Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy: Article Information

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy
The relation of e-government quality on public trust and its impact towards public participation
Rizqa Nulhusna, Puspa Sandhyaduhita, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto, Kongkiti Phusavat,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rizqa Nulhusna, Puspa Sandhyaduhita, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto, Kongkiti Phusavat, "The relation of e-government quality
on public trust and its impact towards public participation", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, https://
doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2017-0004
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2017-0004
Downloaded on: 01 September 2017, At: 23:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2017*
Downloaded by Stockholm University Library At 23:17 01 September 2017 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:428790 []
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.

The relation of e-government quality on public trust
and its impact towards public participation
Abstract:
Purpose - This paper aims to answer a major challenge in the success of electronic Government (e-Government)
implementation, viz., public participation via continual use intention and electronic Word of Mouth (eWoM).
This study tries to provide some control by examining the impact of e-Government quality on public trust and
towards continual use intention and eWoM. This study adopts the eminent Information Systems (IS) Success
Model and expands the trust dimension into multi-dimensional trust.
Design/Methodology/Approach - Data were collected using questionnaires to e-Government service users in
Indonesia. A sample of 293 was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).
Findings - Of the three IS success factors, systems quality, and information quality are found to have significant
correlation towards trust. Dispositional trust has substantial relationship towards institutional trust and
interpersonal trust whereas institutional trust has significant correlation towards interpersonal trust. Institutional
trust exhibits direct relationship towards continual use intention and eWoM while interpersonal trust significantly
correlates only towards continual use intention.
Research limitations/implications - This study suggests it is plausible that user satisfaction could act as an
intermediary between service quality and trust or between service quality and continual use intention. Thus,
further research to examine satisfaction factor and its correlation towards public acceptance are encouraged.
Practical implications - Government agencies should focus on information quality and systems quality which
has significant relation towards trust development. They should be more thorough and meticulous in order to
provide complete information, secure and easy to use e-Government. They should also facilitate eWoM as it
plays an important role in disseminating e-Government (services).
Originality/value - This research provides a deeper and more accurate grasp on how public participation of e-
Government can be improved via trust.
Keywords: e-Government quality; dispositional trust; institutional trust; interpersonal trust; electronic word of
mouth; continual use intention.
I. INTRODUCTION
It has been widely recognized in many areas, e.g., in the fields of basic public services that information and
communication technology (ICT) has been utilized and has helped transform the public sector to become more
efficient, transparent and user-oriented (www. unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014).
Many government agencies around the world have tried to provide public services through digital interaction
known as the electronic Government (e-Government) upon which government agencies provide online services
to the public via web-based systems as part of the entire government agencies data systems.
The development of e-Government in Indonesia is facilitated by a number of government policies which aim
to accelerate the democratic process. The first government policy, i.e., the President Instruction No. 3/2003 on
National Policy and Strategy of e-Government Development has established the foundation for all subsequent
policies regarding e-Government in Indonesia (Kemenkumham, 2011). In this Instruction, the President firmly
instructed all Ministers, Governors, and Mayors to build e-government, in coordination with the Ministry of
Communication & Information. Unfortunately, there was no official data concerning the growth and the
evaluation of e-Government in Indonesia until after 2011 when the Ministry of Communication and Informatics
started to conduct a survey of e-Government Ranking Indonesia (PEGI) to rank e-Government in Indonesia both
in central and regional government agencies. This showed that the government, especially the Ministry of
Communication and Informatics were not completely ready to monitor and evaluate the development of e-
Government in Indonesia. According to Nurdin, Stockdale, and Scheepers (2012), of the 489 local governments
they evaluated in 2011, 424 already had websites of which 353 were accessible. Thus, of the 353 websites, 193
were still emerging, 98 were in the enhanced category, 61 were already interactive and only 1 was in the
transactional stage. In addition, based on the survey of e-Government Ranking Indonesia (PEGI) conducted by
the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology in 2015 towards e-Governments of central
government agencies (PEGI, n.d.), from a total of 27 ministries around 40% were still considered poor.
According to the e-Government ranking issued by the UN in 2016 (United Nations, 2016), the level of
participation in using e-Government in Indonesia was only 0.3729 which was below the world participation level
(0.4625), thus placing Indonesia at 114th rank. One of the factors that could cause the low level of use of e-
Government is public trust (United Nations, 2008). Trust is an important construct which determines whether
people will use e-Government or not (Abu-Shanab, 2014; Alzahrani et al., 2017; Alryalat et al., 2013; Azmi et
al., 2016; Azmi & Aziz, 2015; Moon and Welch in Lee & Levy, 2014; Mpinganjira, 2015). Moreover, Alsaghier
et al. (2009) stated, one factor that would play an important role in the implementation of e-Government is the
maturity of trust between the public and the government. Belanger and Carter (2008) and Waller and Genius
(2015) mentioned e-Government which has the potential to improve transparency, responsiveness, and
accountability of a government will only be used if the public considers the system can be trusted. Therefore,
trust is presumably one of the factors that determine public acceptance of e-government implementation.
Several studies of e-Commerce had addressed trust as a multi-dimensional concept (McKnight & Chevrany,
2002; Tan & Sutherland, 2004; Xiao et al., 2010). Those studies asserted that trust, which consists of
dispositional trust, institutional trust, and interpersonal trust, is essentially required in the development of the
trust concept in online settings. Dispositional trust describes the general belief towards others (trust in general
others); institutional trust portrays situational belief towards specific setting; and interpersonal trust depicts the
specific belief towards others (trust in specific others) (Tan & Sutherland, 2004). Furthermore, a study by Abu-
Shanab (2014), Lee & Levy (2014), Sharma (2015), and Wang et al. (2010) showed that dimensions of the
Information Systems (IS) Success Model developed by DeLone and McLean contribute in building trust in e-
Government.
The use of e-Government has strengthened good governance in the public sector. Traditionally, the term
governance1 incorporates many areas such as inclusiveness and participation, accountability, transparency,
responsiveness, and efficiency and effectiveness. Because of this relationship, e-Government has included many
shapes and forms, including e-Revenue, e-Customs (as part of National Single Window for Association of
Southeast Asian Nations or ASEAN members) to help improve public service delivery.
So far, extant literature has not accurately addressed how trust plays its role in determining the success of e-
Government, viz., in terms of the continuance of use and e-WOM. Therefore, this research will, first, try to adopt
the view of multi-dimensional trust, as proposed by previous research, in order to inspect the relation between
each trust dimension to give a more accurate conception of the trust dimensions. Second, this research aims to
investigate how the multi-dimensional trust is being affected by IS success dimensions, viz., e-Government
quality. Subsequently, third, this research will also attempt to measure the impact of trust towards e-Government
continuance of use and e-WOM. Eventually, it is expected that this research will provide an in-depth
understanding of multi-dimensional trust and an empirical justification of how trust plays its role in determining
the success of e-Government. As a practical implication, it is also expected that the findings could provide
underlying knowledge for government agencies especially in regard to the trust concept in order to acquire some
control in ensuring that the goal of developing the system would be successfully accomplished, viz., in the form
of a significant increase of public participation towards e-Government (continuance of use and e-WOM).
II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Global E-Government Development
E-Government is the electronic version of the government aimed at improving public services by the
government with some additional concepts such as transparency, accountability, and participation (Almarabeh
and AbuAli, 2010). E-government can be grouped into four types, namely: G2C (Government to Citizen) for
interaction between the government and the society, G2B (Government to Business) for interaction between the
government and private institutions or companies, and G2G (Government to Government) for the interaction
between fellow government agencies, as well as G2E (Government to Employee) for interaction between the
government and its employees (Ndou in Alsaghier et al., 2009). Research in e-Government around the world
evolves around various aspects, such as e-Government readiness (Khalil, 2011), e-Government critical success
factors (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005), e-Government (system) development (Pilemalm et al., 2016), e-Government
(system) evaluation (Irani et al., 2005), etc.
The international community has paid great attention towards the development of e-Government among
many countries as shown by the Global E-Government Development Reports and Survey produced by the United
Nations (UN). The UN has been producing reports and conducting the surveys biannually since 2001. In the first
report in 2001, the global e-Government leaders were USA (3.11), Australia (2.60), New Zealand (2.59),
Singapore (2.58), Norway (2.55), Canada (2.52), UK (2.52), the Netherlands (2.51), Denmark (2.47), Germany
(2.46). The higher the index, the better the ranking. The global index was at 1.62 (average). The report
categorized E-Government Capacity of indexed countries into High (>2.00), Medium (1.6 2.00), Minimal (1.00
1.59), and Deficient (<1.00). Most developed countries had a high index and belonged to the High Capacity
group while developing countries were spread in the remaining groups. Indonesia as a developing country
belonged to the Minimal Capacity group as it had the index of 1.34. Ten years later, in 2012, the global e-
Government leaders were the Republic of Korea (0.9283), the Netherlands (0.9125), United Kingdom (0.8960),
1
See www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf as of March 14, 2015
Denmark (0.8889), United States 0.8687. Meanwhile, in regional Asia, Singapore was the leader. Singapore had
a global rank of 10 with an e-Government index of 0.8474 while Indonesia had a global rank of 97 with an e-
Government index of 0.4949. Indonesias position in the last 4 years (2012 2016) did not change much as it
was in the position of 106 with an index of 0.4487 and 116 with an index of 0.4478 in 2014 and 2016
respectively.
2.1. E-Government in Indonesia
