Service source and channel choice in G2C service environments: a model comparison in the anti/counter‐terrorism domain¹

Abstract

This paper compares the relative advantages of two models (a) a two‐factor (i.e. source and channel) choice model; and (b) a theory of planned behaviour (TPB)–based acceptance model, developed to explain electronic government (e‐government) service adoption. The models were empirically validated in the government‐to‐citizen (G2C) anti/counter‐terrorism (ACT) service domain by a telephone survey administered to a sample of 500 US residents systematically drawn from the mainland USA. The structured telephone survey questionnaire measured respondents' intentions to use Web‐based ACT services and their beliefs and attitudes towards various ACT service providers (e.g. the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, local police, non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and news companies) and media (e.g. Web, email, telephone, TV, newspapers, postal mail). The results of multiple‐regression analysis of the 500 interview responses show that the source–channel choice model can explain the service usage intentions as well as, or better than, the TPB‐based acceptance model. Both service source and channel exerted consistent and substantive effects on citizens' intention to use ACT services, explaining, on average, more than 43% of variance in the dependent variable. In contrast, subjective norms in the TPB‐based model seemed to have a marginal effect. Privacy protection and integrity of the service source appeared to be key antecedents of source preference, while the influence of channel attributes on channel preference varied widely depending on the type of services. This study provides an empirical basis for the validity and applicability of the source–channel choice model and offers insightful and prescriptive knowledge for e‐government initiatives and service providers.

Egovernment Digital Adoption: Can Channel Choice of Individuals Be Predicted?

“…Channel characteristics includes elements of the Technology Adoption Model (TAM), including the channels perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness (Pieterson 2010;Barth & Veit 2011;Mundy, Umer & Foster 2011;Teerling & Pieterson 2011). Additional research also discusses levels of interactivity required and the multiple cues in the channels space (Pieterson and van Dijk 2007;Pieterson & Teerling 2009;Ebbers, Pieterson and Noordman 2008;Pieterson, Teerling and Ebbers 2008;Pang, Mithas & Lucas 2013;Lee & Rao 2012). Satisfaction forms a key part of channel choice, this can include the level of satisfaction with a provided channel, this can include the previous encounters with the service and future encounters are often impacted by experiences (Reddick & Anthopoulos 2014;Reddick & Turner 2012).…”

Channel Choice: A Literature Review

“…Four papers are labeled as 'combined' as they rely on several methods. [4], [8], [40]- [48] Case studies and surveys are the most frequently applied methods. Eighteen papers include results from surveys, but only eleven use surveys as a primary method; ten study the factors that influence citizens' choice of channels and one studies the adoption of multiple channels in organizations.…”

“…Table 6 presents the factors studied, and the papers which study them. [3], [4], [8], [17], [26], [29], [32], [38], [40]- [42], [44], [45], [48] [3], [26], [29], [32], [38], [40], [41], [47], [48]…”

Electronic government adoption in developing countries: the case of the Indonesian electronic procurement system

“…Risk and Trust (Belanger and Carter, 2008, Beldad et al, 2010, Carter et al, 2012, Horst et al, 2007b, Hussein et al, 2010, Mercuri, 2005, Rotchanakitumnuai, 2009, Sedaghat et al, 2007, Selke et al, 2008, Sweeney, 2007 10 DM-IS (Alruwaie et al, 2012, Floropoulos et al, 2010, Hussein et al, 2007, Jang, 2010, Kim and Song, 2009, Rana et al, 2013, Teo et al, 2008, Teo et al, 2009b, Wang and Liao, 2008b, Wang and Liao, 2008a 10 TPB (Chu et al, 2004, Hung et al, 2009, Lee and Rao, 2012, Shareef et al, 2011 4 (Al-Zoubi et al, 2011, Bigdeil et al, 2013, Pudjianto et al, 2011, Pudjianto and Hangjung, 2009, Srivastava and Teo, 2007, Srivastava and Teo, 2006, Srivastava and Teo, 2010 7 ~ 14 ~…”