모든 템플릿

Consumer Trust in Fintech Sustainability Claims

Measures consumer trust, believability, and willingness to pay for sustainability features in fintech and banking. Designed for consumer panels to assess greenwashing risk and identify which green claims drive provider preference.

샘플 질문

템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.

질문 29개 · 약 12분
Q01
메시지

Welcome! This survey takes approximately 13 minutes and asks about your banking habits and views on sustainability claims from financial services providers. Your participation is voluntary—you may exit at any time. There are no right or wrong answers; we are interested in your honest opinions. All responses are confidential and will be reported only in aggregate. By continuing, you agree to participate.

Q02
객관식

Which of the following best describes the financial providers you currently use for everyday money management?

  • Traditional bank or credit union only
  • Fintech or neobank only
  • Both traditional and fintech/neobank
  • None of these
Q03
객관식

In the past 3 months, have you noticed any sustainability or climate-related claims from banks or fintechs?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure
Q04
의견 척도

Overall, how much do you trust sustainability claims made by banks and fintechs?

척도: 17
최소:Do not trust at all최대:Trust completely
Q05
순위 매기기

Please rank the following sustainability claim types by how important they are to you, with the most important at the top.

  1. Carbon-neutral or offset card
  2. Lower carbon footprint per transaction
  3. ESG-screened investments
  4. Recycled or biodegradable card materials
  5. Donations tied to spending
  6. Emissions tracking in app
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q06
객관식

If you had to choose between these two cards today, which would you select?

  • 1.5% cashback, standard card (no sustainability features)
  • 1.25% cashback, verified carbon-neutral card that plants trees with your spending
  • No preference
Q07
의견 척도

How appealing is a "Green Features" bundle that includes personal impact tracking and verified carbon offsets?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all appealing최대:Extremely appealing
Q08
장문형

What proof or information would most increase your trust in sustainability claims from financial providers?

Q09
드롭다운

What is your age?

  • 18–24
  • 25–34
  • 35–44
  • 45–54
  • 55–64
  • 65+
  • Prefer not to say
Q10
메시지

Thank you for completing this survey—your insights are valuable and will help improve how financial services communicate sustainability efforts. You may now close this page.

Q11
객관식

In the past 30 days, how often did you use a mobile banking or fintech app?

  • Not at all
  • A few times in the past month
  • About once a week
  • Several times a week
  • About once a day
  • Multiple times a day
Q12
객관식

Where did you notice these sustainability or climate-related claims? Select all that apply.

  • In-app messages or banners
  • Email from provider
  • Advertisements (online, video, or outdoor)
  • Company website or blog
  • Social media
  • News or press coverage
  • Receipts or statements
  • Friends or family
  • Other (please specify)
Q13
의견 척도

How believable is the following claim: "Our card is carbon-neutral through verified offsets"?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all believable최대:Completely believable
Q14
의견 척도

To what extent do you agree or disagree: "I would accept lower rewards or cashback if the sustainability impact were independently verified."

척도: 17
최소:Strongly disagree최대:Strongly agree
Q15
순위 매기기

When choosing a financial card, please rank the following factors from most to least important to you.

  1. Rewards rate
  2. Fees
  3. Verified sustainability impact
  4. Customer service
  5. App features and usability
  6. Brand trust
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q16
AI 인터뷰

We'd like to understand more about your views on sustainability in financial services. An AI moderator will ask you a few follow-up questions based on your earlier responses.

Q17
드롭다운

In which region do you currently reside?

  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East
  • North America
  • Oceania
  • Prefer not to say
Q18
의견 척도

How believable is the following claim: "We screen all investments using ESG criteria"?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all believable최대:Completely believable
Q19
의견 척도

How likely are you to choose or switch financial providers specifically because of stronger sustainability practices?

척도: 17
최소:Very unlikely최대:Very likely
Q20
장문형

Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or feelings about sustainability features from financial services providers.

Q21
객관식

What is your gender?