E-Government initiatives in Indonesia began in 2001 after the presence of the Presidential Instruction No. 6
of 2001 on the Development and Utilization of Telematics (Telecommunications, Media, and Information)
(Nariman and Yamamoto, 2008). Then, in 2003, several government institutions in Indonesia both central and
local began setting up a network for the development of e-Government after the release of the Presidential
Instruction No. 3 2003 in which the entire technical policies in the e-Government domain are founded
(Rokhman, 2011). In this Instruction, the President firmly instructed all Ministers, Governors, and Mayors to
build e-government, in coordination with the Ministry of Communication & Information. The Presidential
Instruction is also equipped with e-Government guidelines such as guidelines for government portal
infrastructure development, government electronic document management systems, the implementation of
regional government websites, etc. In addition, there were guidelines produced by the Ministry of
Communication and Informatics in 2004 that became references for the implementation of e-Government in
central and regional government institutions. Unfortunately, there was no official data concerning the growth and
the evaluation of e-Government in Indonesia until after 2011 when the Ministry of Communication and
Informatics started to conduct a survey of e-Government Ranking Indonesia (PEGI) to rank e-Government in
Indonesia both in central and regional government agencies. This showed that the government, especially the
Ministry of Communication and Informatics were not completely ready to monitor and evaluate the development
of e-Government in Indonesia. In addition, other than of Nurdin, Stockdale, and Scheepers (2012), no previous
research which assessed the development of e-Government in Indonesia was found.
According to Nurdin, Stockdale, and Scheepers (2012), of the 489 local governments they evaluated in
2011, 424 already had websites of which 353 were accessible. They adopted the five stages of e-Government
evolution namely (in ascending order) emerging, enhanced, interactive, transactional and connected (United
Nation, 2008) as categories. Thus, of the 353 websites, 193 were still emerging which means they only displayed
information about government organizations, i.e., the history, the visions and missions, the structure, and their
activities (what they currently do), but no information concerning the type of services offered towards the
citizens and not all links were available/accessible. Ninety-eight (98) were in the enhanced category which
means a wide range of information related to services offered, links to other departments and institutions, and
downloadable documents (e.g., regulations, annual reports, announcement, etc.) were given. Sixty-one (61) were
already interactive in which relatively sophisticated interactive facilities, e.g., discussion forums, suggestions and
complaints forums, chat rooms, virtual community groups, area to post comments, an SMS center, etc., were
provided. One (1) was transactional in which 24/7 online services were available. Unfortunately, none was
evaluated as connected, which means there was no e-Government where all horizontal departments were
connected with a system and allowed the citizens to perform one stop shopping. Hence, this depicts that the
local governments in Indonesia were still in the early stage of the evolution.
Furthermore, based on the survey of e-Government Ranking Indonesia (PEGI) conducted by the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology in 2015 (PEGI, n.d.), from a total of 27 ministries, 1 ministry had
been categorized as very good (greater than/equal 3.6 and less than/equal 4) while 15 had been rated as good
(greater than/equal 2.6 and less than 3.6), but 11 were still considered poor (greater than/equal 1.6 and less than
2.6). As for provincial governments, only 20 participated in the survey in which 13 were considered good and 7
were rated as poor. PEGI (http://pegi.layanan.go.id/tentang-pegi/) aims to provide a nation-wide e-Government
periodical portrait which encompasses all regional and central e-Governments in Indonesia. It evaluates e-
Government implementation from 5 aspects (policy, institutional, infrastructure, application, and planning) using
a simple, transparent and objective approach as the details of the methods and the corresponding result is
available and accessible on the website. The rating is determined by the respondents using 4 scales, viz., 1 (very
poor), 2 (poor), 3 (good), 4 (very good). From the evaluations, the overall e-Government development in
Indonesia still needs significant improvement. Moreover, Indonesia had descended from its initial ranking in
2012, 97 to 116 (out of 193 countries) according to the e-Government Index data by the United Nations in 2016
(United Nations, 2016).
2.3. Trust
One of the factors that could cause a low level of e-Government use is public trust (United Nations, 2008).
Trust is an important construct which determines whether people will use e-Government or not (Abu-Shanab,
2014; Alzahrani et al., 2017; Alryalat et al., 2013; Azmi et al., 2016; Azmi & Aziz, 2015; Moon and Welch in
Lee & Levy, 2014; Mpinganjira, 2015). However, there is no widely accepted definition of trust and it has drawn
the attention of many researchers (Belanger et al., 2002; Bigley et al., 1998; Lee and Turban, 2001; Lewis and
Weigert, 1985; Yoon, 2002; in Tan and Sutherland, 2004). Tan and Sutherland (2004) argued that trust diverse
definition indicates the diversity of the topics. From many articles that defined the attributes of trust, they
synthesized that the majority are centered on the ideas of competence (ability), benevolence, and integrity and
the role of risk in fostering trust were also included (Mayer, Davis, and Shoorman, 1995). Further, in order to get
a more holistic view of the trust construct, Tan and Sutherland (2004) proposed to leverage the trust dimensions
from different disciplines that would provide a broader perspective for the online environment and could
encompass the trust attributes into the various dimensions. The chosen disciplines are still closely related to the
IS domain, i.e., sociology and psychology. In the field of psychology, the trust literature distinguishes
trustworthiness (the ability, benevolence and integrity of a trustee), trust propensity (a dispositional willingness
to rely on others) from trust (the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of
his/her actions) (Colquitt, Scott and LePine, 2007). In their model, trustworthiness and trust propensity were the
antecedents of trust. This delineation provides the basis for the trust dimensions in this study. Meanwhile, in the
field of sociology, trust is formed by the social relations instead of one's individual psychological state (Lewis
and Weigert in Tan and Sutherland, 2004). Thus, the dimensions defined in this study are given as follows (Tan
and Sutherland, 2004):
Dispositional Trust
McKnight and Chervany (2002) stated dispositional trust (trust propensity) is a person's tendency to depend
on others in general across a broad spectrum of situations and persons and further asserted this definition does
not literally refer to a persons trait while other studies, e.g., McElroy (2007), could imply otherwise. Further,
McKnight et al. (2002) incorporated the idea of faith in general others competence, benevolence, and integrity
and trusting stance into dispositional trust. This is in accordance with the Colquitt, Scott and LePines (2007)
definition of trust propensity as a dispositional willingness to rely on others. Thus, the dispositional trust is
defined as a type of trust (which is the definition of Colquitt, Scott, and LePine (2007)) as the intention to
naturally accept vulnerability to a person/institution in general.
Institutional Trust
Trust is formed by the social relations instead of one's individual psychological state (Lewis and Weigert in
Tan and Sutherland, 2004). Further, institutional trust according to Zucker (1986) in Hussein et al. (2009) is the
individual's perception of institutional environments such as structure, regulation, legislation, or
systems/technology services that could render the environment being trusted. Thus, applying trust definition of
Colquitt, Scott and LePines (2007), institutional trust can be defined as a type of trust as the intention to accept
vulnerability to institutional environments such as structure, regulation, legislation, or systems/technology
services. To be more precise, in the context of e-Government, institutional trust is defined as the intention to
accept vulnerability to e-Government systems/services.
Interpersonal Trust
This perspective focuses on the formation of specific belief to others which is called the interpersonal trust.
In the context of online services, interpersonal trust refers to the specific trust towards the service providers
known as the vendor of electronic (e-Vendor) (Xiao, Guo, and D'Ambra, 2010; Tan and Sutherland, 2004).
Likewise, applying the trust definition of Colquitt, Scott and LePines (2007), interpersonal trust can be defined
as the intention to accept vulnerability to a trustee based on positive expectations of his/her actions. Hence, in the
context of e-Government, interpersonal trust is defined as the intention to accept vulnerability to government
agencies as the service provider of e-Government services.
2.4. DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model (D&M IS Success Model)
The D&M IS Success Model has been widely used in various studies to determine the success of an
information system, viz., in the context of e-Commerce (DeLone & McLean, 2004; Doherty et al., 2015; Kim &
Park, 2013; Wang, 2008; Wang et al., 2016) and s-Commerce (Alshibly, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Dong et al.,
2014) and e-government (Alshibly & Chiong, 2015; Chen et al., 2015; Lee & Levy, 2014; Nemeslaki et al.,
2016; Xiao et al., 2010; Lee & Rao, 2005; Tan et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2011; Teo et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2010).
The criteria used in the five stages of e-Government evolution (United Nations, 2008) are relevant to the 3
factors in DeLone and McLean IS Success Model namely systems quality, information quality, and services
quality. Although, each of this dimension could be further viewed and treated as multi-dimensional, such as of
information quality in Alenezi et al. (2015) which focused on information quality and thus adopted the IQ/PSP of
Kahn et al. (2002) in Alenezi et al. (20015), this study maintains its focus by encapsulating the determinants of
IS Success Model as single dimensions. Thus, these three dimensions of DeLone and McLean are adopted as
single dimensions in this study.
DeLone and McLean model (in 1992) is initially based on the communications research of Shannon and
Weaver, the information influence theory of Mason, and the empirical management information systems
research studies from 1981-87 (DeLone and McLean, 2003). Shanon and Weaver in DeLone and McLean (2003)
defined the technical level of communications as the accuracy and efficiency of the communication system that
produces information; the semantic level is the success of the information in conveying the intended meaning;
the effectiveness level is the effect of the information on the receiver. Thus, in the initial D&M IS Success
Model, system quality measures technical success; information quality measures semantic success; and use, user
satisfaction, individual impacts and organization impacts measure effectiveness success. Ten years later, DeLone
and Mclean (2003) added service quality as one of the factors that contribute towards information system success
and SERVQUAL measurement instrument which could be used to measure service quality, according to Jiang et
al.s study in DeLone & McLean (2003) was found to be a valuable analytical tool for IS managers.
Conclusively, from Petter, DeLone and McLean (2008), systems quality is utilized to measure the quality of the
information technology system itself. Information quality is employed to measure the quality of the information
system output. Service quality is used to measure the quality of services provided by the information system.
2.5 Continual Use Intention & Electronic Word of Mouth (eWoM)

The success of e-Government is typically reflected by the public participation. In this study, they are
represented by the continual use intention and the electronic word of mouth (eWoM) of the e-Government
services users. According to Bhattacherjee (2001), IS users continuance decision is similar to consumers
repurchase decision because both decisions (1) follow an initial (acceptance or purchase) decision, (2) are
influenced by the initial use (of IS or product) experience, and (3) can potentially lead to ex-post reversal of the
initial decision. Still, according to him, IS continuance often imposes monetary and nonmonetary costs on IS
users.
Electronic word of mouth (eWoM) is positive or negative statements made by potential customers, the actual
customers and former customers, the product or the company via the Internet (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh,
and Gremier; 2004). EWoM intention is defined as the intention of the user or customer to convey experiences
and views through electronic media, especially the Internet (Sun et al. in Kim and Park, 2013). According to
Phelps et al. in Kim and Park (2013), eWoM is the electronic version of traditional WoM which is acted upon the
offline environment. Thus, it is considered more effective than the WoM because information can be delivered
more quickly with more varied types of interactions, such as one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many.
EWoM can be an important tool for consumers to obtain information about the quality of products and quality of
service (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2003). Additionally, the eWOM is also effective in reducing the risk and
uncertainty experienced by consumers when purchasing a product or service, so the interest in the purchase and
consumer purchasing decisions may be influenced (Chattereje, 2001). Review on a product that consumers do on
the Internet is the most important form of eWOM as consumers tend to search for product reviews online in
order to obtain specific product information that eventually formed an interest in purchasing (Baber et al., 2016;
Erkan & Evans, 2016; Gunawan & Huarng, (2015); Hsu et al., 2017; Jalilvand and Samiei, 2012; Tsao et al.,
2015; Yang et al., 2016). The role of eWoM in e-Commerce can be applied in e-Government context such that
the users who have experience in using e-Government services can give eWoM towards other citizens so as to
encourage/discourage them in using e-Government services.
III. RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL MODEL

3.1. Systems Quality and Trust
As previously mentioned, systems quality is one of the 3 dimensions that determine the information systems
success in the D&M IS Success Model. The quality of the systems reflects the quality of the systems
information processing that is founded on the desired characteristics and inherent in the system (Petter et al.,
2008). From the user's perception on e-Government, systems quality exhibits the quality of the information and
services provided (such as the ease of use aspect and navigation content) as well as the quality of the medium to
deliver the information and services (such as system safety factor) (Lee & Rao, 2005).
If the online services users feel that the characteristics they want can be satisfied by a system, the users are
likely to admit that the service provider has the intention to meet the needs of its system (Xiao et al., 2010).
Furthermore, according to Wang et al. (2010), the existence of systems quality such as reliability and speed of
access can impress the users so that it can increase the users reliance on the environment of the system.
Similarly, the result of Purian (2012) study showed user's perceptions of the system's usefulness and ease of use
as well as the user's sense of control and satisfaction, are all highly correlated with each other and with the trust
building. These suggest that systems quality is likely to improve the confidence in the quality of services
provided in the online environment (institutional trust) and also to the online service providers (interpersonal
trust). E-government has the online environment and also acts as the online service provider. Therefore, we
formulate the following hypotheses:
H1a: The higher the perceived systems quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the online
system (institutional trust).
H1b: The higher the perceived systems quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the
institution that provides the system (interpersonal trust).
3.2. Information Quality and Trust
According to Petter et al. (2008), information quality is defined as the information quality of the system
output such that it is suitable and can be appropriately used by the information users. In the e-government
systems, information quality is associated with the quality of information concerning government activities and
assessed by public general perception based on the accuracy, completeness, and accuracy of the information in
the system (Wang et al., 2010). If the users feel that the system could provide accurate and complete information,
they will consider the system organizer is reliable thus it increases their confidence towards the organizer (Xiao
et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012). Hence, we can conjecture that information quality in the e-
Government systems can improve the belief towards online services with the Internet medium (institutional trust)
and towards the online service providers (interpersonal trust). Thus, we can subsequently hypothesize as follows:
H2a: The higher the perceived information quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the
online system (institutional trust).
H2b: The higher the perceived information quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the
institution that provides the information (interpersonal trust).
3.3. Service Quality and Trust
Service quality is defined as the quality of service level in a system assessed by users based on the
evaluation of the received services towards users expectation of the services (Wang et al., 2010). If the services
provided by the government through e-Government could appropriately address the expectations of the society,
the belief towards the government as the organizer will increase as well as the belief in the use of electronic
services through the Internet medium (Wang et al., 2010). According to Gefen (2000) in Wang et al. (2010),
service quality has a positive influence on the formation of trust. A recent meta-analysis study by Mou & Cohen
(2015) showed service quality is a statistically significant antecedent of trust in e-service providers context.
Furthermore, service quality provided through e-Government has a direct impact on public trust in using the
system (Benbasat et al., 2007). This advocates service quality can improve the institutional trust towards services
with the Internet as the medium and the interpersonal trust in the government as the e-Government organizer,
thus the following hypotheses can be formulated:
H3a: The higher the perceived service quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the online
system (institutional trust).
H3b: The higher the perceived service quality from e-Government, the greater the trust towards the
institution that provides the service (interpersonal trust).
3.4. Relation between Dispositional Trust, Institutional Trust and Interpersonal Trust
Concerning the relation between citizens and government institutions as service providers, low public trust
towards the government leaves no choice for the citizens as they must eventually use government services
regardless their trust level towards government institutions. Thus, if government services are only available
through one channel, i.e., offline channel, though unwillingly the citizens will eventually continue using it
whenever they need it. It is unknown whether they will give bad word-of-mouth to others if the services are
disappointing. When the online channel is introduced, it is unknown whether the citizens will have low trust
towards the online channel as well. On the other hand, in a single channel situation (offline channel) when the
citizens have high public trust, it is likely that the citizens will continue using the offline government services
willingly. However, when the online channel is introduced such that two channels co-exist, it is unknown
whether the citizens will automatically have high trust towards the online channel and then decide to continue
using it.
Dispositional trust is a trust upon which the establishments of other trust dimensions namely institutional
trust and interpersonal trust, are founded, (McKnight & Chervany, 2002). People with high dispositional trust,
who tend to trust easily towards others in general, will be easier to accept the Internet as the intermediary in the
online transaction (Tan & Sutherland, 2004). Thus, we presume the same also holds towards the government as
the e-Governments organizer. Therefore, it can be inferred the presence of high dispositional trust most
probably has positive correlation towards institutional trust to online government services through e-Government
while at the same time also has positive correlation towards interpersonal trust, viz., towards the government as
the organizer of the e-Government. Hence, we propose the following hypotheses as follows:
H4a: The greater the general trust towards others (dispositional trust), the greater the trust towards the online
systems in the form of e-Government (institutional trust).
H4b: The greater the general trust towards others (dispositional trust), the greater the specific trust towards
an institution that provides e-Government (interpersonal trust).
In the online context, institutional trust is a trust dimension which shapes trust towards an environment of
the Internet or trust towards using the technology (Teo et al., 2008; Colesca, 2009) while interpersonal trust
refers to the specific trust towards the service providers known as the vendor of electronic (e-Vendor) (Xiao et
al., 2010; Tan & Sutherland, 2004). There are two possible ways with which the correlation is proposed. First, is
based on the actor (the service provider). It is presumed that if the service provider is trustworthy, then its
services (i.e., the e-Government) can be trusted. The second option is the opposite which is based on the
evidence (the product/service). If the service (i.e., the e-Government) is trustworthy, then the provider can be
trusted. Since it is believed that the technology (service) conveys more objectivity than the people (provider), we
are confident that most people will opt for the second option. Therefore, we choose the second option in which
the belief in the technology situated within or having secured circumstances or environments will have an
influence towards the belief in the organizers of these technologies. Thus, the following hypothesis can be
proposed as follows:
H4c: The greater the trust towards the online system, i.e., the e-Government (institutional trust), the greater
the trust towards an institution that provide the system (interpersonal trust).
3.5. Trust and Continual Use Intention
Continual use intention can be defined as the intention that refers to the willingness of users to continue
using the services experienced earlier (Bhattacherjee, 2001). Although Bhattacherjee (2001) mentioned it exists
due to user satisfaction in using the system, in the e-Government context, trust also showed significant influence
in determining the intention to reuse the e-Government system (Warkentin et al., 2002; Tan et al., 2007). Thus, to
remain focused, this study is delineated to highlight trust as a predictor of continual use intention and put
satisfaction of initial use experience aside for future study. Then, to examine the impact of each trust dimension
towards continual use intention, it is presumed that dispositional trust could be a predictor for the continual use
intention. The same holds for the institutional trust and interpersonal trust. Hence, we can further hypothesize as
follows:
H5a: The greater the general trust towards others (dispositional trust), the higher the intention to continue
using e-Government (continual use intention).
H5b: The greater the trust towards the online system, i.e., the e-Government (institutional trust), the higher
the intention to continue using the system (continual use intention).
H5c: The greater the trust towards the institution that provides the system, i.e., the e-Government
(interpersonal trust), the higher the intention to continue using the system (continual use intention).
3.6. Trust and Electronic Word of Mouth Intention (eWoM Intention)
Electronic word of mouth (eWoM) intention can be defined as the intention of the user or customer to
convey experiences and views through electronic media, especially the Internet (Sun et al. in Kim & Park, 2013).
According to Phelps et al. in Kim & Park (2013), eWoM is the electronic version of traditional WoM, which is
acted upon the offline environment. EWoM is considered more effective than the WoM because information can
be delivered more quickly with more varied types of interactions, such as one-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-
many.
Chu & Kim (2011) and Kim & Park (2013) showed the influence of trust towards eWoM intention in the
context of e-Commerce and s-Commerce. Thus, it can be inferred that an individual with dispositional trust could
easily have the intention to do eWoM. It was further posited that prior to persuading other people towards a
certain thing, one must have a prior belief that the thing is true, otherwise, it would give undesirable implications
for his/her reputation. Hence, it is suggested that the institutional trust and the interpersonal trust could also be
predictors for eWoM intention. As it is conjectured that those relations also hold for the context of e-
Government, the following hypotheses can be formulated as follows:
H6a: The greater the general trust towards others (dispositional trust), the higher the intention to perform
electronic word of mouth about the e-Government (eWoM intention).
H6b: The greater the trust towards the online system, i.e., the e-Government (institutional trust), the higher
the intention to perform electronic word of mouth about the e-Government (eWoM intention).
H6c: The greater the trust towards the institution that provides e-Government (interpersonal trust), the higher
the intention to perform electronic word of mouth about the e-Government (eWoM intention).
The aforementioned hypotheses are depicted in Figure 1 as follows:
Figure 1 Research Conceptual Model

IV. METHODOLOGY
4.1. Data Collecting Procedure
This research was quantitative and used purposive sampling. The target respondent in this study is ordinary
citizens who have used e-Government (G2C) services of central government agencies in Indonesia. The ordinary
citizens as respondents are expected to represent the users of the central government agencies e-Government
and to give their opinions as the services recipients. Then, as users, they will evaluate e-Government services
based on their system quality, information quality, and service quality. Subsequently, as citizens, they will
evaluate their trust towards e-Government services as well as the providers, viz., the central government
agencies. Lastly, they will be asked if they are willing to do e-WoM and continue using the e-Government
services. The complete research design can be depicted as Figure 2.
Figure 2 Research Design
Before questionnaires distribution, readability test was performed to 10 respondents of various backgrounds.
Readability test needs to be conducted to assess whether the questionnaires are properly developed to accomplish
the research goals, viz., by investigating respondents understanding towards each question/statement, by
checking typographical errors, and by asking suggestions for ambiguous questions/statements. This was
performed to lessen the effect of confirmation bias as the researchers might be tempted to structure the
questionnaires in a misleading way because of our prior beliefs. Thus, having feedbacks from these 10
respondents will give us some hints if the questions are misleading. Next, we conducted a pilot study which
involves 30 respondents to validate each indicator in the questionnaires. From the pilot study, we found that
items in the questionnaires have passed the validity and reliability test.
The data collection was performed by distributing questionnaires online to several communities contained in
the e-Government mailing lists. The communities are members of the eGov Indonesia and E-Government
mailing lists, the Forum-Tax online forum, REPORT! UKP4 and the Republic of Indonesia Ombudsman
institutions social networks. In addition, the members of the Ministry of Education scholarships program,
Indonesia OpenGov community, as well as student online community. These communities were chosen for the
high number of active members and fairly well-distributed over regions in Indonesia. The data collection was
conducted for five weeks from 4 April to May 10, 2013.
4.2. Research Instruments & Questionnaires Developments
Indicators are identified from a comprehensive review of the literature. Each indicator is adapted into
questionnaires items. Each item is assessed using 1-5 Likert scale. One (1) expresses a strong disagreement while
5 conveys a strong agreement. This scale demonstrates the extent to which respondent disagrees/agrees towards
the statements in the questionnaires.
Since the respondents were asked to evaluate the latest e-Government services they had accessed, to avoid
confusion and give more clarity, we gave directions by giving examples of the e-Government services provided
by each ministry. In addition, we put mandatory questions in the questionnaires asking if the respondents have
used e-Government and that they should mention the type of the services.
Then, to be less susceptible to method bias which can occur when respondents provide answers that are
socially acceptable instead of providing more accurate and truthful answers, we strongly requested the
respondents in the questionnaires instruction to give an honest answer and asserted that the respondents are
anonymous. We also guaranteed that their answers would only be used for this research. In addition, we also
tried to minimize gender bias (sample bias) as the respondents were asked to give information about their gender
in the first part of the questionnaires (demography questions). This gender identification is further used to ensure
that both groups are fairly represented.
Eventually, the complete indicators and the corresponding statements (translated from the original Bahasa
Indonesia version) of the final questionnaires are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Indicators of Variables
Indicators: Questionnaires Statements Code
Systems quality (Lee dan Rao, 2005; Ayyash, Ahmad, and Singh, 2012; Petter, DeLone, and McLean, 2008)
Security: Government sites already have good security protection mechanism (e.g., authentication SYQ1
mechanisms, such as login, granting access rights to users who own the account, and maintaining user privacy
and personal data)
Navigability: Government sites have a good page navigation (page navigation is used as a guide to show the SYQ2
position of a page in a website so that users are aware of their position in the website)
Ease of Use/Usability: Government sites have a user-friendly (comfortable and friendly for users) interface SYQ3
which in turn makes the system easy to use and operate
Efficiency: The use of government sites can save my resources such as time, effort, and cost SYQ4
Information Quality (Petter, DeLone, and McLean, 2008; Komiak, 2010)
Currency: Government sites provide up-to-date information INQ1
Accuracy: Government sites provide information that is accurate, true and verifiable INQ2
Relevance: Government sites provide information that is relevant and suitable to my needs INQ3
Completeness: Government sites provide complete and thorough information for the users INQ4
Service Quality (DeLone and McLean, 2003; Tan, Benbasat, and Cenfetelli, 2008)
Tangibles: Government sites provide services through nice and satisfying page views SEQ1
Reliability: Government sites provide fast, precise, and accurate services so that they are reliable SEQ2
Responsiveness: Government sites provide fast-response services and give help to my problems SEQ3
Empathy: Government sites provide services that can be tailored to interest me personally (e.g., there is option SEQ4
for selecting services type and information to be displayed)
Assurance: The existence of government sites makes me more confident and proficient in using government SEQ5
online services
Dispositional Trust (McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar, 2002; Alsaghier et al., 2009)
Faith in Humanity Benevolence: I am confident that most people would care about the interests and welfare DISP1
of others
Faith in Humanity Integrity: I am confident most people are able to fulfill promises they made DISP2
Faith in Humanity Competence: I am confident most professionals are competent people who perform their DISP3
job very well
Trusting Stance: I would normally trust others until there is a reason to no longer trust DISP4
Institutional Trust (McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar, 2002; Alsaghier et al., 2009)
Situation Normality- General: I feel happy to use online government services through government sites INST1
Situation Normality- Benevolence: I am confident that government sites can provide services that suit my INST2
needs and interests
Situation Normality- Integrity: I am confident that government sites can provide services in accordance with INST3
their mandate
Situation Normality- Competence: I am sure government sites have good competence in providing services INST4
Structure Assurance Trust: I am confident government websites have adequate security protection so that I feel INST5
comfortable in using the provided services
Interpersonal Trust (McKnight, Choudhury, and Kacmar, 2002; Alsaghier et al., 2009)
Benevolence: I am confident that government institutions can provide competent and effective service to the INTP1
public through government sites
Integrity: I am confident that government institutions can provide good services that are also compatible with INTP2
citizens needs through government sites
Competence: I am confident that government institutions can maintain its commitment to provide good INTP3
services to the public through government sites
Continual Use Intention (Tan, Benbasat, and Cenfetelli, 2008; Teo, Srivastava, and Jiang, 2008)
Intention to Continue Using: I intend to continue using government sites CUI1
Intention to Re-Use: I will use government sites in the near future if anything relevant needs to be done CUI2
Intention to Continue Using for Future Needs: I will use government sites to meet my needs in the future CUI3
Intention to Continue Re-Using: I will continue using government websites that I have used before CUI4
EWOM Intention (Lee, Noh, dan Kim, 2013; Son, Kim, dan Jang, 2012)
Intention to Share Experience: I will share the experience of using government sites to others through online EWOM1
media
Intention to Disseminate: I will disseminate the information I get from government sites through online media EWOM2
Intention to Recommend: I will recommend the use of government websites to my friends and acquaintances EWOM3
through online media
Intention to Express Opinion: I will give opinion if anyone asks through online media about online services EWOM4
provided by government sites
V. RESULTS
5.1. Respondent Demographics

