Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service: The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Concept and Theory of Electronic Government
2.2. Concept and Theory of Relationship Quality
2.3. Public Behavioral Output
3. Hypotheses Development
4. Research Method
5. Data Analysis
5.1. Outer Model Validation
5.2. Validation Inner Model and Hypotheses Results
5.3. Testing of Mediation Effects
6. Discussion
6.1. Theoretical Implications
6.2. Managerial Implications
7. Conclusions and Future Work
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Herrando, C.; Jiménez-Martínez, J.; de Hoyos, M.J.M. Boosting Purchase Intention and Online Participation through Passion. Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2020, 3, 136–145. [Google Scholar]
- Hariguna, T.; Tsamara, M. E-Government Asset Management Using the Extreme Programming Method. Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2019, 2, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hariguna, T.; Rahardja, U.; Ruangkanjanases, A. The impact of citizen perceived value on their intention to use e-government services: An empirical study. Electron. Gov. 2020, 16, 426–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, S.A. Entrepreneurship and Information Technology Businesses in Economic Crisis. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2018, 5, 682–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Kurtz, O.T. Local E-Government and User Satisfaction with City Portals—The citizens’service preference perspective. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2016, 13, 265–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Piehler, R. eGovernment applications and public personnel acceptance: An empirical analysis of the public servant perspective. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 39, 238–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aziz, A.; Zaki, R.; Ullah, S.E. The Impact of Dynamic Capabilities and Information System on Organizational Effectiveness in Cellular Communication Companies in Jordon: Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2020, 3, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wibowo, A.; Chen, S.-C.; Wiangin, U.; Ma, Y.; Ruangkanjanases, A. Customer Behavior as an Outcome of Social Media Marketing: The Role of Social Media Marketing Activity and Customer Experience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-C.; Jong, D.; Lai, M.-T. Assessing the Relationship between Technology Readiness and Continuance Intention in an E-Appointment System: Relationship Quality as a Mediator. J. Med. Syst. 2014, 38, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaisara, G.; Pather, S. The e-Government evaluation challenge: A South African batho Pele-aligned service quality approach. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 211–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozkan, S.; Kanat, I.E. e-Government adoption model based on theory of planned behavior: Empirical validation. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 503–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, N.P.; Williams, M.D.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Diversity and diffusion of therories, models, and theoretical constructs in eGovernment research. Electron. Gov. 2011, 6846, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Sagiyeva, R.; Zhuparova, A.; Ruzanov, R.; Doszhan, R.; Askerov, A. Intellectual input of development by knowledge-based economy: Problems of measuring in countries with developing markets. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2018, 6, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tvaronavičienė, M.; Plėta, T.; Della Casa, S.; Latvys, J. Cyber security management of critical energy infrastructure in national cybersecurity strategies: Cases of USA, UK, France, Estonia and Lithuania. Insights Reg. Dev. 2020, 2, 802–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Huang, T.; Hung, S. The Charisma of Online Group-Buying: The Moderating Role of Social Motivation. Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2019, 2, 99–101. [Google Scholar]
- Glotko, A.V.; Polyakova, A.G.; Kuznetsova, M.Y.; Kovalenko, K.E.; Shichiyakh, R.A.; Melnik, M.V. Main trends of government regulation of sectoral digitalization. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 7, 2181–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chrząścik, M. Modelling promotion strategies in local government units with the application of structural equation modelling (SEM) with an example of Warmia and Mazury region. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 7, 1258–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosby, L.A.; Evans, K.R.; Cowles, D. Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmatier, R.W.; Dant, R.P.; Grewal, D.; Evans, K.R. Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A metaanalysis. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tajvidi, M.; Richard, M.-O.; Wang, Y.; Hajli, N. Brand co-creation through social commerce information sharing: The role of social media. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 121, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anastasiei, B.; Dospinescu, N. Facebook Advertising, Relationship between Types of Message, Brand Attitude and Perceived Buying Risk. Ann. Econ. Ser. 2017, 6, 18–26. [Google Scholar]
- Bejou, D.; Wray, B.; Ingram, T.N. Determinants of relationship quality: An artificial neural network analysis. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 36, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giovanis, A.; Athanasopoulou, P.; Tsoukatos, E. The role of service fairness in the service quality—Relationship quality—Customer loyalty chain: An empirical study. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2015, 25, 744–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.-C.; Chang, Y.-C. What drives purchase intention on Airbnb? Perspectives of consumer reviews, information quality, and media richness. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1512–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, T.; Alhinho, M.; Rita, P.; Dhillon, G. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 71, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hajli, M.N. The role of social support on relationship quality and social commerce. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 87, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garbarino, E.; Johnson, M.S. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. J. Mark. 1999, 63, 70–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajaobelina, L.; Bergeron, J. Antecedents and consequences of buyer-seller relationship quality in the financial services industry. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2009, 27, 359–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-L.; Chen, M.-C.; Kikuchi, K.; Machida, I. Elucidating the determinants of purchase intention toward social shopping sites: A comparative study of Taiwan and Japan. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-C.; Liu, S.-C.; Li, S.-H.; Yen, D.C. Understanding the mediating effects of relationship quality on technology acceptance: An empirical study of E-appointment system. J. Med. Syst. 2013, 37, 9981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, W.G.; Lee, Y.-K.; Yoo, Y.-J. Predictors of Relationship Quality and Relationship Outcomes in Luxury Restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2006, 30, 143–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.-T.; Guo, Y.M.; Lee, C.-H. The effects of relationship quality and switching barriers on customer loyalty. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2011, 31, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boles, J.S.; Johnson, J.T.; Barksdale, H.C. How Salespeople Build Quality Relationships: A Replication and Extension. J. Bus. Res. 2000, 48, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jap, S.D.; Manolis, C.; Weitz, B.A. Relationship Quality and Buyer–Seller Interactions in Channels of Distribution. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 46, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmlund, M. A definition, model, and empirical analysis of business-to-business relationship quality. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2008, 19, 32–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pérez-Morote, R.; Pontones-Rosa, C.; Núñez-Chicharro, M. The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 154, 11997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.; Umer, R.; Umer, S.; Naqvi, S. Antecedents of trust in using social media for E-government services: An empirical study in Pakistan. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masri, N.W.; You, J.-J.; Ruangkanjanases, A.; Chen, S.-C.; Pan, C.-I. Assessing the effects of information system quality and relationship quality on continuance intention in e-tourism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tsai, H.-T.; Huang, H.