IMPACT OF USER PERCEPTIONS ON DIGITAL FINANCIAL SERVICE USAGE: EVIDENCE FROM RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SAURASHTRA REGION
Keywords:
Digital Financial Services, Technology Acceptance Model, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Risk, Rural HouseholdsAbstract
The rapid expansion of digital financial services (DFS) has improved financial inclusion, particularly in developing economies like India. However, despite better access, their actual use among rural populations remains uneven. This study explores how user perceptions influence the adoption of digital financial services among rural households in the Saurashtra region. Using a quantitative approach, primary data were collected from 275 respondents. The analysis focused on three key perception-based factors—perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), and perceived risk (PR)—and applied descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression techniques. The findings show that both perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use have a positive and statistically significant impact on usage. In contrast, perceived risk has a negative but statistically insignificant effect. The model explains 31.9% of the variation in usage behavior, indicating moderate explanatory power. Overall, the results suggest that rural users are more influenced by the benefits and ease of using digital financial services than by concerns about risk. This highlights the need to design simple, efficient, and user-friendly platforms. The study offers practical insights for policymakers and financial service providers seeking to strengthen digital financial inclusion in rural areas.
References
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Dass, R., & Pal, S. (2011). Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of mobile financial services among the rural under-banked. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/246/ 19
Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00111-3
Kim, C., Mirusmonov, M., & Lee, I. (2010). An empirical examination of factors influencing the intention to use mobile payment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.013
Manrai, R., Yadav, P. D., & Goel, U. (2024). Factors affecting adoption of digital payments: Role of perceived financial risk. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2139237
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G., & Campos, F. (2016). Mobile payment adoption: A review and research agenda. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.003
Rashid, M., Shamsi, M. A., Anwar, I., & Saleem, I. (2025). Consumer intention to adopt e-wallets in rural India: Extending the technology acceptance model. Cogent Business & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2428776
Slade, E. L., Williams, M. D., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). Mobile payment adoption: Classification and review of the extant literature. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.003
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Wu, G., & Peng, Q. (2024). Bridging the digital divide: Determinants of fintech adoption in rural communities. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241227770
Zhou, T. (2011). Examining the critical success factors of mobile payment. Decision Support Systems, 51(3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2011.02.010