Indonesias population was projected to reach 255 million in 2015 (BPS, 2014b). Each population in DKI
Jakarta, Jawa Barat, Jawa Timur, Jawa Tengah, Banten, Yogyakarta, represented 4%, 18.25%, 15.31%, 13.29%,
4.64%, 1.44% respectively of the total Indonesias population based on the Central Bureau of Statistics data in
2014 (BPS, 2014a). Thus, the 6 provinces altogether represented 56.93% of the total Indonesias population.
The demographics are aimed to exhibit the characteristics of the respondents. As shown in Table 2, the
number of respondents involved in this study is 293 with a relatively balanced proportion between male and
female (51.87% males and 48.12% females). As for the job, half of the respondents are students (50.85%)
followed by private employees (21.5%). Sixty percent of the respondents are below 25 years old. Most
respondents hold a bachelor degree (49.48%). The residency of the respondents is rather dominated by those who
lives in DKI Jakarta (28.67%) and Jawa Barat (26.96%). The respondent's proportion between novice (<1year),
moderate (1-3 years) and savvy (>3 years) is quite balanced (around 30-35%) concerning their experience in
using e-Government. Lastly, more than half (61.43%) of the respondents acquire e-Government information
through an individual search on the Internet.

Table 2. Respondent Demographics
Gender Total Education Total Experience using e- Total

Government
Male 152 High school or 88 (30.03%) < 1 year 88

(51.87%) lower (30.03%)
Female 141 Diploma 34 (11.60%) 1-3 years 100

(48.12%) (34.13%)
Job Total Bachelor 145 (49.48%) > 3 years 105

(35.84%)
Student 149 Master 21 (7.16%) Source of information

(50.85%)
Private employee 63 (21.50%) Doctoral 5 (1.7%) Directly from government 2 (0.68%)

agency
Civil servant 33 (11.26%) Province Total Government agencys 15

social network (5.12%)
Entrepreneur 35 (11.94%) DKI Jakarta 84 (28.67%) Print or electronic media 101

(34.47%)
Unemployed 4 (1.36%) Jawa Barat 79 (26.96%) Individual search via the 180
Internet (61.43%)
Others 9 (3.07%) Jawa Timur 23 (7.85%) Direct recommendation 131

from people (44.71%)
Age Total Jawa Tengah 22 (7.5%) Direct recommendation via 125

online media (44.17%)
< 25 years 177 Banten 19 (6.48%) Others 10

(60.40%) (3.41%)
25-40 years 90 (30.72%) Yogyakarta 16 (5.46%)
> 40 years 26 (8.87%) Others 50 (17.06%)

5.2. Measurement Model Testing
The data processed by AMOS had passed various classical assumptions, including multivariate normality
and multicollinearity. The measurement model feasibility test was executed by validity and reliability test. The
validity test was performed by looking at the value of the standardized loading factor of each indicator that
constitutes the variable. An indicator is valid if it has standardized loading factor value greater than or equal to
0.5 or 0.7 (Santoso, 2012). This study adopts the 0.5 limit to determine an indicator validity of the measurement
model, thus in this study one indicator, i.e., SEQ4 was eliminated. The standardized loading factor values are
summarized in Table 3. Next, the reliability test was conducted by examining the value of Construct Reliability
(CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). According to Hair et al. (1998), a variable has a good reliability if
its CR value is greater than or equal to 0.7 and its AVE value is greater than or equal to 0.5. In this study, there
are two variables, i.e., SYQ and DISP, with CR values greater than 0.7 but with AVE value less than 0.5.
However, according to Fornell & Larcker in (Huang et al. 2013) if AVE value is less than 0.5, but CR is higher
than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct is still adequate; therefore, both variables were considered
passing the minimum threshold (Santoso, 2012). The CR and AVE values in this study are also briefly displayed
in Table 3. In addition, the cross leading values of all indicators were also measured and all indicators held the
biggest loading factor on the variable they represent. Nonetheless, due to space constraint in this article, the cross
loading value are not shown. Conclusively, the final instrument in this study was considered valid and reliable.
Table 3. Loading factor, AVE, dan CR
Standardized Loading
Variable Indicator AVE CR
Factor
Systems quality SYQ1 0.689 0.49 0.79
SYQ2 0.771
SYQ3 0.742
SYQ4 0.565
Information INQ1 0.753 0.63 0.87
Quality INQ2 0.818
INQ3 0.785
INQ4 0.817
Service Quality SEQ1 0.728 0.57 0.80
SEQ2 0.749
SEQ3 0.786
SEQ4* 0.479
Dispositional DISP1 0.777 0.48 0.78

Trust DISP2 0.645
DISP3 0.729
DISP4 0.596
Institutional Trust INST1 0.684 0.62 0.89
INST2 0.842
INST3 0.873
INST4 0.773
INST5 0.763
Interpersonal INTP1 0.929 0.79 0.92

Trust INTP2 0.877
INTP3 0.857
Continuance CUI1 0.812 0.70 0.90

Intention CUI2 0.780
CUI3 0.877
CUI4 0.880
EWOM Intention EWOM1 0.789 0.65 0.88
EWOM2 0.846
EWOM3 0.869
EWOM4 0.697
5.3. Structural Model Testing

The goodness of fit test or suitability test the measurement model used the same measuring instruments as
the measurement model fit test namely, the Normed Chi-square, the Goodness of Fit Index, the Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index, the Normed Fit Index, the Comparative Fit Index, the Tucker-Lewis Index, the
Parsimony Ratio and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. Based on some convention, the value of
GFI, AGFI, NFI, CFI, and TLI must be greater than 0.9; however, it is considered too tight for model/theory
development (Raykov, 1998); hence, more lenient criteria are nonetheless allowed (Stevens, 1996). We adopt the
criteria used by Wu & Wang (2006). In the process, we performed model re-specification based on AMOS
suggestion and one of them was to add a path between Systems Quality and Information Quality which leads to
adding a new hypothesis. Table 4 exhibits the models goodness of fit value after re-specification and the result
positively shows the proposed research model fits.
Table 4. Goodness of fit value for the measurement model
Criteria Standard Result Description
CMIN/DF 2,00 1.906 Good fit

Good fit
GFI 0.85 0.844
Good fit
AGFI 0.8 0.813
Good fit
NFI 0.8 0.864
CFI 0.9 0.930 Good fit
TLI 0.9 0.922 Good fit
PRATIO Between 0-1 0.895 Good fit
RMSEA < 0.08 0.057 Good fit

