Examines factors influencing continued usage of trading apps, suggesting critical insights for investors.
Purpose The rapid evolution of mobile technologies has driven the widespread adoption of mobile technologies, transforming the delivery and consumption of digital financial services. Consequently, investors are actively engaging in stock trading by utilizing mobile technology for the purpose of making investment decisions and getting investment information. However, investors' initial adoption does not always lead to continued usage of trading apps. Therefore, the goal of this study is to explore the factors affecting initial and post-adoption behavior of investors integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the expectation-confirmation model (ECM). Design/methodology/approach Convenience sampling, a non-probability technique, was used to gather data, and a total of 396 validated questionnaires were collected. These data were further analyzed using partial least squares. Findings The findings indicate that perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, satisfaction and attitude have a positive influence on continued usage and satisfaction (β = 0.292) was found to be the strongest predictor of continued intention. Additionally, the proposed model explains 62.5% of the variance in continued intention (R2 = 0.625). Furthermore, satisfaction and attitude have a partial parallel mediating effect between perceived usefulness and continued intention. Additionally, a partial serial mediating effect of perceived usefulness and satisfaction on the relationship between perceived ease of use and continued usage regarding trading apps was also found. Originality/value This study examines a contextual extension of the TAM and the ECM by examining the post-adoption behavior in the context of Indian trading apps. This study also provides important insights by focusing on the indirect effect through parallel and serial mediating effects of satisfaction, attitude and perceived usefulness, a context that has received comparatively limited scholarly attention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: