2015 - ARPA - Linking Transparency To Trust in Gov

607301
research-article2015
ARPXXX10.1177/0275074015607301American Review of Public AdministrationPorumbescu
Article
Linking Transparency to Trust in

Government and Voice
American Review of Public Administration

124
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0275074015607301
arp.sagepub.com
Gregory Porumbescu1
Abstract
The objective of this study is to provide a more nuanced assessment of the relationship between
public sector transparency and trust in government. Specifically, we examine how different tools
used to enhance transparencysocial media and e-government websitesrelate to citizens
perceptions of government trustworthiness. We then examine how these relationships vary
according to how frequently citizens exercise voice. Findings indicate respondents use of
public sector social media is positively related to perceptions of government trustworthiness.
E-government website use lacks a significant relationship to perceptions of government
trustworthiness. However, a strong negative relationship emerged between e-government
website use and perceptions of trustworthiness as respondents frequency of voice increased.
Keywords
public administration, transparency, international public administration/governance, e-government
The objective of this study is to provide a more nuanced assessment of the relationship between
public sector transparency and trust in government. Specifically, we examine how citizens exposure to different tools used to enhance transparencysocial media and government websites
relate to their perceptions of government trustworthiness. We then examine how these relationships
vary according to how frequently citizens exercise voice. Findings indicate respondents use of
public sector social media is positively related to perceptions of government trustworthiness.
Government website use lacks a significant relationship to perceptions of government trustworthiness. However, a strong negative relationship emerged between government website use and
perceptions of trustworthiness as respondents frequency of voice increased.
Today, governments around the world are making frequent use of information and communication technology (ICT) in an effort enhance public sector transparency. In turn, such efforts have
given way to new and distinct forms of transparency (Meijer, 2009). Practitioners and academics
have generally applauded the use of ICTs to enhance transparency, citing a common belief that
greater transparency can help to allay a number of challenges facing governments today
(Ackerman, 2004; Fox, 2007; Hood, 2006; Obama, 2009).
Perhaps the most significant challenge transparency is believed to mitigate is a long-standing and
widespread decline in levels of citizen trust in government (Chanley, Rudolph, & Rahn, 2000; Miller,
1Northern
Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Gregory Porumbescu, School of Public and Global Affairs, Department of Public Administration, Northern Illinois
University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA.
Email: gporumbescu@niu.edu
Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016
1974). In large part, the belief that greater transparency fosters greater trust in government is premised
upon an assumption that the more objective information citizens have about their government, the more
positively they will perceive their government (Nye, 1997; cf. Buell & Norton, 2013; Mettler, 2011).
Yet, empirical assessments of this relationship have turned back mixed results, leaving many to wonder
what impact transparency has upon citizens trust in government, if any at all (S. Grimmelikhuijsen,
Porumbescu, Hong, & Im, 2013; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005).
This research contributes to the developing body of literature that seeks to substantiate upon
the relationship between transparency and trust in government in two ways. First, we examine
how the relationship between transparency and trust in government varies according to the
medium being used to enhance transparency. A rich vein of empirical research has demonstrated
that the way information is presented bears more significantly upon individuals evaluations of
an object than the actual content of the information (Fiegenbaum & Thomas, 1988; Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974). However, to date, there have been no attempts to examine how relationships
between transparency and trust in government may vary according to the particular medium
being used to enhance transparency. Therefore, the first objective of this study is to examine how
citizens frequency of use of different forms of mediated transparency relates to their levels of
trust in government.1 This study focuses upon citizens frequency of use of two forms of computer-mediated transparency in particular: public sector social media accounts and government
websites. These two mediums are addressed because they present information in very different
wayssocial media is used to provide a general overview of public affairs, whereas government
websites are generally used to provide more detailed information pertaining to the public sector.
Second, we examine how transparency and citizens use of voice interact to frame perceptions of government trustworthiness. Voice, a form of soft accountability (Fox, 2007, p. 668),
and transparency often accompany one another (for a discussion, see Hood, 2010). Yet, despite
the close relationship between transparency and voice, there have been no attempts to examine
how these constructs interact to affect citizens trust in government. Instead, the tacit and general
assumption, with few exceptions (e.g., de Fine Licht, 2014; S. G. Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer,
2014), is that the relationship between transparency and trust in government operates identically
across different types of citizensthat it is strictly lineardespite strong arguments to the contrary (e.g., Cook, Jacobs, & Kim, 2010; Etzioni, 2010). Therefore, the second objective of this
study is to examine whether the relationship between the two forms of computer-mediated transparency examined in this study and trust in government differ according to the frequency with
which citizens exercise voice. Examining how the relationship between transparency and trust
varies according to voice is important because it provides preliminary insights into how citizens
attempts to hold the government accountable relate to their perceptions of government and, therefore, elaborates upon the contours of the relationship between transparency and perceptions of
trustworthiness identified in prior research.
