addressed in the following section.
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
5.1 General model

By examining the structural model with the entire sample, this study supported that two
determinants, the perceived ease of use and usefulness, in the TAM are applicable to
biometrics, particularly a fingerprint system, usage at hotels. Many previous studies
have included only one determinant of the perceived usefulness, which is the perceived
ease of use. This study indicates that the perceived convenience can be added as a new
determinant of perceived usefulness. Furthermore, the perceived data security turned
out to be significant determinants of the perceived usefulness. It also directly influenced
the intention to use a fingerprint system, indicating that it can be used as key
determinants of behavioral intention to use innovative identification technology, such
as biometrics.
Other newly introduced determinants in this study (i.e. subjective norm and personal
concerns) were also found to be applicable to measure the customers intention to use
biometric technology at hospitality settings. Particularly, this study confirmed that higher
personal concerns about a fingerprint system (i.e. privacy concerns, uncomfortable feelings
and concerns about physical harm) will decrease the users intention to use the technology.
This result leads to practical implications for hospitality operators. Organizations today
invest a vast amount of money for adding new technologies. However, if they do not
understand their customers concerns and properly address them in advance, the
installed technology could be ignored and underutilized. Hotel operators planning to
implement biometric technology should explain how biometric technology work
through ads or brochures to potential users and provide them with trial periods to
increase their acceptance levels and reduce personal concerns. Furthermore, most
previous studies conducted in information systems were focused on the employees
technology usage and influential factors in organizations. Thus, personal concerns such
as uncomfortable feelings tend to be underestimated. That is, although employees do
not like a new system, they will still use it because it is necessary to perform their jobs.
Conversely, customers could easily leave or not return to a hotel if they have personal
concerns about using a certain technology implemented by the hotel. The salient
influence of the subjective norm was an interesting finding. This result recommends
that it is necessary for hotel operators to market to early adopters who are often opinion
leaders and serve as role models for many other members of the social system. These
early adopters are instrumental in getting innovative technology to the point of critical
mass. Thus, they are necessary in the successful diffusion of innovative technology
(Rogers, 1983).
117
5.2 Gender differences

