CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Technology Adoption and User BehaviourFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Leveraging digital payment adoption experience to advance the development of digital-only (neo) banks: Role of trust, risk, security, and green concern

Open access
Taneja, Shilpa, Ali, Liaqat, Siraj, Ahsan, Ferasso, Marcos, Luthra, Sunil, Kumar, Anil·2024·IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
DOI 10.1109/tem.2024.3395130
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The neobanking and Banking as a Service (BaaS) model implementation by financial service organizations and FinTech firms require wide-ranging acceptance of digital payment systems. Given the development of digital-only (neo) banking at nascent stages, especially in developing economies, there is a need to understand their potential adoption by the customers. In this article, we investigate antecedents to customer's intention to adopt digital-only banks based on their adoption experience with the existing digital payment platforms. From a novel perspective on digital-only banking, this research advances the extant literature on digital financial services by synergistically combining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology theory and the factors namely attitude, trust, risk, security, and green concern. The structural equation model based on a cross-sectional sample found that the behavioral intention to adopt digital-only banks is significantly influenced by effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, performance expectancy, and social influence, in addition to attitude, trust, perceived risk, perceived security, and green concern. This study adds to the growing theoretic debate in the field by stressing the significance of examining given contextual factors in addition to previously established theories for studying purely digital services. The managers can draw upon the findings for leading the way to the wide-ranging implementation of BaaS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tem.2024.3395130

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Once trust in system integrity and in governance is established, the marginal effect of individual risk sensitivity diminishes.

    “Their findings suggest that once trust in system integrity and in governance is established, the marginal effect of individual risk sensitivity diminishes.”

    From Institutional Trust, Risk-Taking, and FinTech Adoption: Evidence from an Emerging Economy (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Discussion of Results (p. unavailable) reports that trust and security favor adoption and that perceived risk has a significant negative association with adoption intention. It does not report that establishing trust in system integrity or governance diminishes the marginal effect of risk sensitivity; governance is not addressed in the cited passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Trust, security perceptions, and perceived risk form a combined decision-making system and are not independent predictors.

    “Taneja et al. [62] offer strong evidence in their research on digital payments and neobanks that trust, security perceptions, and perceived risk form a combined decision-making system and are not independent predictors.”

    From Institutional Trust, Risk-Taking, and FinTech Adoption: Evidence from an Emerging Economy (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Discussion of Results reports that perceived risk and perceived security both predict trust, while trust influences adoption-related attitudes and intentions. It also reports separate direct effects of risk and security on behavioural intention, so the claim that they are ‘not independent predictors’ overstates the findings. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The influence of institutional and financial trust on the adoption of FinTech behaviors is predominant over personality-based risk tendencies.

    “According to the findings of previous studies, the influence of institutional and financial trust on the adoption of FinTech behaviors is predominant over personality-based risk tendencies [62].”

    From Institutional Trust, Risk-Taking, and FinTech Adoption: Evidence from an Emerging Economy (2026) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Discussion of Results (page unavailable) identifies trust as the strongest predictor of intention to adopt digital-only banks and reports a significant negative association between perceived risk and adoption intention. It does not distinguish institutional from financial trust or compare trust with personality-based risk tendencies; its risk measure concerns perceived uncertainty and potential loss when using the services. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [24]24. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111- 1132.
  2. [47]47. Lee, M. K. O., & Turban, E. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 6(1), 75-91.
  3. [53]53. Marcoulides, G. A., & Saunders, C. (2006, June). PLS: A silver bullet? MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems.
  4. [56]56. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York McGraw-Hill.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Taneja, S., Ali, L., Siraj, A., Ferasso, M., Luthra, S., & Kumar, A.
Affiliations
  • London Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, London, U.K.
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2024
Volume
71
Pages
10862-10873
ISSN
  • 0018-9391 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0040
DOI
10.1109/tem.2024.3395130
OpenAlex
W4396596927
Cited by
26
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 2
FWCI
9.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (publishedVersion)
  • London Met Repository (London Metropolitan University) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
neobanking, banking-as-a-service, digital payment adoption, trust, risk perception, perceived security, UTAUT, effort expectancy, performance expectancy, social influence, hedonic motivation, fintech, digital financial services

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review