Article

Understanding FinTech Platform Adoption: Impacts of

Perceived Value and Perceived Risk
Jianli Xie 1 , Liying Ye 2 , Wei Huang 1,2 and Min Ye 1, *

1 Department of Information Management, School of Management, Xi’an Jiaotong University,

No. 28 Xianning West Road, Xi’an 710049, China; [email protected] (J.X.);
[email protected] (W.H.)
2 College of Business, Southern University of Science and Technology, No. 1088 Xueyuan Avenue,
Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: FinTech platforms are one of the most important elements in the rapidly digitized world’s
economy. This study investigates the factors that affected individuals’ acceptance of FinTech services,
especially on internet wealth management platforms. The current research extends the unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) published by MIS Quarterly with integrated financial
consumption attributes (i.e., perceived value and perceived risk) alongside the core construct of
UTAUT. Data were collected from an established survey company. The empirical results indicate
that perceived value, perceived risk, and social influence are strongly related to individuals’ FinTech
adoption intention, whereas performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and perceived risk affect
individuals’ perceived value, which in turn influences adoption intention. The proposed FinTech





 adoption model could contribute to information technology (IT) adoption research by extending the
UTAUT in which individuals’ performance expectancy and effort expectancy affect their adoption
Citation: Xie, J.; Ye, L.; Huang, W.;
intention indirectly through perceived value. Finally, the implications of the proposed new model for
Ye, M. Understanding FinTech
Platform Adoption: Impacts of
future research and FinTech practice are discussed.
Perceived Value and Perceived Risk. J.
Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. Keywords: FinTech platform; IT adoption; UTAUT; perceived value; perceived risk
2021, 16, 1893–1911. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050106

Academic Editors: Jorge Bernardino 1. Introduction

and Eduardo Álvarez-Miranda
With the deepening integration of internet technology and the financial industry,
FinTech has offered the public innovative financial services [1] such as online payment,
Received: 12 April 2021
peer-to-peer lending, budgeting and financial planning, crowdfunding, and savings and
Accepted: 2 June 2021
investments. The adoption rate of FinTech services has surged from 33% in 2017 to 64% in
Published: 17 June 2021
2019 [2]. The COVID-19 pandemic may have accelerated the adoption of FinTech platforms.
The functions of savings and investment embedded in the internet wealth management
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
platform is one of the top three FinTech services adopted by individuals [2]. According
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
to [2], 78% of individuals are aware of the saving and investment service offered by FinTech
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
platforms. By the end of 2019, 34% of individuals globally accessed savings and investment
services from internet wealth management platforms.
A wealth management platform refers to an online platform offering internet financial
products and/or services, including savings and investments. For example, in China, the
most widely used internet wealth management platform is Yu’E Bao. Unlike traditional
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
wealth management services, it provides both saving and investment functions. People put
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
their money in Yu’E Bao, which allows them to buy internet fund products and the money
This article is an open access article
to be used in shopping and payments directly. Internet wealth management platforms
distributed under the terms and
offered by FinTech companies have already spurred change across the wealth management
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
services industry. Some internet financial companies are stepping into the FinTech market,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
and incumbents, such as banks, accelerate their transformation. With the enthusiastic use
4.0/). of internet wealth management platforms offered by FinTech companies, further research

J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1893–1911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050106 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jtaer
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1894

needs to explore the factors that influence individuals’ FinTech adoption focus in such a
specific context.
FinTech related research can be classified into two categories. One stream of the
research on FinTech mainly focuses on its revolution and effects on the incumbent financial
industry [3–6]. This stream of work contributes to the expansion of understanding of the
mechanisms of FinTech platforms. The other stream of work focuses on investigating the
factors that affect Fintech platforms’ adoption. The wider adoption of FinTech platforms
depends on individuals’ access to new technologies. Therefore, FinTech adoption behavior
could be regarded as financial technology adoption behavior to some extent. The unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) [7] is widely used as the baseline
model for understanding FinTech adoption intention or behavior [8–10]. Previous research
focuses on exploring the financial-related adoption behavior from the perspective of tech-
nology adoption and contributes to our understanding of FinTech platforms [1,8,9,11–14].
However, most studies focus on specific FinTech services such as online banking, and
online payments, as well as peer-to-peer lending [9,15–27]. Few of them explore factors
that affect individuals’ online wealth management platforms.
Logically, individuals’ FinTech adoption behavior manifests in both technology adop-
tion behavior and financial services consumption behavior. Financial services consumption
refers to the processes where consumers access and use financial products such as internet
fund products and/or services. In this paper, we focus on the internet wealth manage-
ment platforms of FinTech services. Several studies on consumer behavior indicate that
consumers’ decision-making behavior largely depends on utility maximization [28–31]. Per-
ceived value is related to consumer behavior [28,32]. Moreover, the risk nature of financial
products and the uncertainty of e-commerce are the main obstacles that affect individuals’
use of FinTech platforms, especially for internet wealth management platforms [33–38]. As
the main attributes of financial services consumption, the two constructs, the perceived
risk and perceived value, have been studied separately in prior research. There are mixed
findings on the impact of perceived risk on individuals’ FinTech adoption-related behav-
ior [23,39,40]. Especially for internet wealth management platforms, few studies integrated
the two constructs into UTAUT in the FinTech adoption context. Although previous re-
search is valuable in extending FinTech platform adoption from different perspectives,
there is still a need for a comprehensive understanding of individuals’ FinTech adoption
from a perspective that integrates technology adoption and financial services consumption
attributes.
Based on the widely used technology adoption model, this study proposes a powerful
FinTech adoption model by integrating financial services consumption attributes (i.e.,
perceived value and perceived risk) with the UTAUT. Furthermore, the definition of
perceived value has two components, “received” and “given”, related to performance
expectancy, effort expectancy, and perceived risk. There is a need to clarify the relationships
among these constructs when integrating new constructs into the UTAUT.
This study has revealed several theoretical and practical implications. First, the
current study fills the gaps mentioned earlier by exploring the factors that affect individuals’
FinTech adoption of internet wealth management platforms from the financial consumption
perspective. Second, this study confirms the impacts of perceived value and perceived
risk on individuals’ FinTech adoption in internet wealth management platforms. By
adding the perceived risk and perceived value, this study extends the generalizability
of the UTAUT in the FinTech adoption context. Moreover, the interactions between the
UTAUT constructs and the added constructs are verified in the internet wealth management
context. Clarifying the relationships among perceived value, perceived risk, performance
expectancy, and effort expectancy can improve the understanding of the mechanisms of
FinTech adoption-related behavior. The current study can provide practical implications
for FinTech companies to design their related policies and maintain their competitiveness.
This study is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the theoretical foundation and
hypotheses development. Section 3 outlines the research method, and the results are shown
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1895

in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 discusses the main findings, followed by the theoretical and
practical implications, and the limitations in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Foundation and Hypotheses Development

This section reviews the related theories and identifies the theory, i.e., UTAUT, ex-
plaining individuals’ adoption intention in the FinTech context. We then augment FinTech
related research with this theory to put forward our hypotheses.

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

The factors that affect individuals’ information technology (IT) adoption behavior
have been widely studied in sociology, psychology, and information system (IS) research.
Several theoretical models were put forward during the past three decades. For example,
the theory of reasoned action (TRA) [41] is one of the earliest theories used to predict the
adoption behavior. Attitude toward behavior and subjective norm are the core constructs
that affect individuals’ adoption behavior in TRA. Davis [42] contextualized TRA to the
area of IT adoption and proposed the technology acceptance model (TAM). TAM predicts
that individuals’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of technology, and subjective norm
positively affect their adoption intention. Unlike TAM, Rogers [43] focused on innovation
diffusion and put forward the innovation diffusion theory (IDT). All of these theoretical
models make contributions to the IT adoption research; however, each model ignores the
contributions of the others.
By synthesizing eight IT adoption-related theoretical models and their extensions
(TRA [41], TAM/TAM2 [43,44], motivational model-MM [45], theory of planned behavior-
TPB [46], combined TAM and TPB [47], model of PC utilization-MPCU [48], IDT [42],
social cognitive theory-SCT [49]), Venkatesh et al. [50] put forward the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology model, i.e., UTAUT, in organizational contexts. The four
core theoretical constructs presented in the UTAUT that influence individuals’ technology
adoption intention and behavior are performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, and facilitating conditions [7,50]. There are four moderators: age, gender,
experience, and voluntariness of use, affecting the relationship between the four constructs
and adoption intention and behavior. As it gives a high explanation (as much as 70%) for
individuals’ adoption intention, UTAUT has been widely applied in various fields as the
fundamental model for technology adoption for individual and organizational settings in
many areas [7,9,10,13,25,51–53]. Venkatesh, et al. [54] reviewed the UTAUT-related research
and highlighted the direction for future UTAUT-related research. They recommended
that future research should conceptualize individual-level factors (such as, technology
attributes, individual attributes, task attributes) when using the UTAUT as the baseline
model.
Individuals’ internet wealth management platform adoption can be regarded as
technology adoption, to some extent. Drawing on the four core constructs of UTAUT, this
study attempts to put forward a FinTech adoption model by integrating financial services
consumption attributes (perceived value and perceived risk). This study focuses on the
antecedent of individuals’ FinTech adoption, not the moderator. Therefore, the verification
of four well-established moderators, i.e., age, gender, experience, and voluntariness of use,
is not involved in this paper. The following sections show the relationships in our research
model.