Generally, previous studies have found that women are more influenced by subjective
norm, and men are more influenced by the perceived usefulness in their intention to use
technology (Venkatesh and Morris, 2000; Morris et al., 2005). In this study, female hotel
customers did not differ significantly from males in the relationships between the
JHTT
5,2
118
subjective norm and the intention to use biometrics, as well as between the perceived
usefulness and the intention to use. Some previous studies have found that social
influence is a stronger determinant of technology usage intention for women than for
men. However, the current study supports more recent studies which have suggested
the decreasing influence of gender in technology acceptance (Morris et al., 2005).
Meanwhile, this study opens up new opportunities for future research by suggesting
men are more influenced by the convenience factor in evaluating the usefulness of a
fingerprint system, and women tend to be more strongly influenced by the perceived
data security in determining their intention to use the system. This finding has
implications for hospitality marketing professionals who may find them useful in
designing advertising campaigns to appeal to a specific gender group. For instance, by
focusing enhanced data security, one may pinpoint important issues related to biometric
technology adoption for female customers. Currently, guest-facing fingerprint
applications have not been widely implemented by hotels. However, some early
adopters, such as InterContinental Hotels Group, started allowing customers to bypass
the front desk and use their smartphones equipped with NFC (Near-Field
Communication, short-range wireless technology) to unlock the doors to their rooms.
Coupled with the growth of smartphone users, NFC technology has recently been
recognized as one of the promising technologies for the future. Some of the major
benefits of this technology for hospitality operators are as follows:
customers using NFC smartphones can safely exchange data and information
with other NFC-enabled end points such as a scanner on a door or point-of-sales
system;
NFC can be seamlessly connected with other protocols (e.g. WLAN and Bluetooth);
and
unlike Bluetooth, a complicated paring process can be eliminated (Egger, 2013).
For example, a hotel customer registers online and receives a message sent to the
customers NFC-enabled mobile device from which he or she can install a mobile key
app. Then a couple of days before arrival, the guest will receive a text message with his
or her room number and an encrypted code which will be used to unlock the room door.
As Apple recently acquired a fingerprint sensor manufacturer, the expectation is that
fingerprint technology will be integrated into Apples mobile devices in the near future
(Planet Biometrics, 2012). Such integration will attract female hotel customers who
value their data security while using their smart devices for a variety of purposes
including unlocking guestrooms and making payments.
5.3 Age differences
This study confirmed that the age differences play an important moderating role in the
relationships between some proposed determinants and intention to use biometrics.
Younger consumers (Generation X and Y) were more strongly influenced by the
perceived convenience and data security in determining their intention to use a
fingerprint system at a hotel than older consumers (the baby boomers and post-war
generation). If a hotel decides to implement a fingerprint system or other biometrics, it
will be critical to market this technology to younger customers, emphasizing the
increased convenience and data security resulting from the installation of this
innovative technology. On the other hand, the hotel should provide older consumers
with more detailed and informative brochures about this new technology, so that they
can understand how their fingerprints are encrypted, how this technology can increase
their data security levels and, in turn, protect their privacy from data breaches. On the
other hand, both younger and older customers showed a significant positive
relationship between subjective norm and their intention to use a fingerprint system at
a hotel. Furthermore, the subjective norm factor turned out to be the strongest
determinant of intention to use for the younger consumers. Thus, if a hotels target
market is relatively younger consumers, it should use a targeted marketing strategy.
For instance, they can provide a hotel Web site or other social networking sites (e.g.
Facebook) for younger customers, so that they can post and share their opinions about
and experience with biometric applications.
The personal concerns factor turned out to be a significant determinant of intention
to use a fingerprint system at a hotel for both younger and older consumers. In more
detail, the strongest influential factor for older consumers in determining the use of a
fingerprint system was personal concerns, such as uncomfortable feelings, privacy
concerns and fears for physical harm. Thus, hotel operators have to be ready to answer
customers concerns and moderate their fears about this innovative technology.
Furthermore, hotel operators and marketers should be able to explain that there is no
documented physical harm incidence from biometrics, and users concerns are usually
generated from the feeling of discomfort to the new technology rather than actual harm.
At the same time, hotels should be poised to deal with religious or cultural objections so
that negative opinions from the public can be avoided. At this point, if a hotel practices
a mandatory fingerprint system, it may be faced with personal privacy objections
because customers may feel forced into enrollment, which suggests that customers
should consent to the enrollment to a fingerprint system before a hotel deploys it as a
mandatory system.
6. Limitations and recommendations for future research
