TG-08-2013-0027 ques

22
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan: Emad Abu-Shanab Article information: To cite this document: Emad Abu-Shanab , (2014),"Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 480 - 499 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-08-2013-0027 Downloaded on: 26 August 2015, At: 07:42 (PT) References: this document contains references to 55 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 271 times since 2014* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Ally Lee, Yair Levy, (2014),"The effect of information quality on trust in e-government systems ' transformation", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 76-100 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2012-0011 Anas R. Al-Soud, Hussein Al-Yaseen, Saheer H. Al-Jaghoub, (2014),"Jordan’s e-Government at the crossroads", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 597-619 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2013-0043 Mariam Rehman, Vatcharaporn Esichaikul, Muhammad Kamal, (2012),"Factors influencing e-government adoption in Pakistan", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 258-282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506161211251263 Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:577199 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. Downloaded by Ambedkar University At 07:42 26 August 2015 (PT)

description

quest

Transcript of TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Page 1: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Transforming Government: People, Process and PolicyAntecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan:Emad Abu-Shanab

Article information:To cite this document:Emad Abu-Shanab , (2014),"Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan",Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 480 - 499Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-08-2013-0027

Downloaded on: 26 August 2015, At: 07:42 (PT)References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 271 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Ally Lee, Yair Levy, (2014),"The effect of information quality on trust in e-government systems 'transformation", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 1 pp. 76-100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2012-0011Anas R. Al-Soud, Hussein Al-Yaseen, Saheer H. Al-Jaghoub, (2014),"Jordan’s e-Government at thecrossroads", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 4 pp. 597-619 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2013-0043Mariam Rehman, Vatcharaporn Esichaikul, Muhammad Kamal, (2012),"Factors influencing e-governmentadoption in Pakistan", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 6 Iss 3 pp. 258-282http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506161211251263

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:577199 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 2: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Antecedents of trust ine-government services: anempirical test in Jordan

Emad Abu-ShanabManagement Information Systems Department,

Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

AbstractPurpose – This study aims to explore technology adoption research and propose a trust antecedentsmodel, where trust in government, trust in technology, information quality, Internet familiarity and privacyand security concerns are hypothesized to predict Jordanians trust in e-government. Also, trust ine-government extended the Theory of Reasoned Action in predicting the intention to use e-government.Design/methodology/approach – Proposed a model and tried to empirically test it using a sampleof 759 Jordanians who filled a survey consisting of items measuring the previously mentionedconstructs. A structural equation modeling technique was used to test the model.Findings – Results supported the proposed research model, where all proposed variables significantlypredicted intention to use e-government services. Also, a partial least squares estimate of the modelindicated a significant prediction of trust in e-government by all proposed variables except the Internetfamiliarity construct. The coefficient of determination for intention to use was 0.465, and for trust ine-government 0.415.Research limitations/implications – The study utilized a newly developed instrument in Arabic,and diverse categories of subjects, where some of them were considering a public e-learning systemwhen responding to items.Practical implications – This research is important to public officials and the Jordaniane-government project, as it emphasized the importance of trust constructs (TiT and TiG) as majorinfluencers on the trust propensity related to e-government. Also, other constructs like informationquality showed significant influence; where the type and characteristics of information posted one-government Web sites influence the adoption decision on the long run. Jordanians’ perceptionsregarding information posted on e-government Web site were all at moderate levels. More emphasis onmaking information more accurate, recent, comprehensive and original is needed.Social implications – This study showed a relative deficiency in Jordanians perceptions towardstrusting the Internet. It seems that they reflected a moderate trust in its legal, technical and securitylevels. Finally, this study emphasized the role of privacy and security issues in influencing the level oftrust in e-government systems. Similarly, transparency and knowledge equity are importantdimensions that need to be addressed.Originality/value – This study is one of the largest studies with respect to the size of its sample thatexplores trust in e-government in Jordan. The focus on trust antecedents and the empirical test of themodel is a first attempt in the literature, where a structural model was explored raising the level ofaccuracy of estimation to its required potential. The number of constructs to be explored at the sametime is an addition to the area of e-government technology adoption.

Keywords E-government, Trust antecedents model, TRA, Internet familiarity, Information quality,Privacy and security concerns, Social influence, Perceived ease of use, Perceived usefulness,Intention to use, Jordan, Empirical study

Paper type Research paper

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

TG8,4

480

Received 11 August 2013Revised 12 November 20138 February 201429 April 2014Accepted 8 May 2014

Transforming Government: People,Process and PolicyVol. 8 No. 4, 2014pp. 480-499© Emerald Group Publishing Limited1750-6166DOI 10.1108/TG-08-2013-0027

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 3: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

1. IntroductionResearch in the area of e-government focused on the behavioral attitude towardsadopting e-government services or technology. Also, the adoption process focused onthe end construct which is “technology use” or “intention to use technology”. Suchpragmatic argument cannot be neglected because of the importance of using thetechnology. E-government is a crucial e-service that touches citizens’ lives andinfluences their future interactions with their governments. Research strived to searchfor constructs that would influence the decision to adopt this technology. Manytechnology adoption theories explored such issue and proposed a huge set of constructsthat have significant influence on the use or intention to use (ITU) the technology. Trustwas one of the robust constructs that significantly influenced the ITU e-government(Warkentin et al., 2002; Gefen et al., 2005; Al-Gahtani, 2011; Abu-Shanab et al., 2010;Beldad et al., 2012).

Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam (2012) argued that the gate to e-government adoption istrust. If citizens and businesses trusted e-government, then they will use it. Based on theprevious argument, and the importance of e-government adoption, it is vital tounderstand the process of adopting a technology, and whether specific trust dimensionsare more important in the case of e-government technology. Research indicated thattrust in e-government (TiEG) is defined by two major factors: trust in government (TiG)and trust in technology (TiT) or the Internet (Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam, 2012; Peppaet al., 2012; Shajari and Ismail, 2012). This study will focus on the antecedents of trustand explore the factors influencing citizens’ trust propensity.

This study is vital to Jordanian environment, as it is the first to explore such issue andthis large number of constructs. Also, the utilization of a partial least squares (PLS) test(structural equation modeling [SEM]settings) will make possible measuring therelationships of the proposed model at the same time. Finally, using a well-validatedArabic instrument will open doors for researchers to investigate the technologyadoption of a new technology in the Arab world. Based on that, the following sectionreviews the literature related to the topic. Section 3 describes the research model and theproposed questions, with their associated hypotheses, followed by Section 5 whichdepicts the research methodology followed in this empirical study. Section 5 depictsdata analysis and the discussion of results. The last three sections describe researchconclusions, implications for research and practice, limitations and future research.

2. Literature reviewResearch disputed the definition of e-government, where some considered it as simple asproviding public service via the Internet (Sharma and Qian, 2012) and others embeddedother complex functions under such concept (Abu-Shanab, 2013a). E-government isconsidered by many researchers as a tool for providing electronic information andservices to citizens instead of the traditional channels (Alshehri et al., 2012).

E-government is classified into three major categories:(1) the relationship between governments and citizens (G2C);(2) the relationship between governments and businesses (G2B); and(3) the relationship between governments and their employees (G2E) (Al-Naimat

et al., 2012).

481

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 4: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

It is important when defining e-government to make sure that we fully understand itsstakeholders to understand more their needs, expectations and better plan e-servicesprovided to them (Axelsson and Lindgren, 2013). E-government can be classified intotwo major directions: the supply side and the demand side. The supply side is related tothe actions taken by governments, where the demand side relates more to citizens’acceptance (Lim et al., 2012). Abu-Shanab (2013a) indicated in his definition that itincludes four major dimensions:

(1) providing e-service to citizens and businesses;(2) improving public and government performance;(3) facilitating the democratic process through e-democracy and e-participation;

and(4) sustaining the required social development and bridging the digital divide.

2.1 E-government and trustTrust is an important factor influencing the success of e-government projects.Governments should build trustworthy relationships with citizens before attempting toopen such e-channel with them (Zeleti, 2011; Warkentin et al., 2002). Similarly,governments need to build trust within agencies, between agencies, across governmentsand with businesses, and non-governmental organizations (Almarabeh and AbuAli,2010). Finally, trust is becoming a major construct in e-government research, where astudy by Cetin et al. (2011) ranked trust as the sixth construct in e-government researchafter ITU, perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), Social Influence (SI)and perceived behavioral control (PBC).

Trust components were summated by Mcaskill and Brown (2009) as:• the willingness to be vulnerable;• positive expectations that one’s interests will be protected;• the positive intentions, sincerity, motivations, character, reliability and integrity

of others; and• accepting a long and repeated courses of action.

Similarly, trust was considered as a catalyst to e-government (Warkentin et al., 2002),but with diverse levels of importance when explored in different cultures (Gefen et al.,2005).

Previous research tried to focus on predicting e-government adoption by exploringthe factors influencing the decision of adopting a technology included in classicaltheories of technology acceptance. The technology acceptance model (TAM, Davis,1989; Davis et al., 1989) is a famous model that utilized PU and PEOU in predicting ITU.TAM originated from the theory of reasoned action (TRA, Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975),where intention is driven by a person’s attitude towards technology and the influence ofimportant people in his/her life. Later, Ajzen added PBC which emerged as a strongpredictor of intention and outperformed attitudes and subjective norm.

In the e-government literature, trust was explored as an antecedent of ITU(Abu-Shanab et al., 2010) or as an antecedent of another construct (examples: as anantecedent of perceived risk in Yaghoubi et al., 2010; and as an antecedent of the DeLoneand McLean’s model, Khayun et al., 2012). Another study depicted a relationship

TG8,4

482

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 5: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

between trust in federal government and the adoption process of e-government, butfailed to support such relationship (Morgeson et al., 2011). Similarly, TiEG services wasnot related to trust in e-government, but related to the e-government investment in acontext of empirical data related to New Zealand and Australia (Horsburgh et al., 2011).

TiEG services was described as a process, where citizens build the trust ingovernments and their transactions, then disclose information through ane-government Web site, and finally, have the ITU the services provided (Beldad et al.,2012). Similarly, trust in the Internet will influence the attitude towards e-governmentprojects and lead to the ITU e-government services (Ozkan and Kanat, 2011). Finally, theprocess of disposition of trust influencing trust in the Internet, then influencing ITUe-government was supported in the context of US students (Carter and Campbell, 2011).

Considering the nature of trust, two different phases of trust can be witnessed:pre-use trust, and post-use trust. Pre-use trust will witness some resistance becausecitizens are not familiar with the potential risks of e-government. Post-use trust isrelated to experienced users, where such users can evaluate the technology and buildtheir trust more accurately (Hernandez-Ortega, 2011). Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam (2012)explored Jordanians’ ITU e-government services by extending their model withperceived risk, but failed to support such new construct. Finally, Rehman et al. (2011)proposed TiG and trust in the Internet with many variables as determinants of ITUe-government Web sites. Both constructs were significant in predicting ITU side by sidewith information quality (IQ), perceived ease of use, service quality and transactionsecurity.

In the Jordanian context, a study that qualitatively analyzed results from a set ofsemi-structured interviews with e-government officials concluded that trust is animportant factor in the success of m-government initiatives and is considered a majorchallenge and barrier to the adoption of such service (Al-Hujran, 2012). Other studiesthat relates to the Jordanian context are the following: Almarabeh and AbuAli (2010),Ciborra and Navarra (2005), Mofleh and Wanus (2013), Abu-Shanab and Abu-Baker(2011) and Odat and Khzaaleh (2012).

