Exploring Platform Trust, Borrowing Intention, and Actual Use of PayLater Services in Indonesia and Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Exploring Platform Trust, Borrowing Intention, and Actual Use of PayLater Services in Indonesia and Malaysia" addresses a timely and relevant topic in the fintech landscape, particularly the growing popularity and challenges of "Buy Now Pay Later" (BNPL) services. By focusing on Indonesia and Malaysia, the study explores regional differences while incorporating theoretical frameworks such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The manuscript is well-structured and presents an interesting perspective, particularly in its use of a dual-structured approach (system-based and cognitive-based factors) for understanding platform trust.
However, while the study has potential and provides valuable insights, it faces significant challenges in methodology, interpretation of results, and overall depth of analysis. The manuscript is currently not suitable for publication in its current form, and I recommend major revisions with the potential for rejection if the following issues are not addressed.

- While the study mentions its focus on platform trust and its mediating role in borrowing intention and actual usage, the research gap is not clearly articulated. The manuscript could benefit from a stronger justification of how it contributes to existing literature. For example:
     How does this study differ from prior research on fintech adoption or BNPL services?
     Why is the comparison between Indonesia and Malaysia particularly significant?
- The introduction provides background on BNPL services but lacks a clear and concise statement of the research questions or hypotheses.
- The study uses purposive sampling but does not justify why this method was chosen over other sampling techniques. Additionally, the sample sizes for both countries (62 active users in Indonesia and 85 in Malaysia) are small and may not adequately represent the population.
- There is no discussion of potential biases introduced by purposive sampling.
- While PLS-SEM is appropriate for analyzing complex relationships, the manuscript does not adequately justify its use. Additionally, the threshold values for reliability and validity are mentioned, but it is unclear how these were applied to confirm the robustness of the model.
- While the results are presented in tables, the discussion of the findings is unclear and repetitive. For example, the differences between Indonesia and Malaysia are mentioned, but the implications of these differences are not fully explored.
- Several hypotheses (e.g., H1: Service Quality → Platform Trust, H4: Awareness → Platform Trust) were rejected, but the manuscript does not provide a substantive discussion of why these relationships were insignificant.
- The results show that structured assurance and reputation are significant for platform trust in Indonesia, while information quality, reputation, and perceived risk are significant in Malaysia. However, the manuscript does not delve deeply into why these differences exist or their implications for theory and practice.
- The manuscript claims to extend the TAM by incorporating platform trust, but it does not provide a clear theoretical advancement
- The suggestion for PayLater platforms in Indonesia to focus on structured assurance and reputation is valid but vague. What specific actions should companies take?
- Similarly, the recommendation for Malaysian platforms to prioritize information quality and transparency does not provide actionable steps.
- The literature review is lengthy and could be streamlined to focus on the most relevant studies.
- The results section contains repetitive discussions of statistical findings without sufficient interpretation.

Author Response

Comments 1: While the study mentions its focus on platform trust and its mediating role in borrowing intention and actual usage, the research gap is not clearly articulated. The manuscript could benefit from a stronger justification of how it contributes to existing literature. For example:

     How does this study differ from prior research on fintech adoption or BNPL services?

     Why is the comparison between Indonesia and Malaysia particularly significant?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, I/we have made change in introduction. This change can be found in paragraph 3

“PayLater adoption in Malaysia has grown rapidly, surpassing 5 million users in 2023, driven by providers like Atome, Grab PayLater, and Rely. Millennials and Gen Z are the primary users, especially for small purchases like electronics, fashion, and daily essentials (Research and Markets, 2025). The rising demand is fueled by limited credit card penetration and a booming e-commerce market, positioning PayLater as a mainstream payment method with expected innovations such as loyalty programs and digital wallet integrations. However, concerns over data security and the risks of digital financial tools have slowed adoption (L. Samarasekara et al., 2023). At the same time, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) has tightened regulations to prevent consumer debt and improve transparency, following similar moves in Singapore and Australia. While stricter credit assessments and clearer disclosures may build trust, they could also push smaller pro-viders out of the market (Malay Mail, 2025). In both Malaysia and Indonesia, PayLater adoption is hindered by security concerns and regulatory challenges. To encourage growth, fintech companies must strengthen cybersecurity, improve transparency, and educate consumers to build trust and ensure a safer financial ecosystem in Southeast Asia.”

 

Comments 2: The introduction provides background on BNPL services but lacks a clear and concise statement of the research questions or hypotheses.

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revisedintroduction to emphasize this point. This change can be found in paragraph 6 and line 104

“this research extends TAM by integrating platform trust as a key factor. It explores how trust and security concerns shape adoption, what drives differences in consumer trust between the two countries, and how system-based factors (such as service quality, information quality, and structured assurance) and cognitive-based factors (such as awareness, reputation, and risk perception) influence user behavior”

 

Comments 3:

- The literature review is lengthy and could be streamlined to focus on the most relevant studies.

Response 3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have removed less relevant citacion.

H1: Rana et al, 2025

H2: (Mayer et al., 1995)

H3: (Nurfaiza & Prayitno, 2023; Rabbani et al., 2023; Kurniasari et al 2023)

H4: (Devia & Putri, 2022)

H5: (Biswas et al., 2022; Cardoso & Cardoso, 2024; van der Cruijsen et al., 2023; Yap et al. 2010; Hesse et al 2022).

H6: (Lim, 2003; Pavlou, 2003; Chen et al., 2015).

H7: (Prasetyani et al., 2024) , (Siagian et al., 2022).

H8: (Lubi & Sanaji, 2023),. (Maurizka et al., 2021),(Surjandy et al., 2023).

This change can be found in literature review and hyppthesis development for H1 – H8

 

Comments 4:

1. The study uses purposive sampling but does not justify why this method was chosen over other sampling techniques. Additionally, the sample sizes for both countries (62 active users in Indonesia and 85 in Malaysia) are small and may not adequately represent the population.

• ⁠ ⁠There is no discussion of potential biases introduced by purposive sampling.
• ⁠ ⁠While PLS-SEM is appropriate for analyzing complex relationships, the manuscript does not adequately justify its use. Additionally, the threshold values for reliability and validity are mentioned, but it is unclear how these were applied to confirm the robustness of the model.

 

Response 4: we have made change in research method section page 8-9.

“A quantitative research approach is employed, utilizing non-probability purposive sampling to ensure the selection of relevant respondents. This method was chosen because the study specifically targets active PayLater users, defined as individuals who have used PayLater services multiple times within the past three months, those who are unable to make immediate payments, and users who manage PayLater accounts for their financial needs. By selecting respondents who meet these criteria, purposive sampling allows for a more focused and relevant analysis of the challenges faced by PayLater users and the factors influencing their trust in such platforms. However, this sampling technique has limitations, as findings cannot be generalized to individuals who use fintech payment services but do not utilize PayLater specifically.”

“To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of PayLater users, and their feedback was incorporated into the final version. Additionally, fintech experts and academic researchers specializing in consumer behavior and digital finance reviewed the instrument to enhance its reliability and relevance”

“While the sample sizes are relatively small, they align with prior research on fintech adoption within specific user groups. Nonetheless, the study acknowledges potential limitations in sample representativeness and recommends future research with larger and more diverse populations to enhance generalizability.”

 

We also made change in result discussion with explanation of R-Square in page 9-10

“To confirm the robustness of the model, the R-square values serve as indicators of the explanatory power of the independent variables in predicting the dependent variables, as presented in Table 1.”

 

Comments 5:

- While the results are presented in tables, the discussion of the findings is unclear and repetitive.

For example, the differences between Indonesia and Malaysia are mentioned, but the implications of

these differences are not fully explored.

- Several hypotheses (e.g., H1: Service Quality → Platform Trust, H4: Awareness → Platform Trust)

were rejected, but the manuscript does not provide a substantive discussion of why these relationships

were insignificant.

- The results show that structured assurance and reputation are significant for platform trust in Indonesia, while information quality, reputation, and perceived risk are significant in Malaysia. However, the manuscript does not delve deeply into why these differences exist or their implications for theory and practice.

- The manuscript claims to extend the TAM by incorporating platform trust, but it does not provide a clear

theoretical advancement

- The results section contains repetitive discussions of statistical findings without sufficient interpretation.

Response 5: we have made change in Discussion section. We add discussion for rejected hypothesis. This change can be found in page 11-13

We made revision for explore research implication. This change can be found in Implications and Recommendations section.

 “Reputation is a factor that has a significant positive effect on platform trust in both In-donesia and Malaysia. These results confirm trust theory (Mayer et al., 1995) that reputation is a key factor in building trust in the context of digital-based services. The practical implication of these results is that PayLater service providers should focus more on their reputation management. PayLater platforms can utilize positive reputa-tion as a marketing tool, for example by displaying testimonials, user ratings, and achievements or awards that can increase the trust of potential customers.

However, in building platform trust there are important differences between the characteristics of consumers in Indonesia and Malaysia. In Indonesia, the online lending sector still faces challenges in regulation and supervision, especially in light of the many cases of illegal online lending and rampant fraud. Therefore, potential users prioritize structured collateral as a key factor in building trust in the platform. For platform providers in Indonesia, focusing on structured guarantees can be an effective strategy to build trust. Platforms should ensure that users feel safe with their personal data and financial information by providing clear information regarding security measures, consumer protection, and privacy policies. Malaysia has a more mature and more con-trolled fintech regulatory system than Indonesia, with close supervision from Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM). With clearer regulations, users tend to focus more on the quality of information available on the platform as a basis for decision-making. PayLater services should prioritize transparent communication on lending terms, interest rates, and potential risks associated with using the platform. Addressing perceived risks by clearly outlining the safeguards in place to protect users can reduce concerns and in-crease trust in the platform.

