This exploratory study examines the effects of nondemographic characteristics on the adoption of e-government services in the United States combining two main theoretical perspectives: diffusion of innovations and the technology acceptance model. The results of a national survey suggest that nondemographic audience characteristics influence e-government adoption. The study adds to previous research in the area by identifying several sociopsychological characteristics that play a role in the adoption process: perceived usefulness, perceived uncertainty, and civic mindedness. The study also ascertains the influence of interpersonal communication and mass media channels on e-government adoption. Theoretical implications for future researchers and policy implications for producers of governmental web sites are discussed.
Bandiera, O., & Rasul, I. (2003). Complementarities, social networks and technology adoption in Mozambique. Retrieved September 6, 2004, fromhttp://econ.lse.ac.uk/staff/bandiera/adoption.pdf
2.
Bowerman, B. L., & O'Connell, R. T. (1990). Linear statistical models: An applied approach. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
3.
Bretschneider, S., Gant, J.,& Ahn, M. (2003, October). A general model of e-government adoption and diffusion. Paper presented at Public Management Research Conference, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
4.
Brint, S., & Levy, C. (1999). Professions and civic engagement: Trends in rhetoric and practice, 1875-1995. In T. Skocpol & M. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy(pp. 163-210). New York: Russell Sage.
5.
Comley, P. (1996). The use of Internet as a data collection method. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://www.virtualsurveys.com/news/papers/paper_9.asp
6.
Compeau, D. R.,& Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 9, 189-211.
7.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
8.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
9.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
10.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2002). Beyond demographic variables: Using psychological research to narrate the story of Internet users. Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education, 2(3). Retrieved August 12, 2004, from http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/journal/ejournals/simile
11.
General Accounting Office. (2001). Electronic government: Challenges must be addressed with effective leadership and management. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
Hart-Teeter. (2003). The new e-government equation: Ease, engagement, privacy and protection. Retrieved August 15, 2004, from http://www.cio.gov/documents/egovpoll2003.pdf
13.
Ho, A. T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434-444.
14.
Internet World Stats. (2004). World Internet usage and population statistics. Retrieved August 1, 2004, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm_top25
15.
Keum, H., Devanathan, N., Deshpande, S., Nelson, M. R., & Shah, D. V. (2004). The citizen-consumer: Media effects at the intersection of consumer and civic culture. Political Communication, 21, 369-391.
16.
Lin, C. A. (2003). An interactive communication technology adoption model. Communication Theory, 13, 345-365.
17.
Lynch, P. D., Kent, R. J.,& Srinivasan, S. S. (2001). The global Internet shopper: Evidence from shopping tasks in twelve countries. Journal of Advertising Research, 41, 15-23.
Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review, 62, 424-433.
20.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
21.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2004, May 24). How Americans get in touch with government. Retrieved July 22, 2004, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_E-Gov_Report_0504.pdf
22.
Raman, N. V.,& Leckenby, J. D. (1998). Factors affecting consumers' “Webad” visits. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 737-748.
23.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations(4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
24.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations(5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
25.
Schonlau, M., Fricker, R. D., & Elliott, M. N. (2001). Conducting research surveys via e-mail and the Web. Retrieved August 18, 2004, from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1480/
26.
Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beiser, S., Larson, T., et al. (2004). Digital citizenship. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 256-269.
27.
Skocpol, T.,& Fiorina, M. (Eds.). (1999). Civic engagement in American democracy. NewYork: Russell Sage.
28.
Smith, C. B. (1997). Casting the net: Surveying an Internet population. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1). Retrieved August 20, 2004, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue1/smith.html
29.
Steyaert, J. (2000). Local governments online and the role of the resident: Government shop versus electronic community. Social Science Computer Review, 18, 3-16.
30.
Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of egovernment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83-102.
31.
Townsend, B. (1987). Market segmentation: Using demographics, psychographics, and other segmentation techniques to uncover and exploit new markets. American Demographics, 9(6), 10-11.
32.
United Nations. (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. New York: American Society for Public Administration.
33.
Venkatesh, V.,& Davis, F. D. (2000). Atheoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
34.
Weber, L. M., Loumakis, A., & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 26-43.
35.
West, D. (2000). Assessing e-government: The Internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments. Retrieved April 3, 2004, from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html
36.
West, D. (2004). E-Government and transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.
