Mobile banking service quality and customer relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the multidimensional concept of mobile banking service quality (security/privacy, practicity, design/aesthetics, enjoyment and sociality) and the impact of the latter on the quality of the relationship (commitment, trust and satisfaction) between consumers and their primary financial institution. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was conducted using a sample of 375 respondents, all owners of a mobile device and all accustomed to conducting banking activities on mobile platforms. Results were analyzed using structural modeling techniques (EQS 6.1). Findings Findings confirm that trust significantly and positively impacts commitment/satisfaction. Mobile banking service quality dimensions also influence trust and commitment/satisfaction. Trust is associated with security/privacy and practicity (regarded as utilitarian factors), while commitment/satisfaction is driven by enjoyment and sociality (dimensions more hedonic by nature). No link is found between interface design and either trust or commitment/satisfaction. Originality/value This study contributes to bank marketing theory since it is the first to demonstrate how key mobile banking service quality dimensions drive customer perceptions of relationship quality. In doing so, this research extends beyond mobile adoption (short term) by addressing customer engagement with financial institutions and issues relating to relationship quality (long term). Regarding managerial implications, findings signal to marketers in the financial services industry the importance of not underestimating the power of hedonic factors (sociality and enjoyment) when developing mobile platforms. These dimensions are often overlooked in the banking industry, a sector in which consumers are believed to be mostly driven by utilitarian motives.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".