Product adoption · Systematic literature review and meta-analysis

A meta-analysis of technological adoption of financial services: investigating risk and trust perception effects

International Journal of Bank Marketing · 2025

Wagner Junior Ladeira, Syed Hasan Jafar, Fernando de Oliveira Santini

Summary

Risk perception negatively influences financial-services technology adoption; economic performance, business efficiency, and globalization amplify that effect. Older and more educated individuals are more risk-sensitive. Trust positively influences adoption, with government efficiency, infrastructure, and AI-driven solutions strengthening its influence; cultural dimensions and perceived control also shape trust effects. Heterogeneity varies across economic, technological, and methodological contexts. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific b2b growth and sales question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Research question

What the authors investigated

What are the overall effects of perceived risk and trust on technological adoption of financial services, and which contextual, practical, and methodological moderators shape those effects?

Design

PRISMA-S systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis; hierarchical linear meta-analysis (HiLMA) tested contextual, practical, and methodological moderators.

Sample and setting

55 studies and 2,104 effect sizes concerning risk perception, trust, and technological adoption across financial-services/banking contexts; the publisher abstract does not list the individual countries, technologies, or inclusion dates.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The publisher abstract does not state limitations beyond reporting heterogeneity and omitted contextual detail; full-text review is needed to assess publication bias, study quality, dependence among effect sizes, and moderator coverage.

Research sources

Emerald publisher record (research article, online 2025) directly provides the exact title, authors, DOI, PRISMA-S design, 55-study/2,104-effect-size corpus, model, and substantive findings. Full text is marked available to purchase, so this is abstract-only evidence and should receive editorial verification. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

3/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.

Sample · 0.8/1

The reviewed source reports a sample or corpus size (55); size alone does not establish representativeness.

Comparison · 0.8/1

The source reports a comparison; check the original methods for its construction.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.

Read the paper