Recommendations for future research are suggested based on the limitations of this
study. A measurement limitation of this study is not including the users prior biometric
experience. The justification of excluding this question is that the researchers believed
only some participants would have prior experience with biometrics technology.
However, the technology is becoming more available for consumers, and testing showed
that once individuals have used a biometric system, they are less likely to object to using
it on a constant basis (Nanavati et al., 2002). Given this important role of experience and
the increasing availability of this technology, future research should measure the
respondents prior experience of using a biometric device or even frequency of usage. In
addition, this study adapted variables from the final TAM (Davis et al., 1989) which does
include attitudes, a mediating variable between the two beliefs and intention to use in
the initial TAM (Davis, 1989). The justification of this exclusion is to develop a more
parsimonious and powerful model. However, future research may be able to improve a
biometric TAM by identifying mediators, such as attitudes (Morosan, 2012a, 2012d).
Limitations of this study also exist in the analysis section. The majority of samples in
this study were from leisure travelers and only 16 per cent were from business travelers,
thus it was inappropriate for multi-group analysis. Similarly, the majority of the
respondents in this study usually stayed in the middle-range hotels, and those who
usually stayed at luxury hotels were only 8 per cent of the respondents. A future study
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
119
JHTT
5,2
120
should conduct these analyses by more systematically collecting their samples. Future
research, for instance, can set up a screening question to balance the proportion of
responses from leisure and business travelers, or from high-end and mid-range hotel
customers. Furthermore, SEM does not prove absolute cause and effect. It is a statistical
method to test the probability of the theoretical hypotheses developed in this study. The
variances (R2) found in this study ranged 60-70 per cent, indicating that there are other
influential factors to hotel customers behaviors in regard to fingerprint or other
biometric technology acceptance. Hence, one useful extension of this research would be
to investigate other items that customers expect from different types of biometric
applications. Qualitative research methods, such as focus group interviews, will be good
approaches to obtain more in-depth opinions from customers.
There are weaknesses of surveys, including biases such as non-response bias and
extremity bias. Although the researcher tested non-response bias, this survey was
conducted through an online survey system via e-mail. That is, the respondents who are
not familiar with the online survey system would be unlikely to respond to the survey.
Thus, when a paper-based survey is used, the results could change due to the diverse
profiles of the participants. Future researchers could collaborate with hospitality
practitioners to test a biometric system in the field and measure how the system affects
customer behavior and a companys bottom line. Furthermore, this study was
conducted with US hotel customers. Bagozzi (2007) argued that culture is such a
significant factor in technology adoption models but has been underestimated.
Therefore, future research may be completed with different ethnic groups such as
Asians and Americans, and compare the cultural differences. The model developed in
this study can be applied in different hospitality sectors such as theme parks. The
current study was focused on fingerprint technology; accordingly, the level of customer
acceptance with different biometric technologies needs to be examined in future
research. In particular, a conceptual study by Mills et al. (2010) suggests that fingerprint
and iris recognition are the most feasible for hospitality operations to reinvent
traditional business processes, and other types of biometric technology may be viable to
implement a multi-modal approach (e.g. hand geometry and passwords; face and voice
recognition).
References
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, P. (1998), A conceptual and operational definition of personal
innovativeness in the domain of information technology, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 204-215.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-423.
Anonymous (2006), Securitys 25 most influential, Security, Vol. 43 No. 12, p. 26.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2007), The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a
paradigm shift, Journal of Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 244-254.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 74-94.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 107 No 2, pp. 238-246.
Bern, S.L. (1981), The BSRI and gender schema theory: a reply to Spence and Helmreich,
Psychological Review, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 369-371.
Bilgihan, A., Karadag, E., Cobanoglu, C. and Okumus, F. (2013), Research note: biometric
technology applications and trends in hotels, FIU Hospitality Review, Vol. 31 No. 2.
Bolle, R.M., Connell, J.H. and Ratha, N.K. (2002), Biometric perils and patches, Pattern
Recognition, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 2727-2738.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1989), Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance
structures, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 445-455.
Bruner, G.C. and Kumar, A. (2005), Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld internet
devices, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 553-558.
Byrne, B. (2006), Structural Equation Model with EQS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Chirillo, J. and Blaul, S. (2003), Implementing Biometric Security, Wiley Publishing,
