Human values and attitudes toward bank services in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The relationship between personal values and behaviour has been widely studied, and previous studies have demonstrated the mediating role of attitudes. The purpose of the study is to test the “values‐attitude” relation in banking services (car insurance, life insurance, home insurance and retirement plan) on a Brazilian sample and demonstrate the role of negative incidents with services on the relation between sellers' personal values and attitudes. Design/methodology/approach The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and an attitude measurement developed for this research were used. The data were collected with 1,061 employers who sell these services and work in a large Brazilian bank. A structural equation model was used to test the hypotheses. Findings The results indicate that values of conservation were the best predictor of the attitudes, demonstrating that attitude towards bank services is explained mostly by the motivation to maintain the social tissue. However, the values showed little or no impact on the attitude of those who have had negative incidents with the services. Research limitations/implications Results can be used on the implementation of marketing strategies, pointing to the impact of values on attitudes when individuals have not had experienced a negative incident. The research limitations are related to its setting, data collection, sample and measurements used. Originality/value This is the first research in the field using a Brazilian population. It is also one of the very few studies in the field that examines the moderating role of negative incidents on the relationship between values and attitude with bank services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".