The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1756-669X.htm

Listening to bank customers: the Listening to

bank
meaning of trust customers
Aviv Kidron
Department of Human Services, Max Stern Yezreel Valley College,
Yezreel Valley, Israel, and 355
Yvonne Kreis Received 17 October 2019
Revised 20 November 2019
Schüllermann und Partner AG, Mainz, Germany 27 April 2020
4 August 2020
Accepted 24 August 2020

Abstract
Purpose – In banking services, trust is crucial to any relational exchange situation. Using the example of Israeli
banks, the main research question driving this paper is – What are the reasons for trusting or not trusting banks?
To date, few studies have examined the reasons of ongoing low trust during so-called “normal times”.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper is unique in approaching the study of customer trust in
banks through qualitative analysis by using the interdisciplinary trust approach.
Findings – The results offer important insights regarding situational normality, structural assurance and
customers’ tendencies to trust the bank. The insights about trust derived from this complicated relationship
between customers and banks reveals that customers grow dissatisfied and their level of trust consequently
decreases when they perceive an imbalance in the exchange relationship with their bank.
Originality/value – This study provides novel insights into hidden attitudes and feelings behind each
component of trust beliefs in the bank–customer trust relationship through interdisciplinary trust perspective.
Keywords Banking service, Qualitative study, Customers’ trust beliefs, Interdisciplinary trust,
Customer experience
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Trust lies at the heart of the monetary system (Pashkov and Pelykh, 2020) and is a central
construct in the customer–bank relationship. As high levels of trust cause customers to feel
confident that their interests are well served by the bank (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van
Raaij, 2017), the public’s trust in banks has recently garnered a large body of research
(Monferrer-Tirado et al., 2016; Nienaber et al., 2014; Yu et al., 2015). In banking service, trust
is crucial to relational exchange situations and reduces the perceived risk of service outcome
(Dimitriadis et al., 2011). By definition, trust is a relational concept. Fluctuations in trust
affect not only dyadic (personal) relations but also the more impersonal relations between
public institutions or systems (Hurley et al., 2014; Martensen and Grønholdt, 2010).
Trust is considered a crucial influence on customers’ readiness or willingness to contact their
bank (Hoang, 2019; Plasmeijer et al., 2017; Saleem et al., 2016). However, over the past several
decades, the Israeli banking system has received low trust ratings when compared with banks
abroad (OECD, 2013) and in Israel (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2016). Therefore, understanding trust
International Journal of Quality
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Service Sciences
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2020
and suggestions. pp. 355-370
Funding: The Israel Institute (grant no. 20102) supported this research. We gratefully acknowledge © Emerald Publishing Limited
1756-669X
for their support. DOI 10.1108/IJQSS-10-2019-0120
IJQSS antecedents is particularly important (Nienaber et al., 2014), and Israel presents an excellent
12,3 research opportunity to shed light on the determinants of customers’ trust in banks. An
interpretive perspective has directed this study. The interdisciplinary trust approach requires
viewing trust as a confluence of multiple concepts (McKnight et al., 2002) and not comprising a
unitary meaning. As a conceptual framework, the interdisciplinary trust approach helps explain
customers’ trust in the context of financial services through both institutional factors and trusting
356 beliefs. This study calls for clear theoretical distinctions to be made between the various
components along the continuum of trust among the banks’ customers. Emphasis was placed on
capturing a wide range of trust attitudes to banking rather than statistical representation of
demographic factors. Based on this background, the present study poses a key question – What
are the reasons for trusting or not trusting banks?
The current study makes three contributions to the literature. First, Möllering (2013,
p. 10) posits that researchers need to explore “not just ‘how much’ but also ‘how’ people
trust.” Mollering’s engagement with how people trust expands on Eysenck’s warning
against certitude: “Sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at
individual cases – not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning
something” (Eysenck, 1976, p. 9). Previous studies have analyzed various antecedents of
trust in the context of the banking sector. Yet, nothing like a clear consensus has been
achieved (Ennew and Sekhon, 2007; McKnight et al., 2002; Yu et al., 2015). A major
contribution of this study, therefore, is an effort to bridge this research gap and to provide
insights into the quality and attributes of the bank–customer trust relationship.
Second, studies which adapted the interdisciplinary trust perspective mostly have used
quantitative research methods (Grayson et al., 2008; Maduku, 2016; Moin et al., 2015; Moin et al.,
2017). However, these studies miss advantages offered by qualitative research (Grayson et al.,
2008). Qualitative studies offer critical tools foster the discernment of new patterns and insights
about trust (Bansal et al., 2018) which uncover hidden patterns in customers thinking (DeRosia
and Christensen, 2009). Specifically, there is a scarcity of qualitative study attempting an
understanding and explanation of customer trust toward banks (Dalziel et al., 2011).
Finally, research has primarily examined trust in banks during or after a crisis period
(Gillespie and Hurley, 2013; Monferrer-Tirado et al., 2016). To date, only a few studies have
explored various aspects of trust or low trust in banks during so-called “normal times”
(Jansen et al., 2015; Kaltenthaler et al., 2010; McNeish, 2015). The erosion of trust is
engrossing not merely as theory; it has practical and pragmatic interest. From the
perspective of both practitioners and policymakers, trust facilitates transactions with
customers. Supported by this study’s findings, bank managers and policymakers may alter
policies and, therefore, their conduct with customers to increase the latter’s trust.