Indianapolis, IN.
Connie, T., Teoh, A., Goh, M. and Ngo, D. (2005), PalmHasing: a novel approach for cancelable
biometrics, Information Processing Letters, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Cougias, D. and Cobanoglu, C. (2008), 7 Deadly myths and solutions for PCI Compliance,
Hospitality Upgrade, 10 January, pp. 142-143.
Creative Vision Electronics (2004), Saflok, Samsung Si, creative vision electronics partner to
introduce hospitalitys first wireless biometric fingerprint locking system, available at:
www.saflok.com/ (accessed 2 September 2012).
Davis, F.D. (1989), Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-339.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), User acceptance of computer
technology: a comparison of two theoretical models, Management Science, Vol. 35
No. 8, pp. 982-1002.
Egger, R. (2013), The impact of near field communication on tourism, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Electronic Data System (2005), Survey finds consumers open to the use of innovative
identification methods such as biometrics, available at: www.prnewswire.com/
news-releases/consumer-mistakes-continue-to-aid-identity-theft-according-to-nationwidesurvey-75027657.html (accessed 7 August 2012).
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fowler, F.J. (1993), Survey Research Methods, Thousand Oaks, Sage, CA.
Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997), Gender differences in perception and adoption of e-mail:
an extension to the technology acceptance model, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 389-400.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R .L. and Black, W.C. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th
ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Huffman, M. (2007), TJX settles visa suit over data breach, available at: www.
consumeraffairs.com/news04/2007/11/tjx_visa.html (accessed 13 November 2008).
International Biometric Group (2007), BioPrivacy FAQs and definitions, available at:
www.bioprivacy.org/ (accessed 29 October 2008).
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
121
JHTT
5,2
122
International Biometric Group (2008), Biometrics market and industry report 2009-2014,
International Biometric Group, available at: www.ibgweb.com/products/reports/
bmir-2009-2014 (accessed 29 October 2012).
Jain, A.K., Flynn, P. and Ross, A. (2008), Handbook of biometrics, Springer, New York, NY.
James, T., Pirim, T., Boswell, K., Reithel, B. and Barkhi, R. (2006), Determining the intention to use
biometric devices: an application and extension of the technology acceptance model,
Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 1-24.
Javelin and Better Business Bureau (2007), Identity theft survey, available at: www.
privacyrights.org/ar/idtheftsurveys.htm#Jav2007 (accessed 24 May 2012).
Javelin Strategy and Research (2011), Identity fraud fell 28 percent in 2010, available at:
www.javelinstrategy.com/news/ (accessed 19 December 2012).
Kasavana, M. (2005), Transforming point of sale into point of service, Hospitality Upgrade, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 126-132.
Kim, J., Brewer, K.P. and Bernhard, B. (2008), Hotel customer perceptions of biometric door locks:
convenience and security factors, Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 162-183.
Kline, R.B. (2006), Principle and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Ma, Q. and Liu, L. (2004), The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical
findings, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Maltoni, D. and Cappelli, R. (2008), Fingerprint recognition, in Jain, A.K., Flynn, P. and Ross, A.
(Eds), Handbook of Biometrics, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 23-42.
Maltoni, D., Maio, D., Jain, A.K. and Prabhakar, S. (2003), Handbook of Fingerprint Recognition,
Springer, New York, NY.
Mathieson, K. (1991), Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model
with the theory of planned behavior, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 173-191.
Mills, J.E., Meyers, M. and Byun, S. (2010), Embracing broadscale applications of biometric
technologies in hospitality and tourism: is the business ready?, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 245-256.
Moon, J.W. and Kim, Y.G. (2001), Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context,
Information and Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 217-230.
Morosan, C. (2011), Customers adoption of biometrics system in restaurant: an extension of the
technology acceptance model, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 661-690.
Morosan, C. (2012a), Theoretical and empirical considerations of guests perceptions of biometric
systems in hotels: extending the technology acceptance model, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 52-84.
Morosan, C. (2012b), Biometric solutions for todays travel security problems, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 176-195.
Morosan, C. (2012c), Understanding the antecedents of perceived value of registered traveler
biometric systems, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 872-896.
Morosan, C. (2012d), Voluntary steps toward air travel security: an examination of travelers
attitudes and intentions to use biometric systems, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 436-450.
Morris, M., Venkatesh, V. and Ackerman, P. (2005), Gender and age differences in employee
decisions about new technology: an extension to the theory of planned behavior, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Most, M.C. (2008), Your critical lens on the worlds of biometrically enabled identification
solutions, Acuity Market Intelligence, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
Murphy, H.C. and Rottet, D. (2009), An exploration of the key hotel processes implicated in
biometric adoption, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 201-212.
