The Influence of Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Continuity of Use of Fintech Services

Mascarenhas, Artur Barretti; Perpétuo, Cristiane Koda; Barrote, Erika Borgonovo; Perides, Maria Paula

doi:10.15728/bbr.2021.18.1.1

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

BBR. Brazilian Business Review

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • BBR, Braz. Bus. Rev. 18 (1) • Jan-Feb 2021 • https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2021.18.1.1 copy

The Influence of Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Continuity of Use of Fintech Services

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

New technologies have been driving the global financial market, including fintech companies, which provide disruptive financial services in which information technology is the key factor. The objective of this study is to identify which factors most influence intentions to continue using these companies’ products. To achieve this, research by Ryu (2018) was replicated. Our adopted model evaluates the weight of seven factors composing two latent variables - perceived risk and perceived benefit - in the continuity of use of these services. The data collection was performed through an electronic survey, distributed through social networks during May and June of 2019. The main results confirmed seven of the eleven initial hypotheses, highlighting that the perceived benefits, especially the economic ones, were relevant to early adopters and seamless transactions were relevant for late adopters. Surprisingly, perceived risk was not a determinant of continuance intention. One of the contributions of this study is that it indicates some possible demographic and behavioral characteristics of Brazilian fintech consumers, opening up space for a better understanding of the market and service improvements.

Keywords:
Fintech; continuance intention; perceived risk; perceived benefit

Research context	Benefits	Risks	Authors
E-commerce	Ease of credit Integration between different businesses	Lack of awareness of all the applications	Shawaqfeh (2018Shawaqfeh, G. N. (2018). The Impact of E-Commerce on the Quality of Credit Facilities and Banking Services (Applied Study on Commercial Banks in Jordan). Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal.)
Internet Banking	Diversification of services Greater security Quality of transactions Financial benefit Speed of transactions Information Transparency	Psychological barriers Equipment costs Security/privacy Financial Social Convenience Performance	*Martins et al. (2014Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovič, A. (2014). Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1-13.), Lee (2009Lee, I., & Shin, Y. J. (2018). Fintech: Ecosystem, business models, investment decisions, and challenges.Business Horizons,61(1), 35-46.), Rahi et al. (2019Rahi, S., Mansour, M. M. O., Alghizzawi, M., & Alnaser, F. M. (2019). Integration of UTAUT model in internet banking adoption context. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 13(3), 411-435.), Shawaqfeh (2018*Shawaqfeh, G. N. (2018). The Impact of E-Commerce on the Quality of Credit Facilities and Banking Services (Applied Study on Commercial Banks in Jordan). Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal.)
Cloud Computing	Compatibility Organizational competency readiness Managerial support Ease of use Competitiveness Training and education	Complexity Security	*Gangwar et al. (2015*Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(1), 107-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-08-2013-0065. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-08-2013-006... )
Mobile Payment	Compatibility of services Relative advantage Social influence	Perceived cost Security Social influence	*Lin et al. (2020*Lin, K. Y., Wang, Y. T., & Huang, T. K. (2020). Exploring the antecedents of mobile payment service usage: Perspectives based on cost-benefit theory, perceived value, and social influences. Online Information Review, 44(1), 299-318. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-05-2018-0175. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-05-2018-0175... )

Category		Freq.	Percent.	Category		Freq.	Percent.
Sex	Male	75	48,4%	Customer of traditional banks	Yes	145	93,5%
	Female	79	51,0%		No	10	6,5%
	I prefer not to say	1	0,6%		Total	155	100%
	Total	155	100%
				Income range	Up to R$ 1,700	14	9,0%
Type of user	Early adopters	113	72,9%		From R$ 1,701 and R$ 2,600	14	9,0%
	Late adopters	40	25,8%		From R$ 2,601 and R$ 3,500	17	11,0%
	Did not answer	2	1,3%		From R$ 3,501 and R$ 4,400	14	9,0%
	Total	155	100%		From R$ 4,401 and R$ 6,200	19	12,3%
					From R$ 6,201 and R$ 9,800	24	15,5%
Age group	16 to 25 years old	35	22,6%		More than R$ 9,801	49	31,6%
	26 to 35 years old	60	38,7%		Did not say	4	2,6%
	36 to 45 years old	43	27,7%		Total	155	100%
	46 to 55 years old	9	5,8%
	56 to 65 years old	3	1,9%	Time of use	Less than 3 months	6	3,9%
	More than 65 years old	2	1,3%		Less than 6 months	12	7,7%
	Did not say	3	1,9%		Less than 12 months	17	11,0%
	Total	155	100%		Less than 18 months	28	18,1%
					Less than 24 months	26	16,8%
Educational level	Elementary	1	0,6%		More than 24 months	64	41,3%
	High school	0	0%		Did not say	2	1,3%
	Incomplete college	21	13,5%		Total	155	100%
	Complete college	44	28,4%
	Post-graduation	87	56,1%	Frequency of use	More than once a day	29	18,7%
	Did not say	2	1,3%		Once a day	25	16,1%
	Total	155	100%		Two to four times a week	42	27,1%
					Once a week	12	7,7%
Region of residence	North	1	0,6%		Two to four times a month	15	9,7%
	Northeast	4	2,6%		Once a month	19	12,3%
	Central-West	8	5,2%		Less than once a month	11	7,1%
	Southeast	120	77,4%		Did not say	2	1,3%
	South	21	13,5%		Total	155	100%
	Did not say	1	0,6%
	Total	155	100%