2.2. Social Influence

Social influence describes individuals’ perception that essential others think he/she
should adopt a technology during the technology acceptance process [7,50]. In this research,
social influence is regarded as the individuals’ perception of essential others (e.g., friends,
family, and coworkers) who think he/she should use the internet wealth management
platform.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1896

Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis [50] pointed out that social influence positively
affects individuals’ adoption intention in the UTAUT. Also, numerous studies demonstrate
that social impact positively affects individuals’ behavioral outcomes. Yang et al. [55]
reported that social influence affects individuals’ M-payment adoption intention positively.
Chiu et al. [56] explored the antecedents that influence people’s consumption of internet
sports gambling. Their conclusion implied that social influence determines an individuals’
adoption attitude. Hamari and Koivisto [57] suggested that people’s willingness to keep
difficult habits was positively influenced by society. De Luna, Liébana-Cabanillas, Sánchez-
Fernández and Muñoz-Leiva [18] demonstrated that social influence significantly affects
mobile payment systems’ adoption intention. Wei, Luh, Huang and Chang [25] empirically
verified that social influence affects young generations’ online payment adoption. All these
studies indicated that social influence positively affects individuals’ intention to consume
goods/services. Based on the above studies, it can be believed that individuals’ adoption
intention of internet wealth management platforms will be affected by essential others.
H1: Social influence is positively related to individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth
management platforms.

2.3. Facilitating Conditions

Facilitating conditions describe the degree to which people cognize the organiza-
tional and information-technology infrastructure that would support them to adopt new
technology [7,50]. Thus, in this study, facilitating conditions are described as individuals’
perceptions of the related resources (e.g., smartphone, FinTech related applications) and
supports (e.g., technical support from application vendors, technology generation) when
using the internet wealth management platform. Using an internet wealth management
platform needs some resources and fundamental knowledge such as the necessary financial
knowledge. It is only with these facilitating conditions that individuals are likely to use a
platform.
Facilitating conditions show a strong positive correlation with individuals’ adoption
intention. Venkatesh, Thong and Xu [7] confirmed that individuals’ adoption intention is
influenced by facilitating conditions. Subsequent studies confirmed the causal relationship
between the individuals’ adoption-related behavior and facilitating conditions. Some
studies demonstrated that facilitating conditions are positively correlated with individuals’
adoption intentions [13,56,58]. Oliveira et al. [59] showed that facilitating conditions
affect the consumer’s adoption behavior in the M-banking context. When exploring the
adoption behavior of the online public grievance redressal system, Rana et al. (2016) [58]
demonstrated that facilitating conditions positively and significantly affect individuals’
adoption behavior. Therefore, it is expected that facilitating conditions affect individuals’
adoption intention.
H2: Facilitating conditions are positively related to individuals’ adoption intention in internet
wealth management platforms.

2.4. Perceived Value

Behavioral decision theories explain that consumers’ decision behavior depends on
them recognizing the trade-off between the utility of decision outcomes and the effort to
decide [60,61]. The widely used definition of perceived value is described as individuals’
general evaluation of the utility of goods/services, which depends on their perceptions
of the “given” component and the “received” component [31]. This definition proposes
that even for the same goods/services, different people have different perceived values.
Similarly, the perceived value of the FinTech platform would be different among different
consumers. Venkatesh, Thong and Xu [7] extended the UTAUT by adding “price value” in
the consumer context. The price value is related to individuals’ cognition of the trade-off
between perceived benefits and the monetary cost when adopting new technology [7].
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1897

Viewing the perceived value from a price cost and benefit perspective would ignore the
multi-dimensionality of perceived value. Besides, Jünger and Mietzner [20] empirically
demonstrated that price perception does not affect individuals’ FinTech adoption. There-
fore, it is necessary from a more comprehensive perspective to understand the value effect
on individuals’ adoption behavior over various contexts [62]. Perceived value is not only
monetary but also non-monetary [31]. The monetary dimension refers to financial cost. The
non-monetary dimension is mainly explained as the time, effort, and other non-monetary
aspects spent on the products during the consumption process [31]. Therefore, following
the definition proposed by Zeithaml [31], this study defines perceived value as individuals’
general evaluation of the utility of FinTech platforms, depending on their perceptions of
what is “given” and “received.”
Behavioral decision theory [63] justifies that individuals’ decision behavior is mainly
dependent on the trade-off between the utility of the decision (i.e., performance expectancy)
and the effort to choose the decision (i.e., effort expectancy), which is analogous to perceived
value. The definition of perceived value describes individuals’ global evaluation of the
FinTech platform’s utility based on the two components (i.e., “received” and “given”). The
perceived value represents the selection strategy’s judgment, which affects the individuals’
decision-making behavior [28].
Perceived value and its impacts on consumer behavior drew the attention of scholars
decades ago. A mass of research showed that perceived value positively affects consumers’
attitudes and behaviors [13,28,32,62,64–66]. A study conducted by Sweeney and Soutar [62]
showed that consumers’ perceived value affected their purchase intention and behavior
by evaluating products’ value. Kim, Chan and Gupta [28] concluded that perceived
value influenced consumers’ acceptance of M-internet and developed the value-based
adoption of mobile internet model (VAM) through integrating the consumer choice theory
with the decision-making theory. In the VAM, consumers’ adoption intention of the M-
internet can be explained by the perceived value. Roy [66] proposed that value could be
perceived during the exchanging, using, or experiencing progress and affected consumers’
behavior. Gordon, Dibb, Magee, Cooper and Waitt [32] verified that perceived value
helps predict individuals’ behavioral outcomes in the social marketing area. Chiu, Wang,
Fang and Huang [65] proposed that utilitarian value and hedonic value affect individuals’
repeat purchase intention in the online context. Shaw and Sergueeva [13] identified that
perceived value positively affects consumers’ intention in the mobile commerce context.
Individuals’ acceptance of the internet wealth management platform is financial service
consumption behavior. Since the prior studies showed that individuals’ perceived value
affects consuming intention, the individuals’ adoption intention would be influenced by
the perceived value of the FinTech platform.
H3: Perceived value is positively related to individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth
management platforms.

2.5. Performance Expectancy

Performance expectancy describes the degree that individuals believe that they would
get benefits when using new technology [7,50]. In this study, performance expectancy
refers to the degree that individuals believe that they would get benefits when using
internet wealth management platforms. As mentioned before, the “received” component
of perceived value refers to the benefits individuals can obtain from the FinTech platform.
Performance expectancy reflects individuals’ adoption action based on the desire for
external rewards [50], related to the “received” component of perceived value. Prior
studies have shown evidence to support that the construct of performance expectancy, such
as usefulness, positively affects perceived value [28]. Therefore, it can be considered that
performance expectancy affects perceived value in the same manner.
H3a: Performance expectancy is positively related to individuals’ perceived value of internet wealth
management platforms.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1898

2.6. Effort Expectancy

Effort expectancy describes the ease of use of new technology [7,50]. Therefore, effort
expectancy in this study describes individuals’ perceived ease of use of internet wealth
management platforms. Effort expectancy focuses on individuals’ effort when using a
specific technology related to the “given” component of perceived value. The “given”
component refers to the cost that individuals put into using a FinTech platform. Since
most individuals adopt the FinTech platform through the mobile phone, the sizes of mobile
screens, the limitations of operation, and the friendliness of the user’s interface limit the
effort expectancy. The effort expectancy of the FinTech platform is particularly important
in this context. The construct of effort expectancy in this context is analogous to the non-
monetary cost, divided into time, search cost, etc. [31]. Effort expectancy incorporates all
kinds of non-monetary costs. Therefore, the hypothesis is proposed as follows.
H3b: Effort expectancy is negatively related to individuals’ perceived value of internet wealth
management platforms.