-C. Determinants of e-repurchase intentions: An integrative model of quadruple retention drivers. Inf. Manag. 2007, 44, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, C. Reinforcing Comparative Monitoring of Smart Specialisation Performance across European Regions: Transnational RIS3 Observatory Model as a Tool for Smart Specialisation Governance. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 8, 1386–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aymagambetov, Y.; Grazhevskaya, N.; Tyngisheva, A. Estimation the effectiveness of public governance of the health system in the context of sustainable development. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2020, 7, 3309–3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiffman, L.G.; Kanuk, L.L. Consumer Behavior, 10th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hee, Y.K.; Jae-Eun, C. Consumer purchase intention for organic personal care products. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 40–47. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, B. From virtual community members to C2C e-commerce buyers: Trust in virtual communities and its effect on consumers’ purchase intention. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2010, 9, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamczyk, M.; Betlej, A.; Gondek, J.; Ohotina, A. Technology and sustainable development: Towards the future? Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2019, 6, 2003–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sen Doong, H.; Wang, H.C.; Foxall, G.R. Psychological traits and loyalty intentions towards e-Government services. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2010, 30, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Teo, T.S.H.; Liu, L. Perceived value and continuance intention in mobile government service in China. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 48, 101348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarabiat, A.; Soares, D.; Estevez, E. Determinants of citizens’ intention to engage in government-led electronic participation initiatives through Facebook. Gov. Inf. Q. 2021, 38, 101537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M.; Gurrea, R. The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shevyakova, A.; Munsh, E.; Arystan, M.; Petrenko, Y. Competence development for Industry 4.0: Qualification requirements and solutions. Insights Reg. Dev. 2021, 3, 124–135. [Google Scholar]
- Chehabeddine, M.; Tvaronavičienė, M. Securing regional development. Insights Reg. Dev. 2020, 2, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hapsari, R.; Clemes, M.D.; Dean, D. The impact of service quality, customer engagement and selected marketing constructs on airline passenger loyalty. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2017, 9, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Algesheimer, R.; Dholakia, U.M.; Herrmann, A. The Social Influence of Brand Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, S.-C.; Lin, C.-P. Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities: The mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 140, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
- Bonsón, E.; Carvajal-Trujillo, E.; Escobar-Rodríguez, T. Escobar-Rodríguez, Influence of trust and perceived value on the intention to purchase travel online: Integrating the effects of assurance on trust antecedents. Tour. Manag. 2015, 47, 286–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.Z.; Benyoucef, M.; Zhao, S.J. Building brand loyalty in social commerce: The case of brand microblogs. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2016, 15, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assar, S.; Boughzala, I.; Boydens, I. Practical studies in e-Government: Best Practices from around the World; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bonsón, E.; Royo, S.; Ratkai, M. Citizens’ Engagement on Local Governments’ Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The Impact of Different Media and Content Types in Western Europe. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Hujran, O. Toward the Utilization of m-Government Services in Developing Countries: A Qualitative Investigation. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2012, 3, 155–160. [Google Scholar]
