IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v10y2022i3p57-d760992.html

Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Financial Technology among Vietnamese Youth: Research in the Time of COVID-19 and Beyond

Author

Listed:
  • Nguyen Vinh Khuong

    (Faculty of Accounting and Auditing, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

  • Nguyen Thi Thanh Phuong

    (Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    Faculty of International Economic Relation, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

  • Nguyen Thanh Liem

    (Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    Faculty of Finance and Banking, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

  • Cao Thi Mien Thuy

    (Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    Faculty of Finance and Banking, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

  • Tran Hung Son

    (Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
    Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology, University of Economics and Law, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam)

Abstract

This study focuses on understanding the factors that affect the intention of using financial technology among young Vietnamese in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fintech studies are abundant in developed countries and mainly focus on consumers’ conditions, awareness, habits, and capital. These are expected to differ significantly from the situation in developing countries. We have reviewed factors that can affect the user’s intention, including the Perceived Benefit (PB), Perceived Risk (PR), Belief (B), and Social Influence (SI), and rely on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) model in this research. The survey sample comprises 161 Z-generation consumers with strong flexibility and knowledge about the use of Fintech. We use the PLS-SEM (partial least squares structural equation modeling) analysis method with the SmartPLS software (SmartPLS GmbH, Oststeinbek, Germany) to evaluate the research model. We find that the Perceived Benefit (PB) has the most significant impact on the intention to use Fintech, followed by Belief (B). However, in general, the factors are not significant, perhaps due to many reasons that are intrinsic in Vietnam. Based on this result, service providers, policymakers, and researchers can calibrate the development and research for the following stages. We offer findings different from the previous research, thus especially extending the literature on young people.

Suggested Citation

  • Nguyen Vinh Khuong & Nguyen Thi Thanh Phuong & Nguyen Thanh Liem & Cao Thi Mien Thuy & Tran Hung Son, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Intention to Use Financial Technology among Vietnamese Youth: Research in the Time of COVID-19 and Beyond," Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:57-:d:760992
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/3/57/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/10/3/57/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Estrin, Saul & Gozman, Daniel & Khavul, Susanna, 2018. "The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87351, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. David, Paul A., "undated". "COMPUTER AND DYNAMO: The Modern Productivity Paradox in a Not-Too Distant Mirror," Economic Research Papers 268373, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    3. Tang, Kin Leong & Ooi, Chee Keong & Chong , Jia Bao, 2020. "Perceived Risk Factors Affect Intention To Use FinTech," Journal of Accounting and Finance in Emerging Economies, CSRC Publishing, Center for Sustainability Research and Consultancy Pakistan, vol. 6(2), pages 453-463, June.
    4. Saul Estrin & Daniel Gozman & Susanna Khavul, 2018. "The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 425-439, August.
    5. Peter, J Paul & Tarpey, Lawrence X, Sr, 1975. "A Comparative Analysis of Three Consumer Decision Strategies," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(1), pages 29-37, June.
    6. Bruce Carlin & Arna Olafsson & Michaela Pagel, 2017. "FinTech Adoption Across Generations: Financial Fitness in the Information Age," NBER Working Papers 23798, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Derbaix, C., 1983. "Perceived risk and risk relievers: An empirical investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 19-38.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khwanjira Ponsree & Phaninee Naruetharadhol, 2025. "Unveiling the determinants of alternative payment adoption: exploring the factors shaping generation Z’s intentions in Thailand," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-34, December.
    2. Amna Albuainain & Simon Ashby, 2025. "Enablers and Barriers in FinTech Adoption: A Systematic Literature Review of Customer Adoption and Its Impact on Bank Performance," FinTech, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-35, September.
    3. Joan Sebastián Rojas Rincón & Andrés Mauricio Mejía Martínez & Andrés Ricardo Riveros Tarazona & Julio César Acosta-Prado, 2024. "Analysis of Systemic Risk on the Financial Performance during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Case of the Colombian Banking Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Magnus Schückes & Tobias Gutmann, 2021. "Why do startups pursue initial coin offerings (ICOs)? The role of economic drivers and social identity on funding choice," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1027-1052, August.
    2. Anton Miglo, 2020. "Crowdfunding in a Competitive Environment," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-38, February.
    3. de Andrés, Pablo & Correia, Ricardo & Rezola, Álvaro & Suárez, Nuria, 2022. "The role of funding portals as signaling offering quality in investment crowdfunding," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(PA).
    4. Claire Economidou & Luca Grilli & Magnus Henrekson & Mark Sanders, 2018. "Financial and Institutional Reforms for an Entrepreneurial Society," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 279-291, August.
    5. Torben Klarl & Alexander S. Kritikos & Knarik Poghosyan, 2025. "Complementary funding: how location links crowdfunding and venture capital," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 65(4), pages 2639-2661, December.
    6. Daniel Berliner & Rotem Shneor & Andreas Wald, 2025. "Beyond one-size-fits-all: Empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of equity crowdfunding investors’ decision drivers," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 35(1), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Cai, Wanxiang & Polzin, Friedemann & Stam, Erik, 2021. "Crowdfunding and social capital: A systematic review using a dynamic perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    8. Coakley, Jerry & Lazos, Aristogenis & Liñares-Zegarra, José M., 2022. "Seasoned equity crowdfunded offerings," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    9. Ishtiaq Ahmad Bajwa & Shafiq Ur Rehman & Abid Iqbal & Zaheer Anwer & Murtaza Ashiq & Muhammad Ajmal Khan, 2022. "Past, Present and Future of FinTech Research: A Bibliometric Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    10. Lee, Khai Sheang & Tan, Soo Jiuan, 2003. "E-retailing versus physical retailing: A theoretical model and empirical test of consumer choice," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(11), pages 877-885, November.
    11. Bollaert, Helen & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Schwienbacher, Armin, 2021. "Fintech and access to finance," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Cinta Borrero-Domínguez & Encarnación Cordón-Lagares & Rocío Hernández-Garrido, 2020. "Sustainability and Real Estate Crowdfunding: Success Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, June.
    13. Walthoff-Borm, Xavier & Schwienbacher, Armin & Vanacker, Tom, 2018. "Equity crowdfunding: First resort or last resort?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 513-533.
    14. Eric Tassel, 2023. "Crowdfunding investors, intermediaries and risky entrepreneurs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1033-1050, March.
    15. Jing Cao & Haiwei Jiang & Xiaomeng Ren & Jinchuan Shi, 2024. "Consumers’ risk perception, market demand, and firm innovation: Evidence from China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(5), pages 1-26, May.
    16. Miglo, Anton, 2022. "Theories of financing for entrepreneurial firms: a review," MPRA Paper 115835, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Saul Estrin & Susanna Khavul & Mike Wright, 2022. "Soft and hard information in equity crowdfunding: network effects in the digitalization of entrepreneurial finance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1761-1781, April.
    18. Regan Stevenson & Sean R. McMahon & Chaim Letwin & Michael P. Ciuchta, 2022. "Entrepreneur fund-seeking: toward a theory of funding fit in the era of equity crowdfunding," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 2061-2086, April.
    19. Michael E. Cummings & Hans Rawhouser & Silvio Vismara & Erin L. Hamilton, 2020. "An equity crowdfunding research agenda: evidence from stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 907-932, April.
    20. Yaokuang Li & Li Ling & Daru Zhang & Juan Wu, 2021. "Lead investors and information disclosure: A test of signaling theory by fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis approach," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(4), pages 836-849, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:10:y:2022:i:3:p:57-:d:760992. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.