The Effect of Using Mobile Banking Services Applications on Electronic Word of Mouth: The Mediating Role of Perceived Trust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine selected dimensions of mobile banking, (such as Ease of Navigation, Personalization Level, Information Quality, Rewards) on e-wom through the mediating role of perceived trust. Self-structured questionnaire is used to collect data which is then shared via Google forms online and targeted only to the users of mobile banking services application in Jordan. Quantitative and analytical methods were used to analyze the data. 499 questioners were returned, 30 of which were rejected as they were not using mobile banking service applications. 469 of the questionnaires were accepted and analyzed using reliability test analysis, descriptive statistics and regression process. The findings of the study indicate that there is a statistically significant effect of mobile banking (Ease of Navigation, Personalization Level, Information quality, Rewards) through the mediation role of perceived trust on relationships between using mobile banking services and e-wom. It is recommended that banks pay more attention to mobile banking and build powerful and good E-WOM in order to spread the use of mobile banking rapidly.
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".