Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of paper bills and statements in online and mobile banking and how they may serve to support trust along with mitigating distrust for consumers when dealing with banks and billing firms. Design/methodology/approach – A two-phase study with 208 Canadian online bill payers. Phase 1 verified the comprehension of the measurement items being tested. In Phase 2, exploratory factor analysis was used to determine the factor structure. Regression analysis was used to identify the relationship of the factors with the intention to continuing receiving paper bills. Findings – Four factors for trust and distrust were identified in this study of which two (structural assurance and counted on to help) plus subjective norm predict the intention to continue receiving paper bills. Research limitations/implications – Trust and distrust are shown to co-exist in this study. Consumers feel vulnerable to the risks inherent in online financial interactions, but signal their willingness to trust by adopting online and mobile banking. Consumers mitigate the distrust they have in banks and billing firms by continuing to receive paper bills and statements. This study is limited to paper bills and statements. The role of other paper documents in customer relationship management is worthy of further exploration. Practical implications – This research investigates the role of financial documents in the consumer-firm relationship. This study suggests that paper bills are a communication method that supports consumers’ trust in the banks and billing firms and their adoption of online and mobile banking. Banks and billing firms’ continued emphasis on consumers’ giving up paper bills while insisting on original paper documentation in problem resolution situations, sends mixed messages to consumers, which heightens their distrust in these firms. Originality/value – This is the first study to suggest that paper bills and statements have a role in influencing trust or distrust of banks and billing firms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".