MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding Trust, Privacy and Financial Fears in Online Payment

2018· article· en· W2890308940 on OpenAlexaff
Ghada El Haddad, Esma Aı̈meur, Hicham Hage

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaymentPurchasingBusinessPerceptionInternet privacyAbandonment (legal)Payment service providerMarketingFinanceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In online payment, customers must transmit their personal and financial information through the website to conclude their purchase and pay the services or items selected. They may face possible fears from online transactions raised by their risk perception about financial or privacy loss. They may have concerns over the payment decision with the possible negative behaviors such as shopping cart abandonment. Therefore, customers have three major players that need to be addressed in online payment: the online seller, the payment page, and their own perception. However, few studies have explored these three players in an online purchasing environment. In this paper, we focus on the customer concerns and examine the antecedents of trust, payment security perception as well as their joint effect on two fundamentally important customers' aspects privacy concerns and financial fear perception. A total of 392 individuals participated in an online survey. The results highlight the importance, of the seller website's components (such as ease of use, security signs, and quality information) and their impact on the perceived payment security as well as their impact on customer's trust and financial fear perception. The objective of our study is to design a research model that explains the factors contributing to an online payment decision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.297
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.110 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207