The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Citizens’ Use of Social Media in Government, Perceived Transparency, and Trust in Government
Abstract
:Governments are adopting social media to provide complementary information dissemination, communication, and participation channels whereby citizens can access government and government officials and make informed decisions. Using 2009 national e-government survey data from the Pew Research Center, this study finds (1) that use of government social media is significantly and positively associated with perceptions of government transparency, (2) that perceptions of government transparency are positively and significantly related to trust in government, and (3) that perceptions of government transparency mediate the relationship between use of government social media and trust in government. These findings demonstrate that social media is an effective means for government to improve citizens’ trust in government by enhancing their perceptions of government transparency. The study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence of the mediating role of perceived government transparency in linking the use of e-government to trust in government.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 · Cited by 17,875 · cited 1×
“By their nature, social media afford easy access to information through convenient devices like cellphones and tablets, enable user-created content, and provide visible social connections (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Nakki et al., 2011).”
BackgroundSPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335
Modern Methods for Business Research
(1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410604385 · Cited by 6,534
Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x · Cited by 3,410 · cited 2×
“The construct of citizens’ use of social media in government is modeled to be formative in this study because the causality direction is from the measurement items to the construct, and the measurement items do not necessarily have to be correlated (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006).”
BackgroundBertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001 · Cited by 2,451
Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government
Welch, E. W. (2004) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mui021 · Cited by 1,222
The Effects of E‐Government on Trust and Confidence in Government
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x · Cited by 1,092
Cited by
Building trust while influencing online COVID-19 content in the social media world
Limaye, R. J., Sauer, M., Ali, J., Bernstein, J., Wahl, B., Barnhill, A., & Labrique, A. (2020) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(20)30084-4 · Cited by 357
Wang, C., Teo, T. S. H., & Janssen, M. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102401 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- Song, C., & Lee, J.
- Venue
- Public Performance & Management Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-12-14
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 430-453
- ISSN
- 1530-9576 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-9271
- OpenAlex
- W2218119186
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 74.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