- Zamzami, I.; Mahmud, M. Mobile interface for m-Government services: A framework for information quality evaluation. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2012, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Thongpapanl, N.; Rehman, A.A. Enhancing Online Performance through Website Content and Personalization. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2011, 52, 3–13. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, S.S.; Li, Q.; Xu, D.J. A Bayesian Network-based Framework for Personalization in Mobile Commerce Applications. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 15, 494–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Schachter, H.L.; Holzer, M. The Impact of Government form on E-Participation: A Study of New Jersey Municipalities. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 653–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Themistocleous, M.; Azab, N.A.; Kamal, M.M.; Ali, M.; Morabito, V. Location-based Services for Public Policy Making: The Direct and Indirect Way to E-Participation. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2012, 29, 269–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Kozar, K.A. Investigating the Effect of Website Quality on E-Business Success: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1383–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.G. Applying Evaluation Criteria to New Zealand Government Websites. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2001, 21, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dragulanescu, N.-G. On the Definition and Evaluation of Web Sites Quality. Stud. Infrom. Control 2001, 10. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340778659_On_the_Definition_and_Evaluation_of_Web_Sites_Quality (accessed on 2 July 2021).
- Lakeworth, S. How Important Is Branding to Your Marketing Strategy; ASYSS: Boston, MA, USA, 2008; Available online: https://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2010/InSITE10p001-007Erkollar694.pdf (accessed on 8 January 2021).
- Lu, B.; Fan, W.; Zhou, M. Social Presence, Trust, and Social Commerce Purchase Intention: An Empirical Research. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ali, F. Hotel Website Quality, Perceived Flow, Customer Satisfaction and Purchase Intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2016, 7, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-L.; Lin, J.C.-C. What Drives Purchase Intention for Paid Mobile Apps?—An Expectation Confirmation Model with Perceived Value. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.G.; Hyun, S.S. Relationships between Brand Experiences, Personality Traits, Prestige, Relationship Quality, and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis of Coffeehouse Brands Analysis of Coffeehouse Brands 1185. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 1185–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linden, N.V.-D.; Schindler, R.; Aguzzi, S.; Jacquet, L.; Millard, J. Public Services Online. Digital by Default or by Detour? Assessing User Centric eGovernment Performance in Europe–e-Government Benchmark 2012; Insight Report: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Sebie, M. Organizational Challenges Facing Integrating E-Government Systems: An Empirical Study. Eur. Sci. J. 2014, 10, 236–250. [Google Scholar]
- Al Thunibat, A.; Mat Zin, N.A.; Sahari, N. Mobile Government User Requirements Model. J. E Gov. 2011, 34, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shareef, M.A.; Archer, N.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Examining Adoption Behavior of Mobile Government. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2012, 53, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, G.; Kwak, Y.H. An Open Government Maturity Model for Social Media-Based Public Engagement. Gov. Inf. Q. 2012, 29, 492–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryer, T.A. The Costs of Democratization-Social Media Adaptation Challenges within Government Agencies. Adm. Theory Prax. 2011, 33, 341–361. [Google Scholar]
