SS symmetry

Article
Adoption Intention of Fintech Services for Bank
Users: An Empirical Examination with an Extended
Technology Acceptance Model
Zhongqing Hu 1,2 , Shuai Ding 1,2, *, Shizheng Li 1,2,3, *, Luting Chen 4 and Shanlin Yang 1,2
1 School of Management, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 23009, China; [email protected] (Z.H.);
[email protected] (S.Y.)
2 Key Laboratory of Process Optimization and Intelligent Decision-Making (Ministry of Education),
Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 23009, China
3 School of Finance, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Bengbu 233030, China
4 School of Management, Shanghai University of International Business and Economic, Shanghai 201620,
China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.D.); [email protected] (S.L.)




Received: 13 January 2019; Accepted: 21 February 2019; Published: 7 March 2019


Abstract: Along with the development of Fintech, many scholars have studied how information
technology is applied to financial services with a focus on extended methods for application.
Few scholars have studied the influence mechanism behind the adoption of Fintech services.
This paper proposes an improved technology acceptance model (TAM) that incorporates user
innovativeness, government support, brand image, and perceived risk as determinants of trust
to investigate how users adopt Fintech services. We designed a questionnaire, sent it to active
customers of the Hefei Science and Technology Rural Commercial Bank, and obtained 387 eligible
responses. We analyzed the data with a structural equation model (SEM) to test the hypotheses,
including the relationships of all latent variables. The results reveal that users’ trust in Fintech
services has a very significant influence on users’ attitudes for adoption. In addition, perceived ease
of use and perceived risk does not affect users’ attitudes toward the adoption regarding Fintech
services. This study contributes to the literature of the adoption of Fintech services by providing
a more comprehensive view of the determinants of users’ attitudes by combining trust of Fintech
services with TAM.

Keywords: technology acceptance model; Fintech services; adoption

1. Introduction
Fintech is a digital technology with block chain, big data, and intelligent investment consulting at
its core and is widely used in the financial field. According to the data of the American consulting
firm Accenture, from 2010 to 2016, global Fintech investment increased from 12.2 billion dollars
to 153.1 billion dollars, an increase of nearly 12 times. The number of global Fintech companies
increased from approximately 800 before April 2015 to more than 2000 in December 2016, with Fintech
investment reaching $23.2 billion in 2016, up 21.5 percent year-on-year [1]. From a competitor’s
perspective, unlike banks that offer consumers three key financial services (i.e., deposit, payment,
and lending), some Fintech companies are more focused on providing customers with a better user
experience as a niche. As the traditional financial service company, banks understand the importance
of user experiences, and some of them have begun to improve their core competitiveness and market
share by acquiring or cooperating with Fintech companies. For example, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya

Symmetry 2019, 11, 340; doi:10.3390/sym11030340 www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry

Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 2 of 16

Argentaria has acquired the company Simple that mainly focuses on online banking business in the
United States and enjoys high user satisfaction [2].
The developmental history of the banking industry has been responsible for most of the innovative
development in the financial field. From the first application of physical media technology containing
information or value in the early 15th century to the use of simulation technology in the 19th century,
the banking field broke through the previous limitations on the use of physical media to enable the
market to move within a regional scope. From the middle of the 20th century to the financial crisis
in 2007, the application of digital information and communication technology opened the digital
financial technology era, supporting the formation of transnational electronic networks, the launch
of interface standards, and the development of standard software. In the digital stage, the spread of
information and communication technologies has increased the outsourcing processes and activities
of banks, but the degree of vertical integration is still very high. In addition, the number of bank
employees keeps increasing, while the number of banking institutions keeps decreasing. Meanwhile,
banks spend more on digital information and communication technology than other companies in the
financial industry. The high investment in information and communication technology is not consistent
with the digital transformation of the banking business process and business model. The inefficiency
induced by this situation has also led to the development of Fintech banking business as is manifested
currently [3].
The purpose of using Fintech for banking is to improve the user experience and banking efficiency.
The existing research is mainly about Fintech strategy and risk for banking from the supply side.
Zavolokina et al. studied the “peer to peer” collaboration model between Indonesian banks and
Fintech companies [4]. Chang et al. analyzed how Indonesian banks changed business processes in the
context of Fintech and competed with Fintech companies. On the demand side, unlike the millennials
who make up the majority of users of Fintech companies, the parents and grandparents of millennials
are the dominant customers of the banks, according to Moody’s [5]. Therefore, we need to consider
the influence of the adoption of Fintech services from the demand side. From a static point of view,
studying the impact factors of Fintech adoption by bank users can help provide them with better
services and strengthen the contact between banks and users. It can provide new insights and a more
complete understanding of adoption attention for Fintech services [6,7]. From a dynamic point of
view, millennials are currently less financially capable than their elders, thus this generation is not
currently a major user of banks. However, as time goes on, the financial capacity of millennials will
gradually strengthen, and they will become the main users. Therefore, the study of the influence
behind the adoption of Fintech services by bank consumers will help the banks to meet the demand of
the millennial generation in the future.
Based on the above analysis, this paper studies the influence and relationship of the adoption
behavior of bank users and conducts in-depth research and discussion on it through a technology
acceptance model (TAM). The innovative contributions of this paper are as follows:

• Most existing research mainly studies the application model from the supply side of Fintech
services to improve the efficiency and user experience of banks—that is to say, scholars’ concern
about how and what kind of Fintech services are provided. Even if someone studies the adoption
problems, they focus on a specific Fintech service, such as mobile banking or internet banking
service, but the existing research rarely pays attention to a more empirical extension of previous
studies in TAM applied in Fintech from the demand side.
• This paper comprehensively and concretely analyzes the influencing factors and their relationship
with the adoption of Fintech services, and it extends the applicability of traditional TAM models
as we consider more factors influencing the users’ adoption.
• The research results provide valuable information for the adjustment of bank marketing strategies
and the implementation of strategic goals. How to change users’ behavioral intentions through
the adjustment of influencing factors when providing users with financial and technological
products is of great significance for the development of banks in the digital age.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 3 of 16

This paper applies the technology acceptance model to study the influence behind the adoption
of Fintech services by users. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section,
some relevant literature is reviewed, and a conceptual framework and some hypotheses are introduced
in detail, along with some reasons for their adoption. Section 3 introduces the data analysis and results,
followed by the discussion and conclusions of this paper in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes with
limitations and suggestions for future work.

2. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2.1. Fintech
The correlation of technological development and finance innovation has been extensively studied
from different perspectives by domestic and foreign scholars. Since “Financial Deepening” was first
proposed by McKinnon and Shaw in 1973, Sci-tech finance has developed rapidly [8]. Unlike the
concept of providing financial services for scientific and technological enterprises, Fintech can be
defined as some new tools that use emerging information technologies, such as big data, Internet of
Things, and cloud computing, to broaden financial service areas [9]. Keke Gai et al. described
Fintech as a financial technology section in one company that would improve service quality and
management efficiency by using a new generation of information technology [10]. Therefore, it might
improve the efficiency and scope of financial services through the application of technology in the
banking domain. Along with the sustainable development of Fintech, there are many technological
breakthroughs in this field, such as big data [11], cloud computing [12], Internet of Things [13],
and data analytic techniques [14]. Du et al. divided the main issues of security and privacy of Fintech
into four dimensions—data-oriented, facility and equipment, applications, and service models [15].
Arner et al. explained the dissimilarities between traditional financial services and Fintech and that
Fintech is not a simple combination of information technology and financial services but an application
of technology to traditional services to broaden their scope [16]. In this paper, Fintech is defined
as innovative financial services using new technology tools, such as big data, cloud computing,
and mobile technology.

2.2. Hypotheses Development for the Proposed Model

TAM was originally intended to make up for the defects of the theory of reasoned action (TRA)
in 1986. It was proposed from the perspective of behavioral science, integrating expectation theory
and self-efficacy theory, and is mainly used to study the behavioral intentions of individuals to use
technology [17]. The TAM model divides the factors affecting individual behavioral attitudes into
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which have a significant impact on the adoption of
new technology [18].
Because the TAM does a good job explaining the difference in consumer willingness to adopt
information technology and can be improved and specified according to the analysis problem,
it has become one of the most widely used models in the field of information technology adoption
research [19]. For Fintech services, the essence of them is to apply the new generation of information
technology tools to financial innovation, thus the TAM has a strong adaptability in this paper.
Although the TAM is widely used for technical adoption in areas such as e-commerce mobile payment,
the uniqueness of Fintech services (e.g., privacy and security challenges, government encouragement,
etc.) results in a significant difference between the TAM and the information technology adoption of
traditional e-commerce in the application process [20].

2.2.1. Perceived Usefulness

In the TAM, perceived usefulness is a factor widely used in the process of information system
adoption and is defined as the degree to which a consumer using this new technology would improve
the work efficiency of that consumer [17]. In this study, perceived usefulness refers to the fact that
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 4 of 16

users choose to adopt the service if they think the application of Fintech can have a positive impact [21].
A large number of empirical studies on the adoption of information technology in the past decade have
shown that perceived usefulness can have a positive impact on users’ intentions [22–25]. Chang et al.
regarded Chinese banking institutions as research objects, and the results show that the most important
advantage of Fintech lies in the in-depth mining of user data and the construction of a user knowledge
map [26]. Carlin et al. analyzed the determinants of millennials’ adoption of Fintech, and the results
show that life expectancy and financial knowledge attainment have important influences on the
behavioral intentions of Fintech adoption [27]. Thus, in light of the previous studies, the following
hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Users’ perceived usefulness (PU) has a positive impact on their attitudes (ATT) related to
the adoption of Fintech services.

2.2.2. Perceived Ease of Use

Perceived ease of use is another important factor in the TAM, which is defined as the degree
of effort involved in using this new technology [17]. In this study, perceived ease of use refers to
the degree to which consumers feel relaxed and make efforts in the process of trying to learn to
use Fintech services. Fintech services provide better services and customer experiences for bank
customers, which can well make up for the bank’s business weakness to meet the personalized needs
of customers, and Fintech’s ease of use is the core element that determines its adoption by users [28,29].
In the research field of banking, many scholars have demonstrated a significant correlation between
perceived ease of use and new technology adoption attitudes [30,31]. Riquelme et al. considered
that perceived usefulness significantly affects users’ attitudes and willingness to adopt Fintech when
users use complex information systems to conduct financial transactions through portable mobile
devices. If users think that Fintech services are convenient, friendly, and easy to operate, then users
are more inclined to adopt them [32]. Taylor et al. compared the TAM, TPB (theory of planned
behavior), and DTPB (decomposed theory of planned behavior) models during the use of a computer
resource center and found that perceived ease-of-use had positive effects on perceived usefulness [33].
According to the above analysis, the following hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Users’ perceived ease of use (PEU) has a positive impact on their attitudes (ATT) related
to the adoption of Fintech services.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Users’ perceived ease of use (PEU) has a positive impact on perceived usefulness (PU)
related to the use of Fintech services.

2.2.3. Attitudes
Attitude refers to the user’s subjective judgments and personal tendencies related to something,
and behavior intention is defined as the strength of one’s intention to perform a specific behavior [34].
In the study of TAM, it is found that a positive attitude toward new technology is the premise of
intentions to adopt this technology [22,35]. The traditional TAM holds that there is a significantly
positive correlation between users’ attitudes toward a certain technology and their adoption intentions,
which has been widely confirmed in the research of the banking field [36–38]. Thus, we posit the
following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Users’ attitudes (ATT) and intentions (INT) toward the adoption of Fintech services for a
better experience are positively correlated.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 5 of 16

2.2.4. Trust
Trust has always been a focus of research on the issue of adoption and is often used as
another important basis to attract users besides PU and PEU. In the application scenario of Fintech,
the role of trust is more important due to the big and high-dimensional data involved in the service.
Therefore, it is of great significance to study how trust affects the attitudes of potential users and their
willingness to adopt, as well as which factors can affect trust. Trust is an interdisciplinary concept
that has been studied by scholars in sociology, management, organizational behavior, and other
fields [39–41]. This study believes that trust refers to users’ overall perceived utility of objects.
Kesharwani et al. discovered that users’ trust can induce behaviors, and trust is formed by their
inherent characteristics [42]. Due to the inherent characteristics of Fintech, its adoption has certain
inherent risks, and researchers have found that trust is closely related to brand image and perceived
risks [43]. A user’s cognition of bank brands and perception of service risk will have a significant
impact on trust of banks. In addition, many scholars have confirmed that users’ trust of services plays
an important role in adoption decision-making in the context of Fintech. In other words, the more the
user trusts the service provider, the more willing the user will be to use the service, and the easier it is
to promote behavior [44,45]. Hanafizadeh et al. found some evidence of indirect effects between trust
and the adoption of Fintech services [46]. Therefore, we had reasons to make the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Users’ trust (TRU) of Fintech services has a significant impact on their attitudes (ATT)
toward the adoption of Fintech services.