2.2 Antecedents of trustTiEG projects or Web sites is influenced by many factors, where previous researchyielded significant results from both sides: trust influencing e-government adoption,and factors influencing trust in e-government. Previous research proclaimed that TiEGis mainly influenced by two major factors: TiG and trust in technology/Internet(Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam, 2012; Peppa et al., 2012; Shajari and Ismail, 2012; Toe et al.,2008; Ayyash et al., 2012; Nassuora and Al-Mushasha, 2012).

The work of Yaghoubi et al. (2011) incorporated five major antecedents of trust ine-government:

(1) perception of authentication;(2) perception of non-repudiation;(3) perception of confidentiality;(4) perception of privacy protection; and(5) perception of data integrity.

483

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 6: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Their work included incorporation from the TAM, innovation diffusion theory (IDT)and trust variables. On the other hand, Colesca (2009) proposed 12 factors affecting trustwith the following significant factors: PU, perceived quality, privacy concerns,perceived organizational trustworthiness, trust in technology, propensity to trust, yearsof experience and age. Her research failed to support the influence of risk perception,gender, education and income.

Other research considered trust as the gate to technology adoption, where factorsincluded in famous models in technology acceptance were used as antecedents to trust.Alsaghier et al. (2009) hypothesized that disposition to trust, familiarity, institutionbased trust, perceived Web site quality, PEOU, and PU all will influence trust ine-government. Similarly, lack of security, fear of paying for e-service and the lack ofconfidentiality were all major determinants of trust in Jordanian e-government services(Odat and Khzaaleh, 2012).

Experience, self-efficacy and the quality of e-government experience were alsoproposed as predictors of trust (Parent et al., 2004). Also, transparency and howgovernments deal with personal information would improve the levels of trust (Zaimeset al., 2012). A study by Susanto and Goodwin (2010) concluded to 15 important factorsthat are important in adopting SMS e-government services and the ones that relates toour research are trust in SMS technology, trust in government and perceived quality ofpublic services. Citizens trust propensity is influenced by many factors like their trust intheir government, trust in technology, the previous experience with e-government, theWeb site quality, the IQ dimensions, risk propensity, trust propensity and privacy andsecurity perceptions.

2.3 Summary of literatureThis study explored the literature to conclude to the following major findings:

• literature focused more on the antecedents of ITU) e-government;• trust is a major predictor of ITU e-government, where research considered it a

robust predictor in most empirical studies;• major factors influencing ITU are: PU, trust in e-government, PEOU and SI;• the importance of trust in the literature raised some requests by researchers to

explore its antecedents, where some factors were related directly to trust in morethan one empirical study. Other factors were hypothesized to be antecedents oftrust or antecedents of ITU; and

• the major factors influencing TiEG reported in the literature are: trust ingovernment, trust in technology, IQ, privacy, security, system quality, familiaritywith technology and other demographic factors.

3. Research model and designBased on the previous literature review, TiEG is an important predictor of e-governmentadoption. As mentioned in the literature summary, many factors influence trust ine-government; some of them are commonly used as dimensions of trust, and otherfactors are closely related to the propensity of trust towards e-government. Figure 1depicts the research design and the steps done to apply the research method.

TG8,4

484

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 7: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

3.1 The conceptual modelThis study based its model construction on major theories of technology adoption likethe TAM, TAM2, TRA, TPB and its extended version, and the unified theory ofacceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Most theories assumed that the ITUe-government will be influenced by four major factors: PU (as depicted in TAM, TAM 2,UTAUT and IDT), PEOU (TAM, TAM 2, UTAUT and IDT), social influence (TRA,TPB, decomposed theory of planned behavior [DTPB] and UTAUT) and trust.

This study also proposed a set of factors that are hypothesized to influence trust ine-government. The factors utilized in this study are assimilated from previous research.The factors assumed to influence TiEG) are:

• trust in technology (TiT);• trust in government (TiG);• information quality (IQ);• familiarity with electronic sites and the Internet; and• privacy and security concerns. (P&SC).

The assumed relationships and research model are shown in Figure 2. A proposedoperationalized set of definitions of the ten variables is depicted in Appendix.

3.2 The research questions and hypothesesBased on the previous model, this study will try to answer the following two researchquestions:

RQ1. What are the factors influencing the degree of trust in e-government services.

RQ2. What are the factors influencing the adoption of e-government services.

Research indicated a strong relationship between social influence and ITU (Venkateshet al., 2003; Abu-Shanab and Pearson, 2007). The influence of others on the decision touse e-government services is an important factor in the technology acceptance domain(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen, 1991). Based on that, the first hypothesis can bestated as:

Figure 1.The research design and

flow

485

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 8: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

H1. Social influence will positively influence the intention to use e-governmentservices.

PU is a robust construct utilized in most theories with different names (PU [in TAM &TAM 2]; job fit (Thompson et al., 1991); and relative advantage (Moore and Benbasat,1991). In the context of e-government, many studies utilized PU as a predictor of ITU(Abu-Shanab et al., 2010). Based on this, the following hypothesis can be stated:

H2. Perceived usefulness will positively influence the intention to use e-governmentservices.

The second most common construct in the literature is PEOU. Most previous research thathypothesized PU to be a predictor to ITU also used PEOU as another predictor. Research inthe e-government research hypothesized that the ease of e-government Web sites can be achallenge for many categories in societies, especially in developing countries (Abu-Shanaband Abu-Baker, 2011; Colesca, 2009). The following hypothesis can be stated:

H3. perceived ease of use will positively influence the intention to use e-governmentservices.