Theoretical background
Conceptual framework
The interdisciplinary trust approach mainly derives from the work of McKnight et al. (1998),
McKnight et al. (2002) and Mayer et al. (1995). Institution-based trust carries with it the belief
that impersonal structures impartially support success in a given situation (McKnight et al.,
1998), whereas trusting beliefs mean that one considers the other person to be benevolent,
competent, honest or predictable in a given situation (Mayer et al., 1995).
Interdisciplinary trust literature maintains that institutional trust influences customers’
trusting belief. Institutional processes and structures act as authoritative guidelines for
social behavior and thus can explain trust (Hansen, 2017). Institutional trust assumes that
situations or the environmental setting influence trust in two ways:
 (1) situational normality, defined as the belief that success is likely to occur because Listening to
the situation is normal; and bank
(2) structural assurances, defined as the belief that success is likely because such customers
contextual conditions as promises, contracts, regulations and guarantees are in
place (McKnight et al., 1998, p. 478).

Institution-based trust denotes the sense of security that a person develops toward a
357
situation owing to the prevalence of functioning guarantees, protective mechanisms and
other situational structures (Shapiro, 1987). Both structural assurance and situational
normality beliefs positively impact trusting beliefs (Moin et al., 2015).

Meaning of trust
In economic terms, trust can be defined as “the belief or perception by one party (e.g. a principal)
that the other party (e.g. an agent) to a particular transaction will not cheat” (Knack, 2001, p. 7).
Generally, the recurring element in trust definitions is risk: to place trust in another party’s
behavior involves taking risk and accepting certain vulnerability because future actions of others
are uncertain (Doney et al., 2007). The literature on trust in banking demonstrates that risk affects
the customer-bank relationship. Trust in financial services is perceived as “an individual’s
willingness to accept vulnerability on the grounds of positive expectations about intentions or
behavior of another in a situation characterized by interdependence and risk” (Ennew and
Sekhon, 2007, p. 63). In other words, risk in this context means that each party (i.e. the customer
and the bank) entertain the possibility that the other party might behave in an unfavorable and
potentially harmful way (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van Raaij, 2017).

Customers’ trust beliefs

The second aspect of the interdisciplinary trust approach concerns trusting beliefs. Mayer et al.
(1995) model has been widely used in the study of customer trust, in general, and trust in banks,
in particular. Here trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important
to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995,
p. 712). Three factors appear to largely explain trustworthiness: ability, benevolence and integrity.
Ability/competence. Trust in the other party’s competence is a “prerequisite for the
viability of any repeated transaction” (Sako, 1992, p. 43). Ability refers to the expertise or
competence that the trustee exhibits in the domain in which they are to be trusted (Mayer
et al., 1995). With regard to banking, ability includes technical and managerial abilities to
provide financial services and relevant information, to assist customers with their decisions
and to handle problems and complaints (Pirson and Malhotra, 2008). Ability has been found
to be one of the most used practical determinants of bank trust (Gill et al., 2006; van Esterik-
Plasmeijer and van Raaij, 2017).
Integrity. Perceived integrity is “the belief that the trustee adheres to a set of principles
that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 719). Specifically, customers perceive
integrity as encompassing honesty in (bank) employees, fairness in application of rules,
procedures and conditions and a visibly equal and fair treatment of customers (Dimitriadis
et al., 2011). Integrity contributes to the development of a positive reputation for the service
provider (Yu et al., 2015) and affects intentions to make further use of these services in the
future (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2002). According to Järvinen (2014), customer’s trust in a
bank is based on prior experience and strongly depends on the bank’s demonstrated ability
to behave in a reliable way and to observe rules and regulations.
IJQSS Benevolence. Benevolence is demonstrated through the trustee’s genuine interest in the
12,3 counter-party’s welfare irrespective of the profit motive (Mayer et al., 1995). This
benevolence is evident when the service provider shows responsiveness and empathy for the
customer’s needs (Yu et al., 2015), whereas the customer may suspect a hidden agenda when
being treated unfairly (Grégoire and Fisher, 2008). Benevolence is thought to mitigate the
perception of uncertainty and risk associated with opportunistic behavior (Yu et al., 2015) or
358 when previously unconsidered conditions test a contract (Ganesan, 1994).
In sum, in the case of a customer–bank relation, the customer perceives a sense of
vulnerability in relation to the trustor. In a case where trust has eroded, its restoration
requires an understanding of the reasons banks produced more signals of low trust than of
trust (Hurley et al., 2014). As the customer a priori feels vulnerable and therefore opens to a
reduction in the degree of trust in the bank, this returns the discussion to the main research
question driving this paper:

RQ1. What are the reasons for trusting or not trusting the Israeli banks?

Methodology
This study is guided by an interpretive perspective. To collect the information on trust in
banking, street interviews were conducted. This follows Kantsperger and Kunz (2010) who
carried out street interviews as a means of collecting information about trust in banks. Street
interviews are perceived as part of conversation-analytical literature (Strebel, 2014).
Standardized interviewing involves a process of answer-response-interaction based on “ad
hoc considerations” rising out of the encounter between interviewer and interviewee (Strebel,
2005). With Maxwell’s (2005, p. 67) dictum in mind that “the function of [the] research
questions is to explain specifically what your study is about” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 67), our
interview was developed to specifically capture the interviewees’ perceptions of trust
towards Israeli banks. Our contention is that the issue investigated characterizes the Israeli
banking system as a whole:
The street interview is a course of action through which a text is created [. . .] [and] involves not
only specified action, but the simultaneous activity of writing, that is, making the necessary
records of answers (Strebel, 2014, p. 283).
Standardized interviewing involves answer response interaction based on “ad hoc
considerations” made in the encounter between interviewer and interviewee (Strebel, 2005).
The interview questions were tested with a group of 50 students of diverse ages and
disciplines and refined before conducting the street interviews. The function of a pilot study
in a qualitative inquiry relates to identifying specific methodological and epistemological
issues permitting researchers to affirm, sharpen or revise as they work toward the goals of
their proposed study (Kim, 2011).
All the interviews were conducted by two interviewers. To ensure comparability,
interview procedures and parameters were established, and the interviewers instructed
accordingly. As suggested by Karndacharuk et al. (2016), interviewers were familiarized
with the interview objective. To ensure comparability of data and uniformity of interviewee
understanding, interviewers read questions aloud from the questionnaire (Robinson, 1998;
Strebel, 2014). These procedures strengthen the study’s qualities of replicability and
standardization (Robinson, 1998) and significantly increase the measurement accuracy
(Strebel, 2005). When the research process is standardized, both the course of the interview
and the evaluation of data significantly increase the measurement accuracy (Strebel, 2005).
 Our interview was specifically developed to capture the interviewees’ perceptions of trust Listening to
toward Israeli banks. Each interview was organized in a structured manner and consisted of bank
two questions: (1) Do you trust your bank? (2) Why? The first question could be answered by
a simple “yes” or “no.” The second question was formulated concisely to allow respondents
customers
to explain their answer without guidance or influence from the interviewer. It was asked
automatically, not limiting responses. An answer might contain single or multiple reasons
for trusting or not trusting banks. The interviewers noted all answers. In addition, the
interviewers made notes about some general interviewee characteristics, such as gender and
359
age.

