Understanding the Determinants of FinTech Adoption: Integrating UTAUT2 with Trust Theoretic Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial technology (FinTech) is transforming the financial services industry by offering innovative, convenient solutions for businesses and individuals. This study examines the factors influencing FinTech adoption, with a special focus on trust. By integrating insights from both the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT2), and the trust theoretic model (TTM), this research uncovers critical determinants of FinTech adoption. Utilizing survey responses obtained from 399 participants, this research employs the partial least squares structural equation modelling method. The findings reveal that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, habit, price value, and facilitating conditions significantly influence users’ intentions to use FinTech services. In addition, the study shows that trust plays a crucial role in FinTech use, as it influences both the intentions to use and the actual use of FinTech. Surprisingly, hedonic motivation was found not to affect users’ intentions, implying that people see FinTech as a practical, rather than enjoyable, endeavor. These insights provide valuable guidance for service providers and policymakers seeking to enhance FinTech adoption and utilization while ensuring the security and trustworthiness of these digital platforms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".