2.2.5. Brand Image

This paper holds that brand image (BI) is an intangible asset with economic value, which shows
its difference with abstract and distinctive identifiable concepts, thus producing a comprehensive
reflection of positive effects on users. The brand effect of service providers has an important
influence on the provision of reliable services to users, and it plays a positive role in promoting
users’ achievements of their intended purposes [47]. Sang et al. found that one of the reasons for
adopting the government administration information system (GAIS) is higher brand image among
peers [48]. A large number of studies on Fintech show that brand has an important influence on users’
perceptions of quality [49], value [50], and their satisfaction [51].
In the context of the application of Fintech, users’ perceptions of the brand has been conceptualized
and seen as a precondition for organizational trust [52]. In the process of receiving Fintech services,
users need to provide much private personal information. Semuel et al. proposed that a good brand
image can improve user trust because it effectively reduces risk [53]. According to psychological
research results, a good brand image can generate trust among users [54]. Therefore, brand image is
the guarantee of products and services, which enables users to clearly define the service orientation
of the enterprise, helps enterprises and users build a solid relationship, improves user recognition
and satisfaction, and ultimately affects customer recognition and builds trust [55]. Based on the above
literature analysis, we made the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Brand image (BI) has a significant impact on users’ attitudes (ATT) toward the adoption
of Fintech services.

Hypothesis 7 (H7): Brand image (BI) has a significant impact on users’ trust (TRU) of Fintech services.

2.2.6. Perceived Risk

Perceived risk is a form of lack of trust, and most scholars believe that perceived risk is the main
factor that negatively affects adoption of technology [42,56]. In this paper, perceived risk refers to
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 6 of 16

the financial and privacy risk that users perceive when they choose Fintech services. Financial risk
refers to the property damage caused by consumers’ concerns about product yield rate or other
carelessness, and privacy risk refers to the risk that personal data, transaction data, and other privacy
information are disclosed when consumers choose internet financial products. Khedmatgozar et al.
believed that the degree of risk perception is the most important factor affecting the adoption of
e-services [57]. Bansal et al. insisted that users are most worried about the misuse of personal
information when using Fintech services, which will lead to more serious consequences. Based on
these considerations, perceived risks arising from the use of Fintech can significantly affect users’
willingness to use technology for purchase or consumption [58].
Fintech services usually involve technologies such as big data, the Internet of Things, and cloud
computing, thus there are some potential risks for users in receiving the service [59]. In addition,
when banks provide financial services to users through technological means, bank customers usually
need to provide their private information to complete the comprehensive evaluation of services,
which will reduce users’ trust in services of banks [60]. Kim et al. found that perceived risk would
affect users’ trust [61]. Thus, the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 8 (H8): Perceived risk (PR) will negatively influence users’ attitudes (ATT) toward the adoption
of Fintech services.

Hypothesis 9 (H9): Perceived risk (PR) will negatively influence users’ trust (TRU) of Fintech services.

2.2.7. Government Support

Government support is one of the biggest drivers of Fintech adoption [62]. Because the
government has good credibility, it can increase the credibility and reliability of products or services
by improving the publicity of the application of technology in financial innovation and investing
in infrastructure such as communication network construction, thus making Fintech services more
acceptable to potential consumers. Kiwanuka et al. found that government support has a positive
influence on technological adoption and continuous use intention, and the research results have a
realistic guiding significance for the government to formulate relevant policies [63]. By integrating
relevant antecedents into the TAM model, Marakarkandy et al. helped study the influencing factors of
online banking adoption, and finally found that government support is crucial to the trust of online
banking products [64]. Based on the above literature analysis, we made the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 10 (H10): Government support (GS) has a significant impact on users’ attitudes (ATT) toward
the adoption of Fintech services.

Hypothesis 11 (H11): Government support (GS) has a significant impact on users’ trust (TRU) of
Fintech services.

2.2.8. User Innovativeness

In this paper, user innovativeness is defined as the degree of early adoption of a certain innovation
by individuals; that is, the degree of inclination of individuals to try new products, new technologies,
or services. When individuals are highly innovative, they can bear the high degree of uncertainty and
have a more positive intention to use the innovation. In other words, they are less likely to perceive
risks and more receptive to technological innovation [65]. Adeiza et al. held that innovation is a basic
feature of human beings, which reflects the degree of interest of users in a new field [66]. In the research
on the adoption behavior of mobile payment users, Kim et al. believes that, since most people have
insufficient professional knowledge of a wide range of mobile services, their individual innovation
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 7 of 16

plays an important positive role in their intention of use, which has also been verified by empirical
research [67]. Thus, the following hypotheses were developed:

Hypothesis 12 (H12): User innovativeness (UI) has a significant impact on users’ attitudes (ATT) toward the
adoption of Fintech services.

Hypothesis 13 (H13): User innovativeness (UI) has a significant impact on users’ trust (TRU) of
Fintech services.

The model proposed in this paper is based on the existing research, and the research framework
formed by adjusting items according to the research background of Fintech services is shown in the
following Figure 1. The arrows below represent the relationships between the influencing factors,
and the symbols “+” and “-” respectively denote the positive and negative impact between two factors.
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

BI PEU H3 +

H7 + H6 +
H2 + PU

H9 - PR H8 - H1 +

TRU H5 +
ATT INT
H11 + H4 +
H10+

GS
H13 +
H12 +

UI

Figure 1. Conceptual model

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

3. Methodology
3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

The
The purpose
purpose ofof this
this study
study was
was to analyze the key factors influencing the adoption of Fintech
services through empirical research and to analyze analyze thethe behavioral
behavioral intentions
intentions of users.
users. Therefore,
Therefore,
customersofofHefei
active customers HefeiScience
Science
andand Technology
Technology Rural
Rural Commercial
Commercial Bank Bank were selected
were selected as the
as the survey
survey subjects in this study. The survey subjects were randomly selected customers
subjects in this study. The survey subjects were randomly selected customers who had used the online who had used
the onlinemobile
banking, banking, mobileand
banking, banking, and other
other Fintech Fintechofservices
services the bank. of This
the bank. This questionnaire
questionnaire was prepared was
prepareda through
through a website
website named namedand
“wjx.cn” “wjx.cn”
was sentandto was
userssent to users
through through
WeChat WeChat byofemployees
by employees each branch. of
each branch.
When When the questionnaire
the questionnaire was distributedwastodistributed to survey
survey subjects, theysubjects, they werebyinstructed
were instructed staff to fillbyinstaff
the
to fill in the questionnaire
questionnaire through on-sitethrough on-siteconsultation.
or WeChat or WeChat consultation.
The definition The
of definition of Fintech
Fintech services, services,
purpose and
purpose and
potential riskspotential risks and
of the survey, of the
somesurvey,
otherand
items some
wereother items in
explained were explaineddocument
the attached in the attached
before
document
the before the
questionnaire. questionnaire.
In the In the
questionnaire, questionnaire,
Fintech services wereFintech services
defined were defined
as innovative as innovative
financial services
financial
using newservices using
technology new
tools, technology
such as big data,tools,
cloud such as big data,
computing, cloud technology,
and mobile computing,and andincluded
mobile
technology, and included online banking, mobile banking, online personal loan,
online banking, mobile banking, online personal loan, online insurance, and other Fintech services inonline insurance,
and other
Hefei Fintech
Science and services
Technology in Hefei
RuralScience and Technology
Commercial Bank. There Rural
wereCommercial Bank. into
31 items divided There twowere 31
parts,
items divided
which into two by
were measured parts, which were
a five-point measured by
Likert-scale. Thea first
five-point Likert-scale.
part was the basic The first part and
information was the
basic information and the second part was the survey of Fintech services. A total of 587 responses
were collected in this study. After preliminary screening, invalid questionnaires with insufficient
response times and random filling were rejected, and 387 valid responses were included for an
effective response rate of 65.93%.
In this paper, the sample data were analyzed statistically using SmartPLS 3.0. The descriptive
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 8 of 16

