Ethical reputation and retail bank selection: a sequential exploratory mixed-methods study in an emerging economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In this study, the authors examine how a retail bank's positive, neutral, and negative prior ethical reputations influence customers' perceptions and attitudes, leading to their bank selection decisions and also analyze whether there is a trade-off between a bank's negative prior ethical reputation and its functional benefits to customers. Design/methodology/approach The authors followed a sequential exploratory mixed-methods research design with two studies. The authors’ first study was qualitative, in which the authors conducted interviews and focus groups with banking customers in Pakistan. The results of this study were used to generate hypotheses that were tested in the second study using random choice experiments. Findings The results indicate that positive and neutral prior ethical reputations do not significantly impact customers' choices; however, a negative reputation does affect selection. The results also show that customers punished negative reputations, even when the associated functional benefits were higher than the alternatives. Originality/value This is one of the first mixed-methods studies in an emerging economy context to consider the impact of ethical reputation on consumer orientation and bank selection decisions.
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 | 0.054 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".