Nanavati, S., Thieme, M. and Nanavati, R. (2002), Biometrics: Identity Verification in a Networked
World, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Oh, S.H., Kim, Y.M., Lee, C.W., Shim, G.Y. and Park, M.S. (2009), Consumer adoption of virtual
stores in Korea: focusing on the role of trust and playfulness, Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 652-668.
Pease, F. (2003), A question of identity, Picture of the Future, pp. 35-37 available at:
www.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_2003/security_
articles/biometric_applications.htm (accessed 15 January 2013).
Perea, T.M., Benedict, G.C. and Dellaert, K.R. (2004), What drives consumers to shop online? A
literature review, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 102-121.
Planet Biometrics (2012), Fingerprint cards brings biometrics to NFC devices, available at:
www.planetbiometrics.com/article-details/i/1341/ (accessed 15 November 2012).
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2011), Data breaches: a year review, available at:
www.privacyrights.org/data-breach-year-review-2011 (accessed 19 December 2012).
Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (2012), A Chronology of data breach, available at: www.
privacyrights.org/data-breach (accessed 2 March 2012).
Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D. and Lee, M.S. (2001), A model of consumer choice of the Internet as
an information source, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 7-21.
Ratha, N.K., Connell, J.H. and Bolle, R.M. (2001), Enhancing security and privacy in
biometric-based authentication systems, IBM System Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 614-634.
Riley, R.A. and Kleist, V.F. (2005), The biometric technologies business case: a systematic
approach, Information Management and Computer Security, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 89-105.
Roberts, R. (2010), Public trust at risk in data breach: hotel news now, a division of Smith Travel
Research, available at: www.hotelnewsnow.com/Articles.aspx/3356/Public-trustat-risk-in-data-breach (accessed 19 December 2012).
Roberts, T. (1991), Gender and the influence of evaluations in self-assessments in achievement
settings, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 297-308.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
SAFRAN (2010), Biometric technologies for the corporate and industrial market, available at:
www.polard.com/gallery_websites/ectrack/downloads/pdf/sagem_biometrics_technology.
pdf (accessed 19 December 2012).
Schepers, J. and Wetzels, M. (2007), A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
investigating subjective norm and moderation effects, Information and Management,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 90-103.
Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1993), Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: a
confirmatory factor analysis, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 517-525.
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
123
JHTT
5,2
124
Shimamura, T., Morimura, H., Shimoyama, N., Sakata, T., Shigematsu, S., Machida, K. and
Nakanishi, M. (2008), A fingerprint sensor with impedance sensing for fraud detection,
Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2008. ISSCC 2008, Digest of Technical Papers, IEEE
International, San Francisco, CA, pp. 170-604.
Skorupa, J. and Lorden, A.A. (2008), PCI: roadmap to real-world security, Hospitality Technology
and RIS News, pp. 1-11, available at: www.htmagazine.com (accessed 8 November 2012).
Song, O.T., Jin, A.T.B. and Connie, T. (2007), Personalized biometric key using fingerprint
biometrics, Information Management and Computer Security, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 313-328.
Straub, D.W. (1994), The effect of culture on IT diffusion: E-mail and FAX in Japan and the U.S.,
Information Systems Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Taylor, M.C. and Hall, J.A. (1982), Psychological androgyny: theories, methods, and conclusions,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, pp. 347-366.
Tenczar, J. (2008), PCI sharpens its teeth: are you ready?, Hospitality Technology, available at:
www.htmagazine.com (accessed 1 November 2012).
Trustwave. (2010), Global security report 2010, Trustwave, Chicago, IL.
Van der Heijden, H. (2003), Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal
in The Netherlands, Information and Management, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 541-549.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), Why dont men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 115-139.
Verizon. (2012), 2012 Data breach investigation report, available at: www.verizonenterprise.com/
resources/reports/rp_data-breach-investigations-report-2012-ebk_en_xg.pdf (accessed 3
September 2013).
Vrankulj, A. (2013), Next generation biometric technologies: market to reach $13.89 billion by
2017: Report, available at: www.biometricupdate.com/201306/next-generation-biometrictechnologies-market-to-reach-13-89-billion-by-2017-report (accessed 14 July 2013).
Wayman, J.L. (2007), The scientific development of biometrics over the last 40 years, in
Leeuw, K. and Bergstra, J. (Eds), The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive
Handbook, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 263-274.
Whitford, M. (1999), DNA shows the way, Hotel and Motel Management, Vol. 214 No. 8,
pp. 52-53.
Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1982), Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Thirty-Nation Study, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Wilson, C., Hicklin, A.R., Bone, M., Korves, H., Grother, P., Ulery, B., Micheals, R., Zoepfl, M.,
Otto, S. and Watson, M. (2003), Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation: Summary of