second part was the survey of Fintech services. A total of 587 responses were collected in this study.
After preliminary screening, invalid questionnaires with insufficient response times and random filling
were rejected, and 387 valid responses were included for an effective response rate of 65.93%.
In this paper, the sample data were analyzed statistically using SmartPLS 3.0. The descriptive
statistical results of 387 questionnaires that analyzed the demographic characteristics of the
respondents, such as gender, age, education level, monthly disposable income, and the use of Fintech
services or products, are shown in Table 1. As for the age distribution, people aged 26–35 years old
(56.07%) accounted for the highest proportion, and new technologies and lifestyles are always first
accepted by these consumers. Thus, this sampling was reasonable. As for use frequency, frequent users
(68.73%) accounted for a relatively high proportion, which indicates that the popularizing rate of
Fintech services is relatively high at present, and the study of the factors affecting their adoption is of
great practical significance to the successful implementation of Fintech strategies in banks.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Demographic Variable and Category Frequency Percentage

Male 182 47.03
Gender
Female 205 52.97
18–25 52 13.44
26–35 217 56.07
Age
36–45 61 15.76
46–55 52 13.44
=56 5 1.29
Student 11 2.84
Civil service/institution staff 47 12.14
Employ status
Business management personnel 64 16.54
Employee 200 51.68
Self-employed 21 5.43
Other 44 11.37
Less than diploma 35 9.04
Education Diploma 79 20.41
Bachelor 223 57.36
Master or more 51 13.18
Less than 2000 51 13.18
Income (¥) 2000–6000 210 54.26
6001–10000 75 19.38
More than 10000 51 13.18
Never 8 2.07
Fintech service usage Occasionally 67 17.31
Usually 266 68.73
Frequently in everyday 46 11.89

3.2. Instrument Development

In the design of the questionnaire, this paper made full reference to the problems of domestic and
foreign scholars in relevant research and made appropriate expansions and adjustments according
to the characteristics of Fintech services studied in this paper, as shown in Table 2. PU was adopted
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 9 of 16

from Lockett et al. and Huh et al. [68,69]; PEU was adopted from Cheng et al. and Wang et al. [70,71];
TRU was adopted from Chong et al. and Sanchez et al. [62,72]; BI was adopted from Ha et al.
and Ruparelia et al. [73,74]; PR, GS, UI, ATT, and INT were adopted from Marakarkandy et al.,
Grabner-Kr et al., Zhang et al., and Patel et al. [19,64,75,76]. The scale consisted of nine latent variables
as external influencing factors, and each variable was composed of two to six measurement variables.
The item of each measurement variable was expressed by a five-point Linkert-scale. Respondents were
required to express their attitudes according to their true meaning. The options were strongly disagree,
disagree, uncertain, agree, and strongly agree. In this paper, the structural equation model was
used for data processing and analysis. SEM is a statistical method to deal with the relationship
between multiple variables based on the covariance matrix of variables by multiple regression analysis,
path analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis. This method can explain the causal relationship
between independent variables and dependent variables and is widely used in the fields of economic
psychology and behavioral science. PLS is a parameter estimation method of SEM, which does not
need a sufficient theoretical basis to support validation and explanatory research and is suitable
for exploratory research and model tests [77]. Therefore, this paper used SmartPLS3.0 to study the
parameter estimation of SEM.

Table 2. Measurement instruments.

Latent Variables Measurement Items Sources

Using Fintech can meet my service needs.
Fintech services can save time. Lockett et al. [68] and
Perceived usefulness (PU)
Fintech services can improve efficiency. Huh et al. [69]
Overall, Fintech services are useful to me.
It is easy to use Fintech services.
Cheng et al. [71] and
Perceived ease of use (PEU) I think the operation interface of Fintech is friendly and
Wang et al. [70]
understandable.
It is easy to have the equipment to use Fintech services
(cellphone, APP, WIFI, et al.).
I believe Fintech services keep my personal information safe. Chong et al. [62] and
Trust (TRU)
Overall I believe Fintech services are trustable. Sanchez et al. [72]
This bank can provide good services and products.
Ha et al. [73] and
Brand image (BI) I think I prefer to accept the services provided by familiar
Ruparelia et al. [74]
brands.
The bank has a good reputation.
I believe that the money is easy to be stolen by using Fintech Marakarkandy et al.
Perceived risk (PR) services. [64] and Grabner et al.
I believe personal privacy will be disclosed by using Fintech [75]
services.
Overall, I feel Fintech services are risky.
I believe the government supports and improve the use of
Marakarkandy et al.
Government support (GS) Fintech services.
[64]
I believe the government has introduced favorable legislation
and regulations for Fintech services.
I believe the government is active in setting up all kinds of
infrastructure such as the infrastructure telecom network,
which has a positive role in promoting Fintech services.
When I hear about a new product, I look for ways to try it
User innovativeness (UI) Zhang et al. [19]
Among my peers, I am usually the first one to try a new
product.
I believe using Fintech services is a good idea.
Attitude (ATT) Using Fintech services is a pleasant experience. Grabner et al. [75]
I am interested in Fintech services.
If I have used Fintech services, I am willing to continue using
Marakarkandy et al.
Intention (INT) them.
[64] and Patel et al. [76]
I would like to use Fintech services soon.
I will recommend Fintech services to my friends.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 10 of 16

4. Results

4.1. Scale Validity and Reliability

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model, including tests of internal consistency
reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Reliability refers to the degree of consistency
or stability of the measurement results, which reflects reliability of the questionnaire items. In this
paper, composite reliability (CR) and Cronbach’s alpha were used to test the internal consistency of
the data. As suggested by Fornell and Larcker, the CR of the sample is required to be larger than 0.7,
and Cronbach’s alpha to be larger than 0.8 [78]. As shown in Table 3, the CR and Cronbach’s alpha of
all latent variables were all larger than the critical values, which indicates that the model has a good
internal consistency.