2.7. Perceived Risk

Perceived risk is a significant impediment during the financial consuming process [67].
Regarding the definition of perceived risk, scholars have different opinions. Peter and
Ryan [68] described perceived risk as to perception of loss related to purchasing, which
also inhibits purchase behavior. Featherman and Pavlou [34] illustrated that perceived risk
is a potential loss when an individual is using an e-service to obtain desired outcomes. Kim,
Ferrin and Rao [67] combined uncertainty with potential loss and described the perceived
risk as people’s belief of possible negative consequences when trading online. Based on
these definitions, this study defines perceived risk as individuals’ perceived potential,
uncertain, adverse outcomes when adopting an internet wealth management platform.
Financial transactions through the internet wealth management platforms may lead
to greater concern about individuals’ financial information. For example, a financial
transaction could be compromised due to a technological error or accidental click error.
The uncertainty should be considered as the cost of FinTech adoption, which is aligned
with the “given” part of perceived value. Therefore, individuals’ perceived risk could
inhibit their perceived value of the FinTech platform. Thus, it is proposed that:
H3c: Perceived risk is negatively related to individuals’ perceived value of internet wealth manage-
ment platforms.
Risk perception is the primary inhibitor during users’ adoption of new technology,
especially in the e-commerce setting [37,67,69]. Individuals would be hesitant if they
perceived risk during the online purchase process. In the proposed decision-making model,
Kim, Ferrin and Rao [67] argued that the consumers’ perceived risk negatively influences
their intention of making transactions on the internet. Chong [69] argued that the security-
and privacy-related risks associated with currency transactions through mobile devices
tend to be higher since consumers’ mobile devices always store their personal information.
Due to the risk features of financial products, perceived risk is considered significant
when exploring FinTech adoption factors. Thakur and Srivastava [36] revealed that in-
dividuals’ perceived risk negatively influences mobile payment acceptance. The result
proposed by Slade et al. [70] supports this conclusion as well. De Luna, Liébana-Cabanillas,
Sánchez-Fernández and Muñoz-Leiva [18] explored the factors related to accessing differ-
ent M-payment platforms and demonstrated that perceived security affects consumers’
usage intentions on M-payment platforms. The uncertainty of e-commerce and finance
risk would become the main factors hindering individuals’ intention to adopt a FinTech
platform. Thus, perceived risk is considered an antecedent variable that negatively affects
individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth management platforms.
H4: Perceived risk is negatively related to individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth
management platforms.
 usage intentions on M-payment platforms. The uncertainty of e-commerce and finance
risk would become the main factors hindering individuals’ intention to adopt a FinTech
platform. Thus, perceived risk is considered an antecedent variable that negatively affects
individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth management platforms.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1899
H4: Perceived risk is negatively related to individuals’ adoption intention in internet wealth man-
agement platforms.

Figure
Figure11shows
showsthe
thehypotheses
hypothesesand
andproposed
proposedFinTech
FinTechadoption
adoptionmodel.
model.

Social
Influence

H1
Facilitating
Conditions
H2

Performance Adoption
H3 H3
Expectancy a
Intention
Perceived
H3
b Value
Effort c H4
Expectancy
H3

Perceived
Risk

Figure1.1.FinTech
Figure FinTechadoption
adoptionmodel.
model.

3.3.Methodology
Methodology
This
Thisstudy
studyexplores
exploresthe
thefactors
factorsinfluencing
influencingindividuals’
individuals’FinTech
FinTechadoption
adoptionintention,
intention,
especially
especially focusing on internet wealth management platforms. In China,aarising
focusing on internet wealth management platforms. In China, risingnumber
number
ofofpeople
peoplehave
haveaccessed
accessedthetheinternet
internetwealth
wealthmanagement
managementservices
servicesofofFinTech
FinTechplatforms
platformsinin
recent
recentyears.
years.UpUptotoJune
June2019,
2019,more
morethan
than169
169million
millionnetizens
netizensininChina
Chinauseuseinternet
internetwealth
wealth
management
management platforms, an increase of 12.1% since the end of 2018 [71]. Thehigh
platforms, an increase of 12.1% since the end of 2018 [71]. The highadoption
adoption
rate
rateininChina
Chinaisishelpful
helpfulfor
forthis
thisstudy.
study.Therefore,
Therefore,the
thedata
datawere
werecollected
collectedfrom
fromChina
Chinaininthe
the
context of internet wealth management platforms.
context of internet wealth management platforms.
3.1. Measurement
3.1. Measurement
The constructs are adapted from previous research. The scales for performance ex-
The constructs are adapted from previous research. The scales for performance ex-
pectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and adoption intention
pectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and adoption inten-
are adapted from the UTAUT [7,50]. The scale of perceived risk is adapted from Pavlou [72]
tion are adapted from the UTAUT [7,50]. The scale of perceived risk is adapted from
and Kim, Ferrin and Rao [67]. The measurement for perceived value is adopted from
Pavlou [72] and
Sirdeshmukh, SinghKim,
andFerrin and and
Sabol [29] RaoKim,
[67].Chan
The and
measurement
Gupta [28].for perceived
Besides value
this, we alsois
adopted from Sirdeshmukh, Singh and Sabol [29] and Kim, Chan and Gupta
collected self-report adoption behavior as a robustness test. The adoption behavior was [28]. Besides
this, we also
measured as a collected
formativeself-report adoption
indicator of behavior
the frequency as a robustness
of FinTech test. The adoption
wealth management plat-
behavior was measured as a formative indicator of the frequency of
forms (ranged from “never” to “many times per day”). All items were measured onFinTech wealth man-
a
agement platforms (ranged from “never” to “many times
five-point Likert scale. See Table A1 in Appendix A for details. per day”). All items were meas-
uredThe
on questionnaire
a five-point Likert scale. See
was written Table A translated
in English, 1 in Appendix A for details.
into Chinese, and then translated
The questionnaire was written in English, translated
back into English to ensure content validity [73]. Two information into Chinese,
systems and then trans-
scholars and
lated back into English to ensure content validity [73]. Two information systems
two consumer behavior researchers reviewed the questionnaire to ensure content validity scholars
further. Thirty-five people took part in preliminary surveys and interviews were conducted
for the pre-test. We adjusted the language to make the whole questionnaire more concise
and easier to understand based on the pre-test feedback. The pre-test data were excluded
from the total dataset.

3.2. Data Collection

Data were collected from an online survey company in China. We received 314 responses in
total. After excluding invalid questionnaires, such as missing answers and obvious irrationality,
201 responses were obtained. The total effective sample size meets the minimum sample size
suggested by Hair, Black, Babin and Anderson [74], who indicates at least 150 samples for
a model with seven or fewer constructs when commonalities are modest (i.e., standardized
loading estimates were over 0.7). The 201 responses were split to 54.7% female and 45.3% male
and most of them were aged from 21 to 40 (75.6%). Table 1 is the descriptive demographic
distribution of the subjects.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1900

Table 1. Demographic distribution of the subjects.

Measure Items Frequency Percentage (%)

Female 110 54.7
Gender
Male 91 45.3
≤20 15 7.5
21–30 87 43.3
Age 31–40 65 32.3
41–50 25 12.4
>50 9 4.5
High school and
27 13.4
below
Educational Some college 73 36.3
background Bachelor 64 31.8
Master 21 10.4
Doctorate 16 8.0

4. Data Analysis and Results

The structural equation model (SEM) was used in this study because it can model
multiple dependent variables and take measurement errors into account concurrently. Two
SEM techniques, namely partial least squares (PLS) and covariance-based (CBSEM), are
commonly used in social science research [75]. The proposed model and measurement
development were based on well-established theory. Therefore, it was more suitable to use
CBSEM in the current study. Using the SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 7.0 software, the proposed
model was examined.