Results and Analysis Report (Publication No. NISTIR 7123), National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Wood, S.L. (2002), Future fantasies: a social change perspective of retailing in the 21st century,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 77-83.
Woodward, J.D. (1997), Biometrics: privacys foe or privacys friend?, Proceedings of the IEEE,
Vol. 85 No. 9, pp. 1480-1492.
Woodward, J.D., Orlans, N.M. and Higgins, P.T. (2003), Biometrics, McGraw-Hill professional,
New York, NY.
Wright, T. (2009), Bombing suspects spent two days at hotel, Wall Street Journal, available at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124783405799057621.html (accessed 1 March 2012).
Further reading
Barth, S. (2004), The value proposition of in-room safes, Lodging Hospitality, Vol. 60 No. 15, p. 40.
Burke, R.R. (2002), Technology and the customer interface: what consumers want in the physical
and virtual store, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 411-432.
Identity Theft Resource Center (2008), Breach report 2008, available at: www.idtheftcenter.org/
BreachPDF/ITRC_Breach_Report_2008_final.pdf (accessed 15 January 2009).
Li, H., Kuo, C. and Russell, M.G. (1999), The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping
orientations, and demographics on the consumers online buying behavior, Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2, available at: www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00336.x (accessed 1 June 2012).
Mitchell, R. (2006), Its just the key to your room, available at: www.computerworld.com/s/
article/107701/It_s_Just_the_Key_to_Your_Room?taxonomyId17andpageNumber3
(accessed 1 June 2012)
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Wolfe, F. (2011), Fact: hotel key cards dont carry personal information, available at: http://
blog.hftp.org/fact-hotel-key-cards-dont-carry-personal-information/ (accessed 19 December 2012).
About the authors
Jungsun (Sunny) Kim received her PhD in Hospitality Administration from the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas (UNLV). She received her MS in Hotel Administration also from UNLV and a BS in Hotel
and Tourism Management from Kyunghee University, Korea. She worked in the area of operations for
restaurants in Australia, hotels in Korea and the Information Technology (IT) department in US casino
hotels. She is an active member of Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals (HFTP) and the
American Hotel and Lodging Association (AH&LA), serving on the Technology Committee of
AH&LA and the Hospitality Technology Advisory Board. She currently serves on the faculty at
UNLV and has taught computer applications and hospitality managerial accounting courses. She also
served on the faculty of Texas Tech Universitys Nutrition, Hospitality, & Retailing Department,
teaching hospitality marketing and finance courses. In terms of scholarly endeavors, she has worked
extensively on the development of theoretical models to better understand the customer behavior
toward new technologies such as biometrics, social media, self-service, green, mobile, gaming, wireless
and in-room technologies. She has published more than 15 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals
such as Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research (JHTR) and International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management (JHCHM).
Bo Bernhard began his research career at Harvard University, where as an undergraduate, he
completed a double major (sociology and psychology) magna cum laude thesis on the community
impacts of the gaming and industry in Nevada. The foundations of this analysis have since been
extended worldwide, and by the age of 30, he had lectured on his research on six continents. After
earning his PhD in 2002, he was named the inaugural Research Director at the UNLV International
Gaming Institute (IGI), and he was awarded a dual professorship in hotel management and
sociology. In 2011, he was named Executive Director at the IGI, where he now oversees all research
and academic functions. Representing the university in these roles, he has delivered more than 200
keynote addresses in clinical, regulatory, government and policy settings. He has published in the
top journals in both the business sciences (including Cornell Quarterly) and the social sciences
(including a guest-edited special volume of American Behavioral Scientist), and currently serves
as executive editor for a leading peer-reviewed academic journal, Gaming Research and Review.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Customers
intention to use a
fingerprint
system
125

Factors Influencing Hotel Customers' Intention To Use A Fingerprint System

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Factors Influencing Hotel Customers' Intention To Use A Fingerprint System

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology

Factors influencing hotel customers intention to use a fingerprint system

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Factors influencing hotel

Jungsun (Sunny) Kim and Bo Bernhard

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism

1.1 Availability, applicability and standards of biometrics

Perceived Property Security

Perceived Data Security

Moderating variables: Gender, Age,

identification mode, the system recognizes an individual by searching all templates in

False rejection rate (%)

False acceptance rate (%)

2.2 Theoretical foundation and hypotheses development

Another study by Morosan (2012d) focused on travelers voluntary adoption of registered

square error of approximation (RMSEA) value at or below 0.08 generally demonstrate

Note: Total N 526

4.3 Structural model with entire sample

Q1. Giving me faster access to my room

effects on the perceived usefulness of a fingerprint system ( 0.13 and 0.13,

Notes: N 526; * p 0.05

Younger group (n 287)

Older group (n 232)

5.1 General model

5.2 Gender differences

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Potrebbero piacerti anche