Participants
A total of 598 street interviews were conducted between November 2016 and January 2017
in six main streets and commercial centers throughout central and northern Israel. A range
of bank customers from different regions ensured that geographical differences did not
impact results. The locations were chosen as being particularly near commercial centers or
train stations thus permitting a high number of pedestrians.
A total of 54 respondents (9.03%) did not provide a clear “yes” or “no” answer to the first
question. These interviewees also provided ambivalent responses to the second question,
including partially positive and partially negative statements. These 54 respondents were
excluded from further analysis after a rigorous check for any potential interviewer bias. The
54 respondents matched the general group of interviewees’ demographic characteristics.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic information of the final 544 participants.

Data analysis
The interview answers were analyzed through a coding process. The analysis focused on
respondents’ answers to questions regarding trust in banks. Thus, it reflects the lived
experience of the people interviewed (Silverman, 2005). Participants’ answers were first
divided according to their response to the first question, i.e. between those who expressed
trust in banks and those who stated that they do not trust banks. A line-by-line reading
initiated analysis of the text, probing for processes, actions, assumptions and consequences
(Ryan and Bernard, 2000). The data was reviewed and categories were generated beside
each paragraph (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Using a number of general themes stemming
from the literature, responses were coded. Other themes were then added growing out of the
participants’ answers (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Data was then organized according to
the codes under each category for those who trust and those who do not trust. This
permitted comparison between segments sunder each individual code, and confirmation
that each has the same meaning. For clarity of meaning and connection to the conceptual
framework, codes were named and operationally defined. Finally, the codes were organized

Demographic characteristics Participants Trust Do not trust

All respondents 544 202 342

Female 294 (54%) 119 (59%) 178 (52%)
Male 250 (46%) 83 (41%) 164 (48%)
Age 20–30 146 (26.93%) 72 (35.79%) 71 (20.89%) Table 1.
Age 31–40 184 (33.76%) 50 (24.74%) 134 (39.24%) Distribution of
Age 41–50 117 (21.54%) 43 (21.05%) 77 (22.47%) participants in the
Age 50þ 97 (17.77%) 37 (18.42%) 60 (17.40%) study
IJQSS according to pattern codes (Miles and Huberman, 1994), allowing a deeper understanding of
12,3 the construct. Pattern codes are explanatory or inferential codes, identifying an emergent
theme, configuration or explanation. These bring together a great deal of material into more
meaningful and economical units of analysis. When codes are inter-related coherently and
are conceptually inclusive, they should be part of a governing structure. Therefore, we
organized the codes according to three pattern codes: taking advantage of the customer;
360 unequal power between bank and customers; and “two sides to the mirror.”
Each researcher performed the coding separately, and any disagreements were then
jointly reconciled. This enabled us to compare sub-categories under each individual code
and to confirm similarity of meaning. Internal reliability was established through this
process. The consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by
different judges is important to a determination of reliability (Silverman, 2005). A high level
of inter-coder agreement is evidence that a theme has external validity, independent of the
investigator’s preconceptions (Mitchell, 1979). The quotations presented below have been
translated into English.

Findings
Reasons not to trust
A total of 62.86% of the 544 respondents stated that they do not trust banks. In the sub-
sample of 342 respondents who do not trust banks, responses ranged over 380 different
reasons. While the explanations for not trusting banks were diverse, it was possible to
identify common aspects. Responses have been aggregated into three main themes: taking
advantage of the customer (54.1%); unequal power between bank and customers (25.4%);
and two sides to the mirror (20.5%).

Taking advantage of the customer

The most common idea within this category is the perception that banks use customers’
money to their own advantage. The theme includes three sub-themes: commissions and
interest rates (55.56%); perception of banks as dishonest (25.25%); and banks’ self-interest
(19.19%).
One of the major obstacles in the trusting relationship with banks is the high number of
services on which the banks charge commission and the perceived high charges of these
commissions. Similarly, respondents state that interest rates are perceived to be too low on
savings and too high on loans and mortgages. These perceptions cause the account holders
to denounce the banks as profit-centers existing at the client’s expense. On the other side,
customers’ perceptions of price fairness entail notions of transparency and hidden costs
about price enhancing their perception of a reasonable price (Zietsman et al., 2019). Fee
structure in banking services in Israel is thus a great to hindrance to trust:
They use their power to offer various suggestions to their customers to enjoy profits and interest
rates at the end of the day. Therefore, the bank’s most important goal is profit at the expense of
its clients.
Second, the low level of trust presents itself in even more extreme statements by the
respondents. They perceive the banks to be dishonest. Banks are thought of as dealing
dishonestly with account holders’ money and building their profitability at the customers’
expense. Care must be taken here to distinguish between these responses and the more
serious allegations in the following section: In their responses, interviewees did not allege
that banks actually steal money or commit crimes, but rather that they take advantage of
their clients. Customers expect that financial institutions will not behave opportunistically Listening to
at their expense, even if there is interest and opportunity to do so (Nooteboom, 1996): bank
Thieves. I lose over every transaction that is made with my money. The right way is to switch customers
between banks.
Finally, and along the same lines, respondents argued that they do not trust their bank
because it takes care of its own interests over those of customers. In this respect, a
relationship with the bank is perceived as biased in favor of the bank which does not
361
concern itself with the customer’s welfare. As stated above, respondents do not expect
banks to conduct themselves solely as a business, but more of a public good. If banks were a
public good, the interest of the public (here represented by the respondents) should be, but is
not the first concern of banking:
As a pensioner, who has worked very hard throughout her whole life, I have difficulties with such
organizations; it is hard to trust them because they serve their own needs only.