The focus of this study is trust, where literature depicted in Section 2 concentrated on theconceptualization of trust and its antecedents. Research in the e-government areahypothesized trust as a major predictor of ITU e-government services or Web sites.Section 2 of this study revolved around the importance of trust and tried to explore itsantecedents. Based on that, the following hypothesis can be sated:

H4. Trust in e-government will positively influence the intention to usee-government services.

The literature review in this study focused on the antecedents of trust (Section 2), where fiveconstructs are hypothesized to predict TiEG (answering the second research question):

H5. Information quality will positively influence the trust in e-government.

H6. Internet familiarity will positively influence the trust in e-government.

H7. Trust in technology will positively influence the trust in e-government.

H8. Trust in government will positively influence the trust in e-government.

Figure 2.The trust antecedentmodel

TG8,4

486

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 9: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

H9. Privacy and security concerns will positively influence the trust ine-government.

4. Research methodologyThis empirical study is the first to explore the antecedents of trust in e-government. Totest our conceptualization, an empirical study was designed utilizing a surveyinstrument that measures the variables assumed to predict ITU or trust ine-government. Definitions of these constructs are depicted in Appendix.

4.1 The questionnaire usedThis study utilized a survey consisting of three sections; the first introduced theresearch area and objectives of research. Such introduction was important asrespondents were Jordanian citizens selected randomly from schools, businesses andstudents from the researcher’s university. The second section included simpledemographic questions about age, gender and education. The last section included 37items measuring 10 constructs adopted from previous research.

The items used for the antecedent constructs of ITU where adopted fromprevious research in Arabic utilizing previous literature (Abu-Shanab et al., 2010;Abu-Shanab and Abu-Baker, 2011; Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam, 2012). Suchadoption supports our premise of content validity of the instrument and improvesthe reliability of instrument. Although trust is not part of the famous classicaltheories mentioned in Section 2, but was explored extensively in previous research.This research extended the TRA by adding the trust construct.

The items used for the rest of trust antecedents were adopted from previous workby Yaghoubi et al. (2011) and the work of Ayyash et al. (2012). Some items wereadopted from Arabic research, which required less effort to adapt such items to thepurpose of research. The rest of items were translated to Arabic using Brislin’sbackward translation method (Brislin, 1976) using ten master students. A check onlanguage and changes in meaning was done by the researcher to reach a betterversion of items. The experience of the author also contributed to the building ofeach construct. Research indicated a significant support for the influence oflanguage on research results (Abu-Shanab and Md Nor, 2013).

The item distribution of the survey and their descriptions are shown in Table II,which includes an estimate of item means and standard deviations. Such processimproved content validity and the reliability of instrument.

4.2 Sample and sampling processThe population of this study consists of Jordanian citizens using e-governmentservices. The sampling of such population cannot be fully randomized as theordinary citizen in Jordan might not be using such services or being aware of it.Based on that, the validated survey was distributed to more than one target utilizingcitizens who know e-government in Jordan. The first source included studentsstudying a higher diploma, where the majority of them work as teachers andscholars from the Ministry of Education (350 surveys). The second data source wascollected by master students from diverse sources (businesses, schools, shoppingmalls and other locations, total surveys � 400). The third source of data was collectedfrom bachelor students studying information technology disciplines (200 surveys). Finally,the survey was posted to a Web site and collected 80 surveys online. The total number of

487

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 10: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

distributed surveys was (1,030). Returned surveys totaled (790). Surveys with large missingvalues were removed (total surveys used in preliminary analysis were 772 surveys). Thesampling process was done in May 2013 and within two weeks of the month. Similarly, theonline survey was posted for two weeks only to guard against any changes in the Jordanianenvironment.

The sampling process is suitable for the purposes of this research as previousresearch suffered from subjects (ordinary Jordanians in the streets) not knowinge-government, or never used it (Abu-Shanab and Abu-Baker, 2011; Abu-Shanab andAl-Azzam, 2012). Such situation wastes a large segment of the sample and reportscontradictory views that cannot be reliable for future research. A preliminaryregression analysis was conducted to remove outliers that exceeded limits onspecific measures or were extremely odd. The total number of removed surveysbased on this step was 13. The final sample size used for final analysis is (759), whichsatisfies the generalizability conditions and the adequacy of analysis (Hair et al.,1998; Nunnally, 1978). The sample demographics are shown in Table I.

5. Results and discussionThe first step is to ensure that items utilized by this study were perceived highly by subjects;a common typology in social sciences when using a Likert scale from 1-5 considers (1-2.33) aslow, (2.33-3.67) as moderate and (3.67-5) as high. Table II depicts the means and standarddeviations of all items used for all ten variables. Eleven items were perceived highly byJordanians, while all other items were moderately perceived. It might be suitable to look atthe percentage of means exceeding three, where six items only where lower than three. It isobvious that Jordanians are aware of the importance of e-government, but not fullyenthusiastic for it.

Table I.The demographics of thesample used

Demographic category Frequency (%)

GenderMale 306 40.3Female 447 58.9Missing 6 0.8Total 759 100

EducationHigh school or less 26 3.4Diploma 58 7.7Bachelor 551 72.6Master and PhD 123 16.2Missing 1 0.1Total 759 100

Age17-30 years 422 55.631-45 years 287 37.846-60 years 39 5.1More than 60 years 11 1.5Total 759 100%

TG8,4

488

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 11: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Before answering the two research questions, it might be necessary to check thecorrelation matrix that depicts the bivariate associations between each two variables.Such test is important to indicate how the predictors are correlating with the dependentvariable, and how they are correlating to each other. The matrix is shown in Figure 3.Results indicate that all correlations are significant at the 0.01 level, which supports ourconceptual adaptation of these variables. Also, another criterion needs to be confirmed,which is the existence of severely high correlations between predictors (divergent

Table II.The means and standard

deviations of survey items

Item statement (short description in English) N Mean SD

Q1: Using e-gov services will be easy to me (PEoU) 758 3.98 0.97Q2: E-gov services are clear and understandable (PEoU) 754 3.42 1.00Q3: It is easy to me to get what I need from e-gov services (PEoU) 750 3.51 1.06Q4: E-gov services help me to finish things faster (PU) 757 3.88 1.07Q5: E-gov services make my life easier (PU) 752 3.89 1.02Q6: E-gov services will be beneficial in my life (PU) 744 3.89 0.99Q7: E-gov services increase my efficiency and effectiveness (PU) 752 3.55 1.07Q8: People who influence me think that I should use E-gov (SI) 752 3.12 1.08Q9: Important people for me think that I should use E-gov (SI) 750 3.25 1.04Q10: Important people for me think that using e-gov is useful (SI) 752 3.46 1.06Q11: It is easy for me to trust e-gov systems (TiEG) 757 3.10 1.08Q12: I have a desire to trust e-gov systems (TiEG) 753 3.49 1.11Q13: I tend to trust e-gov system even if I know little about it (TiEG) 756 3.26 1.10Q14: I trust in a high degree the e-gov system (TiEG) 756 3.10 1.10Q15: I trust the security of the Internet (TiT) 757 2.71 1.11Q16: Legal/technical infrastructure is sufficient in protecting my info. (TiT) 758 2.78 1.07Q17: In general, the Internet is trusted now a days (TiT) 756 2.87 1.13Q18: I trust computers when I use them in e-gov transactions (TiT) 754 3.11 1.07Q19: I trust mobile phones when I use them in e-gov transactions (TiT) 755 2.99 1.10Q20: I trust public departments and institutions (TiG) 754 3.09 1.17Q21: I trust government’s capability in providing safe e-services (TiG) 755 3.05 1.09Q22: I trust that citizens’ interest is government’s first priority (TiG) 753 2.92 1.26Q23: E-gov website provides comprehensive information about services (IQ) 755 3.39 1.02Q24: E-gov website provides accurate information about services (IQ) 752 3.28 0.97Q25: E-gov website provides updated/recent information about services (IQ) 750 3.39 1.02Q26: Information used by e-gov system is original and real (IQ) 751 3.28 0.96Q27: Using e-government systems increases transparency levels (IQ) 756 3.36 1.10Q28: Using e-gov systems achieves knowledge equity between citizens (IQ) 755 3.47 1.12Q29: I used electronic sites and the Internet for many times (IF) 755 3.92 1.19Q30: Electronic websites and the Internet are familiar to me (IF) 750 4.06 1.05Q31: My experience in electronic websites is high (IF) 750 3.76 1.09Q32: E-gov systems protect my privacy and personal information (P&SC) 756 3.27 1.05Q33: No one control my personal information in e-gov but me (P&SC) 754 3.76 1.12Q34: E-gov systems are secured against hacking and tampering (P&SC) 755 2.98 1.10Q35: I intend to use e-government systems (ITU) 757 3.68 1.09Q36: I expect to use e-government systems (ITU) 756 3.77 1.05Q37: I plan to use e-government systems (ITU) 756 3.70 1.11

Note: For all responses, the minimum value is 1, and the maximum value is 5; bold data representshigh means (Value � 3.666)

489

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 12: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

validity), where all correlations were between (0.147-0.576). The highest correlationbetween ITU and all predictors is the one associated with PU (0.637), and the lowest isthe one with TiG (0.325). Such test also supports the discriminant validity of variables,where moderate correlations are indicator of the existence of discriminant validity.

To answer the two research questions a SEM analysis utilizing SmartPLS softwareand algorithms was conducted. A PLS-SEM does not assume normality but relies on anon-parametric bootstrap procedure to test the model. In this procedure, many smallersubsamples are drawn from the study sample and tested to reach the best model fit. TheSmartPLS tool is free for academic purposes and calculates easily the item loadings andthe correlations (path coefficients for the whole model are depicted). The results of themodel estimation are shown in Figure 4.

The sample size necessary for such test should be at least ten times the largest offormative indicators used to measure a construct (� 6 � 10), or ten times the largestnumber of structural paths directed at a particular latent construct (� 5 � 10). Thesample size used in this study is more than both conditions. The tool calculates a (t)value for each test to show significance of estimates/results for both pathcoefficients and factor loadings. A bootstrapping technique is used to calculate thet values of the model, where values of t equal to 1.96 indicates a significant level witha p value less than 0.05 (� � 0.05). Similarly a t value of 2.58 indicates a level of p �0.01.

Checking both Figures 4 and 5, we can see that the mean of all item loadingscorresponding to each construct is more than 0.7, which is acceptable in socialsciences research. For any single item loading, it is recommended that it exceeds 0.8,but a value more than 0.6 (without a high cross loading on other dimensions) isacceptable. Only one item (Q28, IQ construct) yielded 0.695, which is close to 0.7 andcan be accepted. Some items loaded fairly high on their constructs with a factorloading more than 0.9. Finally, the internal consistency measures (reliability ofinstrument used) using Cronbach’s alphas indicate that all variables exhibited anacceptable level of reliability (recommended value � 0.8, acceptable � 0.6, shown inTable III).

The model significantly predicts ITU with an R2 value equal to (0.465). Thepredictors of TiEG significantly predicted the variable with R2 equal to (0.415). Also, thebeta values (standardized coefficients of the predictors) are listed in Table III, with their“t” value and error probabilities.