- Morgeson, F.V.; Van Amburg, D.; Mithas, S. Misplaced Trust? Exploring the Structure of the EGovernment-Citizen Trust Relationship. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2011, 21, 257–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, D.-J.; Ahn, J.-H.; Bang, Y. Managing Consumer Privacy Concerns in Personalization: A Strategic Analysis of Privacy Protection. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheng, H.; Nah, F.F.-H.; Siau, K. An Experimental Study on Ubiquitous Commerce Adoption: Impact of Personalization and Privacy Concerns. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2008, 9, 344–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, G.J.; Williams, C.B.; Yates, D.J. Predictors of Online Services and E-Participation: A Crossnational Comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 526–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, A.V.; Miller, H.T. New Questions for E-Government: Efficiency But Not (Yet?) Democracy. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2013, 9, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wirtz, B.W.; Daiser, P. E-Government. Strategy Process Instruments; German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer: Speyer, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Lee, J. E-Participation, Transparency, and Trust in Local Government. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 819–828. [Google Scholar]
- Feeney, M.K.; Welch, E.W. Electronic Participation Technologies and Perceived Outcomes for Local Government Managers. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 815–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, W.R.; Epstein, B.J. Assessing Value of Information. Manag. Datamat. 1976, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar]
- Churchill, G.A.; Peter, J.P. Research Design Effects on the Reliability of Rating Scales: A Meta-Analysis. J. Mark. Res. 1984, 21, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petter, S.; Straub, D.; Rai, A. Specifying Formative Constructs in Information Systems Research. MIS Q. 2007, 31, 623–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chin, W.W.; Newsted, P.R. Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares. Stat. Strategy Small Sample Res. 1999, 1, 307–341. [Google Scholar]
- Urbach, N.; Ahlemann, F. Structural Equation Modeling in Information Systems Research Using Partial Least Squares. J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl. 2010, 11, 5–40. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark. Theory Practice 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F., Jr.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Construct | Definition | Source |
---|---|---|
Relationship Quality (RQ) | The level of the whole valuation of the force of a connection between electronic government quality domains to the citizen as the electronic government users. | Crosby et al. [18], Palmatier et al. [19], and Tajvidi et al. [20] |
Public Intention (PPI) | Citizen compliance to use an electronic government after perceiving connection quality and electronic government quality. | Dodds et al. [55] and Bonsón Ponte et al. [56] |
Public Loyalty (PL) | Citizen compliance to be a faithful and committed citizen after perceiving electronic government quality and connection quality. | Flavián et al. [49] and Zhang et al. [57] |
Full Online Service (FOS) | Citizen concept-related electronic government strategy of modern and their concept when electronic government full online facilities. | Assar et al. [58] |
Social Media Integration (SMI) | Measuring the citizen social networking activities and understanding their concept towards electronic government service. | Bonsón et al. [59] |
Mobile Service Combination (MSI) | Measuring citizen concept toward integrated mobile government service and their understanding. | Al-Hujran [60], Zamzami and Mahmud [61] |
Personalized User Account (PUA) | Measuring and understanding citizen concept related to a personalized user account in electronic government service. | Thongpapanl and Rehman Ashraf [62], Liao et al. [63] |
Electronic Participation Service Integration (PSI) | Measuring citizen opinion of e-participation service combination in electronic government service. | Zheng et al. [64] and Themistocleous et al. [65] |
Currentness of Public Information (CPI) | Understanding citizen awareness of the current situation. | Lee and Kozar [66], Smith [67], Dragulanescu [68], and Lakeworth [69] |
Characteristic | Items | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 225 | 53% |
Female | 200 | 47% | |
Education Level | High School | 100 | 24% |
Undergraduate | 186 | 44% | |
Post Graduate | 139 | 33% | |
Experience using Electronic Government | Less than 1 year | 71 | 17% |
2–3 years | 226 | 53% | |
More than 3 years | 128 | 30% | |
Age | Less than 25 years old | 75 | 18% |
26–30 years old | 105 | 25% | |
31–35 years old | 132 | 31% | |
More than 36 years | 113 | 27% |
Quantify Items | |
---|---|
Relationship Quality, source [25,56,70] | |
SAT1 | How satisfied are you with electronic government service? |
SAT2 | I felt happy with the experience during using of the electronic government |