Category		Percent.	Category		Percent.
Continuance Intention	Income Range	97,4%	Percevied Risk	Region	100,0%
	Region	85,8%		Time of Use	98,7%
	Time of Use	84,5%		Age	76,2%
Perceived Benefit	Age	98,1%	Financial Risk	Age	98,1%
	Income Range	72,3%		Educational Level	89,0%
	Time of Use	66,5%		Time of Use	85,2%
Economic Benefit	Region	100,0%	Security Risk	Time of Use	98,7%
	Sex	92,3%		Age	98,1%
	Income Range	73,6%		Income Range	60,0%
Seamless Transactions	Region	100,0%	Legal Risk	Traditional Bank Use	98,7%
	Traditional Bank Use	80,0%		Region	93,6%
	Sex	74,8%		Educational Level	78,7%
Convenience	Time of Use	98,7%	Operational Risk	Region	100,0%
	Age	75,5%		Traditional Bank Use	85,2%
	Income Range	14,8%		Time of Use	80,7%

Cluster 1				Cluster 2			Cluster 3
Income Range	More than R$ 9,801	4,1%	Income Range	R$ 2,601 to R$ 3,500	9,5%	Income Range	More than R$ 9,801	27,0%
Age Group	26 to 35 years old	4,1%	Age Group	16 to 25 years old	20,3%	Age Group	36 to 45 years old	23,0%
Region of Residence	Central-West	5,4%	Region of Residence	Southeast	32,4%	Region of Residence	Southeast	46,0%
Time of Use	More than 24 months	2,7%	Time of Use	More than 24 months	16,2%	Time of Use	More than 24 months	23,7%
Sex	Female	4,7%	Sex	Female	21,0%	Sex	Male	27,7%
Educational Level	Post-graduation	6,8%	Educational Level	Complete college	16,2%	Educational Level	Post-graduation	40,5%

Constructs	Items	Outer Loadings	α	CR	AVE	Constructs	Items	Outer Loadings	α	CR	AVE
Continuance Intention	CI1	0,900	0,896	0,929	0,766	Convenience	CV1	0,912	0,874	0,914	0,727
	CI2	0,770					CV2	0,769
	CI3	0,924					CV3	0,888
	CI4	0,898				Financial Risk	FR1	0,723	0,695	0,830	0,620
Perceived Benefit	PB1	0,796	0,853	0,901	0,695		FR2	0,844
	PB2	0,866					FR3	0,790
	PB3	0,898				Security Risk	SR1	0,891	0,705	0,804	0,510
	PB4	0,768					SR2	0,514
Perceived Risk	PR1	0,866	0,735	0,851	0,657		SR3	0,879
	PR2	0,869				Legal Risk	LR1	0,562	0,670	0,817	0,611
	PR3	0,684					LR2	0,699
Economic Benefit	EB1	0,853	0,815	0,890	0,729		LR3	0,799
	EB2	0,846					LR4	0,773
	EB3	0,863				Operational Risk	OR1	0,829	0,651	0,811	0,594
Seamless Transactions	ST1	0,808	0,662	0,816	0,596		OR2	0,862
	ST2	0,735					OR3	0,593
	ST3	0,772

	01 - CI	02 - PB	03 - PR	04 - EB	05 - ST	06 - CV	07 - FR	08 - LR	09 - SR	10 - OR
01 - Continuance Intention	0,875
02 - Perceived Benefit	0,876	0,834
03 - Perceived Risk	-0,537	-0,565	0,811
04 - Economic Benefit	0,695	0,767	-0,418	0,854
05 - Seamless Transactions	0,645	0,774	-0,403	0,724	0,772
06 - Convenience	0,724	0,808	-0,423	0,753	0,749	0,852
07 - Financial Risk	-0,454	-0,441	0,697	-0,301	-0,283	-0,363	0,780
08 - Legal Risk	-0,237	-0,297	0,534	-0,153	-0,208	-0,250	0,488	0,714
09 - Security Risk	-0,287	-0,301	0,533	-0,206	-0,204	-0,260	0,538	0,439	0,781
10 - Operational Risk	-0,374	-0,413	0,671	-0,280	-0,243	-0,330	0,594	0,423	0,585	0,771

