Cited by 32Customer Service Quality and LoyaltyCorporate Identity and ReputationMarketing and Advertising Strategies

Competence and Benevolence of Contact Personnel in the Perceived Corporate Reputation: An Empirical Study in Financial Services

Nguyen, Nha·2010·Corporate Reputation Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/crr.2009.25

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, N.
Affiliations
Université de Moncton (CA)
Corresponding author
Nguyen, Nha
Venue
Corporate Reputation Review
Published
2010-01
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
345-356
ISSN
  • 1363-3589 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-1889
OpenAlex
W1966991974
Cited by
32
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Corporate Reputation Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Marketing and Advertising Strategies
Keywords
corporate reputation, contact personnel, employee competence, benevolence, consumer perception, financial services, service marketing, relationship marketing, moderating effect, service quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review