Findings indicate that the medium matters in that the two forms of computer-mediated transparency included in the analyses relate to citizens levels of trust in government differently.
Specifically, citizens frequency of use of government websites for information on public affairs
generally lacks a significant association with citizens levels of trust in government, whereas citizens frequency of use of public sector social media accounts for information about public affairs
is found to be positively associated with citizens levels of trust in government. Moreover, an
inverse relationship emerges between frequency of government website use and trust in government as citizens exercise voice more frequently.
Trust in Government
This study focuses upon citizens trust in a particular public sector institution, the Seoul
Metropolitan Government (SMG). In a broad sense, citizens trust in government is important as
Porumbescu
it speaks to the quality of relationship that exists between citizens and their government.
Furthermore, when viewed through an administrative lens, the value of citizens trust in government is also made apparent through its contributions to public sector efficiency and effectiveness
(Yang & Holzer, 2006). For example, in contexts where trust in government is low, costs of
policy implementation tend to be higher (Scholz & Lubell, 1998), citizens tend to be less willing
to engage with their public institutions (Berman, 1997), and recruitment of talented and motivated personnel to a career in public service becomes more challenging (Van de Walle, 2004).
Conversely, in contexts where levels of trust in government is higher, citizens tend to be more
willing to voluntarily comply with public policies (Im, Cho, Porumbescu, & Park, 2014), coproduction of public services is facilitated (Cuthill & Fien, 2005), and support for democratic processes is more common (Mishler & Rose, 2005). Therefore, because of the important and diffuse
implications of citizens trust in government, this issue has attracted considerable interest from
public administration scholars and practitioners alike.
In conceptualizing trust, one of the most often used definitions in the social sciences is put
forth by Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998), who define this construct as, a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behavior of another (p. 395). Positive expectations, which decisions to trust are
premised upon, typically relate to a citizens perceptions of government trustworthiness (S. E.
Kim, 2005). A framework that is commonly used to provide a more structured understanding of
citizens perceptions of government trustworthiness was developed by S. Grimmelikhuijsen
(2011, 2012), who divides perceptions of trustworthiness into three dimensionscompetence,
benevolence, and honesty.
The first dimension of trustworthiness, competence, refers to citizens perception that their
government possesses the resources and skills that are needed to fulfill its obligations to society
(Jarvenpaa & Leidner, 1998). As such, perceptions of competence are closely linked to government performance (Hetherington, 1998). Benevolence, the second dimension, refers to citizens
perception that their government acts with the publics best interests in mind (Levi & Stoker,
2000). Honesty, the third dimension of trustworthiness, speaks to citizens perception that their
government is sincere in its dealings with the public and makes an effort to honor its obligations
(McKnight, Choudhury, & Kacmar, 2002). Typically, citizens positive evaluations of these three
dimensions of trustworthiness are said to result in higher levels of trust in government.
Citizens evaluations of government trustworthiness are informed by a variety of political,
societal, and cultural factors (Nye, 1997). To this end, specific factors that are often found to
influence citizens perceptions of government trustworthiness include mass media use (Gordon,
2000), political ideology (Rudolph & Evans, 2005), civic engagement (Putnam, 2000), and even
the rise of the Internet (Mathews, 1997). All of these factors are thought to have an important
influence upon citizens perceptions of government trustworthiness due to their role in relaying
government information to citizens and framing the way they interact with public institutions.
Yet, over the course of the past few decades, these factors have also been argued to contribute
toward a persistent decline in levels of trust in government in many developed nations. In particular, a contemporary illustration of this trend is provided by research that argues the proliferation of the Internet as a tool for communication and information exchange has encouraged
increasingly negative coverage of government by mass media outlets, enhanced levels of political polarization, and in some instances reinforced inequalities in civic engagement and political
participation (Barber & Rivero, 2014; Hargittai & Walejko, 2008; Im etal., 2014; Woodly,
2008). Cumulatively, these developments are thought to contribute to an erosion of citizens
understanding of what their government is doing and why, thereby heightening citizens perceptions of a gap between the demands and preferences of the public on one hand and the performance of government on the other hand. As such, from this perspective, declining levels of trust
in government may be interpreted to not necessarily stem from government performing poorly
but rather from a general lack of citizen awareness of what government is doing to respond to the
publics changing demands and needs (cf. Mettler, 2011).
