The Effect of Knowledge, Promotion, and Religiosity on Intention to Use Islamic Banking Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to examine the effect of knowledge, promotion, and religiosity on the interest in using Islamic banking services. The purpose of the next research is to examine the effect of knowledge on religiosity. In addition, this study also examines the effect of educational background and age on saving interest in Islamic banks. The population in this study are customers of Bank Syariah Mandiri, Brebes, Central Java, Indonesia. Ninety-nine research samples were obtained. The data collection method used was questionnaires. The data analysis method used was SEM-PLS. The results showed that only promotion proved to have a positive and significant effect on interest in using the services of Islamic banks. Knowledge and religiosity have not been proven to have a significant effect on interest in using services of Islamic banks. Likewise, background and gender do not have a significant effect. The next research result is that there is a positive and significant influence of knowledge on religiosity; there is also a positive and significant influence on the promotion of knowledge. This study recommends the importance of continuing socialization and education from Islamic banking stakeholders in Indonesia to continue introducing Islamic banks to the public.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".