www.elsevier.es/reimke
Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing ESIC
ARTICLE
Rebuilding public trust in government administrations through e-government actions
D. Belanche Gracia
a, L.V. Casaló Ari˜ no
b,∗aAssistantProfessorofMarketing,UniversidaddeZaragoza,FacultaddeCienciasSocialesyHumanas,Teruel,Spain
bAssociateProfessorofMarketing,UniversidaddeZaragoza,FacultaddeEmpresayGestiónPública,Huesca,Spain
Received24February2014;receivedinrevisedform10July2014;accepted18July2014 Availableonline7November2014
KEYWORDS Trustinpublic administration;
Publice-services;
E-servicequality;
Attitudetoward e-government;
Publicadministration communication
Abstract Citizentrustinthepublicadministrationhasbeenreducedworldwideduetorecent events such as the current economic situation, corruption cases or disclosure ofclassified information.Thisworkanalyzeswhethere-governmentrelatedactionscouldbestrategically employed toincrease citizentrust inthe publicadministration.Thisresearchconfirms that perceivedqualityofpublice-serviceshasapositiveeffectontrustinthepublicadministra- tion.In turn,publicadministrationcommunication(i.e.,campaignstopromotethebenefits anduseofe-government)onlyinfluencetrustinthepublicadministrationforcitizenswitha favorableattitudetowardse-government.Theseresultshaveinterestingimplicationssuggest- inginwhichwayspublicadministrationshouldinvesttheirlimitedresourcesinordertorecover thelevelsofcitizentrust.
©2014ESIC&AEMARK.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.Allrightsreserved.
PALABRASCLAVE Confianzaenla administración pública;
Serviciospúblicos electrónicos;
Calidaddelservicio electrónico;
Creacióndeconfianzaenlaadminsitraciónpúblicaatravésdeaccionesdegobierno electrónico
Resumen Laconfianzaenlaadministraciónpúblicaseestáreduciendomundialmentedebido asucesoscomolaactualcrisiseconómica,casosdecorrupciónofiltracionesdeinformación clasificada.Estetrabajoanalizacómoaumentarlaconfianzaciudadanaenlaadministración públicamedianteaccionesrelacionadasconelgobiernoelectrónico.Enconcreto,losresultados muestranquelacalidaddelosserviciospúblicoselectrónicostieneunefectopositivosobre
∗Correspondingauthor at:AssociateProfessorofMarketing,UniversidaddeZaragoza,FacultaddeEmpresa yGestiónPública, Plaza Constitucións/n,22.001Huesca,Spain.
E-mailaddresses:[email protected](D.B.Gracia),[email protected](L.V.CasalóAri˜no).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reimke.2014.07.001
1138-1442/©2014ESIC&AEMARK.PublishedbyElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.Allrightsreserved.
Actitudhaciael gobiernoelectrónico;
Comunicacionesdela administración pública
laconfianzaenlaadministración.Encambio,lascomunicacionesdelaadministraciónpública (i.e.,campa˜nasparapromocionarlosbeneficiosyusodelgobiernoelectrónico)sóloinfluyen enlaconfianzaenlaadministraciónparaaquellosciudadanosconunaactitudfavorablehacia elgobiernoelectrónico.Estosresultadossugiereninteresantesimplicacionespara lagestión públicaacercadecómoinvertirsuslimitadosrecursospararecuperarlosnivelesdeconfianza delciudadano.
©2014ESIC&AEMARK.PublicadoporElsevierEspaña,S.L.U.Todoslosderechosreservados.
Introduction
Governmentsworldwidearefacingseveralrecentevents--- i.e.the currenteconomic situation, corruptioncases,the informationpublished bywebsites such asWikiLeaks, the Snowden’s affair and so on --- which are diminishing citi- zentrustinpublicadministrationtoagreatextent(Yildiz&
Saylam,2013).Recentreportssuggestthattrustingovern- mentsandpublicinstitutionsareexperiencingthegreatest declineofthecentury,beingthisdecreaseespeciallylarge inEuropeancountriesasSpain(Bannister&Connolly,2011;
CorporateExcellence,2012).Insum,lessthanhalf ofthe population all over the world relies onpublic institutions (CorporateExcellence, 2012).However,governmentsneed citizens’trust andcollaboration toguaranteethe success of public initiatives (suchas e-government projects, new public policies, etc.) and obtain their expected benefits forthewholesociety(Kolsaker&Lee-Kelley,2008).Inthis respect, citizens’ trust in public administration is crucial to enhance the relationship between citizens and public administrationinthelong-term(Warkentin,Gefen,Pavlou,
&Rose,2002).Therefore,thereisamanagerialneedtobet- terunderstandinwhichactionspublicadministrationmust investtheirlimitedresourcesinordertorecoverthelevels oftrustworthinessamongcitizens.
Inthisway,oneofthemostimportantinvestmentsmade bygovernments aroundthe worldin thelast few yearsis thedevelopmentofe-government(forexample,providing citizens with online public services). In Spain, the public law11/2007(Ley11/2007,de22dejunio,deaccesoelec- trónicodelosciudadanosalosserviciospúblicos)recognizes thecitizens’righttointeractonlinewiththePublicAdmin- istration in order to, among others, obtain information, makequestionsorperformtransactions.Thelaunchingand right management of e-government services represent an instrument benefiting both public administration and cit- izens (Chan, Hackney, Pan, & Chou, 2011), that highlight thegovernmenttransformationanditsinteresttoadaptits servicestocitizens’needs.
Inthe lastfew years,mostliteratureone-government has primarily focused oncitizen adoption of these initia- tives(e.g. Carter and Bélanger,2005; Bélanger& Carter, 2008).Focusingonearlierstudiesthathaveanalyzedtrust inthe e-governmentcontext,most of theseworksmainly consider trust as an antecedent factor of e-government adoption(e.g. Bélanger& Carter, 2008; Warkentin etal., 2002),or just focusontrustin a specificpublic e-service
(e.g.Belanche,Casaló,&Guinalíu,2012;Wu&Chen,2005).
Incontrast,thereisstillascarcityofworksanalyzingwhat aretheeffectsofe-governmentintroductionandwhether thedevelopmentoftheseinteractiveinitiativescanincrease trustinpublicadministrationasawhole(e.g.Bannister&
Connolly,2011).
To shed some light in this gap found on this emerg- ingbodyofliterature,thisworkanalyzeshowgovernment actions related to e-government initiatives might affect citizens’ trust in public administration. Specifically, the contribution of this research is twofold. First, we eval- uate whether investing in e-service quality or in public administrationcommunicationservestoincreasetrustinthe publicadministrationasawhole.Second,weinvestigateto whichcitizensshouldbefocusedthesepublicadministration communication inordertomaximizeitseffectontrustin thepublicadministration.Thatis,wefocusontwogovern- mentinstrumentsdevotedtobetterservecitizensthrough e-government:
- First,wefocusonpublice-servicequality,whichmaybe considered as an observable ‘‘consumer’’ oriented sig- nal (e.g. Schlosser, White, & Lloyd, 2006) that public administrationcan usetocommunicate itsabilities and concernsaboutcitizens’needsanddemands.Thatis,e- service quality represents an investment made by the public administrationtobetter serve the society which implies skills and commitment in its relationship with citizens.E-servicequalityisthemostrelevantbeliefcon- sideredbytheusertoevaluatee-services,anditisusually decomposedintofourdimensions:efficiency,privacy,ful- fillmentandsystemavailability(Parasuraman,Zeithaml,
&Malhotra,2005).
- Second,wefocusonpublicadministrationcommunication ---suchasgovernmentalcampaigns,personalizedmail,or spotlessbrick-andmortarlocations---thatcanhelpcom- municatethestrengthsofpublice-services(Carter,2008).
Thiscitizenorientedcommunication focusesonincreas- ingthecitizens’awarenessoftheseservicesandinform aboutthebenefitsofe-government(Teerling&Pieterson, 2010).However,individuals’ resistancetobe persuaded bycommercialcampaignsisastronglyacceptedfindingin previousresearchonconsumerbehavior(e.g.Ahluwalia, 2000; Bansal & Voyer, 2000; Eagly& Chaiken, 1995). In thisway,theinfluenceofmessages onindividualsmight dependontheirattitudetowardthetargetsothatmes- sagesaremorepersuasivewhentheyareconsistentwith the individuals’ beliefs and evaluations, suggesting an
interactioneffectbetweenthetwovariables.Therefore, inthisresearchwealsoinvestigatehowafavorableatti- tude toward e-government might reinforce the effect of publicadministrationcommunication tobuild citizen trust.
Todothat,thisresearchwillfocusonthecaseofSpain becausethiscountry:(1)hasexperiencedoneofthegreat- estdecreases in citizens’trustin governments andpublic institutionsallovertheworld(CorporateExcellence,2012), and(2)ismakinggreatinvestmentsine-governmentdevel- opmentduetothemandatoryaccessibilitytopublicservices since2009.
Westructuretheremainderofthisarticleasfollows:we firstprovideabriefreviewofthetrustconceptandapplied it to the context of the public administration. Then, we describeitsmain antecedentsconsideredinthiswork and proposetheresearchhypotheses.After,weexplainthedata collectionandmeasurevalidationprocesses.Ourresearch alsoincludes theexplanation ofthe orthogonalizingtech- niqueasamethodusedtoevaluateinteractioneffectswhen using structural equationmodeling (Little, Card, Bovaird, Preacher,&Crandall,2007).Finally,wediscusstheresults andtheirmainimplicationsfore-governmentmanagers,as wellasnotingthemainstudylimitations thatopenfuture researchlines.
Research framework
Trustinthepublicadministration
Trustisacomplexconceptthathasreceivedlargeattention in marketingliterature(e.g. Morgan& Hunt,1994; Doney
& Cannon,1997) becauseit isconsidered acrucialaspect tomaintainlong-termorientedrelationships(e.g.Anderson
&Narus,1990).Therefore,trustbuildinghasbeen consid- eredamajorgoalbymanyorganizationssinceithasbeen associatedtoseveralprofitableoutcomes(suchascommit- ment,loyalty,positiveWOM,etc.; Schlosseretal.,2006).
Themostgenerallyaccepteddefinitionoftrustdescribesit asthewillingnessofapartytobevulnerabletotheactionsof anotherparty,basedontheexpectationthattheotherparty willperformaparticularaction,irrespectiveofthetrustor ability tomonitor or control (Mayer,Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).
Similartocompanies,inthecaseofpublicmanagement, governmentsaimtoincreasecitizens’trustonpublicadmin- istration and invest their time and resources to achieve this goal and to maintain satisfactory long-term relation- shipswithcitizens.Literatureonpublicadministrationhas noted a clear decline in the levels of citizen trust on governmentsall aroundtheworld (Al-Adawi,Yousafzai, &
Pallister,2005),especiallyinEurope(Bannister&Connolly, 2011;CorporateExcellence,2012).However,thereisnota consensusaboutthecrucialfactorsincreasingordecreasing trust (Al-Adawi et al., 2005). Indeed, diverse elements suchaspoliticalscandals,economicinstability,mass-media information, government popularity or governmental per- formancehavebeenmentionedaspossibledeterminantsof governments’trustworthiness(Bannister& Connolly,2011;
Welch,Hinnant,&Moon,2005).Literatureone-government
also has focused on trust as a key factor that needs to becarefullyanalyzed (Beldad,Van DerGeest,de Jong,&
Steehouder, 2012).However,most of e-governmentworks mainlyconsidertrustasanantecedentfactorofe-services adoption(e.g. Bélanger& Carter, 2008; Warkentin etal., 2002),or just focusontrustin aspecific publice-service (e.g.Belancheetal.,2012;Wu&Chen,2005).Incontrast, fewworkshavefocusedontrustinthepublicadministration asa whole,and consideritan independentvariable(e.g.
CarterandBélanger,2005). Inother words, creatingtrust inthegovernmenthasbeenconsideredasadeterminantof e-governmentadoption,but notasapublicpolicygoalby itself(Arduini&Zanfei,2014).
Fromarelationship marketingperspective,it hasbeen proposedthate-governmentdevelopmentiscrucialtobuild trust-based relationships between citizens and the pub- licadministration(Bélanger&Carter,2008).Nevertheless, little research effort has been done to analyze how e- governmentpoliciesorspecificrelatedactionsmayincrease thecitizens’leveloftrustinpublicadministration(Bannister
&Connolly,2011).FollowingBannisterandConnolly(2011, p. 141) comments, ‘‘of greatest interest to governments is not just that trust in government willlead to more e- Government take-up, but that e-government take-up will leadtogreatertrustingovernment’’.Currently,giventhe lowlevelofcitizentrustonpublicinstitutions,thequestion ofinterestiswhethercitizensmayincreasetheirtrustlevels inpublicadministrationasaresultofe-governmentinitia- tives(for example,duetoimprovementsin theperceived efficiency). The scarce literature on this emerging topic foundequivocal results: someworkshave found that citi- zenswhotrustthegovernmentmoretendtousegovernment websites and vice versa (Parent, Vandebeek, & Gemino, 2005),whileothersfoundthate-governmentinitiativesonly increasetrustinthepublicadministrationatthelocallevel (TolbertandMossberger,2006).