Table 3. Reliability and validity measures.

Constructs Item λ AVE CR Cronbach’s Alpha

PU1 0.725
PU2 0.878
PU 0.680 0.894 0.840
PU3 0.801
PU4 0.883
PEU1 0.860
PEU PEU2 0.886 0.755 0.902 0.837
PEU3 0.859
BI1 0.906
BI BI2 0.904 0.812 0.928 0.884
BI3 0.893
PR1 0.809
PR PR2 0.928 0.767 0.908 0.851
PR3 0.886
GS1 0.840
GS GS2 0.809 0.713 0.882 0.799
GS3 0.883
UI1 0.922
UI 0.844 0.915 0.815
UI2 0.916
TRU1 0.889
TRU 0.827 0.905 0.793
TRU2 0.930
ATT1 0.914
ATT ATT2 0.902 0.830 0.936 0.897
ATT3 0.916
INT1 0.884
INT INT2 0.816 0.737 0.894 0.822
INT3 0.874
λ, Standardized Factor Loadings; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.

Validity means the degree to which the model fits the survey data, including convergent validity
and discriminant validity. The convergent validity reflects the correlation degree of multiple indicators
for a variable, which is measured by the average variance extracted (AVE) [79] of the latent variable,
the CR [80], and the loading of corresponding measurable variables [81]. AVE values of the sample
are required to be larger than 0.5, and the loadings of measurable variable to be larger than 0.7.
Then, as shown in Table 3, all the evidence below supports the convergent validity of all constructs.
Discriminant validity refers to there being no correlation between each variable; that is to say,
the measures of each variable can be distinguished from others. It is supported if the AVE is greater
than the square of interscale correlation in this model. Then, as shown in Table 4, the AVE was greater
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 11 of 16

than the squared interscale correlation in all cases, which indicates that the discriminant validity of
each variable is good.
Symmetry 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Table 4. Discriminant validity of constructs.

Construct PU PEU BI PR GS UI TRU ATT INT
Construct
PU PU
0.824 PEU- BI - PR - GS
- UI - TRU - ATT -INT -
PEUPU 0.741
0.824 0.869
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BIPEU 0.741
0.425 0.869
0.421 -
0.901 - - - - - - - - - - - -
PR BI 0.425
−0.205 0.421
−0.168 0.901
−0.244 - 0.876 - - - - - - - - - -
PR −0.205 −0.168 −0.244 0.876 - - - - -
GSGS 0.504
0.504 0.508
0.508 0.502 −0.184
0.502 −0.184 0.8440.844 - - - - - - - -
UI UI 0.294
0.294 0.355
0.355 0.41
0.41 −0.136
−0.136 0.5070.5070.9190.919 - - - - - -
TRUTRU 0.453
0.453 0.49
0.49 0.541 −0.369
0.541 −0.369 0.5670.5670.4860.486
0.909 0.909 - - - -
ATTATT 0.583
0.583 0.58
0.58 0.569
0.569 − 0.221
−0.221 0.71 0.710.617 0.607
0.617 0.911
0.607 0.911- -
INT 0.518 0.547 0.582 −0.234 0.591 0.552 0.572 0.793 0.858
INT 0.518 0.547 0.582 −0.234 0.591 0.552 0.572 0.793 0.858

4.2. Structural
4.2. Structural Equation
Equation Model:
Model: Hypotheses
Hypotheses Testing
Testing
Structural Equation
Structural Equation Modeling
Modeling is is aa statistical
statistical method
method to to explore
explore variable
variable relations
relations by by using
using the
the
covariance matrix of the variables. In addition, it is an important tool for multivariate
covariance matrix of the variables. In addition, it is an important tool for multivariate data analysis. data analysis.
After
After the
the validity
validity and
and reliability
reliability analysis,
analysis, thisthis section conducted an
section conducted an empirical study of
empirical study of the
the adoption
adoption
model of Fintech services based on the analysis of the sample data and used the sample data
model of Fintech services based on the analysis of the sample data and used the sample data and
and
structural equation model to test the hypothesis. Standardized path coefficient (β) and t value were
structural equation model to test the hypothesis. Standardized path coefficient (β) and t value were
obtained by
obtained by SmartPLS
SmartPLS3.0 3.0using
usingSEMSEMmodel,model, which
which were
were used
used to test
to test the the hypotheses
hypotheses proposed
proposed in
in this
this paper. In general, if t > 1.96, the coefficient test is significant at the p < 0.05 confidence
paper. In general, if t > 1.96, the coefficient test is significant at the p < 0.05 confidence level. If t > 2.58, level.
If t >coefficient
the 2.58, the coefficient test is significant
test is significant at the p <at0.01 the pconfidence
< 0.01 confidence
level. If level. If tthe
t > 3.1, > 3.1, the coefficient
coefficient test is
test is significant at the p
significant at the p < 0.001 confidence level. The test results of the hypotheses are shown in Figurein
< 0.001 confidence level. The test results of the hypotheses are shown 2
Figure 2 below.
below.

BI PEU 0.741***

0.256***
0.132**
(0.086)NS PU

-0.025*** PR 0.178***

(-0.006)NS
0.101**
TRU
ATT INT
0.295*** 0.793***
0.315***

GS
0.200***
0.270***

UI

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Structural
Structural results
results of
of the
the proposed
proposed model
model (*,
(*, pp << 0.05;
0.05; **,
**, pp <
< 0.01;
0.01; ***,
***, pp << 0.001).
0.001).

As
As shown
shown in in the
theabove
abovefigure,
figure,the
theresults
resultsshow
showthatthatPU
PU(β(β= 0.178, t =t 3.339),
= 0.178, BI (β
= 3.339), BI =(β0.132, t=
= 0.132,
2.852), TRUTRU
t = 2.852), (β = (β
0.101, t = 2.122),
= 0.101, GS (βGS
t = 2.122), = 0.315, t = 5.584),
(β = 0.315, and UIand
t = 5.584), (β = UI
0.270,
(β =t =0.270,
6.322)t =all6.322)
had aallpositive
had a
significant
positive impact on
significant ATT.on
impact AsATT.
the threshold of t value
As the threshold of tfor hypothesis
value testingtesting
for hypothesis [17], their
[17],ttheir
values were
t values
largerlarger
were than 1.96,
thanthus
1.96,hypotheses H1, H6,H1,
thus hypotheses H5,H6,
H10, and
H5, H12and
H10, were
H12supported. BI (β = 0.256,
were supported. BI (βt ==4.925),
0.256,
PR (β = -0.025, t = 6.251), GS (β = 0.295, t = 5.625), and UI (β = 0.200, t = 4.669) had significant influences
on TRU, and their t values were all greater than 1.96, thus supporting H7, H9, H11, and H13. The t
value of PEU for PU was greater than 1.96, and the former (β = 0.741, t = 18.397) had a significant
impact on the latter, thus hypothesis H3 was supported. TRU played a significant intermediary role
in the relationship between BI, GS, and UI. Since ATT (β = 0.793, t = 25.410) had a significant effect on
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 12 of 16

