E‐voting: from apathy to adoption

L.Christian Schaupp1, LemuriaCarter2
1Cameron School of Business, University of North Carolina, Wilmington, North Carolina, USA
2Pamplin School of Business, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA

Tóm tắt

Purpose

To identify the factors that influence adoption of e‐voting services by citizens between the ages of 18‐24.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses Carter and Belanger's (2005) model of e‐government adoption to assess young voters' intention to use an online voting system. The study integrates constructs from technology acceptance, diffusion of innovation, and web trust models. A survey is administered to 208 young voters. The data is analyzed using multiple regression analysis.

Findings

Results indicate that user perceptions of compatibility, usefulness, and trust significantly impact their intention to use an electronic‐voting system. The model explains 76 percent of the variance in young voters' intention to use an e‐voting system.

Research limitations/implications

The study only explores the perceptions of one age group. Future studies could use the model to access adoption perceptions of a more diverse pool of citizens.

Practical implications

Government agencies should emphasize the benefits of this electronic service to young voters. If marketed properly, the convenience and compatibility of e‐voting may be influential enough to motivate this normally apathetic demographic to participate in the election process.

Originality/value

This study explores adoption of internet voting by young citizens. An understanding of the factors that influence this demographics' intention to use e‐voting systems can be used to increase voter participation. The findings of this study also lay the foundation for future studies on e‐voting adoption.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Becerra, M. and Gupta, A.K. (1999), “Trust within the organization: integrating the trust literature with agency theory and transaction costs economics”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 177‐203.

Burn, J. and Robins, G. (2003), “Moving towards e‐government: a case study of organizational change processes”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 25‐35.

Carter, L. and Belanger, F. (2004), “The influence of perceived characteristics of innovating on e‐government adoption”, Electronic Journal of E‐government, Vol. 2 No. 1.

Carter, L. and Belanger, F. (2005), “The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust innovation and acceptance factors”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 5‐25.

Collins, N. and Butler, P. (2002), “The marketplace, e‐government and e‐democracy”, Iris Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 86‐93.

Cronbach, L. (1970), Essentials of Psychology Testing, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319‐40.

Done, R.S. (2002), “Internet voting: bringing elections to the desktop”, The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government. E‐government Series, February.

Eggers, W.D. (2005), Government 2.0 Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham.

Ganesan, S. and Hess, R. (1997), “Dimensions and levels of trust: implications for commitment to a relationship”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439‐48.

GAO, General Accounting Office (2004), “Electronic voting offers opportunities and presents challenges”, 20 July 2004, available at: www.gao.gov/new.items/d04975t.pdf (accessed 1 September 2004).

Gefen, D. (2000), “E‐commerce: the role of familiarity and trust”, Omega: The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 725‐37.

Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2000), “The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study of e‐commerce adoption”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1‐28.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51‐90.

Gimpel, J.G. and Schuknecht, J.E. (2003), “Political participation and the accessibility of the ballot box”, Political Geography, Vol. 22, pp. 471‐88.

Hall, T. and Alvarez, M. (2004), American Attitudes about Electronic Voting Results of a National Survey, Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah, 9 September.

Hoeing, C. (2001), “Beyond e‐government”, Government Executive, 1 November, pp. 49‐52.

Hulme, G.V. (2004), “E‐voting systems face security questions”, Information Week, 9 February.

ITAA (2000), “Keeping the faith: government information security in the internet age”, available at: www.itaa.org/infosec/faith.pdf.

Jaeger, P.T. (2003), “The endless wire: e‐government as global phenomenon”, Government Information Quarterly, No. 20, pp. 323‐31.

Jaeger, P.T. and Thompson, I.M. (2003), “E‐government around the world: lessons, challenges, and future directions”, Government Information Quarterly, No. 20, pp. 389‐94.

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D.E. (1998), “Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 29‐64.

Lee, M.K.O. and Turban, E. (2001), “A trust model for internet shopping”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 75‐91.

Lemos, R. (2004), “E‐voting ‘risks fraud’”, available at: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39119276,00.htm (accessed 29 January 2004).

McKnight, H. and Cummings, L. (1998), “Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 473‐90.

McKnight, H., Choudhury, V. and Kacma, C. (2000), “Trust in e‐commerce vendors: a two‐stage model”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, pp. 532‐6.

McKnight, H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “Developing and validating trust measures for e‐commerce: an integrative typology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3.

McMillen, D. (2004), “Privacy, confidentiality, and data sharing: issues and distinctions”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 359‐82.

Macintosh, A. and Whyte, A. (2000), Electronic Democracy and Educating Young People, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napeir University, Edinburgh.

Marche, S. and McNiven, J.D. (2003), “E‐government and e‐governance: the future isn't what it used to be”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 74‐86.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, D. (1995), “An integrative model of organization trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709‐34.

Moon, J‐M. and Kim, Y‐G. (2001), “Extending the TAM for a world‐wide‐web context”, Information and Management, No. 28, pp. 217‐30.

Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 173‐91.

Mote, C.D. (2001), E‐voting Report: Report of the National Workshop on Internet Voting: Issues and Research Agenda, Internet Policy Institute, March.

Pavlou, P.A. (2003), “Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 69‐103.

Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Storer, T. and Duncan, I. (2004), “Polsterless remote electronic voting”, Journal of E‐Government, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 75‐103.

The State News (2004), available at: www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=21398 (accessed 30 January 2004).

Thomas, J.C. and Streib, G. (2003), “The new face of government: citizen‐initiated contacts in the era of e‐government”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 83‐102.

Toregas, C. (2001), “The politics of e‐gov: the upcoming struggle for redefining civic engagement”, National Civic Review, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 235‐40.

Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption‐implementation: a meta‐analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 28‐45.

Touch plc. (2002), “Survey shows electorate eager to vote online”, available at: www.touchplc.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=251 (accessed 1 February 2004).

USA Votenet (2002), available at: www.usavotenet.com (accessed 1 February 2004).

Van Slyke, C., Bélanger, F. and Comunale, C. (2004), “Adopting business‐to‐consumer electronic commerce: the effects of trust and perceived innovation characteristics”, accepted 19 February 2003 for the Data Base for Advances in Information Systems.

Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. and Rose, G. (2002), “Encouraging citizen adoption of e‐government by building trust”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 157‐62.

West, D.M. (2004), “E‐government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 15‐27.

Ajzen, I. and Martin, F. (1972), “Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing intentions”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1‐9.

Alvarez, R.M. and Thad, E.H. (2004), Point, Click, and Vote: The Future of Internet Voting, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

GAO (General Accounting Office) McClure, D. (2001), “Electronic government: challenges must be addressed with effective leadership and management”, 11 July, available at: http://feapmo.gov/links.asp (accessed 22 September 2003).

Jarvenpaa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store: a cross‐cultural validation”, Journal of Computer‐mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2.

Matsusaka, J.G. and Palda, F. (1999), “Voter turnout: how much can we explain”, Public Choice, Vol. 98, pp. 431‐46.

Norris, P. (2002), “E‐voting as the magic ballot”, KSG Working Paper Series RWP 02‐016, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

Norris, P. (2003), “Will new technology boost turnout? Evaluating experiments in e‐voting v all‐postal voting facilities in UK local elections”, KSG Working Paper Services RWP 03‐034, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.