Ourworkisanattempttodeepenthisinsightbyanalyz- ingwhich e-governmentrelated actions(e-service quality andpublicadministrationcommunication)mightaffectcit- izens’ trust in the public administration. Although initial researchon trust(e.g. Moorman, Deshpandé, & Zaltman, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) conceptualizes this concept as a set of beliefs and have divided trust into different dimensions (e.g.,honesty,integrity, benevolence,compe- tence),sincethemaininterestofthispaperistounderstand whethergovernments canbuildtrustin publicadministra- tionratherthanconceptualizingthetrustconceptin-depth, ourtrustmeasurefocusesoncitizensbeliefsofoveralltrust inthepublicadministration.Thisisconsistentwithprevious researchinpublicadministration,whichmainlycenterson overalltrust(e.g.CarterandBélanger,2005;Carter,2008;
Welch etal., 2005). In sum, we try to findhow the gov- ernmentlimited resources should be investedin order to improveoverallpublicadministrationreliabilityamongcit- izens.
Antecedentsoftrustinthepublicadministration Thisworkfocusesontwoactionsrelatedtopublice-services inwhichgovernmentsareworkingintheiraimtoincrease citizens’ trust: e-service quality and public administra-
tioncommunication.Weaimtounderstandtowhatextent investing in these actions may affect trust in the public administrationasawhole.Inaddition,weconsiderattitude towarde-governmentasacontrolvariablesinceitisreason- abletothinkthatcitizenswithafavorableattitudetoward e-governmentwilltendtotrustinthepublicadministration becauseof e-governmentinitiatives launching.Finally, an interactioneffectbetweenpublicadministrationcommuni- cationandattitudetowarde-governmentisalsoproposed.
E-servicequality
First, e-servicequality is defined as the degree to which a website enables efficient and effective shopping, pur- chasinganddelivery (Zeithaml, Parasuraman,& Malhotra, 2002). A good management of public e-services is rele- vantfor citizens giventhe inherentproperties ofservices (heterogeneity, intangibility, etc.), the characteristics of theInternet(i.e.impersonalanddistantchannel),andthe delicate nature of the data involved in public e-service transactions.E-servicequalityisprobablythemostrelevant beliefconsideredbytheusertoevaluatee-services,anditis usuallyreflectedinelementssuchasefficiency,privacy,ful- fillmentandsystemavailability(Parasuramanetal.,2005), sothatitismostlyconceptualizedasmultidimensionalcon- structinpreviousresearch(e.g.FassnachtandKose,2006).
Despite recent approaches of quality as an evalua- tion of a hedonic or transformative service experience (Arduini & Zanfei, 2014; Bauer, Falk, & Hammerschmidt, 2006), we maintain the traditional approach of public e- service quality as a result of an effective management of basic informational or transactional citizen oriented services(Halaris, Magoutas,Papadomichelaki, & Mentzas, 2007). This view agrees with the general e-service qual- ityevaluation of the marketer’s functional capabilities in e-commerce(e.g. Mcknight,Choudhury, & Kacmar,2002), and seems particularly appropriate at initial stages of e- governmentdevelopment,asitisthecaseofourresearch.
In this sense, we rely onthe E-S-QUAL conceptualization ofquality(Parasuramanetal.,2005)thathasbeenwidely recognizedinprevious literatureandconsideredasasuit- ableframeworkforevaluatingtheeffectivenessofe-service management (Kaisara & Pather, 2011; Sahadev & Purani, 2008).
Inonlinemarketingliteraturee-servicequalityhasbeen traditionallyconsidered asa cue ofe-service trustworthi- ness, but it has also been proposed to positively impact trustattributionstotheproviderofthee-service(McKnight etal.,2002),the publicadministrationin thiscase. Simi- lartothee-commercecontext(e.g.Schlosseretal.,2006), investingine-servicequalitymaybeanobservablecue to communicate the public administration abilities and con- cerntomeetcitizens’needsanddemands.Aswell,e-service quality,observedintheabsenceoferrorsorthefulfillment of promises, increasesusers’ confidence on the technical capability of the e-service and the willingness torely on theorganizationproviding theservice (Sahadev & Purani, 2008).Therefore, citizenscan make inferencesabout the publicadministrationbasedone-servicequality(forexam- ple,awell-functioningpublice-servicecouldassuretosome extentthatthepublicadministrationknowshowtoprovide theservicesuccessfully).Wethusproposethat:
Hypothesis1. Publice-servicequalityhasapositiveinflu- enceontrustinthepublicadministration.
Publicadministrationcommunication
Second,wedefinepublicadministrationcommunicationas the governmentalcommunication actionsdirectedtoward citizens and focused on improving citizens’ awareness, knowledgeorconvenienceperceptionsofe-governmentser- vices (for instance, governmental campaigns to promote the advantages of an e-tax payment system andits use).
This conceptis similartoother terms referringtoorgani- zation persuasive informationrelated toe-services in the privatedomain,suchascommercialcommunication(Bauer, Reichardt,Barnes,&Neumann,2005).
Similar to companies’ communication, public adminis- tration also communicates the advantages of a secure, convenient and successfulprovision of e-government ser- vices. These communications might influence trust in the publicadministrationtoosincethesemessagescanbeused bycitizensnotonlytoshapebeliefsaboutpublice-services, butalsoaboutthepublicadministrationbecauseit hasno commercialself-interestbutapublicone(e.g.Jorgensen&
Cable,2002),andcouldbeinterpretedasasignofthepub- licadministrationcompetenceanddeterminationtobetter informandservecitizens(Carter,2008;Welchetal.,2005).
Inaddition,publicadministrationcommunicationcouldbe perceivedasanadditionalsocialsupportamongthecitizen- ship(e.g.personalrecommendationsbypublicservants,or campaigns showingcitizens asusers ofpublic e-services), whichincreasetrustinthepublicadministrationbymeans ofsocialinterestandsupport(Mitra,Reiss,&Capella,1999).
In sum, due to the public sector values, such as serving the community (Gould-Williams & Gatenby, 2010), these communicationsmightbeseenasanotherobservablecueof thepublicadministrationconcerntosatisfycitizens’needs inthebestinteresttothepublic.Basedonthis,wepropose oursecondhypothesis:
Hypothesis2. Publicadministrationcommunicationhasa positiveinfluenceontrustinthepublicadministration.
However,previous researchonconsumer behaviorsug- gests that the influence of messages (such as public administrationcommunication)onindividualsmightdepend ontheirattitudetowardthetarget(e.g.Ahluwalia,2000).
