MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225796288 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2022.1.002

Customer adoption of self-service technologies in Jordan: Factors influencing the use of Internet banking, mobile banking, and telebanking

2022· article· en· W4225796288 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hisham Y. Hassan, Panteha Farmanesh

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryUnified theory of acceptance and use of technologyMobile bankingStructural equation modelingBusinessLoyaltyContext (archaeology)Conceptual frameworkMarketingConceptual modelThe InternetService (business)Technology acceptance modelRisk perceptionKnowledge managementUsabilityComputer sciencePsychologyPerceptionManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-service technologies (SSTs) are systems that enable customers to independently access banking services at a time and place of their choosing. Such technologies have been widely incorporated into banking logistical systems to increase the geographical coverage, reduce labor costs and provide customers with a better service, thereby enhancing their satisfaction and loyalty. The fundamental aim of this research is to propose and examine a conceptual model that best explains the key factors influencing Jordanian customers' intentions and usage of SST banking channels: Internet banking, Mobile banking, and Telebanking. The conceptual model proposed was based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2). This was extended by adding perceived risk as an external factor. A quantitative approach was selected and data gathered from 348 bank customers was analyzed through Structural equation modelling (SEM) was conducted using AMOS 21. The results show that behavioral intention is significantly influenced by performance expectancy, hedonic motivation, price value and perceived risk; however, social influences do not have a significant influence on behavioral intention. This study makes an important contribution by applying UTAUT2 to examine new technology (SSTs) in a new context (Jordan).

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)0.000
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyFrench-language works237,207