Considering the demand for alternative source of finance, the number of online peer-to-peer (P2P) financing platforms is increasing tremendously in Malaysia with the upward trend in the number of users and the introduction of secondary market for P2P platforms. As such, it is of great importance to investigate the antecedents of intention to use this online-based financing platform. This study examines if P2P platform ease of use, P2P platform usefulness, perceived expertise, P2P platform trustworthiness and reciprocity contribute to the usage intention of online P2P platforms building on technology acceptance model (TAM), source credibility theory (SCT) and social exchange theory (SET). By estimating partial least square-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), the results reveal that P2P platform ease of use, P2P platform usefulness and reciprocity are the crucial determinants influencing the intention to use online P2P financing platforms. The findings imply that P2P service providers should emphasize more on the ease of use and usefulness of the platform with reciprocity to increase usage the intention of borrowers or lenders.
AibinuA. A., & Al-LawatiA. M. (2010). Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction organizations’ willingness to participate in e-bidding. Automation in Construction, 19, 714–724.
2.
AyehJ. K. (2015). Travellers’ acceptance of consumer-generated media: An integrated model of technology acceptance and source credibility theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 173–180.
3.
BüttnerO. B., & GöritzA. S. (2008). Perceived trustworthiness of online shops. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 7(1), 35–50.
4.
ByrneB. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge.
5.
ChenC.-J., & HungS.-W. (2010). To give or to receive? Factors influencing members’ knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional virtual communities. Information and Management, 47(4), 226–236.
6.
ChinW. W., PetersonR. A., & BrownS. P. (2008). Structural equation modeling in marketing: Some practical reminders. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(4), 287–298.
7.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.
8.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
9.
DavenportT., & PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business School Press.
10.
DerbyD. C., HaanA., & WoodK. (2011). Data quality assurance: An analysis of patient non-response. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 24(3), 198–210.
11.
DuarteJ., SiegelS., & YoungL. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2484.
12.
EmersonR. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, pp. 335–362.
13.
FarajS., & JohnsonS. L. (2011). Network exchange patterns in online communities. Organization Science, 22(6), 1464–1480.
14.
FlynnF. J. (2005). Identity orientations and forms of social exchange in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737–750.
15.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
16.
GefenD., KarahannaE., & StraubD. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.
17.
GlaserM., LangerT., & WeberM. (2013). True overconfidence in interval estimates: Evidence based on a new measure of miscalibration. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(5), 405–417.
HairJ. F., SarstedtM., RingleC. M., & MenaJ. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
20.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC., & SarstedtM. (2013a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE Publications.
21.
HairJ. F., WilliamC. B., BabinB. J., AndersonR. E., & TathamL. R. (2013b). Multivariate data analysis (13th ed.). Prentice Hall, International Inc.
22.
HairJ. F., HultG. T. M., RingleC., & SarstedtM. (2014a). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. SAGE Publications.
23.
HairJ. F., SarstedtM., HopkinsL., & KuppelwieserV. G. (2014b). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121.
24.
HenselerJ., HubonaG., & RayP. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.
25.
HewJ. J., LeeV. H., OoiK. B., & LinB. (2016). Mobile social commerce: The booster for brand loyalty?Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 142–154.
26.
HsuC.-L., & LinJ. C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information and Management, 45(1), 65–74.
27.
IchwanI., & KasriR. (2019). Why are youth intent on investing through peer to peer lending? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Islamic Monetary Economics and Finance, 5(4), 741–762.
28.
InnT. K., & TariqQ. (2016). SC appoints 6 to run peer-to-peer (P2P) financing platform. https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2016/11/04/sc-issues-p2p-licences
29.
JamalA., & AnastasiadouK. (2009). Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions and expertise on loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 398–420.
30.
JonkerN. (2019). What drives the adoption of crypto-payments by online retailers?Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 35, 100848.
31.
JüngerM., & MietznerM. (2020). Banking goes digital: The adoption of FinTech services by German households. Finance Research Letters, 34, 101260.
32.
KankanhalliA., TanB. C. Y., & WeiK.-K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.
33.
KoE., KimE. Y., & LeeE. K. (2009). Modeling consumer adoption of mobile shopping for fashion products in Korea. Psychology and Marketing, 26(7), 669–687.
34.
KoufarisM. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.
35.
KreyN., ChuahS., RamayahT., & RauschnabelP. (2019). How functional and emotional ads drive smartwatch adoption. Internet Research, 29(3), 578–602.
36.
LegrisP., InghamJ., & ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 191–204.
37.