4.1. Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the fit indices of the measurement model. All statistics meet the
suggested value, which means that the proposed model fits the data well. Tables 3 and 4
show the reliability and validity, including the information about Cronbach’s alphas, factor
loadings, correlations, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE).
Cronbach’s alpha values over 0.7 and standardized item loadings (i.e., estimate) over 0.6
confirm the internal consistency reliability [76]. The value of AVE and CR show evidence
of convergent and discriminant validities. The AVEs of all constructs are above 0.5, and
CR exceeds 0.6 demonstrating convergent validity [74]. The AVEs of constructs are higher
than the correlations suggesting discriminant validity [74].

Table 2. Model fit for CFA.

χ2 (p-
Statistic χ2 d.f. χ2 /d.f. CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR
Value)
Results 209.286 188 1.113 0.137 0.991 0.988 0.024 0.041
Suggested
- - <5 p > 0.05 >0.9 >0.9 <0.08 <0.1
Value
Reference Bentler and Bonett [77]; Salisbury, et al. [78]
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1901

Table 3. Standardized item loading and reliability.

Parameters of Significant Test Item Reliability

Construct Cronbach’s α Items
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. p R-Square
Performance PE1 0.783 0.039 20.052 *** 0.613
Expectancy 0.794 PE3 0.767 0.040 19.166 *** 0.588
(PE) PE4 0.699 0.045 15.489 *** 0.488
Effort EE1 0.751 0.042 18.082 *** 0.565
Expectancy 0.788 EE2 0.711 0.044 16.040 *** 0.505
(EE) EE3 0.771 0.040 19.210 *** 0.594
Social SI1 0.834 0.036 23.064 *** 0.696
0.850
Influence (SI) SI2 0.886 0.034 25.725 *** 0.785
Facilitating FC1 0.722 0.049 14.798 *** 0.521
Condition 0.787 FC2 0.808 0.045 17.943 *** 0.653
(FC) FC3 0.703 0.049 14.392 *** 0.494
PR1 0.809 0.030 26.905 *** 0.654
Perceived PR2 0.807 0.030 26.725 *** 0.651
0.887
Risk (PR) PR3 0.847 0.026 32.216 *** 0.718
PR4 0.796 0.031 25.484 *** 0.634
PV1 0.839 0.026 31.744 *** 0.704
Perceived PV2 0.771 0.033 23.092 *** 0.595
0.882
Value (PV) PV3 0.840 0.026 31.876 *** 0.706
PV4 0.779 0.033 23.647 *** 0.606
Adoption AIN1 0.832 0.030 28.204 *** 0.692
Intention 0.857 AIN2 0.817 0.031 26.556 *** 0.668
(AIN) AIN3 0.800 0.032 24.699 *** 0.640
Note: *** p < 0.001.

Table 4. CR, AVE, and correlations.

Construct CR AVE PE EE SI FC PR PV AIN

PE 0.794 0.563 0.750
EE 0.789 0.555 0.666 0.745
SI 0.851 0.740 0.633 0.471 0.860
PR 0.888 0.664 −0.265 −0.198 −0.183 0.815
PV 0.882 0.653 0.661 0.734 0.600 −0.332 0.808
FC 0.789 0.556 0.274 0.249 0.317 −0.083 0.149 0.746
BI 0.857 0.667 0.456 0.390 0.484 −0.689 0.597 0.181 0.817
Notes: The square root of the AVE value is shown in bold, and off-diagonal elements are correlations.

This study used variance inflation factors (VIF) to examine whether the proposed
FinTech adoption model suffers from multicollinearity. The VIF values ranged from 1.777
to 2.100, below the threshold recommended [74]. Therefore, multicollinearity was not a
significant threat to the regression analysis. In addition, this study adopted procedural
techniques to control common method biases [79]. Three procedural techniques were used
to control method biases: (1) the first part of the questionnaire contained a participants’
privacy protection commitment to protect their anonymity and reduce apprehension about
the evaluation; (2) randomizing the scale order of each item; (3) inviting experts to review
the questionnaire to ensure it was concise and simple. Harman’s single-factor test was
conducted to examine any method biases. Seven factors accounted for 75.435% of the
variance, and the first factor accounted for 34.411% of the data variance (see Table A3
in Appendix B). The results showed that no factor could explain the major part of the
data [79–81]. Therefore, the common method biases were not a major problem for the
results.

4.2. Structural Model

The results from Mplus 7.0 showed that the structural model fitted well: χ2/df = 1.153,
p = 0.071, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.984 and SRME = 0.044, RMSEA = 0.028 (90% CI: 0.000, 0.043).
 p = 0.071, CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.984 and SRME = 0.044, RMSEA = 0.028 (90% CI: 0
Figure 2 shows us that social influence positively affected (0.210, p < 0.01) ado
tion, validating H1. The path coefficient between facilitating condition and a
tention was not significant (0.022, p = 0.733). Therefore, H2 was not supported
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1902
value was positively related to adoption intention (0.286, p < 0.001), thus H
ported. Next, performance expectancy (0.317, p < 0.001), effort expectancy (0.49
and perceived
Figure 2 shows us thatrisk (0.154,
social p < positively
influence 0.05) were significantly
affected correlated
(0.210, p < 0.01) with perceive
adoption intention,
= 0.634),H1.
validating whichThe supported
path coefficientH3a, H3b,
between and H3c.
facilitating Perceived
condition risk showed
and adoption intentiona strong
was not significant (0.022, p = 0.733). Therefore, H2 was not
effect (−0.556, p < 0.001) on adoption intention, indicating that H4 wassupported. Perceived valuesuppor
was positively related to adoption intention (0.286, p < 0.001), thus H3 was supported. Next,
Lastly,
performance we conducted
expectancy a robustness
(0.317, p < 0.001), test to
effort expectancy verify
(0.496, thatand
p < 0.001), theperceived
proposed risk FinTec
model
(0.154, p < was alsosignificantly
0.05) were able to explicate FinTech
correlated with perceived adoption
value (R2 =behavior.
0.634), whichSimilar
supportedto the r
H3a,
withH3b, and H3c.
FinTech Perceived intention,
adoption risk showed thea strongly
resultsnegative
of the effect (−0.556, p <
alternative 0.001) on
model showed
adoption intention, indicating that H4 was supported.
the robustness of the proposed FinTech adoption model (see Appendix C).

Social
Influence

0 .2
10*
Facilitating *
Conditions 0.022
n.s.
R2=0.650
R2=0.634
Performance 0.317*** Adoption
Perceived 0.286***
Expectancy Intention
** Value
96*
0.4
Effort 56 ***
*

-0.5
54
.1

Expectancy
-0

Perceived
Risk

Figure
Figure 2. The
2. The results
results of the FinTech
of the FinTech adoption
adoption model. Note: model. Note:
*** p < 0.001; ** p *** p <* 0.001;
< 0.01; p < 0.05;** p <no0.01;
n.s.: *p
significance.
no significance.
Lastly, we conducted a robustness test to verify that the proposed FinTech adoption
5. Conclusions
model was also ableand Discussion
to explicate FinTech adoption behavior. Similar to the relationship
with FinTech adoption intention, the results of the alternative model showed evidence of
This study investigated the factors that influence individuals’ FinTech a
the robustness of the proposed FinTech adoption model (see Appendix C).
havior focus, especially on internet wealth management platforms, by com
5.ceived
Conclusions
valueandand
Discussion
perceived risk with the core constructs of UTAUT. Th
This study investigated
FinTech adoption model the factors that influence
explained individuals’
individuals’ FinTech adoption
adoption behav-
intention with 65
ior focus, especially on internet wealth management platforms, by combining perceived
The results show that social influence (H1) and perceived value (H3) posit
value and perceived risk with the core constructs of UTAUT. The proposed FinTech adop-
adoption
tion intention,
model explained while perceived
individuals’ risk (H4)
adoption intention negatively
with 65% affects
variance. The adoption
results show int
that social influence (H1) and perceived value (H3) positively affect adoption intention,
while perceived risk (H4) negatively affects adoption intention. Performance expectancy
(H3a), effort expectancy (H3b), and perceived risk (H3c) affect individuals’ perceived value
of the FinTech platform. Facilitating conditions (H2) do not affect individuals’ adoption
intention.
Perceived value, which is affected by performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
and perceived risk, is a notable driver of FinTech adoption intention in internet wealth
management platforms. This conclusion is consistent with the behavioral decision theory,
which explains consumers’ decision behavior depends on recognizing the trade-off between
the effort to make a decision and the quality of the decision [60,61]. Perceived value was
suggested to predict a person’s using intention in many kinds of research [13,28,32,62].
Shaw and Sergueeva [13] confirmed the correlation between perceived value and adoption
intention in a mobile consumption context. Individuals are more likely to use internet
wealth management platforms if their perceived value is high. Our conclusion supports this
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1903

argument, i.e., perceived value directly affects individuals’ adoption intention of internet
wealth management platforms.
Moreover, the empirical result shows that performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
and perceived risk directly affect perceived value. Individuals’ performance expectancy
positively affects perceived value, which means the utilities of adopting FinTech platforms
could influence individuals’ assessment of the platform’s value. The more usefulness and
efficiency the internet wealth management platform provides, the higher the perceived
value. At the same time, effort expectancy showed a positive effect on perceived value in
this research. Thus, individuals’ perceived value of the FinTech platform is influence by
the extent of ease of use.
Perceived risk reflects the uncertainty of financial services consumption on internet
wealth management platforms and individuals’ perceived risk is negatively related to
perceived value. The result also proved that the partitioning of perceived value’s antecedent
as “received” and “given” components related to the performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, and perceived risk is reasonable.
More importantly, perceived risk affects individuals’ perceived value and is the most
significant inhibitor of individuals’ adoption intention in the FinTech setting. Previous
research has also confirmed the correlation between perceived risk and adoption intention
in e-commerce and online banking areas [9,33,39,65]. However, mixed findings exist about
the impact of perceived risk on individuals’ adoption in mobile payment areas [23,40]. The
current study shows that the perceived risk is the core inhibitor for individuals’ internet
wealth management platforms adoption. The FinTech consumption complexity and the
separation of time and space increase individuals’ perception of risk, thereby decreasing
adoption intention.
In line with the UTAUT, social influence positively influences adoption intention
in the internet wealth management context [7,50]. Although there is evidence from pre-
vious research that supports these results for some specific FinTech services [10,17,25],
some studies did not show similar results [8,13]. Besides this, facilitating conditions are
insignificant factors for adoption intention in the FinTech context. Venkatesh, Morris, Davis
and Davis [50] argued that the correlation relationship between facilitating condition and
adoption intention would disappear when including the effort expectancy in the whole
model. The insignificant correlation between facilitating condition and adoption intention
has also been found in mobile consumption and internet banking contexts [13,25,39].

6. Contributions and Limitations

6.1. Theoretical Contributions
Based on the UTAUT, this study proposes a comprehensive model that predicts
individuals’ FinTech adoption intention focus, especially on internet wealth management
platforms, by integrating financial services consumption attributes (perceived value and
perceived risk). It is worth noting that the added constructs, namely perceived value
and perceived risk, are compatible with the UTAUT. Although these two factors have
been studied separately in previous research, they were simultaneously verified in the
FinTech context, especially on internet wealth management platforms. The proposed model
provides a comprehensive perspective to understand FinTech adoption and extends the
UTAUT to the FinTech area. The proposed model is useful for understanding FinTech
adoption behavior as it explores individuals’ FinTech adoption from the financial services
consumption and technology usage perceptions. In addition, the interactions between the
UTAUT constructs and the added constructs were verified in the FinTech context. More
specifically, the proposed model has three major theoretical contributions.
First, this study offers a comprehensive perspective to understand FinTech adoption,
especially focusing on internet wealth management platforms by integrating perceived
value and perceived risk with the core construct of UTAUT. Many e-commerce studies
suggest that perceived risk is an inhibitor that hinders the individuals’ online adoption
intention [18,69,82]. In prior technology adoption models, the drivers were studied while
 J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1904

the obstacles were ignored, generally. The antecedents that affect individuals’ adoption
behavior are not only facilitating factors but also hindering factors, which are particularly
crucial in the FinTech environment. Individuals focus on the FinTech platform’s risk
because it is not about the system stability but about their wealth. Risk can lead to loss,
which could stifle broader adoption. Although there are mixed findings of the perceived
risk on individuals’ FinTech adoption [9,16,33], the result verified that perceived risk
discourages individuals’ perceived value and their adoption intention on internet wealth
management platforms. Therefore, considering the perceived value and perceived risk
could improve the explanation of the proposed model in our context.
Second, this study extends the UTAUT by putting forward that performance ex-
pectancy and effort expectancy affect individuals’ adoption intention indirectly through
perceived value. In this study, the definition of perceived value emphasizes the overall
appraisal of the utility of FinTech platforms based on individuals’ perception of what they
received and the cost. Performance expectancy and effort expectancy are separately related
to what is received and the cost. However, prior research ignored the correlation between
perceived value and the original variables when they extended the UTAUT with perceived
value. One study examined the correlation between perceived value and the original
variables of the UTAUT [13]. The authors confirmed the correlation between performance
expectancy and perceived value in the mobile commerce context. The correlation between
effort expectancy and perceived value was ignored. By clarifying the relationship among
perceived value, performance expectancy, and effort expectancy, the UTAUT is further
deepened in the FinTech context.
Third, the proposed FinTech adoption model is more effective in the internet wealth
management context than the baseline model of the UTAUT, which is widely used to
explore the adoption of new technologies. To make the comparison, we extracted measure-
ment items, i.e., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and adoption
intention, to build the baseline of the UTAUT and executed verification. Facilitating con-
ditions were removed due to them directly affecting individuals’ adoption behavior, not
their intention in the UTAUT. The results are presented in Figure 3. The core relationship of
JTAER 2021, 16, FOR PEER REVIEWUTAUT explains 28.3% of the variance in individuals’ FinTech adoption intention, while the
proposed FinTech adoption model could explain 65.0% of the variance. The high variance
shows the effectiveness of the FinTech adoption model.

Perceived
Expectancy 0.1
7 3n
.s. R2=0.283

Effort 0.132 n.s.

Adoption
Expectancy ** Intention
12
0 .3

Social
Influence

Figure
Figure 3. results
3. The The results of the
of the UTAUT UTAUT
baseline baseline
model. Note: ** p model.
< 0.01; n.s.:Note: ** p < 0.01;
no significance. n.s.: no sig
In conclusion, the proposed model integrating perceived risk and perceived value
with theIn
coreconclusion, the
constructs of the proposed
UTAUT is feasiblemodel integrating
theoretically. perceived
Besides, its validity risk and
has also
been proved since it has high explanatory power.
with the core constructs of the UTAUT is feasible theoretically. Beside
also
6.2. been proved
Implications for Practicesince it has high explanatory power.
This study has several practical implications for wealth management platforms offered
by6.2.
FinTech companies. for
Implications Firstly, this study shows that perceived risk profoundly influences
Practice
individuals’ FinTech adoption in wealth management platforms. The risk remains individ-
This study has several practical implications for wealth managem
fered by FinTech companies. Firstly, this study shows that perceived ri
fluences individuals’ FinTech adoption in wealth management platfo
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1905

uals’ concern when using FinTech platforms to manage their wealth. Therefore, FinTech
companies should develop a restricted risk management policy. More specifically, FinTech
companies should focus on transaction security when launching similar services or prod-
ucts. For example, FinTech companies should emphasize the effort they make to limit the
risk of FinTech services on the homepage of the platform. Besides this, FinTech companies
could offer insurance when launching financial-related services on FinTech platforms. In
addition, FinTech companies could use advanced encryption technologies, such as facial
recognition, to enhance the security and stability of the FinTech services they offered.
Another important finding is that performance expectancy and effort expectancy affect
individuals’ perceived value. The result has implications for the design of user interfaces
and sales promotion. FinTech companies can enhance individuals’ perceived value of
internet wealth management platforms by improving the ease of use and usefulness of their
platforms. On the one hand, FinTech companies should simplify the interface and operation
process as much as possible during the whole user process (e.g., installation, registration,
transaction). For instance, FinTech companies could use fingerprint or facial recognition to
log in to FinTech apps. Meanwhile, FinTech companies could integrate related financial
services, such as online payments, money transfer, into the internet wealth management
platform. In this way, individuals will improve their performance expectancy and enhance
their perceived value when employing internet wealth management platforms.
Based on the results, social influence significantly affects individuals’ adoption inten-
tion. This finding has implications for the marketing strategy of FinTech companies. For
instance, the companies could cooperate with social media to help individuals forward the
FinTech services to their friends or families and allow the interface to display the number
of friends using the platform. FinTech companies can adopt similar strategies to attract
new users to the sales process.
In a word, the findings offer important implications for both incumbents and new
entrants to improve their competitiveness and develop their related policy when they
launch FinTech services.

