MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068818806 · doi:10.1108/ijbm-08-2013-0088

Consumer trust and distrust: retaining paper bills in online banking

2015· article· en· W2068818806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joanne McNeish

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bank Marketing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistrustBusinessMarketingExploratory researchComprehensionPublic relationsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bank MarketingSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207