Application of the theory of planned behavior to customer switching intentions in the context of bank consolidations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that affect customers’ switching intentions among banks in the context of mergers and acquisitions, using particularly the case of the merger between Lloyds TSB and Halifax Bank of Scotland, which took place in 2009. Design/methodology/approach On the basis of the theory of planned behavior, a quantitative survey was developed and administered to 515 account holders from both banks in branches located in Spain. Structural equation modeling was then utilized to evaluate the significance of direct and indirect relationships between the various factors under study. Findings Empirical findings indicate a significant direct relationship between switching intentions and each of: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, attitudes, and subjective norms. Results also reveal an inverse significant relationship between switching intentions and both control beliefs and perceived behavioral control. Research limitations/implications The absence of a longitudinal study measuring the actual impact of the merger on customer switching behavior is the main limitation of this study. Moreover, despite being insightful, the results of this study should be generalized with caution since the sample was based on a list purposely chosen by the banks’ management. Originality/value This paper discusses customer switching behavior in the context of a real-life case of banks’ consolidation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".