Figure 3.The correlation matrix

TG8,4

490

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 13: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Figure 4.The measurement model

with path coefficients andfactor loadings

491

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 14: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Figure 5.The t values forsignificance estimation ofthe model

TG8,4

492

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 15: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

6. ConclusionsThis research aimed at improving our understanding of the factors influencing the ITUe-government services. The proposed model included ten major variables that arecommon in technology acceptance domain. The first variable ITU is a well-exploredconstruct that is used as a surrogate for technology use. ITU was predicted by fourmajor constructs with a varying degree of significance. PU, PEOU, SI and TiEG were allsignificant predictors of ITU. The most influential construct was PU (beta value �0.428), where Jordanians emphasized the importance of perceiving e-governmentservices to be useful as a major determinant of future adoption. The second mostimportant predictor was TiEG(beta value � 0.219), which is the focus of our study.Finally, PEOU and SI did not fail to significantly influence ITU but with a beta less thanPU and TiEG. The proposed model explained 46.5 per cent of the variance in ITU, whichcan be considered a substantial level of prediction in social sciences (Cohen, 1988). Suchresult is better than the original TAM and close to the prediction of the UTAUT reportedin the literature.

On the other hand, the focus of this study was TiEG, which came as a major predictorin more than one major study. Five variables were proposed as predictors of TiEG andall of them were significantly associated with TiEG except Internet familiarityconstruct. Table III indicated a full support to all proposed hypotheses except H6. Thetotal variance explanation of TiEG totaled 41.5 per cent.

It is important to understand each factor explored in this study to betterunderstand the context of e-government adoption. The results of this researchemphasized previous research findings when predicting ITU e-governmentservices. The results of previous literature described in Section 2 came in alignmentwith our findings and emphasized the role of usefulness and ease of use of anysystem. Social influence indicates that Jordanians are a close society and areinfluenced by social perceptions. Such argument is critical for governments, as itemphasizes the social waves of perceptions regarding government services. Finally,and similar to previous research (Abu-Shanab and Al-Azzam, 2012), trust wassignificant predictor of ITU e-government services.

The second set of factors proposed by this work depends on trust as a gateway toadopting e-government services. The familiarity of the Internet to Jordanians failed

Table III.Reliability measures and

hypotheses testing results

VariableCronbach’s

AlphaStand.beta t value

Significancelevel H

Hypothesisstatus

Privacy & Security Concerns (P&SC) 0.7224 0.147 3.487 0.01 H9 SupportedTrust in Government (TiG) 0.8641 0.165 4.08 0.01 H8 SupportedTrust in Technology (TiT) 0.8663 0.221 5.557 0.01 H7 SupportedInternet Familiarity (IF) 0.8568 0.042 1.298 � 0.05 H6 Not supportedInformation Quality (IQ) 0.8629 0.245 6.246 0.01 H5 SupportedTrust in E-government (TiEG)* 0.8216 0.219 6.261 0.01 H4 SupportedPerceived Ease of Use (PEoU) 0.7292 0.099 2.726 0.01 H3 SupportedPerceived Usefulness (PU) 0.8731 0.428 10.824 0.01 H2 SupportedSocial Influence (SI) 0.8309 0.076 2.212 0.05 H1 SupportedIntention to Use (ITU)* 0.8931 – – –

Note: *dependent variable for this predictor

493

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 16: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

to predict trust, but still holds a significant bivariate relationship with it. It might beranked lower by Jordanians when compared to IQ or trust in technology, and this iswhy it failed when entering regression estimation. Such conclusion is dependent onthe context of developing countries where technology is not extensively used bycitizens and IQ provided by government can be considered a major predictor oftrusting e-government services.

7. Implications for research and practiceThe findings of this study imply that governments need to raise public awareness tothe usefulness of e-government services and build TiEG and its services. Suchimplication calls for more efforts by Jordanian government to add useful services toe-government Web sites and improve its credibility and accountability. A call forpublic participation initiative is required to address the needs of citizens andbusinesses and be more effective in such venue. On the other hand, researchersexploring the adoption of e-government need to incorporate trust as a majorpredictor of ITU such service. Trust came second in its influence magnitude on ITUafter PU.This research is important to public officials and Jordanian e-government project, as itemphasized the importance of trust constructs (TiT beta value � 0.221 and TiG betavalue � 0.165) as major influencers on trust propensity related to e-government. Otherconstructs like IQ showed significant influence (beta value � 0.245); where the type andcharacteristics of information posted on e-government Web sites influence the adoptiondecision on the long run. Jordanians’ perceptions regarding information posted one-government Web site were all at moderate levels. This calls for more emphasis onmaking information more accurate, recent, comprehensive and original. Similarly,transparency and knowledge equity are important dimensions that need to be addressedby researchers in future research (Abu-Shanab, 2013b). This study showed a relativedeficiency in Jordanians perceptions towards trusting the Internet. It seems that theyreflected a moderate trust in its legal, technical and security levels. Finally, this studyemphasized the role of privacy and security issues in influencing the level of TiEGsystems.

8. Limitations and future workThis research suffered from a newly used instrument, where some of the items usedwere translated from their original language (English). Also, the perception ofe-government in the minds of respondents might differ based on the technology inconsideration. When sampling general population (which might be considered anaccurate and representative sample), research slips in the issue of technologyperception. Some respondents filled their survey considering a public e-learningsystem, while others took e-government Web site as the technology underconsideration. This study traded the sample size with the type of research; focusingon a specific service will force research into an experimental setting limiting thesample size to less than 100 subjects. Using survey method with a large sample size(759) will yield more generalizable results and utilizes more opinions into this study.This issue needs further exploration to define a specific Web site or system andcollect responses based on that.

