The Moderating Effect of Perceived Risk on Users’ Continuance Intention for FinTech Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study’s aim is to investigate how FinTech users’ perceived risk influences their continuance intention to use FinTech services. The new model, which was based on the Expectation Confirmation Model, was created to achieve the study’s aim. The Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model was used to investigate the proposed model and the relationship between the adopted constructs. The sample consists of 802 individual survey responses from northern India from April to June 2022. The proposed model explains 45.4% of the variance in the continuance intention of FinTech users, which is significantly influenced by perceived usefulness and satisfaction. Furthermore, perceived risk, as a moderator, significantly moderates continuance intention through satisfaction and satisfaction through confirmation. However, perceived risk was found to have an insignificant moderating effect on the relationship between perceived usefulness and satisfaction as well as perceived usefulness and continuance intention. The findings provide insights to FinTech service providers about the factors that influence users’ intent to continue using FinTech services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".