Whose Choice Is It? The Role of Attitude in Determining Customer’s Intention to Use the Courier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous researchers have centered their attention on attitude towards an intention to use services, but only a few have focused on attitude towards customer’s intention to use the courier. This paper aims to better understand the product quality, price reasonableness as well as brand image that influence the attitude, and lastly the role of attitude as a mediator towards consumer’s intention to use a courier in Indonesia.A total of 100 questionnarires were obtained from customers through random sampling. Using an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) approach which was intended to test the hypotheses; with a significance level p ≤ 0.05. The findings show that product quality, and brand image are influencing the attitude of courier usage. The different results indicated that price reasonableness does not influence the attitude of courier usage, whereas the attitude ables to act as mediator to product quality, price reasonableness, and brand image towards the intention to use a courier.Concerning intention to use thecourier, our findings support an attitude dimensions that represents a commitment to improving a product quality standard and positive perception of the brand image. The evidence is also found for the multidimensional attitude model of attitudes: that attitude predicted by the product quality has followed by an adoption common standard. Moreover, our results state that the brand image is stronger predictors of attitude than product quality and moreover price reasonableness that the dimensions of attitude toward a differential impact on intention to use acourier, with affective attitude appearing are more strongly related to intention. In summary, this study suggests that it is considerably more likely that attitudes will be closely related to actions. There’s a need for future studies to extend the model of this research by adding other independent variables that are able to describe consumer demand.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".