TG8,4

494

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 17: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Future research is needed to fill the gaps caused by the limitations of thisresearch which might improve our understanding of the topic and the accuracy ofresults. Also, validation of this instrument is requested to make available a reliableinstrument in Arabic language. Finally, the proposed model needs some validationto reach some consensus regarding the factors influencing trust constructs (TiG,TiT and TiEG). This study is the first to utilize such large sample in the Jordaniancontext (in Jordan and regarding the Jordanian e-government Web site); such studyopens doors for more research to understand the Jordanian context for the purposeof improving e-government services and serving citizens in a better manner.

ReferencesAbu-Shanab, E. (2013a), Electronic Government, a Tool for Good Governance and Better

Service., Dar Al-Ketab, (ISBN: 978-9957-550-99-8, deposit number in Department ofNational Library – Jordan: 2013/2/355, call number: 658.4038), 2013, p. 195.

Abu-Shanab, E. (2013b), “The relationship between transparency and e-government: an empiricalsupport”, IFIP E-Government Conference 2013 (EGOV 2013), 16-19 September, Koblenz,pp. 84-91.

Abu-Shanab, E. Knight, M. and Refai, H. (2010), “E-voting systems: a tool for e-democracy”,Management Research and Practice, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 264-274.

Abu-Shanab, E. and Abu-Baker, A. (2011), “Evaluating Jordan’s e-government website: a casestudy”, Electronic Government: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 271-289.

Abu-Shanab, E. and Al-Azzam, A. (2012), “Trust dimensions and the adoption of e-government inJordan”, International Journal of Information Communication Technologies and HumanDevelopment, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 39-51.

Abu-Shanab, E. and Md Nor, K. (2013), “The influence of language on research results”,Management Research and Practice Journal (MRP), Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 37-48.

Abu-Shanab, E. and Pearson, J. (2007), “Internet banking in Jordan: the unified theory ofacceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) perspective”, Journal of Systems andInformation Technology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 78-97.

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Al-Gahtani, S. (2011), “Modeling the electronic transactions acceptance using an extendedtechnology acceptance model”, Applied Computing and Informatics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 47-77.

Al-Hujran, O. (2012), “Toward the utilization of m-government services in developing countries: aqualitative investigation”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 5,pp. 155-160.

Almarabeh, T. and AbuAli, A. (2010), “A general framework for e-government: definition,maturity challenges, opportunities, and success”, European Journal of Scientific Research,Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 29-42.

Al-Naimat, A., Abdullah, M., Osman, W. and Ahmad, F. (2012), “E-government implementationproblems in developing countries”, 2nd World Conference on Information Technology(WCIT-2011), a Publication of AWER Procedia of Information Technology & ComputerScience, Antalya, Vol. 1, pp. 876-881.

Alsaghier, H., Ford, M. Nguyen, A. and Hexel, R. (2009), “Conceptualizing citizen’s trust ine-government: application of Q methodology”, Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 7No. 4, pp. 295-310.

495

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 18: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Alshehri, M., Drew, D. and Alfarraj, O. (2012), “A comprehensive analysis of e-governmentservices adoption in Saudi Arabia: obstacles and challenges, (IJACSA)” InternationalJournal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-6.

Axelsson, K. and Lindgren, U. (2013), “Public e-services for agency efficiency and citizen benefit:findings from a stakeholder centered analysis”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 30No. 1, pp. 10-22.

Ayyash, M., Ahmad, K. and Singh, D. (2012), “A questionnaire approach for user trust adoption inpalestinian e-government initiative”, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 1,pp. 40-46.

Beldad, A., Geest, T., Jong, M. and Steehouder, M. (2012), “A cue or two and I’ll trust you:determinants of trust in government organizations in terms of their processing and usage ofcitizens’ personal information disclosed online”, Government Information Quarterly,Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 41-49.

Brislin, R. (1976), “Comparative research methodology: cross-cultural studies”, InternationalJournal of Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 215-229.

Carter, L. and Campbell, R. (2011), “The impact of trust and relative advantage on internet votingdiffusion”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 6 No. 3,pp. 28-42.

Cetin, Y., Kanat, I. and Ozkan, S. (2011), “Systematic review of e-government adoption research”,tGov Workshop ’11 (tGOV11), Brunel University, West London, 17-18 March, pp. 1-22.

Ciborra, C. and Navarra, D.D. (2005), “Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: risksand challenges of e-government in Jordan”, Information Technology for Development,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp 141-159.

Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Colesca, S. (2009), “Increasing e-trust: a solution to minimize risk in e-government adoption”,

Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 31-44.Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information

technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a

comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Reading, MA.Gefen, D. Rose, G., Warkentin, M. and Pavlou, P. (2005), “Cultural diversity and trust in IT

adoption: a comparison of potential e-voters in the USA and South Africa”, Journal of GlobalInformation Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 54-78.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hernandez-Ortega, B. (2011), “The role of post-use trust in the acceptance of a technology: driversand consequences”, Technovation, Vol. 31 Nos 10/11, pp. 523-538.

Horsburgh, S., Goldfinch, S. and Gauld, R. (2011), “Is public trust in government associated withtrust in e-government?”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 232-241.

Khayun, V., Ractham, P. and Firpo, D. (2012), “Assessing e-excise success with delone andmclean’s model”, Journal Of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 31-40.

Lim, E., Tan, C., Cyr, D., Pan, S. and Xiao, B. (2012), “Advancing public trust relationships inelectronic government: the Singapore e-filing journey”, Information Systems Research,Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 110-1130.

TG8,4

496

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 19: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Mcaskill, A. and Brown, K. (2009), “A psychological review of trust”, published in October 2009”,available at: http://scienceandsociety.bis.gov.uk/trust/files/2010/03/Trust-Literature-review2.pdf (accessed June 2013).

Mofleh, S. and Wanous, (2013), “Understanding Factors influencing citizens’ adoption ofe-government services in the developing world: Jordan as a case study”, available at:www.dcc.ufla.br/infocomp/artigos/v7.2/art01.pdf (accessed June 2013).