The relationship between variables was performed by examining the Critical Ratio (CR) and the Probability (p)
value from each relation between variables. The hypothesis with CR value greater than 1.96 and p-value less
than 0.05 is accepted. CR and p-value were produced by AMOS through Regression Weight output and
Covariances. The result of hypotheses testing is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of the Analysis Result of the Research Model Causal Relation
Hypothesis
C.R
Relation between Construct P Value accepted or
Value
rejected?
Systems quality Institutional trust 2.312 0.021 Accepted
Systems quality Interpersonal trust 3.006 0.003 Accepted
Information quality Institutional trust 7.411 0.000 Accepted
Information quality Interpersonal trust 0.627 0.530 Rejected
Service quality Institutional trust 0.200 0.842 Rejected
Service quality Interpersonal trust 0.810 0.418 Rejected
Dispositional Trust Institutional trust 5.668 0.000 Accepted
Dispositional Trust Interpersonal trust 3.746 0.000 Accepted
Institutional trust Interpersonal trust 3.047 0.002 Accepted
Dispositional Trust Continual Use Intention 1.837 0.066 Rejected
Institutional trust Continual Use Intention 6.109 0.000 Accepted
Interpersonal trust Continual Use Intention 3.094 0.002 Accepted
Dispositional Trust EWOM Intention 1.225 0.221 Rejected
Institutional trust EWOM Intention 4.289 0.000 Accepted
Interpersonal trust EWOM Intention 1.838 0.066 Rejected
Systems quality Information quality 6.175 0.000 Accepted
Table 5 shows of the 15 initial hypotheses, 9 have significant relation and the 6 do not display significant
relation and 1 proposed hypothesis after re-specification. To better address the discussion of each supported
hypothesis, hypotheses with significant relation are denoted by numbers as follows: (#1) systems quality towards
institutional trust and (#2) interpersonal trust; (#3) information quality towards institutional trust; (#4)
dispositional trust towards institutional trust and (#5) interpersonal trust; (#6) institutional trust towards
interpersonal trust, (#7) continual use intention, and (#8) eWoM intention; and (#9) interpersonal trust towards
Continual Use Intention. As for the last hypothesis, which was proposed after the re-specification, it also
confirms the significant relation between systems quality and information quality.
VI. DISCUSSION
6.1. The Relation of Information Systems Quality towards Trust Dimensions

The result of this study shows systems quality and information quality have significant relation towards
trust. Systems quality has positive correlation towards two trust dimensions namely, institutional trust and
interpersonal trust; the latter holds greater correlation value. Meanwhile, information quality is positively
correlated only with institutional trust; nonetheless, its correlation value is higher than those of systems quality
towards the trust dimensions. On the contrary, although service quality has positive relation towards institutional
trust and interpersonal trust, the values are not significant.
Thus, it can be inferred that information quality is the major factor that will be examined by the public in
using e-Government services in building the public trust towards the system. Further, good systems quality is
certainly required to increase trust not only on e-Government services but also towards government agency as the
service provider. Interestingly, our finding also indicates information quality does not have direct relation
towards interpersonal trust. Consequently, good information quality does not promptly predict public trust
towards the government agency that provides the services. Lastly, service quality is the only one that does not
have significant relation towards any trust dimension.
The use of 3 information quality dimensions of D&M IS Success Model is aligned with the suggestion of
Wang et al. (2010) which uttered there are relations between information quality dimensions towards trust in e-
Government. This is also in line with the study of Xiao et al. (2010) which investigated the relations between
information quality and multi-dimensional trust and found that information quality has significant relation
towards institutional trust. However, in Xiao et al. (2010) study, the security dimension, which is similar to the
systems quality dimension in this study, only had significant relation towards institutional trust, while its relation
towards interpersonal trust was not supported to be significant.
Previous research by Kim & Park (2013) and Lee & Levy (2014), expressed the relation from each quality
dimension, viz., information quality and systems quality, towards trust as a single construct while this study
provides a more detailed elaboration on the trust dimension which exhibits the relation between each quality
dimension towards each dimension of trust. In this respect, this study could sharpen our understanding of the role
of the trust dimension.
Next, concerning service quality and trust relations, the result of this study is aligned with previous literature
research by Hoffman et al. (2012) who argued service quality is better suited in influencing user satisfaction than
trust. A similar argument is expressed by Xiao et al. (2010) which stated service quality influences intention to
participate directly and not necessarily mediated by the presence of trust.
6.2. The Relations between Trust Dimensions

The result shows significant relations between trust dimensions. Dispositional trust has a substantial impact
towards institutional trust and interpersonal trust. This asserts that with high dispositional trust, one who is
generally easy to trust others would easily develop trust towards the Internet as the mediator to acquire services
(institutional trust) and would also easily build trust towards specific others (interpersonal trust). Next,
concerning the relation between institutional trust and interpersonal trust, this study also denotes institutional
trust has considerable relation towards interpersonal trust. This can possibly occur if the trustable system is
situated within or having secured circumstances or environments such that users gradually develop trusts towards
the service provider institution because the users perceive the institutions commitment to delivering good
services towards them.
The above findings are in line with the e-Commerce study of McKnight & Chervany (2002) on the theory of
multi-dimensional trust. Furthermore, the findings support the proposition of Tan & Sutherland (2004) that
indicated there are relations between the trust dimensions. The findings are specifically consistent with those of
Belanger & Carter (2008) about trust in e-Government which had formerly found that dispositional trust
substantially influences institutional trust and interpersonal trust. Moreover, these findings are partially aligned
with the study of Xiao et al. (2010) which highlighted relations between trust dimensions; although, dispositional
trust in their study indirectly influences the interpersonal trust.
6.3. The Relations between Trust Dimensions towards User Behavior

The result reveals the multi-dimensional trust has a considerable impact either directly or indirectly towards
user behavior in the forms of continual use intention and eWoM intention on e-Government. The institutional
trust exhibits significant relation towards both user behaviors whereas the interpersonal trust has significant
relation only towards continual use intention. Thus, it implies trust towards the system is undoubtedly the most
important dimension as it has substantial relation towards both. On the contrary, the absence of a direct relation
between interpersonal trust and eWoM intention could probably occur because most people do not often
converse about the reputation of the systems provider.
Next, concerning dispositional trust, this study shows it does not have a direct relation towards either
continual use or eWoM intention, yet it is mediated by institutional trust and interpersonal trust. This asserts that
dispositional trust is essentially a trust in general towards others such that it only has considerable relation
towards other trust dimensions and not in a position which can directly exercise its role on user behaviors in
accepting the e-Government. The findings on dispositional trust, to some extent, conforms with the previous
research on e-Commerce by Xiao et al. (2010) which uttered trust dimensions influence user behavior in a form
of customer loyalty (e-loyalty). Nonetheless, in their research, each of the 3 trust dimensions including the
dispositional trust did have direction relations towards user behavior.
In general, the findings in the context of e-Government clearly support previous researchs findings such as
of Tan, Benbasat & Cenfetelli (2007; 2008) and of Kim & Park (2013) which found that, in the context of s-
commerce, the intention to buy and disseminate information via the Internet (online) is greatly influenced by
customers trust.
VII. IMPLICATIONS
7.1. Practical Implications
Both system quality and dispositional trust have significant relation towards institutional trust (hypothesis
#1, hypothesis #4) and interpersonal trust (hypothesis #2, hypothesis #5). While it is quite challenging to affect
dispositional trust because it is a trait defined as the intention to naturally accept vulnerability to a
person/institutional in general, the government have direct control to improve the system quality. Thus, the
government could have direct action in order to improve the security aspect, implement better navigation, create
a more user-friendly interface, and more efficient flow of the e-Government. This can be achieved if the
government has a running developer team that can fully function whose main task is to evolve the system. In
addition to being affected by system quality and dispositional trust, institutional trust is influenced by
information quality (hypothesis #3). Hence, to increase the institutional trust the government could operate to
deliver up-to-date, accurate, relevant and complete information on the e-Government. Consequently, the
government should set up and ensure the compliance of a standard operating procedure in the e-Government to
guarantee those qualities. In general, via multi-dimensional trust as the focal concern in the e-Government
context, public trust development ought to be performed by the government by developing an in-depth
understanding of system characteristics, and information quality of the e-Government
Next, the result of part 1 of the questionnaires also suggests that public is well-aware of the importance of
online government services through e-Government as shown in Table 2 where most respondents seem proactive
as they have their own initiatives to seek individually the e-Government information via the Internet. Therefore,
the government should quickly take this positive opportunity by offering a trustable e-Government. This can
benefit further as high trust towards the system (institutional trust) has the ability to influence the rise of trust
towards the government as the service provider (interpersonal trust) (hypothesis #6). This implies that the
government should put concrete concern towards e-Government impression, e.g. having regular updates on
security issues on the sites, providing and maintaining a two-way communication channel between the citizens
(users) and the system (e-Government), always showing information towards the citizens whenever change in the
system occurs (success and failure), etc. The importance of these concrete acts of maintaining public trust
towards e-Government is emphasized by hypothesis #7 and #8 because these acts will have direct effects on the
increase of continual use intention and e-WoM intention.
In addition to being influenced by institutional trust, the trust towards government (interpersonal trust),
which leads to the continual use intention (hypothesis #9), could be enhanced via tangible acts of the government
by showing genuine acts to commit (e.g., giving commitment by displaying governments SLA on the sites), to
provide compatible services (e.g., assigning a function that maintain compatibility of government services
towards citizens needs and display the information on the sites), to provide effective service (e.g. by displaying
clear paths of the services with SLA). The government could utilize the sites (e-Government) to reflect its
commitment, integrity, and competence in providing services to the public. This typically requires at least a well
set-up and monitored standard operating procedure, government SLAs, and reliable human resources.
Overall, trust seems essential because trust could act as the initial (i.e., by the dispositional trust) and bridge
towards the acceptance or public adoption on e-Government. The acceptance or participation in this study is
indicated in the forms of continual use intention of and information dissemination intention about e-Government
via the Internet (online). Next thing, the government should also realize that eWoM could play an important role
in disseminating information about e-Government (services). This is supported by the data in Table 2 which
exhibit that WoM, either offline or online, has been the second and third top information sources preceded by the
individual search via the Internet.
7.2. Theoretical Implications

Model in this research could serve as a framework for information systems quality, multi-dimensional trust,
and e-Government which would enrich the empirical references because earlier research is mostly focused only
on discussing trust as a single dimension. Moreover, this study explicitly discloses the relationship between
distinct trust dimensions as clearly shown that direct relations do exist between those dimensions. It also
simultaneously underpins the relationships between trusts and user behavior by demonstrating how each trust
dimension correlates with user behavior. This framework could serve as a relatively complete reference since it
includes information systems quality and its impact towards trust in e-Government; however, further research on
e-Government founded on the multi-dimensional trust could be developed.
This study confirms the applicability of the D&M IS Success Model especially of its technical and semantic
success dimensions (systems quality and information quality) in defining e-Government quality in relation to the
multi-dimensional trust. In the updated D&M IS Success Model, the success is measured through the intention to
use/use, user satisfaction, and net benefits dimensions where direct relations exist between information systems
quality dimensions towards the intention to use/use and user satisfaction. At this point, this research positively
exhibits that service quality does not present significant relationship towards any of the trusts. Thus, in regard to
service quality, previous research of Hoffman, Rackers, and Becker (2012) had pointed towards the inclusion of
user satisfaction dimension into the framework for further investigation. Thus, another dimension of the D&M IS
Success Model namely user satisfaction could be a strong candidate for the examination as it is also supported by
Bhattacherjee (2001) with his Expectation-Confirmation Model which stated the continual use intention of a
system is significantly influenced by the satisfaction towards the system. We can further conjecture that user
satisfaction could possibly act as an intermediary between service quality and trust or between service quality
and continual use intention.
VIII. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

This study shows e-Government quality dimensions that hold significant relations towards trust are systems
quality and information quality. This will inevitably confirm the applicability of the D&M IS Success Model
especially its information systems quality dimensions to measure e-Government quality in relation to trust. The
most significant relationship is exhibited by information quality on institutional trust and by systems quality on
both institutional trust and interpersonal trust. In contrast, it is found that service quality dimension does not
show significant relationship on trust, either on institutional trust nor interpersonal trust. This implies that to
build public trust in using e-Government, the government should focus on improving information quality in
order to provide up-to-date, accurate, relevant and complete information. In addition, the government should also
concentrate on enhancing systems quality to deliver security, ease of use, and efficiency through e-Government
online services to the public.
Furthermore, this research indicates there are relationships between trust (institutional trust) and user
behavior intention to participate (intention for continual use and intention to do eWoM). The interpersonal trust,
however, has a significant relationship only with the intention of continual use. Next, concerning dispositional
trust, it has no substantial relationship towards any intention. It only shows indirect relationship via institutional
trust and interpersonal trust. Hence, it can be inferred that the government needs to emphasize on increasing
public trust towards the e-Government system especially through institutional trust as this dimension holds the
most significant relationship on public acceptance.
This research evaluates the relations of e-Government service quality on trust and towards public
participation, viz. in the form of continual use intention of e-Government services and the intention to do
eWoM. Although previous research had mentioned satisfaction issue, we confine not to include the satisfaction
aspect in the research framework. Therefore, as indicated by the theoretical implication, it is deemed necessary to
further examine the satisfaction factor and its impact towards public acceptance for the e-Government. Next,
although sufficient for SEM, to produce better inference for a large country such as Indonesia a bigger number of
respondents is inevitably required.
REFERENCES
Abu-Shanab, E. (2014). Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan. Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(4), 480 499
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. Journal of experimental social psychology, 22, 5, 453-474.
Akkaya, C., Wolf, D., & Krcmar, H. (2010). The Role of Trust in E-Government Adoption: A Literature Review.
AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 297.
Alenezi, H., Tarhini, A., & Sharma, S. K. (2015). Development of quantitative model to investigate the strategic
relationship between information quality and e-government benefits. Transforming Government: People,
Process and Policy, 9(3), 324-351.
Almarabeh, T. & AbuAli, A. (2010). A General Framework for E-Government: Definition Maturity Challenges,
Opportunities, and Success. European Journal of Scientific Research, 39(1), 29-42.
Alsaghier, H., Ford, M., Nguyen, A., & Hexel, R. (2009). Conceptualising Citizens Trust in e-Government:
Application of Q Methodology. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(4), 295-310.
Alshibly, H. H. (2014). Customer Perceived Value in Social Commerce: An Exploration of Its Antecedents and
Consequences. Journal of Management Research, 7(1), 17-37.

Alshibly, H., & Chiong, R. (2015). Customer empowerment: Does it influence electronic government success? A
citizen-centric perspective. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(6), 393-404.
Alryalat, M., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2013). Examining Jordanian citizens' intention to adopt
electronic government. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 10(3-4), 324-342.
Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-
government adoption from citizens perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework.
International Business Review, 26(1), 164-175.
Ayyash, M. M., Ahmad, K., & Singh, D. (2012). A Questionnaire Approach for User Trust Adoption in
Palestinian E-Government Initiative. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(1), 40-46.
Azmi, A., Ang, Y.D., Talib, S.A. (2016). Trust and justice in the adoption of a welfare e-payment system.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(3), 391 410.
Azmi, A. C., & Aziz, N. F. (2015). Trust, justice and the continued use of e-filing. Electronic Government, an
International Journal, 11(3), 207-222.
Baber, A., Thurasamy, R., Malik, M. I., Sadiq, B., Islam, S., & Sajjad, M. (2016). Online word-of-mouth
antecedents, attitude and intention-to-purchase electronic products in Pakistan. Telematics and Informatics,
33(2), 388-400.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation
Model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3).
Belanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 17(2), 165-176.
BPS. (2014a). Distribusi Persentase Penduduk menurut Provinsi, 2000-2014. Retrieved September 8, 2016, from
https://www.bps.go.id/linkTableDinamis/view/id/843
BPS. (2014b). Proyeksi Penduduk menurut Provinsi, 2010-2035 (Ribuan). Retrieved September 8, 2016, from
https://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1274
Chatterjee, P. (2001). Online Reviews: Do Consumers Use Them?. ACR Proceedings, M.C.Gilly and J.Myers-
Levy, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Chen, J. V., Jubilado, R. J. M., Capistrano, E. P. S., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Factors affecting online tax filingAn
application of the IS Success Model and trust theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 251-262.
Chen, J. V., Su, B. C., & Widjaja, A. E. (2016). Facebook C2C social commerce: A study of online impulse
buying. Decision Support Systems, 83, 57-69.
Chevalier, J.A. & Mayzlin, D. (2003). The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews. National
Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper.
Chu, S.-C. & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word of mouth (eWOM) in
social networking sites. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 4775.
Colesca, S. E. (2009). Increasing E-Trust: A Solution To Minimize Risk In E-Government Adoption. Journal of
Applied Quantitative Method, 4(1), 31-44.
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: a meta-analytic
test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of applied psychology, 92(4),
909.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A
Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19, 4, 9-30.
Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2004). Measuring e-commerce success: Applying the DeLone & McLean
information systems success model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(1), 31-47.
Doherty, N. F., Shakur, M., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2015). The role of e-service quality management in the
delivery business value. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 27, 52-62.
Dong, T. P., Cheng, N. C., & Wu, Y. C. J. (2014). A study of the social networking website service in digital
content industries: The Facebook case in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 708-714.
Erkan, I., & Evans, C. (2016). The influence of eWOM in social media on consumers purchase intentions: An
extended approach to information adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 47-55.
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. The international Journal of Management
Science, 28(6), 725-737.
Gil-Garca, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical
foundations. Government information quarterly, 22(2), 187-216.
Gunawan, D. D., & Huarng, K. H. (2015). Viral effects of social network and media on consumers purchase
intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2237-2241.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R., Anderson, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K., Walsh, G., & Gremier, D.D. (2004). Electronic Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-
Opinion Platforms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate Themselves on The Internet?. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18(1), 38-52.

Hofmann, S., Rackers, M., & Becker, J. (2012). Identifying Factors of e-Government Acceptance-A Literature
Review. ICIS Proceedings, 2012. Paper 10
Hsu, C. L., Yu, L. C., & Chang, K. C. (2017). Exploring the effects of online customer reviews, regulatory focus,
and product type on purchase intention: Perceived justice as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior,
69, 335-346.
Hussein, R., Mohamed, N., Ahlan, A. R., Mahmud, M., & Aditiawarman, U. (2009). Modeling G2C Adoption in
Developing Country: A Case Study of Malaysia. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 408.
Irani, Z., Love, P. E., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluating egovernment: learning
from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 61-82.
Jalilvand, M.R.dan Samiei, N. (2012). The effect of electronic word of mouth on brand image and purchase
intention: An empirical study in the automobile industry in Iran. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 30(4),
460 - 476.
Kemenkumham. (2011, July 29). Instruksi Presiden Nomor 3 Tahun 2003 Tentang Kebijakan Dan Strategi
Nasional Pengembangan E-Government. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from
http://www.kemenkumham.go.id/attachments/article/140/Inpres-03-03.pdf
Khalil, O. E. (2011). e-Government readiness: Does national culture matter?. Government Information Quarterly,
28(3), 388-399.
Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). Effects of various characteristics of social commerce (s-commerce) on consumers
trust and trust performance. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 318 332.
Komiak, S. (2010). The Effects of Perceived Information Quality and Perceived Systems quality on Trust and
Adoption of Online Reputation Systems. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 343.
Lee, A. & Levy, Y. (2014). The effect of information quality on trust in e-government systems transformation.
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. 8(1), 76100.
Lee, J. & Rao, H. (2005). Risk of Terrorism, Trust in Government, and e-Government Services: An Exploratory
Study of Citizens Intention to use e-Government Services in a Turbulent Environment. YCISS Working
Paper Number 30.
Lee, J., Kim, H.J., & Ahn, M.J. (2011). The willingness of e-Government service adoption by business users:
The role of offline service quality and trust in technology. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 222
230.
Lee, S.-H., Noh, S.-E., & Kim, H.-W. (2013). A mixed methods approach to electronic word-of-mouth in the
open-market context. International Journal of Information Management, 33, 687 696.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Shoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy
of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
McKnight, D. H. & Chervany, N. L. (2002). What Trust Means in E-Commerce Customer Relationships: An
Interdisciplinary Conceptual Typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 3559.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-
Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359.
Mou, J. & Cohen, J. F. (2015). Antecedents of Trust in Electronic-Service Providers: Results from a Meta-
Analysis. Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems: 7(1), Article 2.
Mpinganjira, M. (2015). Use of e-government services: the role of trust. International Journal of Emerging
Markets, 10(4), 622 633.
Nariman, D. & Yamamoto, S. (2008). An Evaluation of Information Quality of e-Government in Indonesia.
Proceeding of the 4th International Conference on e-Government, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia,
309-317.
Nemeslaki, A., Aranyossy, M., & Sasvri, P. (2016). Could on-line voting boost desire to vote?Technology
acceptance perceptions of young Hungarian citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 705-714.
Nurdin, N., Stockdale, R., & Scheepers, H. (2012). Benchmarking Indonesian Local e-Government. PACIS
2012 Proceedings, Paper 61.
PEGI. (n.d.). PeGI Tingkat Kementrian Pada Tahun 2013. Retrieved March 11, 2015, from
http://pegi.layanan.go.id/download/tabel_pegi_2013%283%29/KEMENTERIAN%202013.bmp)
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions,
measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17(3), 236263.
Pilemalm, S., Lindgren, I., & Ramsell, E. (2016). Emerging forms of inter-organizational and cross-sector
collaborations in e-government initiatives: Implications for participative development of information
systems. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 10(4), 605-636.
Purian, R. (2012). Service quality and trust in e-government: Utilizing the rich measures of system usage to
predict trustworthiness. UK Academy for Information Systems Conference Proceedings 2012. Paper 37.
Raykov, T. (1998). On the use confirmatory factor analysis in personality research. Personality and Individual
Differences, 24(2), 291293.
Rokhman, A. (2011). E-Government Adoption in Developing Countries; the Case of Indonesia. Journal of
Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 2(5), 228-236.
Santoso, S. (2012). Analisis SEM Menggunakan AMOS. Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo.
Sharma, S.K. (2015). Adoption of e-government services: The role of service quality dimensions and
demographic variables. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(2), 207 222.
Son, J.-E., Kim, H.-W., & Jang, Y.-J. (2012). Investigating Factors Affecting Electronic Word-Of-Mouth in the
Open Market Context: A Mixed Methods Approach. PACIS Proceedings, Paper 167.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey.
Tan, C.-W., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. (2007). Understanding the Antecedents and Consequences of E-
Government Service Quality: An Empirical Investigation. ICIS 2007 Proceedings, Paper 39.
Tan, C.-W., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. R. (2008). Building Citizen Trust towards e-Government Services: Do
High Quality Websites Matter? Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Tan, F. B. & Sutherland, P. (2004). Online Consumer Trust: A Multi-dimensional Model. Journal of Electronic
Commerce in Organizations, 2(3), 40-58.
Teo, T. S., Srivastava, S., & Jiang, L. (2008). Trust and Electronic Government Success: An Empirical Study.
Journal of Management Information System, 25(3), 99-131.
Tsao, W. C., Hsieh, M. T., Shih, L. W., & Lin, T. M. (2015). Compliance with eWOM: The influence of hotel
reviews on booking intention from the perspective of consumer conformity. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 46, 99-111.
United Nations. (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to Connected
Governance. New York: United Nations.
United Nations.(2014). United Nations e-Government Survey 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from
http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014-Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-
2014.pdf
Waller, L., & Genius, A. (2015). Barriers to transforming government in Jamaica: Challenges to implementing
initiatives to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and service delivery of government through ICTs (e-
Government). Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9(4), 480 497.
Wang, T., Cao, Y., & Yang, S. (2010). Building the model of sustainable trust in e-government. 2nd IEEE
International Conference on Information and Financial Engineering (ICIFE), 698 - 701.
Wang, W. T., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, E. R. (2016). The stickiness intention of group-buying websites: The
integration of the commitmenttrust theory and e-commerce success model. Information & Management,
53(5), 625-642.
Wang, Y. S. (2008). Assessing ecommerce systems success: a respecification and validation of the DeLone and
McLean model of IS success. Information Systems Journal, 18(5), 529-557.
Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P., & Rose, G. (2002). Encouraging Citizen Adoption of e-Government by
Building Trust. Electronic Markets, 12( 3), 157162.
Wu, J-H. & Wang, Y-M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone and McLeans
model. Information & Management, 43(6), 728739.
Xiao, L., Guo, Z., & DAmbra, J. (2010). An Empirical Study of Multi-dimensional Trust and E-loyalty in E-
commerce in China. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Paper 62.
Yang, J., Sarathy, R., & Lee, J. (2016). The effect of product review balance and volume on online Shoppers'
risk perception and purchase intention. Decision Support Systems, 89, 66-76.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 8(1), 53-111.

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

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

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.5 Continual Use Intention & Electronic Word of Mouth (eWoM)

III. RESEARCH CONCEPTUAL MODEL

The aforementioned hypotheses are depicted in Figure 1 as follows:

Figure 1 Research Conceptual Model

Figure 2 Research Design

5.1. Respondent Demographics

through an individual search on the Internet.

Gender Total Education Total Experience using e- Total

Male 152 High school or 88 (30.03%) < 1 year 88

Female 141 Diploma 34 (11.60%) 1-3 years 100

Job Total Bachelor 145 (49.48%) > 3 years 105

Student 149 Master 21 (7.16%) Source of information

Private employee 63 (21.50%) Doctoral 5 (1.7%) Directly from government 2 (0.68%)

Civil servant 33 (11.26%) Province Total Government agencys 15

Entrepreneur 35 (11.94%) DKI Jakarta 84 (28.67%) Print or electronic media 101

Others 9 (3.07%) Jawa Timur 23 (7.85%) Direct recommendation 131

Age Total Jawa Tengah 22 (7.5%) Direct recommendation via 125

< 25 years 177 Banten 19 (6.48%) Others 10

25-40 years 90 (30.72%) Yogyakarta 16 (5.46%)

> 40 years 26 (8.87%) Others 50 (17.06%)

Table 3. Loading factor, AVE, dan CR

Systems quality SYQ1 0.689 0.49 0.79

Information INQ1 0.753 0.63 0.87

Quality INQ2 0.818

Service Quality SEQ1 0.728 0.57 0.80

Dispositional DISP1 0.777 0.48 0.78

Institutional Trust INST1 0.684 0.62 0.89

Interpersonal INTP1 0.929 0.79 0.92

Continuance CUI1 0.812 0.70 0.90

EWOM Intention EWOM1 0.789 0.65 0.88

5.3. Structural Model Testing

Criteria Standard Result Description

CMIN/DF 2,00 1.906 Good fit

CFI 0.9 0.930 Good fit

TLI 0.9 0.922 Good fit

PRATIO Between 0-1 0.895 Good fit

RMSEA < 0.08 0.057 Good fit

6.1. The Relation of Information Systems Quality towards Trust Dimensions

6.2. The Relations between Trust Dimensions

6.3. The Relations between Trust Dimensions towards User Behavior

7.2. Theoretical Implications

VIII. CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

Consequences. Journal of Management Research, 7(1), 17-37.

Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18(1), 38-52.

You might also like