t = 4.925), PR (β = −0.025, t = 6.251), GS (β = 0.295, t = 5.625), and UI (β = 0.200, t = 4.669) had significant
influences on TRU, and their t values were all greater than 1.96, thus supporting H7, H9, H11, and H13.
The t value of PEU for PU was greater than 1.96, and the former (β = 0.741, t = 18.397) had a significant
impact on the latter, thus hypothesis H3 was supported. TRU played a significant intermediary role
in the relationship between BI, GS, and UI. Since ATT (β = 0.793, t = 25.410) had a significant effect
on INT, the t value of ATT for INT was greater than 1.96, indicating the significance of H4. However,
PEU (β = 0.086, t = 1.306) and PR (β = −0.006, t = 0.204) had no significant influences on ATT, and the
t value of PEU and PR for ATT was less than 1.96, thus hypotheses H2 and H8 were not supported.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper discusses the potential reasons for the adoption and use of Fintech services by bank
users and how the Fintech services affects the interaction and behavior between consumers and
banking institutions. Consistent with the research results of Sikdar et al., this paper finds that PU,
trust, and UI have positive influences on INT for the adoption of Fintech services [56]. However,
unlike the research of Marakarkandy et al., the research results of this paper show that GS is an
important predictive factor for the adoption of Fintech services [64]. According to the research results
of Kesharwani et al., this paper also provides additional evidence that PEU, PR, and the impact of
service reception are not significantly correlated [42]. In addition, the significant relationship between
BI and ATT is consistent with the findings of Zhang et al.
Based on the TAM, this paper constructs a user adoption model for Fintech services, which mainly
considers the role of TRU and its determinants and uses empirical data for verification. The hypothesis
test results of this model show that the popularity of the internet and intelligent terminal equipment
may have an effect on users’ demands for Fintech services. In the interaction of users and banks,
risk, privacy, usefulness, perceived ease of use, user innovativeness, and government support are
playing increasingly important roles. Banks need to determine Fintech service strategies based on
user preferences and factors affecting service adoption. Through empirical research in this paper, it is
found that:
First, brand image, government support, and user innovation have significantly positive impacts
on the adoption of Fintech services. These impacts are not only direct effects but can also have indirect
impacts on trust in services, while trust will have a positive impact on the adoption of the service.
Second, perceived risk can affect users’ attitudes through their trust of Fintech services.
The mechanism is that perceived risk has a significantly negative impact on trust, while trust actively
guides users to engage with Fintech services. This shows that users’ perceived risk of Fintech services
has a substantial role in reducing the level of trust in services. Financial institutions providing Fintech
services need to adopt measures to reduce the perceived risk to users to strengthen trust in products
and services, thereby increasing users’ willingness to employ the services.
Third, perceived ease of use has no significant impact on a user’s adoption of Fintech services.
This is similar to the results of previous studies. Some scholars believe that in the early stage of
technology or service adoption, perceived ease of use often does not have a significant impact
on adoption behavior because users are unfamiliar with it or have no opportunity to use it [82].
This reflects the fact that current Chinese development of Fintech services is still in its primary stage,
and many bank users have no experience with actually using Fintech services.
In summary, consumers use a new technology or service under the influence of government
support, user innovativeness, and brand image. Then, they weigh the benefits and potential risks,
which ultimately affect their adoption attitude. Therefore, our findings provide a consumer assessment
and empirical framework for banks to adopt new, user-centered services.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

By integrating the trust of Fintech services into the TAM, this paper attempts to use the elements of
service trust to explain and predict the adoption of Fintech services by bank users. A more refined and
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 13 of 16

comprehensive view of the determinants of behavioral intention is provided, and finally, the model
is validated by empirical research. However, the influencing factors of our research have certain
limitations. We have not studied psychological factors, such as social influences. At the same time,
we should also analyze risks from multiple dimensions, such as financial risks, privacy risks, and cyber
security risks. A comprehensive and effective assessment will help us better analyze the adoption
model of Fintech services.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.H. and S.Y.; methodology, Z.H. and S.D.; software, S.L. and L.C.;
investigation, S.L. and L.C.; resources, Z.H.; data curation, Z.H. and S.L.; writing—original draft preparation,
Z.H.; writing—review and editing, S.L. and S.D.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, Z.H., S.D. and S.L.;
funding acquisition, S.D. and S.L.
Funding: This work is fully supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Nos. 91846107,
71571058, 71690235 and 71472001], and Anhui Provincial Science and Technology Major Project [Nos. 16030801121
and 17030801001]. and Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences in Colleges and Universities of Anhui
Province under Grant No. SK2017A0443.
Acknowledgments: This work is fully supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
[Nos. 91846107, 71571058, 71690235 and 71472001], and Anhui Provincial Science and Technology Major Project
[Nos. 16030801121 and 17030801001], and Key Project of Humanities and Social Sciences in Colleges and
Universities of Anhui Province under Grant No. SK2017A0443.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Gabor, D.; Brooks, S. The Digital Revolution in Financial Inclusion: International Development in the Fintech
Era. New Polit. Econ. 2017, 22, 1–14. [CrossRef]
2. Leong, C.; Tan, B.; Xiao, X.; Tan, F.T.C.; Sun, Y. Nurturing a Fintech Ecosystem: The Case of a Youth Microloan
Startup in China. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2017, 37, 92–97. [CrossRef]
3. Alt, R.; Beck, R.; Smits, M.T. Fintech and the Transformation of the Financial Industry. Electron. Mark. 2018,
28, 235–243. [CrossRef]
4. Zavolokina, L.; Dolata, M.; Schwabe, G. The Fintech Phenomenon: Antecedents of Financial Innovation
Perceived by the Popular Press. Financ. Innov. 2016, 2, 16. [CrossRef]
5. Chang, Y.; Wong, S.; Lee, H.; Jeong, S. What Motivates Chinese Consumers to Adopt Fintech Services: A Regulatory
Focus Theory; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
6. Priem, R.L.; Li, S.; Carr, J.C. Insights and new directions from demand-side approaches to technology
innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategic management research. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 346–374. [CrossRef]
7. Priem, R.L.; Swink, M. A demand-side perspective on supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag.
2012, 48, 7–13. [CrossRef]
8. Hermes, N.; Lensink, R. Does Financial Liberalization Influence Saving, Investment and Economic Growth?
Evidence from 25 Emerging Market Economies, 1973; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2008; pp. 47–57.
9. Nakashima, T. Creating Credit by Making Use of Mobility with Fintech and IoT. IATSS Res. 2018, 42, 61–66.
[CrossRef]
10. Gai, K.; Qiu, M.; Sun, X. A Survey on Fintech. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2018, 103, 262–273. [CrossRef]
11. Yin, H.; Gai, K. An Empirical Study on Preprocessing High-Dimensional Class-Imbalanced Data for
Classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on High PERFORMANCE Computing
and Communications, New York, NY, USA, 24–26 August 2015.
12. Gai, K.; Qiu, M.; Zhao, H. Energy-Aware Task Assignment for Mobile Cyber-Enabled Applications in
Heterogeneous Cloud Computing. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2017, 111, 25–38. [CrossRef]
13. Cuomo, S.; Somma, V.D.; Sica, F. An Application of the One-Factor Hullwhite Model in an Iot Financial
Scenario. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 38, 18–20. [CrossRef]
14. Mishra, S. Financial Management and Forecasting Using Business Intelligence and Big Data Analytic Tools.
Int. J. Financ. Eng. 2018, 6, 10–31. [CrossRef]
15. Du, W.D.; Pan, S.L.; Leidner, D.E.; Ying, W. Affordances, Experimentation and Actualization of Fintech:
A Blockchain Implementation Study. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2018. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 14 of 16

