Does Previous Experience with the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) Affect the Usage of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined the influence of users’ experiences with the unified payments interface (UPI) system on the usage behavior of central bank digital currency (CBDC) in India. Our research developed a novel conceptual framework that investigated the relationships between technology, cognitive factors, and behavioral intentions towards CBDC use. The framework integrated UPI usage experience as a moderator within existing models of behavioral intentions and use behaviors. We collected data through a survey conducted in major Indian cities during the pilot launch of CBDC. By utilizing a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM), we analyzed the proposed model and the relationships between the constructs. Our findings revealed the significant impact of hedonic motivation and performance expectancy on users’ behavioral intentions towards CBDC. Social influence also played a significant role in CBDC usage. Furthermore, we identified that prior UPI usage negatively moderated the relationship between performance expectancy and behavioral intention, as well as the relationship between social influence and use behavior. However, prior UPI usage did not significantly moderate the relationships between perceived risk, hedonic motivation, behavioral intention, and use behavior. These findings contribute to our understanding of the factors influencing CBDC adoption and usage behavior in India.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".