6.3. Limitations
Although the proposed model has high explanatory power, there are still some lim-
itations. First, this study has shown that the perceived risk is the primary barrier that
would hinder the adoption of FinTech platforms. However, this study only theorizes
about the impact of perceived risk from a holistic view. Future research could analyze the
relationship between perceived risk and adoption intention by assuming the perceived
risk is a second-order factor composed of specific facets. Second, the data were collected
from China, limiting the generalization of the findings to other countries. Furthermore,
cross-cultural comparisons of models between different countries would be significant.
Third, this study focuses more on the general exploration of FinTech adoption, not the
individual characteristics that are shown as moderators in the UTAUT. Future research
could include the four moderators to explore the moderation effect of individual charac-
teristics on the proposed model. Finally, although the total effective sample size meets
the minimum sample size suggested by Hair et al. [74], it is still recommended that future
studies collect more data to further improve the reliability of the FinTech adoption model.
Despite the limitations, the proposed FinTech adoption model can help researchers
and FinTech practitioners to understand individuals’ FinTech adoption, especially on
internet wealth management platforms.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.X. and W.H.; Data curation, J.X. and M.Y.; Formal
analysis, J.X. and M.Y.; Funding acquisition, L.Y. and W.H.; Methodology, J.X., L.Y., and W.H.;
Resources, M.Y.; Software, J.X.; Supervision, W.H.; Validation, L.Y.; Writing—original draft, J.X. and
M.Y.; Writing—review and editing, L.Y. and W.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1906

Funding: This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), grant
number 71731009, 72061127002, 2018WZDXM020, 71732006, 71433001, 71722014, 91546119. It was
partially funded by Shenzhen Research Base in Arts & Social Sciences as well as by the National
Laboratory of Mechanical Manufacture System at Xi’an Jiaotong University.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; in
the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Measurement items and sources.

Construct Measurement Items Source

PE1: I find the FinTech wealth management
platform useful in my daily life.
PE2: Using the FinTech wealth management
platform increases my chances of capital
appreciation. (dropped)
Performance Expectancy PE3: Using the FinTech wealth management Adapted from [7,50]
platform improved the utilization rate of my idle
funds.
PE4: Using FinTech wealth management
platform increases my efficiency of finance
management
EE1: It would be easy for me to become skillful at
using the FinTech wealth management platform.
Effort Expectancy EE2: I would find the platform easy to use. Adapted from [7,50]
EE3: Learning to operate the platform is easy for
me.
PV1: Compared to the effort I need to put in, the
use of the FinTech wealth management platform
is beneficial to me.
PV2: Compared to the time I need to spend, the
use of the FinTech wealth management platform
Perceived Value Adapted from [28,29]
is worthwhile to me.
PV3: Use of the FinTech wealth management
platform reducing financial management costs.
PV4: Overall, the use of the FinTech wealth
management platform delivers me good value.
SI1: People who are important to me think that I
should use the FinTech wealth management
platform.
SI2: People who influence my behavior think
Social Influence that I should use the FinTech wealth Adapted from [7,50]
management platform.
SI3: People whose opinions that I value prefer
that I use the FinTech wealth management
platform. (dropped)
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1907

Table A1. Cont.

Construct Measurement Items Source

PR1: How would you characterize the decision
to transact with the FinTech wealth management
platform? (Significant risk/insignificant risk)
PR2: How would you characterize the decision
to transact with the FinTech wealth management
platform? (Very negative/Very positive situation)
Perceived Risk PR3: How would you characterize the decision Adapted from [67,72]
to buy a financial product from the FinTech
wealth management platform? (High potential
for loss/High potential for gain)
PR4: How would you rate your overall
perception of risk from the FinTech wealth
management platform?
FC1: I have the resources necessary to use the
FinTech wealth management platform, such as
smartphones, relative applications, and so on.
FC2: I know (financial, internet usage) necessary
Facilitating Conditions Adapted from [7,50]
to use the FinTech wealth management platform.
FC3: I can get help from others when I have
difficulties using the FinTech wealth
management platform.
AIN1: I intend to continue using the FinTech
wealth management platform in the next few
months.
Adoption
AIN2: I will always try to use the FinTech wealth Adapted from [7,50]
Intention
management platform in my daily life.
AIN3: I plan to continue to use the FinTech
wealth management platform frequently.
ABE: Please indicate your usage frequency for
Adoption Behavior (for robutness test) FinTech wealth management platforms (“never” Adapted from [7]
to “many times per day”)

Appendix B
We used SPSS 26.0 to perform the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Table A2 shows
the item loading. Most reflective indicators in the rotated component matrix were above
0.6, indicating the construct validity, except the second item of performance expectancy
(PE2) and the third item of social influence (SI3). Therefore, PE2 and SI3 were excluded in
further analysis. Table A3 has shown the total variance explained, which indicates that the
common method biases were not a major threat to the results.

Table A2. Rotated component matrix from SPSS.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PE1 0.775 0.179 0.219 0.023 −0.109 0.127 0.157
Performance
PE2 0.547 0.181 0.288 0.068 −0.031 0.280 0.186
Expectancy
PE3 0.659 0.263 0.155 0.117 −0.046 0.279 0.110
(PE)
PE4 0.815 0.102 0.136 0.109 −0.096 0.167 −0.015
Effort EE1 0.337 0.709 0.050 0.137 −0.059 0.223 −0.001
Expectancy EE2 0.193 0.768 0.162 0.028 −0.026 0.184 0.114
(EE) EE3 0.095 0.773 0.129 0.050 −0.061 0.334 0.088
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1908

Table A2. Cont.

Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Social SI1 0.245 0.107 0.840 0.076 −0.063 0.211 0.089
Influence SI2 0.230 0.091 0.804 0.169 −0.025 0.223 0.188
(SI) SI3 0.273 0.306 0.574 0.147 −0.081 0.272 0.142
Facilitating FC1 0.100 0.062 0.075 0.802 −0.163 0.116 0.026
Condition FC2 0.055 0.129 0.062 0.845 0.022 −0.017 0.082
(FC) FC3 0.067 −0.022 0.111 0.827 0.076 −0.009 0.003
PR1 −0.067 −0.062 −0.048 0.025 0.808 −0.092 −0.229
Perceived
PR2 −0.085 −0.056 −0.058 0.036 0.819 −0.081 −0.196
Risk
PR3 −0.043 −0.026 −0.085 −0.086 0.877 −0.081 −0.120
(PR)
PR4 −0.057 −0.013 0.053 −0.031 0.842 −0.089 −0.143
PV1 0.225 0.247 0.184 −0.005 −0.104 0.739 0.218
Perceived
PV2 0.142 0.199 0.174 0.094 −0.093 0.793 0.121
Value
PV3 0.178 0.299 0.260 −0.040 −0.100 0.732 0.147
(PV)
PV4 0.319 0.172 0.124 0.051 −0.180 0.731 0.130
Adoption AIN1 0.194 0.201 0.139 0.046 −0.308 0.148 0.767
Inten- AIN2 0.130 0.042 0.131 0.022 −0.387 0.326 0.687
tion(AIN) AIN3 0.059 0.024 0.173 0.097 −0.378 0.175 0.764

Table A3. Total variance explained.

Extraction Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Loadings
% of % of
Total Total % of Variance Total Cumulative%
Variance Variance
1 7.570 34.411 7.570 34.411 3.299 14.995 14.995
2 3.019 13.723 3.019 13.723 2.992 13.600 28.595
3 2.030 9.229 2.030 9.229 2.212 10.056 38.651
4 1.221 5.552 1.221 5.552 2.191 9.959 48.610
5 1.140 5.182 1.140 5.182 2.176 9.892 58.502
6 0.841 3.821 0.841 3.821 2.049 9.315 67.818
7 0.774 3.518 0.774 3.518 1.676 7.617 75.435
8 0.600 2.729
9 0.549 2.497
10 0.505 2.293
11 0.439 1.997
12 0.425 1.930
13 0.387 1.757
14 0.353 1.606
15 0.340 1.545
16 0.315 1.430
17 0.311 1.415
18 0.282 1.280
19 0.264 1.202
20 0.242 1.101
21 0.219 0.995
22 0.173 0.787

Appendix C
To verify the robustness of our proposed model, we replaced “FinTech platform
adoption intention” with self-reported “FinTech platform adoption behavior” and put
forward an alternative model. We removed the facilitating conditions because our empirical
result has shown that facilitating conditions do not affect the intention. The results of the
alternative model show that SI and PV are positively related to individuals’ FinTech
platform adoption behavior, while PR is negatively related to their adoption behavior. The
 Appendix C
To verify the robustness of our proposed model, we replaced “FinTech platform
adoption intention” with self-reported “FinTech platform adoption behavior” and put for-
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021,
ward 16 an alternative model. We removed the facilitating conditions because our empirical 1909
result has shown that facilitating conditions do not affect the intention. The results of the
alternative model show that SI and PV are positively related to individuals’ FinTech plat-
form adoption
relationships behavior,
between while
PE, EE, PR,PR
andisPV
negatively related
are similar to thetoproposed
their adoption
model. behavior. The
Although the
relationships between PE, EE, PR, and PV are similar to the proposed model. Although
path coefficient has some changes, the significance of the relationships is consistent. Thus,
itthe path coefficient
confirms has some
the robustness changes,
of our proposedthemodel.
significance of the relationships is consistent.
Thus, it confirms the robustness of our proposed model.