16. Buckley, R.; Arner, D.; Barberis, J. The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? Soc. Sci. Electron.
Publ. 2015, 47, 1271–1319.
17. Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems:
Theory and Results. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.
18. Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis. Sci.
2010, 39, 273–315. [CrossRef]
19. Zhang, T.; Lu, C.; Kizildag, M. Banking “On-the-Go”: Examining Consumers’ Adoption of Mobile Banking
Services. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2018, 10, 279–295. [CrossRef]
20. Stewart, H.; Jürjens, J. Data Security and Consumer Trust in Fintech Innovation in Germany. Inf. Comput.
Secur. 2018, 26, 109–128. [CrossRef]
21. Ryu, H. What Makes Users Willing or Hesitant to Use Fintech?: The Moderating Effect of User Type.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 541–569. [CrossRef]
22. Ng, A.W.; Kwok, B.K.B. Emergence of Fintech and Cybersecurity in a Global Financial Centre:
Strategic Approach by a Regulator. J. Financ. Regul. Compliance 2017, 25, 422–434. [CrossRef]
23. Barakat, A.; Hussainey, K. Bank Governance, Regulation, Supervision, and Risk Reporting: Evidence from
Operational Risk Disclosures in European Banks. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2013, 30, 254–273. [CrossRef]
24. Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting E-Services Adoption: A Perceived Risk Facets Perspective. Int. J.
Hum. -Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [CrossRef]
25. Hong, W.; Zhu, K. Migrating to Internet-Based E-Commerce: Factors Affecting E-Commerce Adoption and
Migration at the Firm Level. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 204–221. [CrossRef]
26. Chang, Y.; Wong, S.F.; Lee, H.; Jeong, S.P. What Motivates Chinese Consumers to Adopt Fintech Services:
A Regulatory Focus Theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce:
E-Commerce in Smart Connected World, Suwon, Korea, 17–19 August 2016.
27. Carlin, B.; Olafsson, A.; Pagel, M. Technology Adoption across Generations: Financial Fitness in the Information
Age; Working Paper Series; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, UK, 2017.
28. Chau, V.S.; Ngai, L.W.L.C. The Youth Market for Internet Banking Services: Perceptions, Attitude and
Behaviour. J. Serv. Mark. 2013, 39, 42–60.
29. Abbad, M.M. E-Banking in Jordan. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2013, 32, 681–694. [CrossRef]
30. Akturan, U.; Tezcan, N. Mobile Banking Adoption of the Youth Market. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2012, 30, 444–459.
[CrossRef]
31. Szopiński, T.S. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Online Banking in Poland. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4763–4768.
[CrossRef]
32. Riquelme, H.E.; Rios, R.E. The Moderating Effect of Gender in the Adoption of Mobile Banking. Int. J. Bank
Mark. 2010, 28, 328–341. [CrossRef]
33. Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models. Inf. Syst.
Res. 1995, 6, 144–176. [CrossRef]
34. Zhao, A.L.; Koenig-Lewis, N.; Hammer-Lloyd, S.; Ward, P. Adoption of Internet Banking Services in China:
Is It All About Trust? Int. J. Bank Mark. 2010, 28, 26.
35. Gupta, A.; Arora, N. Consumer Adoption of M-Banking: A Behavioral Reasoning Theory Perspective. Int. J.
Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 733–747. [CrossRef]
36. Shaikh, A.A.; Karjaluoto, H. Mobile Banking Adoption: A Literature Review. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32,
129–142. [CrossRef]
37. Hsu, C.L.; Wang, C.F.; Lin, J.C.C. Investigating Customer Adoption Behaviours in Mobile Financial Services.
Int. J. Mob. Commun. 2011, 9, 477–494. [CrossRef]
38. Aboelmaged, M.G.; Gebba, T.R. Mobile Banking Adoption: An Examination of Technology Acceptance
Model and Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Bus. Res. Dev. 2013, 2, 35–50. [CrossRef]
39. Mcknight, D.H.; Chervany, N.L. What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships:
An Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6, 35–59. [CrossRef]
40. Lewis, J.D.; Weigert, A. Trust as a Social Reality. Soc. Forces 1985, 63, 967–985. [CrossRef]
41. Lee, M.K.O.; Turban, E. A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2001, 6,
75–91. [CrossRef]
42. Kesharwani, A.; Singh Bisht, S. The Impact of Trust and Perceived Risk on Internet Banking Adoption in
India. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2012, 30, 303–322. [CrossRef]
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 15 of 16