Unequal power relations between the bank and customers

Respondents also explain the reasons for their low level of trust in banks in a perceived
inequality and inequity in the relation between banks and customers. This theme
includes three sub-themes: fraud (62.37%); lack of transparency (24.73%); and injustice
(12.9%). This theme is contrary to banks’ fiduciary responsibility to act honestly and
fairly. Fiduciary responsibility has been extensively developed in Israel courts and is
not based on legislation. The courts have ruled that banks have power and control over
both the customer and its financial assets; therefore, the customer is in a dependent
position. The customers depend on the bank for service and advice. Thus, the customer
rightfully has an expectation that the bank will act responsibly and with good
intentions (Plato-Shinar and Geva, 2009).
Under the sub-theme of “fraud,” respondents considered that the banks do not
behave honestly with their customers. In this respect, respondents stated that they
could not rely on the bankers’ advices and felt manipulated. Customers assume that the
service provider follows a hidden agenda, not in their best interest (Grégoire and Fisher,
2008):
They always cunningly try to convince you to do things that you would not consider doing.
A perceived “lack of transparency” is another sub-theme that elucidates this attitude of low
trust. Thus, respondents find themselves making financial decisions without sufficient
information and only in retrospect do they understand all the implications of their financial
decisions. In this regard, Schwartz et al. (2011) argue that financial advisors frequently act
more as salespeople than advisors. Customers rely on them without fully understanding the
risks involved in their investment advice or when taking loans. It is possible that complexity
of professional banking language creates a gap of understanding between banks and
customers (Plato-Shinar, 2012), and this is expressed by customers as a concern about
integrity:
In my opinion, the banks are not strict about the duty of full disclosure to their customers. They
are revealing a little bit and then conceal it. Furthermore, they make customers sign multiple
documents when opening a bank account and all of that is done without giving the customer a
proper chance to read and understand what he’s signing.
IJQSS Finally, respondents noted the gap between the banks’ attitude toward wealthy and
12,3 ordinary customers. In recent years, banks have forgiven debts incurred by large businesses
and wealthy individuals, and this has not contributed to public perception of their
trustworthiness. Quite the reverse in fact, as the average customer feels an imbalance
bordering on injustice in her or his relationship with the bank:
The banks are good for those who have money. They suck the blood of the ones who do not with
362 crazy interest rates and commissions.

Two sides to the mirror

Interestingly, three sub-themes arise simultaneously when discussing trusting and not trusting
banks under the theme bank–customer relations: service quality;, necessity of banking; and
past experience. However, the reasoning within each sub-theme differs between those who
declared that they trust and those who do not. When interviewees answered that they do not
trust a bank, their reasons were split into three sub-themes: service quality (40.00%), necessity
(34.67%), and frustrating experience (25.33%).
Under this theme, almost half of the interviewees perceived inferior quality of service as
the main reason for low trust. For example, long waiting times are a potential obstacle to
trust formation. This confirms previous studies which found perceived punctuality to be
correlated to trust (Gill et al., 2006). Other reasons for low trust are patronizing attitudes and
a perceived lack of empathy from the bankers. In this case, respondents indicated that they
feel disappointed or vulnerable to poor service quality, which is contrary to their
expectations, especially because the customer–bank relationship is considered for long-term:
Waiting is not pleasant at all, both by telephone and in a queue. [They have] a condescending
attitude, and I’ve been to a few banks.
Another sub-theme that contributes to the sense of low trust is “necessity.” In this regard,
the respondents noted that they feel like “prisoners” of the bank. They see no other
possibility of dealing with certain financial issues. In this respect, they perceive the bank as
a lesser of two evils. Dependence on bank, lack of competition, centralization and perception
of the banks as a monopoly are among the explanations listed under this theme:
How can we trust them? The fact that they have my money is because I do not have many other
options.
Finally, with regard to frustrating experience, when the relationship with the bank is
perceived unfavorably respondents explained that they feel disappointed or vulnerable,
given the expectation that the bank should help in times of trouble. It is important to note
that the unfavorable experience is usually based on a repeated series of events resulting in
disappointment and lowering of trust:
They have killed me with the mortgage. I have been extremely disappointed. I do not trust and
will not trust.

Reasons to trust
With respect to the affirmative sample (37.14%) of answers to the first question, the
categorization of responses reveals three main reasons for trusting banks: the necessity of
using bank services (49.99%), neutral/positive experience (31.25%) and, finally, service
quality (18.76%). These themes have already been mentioned as influencing low trust.
However, the segmentation between the themes is different.
Necessity Listening to
Among the respondents who indicated that they trust their bank, the most common answer bank
was that the relationship with the bank is perceived to be a necessity. Hence, the relation
with the banks seems rational, i.e. individuals displayed a matter-of-fact perspective on
customers
banking in general by highlighting the business character of banks. Many respondents
specifically argue that the reason for trusting banks is that they keep their money safe. The
focus here is on the core business of banking and may be considered a more pragmatic
element of the customer–bank relationship. Hence, the operative principal seems to be that 363
respondents trust banks to keep their side of any business deal. The significant number of
positive responses based on the necessity of banking may represent a form of trust in
contracts rather than trust in the specific financial organization:
I have never taken a loan or dealt with favors from the bank. I trust that they will keep my money;
I do not need any favors from them.

Neutral/positive experience
The answers within this theme exist on a continuum between trust given because no
problem has been thus far encountered and trust given because of positive past experience.
In other words, Individuals explicitly link their level of trust in banks to past neutral or
positive experiences. On one hand, most of respondents answered that they trust the bank
because they have not been disappointed (so far). On the other hand, only a few formulated
their answers in a more positive manner. These answers confirm that trust is strengthened
through past positive experience (Aurier and N’Goala, 2010):
I have never caught them stealing from me. I am not a big business. I think they are ok. I do not
think they are cheating.

Service quality
The third building block for trust seems to be based on service quality. In customer–bank
relationships, interpersonal interactions through conventional branch banking affect
relational trust and customer loyalty (Alhathal et al., 2019). Respondents note courtesy,
personal contact with their banker, and positive responses to their needs, etc. as
characteristics of a banking service that leads them to trust the bank. This, again, conforms
to the trust literature where authors like Gill and colleagues (2006) found that perceived
politeness is related to trust among business customers in banks:
I have been running a bank account for about 30 years and all my needs were respected. I have
not been let down. I always received good service and treatment.

Discussion
The study was designed to gain insights about trust reasons from the bank customers’ point-of-
view. In general, this study differentiates itself from previous studies by offering important
insights regarding customers’ tendencies to trust the bank through interdisciplinary trust
perspective (McKnight et al., 1998; McKnight et al., 2002). Through qualitative research, this
study uncovered hidden patterns in customers thinking (Dalziel et al., 2011; DeRosia and
Christensen, 2009), and thus reveals clear theoretical distinctions between the various
components of trust or low trust among the banks’ customers. While institutional trust expects
an organization or institution (the bank) to act according agreed promises, procedures and
outcomes (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van Raaij, 2017), the findings reveal a complicated
IJQSS relationship between customers and banks resulting in most cases low trust. Generally, our
12,3 results offer important insights regarding situational normality, structural assurance, and
customers’ tendencies to trust the bank.
First, situational normality relates to the absence of major “extraordinary” factors that
might impact on the tendency of trustors to trust trustees (McKnight et al., 1998; Shapiro,
1987). In this context, McKnight et al. (1998) offer as an example the fact that “a person who
364 enters a bank tends to expect a setting conducive to both customer service and fiduciary
responsibility” (p. 478), which help him or her to perceive the situation as normal and
therefore worthy of trust. As bank employees directly interact with customers, the trust
relation between customers and employees is especially crucial (Gill et al., 2006). However,
when the interaction with the bank does not seem proper or customary, it is not only
perceived as unsuccessful but also leads to low trust beliefs.
Second, structural assurance is concerned with a sense of security growing out of such
contextual conditions as promises, contracts, regulations and guarantees (McKnight et al.,
1998). The respondents do not believe that the banks’ norms and safeguards lead the banks
to be sufficiently trustworthy. They do not, as a rule, automatically trust that financial
institutions act honestly and ethically. This finding runs contrary to Moin et al. (2015)
conclusion that structural assurance is positively related to trusting beliefs. Here, the banks’
norms, as perceived by the customers, damage their sense of security.
Third, our findings also provide inductive insights regarding customers’ trusting beliefs in the
banks. This study offers a unique meaning to the concepts – benevolence, integrity and ability
from the perspective of banks’ customers. The category “taking advantage of the customer”
demonstrates that a low level of trust is affected by a perceived low level of banks’ benevolence.
The findings under the first category “taking advantage of the customer” contradict one of the
basic assumptions of benevolence, namely, the customers believe that financial institutions will
not behave opportunistically at their expense, even if there is interest and opportunity to do so
(Nooteboom, 1996). Negative perceptions toward the service provider may arise if customers
grow suspicious of the former’s ethical appropriateness or motives (Estelami and De Maeyer,
2002). The respondents’ allegations describe a situation in which they perceive that the bank
focuses on its own best interest and priorities at the expense of complying with ethical principles.
Apparently, the norm of reciprocity is also violated by showing opportunistic behavior and a lack
of benevolence (Kantsperger and Kunz, 2010).
The category “unequal power relations between the bank and customers” demonstrates that
low level of trust is affected by perceived low integrity of banks. The sub-themes in this category
focus on the aspect of integrity in the trust literature, i.e. the expectation that the other party
makes good-faith agreements, tells the truth, acts ethically and fulfills promises (Dimitriadis et al.,
2011). Integrity, honesty, and fairness are foundational for trustworthy behavior, and can be
manifested in several bank services (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van Raaij, 2017). While
respondents find banks to behave in an immoral way and to exploit its power, this is contrary to
the customers’ expectation that financial institutions will not cheat them and will strive to
perform more-than-adequately (Gambetta, 2000). For example, as the customer interacts with a
bank advisor who makes decisions for him/her, the customer grows less involved (Söderberg
et al., 2014), but also less trusting of the bank. Specifically, customers felt that they could not rely
on bankers to provide the right advice or all the information they needed.
The third category “two sides to the mirror” presented somewhat conflicting findings.
Whether the interviewees indicated that they trust the bank or not, the themes are identical,
while their explanations are quite different. From a customer’s perspective, ability refers to the
service provider’s experience in providing consistent and desirable performance which fulfill
the customer’s needs (Yu et al., 2015). Therefore, customers tend to trust the bank when they
perceive the bank as having the ability to satisfy their financial needs, to perform its function Listening to
efficiently and to keep the customers’ money safe. In sharp contrast, they do not trust the banks bank
when they hold the opposite opinion. In context, customers expect to be able to trust in the
competence of bank employees to perform a service on their behalf (Kayeser-Fatima and
customers
Abdur-Razzaque, 2014), although they may lack the competencies to evaluate the financial
results of the services (Hansen, 2014). Banks mostly offer similar products and services and
differentiate themselves from competitors by increasing customer satisfaction (Moghavvemi
et al., 2018). Therefore, when service quality is perceived as good, and the customers perceive 365
the experience as positive, customers’ trust is strengthened. Following this, when customers
experience “goodwill trust” which means an employee performed more than what was formally
expected (Heffernan et al., 2008), customers feel confident that their interests are well served by
the bank (Longbottom and Hilton, 2011).
Trust is closely linked to risk analysis and is based on an assessment of the probability of a
positive result (Pashkov and Pelykh, 2020). Generally, with a high level of trust, customers feel
confident that their interests are well served by the bank. They come to believe that their personal
interests are being fulfilled. To a certain degree, a high level of trust is a buffer against any
negative experiences that may arise. By contrast, with a low level of trust, a negative experience
may be perceived as “proof” that the bank cannot be trusted (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van
Raaij, 2017). Moreover, failures of integrity or benevolence are inherently moral in nature and
tend to be viewed as reflecting serious and continuing deficiencies of character that can be
generalizable to the future and to other circumstances (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009).

Limitations and directions for future research

As with most empirical research, the study has certain limitations. Data has been gleaned from
only one country, and the results may not be generalizable to other countries and across cultures
(Schumann et al., 2010). Although a similarity of beliefs about the need for financial services
ranges across countries (Guo et al., 2013), a replication of this study in other countries with low
levels of trust in banks (e.g. Greece, Italy or Spain) might validate the findings and thereby
neutralizing cultural differences on trust. In this study, data collection made use of many short
interviews. More in-depth interviews with individual customers or customer focus groups may
shed additional light on other constructs in McKnight et al. (1998) model, such as disposition to
trust and trusting intentions. Finally, a longitudinal study would help understand the persistence
of the factors obtained in this study.

Managerial implications
From the perspective of managers and policymakers, this study indicates the main points of
low trust in the banks. The most direct implication of this study to a banking service
provider highlights the need to differentiate between the reasons for high and low trust in
banks. In this respect, the reasons for high trust must be maintained while the reasons for
low trust should be addressed. The reasons for low levels of trust examined here yield a
basis for a practical program aimed at increasing this level of trust.
Banks must equip themselves with a “toolbox” to maintain and strengthen customer
trust. At the institutional level, this study echoes its predecessors in calling for actions from
both regulators and financial institutions to strengthen customers’ trust by building
stronger and more credible institutional systems and as such providing assurance of strong
structural assurance and situational normalcy (Grayson et al., 2008). In this regard, fairness
and consistency of policies and processes indicate benevolence and integrity (Gillespie and
Dietz, 2009). As such, organizations can voluntarily implement self-auditing mechanisms
(Bachmann et al., 2015) as a strategy to restore trust. Moreover, they suggest strengthening
IJQSS trust through developing and communicating a strong ethical culture, where ethical values
12,3 are deeply ingrained in routines and procedures. External auditors together with other
“watchdog agencies” have been considered essential in promoting a culture of integrity and
accountability (Al Ghani, 2018). Creating an ethical culture in the banks will prompt bankers
to look more closely at the professional aspect of the work rather than merely selling
“banking products.”
366 At the level of trust beliefs, our findings argue strongly for the importance of
transparency. Providing accurate and relevant information to organizational stakeholders
(bank customers in this case) enables customers to make informed decisions (Rawlins, 2008).
Moreover, co-operation and meaningful dialogue may ultimately lead to value creation for
both parties (Dean and Alhothali, 2017). Bank managers also need to recognize that fairness
and consistency of policies and processes may contribute to benevolence and integrity, and
over time, this will contribute to a positive experience for the customer. In the final analysis,
changing the bank’s image without changing its norms will not constitute a foundation for
increasing the level of trust in banks.

Conclusion
Building on the interdisciplinary trust approach (McKnight et al., 1998; McKnight et al.,
2002), leads to one of this study’s key insights: trust and its components may be interpreted
according to their specific context, in the present example, banks. Beyond theoretical
definitions of trust’s varying components – including ability, integrity and benevolence
(Mayer et al., 1995) –this study exposes hidden attitudes and feelings behind each such
component. Clear theoretical distinctions between the various components of trust or low
trust among the banks’ customers are therefore essential. The trust components discussed
here provide a window onto customers’ perception of trust.
It is true that the bank’s competence to provide financial services is perceived as a
reason to trust. With a high level of trust, customers feel confident that their interests
are well served by the bank. They have come to believe that their personal interests and
goals are being fulfilled. To a certain degree, a high level of trust is a buffer against any
negative experiences that may arise. By contrast, when customers are exposed to
behaviors incompatible with benevolence and integrity, trust as a key to exchange
relationships is harmed. With a resulting low level of trust, a negative experience may
be perceived as “proof” that the bank cannot be trusted (van Esterik-Plasmeijer and van
Raaij, 2017). Moreover, failures of integrity or benevolence are inherently moral in
nature and tend to be viewed as reflecting serious and continuing deficiencies of
character, generalizable to the future and to other circumstances (Gillespie and Dietz,
2009). Consequently, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, this study
provides insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the bank–customer trust
relationship.

References
Al Ghani, A.N.J. (2018), “The impact of auditor independence on total quality management”, Academy
of Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1-14.
Alhathal, F., Sharma, P. and Kingshot, R. (2019), “Moderating effects of service separation on customer
relationships with service firms: a social-exchange perspective”, Journal of Service Theory and
Practice, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Aurier, P. and N’Goala, G. (2010), “The differing and mediating roles of trust and relationship commitment Listening to
in service relationship maintenance and development”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 303-325.
bank
Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N. and Priem, R. (2015), “Repairing trust in organizations and institutions:
customers
toward a conceptual framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1123-1142.
Bansal, P., Smith, W.K. and Vaara, E. (2018), “New ways of seeing through qualitative research”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 1189-1195.
Dalziel, N., Harris, F. and Laing, A. (2011), “A multidimensional typology of customer relationships:
367
from faltering to affective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 398-432.
Dean, A. and Alhothali, G.T. (2017), “Enhancing service-for-service benefits: potential opportunity or
pipe dream?”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 193-218.
DeRosia, E.D. and Christensen, G.L. (2009), “Blind insights: a new technique for testing a priori
hypotheses with qualitative methods”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-35.
Dimitriadis, S., Kouremenos, A. and Kyrezis, N. (2011), “Trust-based segmentation: preliminary
evidence from technology-enabled bank channels”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-31.
Doney, P.M., Barry, J.M. and Abratt, R. (2007), “Trust determinants and outcomes in global B2B
services”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 1096-1116.
Ennew, C. and Sekhon, H. (2007), “Measuring trust in financial services: the trust index”, Consumer
Policy Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 62-68.
Estelami, H. and De Maeyer, P. (2002), “Customer reactions to service provider over generosity”, Journal
of Service Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 205-216.
Eysenck, H.J. (1976), “Introduction”, in H.J. Eysenck (Ed.), Case Studies in Behaviour Therapy,
Routledge, London, pp. 1-15.
Gambetta, D. (2000), ‘ “Can we trust ?”, in Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative
Relations, Electronic Edition, Department of Sociology, University of Oxford, Oxford, pp. 213-237.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Gill, A.S., Flaschner, A.B. and Shachar, M. (2006), “Factors that affect the trust of business clients in
their banks”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 384-405.
Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009), “Trust repair after an organization-level failure”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-145.
Gillespie, N. and Hurley, R. (2013), “Trust and the global financial crisis”, in Bachmann, R. and Zahee,
A. (Eds), Advances in Trust Research, Edward Elgar, Chichester, pp. 177-204.
Grayson, K., Johnson, D. and Chen, D.F.R. (2008), “Is firm trust essential in a trusted environment? How
trust in the business context influences customers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 2,
pp. 241-256.
Grégoire, Y. and Fisher, R.J. (2008), “Customer betrayal and retaliation: when your best customers
become your worst enemies”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 247-261.
Guo, L., Stone, D., Bryant, S., Wier, B., Nikitkov, A., Ren, C., Riccio, E.L., Shen, M., Trabelsi, S. and
Zhang, L. (2013), “Are consumers’ financial needs and values common across cultures? Evidence
from six countries”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 675-688.
Hansen, T. (2014), “The role of trust in financial customer–seller relationships before and after the
financial crisis”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 442-452.
Hansen, T. (2017), “The moderating effects of financial broad-scope trust on consumer knowledge, cognitive
effort, and financial healthiness”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 161-175.
IJQSS Heffernan, T., O’Neill, G., Travaglione, T. and Droulers, M. (2008), “Relationship marketing: the impact
of emotional intelligence and trust on bank performance”, International Journal of Bank
12,3 Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 183-199.
Hoang, D.P. (2019), “The Central role of customer dialogue and trust in gaining bank loyalty: an
extended SWICS model”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 711-729.
Hurley, R., Gong, X. and Waqar, A. (2014), “Understanding the loss of trust in large banks”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 348-366.
368
Jansen, D.J., Mosch, R.H. and van der Cruijsen, C.A. (2015), “When does the general public lose trust in
banks?”, Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 127-141.
Järvinen, R.A. (2014), “Consumer trust in banking relationships in Europe”, The International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 551-566.
Kaltenthaler, K., Anderson, C.J. and Miller, W.J. (2010), “Accountability and independent central banks:
Europeans and distrust of the European central bank”, Journal of Common Market Studies,
Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 1261-1281.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002), “Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams”, The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 187-213.
Kantsperger, R. and Kunz, W.H. (2010), “Consumer trust in service companies: a multiple mediating
analysis”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Karndacharuk, A., Wilson, D.J. and Dunn, R.C. (2016), “Qualitative evaluation study of urban-shared spaces
in New Zealand”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 119-134.
Kayeser-Fatima, J. and Abdur-Razzaque, M. (2014), “Roles of trust on rapport and satisfaction in
services”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 566-578.
Kim, Y. (2011), “The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: identifying issues and learning lessons for culturally
competent research”, Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 190-206.
Knack, S. (2001), “Trust, associational life and economic performance”, in Helliwell, J.F. (Ed.), The
Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-Being,
Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) and Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), Quebec, pp. 172-202.
Longbottom, D. and Hilton, J. (2011), “Service improvement: lessons from the UK financial services
sector”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39-59.
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “The impact of initial consumer trust on
intentions to transact with a web site: a trust-building model”, The Journal of Strategic
Information Systems, Vol. 11 Nos 3/4, pp. 297-323.
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L. and Chervany, N.L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473-490.
McNeish, J. (2015), “Consumer trust and distrust: retaining paper bills in online banking”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 5-22.
Maduku, D.K. (2016), “The effect of institutional trust on internet banking acceptance: perspectives of
South African banking retail customers”, South African Journal of Economic and Management
Sciences, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 533-548.
Martensen, A. and Grønholdt, L. (2010), “Measuring and managing brand equity: a study with focus on
product and service quality in banking”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 300-316.
Maxwell, J. (2005), Qualitative Research: An Interactive Design, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational trust”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mitchell, S.K. (1979), “Interobserver agreement, reliability, and generalizability of data collected in Listening to
observational studies”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 376-390.
bank
Moghavvemi, S., Lee, S.T. and Lee, S.P. (2018), “Perceived overall service quality and customer
satisfaction: a comparative analysis between local and foreign banks in Malaysia”, International
customers
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 908-930.
Moin, S.M.A., Devlin, J.F. and McKechnie, S. (2015), “Trust in financial services: impact of institutional trust
and dispositional trust on trusting belief”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 91-106. 369
Moin, S.M.A., Devlin, J.F. and McKechnie, S. (2017), “Trust in financial services: the influence of demographics
and dispositional characteristics”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 64-76.
Möllering, G. (2013), “Process views of trusting and crises”, in Bachmann, R., Zaheer, A. (Eds),
Handbook of Advances in Trust Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 285-305.
Monferrer-Tirado, D., Estrada-Guillén, M., Fandos-Roig, J.C., Moliner-Tena, M.Á. and S!anchez García, J.
(2016), “Service quality in bank during an economic crisis”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 235-259.
Nienaber, A.M., Hofeditz, M. and Searle, R. (2014), “Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-
analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector”,
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 367-407.
Nooteboom, B. (1996), “Trust, opportunism and governance: a process and control model”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 985-1010.
OECD (2013), “OECD economic surveys Israel: December 2013 overview”, available at: www.oecd.org/
economy/surveys/2013%20ISRAEL%20Overview.pdf (accessed 15 May 2018).
Pashkov, P. and Pelykh, V. (2020), “Digital transformation of financial services on the basis of trust”,
50th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development – Chelyabinsk, 13-
14 February 2020, pp. 375-383.
Pirson, M. and Malhotra, D. (2008), “Unconventional insights for managing stakeholder trust”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 43-50.
Plasmeijer, V.E., Pauline, W.J. and van Raaij, W.F. (2017), “Banking system trust, bank trust, and bank
loyalty”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Plato-Shinar, R. (2012), “The language obstacle in the banking forms-The bank’s role as the guide for
the perplexed”, Israel Studies in Language and Society, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 128-142. (In Hebrew)
Plato-Shinar, R. and Geva, A. (2009), “The bank fiduciary duty: the Israeli model”, Law and Business,
Vol. 11, pp. 393-430. (In Hebrew)
Rawlins, B. (2008), “Give the emperor a mirror: toward developing a stakeholder measurement
of organizational transparency”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 71-99.
Robinson, G.M. (1998), Methods and Techniques in Human Geography, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Ryan, G.W. and Bernard, H.R. (2000), “Data management and analysis methods”, in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, USA, pp. 769-802.
Sako, M. (1992), Price, Quality and Trust: Inter-Firm Relations in Britain and Japan (No. 18), Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Saleem, M.A., Zahra, S., Ahmad, R. and Ismail, H. (2016), “Predictors of customer loyalty in the
Pakistani banking industry: a moderated-mediation study”, International Journal of Bank
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 411-430.
Schumann, J.H., Wangenheim, F., Stringfellow, Z.Y., Praxmarer, S., Jimënez, F.R., Blazevic, V., Shannon,
R.M., Shainesh, G. and Komor, M. (2010), “Drivers of trust in relational service exchange:
understanding the importance of cross-cultural differences”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 453-468.
IJQSS Schwartz, J., Luce, M.F. and Ariely, D. (2011), “Are consumers too trusting? The effects of relationships
with expert advisers”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp. S163-S174.
12,3
Shapiro, S.P. (1987), “The social control of impersonal trust”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93
No. 3, pp. 623-658.
Silverman, D. (2005), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, London.
Söderberg, I.L., Sallis, J.E. and Eriksson, K. (2014), “The dark side of trust and the light side of working
370 alliances in financial services”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 245-263.
Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Strebel, I. (2005), Re-Specifying Standardization in Geographical Research: The Work of Street-
Interviewing, Institute of Geography, Edinburgh, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/813
Strebel, I. (2014), “Re-specifying geographical quantification: problems of order in street interviews”,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 278-290.
Van Esterik-Plasmeijer, P.W. and van Raaij, W.F. (2017), “Banking system trust, bank trust, and bank
loyalty”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Cohen, N. and Mizrachi, S. (2016), Israeli Public Sector Performance: Analysis of
Citizens’ Attitudes and Assessment of the National Situation 2016, University of Haifa: The
center of public management and policy, Haifa, Israel. (In Hebrew)
Yu, P.L., Balaji, M.S. and Khong, K.W. (2015), “Building trust in internet banking: a trustworthiness
perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 235-252.
Zietsman, M.L., Mostert, P.G. and Svensson, G. (2019), “Perceived price and service quality as
mediators between price fairness and perceived value in business banking relationships: a
micro-enterprise perspective”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 2-19.
Further reading
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1996), “Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships”, in
Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, pp. 114-139.

About the authors

Aviv Kidron is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Human Services at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley
College. She received PhD from the Faculty of Management, University of Haifa. She has received a
number of grants and awards for her research. Her research interests are within the fields of
organizational behavior and, specifically, studying the role trust from different aspects. She presents
her research studies in leading international conferences, such as, EAWOP, EURAM and EGOS. Her
articles have been published in journals such as Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
European Management Journal, Journal of Managerial Psychology, etc. Aviv Kidron is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: avivb@yvc.ac.il
Yvonne Kreis currently is with Schüllermann und Partner AG, Germany. Prior to this, she was a
post-doctoral researcher at Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. Her research focuses on
systemic risk and financial crises. She has conducted several (international) research projects on the
influence of trust and distrust in finance.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com