The study also highlights that platform trust is a powerful predictor of borrowing intention and actual use. These results reinforce the theory that explains how trust is a key factor in technology-based service adoption decisions. In the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), trust can act as a factor that influences intention and actual use. Trust increases certain aspects of the perceived usefulness of a service (Gefen et al., 2003). The usefulness of a fintech service depends on the service being honest, caring, and capable, as customers expect.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thanks for the chance to read your manuscript. Some parts of your work need to extend.

Sincerely Yours

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

Paylater is emerged as a tool in Indonesia and Malaysia.

However, the research issue not seen in introduction part.

The authors also need to compare the current issue

outside from Southeast Asia region.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised introduction section. This change can be found in paragraph 2 and 5

“These challenges highlight a crucial paradox: while PayLater services provide financial flexibility and convenience, persistent trust issues continue to shape consumer adoption.”

“"Similarly, a study on Generation Z in Malaysia found that materialism, money man-agement skills, self-efficacy, attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and moral obligation significantly influence the intention to adopt PayLater services (Osman et al., 2024). While these studies provide valuable insights, they largely overlook the crucial role of trust and security concerns in shaping consumer decision-making. 

Furthermore, while fintech adoption has been widely studied on a global scale, much of the existing literature focuses on Western economies or China, where digital financial ecosystems are more developed. Research from the U.S. and Europe highlights the importance of regulatory frameworks and consumer protection in fostering trust, whereas studies from China emphasize the role of super-app ecosystems in driving adoption. In contrast, Southeast Asian markets such as Indonesia and Malaysia present distinct regulatory landscapes, varying levels of digital literacy, and unique consumer perceptions of financial risk. This study aims to bridge this research gap by conducting a comparative analysis of trust and security concerns in PayLater adoption within these two neighboring yet distinct fintech environments."

 

Comments 2:

This part need to confirm data collection process such as

how research instruments developed. Including validity and

reliability issues

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised Research Methods section to emphasize this point. This change can be found in page 9

“To ensure content validity, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of PayLater users, and their feedback was incorporated into the final version. Additionally, fintech experts and academic researchers specializing in consumer behavior and digital finance reviewed the instrument to enhance its reliability and relevance”

 

Comments 3:

Need more studies to compare the current result and prior works.

Response 3: we have made change in Discussion section. We add discussion for each hypothesis and comparing to prior research. This change can be found in page 11-13

 

Comments 4:

This part need to extend such as What the current study

found and also limitations of this study need to provides.

Response 4: we have made change in Implication and Conclusion section. The study findings are discussed in the implications, the study limitations are explained in the conclusion.

"These results reinforce the theory that explains how trust is a key factor in technology-based service adoption decisions. In the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), trust can act as a factor that influences intention and actual use. Trust increases certain aspects of the perceived usefulness of a service (Gefen et al., 2003). The usefulness of a fintech service depends on the service being honest, caring, and capable, as customers expect. "

"The limitation of this research is that it only focuses on Paylater users, not other fintech services. Online credit-type services are relatively new since 2019 in Indonesia and 2020 in Malaysia. At the beginning of its development there were negative issues about this fintech service, which caused people to be skeptical about this service. This is a challenge in researching Paylater users, especially in Indonesia."

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is of good quality in its current form. For further improvement, I kindly suggest making the suggestions for future research more specific and actionable, and including a brief discussion on sampling bias and limitations in external validity.

Author Response

Comments 1: The article is of good quality in its current form. For further improvement, I kindly suggest making the suggestions for future research more specific and actionable, and including a brief discussion on sampling bias and limitations in external validity.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the conclusion section of the manuscript to include a more detailed and actionable direction for future research. Specifically, we now recommend that future studies explore additional variables such as perceived ease of use, financial literacy, digital trust, risk tolerance, and the influence of social networks—especially since some of the variables in our current model were found to be statistically insignificant. We also suggest the use of qualitative or mixed-methods approaches to gain a deeper understanding of user behavior and motivations behind PayLater adoption. Furthermore, we have added a discussion on potential sampling bias, noting that our sample focused exclusively on existing PayLater users, who may hold more favorable views of the service. This sampling choice, along with the relatively recent introduction of PayLater services in Indonesia and Malaysia, could limit the generalizability of our findings. To address this, we now explicitly recommend that future research involve broader and more diverse samples, including non-users and various demographic segments, to enhance external validity. These additions have been incorporated in the revised manuscript [Section 7. Conclusion]. We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable input, which has helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

The current version is much better than before. Hence, we recommend to publish your work.

Sincerely Yours

Author Response

Comment: 

The current version is much better than before. Hence, we recommend to publish your work.

Sincerely Yours

Response:

Thank you very much for this insightful and constructive suggestion. We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable input, which has helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our work.