skip to main content
10.1145/3556089.3556110acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicemeConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Investigation on citizen trust towards e-government services in GBA – A study on WeChat and Alipay government service mini-programs

Published:30 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Citizens' trust in eGovernment is crucial for the successful implementation of new electronic services. This relationship in the Greater Bay Area (GBA) plays an essential role since the Government services rely on mobile mini-programs This study investigates the trust towards government service mini-programs in WeChat and Alipay. A user feedback questionnaire was designed, and a total of 609 valid samples were collected from Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Macau. The findings imply that competence, integrity, and benevolence are the key components of trust in e-government (TIEG). TIEG positively influences perceived value (PV), which positively affects citizens' Intention to adopt service mini-programs. PV significantly mediates the relationship between TIEG and Intention. Although TIEG does not effectively reduce perceived risk (PR), risk issues cannot be ignored in the adoption process. Finally, this article proposes relevant implications and suggestions for the GBA government agents and policy makers.

References

  1. iResearch Global. iResearch China's Third-Party Mobile Payment Structure in Q2 2019. http://www.iresearchchina.com/content/details7_58033.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. QuestMobile. QuestMobile 2020 China Mobile Internet Spring Report 2020. www.questmobile.com.cn/research/report-new/90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. CPC Central Committee, State Council. Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. MerhiM, HoneK, TarhiniA. A cross-cultural study of the intention to use mobile banking between Lebanese and British consumers: Extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy and trust. Technol Soc 2019;59:101151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. AlzahraniL, Al-KaraghouliW, WeerakkodyV. Investigating the impact of citizens’ trust toward the successful adoption of e-government: A multigroup analysis of gender, age, and internet experience. Inf Syst Manag 2018;35:124–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2018.1440730.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Abu-ShanabE. Antecedents of trust in e-government services: an empirical test in Jordan. Transform Gov People, Process Policy 2014;8:480–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-08-2013-0027.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. JanssenM, RanaNP, SladeEL, DwivediYK. Trustworthiness of digital government services: deriving a comprehensive theory through interpretive structural modelling. Public Manag Rev 2018;20:647–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1305689.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. KumarR, SachanA, MukherjeeA. Direct vs indirect e-government adoption: an exploratory study. Digit POLICY, Regul Gov 2018;20:149–62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. LianJ-W. Critical factors for cloud based e-invoice service adoption in Taiwan: An empirical study. Int J Inf Manage 2015;35:98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. GrimmelikhuijsenS, KniesE. Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. Int Rev Adm Sci 2017;83:583–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315585950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. MayerRC, DavisJH, David SchoormanF. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad Manag Rev 1995;20:709–34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. PorumbescuGA. Placing the Effect? Gleaning Insights into the Relationship between Citizens’ Use of E-Government and Trust in Government. Public Manag Rev 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1122827.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. ColquittJA, ScottBA, LePineJA. Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Unique Relationships With Risk Taking and Job Performance. J Appl Psychol 2007;92:909–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. GefenD, KarahannaE, StraubDW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Q 2003;27:51–90. https://doi.org/10.1021/es60170a601.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. AlzahraniL, Al-KaraghouliW, WeerakkodyV. Analysing the critical factors influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic review and a conceptual framework. Int Bus Rev 2017;26:164–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.06.004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. SharmaR, MishraR. Investigating the role of intermediaries in adoption of public access outlets for delivery of e-Government services in developing countries: An empirical study. Gov Inf Q 2017;34:658–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. HorstM, KuttschreuterM, GuttelingJM. Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Comput Human Behav 2007;23:1838–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.11.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. KhanS, RahimZA, MaaropN. Towards the Development of a Citizens’ Trust Model in Using Social Media for e-Government Services: The Context of Pakistan. Recent Trends Data Sci. Soft Comput. IRICT 2018. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. vol 843. Springer, Cham, 2019, p. 1002–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99007-1_93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. ChatzoglouP, ChatzoudesD, SymeonidisS. Factors affecting the intention to use e-Government services. Proc. Fed. Conf. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst., vol. 5, 2015, p. 1489–98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. ZeithamlVA. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. J Mark 1988;52:2–22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. WangC, TeoTSH. Online service quality and perceived value in mobile government success: An empirical study of mobile police in China. Int J Inf Manage 2020;52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102076.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. KimH-W, ChanHC, GuptaS. Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation. Decis Support Syst 2007:111–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. LinT-C, WuS, HsuJS-C, ChouY-C. The integration of value-based adoption and expectation–confirmation models: An example of IPTV continuance intention. Decis Support Syst 2012:63–75.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. ChenL, AklikokouAK. Determinants of E-government Adoption: Testing the Mediating Effects of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. Int J Public Adm 2019:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1660989.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. XieQ, SongW, PengX, ShabbirM. Predictors for e-government adoption: integrating TAM, TPB, trust and perceived risk. J Enterp Inf Manag 2017;35:303–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2015-0141.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. ShawN, SergueevaK. The non-monetary benefits of mobile commerce: Extending UTAUT2 with perceived value. Int J Inf Manage 2019:44–55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. AloudatA, MichaelK, ChenX, Al-DebeiMM. Social acceptance of location-based mobile government services for emergency management. Telemat Informatics 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.02.002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. FeathermanMS, PavlouPA. Predicting e-services adoption: a perceived risk perspective. Int J Human-Computer Study 2003:451–74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Sofia ElenaC. Increasing E-Trust: A Solution to Minimize Risk in E Government Adoption. J Appl Quant Methods 2009;4:31–44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. VeeramootooN, DwivediYK, NunkooR, DwivediYK. What determines success of an e-government service? Validation of an integrative model of e-filing continuance usage. Gov Inf Q 2018;35:161–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.03.004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. RehmanM, KamalMM, EsichaikulV. Adoption of e-Government Services in Pakistan: A Comparative Study Between Online and Offline Users. Inf Syst Manag 2016;33:248–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2016.1188570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. ErogluSA, A. MachleitK, M. Davis.L. Empirical Testing of a Model of Online Store Atmospherics and Shopper Responses. Psychol Mark 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. KhanIU, HameedZ, YuY, KhanSU. Assessing the determinants of flow experience in the adoption of learning management systems: the moderating role of perceived institutional support. Behav Inf Technol 2017;36:1162–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1362475.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. LiuH, ChuH, HuangQ, ChenX. Enhancing the flow experience of consumers in China through interpersonal interaction in social commerce. Comput Human Behav 2016:306–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. DavisFD, BagozziRP, WarshawPR. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Manage Sci 1989;35:982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. JayashankarP, NilakantaS, JohnstonWJ, GillP, BurresR. IoT adoption in agriculture: the role of trust, perceived value and risk. J Bus Ind Mark 2018;33:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2018-0023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. SladeEL, DwivediYK, PiercyNC, WilliamsMD. Modeling Consumers’ Adoption Intentions of Remote Mobile Payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with Innovativeness, Risk, and Trust. Psychol Mark 2015;32:860–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. KimM-K, JeesunO, ParkJ-H, JooC. Perceived value and adoption intention for electric vehicles in Korea: Moderating effects of environmental traits and government supports. Energy 2018:799–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.06.064.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. XieJ, YeL, HuangW, YeM. Understanding fintech platform adoption: Impacts of perceived value and perceived risk. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 2021;16:1893–911. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16050106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. WuB, AndrizalK. Perceived value and willingness to consume in online mobile games. Soc Behav Pers 2021;49:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. GaoY, WangJ, LiuC. Social media's effect on fitness behavior intention: Perceived value as a mediator. Soc Behav Pers 2021;49:1–11. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.10300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. SharmaVM, KleinA. Consumer perceived value, involvement, trust, susceptibility to interpersonal influence, and intention to participate in online group buying. J Retail Consum Serv 2020;52:1–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101946.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. ChenC-C, YaoJ-Y. What drives impulse buying behaviors in a mobile auction? The perspective of the Stimulus-Organism-Response model. Telemat Informatics 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. IsraelD, TiwariR. Empirical Study of Factors Influencing Acceptance of E-Government Services in India. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Theory Pract. Electron. Gov., vol. September, 2011, p. 141–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. HartantiFT, AbawajyJH, ChowdhuryM, ShalannandaW, HartantiFT. Citizens’ Trust Measurement in Smart Government Services. IEEE Access 2021;9:150663–76. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3124206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. WangES, LinR-L. Perceived quality factors of location-based apps on trust, perceived privacy risk, and continuous usage intention. Behav Inf Technol 2017;36:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2016.1143033.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. McknightDH, ChoudhuryV, KacmarC. Developing and Validating Trust Measures for e-Commerce: An Integrative Typology. Inf Syst Res 2002;13:334–59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. PavlouPA. Consumer Acceptance of Electronic Commerce: Integrating Trust and Risk with the Technology Acceptance Model. Int J Electron Commer 2003;7:101–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. KimYJ, HollingsheadAB. Online Social Influence: Past, Present, and Future. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc., vol. 39, 2015, p. 163–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. HullandJ. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 1999;20:195–204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. BagozziRP, YiY. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 1988;16:74–94.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. FornellC, DavidLF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measuremnet error: algebra and statistics. 1981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Hair F. JosephJ, BlackWC, BabinBJ, AndersonRE. Multivariate Data Analysis. A Global Perspective. 1998. https://doi.org/10.2307/1266874.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. HuL-T, BentlerPM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J 2009;6:1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. MulaikSA, JamesLR, VanAlstineJ, BennettN, LindS, StilwellCD. Evaluation of Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models. Psychol Bull 1989;105:430–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. EffronB. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. Ann Stat 1979;7:1–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. GrimmelikhuijsenS. Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust? Inf Polity 2009;14:173–86. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2009-0175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. SharmaR, MishraR. Investigating the role of intermediaries in adoption of public access outlets for delivery of e-Government services in developing countries: An empirical study. Gov Inf Q 2017:658–79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Chee-WeeT, BenbasatI, CenfetelliRT. Building citizen trust towards e-government services: Do high quality websites matter? Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., 2008, p. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. PorumbescuGA, NeshkovaMI, HuntoonM. The effects of police performance on agency trustworthiness and citizen participation. Public Manag Rev 2019;21:212–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1473473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. JiL, YiminW. China Digital Government Construction Report. First. Social Sciences Academic Press (CHINA); 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Investigation on citizen trust towards e-government services in GBA – A study on WeChat and Alipay government service mini-programs

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ICEME '22: Proceedings of the 2022 13th International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics
          July 2022
          691 pages
          ISBN:9781450396394
          DOI:10.1145/3556089

          Copyright © 2022 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 30 November 2022

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)28
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader