MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404526797 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17110521

Determinants of Digital Payment Adoption Among Generation Z: An Empirical Study

2024· article· en· W4404526797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anas Ali Al-Qudah, Manaf Al‐Okaily, Fadi Shehab Shiyyab, Alaa A. D. Taha, Dmaithan Almajali, Ra’ed Masa’deh, Lina Warrad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentBusinessEmpirical researchMathematicsStatisticsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of the current paper is to investigate the factors that influence Millennials’ adoption of digital payments among Generation Z by analyzing the potential effects of perceived convenience, perceived cost, perceived security, perceived convenience, innovativeness, and social influence on the adoption of digital payments. A total of 258 individuals in Malaysia were asked to complete a questionnaire to gather statistics. To assess the research model and test the hypotheses, structural equation modeling with partial least squares (SEM-PLS) was utilized. Smart PLS path analysis results revealed that perceived convenience, perceived security, perceived cost social influence, and innovativeness were positively significant determinants of digital payment adoption. This study offers fresh theoretical perspectives for identifying potential adoption barriers that need to be addressed. Concerns about privacy and security, a lack of information or comprehension, and aversion to change are all prevalent challenges among Millennials. Recognizing these limitations allows service providers to incorporate measures such as better security features, educational campaigns, and user-friendly interfaces to alleviate these concerns and boost adoption.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207