43. Malaquias, R.F.; Hwang, Y. An Empirical Study on Trust in Mobile Banking: A Developing Country
Perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 54, 453–461. [CrossRef]
44. Koksal, M.H. The Intentions of Lebanese Consumers to Adopt Mobile Banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2016, 34,
327–346. [CrossRef]
45. Basak, S.K.; Govender, D.W.; Govender, I. Examining the Impact of Privacy, Security, and Trust on the Tam
and Ttf Models for E-Commerce Consumers: A Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference
on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), Auckland, New Zealand, 12–14 December 2016.
46. Hanafizadeh, P.; Behboudi, M.; Abedini Koshksaray, A. Mobile-Banking Adoption by Iranian Bank Clients.
Telemat. Inform. 2014, 31, 62–78. [CrossRef]
47. Park, E.; Kim, H.; Ohm, J.Y. Understanding Driver Adoption of Car Navigation Systems Using the Extended
Technology Acceptance Model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2015, 34, 741–751. [CrossRef]
48. Sang, S.; Lee, J.D.; Lee, J. E-Government Adoption in Cambodia: A Partial Least Squares Approach.
Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2010, 4, 138–157. [CrossRef]
49. Riyadh, A.N.; Bunker, D.; Rabhi, F. Barriers to E-Finance Adoption in Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
(Smes) in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Qualitative Research in IT, Brisbane, Australia,
17 November 2010.
50. Shapiro, S.L.; Reams, L.; So, K.K.F. Is It Worth the Price? The Role of Perceived Financial Risk, Identification,
and Perceived Value in Purchasing Pay-Per-View Broadcasts of Combat Sports. Sport Manag. Rev. 2018.
[CrossRef]
51. Saleem, Z.; Rashid, K. Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Mobile Banking Adoption in Pakistan.
Int. J. Trade Econ. Financ. 2014, 2, 537–543. [CrossRef]
52. Srivastava, S.C.; Chandra, S.; Theng, Y.L. Evaluating the Role of Trust in Consumer Adoption of Mobile
Payment Systems: An Empirical Analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2010, 27, 561.
53. Semuel, H.; Lianto, A.S. Analisis E-Wom, Brand Image, Brand Trust Dan Minat Beli Produk Smartphone Di
Surabaya. J. Manaj. Pemasar. 2014, 8, 7–54.
54. Lee, K.C.; Chung, N. Understanding Factors Affecting Trust in and Satisfaction with Mobile Banking in
Korea: A Modified Delone and Mclean’s Model Perspective. Interact. Comput. 2009, 21, 385–392. [CrossRef]
55. Siamagka, N.T.; Christodoulides, G.; Michaelidou, N.; Valvi, A. Determinants of Social Media Adoption by
B2B Organizations. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 51, 89–99. [CrossRef]
56. Sikdar, P.; Kumar, A.; Makkad, M. Online Banking Adoption: A Factor Validation and Satisfaction Causation
Study in the Context of Indian Banking Customers. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2015, 33, 760–785. [CrossRef]
57. Khedmatgozar, H.R.; Shahnazi, A. The Role of Dimensions of Perceived Risk in Adoption of Corporate
Internet Banking by Customers in Iran. Electron. Commer. Res. 2018, 18, 389–412. [CrossRef]
58. Bansal, S.K.; Bansal, A.; Blake, M.B. Trust-Based Dynamic Web Service Composition Using Social Network
Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Business Applications of Social Network
Analysis, Bangalore, India, 15 December 2010.
59. Zhou, T.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B. Integrating Ttf and Utaut to Explain Mobile Banking User Adoption. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2010, 26, 760–767. [CrossRef]
60. Malaquias, F.F.D.O.; Hwang, Y. An Empirical Investigation on Disclosure about Mobile Banking on Bank
Websites. Online Inf. Rev. 2018, 42, 615–629. [CrossRef]
61. Kim, K.; Prabhakar, B. Initial Trust, Perceived Risk, and the Adoption of Internet Banking. In Proceedings of
the Twenty First International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 10–13 December 2000.
62. Chong, A.Y.L.; Ooi, K.B.; Lin, B.; Tan, B.I. Online Banking Adoption: An Empirical Analysis. Int. J. Bank
Mark. 2010, 28, 267–287. [CrossRef]
63. Kiwanuka, A. Acceptance Process: The Missing Link between Utaut and Diffusion of Innovation Theory.
J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2015, 46, 11–16.
64. Marakarkandy, B.; Yajnik, N.; Dasgupta, C. Enabling Internet Banking Adoption: An Empirical Examination
with an Augmented Technology Acceptance Model (Tam). J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2017, 30, 263–294. [CrossRef]
65. Leicht, T.; Chtourou, A.; Youssef, K.B. Consumer Innovativeness and Intentioned Autonomous Car Adoption.
J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2018, 29, 1–11. [CrossRef]
66. Adeiza, A.; Ismail, N.A.; Malek, M.A. An Empirical Examination of the Major Relationship Factors Affecting
Franchisees’ Overall Satisfaction and Intention to Stay. Iran. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 10, 21–40.
Symmetry 2019, 11, 340 16 of 16

67. Kim, C.; Mirusmonov, M.; Lee, I. An Empirical Examination of Factors Influencing the Intention to Use
Mobile Payment. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2010, 26, 310–322. [CrossRef]
68. Lockett, A.; Littler, D. The Adoption of Direct Banking Services. J. Mark. Manag. 1997, 13, 791–811. [CrossRef]
69. Huh, H.J.; Kim, T.; Law, R. A Comparison of Competing Theoretical Models for Understanding Acceptance
Behavior of Information Systems in Upscale Hotels. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2009, 28, 121–134. [CrossRef]
70. Wang, Y.S.; Wang, Y.M.; Lin, H.H.; Tang, T. Determinants of User Acceptance of Internet Banking:
An Empirical Study. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2014, 4, 501–519. [CrossRef]
71. Cheng, T.C.E.; Lam, D.Y.C.; Yeung, A.C.L. Adoption of Internet Banking: An Empirical Study in Hong Kong.
Decis. Support Syst. 2007, 42, 1558–1572. [CrossRef]
72. Sánchez-Torres, J.A.; Canada, F.A.; Sandoval, A.V.; Alzate, J.S. E-Banking in Colombia: Factors Favouring its
Acceptance, Online Trust and Government Support. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 170–183. [CrossRef]
73. Ha, H. Factors Influencing Consumer Perceptions of Brand Trust Online. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2004, 13,
329–342. [CrossRef]
74. Ruparelia, N.; White, L.; Hughes, K. Drivers of Brand Trust in Internet Retailing. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2010,
19, 250–260. [CrossRef]
75. Grabner-Kr Uter, S.; Faullant, R. Consumer Acceptance of Internet Banking: The Influence of Internet Trust.
Int. J. Bank Mark. 2008, 26, 483–504. [CrossRef]
76. Patel, K.J.; Patel, H.J. Adoption of Internet Banking Services in Gujarat. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 147–169.
[CrossRef]
77. Poolthong, Y.; Mandhachitara, R. Customer expectations of CSR, perceived service quality and brand effect
in Thai retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2009, 27, 408–427. [CrossRef]
78. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
79. Ruvio, A.; Shoham, A.; Brenčič, M.M. Consumers’ Need for Uniqueness: Short-Form Scale Development
and Cross-Cultural Validation. Int. Mark. Rev. 2008, 25, 33–53. [CrossRef]
80. Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Mis Q. 1998, 22, 7–16.
81. Bagozzi, R.P.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36,
421–458. [CrossRef]
82. Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology.
Mis Q. 1989, 13, 319–340. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).