Attitudereferstoanaffective-evaluativepredispositionto respondfavorablyorunfavorablytowardanobjectoratar- get(Shaver,1977),inthisway,messagesaremorepersuasive when they are consistent with these judgments because individuals try to resist attitude change (e.g. Ahluwalia, 2000). Literature also suggest that trust is influenced by dispositions andpersonal principles,so thereis an intrin- sic and diffused citizen’s support toward the government that shapes the functional value of specific government actions(Warkentinetal.,2002;Parentetal.,2005).There- fore, whencitizens have a more positive attitudetoward e-government,publicadministrationcommunicationwillbe morecongruentwiththeirprevious thoughtsandthuswill influencecitizens’trustingbeliefstowardpublicadministra- tiontoahigherextent.Ourlasthypothesissuggeststhat:
Government actions
E-Service quality
Public administration communication
(PAC)
PAC* Attitude towards
E-Government Attitude
towards E-Government (control variable)
Trust in the public administration H1:+
H2:+
H3:+
+
Figure1 Proposedmodel.
Hypothesis 3. A positive attitude toward e-government reinforcestheinfluenceofpublicadministrationcommuni- cationontrustinthepublicadministration.
Ourresearchmodelisshown inFig.1.Ascanbeseen, we also include the direct effect of attitude toward e- governmentontrustinthepublicadministrationforcontrol purposes.Thiscontrolvariablesupposesthatcitizenshold- ingafavorableattitudetowarde-governmentmayincrease their trust in the public administration because with the launchingofe-governmentmeettheirneedsanddemands.
This effectmay hold independentof attitude interaction withpublicadministrationcommunication.
Data collection
Inconsistencewithhabitualresearchpracticeintheonline context(e.g.Ho&Dempsey,2010;Steenkamp&Geyskens, 2006),datawerecollectedthroughawebsurveytargeted at citizens who used public e-services in Spain. In order to achieve the greatest amount of responses, an online promotionalstrategyin collaborationwithpublicwebsite administratorswasperformed.Specifically,thesurveywas announcedindifferentgovernmentwebsitesanddiscussion forumsrelatedtopublice-services.Potentialinterviewees werelinkedtoaspecificwebsitewheretheycouldanswer the questionnaire and obtain all the information about the research project. Similar to the recommendations of Roberts, Varki, and Brodie (2003), citizens could choose the public e-service to analyze due to the fact that the objectiveof thiswork wastounderstandcitizen behavior regardless ofwhattypeof publice-servicewasbeingdis- tributed. Therefore, they responded about a wide range ofpublice-services(forexample,driving licenserenewal, subsidy application, information applications, etc.) from different administration levels (local, regional, national), whichfavoredvariabilityintheperceivedlevelsofthemea- suredvariables.Participants wererequired tohaveuseda public e-serviceprovided by a Spanish agency in the last year,sothat theycouldevaluate theperceived qualityof
thee-service.Therefore,wedeliberatelyexcludedanswers analyzingpublice-servicesdevelopedbyothercountries.
Constructs were measured using multiple-item mea- surement scales and respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to a set of statements regarding the constructs under study. E-service quality was measured by a reduced version of the four dimensions E-S-QUAL scale(efficiency, privacy,fulfillmentand systemavailabil- ity)developedbyParasuramanetal.(2005)andadaptedto thepublice-servicecontext.Althoughotherauthorspropose manyalternativescalesoradditionaldimensions(Kaisara&
Pather,2011),theParasuramanetal.(2005)measurement isawidely accepted framework(Sahadev &Purani, 2008) suitabletoourconceptualizationofqualityastheefficient management of the kind of e-services considered in this research(Halarisetal.,2007).Asthepublicadministration communicationconcepthasreceivedlittleresearchatten- tion,we adapted previous scaleson analogous constructs in the privatecontext such asexternal informative influ- ence(Bhattacherjee,2000)andstoreadvertisingfrequency (Yoo, Donthu, & Lee, 2000). To assess attitude toward e- governmentwe relyonwell-established scalesofattitude towardinformationsystems proposedin technologyadop- tionliterature(e.g.Wu&Chen,2005).Thus,ourworkdoes not consider broader conceptualizations of e-government attitudeasholisticevaluationsof e-governance principles and achievements (e.g. Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, 2008). A generalmeasurementofcitizentrustin thepublicadmin- istration was taken from works dealing with trust in the governmentor trustinthe merchant ine-services studies (CarterandBélanger,2005;Lee&Turban,2001).Sincethe maininterestofthispaperistounderstandwhethergovern- mentscanbuildtrustinpublicadministration,ratherthan conceptualizingthetrustconceptin-depth,andforthesake ofbrevityinthecollectionofresponsestoourquestionnaire, we maintained a general measurement of trustin agree- mentwithpreviousoperationalizationoftrustinthepublic administration(Carter,2008;Welchetal.,2005).
Specifically,answers tothe scaleswererecordedon7- pointLikertscales,rangingfrom‘‘totally disagree’’(1)to
‘‘totallyagree’’(7).The finalsample reachedatotalsize of448validcases(afterremovingatypicalcases,repeated responses,andincompletequestionnaires).Finally,although wefollowedanon-random methodofcollectingdatathat relies on volunteer sampling, respondents were almost equally distributed between males (55.36%) and females (44.64%)andintermsof age(lessthan35years[36.38%], between 35 and 44 years [33.71%], 45 or more years [29.91%]),andmostofthemhadcompleteduniversitystud- ies(62.05%).
Measures validation
Aspreviously noted,theinitial setof itemswasproposed fromanin-depthanalysisoftheliteratureone-servicequal- ity,adoptiontheoriesandpublicmarketing,whichensured contentvalidity.Then,itemswereadaptedtotheresearch contextaccordingtotheopinionsofagroupoftenexperts in marketing, management and psychology. They had to classifyeachitemas‘‘clearlyrepresentative,’’‘‘somewhat representative,’’or‘‘notrepresentative’’ofeachconstruct
toguaranteeface validityaccording tothe Zaichkowsky’s (1985)method. Only thoseitems reachinga high level of consensusamongthegroupofexpertswereretainedforthe researchquestionnaire(Lichtenstein,Netemeyer,&Burton, 1990).Thefinalmeasuresusedinthisresearcharedetailed inAppendixA.1.
Thevalidationprocessstartedwithaninitialexploratory analysisofreliabilityanddimensionalityusingthestatistical softwareSPSS19.0.TheCronbach’salphaindicatorwasused toassesstheinitialreliabilityofthescales,obtainingval- uesovertheminimumof0.7(Cronbach,1970)inallcases.
Item-totalcorrelationwasusedtoimprovethelevelsofthe Cronbach’salpha;allitemsexceedtheminimumvalueof0.3 (DeVaus,2001).Likewise,anexploratoryfactoranalysiswas performedinordertoevaluatetheunidimensionalityofthe proposedscales.Onlyonefactorwasextractedfromeach scale:efficiency, privacy,fulfillmentand systemavailabil- ity,publicadministrationcommunication, attitudetoward e-government,andcitizentrustinthepublicadministration.
In order to confirm the dimensional structure of the scales,weuseda Confirmatory FactorAnalysis,usingEQS 6.1 software. We chose the robust maximum likelihood asthe estimationmethod.Then weevaluatedconvergent validity. First, acceptable levels of convergence, R2 and modelfit wereobtained (2=506.628, 188d.f., p<0.001;
non-normedfitindex[NNFI]=0.966; confirmatoryfit index [CFI]=0.972;incrementalfit index[IFI]=0.972;rootmean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.047). Second, convergentvaliditywastestedbycheckingwhetherfactor loadings of the confirmatory model were statistically sig- nificant(weakconvergencecriterion,[Jöreskog& Sörbom, 1993])andhigherthan0.5points(strongconvergencecri- terion,[Jöreskog&Sörbom,1993]).Allitemssatisfiedboth criteria,ascanbeseen inTable1,andtherefore noitem waseliminated.Third,wealsoanalyzedconvergentvalid- itybyconfirmingthattheAverageVarianceExtracted[AVE]
was0.5orabove(Fornell&Larcker,1981),ascanbeseen in Table 2. We also checked that composite reliabilities exceedthe minimum of 0.65 recommended in the litera- ture (Steenkamp & Geyskens, 2006), confirming construct reliability(seeTable2).
Aswell,wetesteddiscriminantvaliditybycheckingthat eachconstructsharesmorevariancewithitsmeasuresthan thevarianceitshareswiththeotherconstructsinthemodel.
Following Wiertz and de Ruyter (2007), to guarantee dis- criminant validity, the squared root of the AVE (diagonal elementsinboldinTable2)hastobegreaterthanthecorre- lationsamongconstructs(off-diagonalelementsinitalicsin Table2).Allconstructssatisfiedthiscriterion(seeTable2) andshowedacceptablelevelsofdiscriminantvalidity.
Finally,withtheaimofconfirmingtheexistenceofmul- tidimensionalityine-servicequality,we developedaRival ModelsStrategy(Anderson&Gerbing,1988),bycomparing asecond ordermodel in whichthe constructis measured bythefourdimensionsconsidered(efficiency,privacy,ful- fillment and system availability) with a first order model in which all the items formed only one factor. Results showedabetterfitforthesecond ordermodel(ascanbe seeninTable3)whichimpliesthate-servicequalityhasa multidimensionalnature,asithasbeenfoundinpreviouslit- erature(e.g.Parasuramanetal.,2005;FassnachtandKose, 2006).
Government actions
E-Service quality
Public administration communication
(PAC)
PAC* Attitude towards
E-Government Attitude
towards E-Government (control variable)
Trust in the public administration 0.721**
–0.04 n.s.
0.108* 0.093*
Note: ** significant at the level of 0.01; *significant at the level of 0.05; n.s. non-significant coefficients.
Figure2 Structuralequationmodel.Standardizedsolution.
Results
We developed a structural equation model using EQS 6.1 softwareinordertotesttheproposedhypotheses.Aswell, theinteractioneffectproposedinhypothesis3wasanalyzed applyingthe orthogonalizingtechnique (Little,Bovaird,&
Widaman, 2006).Among other advantages, this technique guaranteesthat:(a)theproductindicatorsoftheinterac- tiontermwillnotbecorrelatedwiththecorrespondingmain effect indicators, and (b) model fit will not be degraded when the interactionlatent constructis brought into the researchmodel(Littleetal.,2007).Specifically,thelinear informationoftheinteractiontermassociatedwiththemain effectindicatorsisremovedandtherefore,theestimatesfor thelatentmaineffectsareunchangedbetweenthemodel inwhichtheinteractionconstructispresentandwhenitis notincludedinthemodel(Littleetal.,2006).Theorthogo- nalizingtechniqueconsistsofthefollowingsteps.Thefirst stepistheformationofallpossibleproductsoftheindica- torsofthetwointeractingconstructs(Littleetal.,2007).
Inthiscase,attitudehasfourindicatorsandpublicadminis- trationcommunicationhasthreeindicators;sotwelvetotal productvariablesarecalculated.Inthesecondstep,each ofthe12productindicatorsisregressedontotheindicators ofbothattitudeandpublicadministrationcommunicationin ordertoremoveanyofthemain-effectinformationthatis containedinanyoftheindicatorsofbothconstructs(Little etal.,2007).Finally, foreach regression,theresiduals of thepredictionaresavedandconsideredastheneworthog- onalizedindicatorsthatarethenenteredintotheSEMmodel astheindicatorsofthelatentinteractionconstruct.There- fore, this technique offers more coefficients than other alternativeslikemean-centering(Littleetal.,2007).
As can be seen in Fig. 2 and Table 4, results support hypothesis 1 at the 0.01 level, confirming the positive effectof e-service qualityontrust in thepublic adminis- tration.On theotherhand,hypothesis2is notsupported, so public administration communication does not have a
Table1 Confirmatoryfactoranalysis:standardizedsolution.
ITEM FactorLoading t-Value ItemR2 ITEM Factorloading t-Value ItemR2
FUL1 0.904 35.245 0.818 PAC1 0.858 27.917 0.736
FUL2 0.933 34.408 0.870 PAC2 0.926 30.069 0.857
FUL3 0.888 32.359 0.789 PAC3 0.847 23.096 0.717
PRIV1 0.920 22.979 0.847 TPA1 0.906 26.070 0.821
PRIV2 0.820 25.793 0.672 TPA2 0.952 35.697 0.906
PRIV3 0.953 27.689 0.909 TPA3 0.870 26.748 0.756
SYS1 0.838 14.238 0.703 ATT1 0.784 14.527 0.614
SYS2 0.846 13.982 0.716 ATT2 0.822 23.402 0.675
SYS3 0.776 14.841 0.602 ATT3 0.915 24.338 0.838
EFF1 0.914 21.179 0.836 ATT4 0.853 16.831 0.728
EFF2 0.963 25.331 0.928
EFF3 0.948 26.700 0.898
Note:Allfactorloadingsaresignificantatthelevelof0.01.FUL=fulfillment,PRIV=privacy,SYS=systemavailability,EFF=efficiency, PAC=publicadministrationscommunication,TPA=trustinthepublicadministration,ATT=attitude.
Table2 Convergentanddiscriminantvalidity.
Scale ˛ c AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Fulfillment(1) 0.933 0.934 0.825 0.908
Privacy(2) 0.921 0.927 0.809 0.590 0.899
Systemavailability(3) 0.859 0.861 0.673 0.247 0.299 0.820
Efficiency(4) 0.958 0.959 0.887 0.346 0.398 0.423 0.942
PublicAdm.communication(5) 0.910 0.909 0.770 0.442 0.419 0.230 0.283 0.877
Trust(6) 0.933 0.935 0.828 0.534 0.502 0.251 0.608 0.321 0.910
Attitude(7) 0.907 0.909 0.714 0.589 0.783 0.367 0.505 0.472 0.565 0.845
Note:Allcorrelationsaresignificantatthelevelof0.01.
Table3 Fitindicesforthemultidimensionalityanalysis.
Model N 2(p>0.05) NNFI(>0.95) CFI(>0.95) IFI(>0.95) RMSEA(<0.08) 90%interval RMSEA Firstordermodel 448 2823.816(54d.f.),p<0.01 0.372 0.486 0.488 0.266 [0.255;
0.277]
Secondordermodel 448 157.999(53d.f.),p<0.01 0.974 0.979 0.979 0.054 [0.041;
0.066]
Table4 Pathestimatesandexplainedvarianceofendogenousvariable.
Hypothesis Standardized
Pathcoefficient
t-Value Significance Endogenous variable
R2
H1 E-S-
QUAL→TRUST
0.721** 13.145 Supported Trustinthepublic
administration
0.540
H2 PAC→TRUST −0.004(n.s.) −0.095 Notsupported
H3 PAC*ATT→TRUST 0.108* 2.209 Supported
CONTROL ATT→TRUST 0.093* 2.015 Supported
Note:PAC=publicadministrationcommunication,ATT=attitudetowarde-government,n.s.=non-significantcoefficients.
* Significantatthelevelof0.05.
** Significantatthelevelof0.01.
significantdirecteffectoncitizentrustinthepublicadmin- istration.Hypothesis3isalsosupported atthe0.05level, confirming that public administration communication has a greater effect when they are consistent with citizens’
attitude toward e-government. The interpretation of this resultsuggeststhatpublicadministrationmessagespromot- inge-governmentaremoreeffectivetobuildtrustforthose citizenswithafavorableattitudetowarde-government.As well,thecontrolvariable---attitudetowarde-government ---alsohasasignificantinfluenceperse(p<0.05)ontrustin thepublicadministrationasexpected.
The model fit is also acceptable (2=1415.959, 490 d.f., p<0.001; NNFI=0.949; CFI=0.956; IFI=0.956;
RMSEA=0.04; normed 2=2.889) and we can partially explaintheendogenousvariable:trustinthepublicadmin- istration(R2=0.540).
Posthocanalysis
Wefurtherexamined the details ofthe interactioneffect between public administration communication and atti- tude toward e-government by following thesuggestion of Aiken and West (1991), and derived the simple slopes.
Regressionswerethusconductedathigh andlow levelsof attitudetowarde-government.Todothat,followingGarcía, Sanzo,andTrespalacios(2008),wesplitthesampleatthe arithmeticmeanof theattitudemoderator (M=5.34;std.
dev.=1.61), andthen eliminatedcases within half of the standarddeviationaroundthemean.Weobtainedsubsam- plesofcitizensreportinglowlevelsofattitude(N=118)and highlevelsofattitude(N=176).
For citizens with higher levels of attitude toward e- government,therelationshipbetweenpublicadministration communicationandtrust inthe publicadministrationwas positiveandsignificantatthe0.1level(ˇ=0.161,t=1.892, p<0.1).However,thisrelationshipwasnegativeandsignif- icantforcitizenswithlowerlevelsofattitude(ˇ=−0.282, t=−2.227, p<0.05). A multisample analyses, which com- pares the goodness of fit (2) between a full structural equations model with a restricted model that fixed the unstandardizedregressioncoefficientstobeequal ineach group(Baker&Sinkula,1999),alsoconfirmedthedifference inthisparameterbetweenbothgroups(2=6.303,p<0.05) andprovidessupportfortheinteractionterm.
Conclusions and managerial implications
In today’s society,most governments are carryingactions to: (1) improve the levels of citizens’ trust in the public administration(levelsthathavebeendramaticallyreduced inthelastfewyears),and(2)providecitizenswithpublic e-servicesadapted tocurrent citizens needs.Accordingly, thisworkexploreshowe-governmentrelatedactions(such as investing in e-service quality or in public administra- tioncommunication to promote itsadvantages) may help develop trust in the publicadministration. To date, most studieshaveconsideredthattrustingovernmentwillleadto moree-governmentadoptionorjustanalyzehowtoincrease trust in public e-services perceived by citizens as risky.
Thus, this study advances on the study of e-government fromahigher perspectiveand adds toprevious literature
by clarifyingtowhat extente-government initiativesmay leadtogreateroveralltrustinpublicadministration.
First,resultsshow thatperceived e-servicequalityhas a strong positive effect ontrust in publicadministration, suggesting that governments should make a great invest- menttoensurequalitywhenprovidingcitizenswithpublic e-services.This resultisconsistent withearlierliterature, which suggest that e-service quality is the most rele- vantbeliefwhenevaluatinge-services(Parasuramanetal., 2005),andabroadrangeofpreviousstudieshavefoundthat trust is driven by e-servicequality (e.g. Harris & Goode, 2004;Hwang& Kim,2007),alsoin thee-governmentcon- text (Che-Wee, Benbasat, &Cenfetelli,2008).However, our findingalsocontributestoliteratureone-governmentqual- ity,whichhasmainlyfocusedonthelinkbetweene-service quality and citizen trust in e-government (e.g. Che-Wee etal.,2008),butignoringtheinfluenceontrustinthepub- licadministrationasawhole.Lookingatthedimensionsof e-servicequality,itseemsthatpublicadministrationshould make servicesaccessibleandcompatibleforawiderange of citizens, provide a strong privacy statement, minimize errors, or favor simplicity of use as good ways to invest public fundingwhen developing public e-services.From a theoreticalperspective,investingine-servicequalityoffers anobservablecuethatcitizenscanusetomakeinferences abouttheskillsandcommitmentofcitizenorientedservices bypublicmanagement.Thisissupported bysignalingthe- ory,whichsuggeststhatindividualsmakeinferencesabout objects(e.g.,thepublicadministration) usingsignalssuch as tangible product attributes or perceived investments (Schlosseretal.,2006).Specifically,citizensmayperceive that thepublic administrationis workingto betteradjust serviceprovisiontocitizensdemandsbyenhancingthelevel ofqualityin e-governmentservices.In sum,itseemsthat publicadministrationcaninvestine-servicequalityasaway toshowitsconcernsandabilitiesinservingcitizens’needs anddemands.
Second,public administrationcommunicationseemsto have nodirect effect on trust. Like it is used to happen withprivatesector advertisement(Bansal & Voyer, 2000), this lack of efficacy could be the result of the citizen’s rejection of commercial messages from an organization abouttheattributesofitsownservices.Toourresults,the influenceofpublicadministrationcommunicationbecomes significant when these messages are consistent with citi- zens’ attitudes. Therefore, a second contribution of this study is that it explains under what circumstances pub- lic administration communication affects citizen’s trust.
Interestingly, a multisample analysis reveals that public administrationcommunicationhasapositiveeffectontrust inthepublicadministrationforthoseindividualswithamore positive attitude toward e-government, probablybecause thiscommunicationreinforcestheirownbeliefs.Thisiscon- sistentwithpreviousliterature(e.g.Ahluwalia,2000)that suggeststhatmessagesaremorepersuasivewhentheyare consistent withindividual’s attitude. However,this effect turnsnegativeforthoseindividualswithanunfavorableatti- tudetowarde-government.Inthiscase,sincepeopletryto resistattitudechanges(e.g.Ahluwalia,2000),citizensmay judgenegatively thesecommunicationactionsandreduce trustlevelsinthepublicadministration.Aswell,areactance effect may appear if the citizen derives from the public
administrationcommunication an obligationto use public e-services.ConsistentwithBrehm(1966)andAlgesheimer, Dholakia,andHerrmann(2005),ifperceptionofconstraints increases,citizensmayexperiencereactancewhichinvolves negativeconsequences(inthiscase,adecreaseintrustlev- els).
Thisresulthasaninterestingimplicationasasegmenta- tionstrategytotargetdifferentcommunicationcampaigns dependingoncitizens’needsanddemandsandinorderto matchwiththem.Governmentsshouldconductpromotional campaigns on those individuals with a positive attitude toward e-government (maybe those that already use the onlinechanneltocarryouttransactions,digitalnativesthat start a relationship with the public administration, etc.) in order to reinforce their beliefs and be more effective tobuild trustin the public administration. As a resultof thispositiveattitude,otherinterestingconsequencesmight arise.Forinstance,onlinechannelscouldbetherightmedia to deliver messages to citizens with a favorable attitude toward e-government, and thus toincrease their level of trustinpublicadministration.Publicadministrationshould findalternativewaystoincreasethetrustofcitizenswithan unfavorableattitudetowarde-government.Toachievethis challenge,governmentscouldrelyoncitizenswithamore favorableattitudewhomightstartapositiveword-of-mouth aboutthesenewpublicadministrationinitiatives,expanding trusttoothercitizens(family,friends,etc.).Indeed,social campaigns andpeer recommendations areusually consid- ered as more objective and persuasive, since individuals havenothingtogainfromfellowcitizens’subsequentbehav- iors(Schiffman&Kanuk,1997).
Limitationsandfutureresearchlines
In spite of these interesting results, this work has some limitations that allow us to establish interesting lines for future research. First of all, it is important to note thatdatawerecollected followinganon-random process, and the survey was answered exclusively by Spanish- speakingusersofpublice-servicesinSpain.Sinceprevious studies propose that cultural differences may affect e- government adoption (e.g., Carter & Weerakkody, 2008), theoutcomesofe-governmentinitiativesmaydifferacross cultures too. Thus, to generalize the results of this research,we should repeatthe study using a wider sam- ple of respondents that represent a greater diversity of nationalitiesandcultures(e.g.,Anglo-saxon, Asian,etc.), and that analyze public e-services from different coun- tries.
Second, we have only considered direct public admin- istration communication in our research model because the aim of the paper is to analyze whether government actions related to e-government affect trust in the pub- lic administration. As we have said, it is possible that external information coming from interpersonal sources (family, friends, etc.), or evenfrom the mass media can also influence trust in the public administration (Yildiz &
Saylam, 2013).Therefore, an interesting route to extend this research may be the analysis of other information sourcesinfluencingthelevelsofcitizentrustinthepublic administration.
Third, we would like to note that in this paper we have enquired participants whether they had used pub- lic e-services before(so that they can evaluatee-service quality), and therefore their responses might be biased positively;especiallytheirattitude towarde-government.
Accordingtodata,althoughbeinghighinmanycases,atti- tudetowarde-governmentpresentsahighvariationamong respondentsin terms ofstandard deviation (M=5.34, std.
dev.=1.61).
Finally, due totherecent events that have diminished citizens’ trust,this work has drawn attention on trust in the public administration. It may be useful that future worksalso analyzealternativedependent variablesor the possible consequences of trust recovery,such as changes in citizens’ commitment, beliefs (e.g. perceived image of the public administration), or behaviors (e.g. positive word-of-mouth),andthepossiblemediatingrolethattrust may exert between government actions and these varia- bles.
Tosumup,thisisapreliminaryworkthatcontributesto shedsome light onthe difficult task of increasingcitizen trustinthepublicadministration.Furtherresearchshould continue focusing on the interrelation between effective actionsandcommunicationstrategieswhichaimstorestore citizens’trustintheirgovernments,andtheanalysisofthe consequencesderivedfromtrustgrowth.
Funding
The authors acknowledge financial support received from theSpanishMinistryofEducation(AP2007-03817).
Conflict of interest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictofinterest.
Appendix A.1. Research constructs and items
E-S-QUAL:
a. Efficiency:(adaptedfromParasuramanetal.(2005)) Thispublice-service...
EFF1....makesiteasytofindwhatIneed.
EFF2....iswellorganized.
EFF3....issimpletouse.
b. Privacy:(adaptedfromParasuramanetal.(2005),Kim, Ferrin,andRao(2008))
PRIV1. I feel my privacy is protected onthis public e-service.
PRIV2.Thispublice-servicedoesnotsharemypersonal informationwithothersites.
PRIV3.This publice-serviceprotects myinformation againstotheruses.
c. Fulfillment:(adaptedfromParasuramanetal.(2005)) Thispublice-service...
FUL1....istruthfulaboutitsofferings.
FUL2....deliversresultsaspromised.
FUL3....worksaccordingtomyorders.
d. Systemavailability: (adapted fromParasuraman etal.
(2005),TaylorandTodd(1995))
SYS1. This public e-service launches and runs right away.
SYS2.Thispublice-serviceisavailablewheneverIneed it.
SYS3. The public e-service technologyis compatible withthesoftwareIuse.
Public administration communication: (adapted from Bhattacherjee(2000),Yooetal.(2000))
Thepublicadministration...
PAC1....communicatesitsreadinessforpublice-services frequently.
PAC2. ...communicates a positive feeling about using publice-services.
PAC3....recommendstheuseofpublice-services.
Attitude toward e-government: (adapted from Bhattacherjee(2000),WuandChen(2005))
Usingpublice-services... ATT1....isanideaIlike.
ATT2....wouldbeapleasantexperience.
ATT3....isagoodidea.
ATT4....isawiseidea.
Trustinthepublicadministration:(adaptedfromCarter andBélanger(2005),LeeandTurban(2001))
TPA1.Itrustthepublicadministration.
TPA2.Thepublicadministrationisareliableorganization tocarryouttransactions.
TPA3.When makingtransactionsthe publicadministra- tionistrustworthy.
References
Aiken,L.S.,&West,S.G.(1991).Multipleregression:Testingand interpretinginteractions.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Ahluwalia,R.(2000).Examinationofpsychologicalprocessesunder- lyingresistancetopersuasion.JournalofConsumerResearch, 27,217---232.
Al-Adawi,Z.,Yousafzai,S.,&Pallister,J.(2005).Conceptualmodel ofcitizenadoptionofe-government.InThesecondinternational conferenceon innovations in information technology Dubai, UAE.
Algesheimer,R.,Dholakia,U.,&Herrmann,A.(2005).Thesocial influenceofbrandcommunities:Evidencefrom Europeancar clubs.JournalofMarketing,69(3),19---34.
Anderson,J.,&Gerbing,D.(1988).Structuralmodelinginpractice:
Areviewand recommendedtwo-stepapproach.Psychological Bulletin,103(3),411---423.
Anderson,J.,&Narus,J.A.(1990).Amodelofdistributionfirmand manufacturerfirmworkingpartnerships.JournalofMarketing, 54(1),42---58.
Arduini,D.,&Zanfei,A.(2014).Anoverviewofscholarlyresearch onpublice-services?Ameta-analysisoftheliterature.Telecom- municationsPolicy,38(5---6),476---495.
Baker,W. E., & Sinkula, J. M.(1999). The synergistic effectof marketorientationandlearning orientationonorganizational performance.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4),411---427.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government:Aproposedframeworkforresearch.Government InformationQuarterly,28(2),137---147.
Bansal, H. S., & Voyer, P. A. (2000). Word-of-mouth processes withinaservicespurchasedecisioncontext.JournalofService Research,3(2),166---177.
Bauer,H.H.,Falk,T.,&Hammerschmidt,M.(2006).eTransQual:A transactionprocess-basedapproachforcapturingservicequal- ity in online shopping. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 866---875.
Bauer,H.H.,Reichardt,T.,Barnes,S.J.,&Neumann,M.M.(2005).
Drivingconsumeracceptanceofmobilemarketing:Atheoretical frameworkandempiricalstudy.JournalofElectronicCommerce Research,6(3),181---191.
Belanche,D.,Casaló,L. V.,&Guinalíu,M.(2012).Howtomake onlinepublicservicestrustworthy.ElectronicGovernment:An InternationalJournal,9(3),291---308.
Bélanger, F.,& Carter,L. (2008).Trust and riskine-government adoption. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165---176.
Beldad,A.,VanDerGeest,T.,deJong,M.,&Steehouder,M.(2012).
Acueortwoand I’lltrust you:Determinantsoftrustingov- ernment organizationsintermsoftheirprocessingand usage ofcitizens’personalinformationdisclosedonline.Government InformationQuarterly,29(1),41---49.
Bhattacherjee,A.(2000).Acceptanceofe-commerceservices:The caseof electronic brokerages.IEEE Transactionson Systems, Man, and Cybernetics--- PartA: Systemsand Humans, 30(4), 411---420.
Brehm,J.W.(1966).Atheoryofpsychologicalreactance.Morris- town,NY:AcademicPress.
Carter,L.(2008).E-governmentdiffusion:Acomparisonofadop- tionconstructs.TransformingGovernment:People,Processand Policy,2(3),147---161.
Carter,L.,&Bélanger,F.(2005).Theutilizationofe-government services:Citizentrust,innovationandacceptancefactors.Infor- mationSystemsJournal,15(1),5---25.
Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government adoption:
A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers, 10, 473---482.
Chan, C. M.L., Hackney, R., Pan, S. L., & Chou, T. C. (2011).
Managing e-government system implementation: A resource enactmentperspective.European JournalofInformationSys- tems,20,529---541.
Che-Wee,T.,Benbasat,I.,&Cenfetelli,R.T.(2008).Buildingcitizen trusttowardse-governmentservices:Dohighqualitywebsites matter?InProceedingsofthe41stHawaiiinternationalconfer- enceonsystemsscienceHawaii,USA.
Corporate Excellence. (2012). Cae la confianza en empresas e instituciones y sube en expertos e iguales. Documentos de Estrategia,.I16/2012.
Cronbach,L.(1970).Essentialsofpsychologicaltesting.NewYork, NY:HarperandRow.
De Vaus, D. (2001). Surveys in socialresearch (5th ed.). Social ResearchToday.
Doney,P.,&Cannon,J.(1997).Anexaminationofthenatureof trustinbuyer---sellerrelationships.JournalofMarketing,61(2), 35---51.
Eagly,A.H.,&Chaiken,S.(1995).Attitudestrength,attitudestruc- ture,andresistancetochange.InR.E.Petty,&J.A.Krosnick (Eds.),Attitudestrength:Antecedentsandconsequences(Vol.
4)(pp.413---432).Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Fassnacht,M., & Kose,I.(2006). Quality of electronic services.
JournalofServiceResearch,9(1),19---37.
Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.(1981).Structuralequationmodelswith unobservedvariablesandmeasurementerror.JournalofMar- ketingResearch,18,39---50.
García,N.,Sanzo,M.,&Trespalacios,J.(2008).Canagoodorga- nizationalclimate compensatefor alackof topmanagement commitmenttonewproductdevelopment?JournalofBusiness Research,61(2),118---131.
Gould-Williams,J.S.,& Gatenby,M.(2010).Theeffectsoforga- nizationalcontextandteamworkingactivitiesonperformance outcome.PublicManagementReview,12(6),759---787.