Social
Influence
0.328
***

R2=0.649
Performance 0.322**
Perceived 0.336*** Adoption
Expectancy Behavior
* Value
0 5**
0. 5
**

4*
Effort 33*
.14 -0.2
-0
Expectancy

Perceived
Risk

FigureA1.
Figure A1.The
Theresults
resultsof
ofthe
thealternative
alternativemodel.
model.Note:
Note:***
***pp<< 0.001;
0.001; **
* pp<<0.05.
0.01; * p < 0.05.

References
References
1. Jiang, Y.; Ho, Y.-C.; Yan, X.; Tan, Y. Investor platform choice: Herding, platform attributes, and regulations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
1. Jiang,
2018, Y.;
35,Ho, Y.-C.;
86–116, Yan, X.; Tan, Y. Investor platform choice: Herding, platform attributes, and regulations. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1440770.
2. 2018, 35, 86–116. [CrossRef]
Ernst & Young. Global FinTech Adoption Index 2019. Available online: https://go.ey.com/2CKL3vJ (accessed on 3 June 2019).
2.3. Ernst
Gomber,& Young. Global FinTech
P.; Kauffman, Adoption
R.J.; Parker, IndexB.W.
C.; Weber, 2019.OnAvailable online:
the Fintech https://go.ey.com/2CKL3vJ
revolution: Interpreting the forces(accessed on 3 June
of innovation, 2019).
disruption,
3. Gomber, P.; Kauffman,
and transformation in R.J.; Parker,
financial C.; Weber,
services. B.W. On
J. Manag. Inf. the Fintech
Syst. revolution:
2018, 35, 220–265, Interpreting the forces of innovation, disruption,
doi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1440766.
4. and transformation
Gomber, P.; Kauffman,in financial services.
R.J.; Parker, J. Manag.
C.; Weber, Inf.Special
B.W. Syst. 2018, 35,Financial
issue: 220–265. information
[CrossRef] systems and the fintech revolution. J.
4. Gomber,
Manag. Inf. P.; Kauffman,
Syst. 2018, 35, R.J.;12–18,
Parker, C.; Weber, B.W. Special issue: Financial information systems and the fintech revolution. J.
doi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1440778.
5. Manag.
Gozman, Inf.D.;
Syst. 2018, 35,
Liebenau, J.;12–18.
Mangan, [CrossRef]
J. The innovation mechanisms of Fintech start-ups: Insights from SWIFT’s innotribe compe-
5. Gozman, D.; Liebenau,
tition. J. Manag. Inf. Syst.J.; Mangan,
2018, J. Thedoi:10.1080/07421222.2018.1440768.
35, 145–179, innovation mechanisms of Fintech start-ups: Insights from SWIFT’s innotribe
6. competition. J. Manag. Inf.C.;
Werth, O.; Schwarzbach, Syst. 2018, 35,D.;
Cardona, 145–179. [CrossRef]
Breitner, M.; Schulenburg, J.-M. Influencing factors for the digital transformation in
6. Werth, O.; Schwarzbach, C.; Cardona, D.; Breitner,
the financial services sector. Z. Gesamte Versicher. 2020, M.; Schulenburg, J.-M. Influencing factors for the digital transformation in the
109, 1–25, doi:10.1007/s12297-020-00486-6.
7. financial services sector. Z. Gesamte Versicher. 2020, 109, 1–25. [CrossRef]
Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
7. Venkatesh,
acceptanceV.; andThong,
use ofJ.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer
technology. MIS Q. 2012, acceptance
36, 157–178,anddoi:10.2307/41410412.
use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
8. acceptance
Baptista, G.; and use of technology.
Oliveira, T. Understanding MIS Q.mobile
2012, 36, 157–178.
banking: The[CrossRef]
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with
8. Baptista,
cultural G.; Oliveira, T.
moderators. Understanding
Comput. Hum. Behav. mobile
2015,banking: The unified
50, 418–430, theory of acceptance and use of technology combined with
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.024.
9. cultural
Sharma,moderators.
R.; Singh, G.; Comput.
Sharma, Hum. Behav. 2015,internet
S. Modelling 50, 418–430. [CrossRef]
banking adoption in Fiji: A developing country perspective. Int. J. Inf.
9. Sharma,
Manag. 2020,R.; Singh, G.; Sharma,
53, 102–116, S. Modelling internet banking adoption in Fiji: A developing country perspective. Int. J. Inf.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102116.
10. Manag. Q.M.;53,
Maciel,2020, 102–116.
Samuel, F.W. [CrossRef]
Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in
10. Maciel,
India and Q.M.;theSamuel,
USA. Int. F.W. Blockchain
J. Inf. Manag. 2019, adoption challenges
46, 70–82, in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.021.
11. India and the USA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 46, 70–82. [CrossRef]
Jansen, J.; van Schaik, P. Testing a model of precautionary online behaviour: The case of online banking. Comput. Hum. Behav.
11. Jansen,
2018, 87, J.; 371–383,
van Schaik, P. Testing a model of precautionary online behaviour: The case of online banking. Comput. Hum. Behav.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.010.
12. 2018, 87,Xue,
Jia, L.; 371–383.
G.; Fu, [CrossRef]
Y.; Xu, L. Factors affecting consumers’ acceptance of e-commerce consumer credit service. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
12. Jia, L.; 40,
2018, Xue, Y.; Xu, L. Factors affecting consumers’ acceptance of e-commerce consumer credit service. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
G.; Fu, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.02.002.
103–110,
13. 2018,
Shaw, 40,N.;
103–110. [CrossRef]
Sergueeva, K. The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. Int. J. Inf.
13. Shaw,
Manag. N.;2019,
Sergueeva,
45, 44–55, The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. Int. J. Inf.
K. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.024.
14. Manag.
Baptista, G.; 45,
2019, 44–55.T.[CrossRef]
Oliveira, Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of mobile banking services. Internet Res. 2017,
14. Baptista,
27, 118–139,G.; Oliveira, T. Why so serious? Gamification impact in the acceptance of mobile banking services. Internet Res. 2017, 27,
doi:10.1108/IntR-10-2015-0295.
15. 118–139.
Stewart, [CrossRef]
H.; Juerjens, J. Data security and consumer trust in FinTech innovation in Germany. Inf. Comput. Secur. 2018, 26, 109–
15. Stewart, H.; Juerjens, J. Data security and consumer trust in FinTech innovation in Germany. Inf. Comput. Secur. 2018, 26, 109–128.
128, doi:10.1108/ics-06-2017-0039.
16. [CrossRef]
Zhou, W.; Tsiga, Z.; Li, B.; Zheng, S.; Jiang, S. What influence users’ e-finance continuance intention? The moderating role of
16. Zhou,
trust. W.;
Ind.Tsiga,
Manag. Z.;Data
Li, B.; Zheng,
Syst. 2018,S.;118,
Jiang, S. What influence
1647–1670, users’ e-finance continuance intention? The moderating role of trust.
doi:10.1108/imds-12-2017-0602.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2018, 118, 1647–1670. [CrossRef]
17. Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, M. Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the actual usage of mobile banking services: An
empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 65–75. [CrossRef]
18. De Luna, I.R.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.; Sánchez-Fernández, J.; Muñoz-Leiva, F. Mobile payment is not all the same: The adoption
of mobile payment systems depending on the technology applied. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 146, 931–944. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, X.; Hu, X.; Ben, S. How individual investors react to negative events in the FinTech era? Evidence from China’s Peer-to-Peer
lending. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 52–70. [CrossRef]
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1910