  • Man
  • Woman
  • Non-binary
  • Prefer not to say
Q22
의견 척도

How believable is the following claim: "Track your personal carbon footprint directly in the app"?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all believable최대:Completely believable
Q23
객관식

Would you be willing to pay an extra monthly fee for verified sustainability features (e.g., carbon offsets, impact tracking)?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not sure
Q24
드롭다운

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

  • Less than high school
  • High school or equivalent
  • Some college or trade/technical
  • Bachelor's degree
  • Master's degree
  • Doctorate or professional degree
  • Prefer not to say
Q25
의견 척도

How important is independent third-party verification (e.g., certified labels) when evaluating sustainability claims from financial providers?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all important최대:Extremely important
Q26
드롭다운

What is the most you would be willing to pay per month for verified sustainability features?

  • $1–$2
  • $3–$5
  • $6–$10
  • $11–$20
  • More than $20
Q27
드롭다운

Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

  • Employed full-time
  • Employed part-time
  • Self-employed
  • Student
  • Homemaker or caregiver
  • Unemployed and seeking work
  • Unemployed and not seeking work
  • Retired
  • Prefer not to say
Q28
객관식

If expected returns were equal, which option would you choose for your savings or investments?

  • ESG or impact option
  • Conventional option
  • No preference
  • I don't currently save or invest
Q29
드롭다운

What is your approximate annual household income? (Optional)

  • Under $25,000
  • $25,000–$49,999
  • $50,000–$74,999
  • $75,000–$99,999
  • $100,000–$149,999
  • $150,000–$199,999
  • $200,000 or more
  • Prefer not to say

포함된 기능

  • AI 후속 질문

    정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.

  • 주의력 확인 장치

    성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.

  • AI가 작성한 문안

    문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.

  • 자동 리포트

    응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.

다른 서비스와 비교

다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.

이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유

  • Includes belief-testing opinion-scale items on three specific green claims (carbon-neutral card, ESG screening, carbon footprint tracker) rather than generic preference questions
  • Captures willingness-to-pay directly with a dedicated fee-tolerance question and a dropdown price ceiling, letting teams quantify the green premium
  • Adds a ranking exercise for sustainability claim types and a separate ranking of card-choice factors, isolating which specific claims actually drive preference
  • Closes with an AI follow-up interview and open-text reflection to probe trust and proof requirements qualitatively, something static form builders can't replicate

Jotform

Consumer Preference Survey Form Template

A generic consumer preference form template, not built for fintech, sustainability, or greenwashing topics — it would need substantial rewriting to fit this use case. It's a fielding-ready static form rather than a research instrument tailored to trust or willingness-to-pay analysis.

잘하는 점

  • Easy drag-and-drop customization
  • Broad library of general-purpose form templates
  • Simple deployment for basic preference capture

아쉬운 점

  • No fintech/sustainability-specific content or claim-belief testing
  • Static form with no adaptive follow-up questioning
  • No automated quality scoring or AI-generated reporting on responses

SurveySparrow

Consumer Brand Preference Questionnaire Template

Framed around measuring advertisement effect on brand preference generally, not sustainability trust or fintech willingness-to-pay. Its conversational chat-style UI is a plus, but the content would need a full rebuild for greenwashing research.

잘하는 점

  • Conversational, chat-style survey format
  • Templated structure for brand preference research
  • Likely supports basic skip logic

아쉬운 점

  • No sustainability claim believability testing or WTP pricing questions
  • No adaptive AI probing beyond scripted logic
  • No transparent prompt methodology or automated per-response scoring

Typeform

Consumer Preference Survey Template

A polished, generic consumer preference template aimed at broad audience use rather than fintech sustainability specifically. Good for quick fielding of simple preference questions but lacks any greenwashing, trust, or pricing-sensitivity content out of the box.

잘하는 점

  • Well-known clean, conversational UI/UX
  • Fast to launch for simple preference studies
  • Flexible question types for basic surveys

아쉬운 점

  • No fintech/sustainability claim content or ranking exercises
  • Static question flow with no adaptive AI follow-up or voice interview option
  • No automated report generation tied to response quality

설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?

이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.