Good model — it's clean and the relationships are logical.
Here are theories that map directly
onto your variables, with background and how each one justifies a specific arrow in your
framework.
1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) — Davis (1989)
Background: TAM was developed by Fred Davis to explain why individuals accept or reject
information technology. It's an adaptation of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen &
Fishbein) applied specifically to technology contexts. TAM proposes that actual system use is
driven by Behavioral Intention, which is driven by two core beliefs:
Perceived Usefulness (PU) — the degree to which a person believes using the system
will improve their performance/outcomes
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) — the degree to which a person believes using the
system will be free of effort
External variables (like skills, experience, training) influence PU and PEOU, which then
drive intention and use.
How it maps to your model:
Digital Literacy is essentially an "external variable" in TAM terms — a person with
higher digital literacy will perceive fintech apps as easier to use (PEOU) and more
useful (PU), because they already have the competence to navigate digital interfaces.
This justifies your Digital Literacy → Fintech Adoption direct path, and also
explains why Digital Literacy could feed into Trust (since ease of use reduces
perceived risk and uncertainty, which underpins trust).
2. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) — Venkatesh et al. (2003)
Background: UTAUT consolidates eight earlier technology-acceptance models (including
TAM, TRA, TPB, Diffusion of Innovation) into one framework. It identifies four core
determinants of behavioral intention and use:
Performance Expectancy
Effort Expectancy
Social Influence
Facilitating Conditions
Critically, UTAUT explicitly includes Social Influence — defined as the degree to which an
individual perceives that important others (family, peers, society) believe they should use the
system — as a direct predictor of adoption intention, and it can also moderate other
relationships.
How it maps to your model:
This is your strongest theoretical anchor for Social Influence as a moderator on the
Trust → Fintech Adoption and Financial Literacy → Fintech Adoption paths.
UTAUT argues social influence is especially strong in early-stage/voluntary adoption
contexts — exactly the situation with fintech in many developing economies (relevant
if your context is Pakistan/South Asia).
It justifies treating Social Influence not as a standalone predictor of adoption alone,
but as something that strengthens or weakens how literacy and trust translate into
actual adoption — matching your dotted-moderation-arrow design.
3. Trust Theory / Initial Trust Model — Mayer, Davis &
Schoorman (1995); McKnight et al. (2002)
Background: Trust theory in technology adoption (especially McKnight's Initial Trust
Model, built for e-commerce/online contexts) argues that in situations involving risk and
uncertainty — like financial transactions — trust is a necessary precondition for behavioral
intention. Trust is built on perceived ability, benevolence, and integrity of the
system/institution, and it's particularly critical when users lack direct control or face
information asymmetry (which is exactly the case in fintech, where users hand over
money/data to a platform they didn't build).
How it maps to your model:
This justifies Trust in Fintech as a mediator between literacy variables and
adoption: Financial Literacy and Digital Literacy don't directly guarantee adoption —
they first build the confidence/trust needed to overcome the inherent risk perception in
financial technology, and trust then drives adoption.
Also explains the Financial Literacy → Trust path: financially literate users can
better evaluate fintech products (fees, security, terms), reducing perceived risk and
increasing trust.
Optional 4th theory (Financial Literacy specifically):
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) — Ajzen (1991), or
Financial Capability framework
If you want a theory specifically anchoring Financial Literacy itself (separate from tech
acceptance), TPB is useful: it argues intention is shaped by attitude, subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control — financial literacy increases perceived behavioral control over
financial decisions, which raises both trust and adoption intention.
Synthesis (how to write this in your literature review)
A clean synthesis paragraph for your thesis might read like this:
This study integrates the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003), and Trust Theory (McKnight et
al., 2002) to explain fintech adoption behavior. TAM establishes that digital literacy enhances
perceived ease of use and usefulness of fintech platforms, directly encouraging adoption.
Trust Theory explains why financial literacy alone is insufficient for adoption — financially
literate individuals must also develop trust in the institution's ability, integrity, and
benevolence before committing to use, positioning Trust in Fintech as a mediating
mechanism between literacy and adoption. Finally, UTAUT contributes the construct of
Social Influence as a contextual moderator: in cultures characterized by high collectivism and
interdependence, the influence of family, peers, and community on individual financial-
technology decisions is amplified, strengthening or weakening the literacy–trust–adoption
pathway. Together, these three theories justify a moderated-mediation framework in which
digital and financial literacy act as antecedents, trust in fintech operates as the central
mediating mechanism, and social influence conditions the strength of these relationships.