20. Jünger, M.; Mietzner, M. Banking goes digital: The adoption of FinTech services by German households. Financ. Res. Lett. 2020,
34, 101260. [CrossRef]
21. Pal Kapoor, A.; Vij, M. How to boost your App store rating? An empirical assessment of ratings for mobile banking Apps. J.
Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 15, 99–115. [CrossRef]
22. Okoli, T.; Tewari, D. An empirical assessment of probability rates for financial technology adoption among African economies: A
multiple logistic regression approach. Asian Econ. Financ. Rev. 2020, 10, 1342–1355. [CrossRef]
23. Al Nawayseh, M.K. FinTech in COVID-19 and beyond: What factors are affecting customers’ choice of FinTech applications? J.
Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 153. [CrossRef]
24. Kam, B.H.; Riquelme, H. An exploratory study of length and frequency of internet banking usage. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer.
Res. 2007, 2, 76–85. [CrossRef]
25. Wei, M.-F.; Luh, Y.-H.; Huang, Y.-H.; Chang, Y.-C. Young generation’s mobile payment adoption behavior: Analysis based on an
extended UTAUT model. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 37. [CrossRef]
26. Yeh, H. Factors in the ecosystem of mobile payment affecting its use: From the customers’ perspective in Taiwan. J. Theor. Appl.
Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 15, 13–29. [CrossRef]
27. Fernando, E. Analysis of the influence of consumer behavior using FinTech services with SEM and TOPSIS. In Proceedings of the
2019 International Conference on Information Management and Technology (ICIMTech), Jakarta/Bali, Indonesia, 19–20 August
2019; pp. 93–97.
28. Kim, H.-W.; Chan, H.C.; Gupta, S. Value-based adoption of mobile internet: An empirical investigation. Decis. Support Syst. 2007,
43, 111–126. [CrossRef]
29. Sirdeshmukh, D.; Singh, J.; Sabol, B. Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 15–37.
[CrossRef]
30. Thaler, R. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Mark. Sci. 1985, 4, 199–214. [CrossRef]
31. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988,
52, 2–22. [CrossRef]
32. Gordon, R.; Dibb, S.; Magee, C.; Cooper, P.; Waitt, G. Empirically testing the concept of value-in-behavior and its relevance for
social marketing. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 82, 56–67. [CrossRef]
33. Chopdar, P.K.; Korfiatis, N.; Sivakumar, V.J.; Lytras, M.D. Mobile shopping apps adoption and perceived risks: A cross-country
perspective utilizing the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 86, 109–128. [CrossRef]
34. 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]
35. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–292. [CrossRef]
36. Thakur, R.; Srivastava, M. Adoption readiness, personal innovativeness, perceived risk and usage intention across customer
groups for mobile payment services in India. Internet Res. 2014, 24, 369–392. [CrossRef]
37. Antony, S.; Lin, Z.; Xu, B. Determinants of escrow service adoption in consumer-to-consumer online auction market: An
experimental study. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1889–1900. [CrossRef]
38. Lee, M.-C. Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and
perceived benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2009, 8, 130–141. [CrossRef]
39. Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.; Algharabat, R. Examining factors influencing Jordanian customers’ intentions and
adoption of internet banking: Extending UTAUT2 with risk. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 40, 125–138. [CrossRef]
40. Liu, Y.; Wang, M.; Huang, D.; Huang, Q.; Yang, H.; Li, Z. The impact of mobility, risk, and cost on the users’ intention to adopt
mobile payments. Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 2019, 17, 319–342. [CrossRef]
41. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA,
USA, 1975.
42. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340.
[CrossRef]
43. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
44. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [CrossRef]
45. Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1. J. Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [CrossRef]
46. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
47. Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 561–570. [CrossRef]
48. Thompson, R.L.; Higgins, C.A.; Howell, J.M. Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Q. 1991, 15,
125–143. [CrossRef]
49. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986.
50. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q.
2003, 27, 425–478. [CrossRef]
51. Oliveira, T.; Thomas, M.; Baptista, G.; Campos, F. Mobile payment: Understanding the determinants of customer adoption and
intention to recommend the technology. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 61, 404–414. [CrossRef]
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16 1911

52. Im, I.; Hong, S.; Kang, M.S. An international comparison of technology adoption. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 1–8. [CrossRef]
53. Yang, Q.; Pang, C.; Liu, L.; Yen, D.C.; Michael Tarn, J. Exploring consumer perceived risk and trust for online payments: An
empirical study in China’s younger generation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2015, 50, 9–24. [CrossRef]
54. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc.
Inf. Syst. 2016, 17, 328–376. [CrossRef]
55. Yang, S.; Lu, Y.; Gupta, S.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, R. Mobile payment services adoption across time: An empirical study of the effects of
behavioral beliefs, social influences, and personal traits. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 129–142. [CrossRef]
56. Chiu, Y.-T.H.; Lee, W.-I.; Liu, C.-C.; Liu, L.-Y. Internet lottery commerce: An integrated view of online sport lottery adoption. J.
Internet Commer. 2012, 11, 68–80. [CrossRef]
57. Hamari, J.; Koivisto, J. “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 2015, 50, 333–347. [CrossRef]
58. Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Williams, M.D.; Weerakkody, V. Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: Toward
developing a unified view. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 59, 265–282. [CrossRef]
59. Oliveira, T.; Faria, M.; Thomas, M.A.; Popovič, A. Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT
meets TTF and ITM. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 689–703. [CrossRef]
60. Beach, L.R.; Mitchell, T.R. A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1978, 3, 439–449.
[CrossRef]
61. Payne, J.W. Contingent decision behavior. Psychol. Bull. 1982, 92, 382–402. [CrossRef]
62. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail. 2001, 77, 203–220.
[CrossRef]
63. Johnson, E.; Payne, J. Effort and accuracy in choice. Manag. Sci. 1985, 31, 395–414. [CrossRef]
64. Turel, O.; Serenko, A.; Bontis, N. User acceptance of wireless short messaging services: Deconstructing perceived value. Inf.
Manag. 2007, 44, 63–73. [CrossRef]
65. Chiu, C.-M.; Wang, E.T.G.; Fang, Y.-H.; Huang, H.-Y. Understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce:
The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and perceived risk. Inf. Syst. J. 2014, 24, 85–114. [CrossRef]
66. Roy, A. Strategic social marketing. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2016, 28, 73–74. [CrossRef]
67. Kim, D.J.; Ferrin, D.L.; Rao, H.R. A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust,
perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decis. Support Syst. 2008, 44, 544–564. [CrossRef]
68. Peter, J.P.; Ryan, M.J. An investigation of perceived risk at the brand level. J. Mark. Res. 1976, 13, 184–188. [CrossRef]
69. Chong, A.Y.L. A two-staged SEM-neural network approach for understanding and predicting the determinants of m-commerce
adoption. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 1240–1247. [CrossRef]
70. Slade, E.L.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Piercy, N.C.; Williams, M.D. Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in
the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychol. Mark. 2015, 32, 860–873. [CrossRef]
71. CNNIC. Statistical Report on Internet Development in China; China Internet Network Information Center: Beijing, China, 2019.
72. Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int.
J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134. [CrossRef]
73. Brislin, R.W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 1970, 1, 185–216. [CrossRef]
74. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2010.
75. Gefen, D.; Rigdon, E.E.; Straub, D. Editor’s Comments: An Update and Extension to SEM Guidelines for Administrative and
Social Science Research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, iii–xiv. [CrossRef]
76. MacKenzie, S.; Podsakoff, P.; Podsakoff, N. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research:
Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 293–334. [CrossRef]
77. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88,
588–606. [CrossRef]
78. Salisbury, W.D.; Chin, W.W.; Gopal, A.; Newsted, P.R. Research report: Better theory through measurement—Developing a scale
to capture consensus on appropriation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2002, 13, 91–103. [CrossRef]
79. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D. Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [CrossRef]
81. Yazdanmehr, A.; Wang, J.; Yang, Z. Peers matter: The moderating role of social influence on information security policy
compliance. Inf. Syst. J. 2020, 30, 791–944. [CrossRef]
82. Shah, M.H.; Peikari, H.R.; Yasin, N.M. The determinants of individuals’ perceived e-security: Evidence from Malaysia. Int. J. Inf.
Manag. 2014, 34, 48–57. [CrossRef]