MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410121497 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18050251

Drivers and Barriers of Mobile Payment Adoption Among MSMEs: Insights from Indonesia

2025· article· en· W4410121497 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aloysius Bagas Pradipta Irianto, Pisit Chanvarasuth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat UniversityThammasat University
KeywordsMobile paymentBusinessPaymentFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile payment systems have rapidly expanded globally, especially in developing countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Technological advances, public acceptance, and increased adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic drive this growth. Mobile payments involve key stakeholders: technology providers, end-users, government regulators, and merchants, each contributing to the adoption ecosystem. Users prefer mobile payments for their speed and convenience over traditional cash transactions. This study explores the driver and barrier factors influencing mobile payment QR adoption among merchants, particularly from the MSME perspective, using existing frameworks based on previous research adapted to MSME conditions. Conducted in Indonesia with 418 MSME business respondents, this study employs a quantitative, cross-sectional methodology with a 95% confidence level and an SEM analysis. The findings reveal that perceived ease of use does not significantly impact perceived experience, while perceived usefulness does. Perceived risk, convenience, experience, and word-of-mouth learning statistically significantly influence merchants’ intention to use mobile payments. However, customer engagement, cost, trust, and complexity appear less influential. Overall, this research advances understanding of the key factors affecting merchants’ adoption of mobile payment and provides insights relevant to MSME economic growth.

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 score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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