Attitude formation towards Islamic banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to determine client’s attitude explanatory factors for the selection of an Islamic bank at Jordan. Mainly, the study identifies factors shaping client’s attitude toward Islamic banks that are considered in clients' decision choices related to different behavioral theories. Data were randomly collected from Islamic banks clients in Jordan. A questionnaire was developed, distributed, and analyzed via the model of t-test on 138 clients. The results show that clients consider several factors in their choices between religious and non-religious. Essentially, religious factors are principles, absence of interest, religious edict or justification, profit-sharing, and Islamic price basis of banking services. The non-religious related factors were sufficient branches, caring and comfortable, appearance and internal decoration design, fast services, response to their clients’ needs, sufficient number of staff, giving clients the top priorities, clients' needs to include disclosing information as a part of accounting system adequacy. Adequate attention is needed to every client, competitive service prices, and the influence of friends and family. The study concludes that it is not possible to say that religious factors are enough, but the interest-free banking greatly represents the non-religious or the economic factors, and the profit-sharing principle is important; Policymakers must consider this to buildup a positive attitude toward Islamic banks. The findings recommend that religious and non-religious values significantly influence clients’ intentions and choices. It suggests that religious ethics is the most important factor, and the availability of information systems disclosing clients' needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".