LeeV. H., FooA. T. L., LeongL. Y., & OoiK. B. (2016). Can competitive advantage be achieved through knowledge management? A case study on SMEs. Expert Systems with Applications, 65, 136–151.
38.
LechnerU., & HummelJ. (2002). Business models and system architectures of virtual communities: From a sociological phenomenon to peer-to-peer architectures. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(3), 41–53.
39.
LiaoS., & ChouE. (2012). Intention to adopt knowledge through virtual communities: Posters vs lurkers. Online Information Review, 36(3), 442–461.
40.
OmarzuJ. (2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when individuals will self-disclose. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 174–185.
41.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ.-Y., & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
42.
RingleC. M., WendeS., & BeckerJ.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS. http://www.smartpls.com.
43.
RosavinaM., RahadiR. A., KitriM. L., NuraeniS., & MayangsariL. (2019). P2P lending adoption by SMEs in Indonesia. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 11(2), 260–279.
44.
SaadéR., & BahliB. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 42(2), 317–327.
45.
Securities Commission Malaysia (SCM). (2019). New ECF, P2P financing operators and property crowdfunding framework announced at SC fintech roundtable. https://www.sc.com.my/resources/media-releases-and-announcements/new-ecf-p2p-financing-operators-and-property-crowdfunding-framework-announced-at-sc-fintech-roundtable
46.
Securities Commission Malaysia (SCM). (2020a). Securities Commission Malaysia. https://www.sc.com.my/api/documentms/download.ashx?id=3626dd03-ef8d-4517-a38d-a3cee223c9a9
ShiauW. L., & LuoM. M. (2012). Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: A social exchange theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2431–2444.
49.
SipangkarH., & WijayaC. (2020). Factors affecting intention to investing in peer-to-peer lending platform toward universitas Indonesia students. International Journal of Management, 11(5), 751–763.
50.
SinghapakdiA., VitellS. J., & KraftK. L. (1996). Moral intensity and ethical decision-making of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 245–255.
51.
SoperD. S. (2016). Sobel test calculator for the significance of mediation (Software). https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/default.aspx
52.
StewartH., & JürjensJ. (2018). Data security and consumer trust in FinTech innovation in Germany. Information and Computer Security, 26(1), 109–128.
53.
Suruhanjaya Sekuriti. (2016). Frequently asked questions on the peer-to-peer financing (P2P) framework. Securities Commission Malaysia. https://www.sc.com.my/regulation/regulatory-faqs/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-peer-to-peer-financing-p2p-framework
54.
ThakerM. A. B.TM.. (2018). Factors influencing the adoption of the crowdfunding-waqf model (CWM) in the waqf land development. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 9(3), 578–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-05-2016-0043
55.
ThakerM. A. B.TM.., ThakerH. B. M. T., & RahmanM. P. B. (2019). Factors affecting investors’ intention to invest in a peer-to-peer lending platform in Malaysia: An extended technology acceptance model. ADB.
56.
The Edge. (2019). P2P financing grows 452% to RM180 mil in 2018. https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/p2p-financing-grows-452-rm180-mil-2018
57.
Top Universities. (n.d.). Multimedia university. https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/multimedia-university-mmu
58.
TormalaZ. L., & PettyR. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427–442.
59.
UmeoguB. (2012). Source credibility: A philosophical analysis. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2(02), 112.
60.
WangM., WangT., KangM., & SunS. (2014). Understanding perceived platform trust and institutional risk in peer-to-peer lending platforms from cognition-based and affect-based perspectives. In PACIS Proceedings, 208. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/208
WongC. H., TanG. W. H., LokeS. P., & OoiK. B. (2015). Adoption of mobile social networking sites for learning?Online Information Review, 39(6), 762–778.
63.
YangQ., & LeeY.-C. (2016). Critical factors of the lending intention of online P2P: Moderating role of perceived benefit. Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Electronic Commerce: e-Commerce in Smart connected World, pp. 1–8https://doi.org/10.1145/2971603.2971618
64.
YeeT. J. (2019). Getting good returns from peer-to-peer lending. Focus Malaysia Issue 240. http://www.focusmalaysia.my/Income/getting-good-returns-from-peer-to-peer-lending
65.
ZhangY., WangT., KangM., LiY., & ChenY. (2017). Understanding investment intention towards social lending—Based on social exchange theory. In PACIS, 168. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2017/168
66.
ZheK. S. K. (2020). Fintech: First secondary market for P2P financing in Malaysia. Personal Wealth, The Edge Malaysia. https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/fintech-first-secondary-market-p2p-financing-malaysia
