Fintechs' Future in Kenya: Does social influence matter?

Published: 19 July 2019| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/cvbj452xrk.1
Contributors:
EDWARD Mugambi Ireri,
Mohammed Warsame

Description

Introduction: The role of social influence was investigated using the Expectation Post-Acceptance model. Data collection & methodology: The survey was conducted in Nairobi county, Kasarani constituency from May 1st, 2019 to 1st June 2019 using convenience sampling. A 10,000 replication bootstraps was performed as one way of validating the multivariate model and the findings were interpreted based on the maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) Hypotheses: H6a/b/c/d: Social influence has a significant effect on perceived usefulness (H6a); confirmation (H6b); satisfaction (H6c); and continuous intention to use (H6d) microloan services from Fintech firms. H6e/f/g/h: Social influence has a significant moderating role between perceived usefulness and satisfaction (H6e); confirmation and satisfaction (H6f); satisfaction and continuous intention to use (H6g); and perceived usefulness and continuous intention to use (H6h) microloan services from Fintech firms. H6i/j/k/l: Social influence has a significant 2-way moderating interaction with perceived usefulness on satisfaction (H6i); with confirmation on satisfaction (H6j); with satisfaction on continuous intention to use (H6k); and with perceived usefulness on continuous intention to use (H6l) microloan services from Fintech firms. Results: 1. Social influence dampens the positive relationship between confirmation and satisfaction. 2. Social influence strengthens the positive relationship between perceived usefulness and continuous intention to use Fintech microloan services. 3. Social influence has no significant moderating interaction on the relationships between perceived usefulness and satisfaction; and perceived usefulness and continuous intention to use Fintech microloan services. 4. Social influence has a direct positive significant effect on confirmation and satisfaction.

Files