SAT3 | Overall, I felt satisfied using the electronic government |
TR1 | Electronic government service is credence worthy |
TR2 | I have full confidence in the electronic government service |
TR3 | If I required help, the provider would do his/her best service to help me. |
Public Perceived Intention, source [24,71,72] | |
PPI1 | I am likely to use electronic government service |
PPI2 | I would consider using electronic government service in the future |
PPI3 | It is possible that I will use electronic government service in the near future. |
Public Faithfulness or loyalty, source [57,73] | |
PL1 | I will use another electronic government service offered by the government in the future |
PL2 | I will suggest or encourage to colleagues and society to use electronic government service |
PL3 | I intend to recommend using electronic government service to others |
Full Online Service, source [58] | |
FOS1 | The full online service encourages me to use electronic government service. |
FOS2 | Full online service in electronic government makes me feel comfortable |
FOS3 | The full online service in electronic government are very helpful for me |
Social Media Integration, source [56,80] | |
SMI1 | Social media combination is helpful in order to encourage me to use electronic Government |
SMI2 | I intend to recommend use electronic government service to others through social media |
SMI3 | Using social media, easily for me to get information, electronic government link directly |
Mobile Service Integration, source [60,61] | |
MSI1 | Mobile service combination makes electronic government easier to use |
MSI2 | Mobile government is suitable for my current needs |
MSI3 | I support the government to expand mobile service |
Personalized User Account, source [62,63] | |
PUA1 | Currently, I need a personalized user account for electronic government facilities |
PUA2 | Having personalized user accounts in electronic government facilities helps me increase my productivity |
PUA3 | Personalized user account in electronic government service makes me more comfortable in interacting |
Electronic Participation Service Integration, source [64,65] | |
PSI1 | Combination of electronic participation facilities in electronic government makes me feel free to give opinions to the government |
PSI2 | E-participation service is beneficial for me |
PSI3 | Using e-participation service, I can interact with the government easily |
Currentness of Public Information, Source [66,67,68,69] | |
CPI1 | I need information up to date and an official from the government |
CPI2 | The ongoing of citizen information make me feel satisfied using electronic government |
CPI3 | I will credence electronic government service if they can give me ongoing of citizen information |
Quantify Item | Factor Loading | AVE | Composite Dependability | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|
CPI | CPI1 = 0.918 | 0.8843 | 0.9582 | 0.9347 |
CPI2 = 0.954 | ||||
CPI3 = 0.949 | ||||
FOS | FOS1 = 0.904 | 0.7817 | 0.9148 | 0.8604 |
FOS2 = 0.879 | ||||
FOS3 = 0.869 | ||||
MSI | MSI1 = 0.911 | 0.8105 | 0.9277 | 0.8832 |
MSI2 = 0.904 | ||||
MSI3 = 0.886 | ||||
PL | PL1 = 0.904 | 0.8137 | 0.9291 | 0.8867 |
PL2 = 0.904 | ||||
PL3 = 0.899 | ||||
PPI | PPI1 = 0.893 | 0.772 | 0.9103 | 0.8521 |
PPI2 = 0.856 | ||||
PPI3 = 0.887 | ||||
PSI | PSI1 = 0.793 | 0.7748 | 0.9113 | 0.8545 |
PSI2 = 0.930 | ||||
PSI3 = 0.912 | ||||
PUA | PUA1 = 0.919 | 0.7914 | 0.9189 | 0.8682 |
PUA2 = 0.934 | ||||
PUA3 = 0.811 | ||||
SAT | SAT1 = 0.902 | 0.7952 | 0.9209 | 0.871 |
SAT2 = 0.859 | ||||
SAT3 = 0.913 | ||||
SMI | SMI1 = 0.925 | 0.7873 | 0.9171 | 0.8663 |
SMI2 = 0.815 | ||||
SMI3 = 0.918 | ||||
TR | TR1 = 0.841 | 0.784 | 0.9158 | 0.862 |
TR2 = 0.919 | ||||
TR3 = 0.895 |
CPI | FOS | MSI | PL | PPI | PSI | PUA | SAT | SMI | TR | |
CPI1 | 0.918 | 0.549 | 0.555 | 0.766 | 0.758 | 0.799 | 0.589 | 0.518 | 0.503 | 0.682 |
CPI2 | 0.954 | 0.649 | 0.649 | 0.850 | 0.842 | 0.810 | 0.690 | 0.634 | 0.569 | 0.766 |
CPI3 | 0.949 | 0.676 | 0.679 | 0.899 | 0.896 | 0.818 | 0.696 | 0.642 | 0.597 | 0.828 |
FOS1 | 0.638 | 0.904 | 0.901 | 0.769 | 0.753 | 0.667 | 0.812 | 0.795 | 0.804 | 0.803 |
FOS2 | 0.614 | 0.879 | 0.862 | 0.767 | 0.748 | 0.649 | 0.821 | 0.858 | 0.667 | 0.785 |
FOS3 | 0.514 | 0.869 | 0.859 | 0.672 | 0.635 | 0.534 | 0.745 | 0.840 | 0.701 | 0.735 |
MSI1 | 0.646 | 0.904 | 0.911 | 0.779 | 0.765 | 0.675 | 0.821 | 0.801 | 0.812 | 0.811 |
MSI2 | 0.626 | 0.891 | 0.904 | 0.796 | 0.778 | 0.664 | 0.855 | 0.907 | 0.707 | 0.821 |
MSI3 | 0.536 | 0.875 | 0.886 | 0.701 | 0.659 | 0.565 | 0.775 | 0.869 | 0.720 | 0.766 |
PL1 | 0.807 | 0.686 | 0.695 | 0.904 | 0.905 | 0.930 | 0.732 | 0.682 | 0.665 | 0.760 |
PL2 | 0.695 | 0.866 | 0.881 | 0.904 | 0.862 | 0.695 | 0.919 | 0.932 | 0.723 | 0.930 |
PL3 | 0.949 | 0.676 | 0.679 | 0.899 | 0.896 | 0.818 | 0.696 | 0.642 | 0.597 | 0.828 |
PPI1 | 0.771 | 0.657 | 0.662 | 0.860 | 0.893 | 0.890 | 0.693 | 0.654 | 0.639 | 0.719 |
PPI2 | 0.668 | 0.833 | 0.850 | 0.869 | 0.856 | 0.681 | 0.880 | 0.882 | 0.711 | 0.882 |
PPI3 | 0.899 | 0.642 | 0.646 | 0.858 | 0.887 | 0.781 | 0.668 | 0.616 | 0.560 | 0.788 |
PSI1 | 0.616 | 0.471 | 0.474 | 0.601 | 0.610 | 0.793 | 0.585 | 0.448 | 0.594 | 0.539 |
PSI2 | 0.807 | 0.686 | 0.695 | 0.904 | 0.905 | 0.930 | 0.732 | 0.682 | 0.665 | 0.760 |
PSI3 | 0.825 | 0.662 | 0.667 | 0.809 | 0.805 | 0.912 | 0.689 | 0.626 | 0.581 | 0.732 |
PUA1 | 0.695 | 0.866 | 0.881 | 0.904 | 0.862 | 0.695 | 0.919 | 0.932 | 0.723 | 0.930 |
PUA2 | 0.619 | 0.823 | 0.833 | 0.765 | 0.731 | 0.665 | 0.934 | 0.820 | 0.752 | 0.897 |
PUA3 | 0.550 | 0.690 | 0.693 | 0.651 | 0.652 | 0.695 | 0.811 | 0.638 | 0.762 | 0.662 |
SAT1 | 0.605 | 0.870 | 0.879 | 0.779 | 0.770 | 0.656 | 0.842 | 0.902 | 0.699 | 0.805 |
SAT2 | 0.501 | 0.852 | 0.862 | 0.670 | 0.625 | 0.534 | 0.755 | 0.859 | 0.704 | 0.738 |
SAT3 | 0.602 | 0.795 | 0.815 | 0.819 | 0.779 | 0.617 | 0.834 | 0.913 | 0.649 | 0.845 |
SMI1 | 0.609 | 0.780 | 0.789 | 0.759 | 0.732 | 0.677 | 0.802 | 0.751 | 0.925 | 0.762 |
SMI2 | 0.325 | 0.583 | 0.587 | 0.432 | 0.431 | 0.438 | 0.590 | 0.514 | 0.815 | 0.472 |
SMI3 | 0.592 | 0.786 | 0.797 | 0.715 | 0.707 | 0.689 | 0.785 | 0.733 | 0.918 | 0.724 |
TR1 | 0.913 | 0.662 | 0.665 | 0.885 | 0.878 | 0.792 | 0.701 | 0.641 | 0.575 | 0.841 |
TR2 | 0.659 | 0.852 | 0.869 | 0.870 | 0.827 | 0.662 | 0.886 | 0.914 | 0.698 | 0.919 |
TR3 | 0.613 | 0.800 | 0.810 | 0.748 | 0.712 | 0.635 | 0.913 | 0.797 | 0.724 | 0.895 |
CPI | FOS | MSI | PL | PPI | PSI | PUA | SAT | SMI | TR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CPI | 0.940 | |||||||||
FOS | 0.668 | 0.884 | ||||||||
MSI | 0.671 | 0.839 | 0.900 | |||||||
PL | 0.895 | 0.835 | 0.845 | 0.902 | ||||||
PPI | 0.888 | 0.808 | 0.818 | 0.981 | 0.879 | |||||
PSI | 0.860 | 0.700 | 0.707 | 0.831 | 0.793 | 0.880 | ||||
PUA | 0.703 | 0.828 | 0.809 | 0.880 | 0.849 | 0.764 | 0.890 | |||
SAT | 0.640 | 0.840 | 0.854 | 0.850 | 0.815 | 0.677 | 0.809 | 0.892 | ||
SMI | 0.594 | 0.819 | 0.829 | 0.739 | 0.724 | 0.695 | 0.830 | 0.766 | 0.887 | |
TR | 0.811 | 0.877 | 0.828 | 0.939 | 0.806 | 0.780 | 0.846 | 0.794 | 0.755 | 0.885 |
Hypothesis | Path Hypothesis | Number of Path Coefficient | Results of t-Value | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | RQ -> PPI | 0.5184 | 3.7301 | Accepted |
H2 | RQ -> PL | 0.9226 | 71.2221 | Accepted |
H3 | FOS -> PPI | −0.04 | 0.2358 | Rejected |
H4 | FOS -> RQ | −0.15 | 0.7916 | Rejected |
H5 | MSI -> PPI | −0.0513 | 0.264 | Rejected |
H6 | MSI -> RQ | 0.6383 | 3.2442 | Accepted |
H7 | SMI -> RQ | −0.1417 | 3.1773 | Accepted |
H8 | PUA -> RQ | 0.5552 | 6.9308 | Accepted |
H9 | PSI -> RQ | −0.0777 | 1.4995 | Rejected |
H10 | PSI -> PPI | 0.3283 | 4.8841 | Accepted |
H11 | CPI -> PPI | 0.2774 | 4.9594 | Accepted |
H12 | CPI -> RQ | 0.184 | 3.6864 | Accepted |
Construct | Relationship Construct | Number of t-Value | Number of Sobel Test’s with z-Value |
---|---|---|---|
SMI—RQ—PPI | SMI—RQ | 3.1773 | 2.4187 * |
RQ—PPI | 3.7301 | ||
SMI—RQ—PL | SMI—RQ | 3.1773 | 3.1741 ** |
RQ—PL | 71.2221 | ||
PUA—RQ—PPI | PUA—RQ | 6.9308 | 3.2846 ** |
RQ—PPI | 3.7301 | ||
PUA—RQ—PL | PUA—RQ | 6.9308 | 6.8982 ** |
RQ—PL | 71.2221 | ||
CPI—RQ—PPI | CPI—RQ | 3.6864 | 2.6219 ** |
RQ—PPI | 3.7301 | ||
CPI—RQ—PL | CPI—RQ | 3.6864 | 3.6814 *** |
RQ—PL | 71.2221 | ||
MSI—RQ—PPI | MSI—RQ | 3.2442 | 2.4478 * |
RQ—PPI | 3.7301 | ||
MSI—RQ—PL | MSI—RQ | 3.2442 | 3.2408 ** |
RQ—PL | 71.2221 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hariguna, T.; Ruangkanjanases, A.; Sarmini. Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service: The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137464
Hariguna T, Ruangkanjanases A, Sarmini. Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service: The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137464
Chicago/Turabian StyleHariguna, Taqwa, Athapol Ruangkanjanases, and Sarmini. 2021. "Public Behavior as an Output of E-Government Service: The Role of New Technology Integrated in E-Government and Antecedent of Relationship Quality" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137464