Qualitative study reveals distinct risk perceptions shaping Fintech adoption across Gen X and millennials, indicating generational divides in digital financial behavior.
Purpose The purpose of this study is threefold: to identify the enablers and challenges influencing the use of Fintech applications among Gen X and millennial users; to compare the determinants of Fintech usage between these two generations; and to examine the outcomes of Fintech usage on financial behaviour among the two generational cohorts. Design/methodology/approach To explore the enablers, challenges and outcomes of Fintech usage among Gen X and millennials in Malaysia, this study uses a qualitative approach, specifically using focus group discussions. The sample consisted of 23 participants, including 12 millennials and 11 Gen X individuals, recruited through a snowball sampling technique. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings Guided by the net valence framework, the findings reveal that perceived benefits and risks shape Fintech adoption among both millennials and Gen X. Participants from both generations acknowledged the transactional and informational advantages of Fintech applications, which outweighed economic benefits. However, concerns differed: Gen X emphasised security risks, while millennials prioritised system performance and data privacy. Furthermore, Gen X expressed apprehension about overspending through features like buy now, pay later, but perceived greater potential for Fintech to enhance their financial behaviour compared with millennials. Originality/value The study provides a qualitative lens to explore generational differences in Fintech usage, offering in-depth contextual insights beyond the scope of prior quantitative studies. It fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence on intergenerational similarities and differences in the enablers, challenges and outcomes of Fintech usage, specifically between Gen X and millennials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahdzan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: