FINSER_31-2_Complete_Issue


Fear and trust in financial institutions:
A content analysis

Isha Chawlaa, Mia B. Russellb, Kenneth J. Whitec,*, Sharon A. DeVaneyd

aDepartment of Family Science, University of Maryland - College Park, 4200 Valley Drive, College Park,
MD 20742, USA

bCenter for Leadership Education, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore,
MD 21218, USA

cNorton School of Human Ecology, University of Arizona, 650 North Park Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
dCollege of Health and Human Sciences, Division of Consumer Sciences, Purdue University, 4000 S.

Westport Avenue, # 352, Sioux Falls, SD 57106-2326, USA

Abstract

Financial institutions are pillars of the economy and play an important role in consumers’ daily
lives. As such, trust between financial institutions and the consumers they serve is of paramount impor-
tance. Using an online survey administered during the COVID-19 pandemic, this paper uses a qualita-
tive content analysis methodology to explore consumer fear and trust in financial institutions.
Stemming from fear of loss, three themes emerged: (1) history and experience, (2) perceived unfair
practices/lack of knowledge of banking, and (3) general trust issues. Implications for financial institu-
tions are presented based on these results. © 2023 Academy of Financial Services. All rights reserved.

JEL classifications: Y1; Y2; Y8; Y9

Keywords: Banks; Fear; Financial institutions; Knowledge; Trust

1. Introduction

Financial institutions are pillars of the economy and play an important role in consumers’
daily lives. Yet for decades, there have been concerns about consumer confidence and trust
in banks (Grable et al., 2023). The confidence and trust consumers place in banks are

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-520-621-1075, fax: 520-621-9445.
E-mail address: kennethwhite@arizona.edu (K. J. White)

1057-0810/23/$ – see front matter © 2023 Academy of Financial Services. All rights reserved.

Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



necessary for financial access and inclusion, for individuals, as well as for the pooling of
savings and expansion of credit by banks (Fungáčová et al., 2022). The issue of trust in the
financial system has become of high importance among regulatory authorities (van Der
Cruijsen, 2022) as well as researchers in academia (Monferrer-Tirado et al., 2016; Nienaber
et al., 2014). Yet, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer (Campbell, 2019), financial
services is one of the least-trusted sectors globally. This is not surprising, or new, given that
a trust crisis—the loss of public confidence in financial markets, institutions, and other
related economic agents—emerged after the global financial turmoil of 2007-2008 (Uslaner,
2010). In fact, Knell and Stix (2015) found that financial crises influence trust due to percep-
tions of the economic environment. Trust in financial institutions has been on the rise;
increasing nearly 6% (22% to 28%) during the 10-year period of 2008 to 2018. However,
the COVID-induced crisis may differ from the global financial crisis as the pandemic
affected both the physical and financial health of consumers (Marcu, 2021). Trust is the
essence of transactions in banking and is foundational when building long-term customer-
bank relationships (Buriak et al., 2019; Lachance & Tang, 2012; Roberts-Lombard &
Petzer, 2021). Trust in financial institutions has been characterized as the expectation that fi-
nancial institutions are generally dependable and can be relied on to deliver on their prom-
ises (Fungáčová et al., 2022). In this context, trust provides a sense of comfort for
consumers; allowing them to know that their money is safeguarded by the bank and creates
a feeling of commitment to the bank because processes are in place that protect against
opportunistic wrongdoing or misconduct (Buriak et al., 2019).

The theory of reasoned action (TRA) provides a lens through which to highlight the im-
portance of trust in the relationship between consumers and financial institutions (Albarq &
Alsughayir, 2013; Alqasa et al., 2014; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Shih & Fang, 2004; Zolait
& Sulaiman, 2008). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) assert that an individual’s course of action is
predicted by their behavioral intentions, which are determined by two components: attitude
and subjective norms. In other words, an individual’s decision to transact with banks is
rooted in their positive or negative evaluations, feelings, and perceptions of financial institu-
tions, as well as the influences and information they receive from their social environments
and networks (Albarq & Alsughayir, 2013). A lack of trust then would negatively impact a
consumer’s attitude towards financial institutions and affect their willingness to bank with
them. Consumers who perceive financial institutions to be untrustworthy and a possible
threat to their financial well-being may be motivated to protect themselves from potential
loss by limiting the use of bank products and services, or by searching for alternative bank-
ing services (Rogers, 1975). A consumer’s unwillingness to bank is a conceivable outcome,
acting as a mechanism to cope with their fear of loss stemming from a negative attitude to-
ward financial institutions (Rogers, 1975). While we acknowledge that other forces, such as
culture (Albarq & Alsughayir, 2013), could influence an individual’s willingness to use
banks, theoretically, seeing financial institutions as untrustworthy is also a probable
determinant.

Mayer et al. (1995) assert that trust is built from three core components: ability, integrity,
and benevolence. As one of the most used practical determinants of bank trust, ability refers
to the expertise or competence that the financial institution exhibits in the domain in which
they are to be trusted; for example, technical and managerial abilities to provide financial

212 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



services and relevant information, to assist consumers with their decisions, and to handle
problems and complaints (van Esterik-Plasmeijer & Van Raaij, 2017). Integrity, or per-
ceived integrity, is the belief that the bank adheres to a set of acceptable principles, which
are operationalized as honesty demonstrated by bank employees, fairness in the application
of rules, procedures, and conditions, and visibly equal and fair treatment of consumers
(Dimitriadis, 2011; Mayer et al., 1995; Muller & Turner, 2016). Finally, benevolence is
demonstrated through the bank’s genuine interest, empathy, and responsiveness to the con-
sumer irrespective of the profit motive (Mayer et al., 1995).

2. Literature review

Trust is described as a dynamic and multifaceted concept in retail and banking literature
(Luo et al., 2010). Trust in banks is critical, especially in turbulent times—and is vital for fi-
nancial access, inclusion, and stability (Bijlsma & Koldijk, 2022). Low trust has the propen-
sity to limit financial access, inclusion, and stability for consumers as well as damage the
financial services industry. Individuals with lower levels of trust are less likely to have a sav-
ings account and have stronger liquidity preferences than people with higher levels of trust
(van der Cruijsen et al., 2021). Buriak et al. (2019) suggest that low or limited levels of trust
create conditions for less than optimal financial behaviors including engaging in financial
alternatives and more risky financial arrangements such as payday lending, bitcoin, and
peer-to-peer companies among others. When individuals exhibit a reluctance to use financial
services, this often indicates a diminished sense of confidence in banks, stemming from a
low level of trust (Fungáčová et al., 2022). Low trust in the financial sector may undermine
financial stability for individuals, potentially damaging the financial services industry. When
consumers have low levels of trust, a negative experience may be perceived as proof that the
bank cannot be trusted (Kidron & Kreis, 2020). If the industry is not trusted, consumers will
choose to engage less, which will in turn damage both the industry and the economy by
reducing the availability of capital for productive purposes. Another consequence may
include consumers switching to non-financial suppliers of financial services such as fintech
and alternative financial services (van der Cruijsen et al., 2022). Moreover, when consumer
interactions seem improper, it is not only perceived as unsuccessful but also leads to low
trust beliefs. Kidron and Kreis (2020) found that people do not believe that banks’ norms
and safeguards lead the banks to be sufficiently trustworthy nor do they, as a rule, automati-
cally trust that financial institutions act honestly and ethically.

Conversely, with a high level of trust, consumers feel confident that their interests are
well served by the bank. Guiso and Minetti (2004) found that households with higher levels
of trust are more likely to use checks for making payments and to invest a higher share of
their financial wealth in stocks and less in cash. Higher levels of trust also help to buffer
against negative experiences that may arise (Kidron & Kreis, 2020). This buffering effect is
particularly crucial because consumers generally do not have a clear understanding of finan-
cial products (van der Cruijsen et al., 2021), which can make them vulnerable to adverse
experiences in the financial service industry.

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 213



Banking studies argue extensively that trust in financial institutions is developed when con-
sumers are respected, have their needs fulfilled, and promises are delivered (Boonlertvanich,
2019). Roberts-Lombard and Petzer (2021) found that customer orientation, information shar-
ing, and service fairness are critical to the trust relationship. Customer orientation is a service-
oriented approach that focuses on identifying and addressing customer needs to enhance long-
term customer satisfaction (Mukherjee & Nath, 2003). Customer orientation refers to employees’
ability to be oriented toward customer engagement and support and address their needs and
expectations. Information sharing, within a financial services environment, is deemed an ethical
and transparent business practice that employs accurate information sharing with customers
(Mukherjee & Nath, 2003). Information sharing refers to open communication channels that posi-
tively address customers’ emotional expectations to enhance the service experience. Within a fi-
nancial service environment, information sharing must be secured regularly to inform and
educate the customer quickly, professionally, and efficiently (Balaji et al., 2016). Finally, service
fairness encompasses all the elements of service quality (Namkung & Jang, 2010). This is espe-
cially important, considering that customers judge a service as fair or unfair (Dwidienawati et al.,
2018; Roberts-Lombard & Petzer, 2021).

2.1. Trust and financial experience

Customers’ 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
(Järvinen, 2014). Fungáčová et al. (2022) found that experiencing a banking crisis dimin-
ishes a person’s trust in banks and that the length of the banking crisis is negatively related
to trust in banks. In fact, the longer banking crises last on average, the larger the impact on
eroding trust in banks. However, even a mild banking crisis and the experience of loss can
weaken trust and influence the behavior of individuals (Mudd et al., 2010).

2.2. Trust and financial knowledge

It is expected that respondents with more knowledge will trust their financial institutions
more than less knowledgeable consumers (Hansen, 2012, 2014). Knowledgeable consumers
are better able to evaluate information and are more likely to make better decisions about
which service provider to choose. Furthermore, knowledge facilitates the learning of new in-
formation so that knowledgeable consumers may acquire and retain more information than
less knowledgeable consumers. Knowledge may also allow consumers to formulate more
questions so that knowledgeable consumers may be more aware of what is possible for a fi-
nancial service provider, and this may facilitate consumers’ understanding of the behavior of
a financial service provider. Focusing on young adults in the United States, Shim et al.
(2013) found that self-perceived financial knowledge has a significant positive effect on trust
in banks and financial institutions. The relevance of the type of financial literacy measure
used is also illustrated by the findings of Nuñez Letamendia and Poher (2020) who found a
positive correlation between financial literacy and trust (trust in financial institutions, trust in
banks, perceived honesty of banks, and perceived solvency of banks).

214 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



2.3. Trust, age, and gender

According to existing literature, levels of trust are likely to vary by age and gender
(Fungáčová et al., 2022; Kidron & Kreis, 2020; van der Cruijsen et al., 2021). During the
pandemic, Fungáčová et al. (2022) found that banking crises detrimentally affect the trust of
people under the age of 50; however, Fungáčová et al. (2019) found that compared to people
under 35, older people are less likely to trust the financial health of their banks. One com-
mon theme between these two studies is that an individual’s age at the time of the crisis is
important and significant for individuals under the age of 35. In support of Fungáčová et al.
(2022), Grable et al. (2023) found that being older and having less financial confidence
increases the likelihood that consumers would have lower levels of trust. Crises of any mag-
nitude can diminish trust in banks, but banking crises with larger impacts on the real econ-
omy influence young people’s trust while less severe banking crises mainly degrade the trust
of older people (Fungáčová et al., 2022). Pandemic-related research by van der Cruijsen and
colleagues (2022) suggests that trust in banks increases with age—specifically, trust among
the elderly appears to be the most affected by the pandemic. From a gender perspective,
males have more trust in their financial institutions than females (van der Cruijsen et al.,
2021). In the van der Cruijsen et al. (2021) study both males and females trusted their banks,
but males were four percentage points more likely to completely trust their own bank. These
findings were confirmed by Fungáčová et al. (2022).

As a global concern for decades, predating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the concept
of trust in banks is still undertheorized. Additionally, there is a scarcity of qualitative studies
attempting to understand and explain customer trust toward banks (Kidron & Kreis, 2020). In
fact, much of the research is concentrated on the identification of bank trust determinants like
sociodemographic, economic, political, and other indicators providing cross-country analysis
(Buriak et al., 2019). Further, prior studies on trust in banks focus on different notions of trust,
such as trust in the financial health of banks, trust associated with online banking (Jiang et al.,
2022), general trust in banks, or trust in their personnel (van der Cruijsen et al., 2021; van
Esterik-Plasmeijer & Van Raaij, 2017). Despite the importance of understanding the role of
trust in banks during the pandemic, research on the COVID-related economic crisis is still
ongoing (van der Cruijsen et al., 2022). Considering this, understanding the dynamics of trust
in the banking system is paramount (Redhead, 2011). We examine the open-ended responses
that focused on examining the trust of customers in the banking system. By stratifying our
sample based on gender (males, females, and other groups) and age (35 or above and 35 or
below) we aim to uncover any differential trust experiences among these groups.

3. Methods

3.1. Data

A Qualtrics partner network of panel providers was used to recruit participants and
administer an online survey to collect data between November 17, 2021, and December 15,
2021. The comprehensive survey was created, and pilot tested by ten researchers from

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 215



varying disciplines and institutions. It consisted of 67 questions that included four open-
ended questions. The survey questions pertained to sociodemographic information, housing,
economic resources, social capital, financial capability, optimism, financial stress, and other
financial behavior and decision-making characteristics. The purpose of the data collection
was to gather detailed, financial well-being-related information before and during the
COVID-19 pandemic of respondents living in the United States. This study used the most
suitable question to address our research question. The question used in the study garnered a
sufficient number of responses to make it a standalone study (Eriksson et al., 2006). The
abundance of data allowed us to concentrate solely on one question, which also contained
pertinent data points for stratification into subsamples.

3.2. Participants

The total included in the descriptive analysis is n ¼ 3,593. While the study began with
3,598 total respondents, five respondents skipped the prerequisite, 5-point Likert scale ques-
tion and were removed from the descriptive analyses. Additional respondents were removed
from the content analysis for answering “Strongly Agree,” “Agree” or “Neither” to the
Likert question or skipping the open-ended question. Given the intent and study purpose to
understand why financial institutions were not trustworthy, in the second wave of removals
we omitted 3,177 respondents who either believed that financial institutions are trustworthy,
expressed no opinion about whether financial institutions are trustworthy, or did not provide
a reason why they believe financial institutions are not trustworthy. The remaining 416
respondents, the total included in the thematic analysis, all expressed that financial institu-
tions are not trustworthy and provided a response to the open-ended question. Of the 416
respondents included in the thematic analysis, there were 56.3% males, 40.1% females,
3.6% gender diverse, 47.6% below age 35, and 52.4% above age 35.

3.3. Variables

The analysis was based primarily on two survey items. The first item was a prerequisite to
the second and asked respondents to indicate, using a 5-point Likert scale, the extent to which
they agree or disagree with the following statement: “For the most part, financial institutions
are trustworthy.” Possible responses ranged from 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree.
Participants who expressed in the first item that financial institutions were not trustworthy
would then respond to the second item which asked for a written response to the open-ended
question, “If you do not agree that the financial institutions are trustworthy for the most part,
could you please provide reasons for not trusting?” Survey questions regarding age, gender,
and financial account ownership were used as descriptive variables to compare the sample.

3.4. Analysis

This study uses descriptive and content analysis to gain an understanding of reasons why
consumers do not find financial institutions trustworthy. This method has gained popularity

216 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



rapidly, partly because of the increased use of open-ended survey questions. It provides an
overview of the sentiments people hold, while also being more objective as it relies on cate-
gorizing concrete terms and content (Neuendorf, 2017). The study first uses descriptive sta-
tistics to identify the proportion of respondents, by age and gender, who perceive financial
institutions as untrustworthy.

Next, respondents’ reasons for not trusting financial institutions are analyzed. The content
analysis follows protocols developed by Braun and Clarke (2006): (1) getting familiar with
the data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5)
defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report (p. 87).

First, to derive our sample and begin the familiarization process, we omit respondents
who skipped the question or provided responses not related to the question. The sample is
then grouped into six categories by intersections of age and gender. The six categories are:
35 and under men, 35 and under women, 35 and under gender diverse, 35 and over men, 35
and over women, and 35 and over gender diverse. To help ensure integrity, the researchers
independently identify the data to create an analytic triangulation process (Pieters & Dornig,
2013). Our team comprised four primary researchers. Each of whom was involved in analyz-
ing the data into designated codes. This process resulted in line-by-line coding twice, the ini-
tial coding and verification, to encourage saturation of potential codes and ensure
triangulation. The investigator triangulation technique was utilized that required researchers
to each conduct separate analyses of the data before their interpretations were compared and
reconciled (Denzin, 1978).

The authors met on a regular, periodic basis to consider, discuss, and integrate various
interpretations of the data into an emerging coding scheme (Patton, 2002). The initial analy-
sis generated 14 codes. These codes were then combined and consolidated into the three
themes and 15 subthemes (e.g., misrepresentation, greed/profit-seeking). Once initial codes
were developed, the research team organized these codes into larger themes that could be
reasonably expected to provide insight into the research question. In each meeting, the
authors combined themes with related content to strengthen each theme and ensure satura-
tion of the data. Similarly, during team meetings, themes not found in multiple responses
were discussed to determine if they should be excluded from the study. The final step was to
explore the interconnectedness of the themes and select quotes that exemplified the respond-
ents’ perspectives of why they do not trust financial institutions. Notable quotes were
extracted from the open-ended responses that demonstrated each code and used in the dis-
cussion section that follows.

Validity and reliability were emphasized and prioritized throughout the research process.
The authors meticulously ensured that all procedures adhered to widely accepted research
methods (Kirk & Miller, 1986). In particular, the study strictly followed the six steps of the-
matic analysis as laid out by Braun and Clarke (2006), enhancing confidence in the study’s out-
comes. During the identification and discussion of themes and codes, the authors maintained
transparency among themselves, ensuring the validity of the findings (Tuval-Mashiach, 2017).

The research team prioritized maintaining a consistent methodology. Similar guidelines
were adhered to throughout the data analysis phase. Any deviations or discrepancies were thor-
oughly discussed, which served to enhance the credibility of our findings. To further ascertain
the validity of the outcomes, our research team, comprising four members, cross-checked the

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 217



data and interpretations at multiple stages throughout the study (Morse et al., 2002). Moreover,
the authors engaged in periodic discussions about any preconceived notions about the banking
system they might hold; thereby, ensuring the study’s reflexivity (Haynes, 2012).

4. Findings

Overall, findings indicate that respondents’ mistrust of banking can be attributed to a fear of
loss. Percentages of respondents who agree that institutions are trustworthy are presented in
Tables 1 and 2. Of the 3,593 responses, 15.0% of females, 18.2% of males, and 29.9% of gen-
der-diverse persons believed financial institutions are not trustworthy. Larger percentages of
younger respondents find financial institutions to be untrustworthy. The age category with the
largest percentage (19.3%) that believes financial institutions are not trustworthy is 35-44 years
old, and the smallest percentage (11.5%) is 65 and over. Regarding bank accounts, participants
were asked to indicate all the types of accounts they held. The findings showed that the
Checking Account was the most prevalent financial product, with 23% of respondents holding
only a checking account. When combined with a savings account, this figure increased to 35%,
making it a very popular combination. Approximately 5% of respondents held only savings
accounts. Around 22% of respondents had some form of retirement account in conjunction
with other accounts. Approximately 13% of respondents held brokerage accounts, either solely
or in combination with other accounts. About 8% of respondents reported having Certificate of
Deposits, either solely or along with other accounts. “Other financial products,” such as annu-
ities, constituted approximately 2% of the respondents.

Three main themes emerged: respondents fear loss due to (1) history and experience, (2)
perceived unfair practices, and (3) general trust issues. A summary of the themes and sub-
themes across gender and age is presented in Table 3.

Table 1 Crosstabulation by gender (N 5 3,593)

Financial institutions are trustworthy Female Male Gender diverse

Strongly agree 6.4% 8.2% 5.2%
Agree 39.5% 42.1% 24.7%
Neither 39.0% 31.6% 40.3%
Disagree 10.8% 11.7% 15.6%
Strongly disagree 4.2% 6.5% 14.3%

Table 2 Crosstabulation by age (N 5 3,593)

Financial institutions are
trustworthy

18–24
years

25–34
years

35–44
years

45–54
years

55–64
years

65+
years

Strongly agree 6.1% 7.3% 8.2% 6.6% 7.0% 7.8%
Agree 31.5% 39.1% 40.3% 45.1% 43.0% 58.1%
Neither 44.9% 36.5% 32.2% 32.2% 37.1% 22.6%
Disagree 11.2% 12.0% 13.9% 9.1% 8.6% 6.7%
Strongly disagree 6.3% 5.0% 5.4% 7.0% 4.3% 4.8%

218 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



Table 3 Themes and subthemes across gender and age

Themes Subthemes Gender and age

Historic experience: Systemic
and personal

Historical Events
Unfair Practices
Specific Experiences
Lack of Knowledge
Mistrust in Government/Corporate
Lies/Misrepresentation

35 or below males

Historical Events
Bad Experiences
Public Opinion/“I heard”
Specific Experiences

35 or below females

Public Opinion/“I heard”
Specific Experiences

35 or below gender diverse

Systemic Issues
Bad Experiences
Historical Events
Lack of Knowledge
Privacy Concerns

35 or above males

Specific Experiences
Unfair Practices
Lack of Trust
Fiduciary Concerns
Mistrust/Lack of Trust

35 or above females

Greed/Profit Seeking 35 or above gender diverse

Perceived unfair practices Greed/Profit-Seeking
Lack of Knowledge
Fiduciary Concerns
Mistrust in Government
Lies/Misrepresentation

35 or below males

Greed/Profit-Seeking
Systemic Issues
Unfair Practices
Lack of Transparency
Privacy Concerns

35 or below females

Unfair Practices
Mistrust in Government

35 or below gender diverse

Greed/Profit-Seeking
Lack of Knowledge
Mistrust in Government
Fiduciary Concerns
Unfair Practices

35 or above males

Unfair Practices
Lack of Knowledge
Mistrust in Government
Fiduciary Concerns/Non-Fiduciary

35 or above females

Greed/Profit-Seeking
Personal Responsibility

35 or above gender diverse

General trust General Trust Issues 35 or below males
Mistrust in Government/Corporate
General Trust Issues 35 or below females

35 or above males
(continued on next page)

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 219



With one exception, the largest percentages of all genders and ages fall into the category
of fear of loss because of perceived unfair practices by financial institutions. More females
above age 35 responded to the historic experience: systemic and personal theme.
Percentages of respondents (by age and gender) who fall into each of these three themes are
presented in Table 4.

4.1. Perceived unfair practices

That is, actions or policies that are viewed by consumers as unjust, discriminatory, or
unethical reflect concerns relating to higher fees and lack of transparency existing in finan-
cial institutions. Respondents expressed concerns about the fees charged to them and the
lack of transparency of interest rates. To provide clarity on the perceived unfair practices
theme, it is helpful to provide some subthemes in this category. Among 35 or below males,
the most prevalent subthemes are greed, profit-seeking, and fiduciary concerns. The “greed”
subtheme reflected respondents’ concerns over banking institutions’ practices that are geared
towards devising tactics that take their benefits. The “profit-seeking” subtheme represented
sentiments about the banking system stating profit-making as their main or only priority.
“Fiduciary concerns” reflected consumer opinion on the fiduciary nature of the banking sys-
tem. The subthemes reflected their concerns regarding the protection of their own interests.
Among the 35 or below females, greed and profit-seeking subthemes are also dominant.
Among the 35 or above males, greed and profit-seeking constitute the majority of the themes
categorized into perceived unfair practices. Overall, respondents demonstrated evidence of
perceived unfair practices of the banking system and financial institutions. One 35 or
younger male respondent:

“Most financial institutions are not made to help people. Their main goal is to make money and

make their partners money. If it were truly about assistance, then every customer would be treated
equally and it wouldn’t cost an arm and a leg to pay these institutions for their services. And it would

also be much easier for people to build credit. The credit system is just about the most oppressive
system that was ever conceived. (But that’s a whole other discussion.)”

A female respondent, 35 years or younger:

“I think that banks are often only out for making profit for themselves which is why they are always
trying to sell products to people when they’re coming in to just make a basic withdrawal.”

Table 3 (Continued)

Themes Subthemes Gender and age

Trust Issues in General
Historical Events
Mistrust
Mistrust in Government/Corporate 35 or below gender diverse
Trust Issues in General 35 or above males
— 35 or above females
General Trust Issues 35 or above gender diverse

220 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



Another female describes a common perception of unfair fees and charges:

“They try to take your money with fees that aren’t reasonable.”

Two male respondents, under the age of 35 years, capture the ill-intent and lack of fiduciary
responsibility of banks:

“They are seeking to make money off me and will prioritize that rather than me.”

“Financial institutions encourage debt on people and play on their psychological well beings or
addiction to spend money to debt trap them.”

In addition to perceiving that banks lack a fiduciary responsibility to customers, others
describe an intentional effort to confuse customers. One example comes from a respondent
described as other gender, and under 35 years of age:

“Use of wordings that confuse the public, often times leading to some support of fee collection
because people don’t understand how it works.”

Respondents aged 35 and above express cynicism and skepticism about financial institu-
tions; however, they discuss fees more frequently:

“I just worry about having my money in banks in the event or a financial crisis and the fees associ-
ated with most accounts are ridiculous.” (female)

“Fees on everything! I feel ‘nickel and dimed’ to death. Financial institutions are only there to make
money off you. They refuse to help you when you need it the most, even though your credit score is
high and you haven’t missed a payment of any kind in decades.” (male)

“Well, alot of them have ways to get more money out of you even when you are already broke and
struggling. Overdraft fees, the percentages of interest on loans, I mean the reason you get a loan is
because you don’t have enough money to pay for whatever the loan is for. And instead of helping
. . . Later on down the line they have taken way more.” (female)

“They are ultimately more interested in making money above all else. They seem only work for those
already doing well while burying the already struggling in high Fees and high-interest rates.” (female)

Other respondents raise issues with transparency—with regard to fees and communication:

“I do not believe financial institutions are transparent and the few I have had business dealings with
are concerned more with the all might dollar and those who can provide it in the form of payments,
deposits etc. . . . with their facility.” (female)

“Wording of certain terms are misleading.” (female)

Table 4 Themes and distribution by age and gender (n 5 416)

Age 35 or below 35 or above

Gender Males Females Gender
diverse

Males Females Gender
diverse

Historical experience: systemic and personal 4.6% 4.6% 0.5% 10.6% 9.4% 0.0%
Conceptual understanding 16.3% 14.4% 1.4% 19.0% 9.1% 0.7%
General trust 2.6% 2.6% 0.5% 3.1% 0.0% 0.5%

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 221



4.2. History/experience

Many respondents describe historic experiences, both systemic and personal, that influ-
ence their trust in financial institutions. History/experience had prominent subthemes across
the gender and age groups. Among 35 or below males, the most prevalent subthemes were
Historical events, Specific experiences, and Lies/Misrepresentations. The “historical events”
subtheme reflected respondents’ experiences during historical events like the financial crisis
of 2008, as well as the history of their own experiences. The “specific experience” subtheme
represented sentiments related to their own specific experiences with banking. For example,
an instance of having issues with online banking. “Lies/Misrepresentations” reflected con-
sumer opinion regarding their integrity and responsibility towards their consumer base.
These fall into the history/experience theme and are categorized as individuals possibly hav-
ing a limited understanding of the business aspect of financial institutions. Among the 35 or
below females, historical events and bad experiences, that is, their instances of bad experien-
ces with the banking system in general, were mostly dominant. Among the 35 or above
males, “systemic issues,” and “bad experiences” subthemes constituted the majority of the
themes categorized into history/experiences. The systemic issues reflected inherent structural
issues in the United States that are linked to the banking system. Overall, respondents
expressed their concerns with the banking system and financial institutions that were histori-
cal in nature. For example, male respondents—in both age categories, 35 years and below
and above 35 years—explain that banks have historically taken advantage of consumers:

“They have a long history of scamming people.”

“Every bank I’ve used minus online banking have ripped me off.”

Across genders there is also a reference to financial institutions engaging in unauthorized activity:

“The[re are] scandals . . . where tellers were making fake accounts to meet goals.”
“My financial institution opened a fake account in my name.”

In addition to personal experiences, respondents also share examples of circumstances that
may not have directly happened to them but are close enough that the situation influences
their perception of banks. We code these data as “I heard”:

“I’ve heard about lots of bad experiences people have had with various financial institutions, such
as messing up paperwork, overreaching boundaries, etc.”

“I remember the bailout of Wall Street.”

“A history of financial scandals and bailouts doesn’t exactly show that most financial institutions
are well managed.”

“Too many real-life stories of fraud and theft of/by financial institutions upper management.”

Respondents also describe a lack of care and empathy towards consumers:

“There is evidence, and I have personal experience that they prey on the lowest income Americans
to make their money. They are careless with personal information and lack empathy for the needs of
common people.”

222 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



“[I don’t trust banks] because of their history and what they do with their consumers and their data.”

4.3. General trust issues

Despite financial experience or type of bank account ownership, some respondents expressed
deep cynicism and skepticism. Primary subthemes under General trust issues were trust in gen-
eral life circumstances and mistrust in government. Overall, respondents expressed emotions of
trust related to their life in general as well as the system of banking and government. For exam-
ple, Respondents aged 35 years or below express more general mistrust sentiments:

“I don’t trust any kind of institutions that are based off of money.” My grandma use to have a saying
“Green is the color of greed, that’s why money is men’s weakest weapon.” (male)

“You never know who to trust if we’re being honest. Specifically, when it comes to money . . . Our
money.” (female)

“It’s just hard to trust anything or people with so much money.”(female)

“I’m very skeptical about everything.” (other gender)

Males over the age of 35 also express a lack of general trust in these ways:

“When money is involved, there is no one you can trust.”

“I don’t trust anybody or any bank I can invest and hustly own money.”

This study aimed to present results stratified by gender and age. However, the results did
not reveal any discernible patterns based on gender or age. Future research could explore
potential differences in trust by gender and age if feasible.

5. Discussion

The primary purpose of this study is to explore the reasons consumers perceived financial
institutions as not trustworthy during the global pandemic when many households were facing
financial crises and uncertainty. Specifically, we analyzed written responses to the open-ended
survey question, “If you do not agree that the financial institutions are trustworthy for the most
part, could you please provide reasons for not trusting?” From this analysis, we developed three
themes: (1) history and experience, (2) perceived unfair practices, and (3) general trust issues.
The first theme stems from historic systemic and personal experiences. Many respondents also
shared experiences that they heard about or that affected their communities. The second theme
is related to individuals’ understanding of the financial services business model. Many respond-
ents feel vulnerable against large, profit-seeking financial institutions whose greed drives them
to charge excessive fees and interest rather than providing customer service and help to con-
sumers. The third theme is indirectly related to financial institutions. The third theme is a gen-
eral trust issue held by individuals. Many state they either do not trust anyone or only trust
themselves, especially in matters involving their money.

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 223



Findings from this study add to the existing literature by providing a qualitative look into
consumers’ trust in financial institutions. Although not generalizable, the findings from this
diverse sample offer further evidence that more needs to be done to strengthen relationships
between financial institutions and the consumers that use them. The implications of these
results are important and should serve as notice to financial institutions that continuous
attention to customer service remains necessary. Left unchecked, negative information can
spread and go against an organization’s interests, undermine public trust, and lead to
increased public scrutiny (Greve et al., 2016).

The results of this study suggest that relationship management and mistrust could be a grow-
ing problem for financial institutions since higher percentages of individuals under age 35
believe these institutions are not trustworthy. Larger proportions of younger respondents express
concerns about losing their money to financial institutions and perceive them as a threat to their
financial well-being. Financial institutions may be missing an opportunity to provide additional
services to this segment of the population and in fact, could be at risk of losing a portion of this
group’s business altogether if viable alternatives arise that are viewed as more trustworthy.

In conclusion, trust is important in the banking industry, especially during times of crisis.
As banks around the globe strategize post-pandemic recovery and consumer customer
engagement, exploring the dynamics of trust becomes crucial. This study is of importance to
professionals and policymakers working within financial institutions, as well as financial
educators and professionals who serve consumers. The findings from this study are likely to
offer a framework to address concerns with respect to enhancing the quality of services and
dealings with their consumer base.

6. Limitations

There are noteworthy limitations to this study. First, this study employs secondary analy-
sis. As such, participants were not interviewed, and no follow-up was available. Second, the
analysis is based only on responses to one open-ended survey question and a one-item mea-
sure of trust. Third, the researchers are unable to make any distinction between consumers
who may have banking accounts but still underutilize their accounts. Data limitations did
not allow comparisons of those who favor banks to those who view banks negatively.
Subsequent analyses could prioritize understanding the underlying rationale for these con-
trasting perspectives. Additionally, a more comprehensive analysis of trust across genders
would be valuable in future studies.

7. Conclusion

The present study explored the reasons consumers perceived financial institutions as not
trustworthy during the global pandemic when many households were facing financial crises
and uncertainty. Using content analysis, three themes emerged: (1) history and experience,
(2) perceived unfair practices, and (3) general trust issues.

224 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



There are several implications for individual consumers, financial institutions, policy-
makers, and researchers. Specifically for consumers, a lack of trust may limit access to finan-
cial services. This lack of trust might lead consumers to avoid or underutilize financial
services, which can limit financial inclusion. Financial inclusion promotes consumers to
have and use savings accounts, loans, and other services that are important to reaching finan-
cial goals. Another consequence of financial exclusion is reduced access and availability to
credit when needed. When consumers have limited exposure and experience in mainstream
financial services, it may be more challenging to establish credit, ultimately making it harder
to secure credit and loans at favorable interest rates. Additionally, when consumers limit or
avoid traditional banking and financial services, they may lose the safety and convenience of
their funds as well as engage in alternative financial services, pay higher costs for transac-
tions, and have a higher susceptibility to fraud and scams.

From the financial institutions’ perspective, a lack of consumer trust can lead to lower
deposits and transactions, potentially disrupting financial systems and economic activity.
When consumers demonstrate a lack of trust in a specific institution, banks may experience
issues of reputational risk. Loss of reputation, for example, may create challenges when
banks want to attract new customers or even merge with other institutions. In addition to reg-
ulatory scrutiny when institutions want to merge, there could also be increased oversight and
potential penalties if claims of mistreatment, misrepresentation, and fraud are found to be
true. Financial institutions should consider how trust may influence a consumer’s willingness
to expand current relationships. Consumers entrust banks with their money, which often rep-
resents dreams, goals, and other aspirations, not to mention personal information.
Consumers need to know that their funds are safe and that transactions are secure. When
trust is not achieved, consumers lack the safety and confidence to fully engage with the fi-
nancial institution, potentially hindering their ability to experience financial inclusion. Yet,
to prevent these implications banks need to prioritize transparency, security, ethical behav-
ior, and strong customer service to maintain and strengthen consumer trust. Furthermore,
banks should ensure that products are developed with the customer and not for the customer
and that bank fees are transparent (Roberts-Lombard & Petzer, 2021).

The results of this study also point to a need for financial institutions and policymakers to
work together to correct systemic issues (such as the historical events referenced in this
study) that have eroded consumer confidence. Acknowledging and addressing historical
events and past inequitable personal experiences could help improve public opinion and
increase public belief that financial institutions care about consumers’ financial well-being
(Lagarde, 2014).

There is also an opportunity for researchers to conduct deeper qualitative research, includ-
ing focus groups and interviews with consumers to better understand how financial institu-
tions may be able to develop better relationships and earn consumers’ trust. Identifying
more nuanced reasons for the lack of consumer trust could also be translated into educational
programs and other interventions to equip consumers with tools and resources to evaluate
institutions and make informed financial decisions with regard to banking relationships. In
conclusion, the present study supports the need to further explore the role of trust and fear
between consumers and financial institutions.

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 225



Acknowledgments

This research was made possible from funding provided by the Wells Fargo Foundation. The assistance offered by Wells Fargo
was instrumental in the successful completion of this project. We sincerely appreciate their commitment to advancing research

on financial well-being.

References

Albarq, A., & Alsughayir, A. (2013). Examining theory of reasoned action in internet banking using SEM among
Saudi consumers. International Journal of Marketing Practices, 1, 16–30.

Alqasa, K. M., Mohd Isa, F., Othman, S. N., & Zolait, A. H. S. (2014). The impact of students’ attitude and sub-
jective norm on the behavioural intention to use services of banking system. International Journal of Business
Information Systems, 15(4), 105–122.

Balaji, M. S., Khong, K. W., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2016). Determinants of negative word-of-mouth communication using
social networking sites. Information & Management, 53(4), 528–540.

Bijlsma, M., van der Cruijsen, C., & Koldijk, J. (2022). Determinants of trust in banks’ payment services during
COVID: An exploration using daily data. De Economist, 170, 231–256.

Boonlertvanich, K. (2019). Service quality, satisfaction, trust, and loyalty: The moderating role of main-bank and
wealth status. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 37, 278–302.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77–101.

Buriak, A., Voznõáková, I., Sułkowska, J., & Kryvych, Y. (2019). Social trust and institutional (Bank) trust:
Empirical evidence of interaction. Economics & Sociology, 12, 116–129.

Campbell, D. (2019). Edelman Trust Barometer: 2019 Trust in Financial Services. Available at https://www.
edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-04/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Financial_Services_
Report_1.pdf.

Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Dimitriadis, S. (2011). Customers’ relationship expectations and costs as segmentation variables: Preliminary evi-
dence from banking. Journal of Services Marketing, 25, 294–308.

Dwidienawati, D., Arief, M., & Abdinagoro, S. B, Bina Nusantara University (BINUS), Indonesia. (2018). Is
service fairness influencing customers’ satisfaction and intention to pay insurance premium? A case in BPJS
Kesehatan Indonesia. Journal of Business & Retail Management Research, 13, 38–48.

Eriksson, C., Westman, G., & Hamberg, K. (2006). Content of childbirth-related fear in Swedish women and men
—Analysis of an open-ended question. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 51, 112–118.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fungáčová, Z., Hasan, I., & Weill, L. (2019). Trust in banks. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
157, 452–476.

Fungáčová, Z., Kerola, E., & Weill, L. (2022). Does experience of banking crises affect trust in banks? Journal
of Financial Services Research, 62, 61–90.

Grable, J., Kwak, E. J., & Archuleta, K. (2023). Distrust of banks among the unbanked and banked. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 41, 1498–1520.

Greve, H. R., Kim, J. Y., & Teh, D. (2016). Ripples of fear: The diffusion of a bank panic. American Sociological
Review, 81, 396–420.

Guiso, L., & Minetti, R. (2004). Multiple creditors and information rights: Theory and evidence from us firms.
Available at SSRN 527222.

Hansen, T. (2012). Understanding trust in financial services: The influence of financial healthiness, knowledge,
and satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 15(3), 280–295.

226 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228



Hansen, T. (2014). The role of trust in financial customer–seller relationships before and after the financial crisis.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(6), 442–452.

Haynes, K. (2012). Reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and
Current Challenges, 26, 72–89.

Järvinen, R. A. (2014). Consumer trust in banking relationships in Europe. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 32, 551–566.

Jiang, M., Rifon, N. J., Cotten, S. R., Alhabash, S., Tsai, H. Y. S., Shillair, R., & LaRose, R. (2022). Bringing
older consumers onboard to online banking: A generational cohort comparison. Educational Gerontology, 48,
114–131.

Kidron, A., & Kreis, Y. (2020). Listening to bank customers: The meaning of trust. International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences, 12, 355–370.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. (Vol. 1). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Knell, M., & Stix, H. (2015). Trust in banks during normal and crisis times—Evidence from survey data.
Economica, 82, 995–1020.

Lachance, M. E., & Tang, N. (2012). Financial advice and trust. Financial Services Review, 21, 209–226.
Lagarde, C. (2014). Empowerment through financial inclusion, address to the international forum for financial

inclusion. International Monetary Fund. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/
53/sp062614a

Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in ini-
tial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services. Decision Support
Systems, 49, 222–234.

Marcu, M. R. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the banking sector. Management Dynamics in
the Knowledge Economy, 9, 205–223.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 709–734.

Monferrer-Tirado, D., Estrada-Guillén, M., Fandos-Roig, J. C., Moliner-Tena, M. Á., & Garcı́a, J. S. (2016).
Service quality in bank during an economic crisis. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34, 235–259.

Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reli-
ability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 13–22.

Mudd, S., Pashev, K. & Valev, N. T. (2010). The effect of loss experiences in a banking crisis on future expecta-
tions and behavior. The BE Journal of Macroeconomics, 10(1).

Mukherjee, A., & Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online relationship banking. International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 21, 5–15.

Muller, L. A., & Turner, J. A. (2016). Strategic complexity in investment management fee disclosures. Financial
Services Review, 25, 215–234.

Namkung, Y., & Jang, S. (2010). Service failures in restaurants: Which stage of service failure is the most criti-
cal? Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51, 323–343.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nienaber, A. M., Hofeditz, M., & Searle, R. H. (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, 32, 367–407.

Nuñez Letamendia, L., & Poher, B. (2020). The effect of financial literacy on trust: Do financially literate individuals
have more trust in the financial system? Working Paper, April. Available at: https://fundacionmutualidadabogacia.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/WP_FINANCIAL-LITERACY-TRUST-APRIL2020.pdf

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pieters, H. C., & Dornig, K. (2013). Collaboration in grounded theory analysis: Reflections and practical sugges-

tions. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 200–214.
Redhead, K. (2011). Behavioral perspectives on client mistrust of financial services. Journal of Financial Service

Professionals, 65, 50–61.
Roberts-Lombard, M., & Petzer, D. J. (2021). Relationship marketing: An S–O–R perspective emphasising the

importance of trust in retail banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 39, 725–750.

I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228 227



Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of
Psychology, 91, 93–114.

Shih, Y. Y., & Fang, K. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study Internet banking in
Taiwan. Internet Research, 14, 213–223.

Shim, S., Serido, J., & Tang, C. (2013). After the global financial crash: Individual factors differentiating young
adult consumers’ trust in banks and financial institutions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20,
26–33.

Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2017). Raising the curtain: The importance of transparency in qualitative research.
Qualitative Psychology, 4, 126–138.

Uslaner, E. M. (2010). Trust and the economic crisis of 2008. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 110–123.
van der Cruijsen, C., de Haan, J., & Jonker, N. (2022). Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected public trust?

Evidence for the US and the Netherlands. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 200, 1010–1024.
van der Cruijsen, C., de Haan, J., & Roerink, R. (2021). Financial knowledge and trust in financial institutions.

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 55, 680–714.
van Esterik-Plasmeijer, P. W., & Van Raaij, W. F. (2017). Banking system trust, bank trust, and bank loyalty.

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35, 97–111.
Zolait, A. H. S., & Sulaiman, A. (2008). Incorporating the innovation attributes introduced by rogers’ theory into

theory of reasoned action: An examination of internet banking adoption in Yemen. Computer and
Information Science, 1, 36–51.

228 I. Chawla et al. / Financial Services Review 31 (2023) 211–228