User Type	Affirmations
Early adopter	I am willing to take risk
	I am interested in new technology
	I tend to be first in using new products and services
Late adopter	I am hesitant to take risks
	I still worry about new technologies
	I tend to continue using existing products and services

Category		Early adopters	Late adopters	Category		Early adopters	Late adopters
Sex	Male	62	13	Income range	Up to R$ 1,700	8	6
	Female	51	27		From R$ 1,701 and R$ 2,600	10	4
	Total	113	40		From R$ 2,601 and R$ 3,500	13	4
					From R$ 3,501 and R$ 4,400	13	1
Age group	16 to 25 years old	25	10		From R$ 4,401 and R$ 6,200	14	5
	26 to 35 years old	46	14		From R$ 6,201 and R$ 9,800	18	6
	36 to 45 years old	32	11		More than R$ 9,801	36	13
	46 to 55 years old	5	4		Did not say	1	1
	56 to 65 years old	3	0		Total	113	40
	More than 65 years old	1	1
	Did not say	1	0	Time of use	Less than 3 months	5	1
	Total	113	40		Less than 6 months	9	3
					Less than 12 months	12	5
Educational level	Elementary	0	1		Less than 18 months	22	6
	High school	0	0		Less than 24 months	18	8
	Incomplete college	17	4		More than 24 months	47	17
	Complete college	34	9		Total	113	40
	Post-graduation	61	26
	Did not say	1	0	Frequency of use	More than once a day	24	5
	Total	113	40		Once a day	19	6
					Two to four times a week	35	7
Region of residence	North	1	0		Once a week	8	4
	Northeast	4	0		Two to four times a month	10	5
	Central-West	4	4		Once a month	13	6
	Southeast	91	26		Less than once a month	4	7
	South	11	10		Total	113	40
	Did not say	2	0
	Total	113	40

	Total Sample (n=155)			Early Adopters (n=113)				Late Adopters (n=40)
Path	β	t	p-value	β	t	p-value	R²	β	t	p-value	R²
PB → CI	0,850	16,156	0,000	0,818	17,118	0,000	0,729	0,813	5,883	0,000	0,796
PR →CI	-0,050	0,836ns	0,403	-0,067	1,334ns	0,317		-0,113	0,687ns	0,492
EB → PB	0,262	3,260	0,001	0,412	4,099	0,001	0,682	-0,007	0,044ns	0,965	0,847
ST → PB	0,297	3,891	0,000	0,218	2,358	0,000		0,539	3,594	0,000
CV → PB	0,387	4,729	0,000	0,295	2,843	0,000		0,410	3,160	0,002
FR → PR	0,383	5,214	0,000	0,343	4,308	0,000	0,598	0,467	2,900	0,004	0,725
LR → PR	0,187	3,284	0,001	0,220	3,187	0,002		0,144	1,186ns	0,236
SR → PR	0,054	0,763ns	0,445	-0,017	0,202ns	0,469		0,214	1,730ns	0,084
OR → PR	0,334	4,958	0,000	0,378	4,722	0,000		0,230	1,938ns	0,053

	Early Adopters		Late Adopters		Diff. Path Coeff.	p-value
Path	β	t	β	t	Diff. Path Coeff.	p-value
PB → CI	0,824	16,151	0,836	6,811	0,012	0,523
PR → CI	-0,053	1,060ns	-0,093	0,631ns	0,040	0,393
EB → PB	0,415	4,131	-0,008	0,055ns	0,423	0,004
ST → PB	0,219	2,315	0,569	3,946	0,350	0,982
CV → PB	0,291	2,729	0,385	2,937	0,094	0,721
FR → PR	0,346	4,385	0,474	2,899	0,128	0,754
LR → PR	0,217	3,204	0,150	1,228ns	0,067	0,307
SR → PR	-0,010	0,119ns	0,208	1,638ns	0,218	0,928
OR → PR	0,377	4,816	0,222	1,912ns	0,155	0,134

Fucape Business School Av. Fernando Ferrari, 1358, Boa Vista, 29075-505, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brasil, (27) 4009-4423 - Vitória - ES - Brazil
E-mail: bbronline@bbronline.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] arturmascarenhas@usp.br cristiane.perpetuo@usp.br erika.barrote@usp.br paula.perides@terra.com.br