Escribe una PREreview

Digitalisation has changed the delivery of microfinance, but the presence of a digital transaction does not necessarily mean that a borrower has acquired meaningful digital financial capability. This study examines that distinction among 663 active microfinance borrowers in Ranchi district, Jharkhand, India. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and selected constructs from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the study evaluates the roles of digital literacy, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, trust in the microfinance institution, trust in technology, perceived risk, social influence, and facilitating conditions in shaping behavioural intention. A borrower-centred distinction is introduced between institutionally required digital transactions and autonomous digital financial use. The empirical pattern is striking: 84.9% of respondents reported digital loan repayment, whereas only 12.1% reported fund-transfer use. This difference is interpreted as a Compliance–Autonomy Gap rather than as evidence of broad-based digital financial adoption. Descriptive results also indicate a marked Trust Asymmetry: trust in the microfinance institution was high (M = 4.37, SD = 0.50), while trust in technology was considerably lower (M = 3.38, SD = 1.16). In the reported OLS model, perceived usefulness (β = .2766, p = .002), social influence (β = .2372, p = .006), and facilitating conditions (β = .3162, p = .006) were positively associated with behavioural intention, while trust in technology (β = −.2752, p = .043) and perceived risk (β = −.2735, p = .043) were negatively associated. Digital literacy, perceived ease of use, and trust in the MFI were not significant at the 5% level. However, severe multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity substantially qualify the coefficient-level interpretation. The study therefore contributes a conceptual framework—the Trust-Enabled Phygital Adoption Framework (TEPAF)—that views digital microfinance adoption as a progression from institutional compliance to assisted use, confidence, independent use, and ultimately financial autonomy. The central implication is that digital inclusion should be assessed not only by transaction volume but also by who performs the transaction, how independently it is performed, and whether the borrower can extend digital finance beyond institutionally required activities.