Moore, G. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions ofadopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2No. 3, pp. 192-222.

Morgeson, F., III,VanAmburg, D. and Mithas, S. (2011), “Misplaced trust? Exploring the structureof the e-government-citizen trust relationship”, Journal of Public Administration Researchand Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 257-283.

Nassuora, A. and Al-Mushasha, N. (2012), “Factors determine Jordanian customer’s attitudetowards e-government”, International Journal Of Academic Research, Vol. 4 No. 2,pp. 190-196.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Odat, A. and Khazaaleh, M. (2012), “E-government challenges and opportunities: a case study ofJordan”, International Journal Of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 361-367.

Ozkan, S. and Kanat, I. (2011), “E-government adoption model based on theory of plannedbehavior: empirical validation”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 503-513.

Parent, M., Vandebeek, C. and Gemino, A. (2004), “Building citizen trust through e-government”,Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2004, Big Island,Hawaii, pp. 1-9.

Peppa, V., Poutoka, A. and Metaxas, G. (2012), “E-government adoption and the impact of Greekfarmers ’ cultural issues on trust towards agricultural e-government services”, Vol. 10 No. 1,pp. 86-92.

Rehman, M., Esichaikul, V. and Kamal, M. (2011), “Factors influencing e-governmentadoption in Pakistan”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 6No. 3, pp. 258-282.

Ringle, W.C.M. and Sven Will, A. (2005), “SmartPLS, release 2.0 (beta)”, available at:www.smartpls.de

Shajari, M. and Ismail, Z. (2012), “Trustworthiness: a key factor for adoption models ofe-government services in developing countries”, 2012 International Conference onEducation and Management Innovation (IPEDR), Singapore, Vol. 30, pp. 22-26.

Sharma, G. and Qian, X. (2012), “Empirical investigation on adoption of e-governance services indeveloping countries and ethical issues”, International Journal of Advanced Research inComputer Science and Software Engineering, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 19-27.

Susanto, T.D. and Goodwin, R. (2010), “Factors influencing citizen adoption of SMS-basede-government services”, Electronic Journal of e-Government, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-71.

Thompson, R.L., Higgins, C.A. and Howell, J.M. (1991), “Personal computing toward a conceptualmodel of utilization”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 167-187.

Toe, T., Srivastava, S. and Jiang, L. (2008), “Trust and electronic government success: an empiricalstudy”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 99-131.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of informationtechnology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.

497

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 20: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. and Rose, G. (2002), “Encouraging citizen adoption ofe-government by building trust”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 157-162.

Yaghoubi, N., Beiglo, S. and Zare, R. (2011), “A survey on factors effecting continuity the use ofgovernment’ e-services”, Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 8, p. 7,pp. 209-220.

Yaghoubi, N., Kord, B. and Shakeri, R. (2010), “E-government services and user acceptance: theunified models’ perspective”, European Journal of Economics, Finance and AdministrativeSciences, No. 24, pp. 36-49.

Zaimes, G., Kalampouka, K. and Emmanouloudis, D. (2012), “The scope of e-government in theEuropean union and potential applications to the water framework directive”,Sosyoekonomi, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 86-110.

Zeleti, F. (2011), “E-government in Islamic republic of iRan: identifying the obstacles ofimplementing and strategies for improving e-government”, Proceedings of the 5thSymposium on Advances in Science & Technology, Mashhad, 12-17 May, pp. 1-8.

TG8,4

498

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 21: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

Appendix

About the authorDr Emad Abu-Shanab earned his PhD in business administration, in the MIS area from SouthernIllinois University – Carbondale, USA, his MBA from Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, andhis Bachelor in civil engineering from Yarmouk University (YU) in Jordan. He is an associateprofessor in MIS. His research interest in areas like E-government, technology acceptance,E-marketing, E-CRM, Digital divide and E-learning. Published many articles in journals andconferences, and authored three books in e-government. Dr Abu-Shanab worked as an assistantdean for students’ affairs, quality assurance officer in Oman and the directorof Faculty Development Center at YU. Emad Abu-Shanab can be contacted at:[email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Table AI.Definitions of variables

No. Variable Definition of variable

1 Intention to Use (ITU) The degree to which citizens intend, plan and expect touse e-government services

2 Perceived Usefulness (PU) The degree to which the use of e-government servicesis useful, more productive and efficient and makescitizen’s life easier

3 Perceived Ease of Use (PEoU) The degree to which the use of e-government servicesis easy, comprehensible and easily accessible

4 Social Influence (SI) The degree to which important people in my lifebelieve that I should use e-government servicesbecause it is useful and necessary

5 Trust in e-government (TiEG) The degree to which the results of using e-governmentservices/systems are predictable and can be trusted

6 Trust in Government (TiG) The degree to which the interactions with governmentare predictable and can be trusted

7 Trust in Technology (TiT) The degree to which the interactions with the Internet/systems are predictable and can be trusted

8 Information Quality (IQ) Information provided on the website is comprehensive,accurate, recent, original and relevant to the servicesprovided

9 Internet Familiarity (IF) The level of previous experience and knowledge inInternet use and e-services

10 Privacy and Security Concerns(P&SC)

The degree to which e-government websites canprotect citizen’s information and adheres to privacyrequirements

499

Antecedents oftrust in

e-governmentservices

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Page 22: TG-08-2013-0027 ques

This article has been cited by:

1. Hussain Alenezi, Ali Tarhini, Sujeet Kumar Sharma. 2015. Development of quantitative model toinvestigate the strategic relationship between information quality and e-government benefits. TransformingGovernment: People, Process and Policy 9:3, 324-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by A

mbe

dkar

Uni

vers

ity A

t 07:

42 2

6 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)