In recent years, there have been numerous initiatives by governments the world over to bolster
citizens perceptions of government responsiveness, guided in part by the hope that doing so will
foster greater trust in government. Many of these initiatives draw upon the transformative potential of ICTs in an attempt to expand transparency and afford citizens greater access to government
information (for a discussion, see Bannister & Connolly, 2011). Such initiatives are premised
upon an implicit assumption that many citizens are unaware of all that their government is doing
to enhance their well-being and that, through the use of new technologies, this information asymmetry can be overcome and, consequently, perceptions of government improved (Verdegem &
Verleye, 2009). However, empirical assessments of this linkage have returned mixed results.
Therefore, in light of these mixed findings, a key intention of this study is to provide a more
nuanced picture of the relationship between transparency and trust in government by placing
greater analytical emphasis upon the role of particular mediums used by government to enhance
transparency.
ICT and Transparency

Transparency can be defined as the availability of information about an organization or actor that
allows external actors to monitor the internal workings or performance of that organization (S.
Grimmelikhuijsen etal., 2013, p. 576; Meijer, 2013). To this end, within the context of public organizations, transparency is important because it facilitates citizens ability to observe and understand
what is going on inside their government (Heald, 2003; Hood, 2006; A. Meijer, 2009). As such,
attempts to enhance transparency are predicated upon governments efforts to publicly disclose
information pertaining to its inner workings (Etzioni, 2010; Piotrowski, 2007; Porumbescu, 2015a).
Today, the advancement and proliferation of ICT has, ostensibly, made it easier for government to publicly disclose more information to more people than ever before. Due to these technological advances, governments have come to increasingly rely upon computers to disseminate
information to the public. Accordingly, many observe that this increased reliance upon computers
to publicly disseminate government information has led to the emergence of a distinct form of
computer-mediated transparency (Grimmelikhuijsen & Welch, 2012; Meier, 2009; Porumbescu
& Im, 2015). A. Meijer (2009) explains computer-mediated transparency as the use of computerized systems to enhance the inward observability of public organizations (p. 258). At present, two of the most prominent forms of computer-mediated transparency are government
websites and public sector social media accounts (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010; Bonsn,
Royo, & Ratkai, 2015; Bonsn, Torres, Royo, & Flores, 2012; S. Grimmelikhuijsen etal., 2013;
Piotrowski & Borry, 2009).
Each form of computer-mediated transparency possesses unique characteristics and is therefore likely to have a distinctive influence upon the way citizens see their government. Nevertheless,
there have been no empirical attempts to understand how citizens frequency of use of these very
different forms of computer-mediated transparency relates to their perceptions of government
trustworthiness. Below, an overview of how these two forms of computer-mediated transparency
differ is provided.
Public sector social media accounts, which constitute a form of Web 2.0, permit more decentralized forms of communication between citizens and their government, as multiple actors in
government can continually provide updated information to the public with ease (Hong, 2013).
Accordingly, prominent examples of social media include social networking sites (e.g.,
Facebook), micro-blogs (e.g., Twitter), and multi-media sharing services (e.g., YouTube; Bertot
etal., 2010; Smith, 2010). Because public sector social media accounts are a less hierarchical and
more decentralized form of transparency, social media facilitate citizens access to up-to-date
Porumbescu
information on (only) the topics they are most interested in reading about (A. Meijer & Thaens,
2013, p. 344; A. J. Meijer & Torenvlied, 2014). An additional important feature of social media
is that messages transmitted tend to be shorter and less detailed (Kietzmann, Hermkens,
McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011). This is due, in part, to the presentation formats that social media
imposes upon users, which, for example, forces users to adhere to strict length limitations
(Schultz, Utz, & Gritz, 2011). Based upon the aforementioned characteristics, this medium of
transparency will tend to use simpler language, thereby making the information more accessible
to more citizens. A final remark with respect to social media is that, although social media are
conducive to two-way communication, public sector applications of social media typically only
emphasize a one-directional flow of information (Gunawong, 2015; Mergel, 2013).
Perhaps one of the most obvious differences between government websites and public sector
social media accounts is the large volume of detailed information that government websites can
transmit at one time. This is because this medium typically imposes fewer constraints upon users
when compared with social media. As a result, government websites can be used to afford citizens access to a wealth of detailed technical information that relates to various facets of public
service provision (Justice, Melitski, & Smith, 2006; Porumbescu 2015b). A further difference
between these two mediums is that government websites can be considered a more bureaucratic
form of organizational communication in the sense that the flow of information to the public is
centralized, external points of access to information are typically limited, and the information is
conveyed to the public in a uniform manner (cf. Im etal., 2014; A. J. Meijer & Torenvlied, 2014).
As such, when taken together, these characteristics make this medium of transparency much
more impersonal when compared with social media.
Yet, although government websites may differ from social media in important ways, two key
similarities must be mentioned. The first similarity is that governments still primarily use both
public sector social media accounts and government websites as a tool for one-way communication (Mergel, 2013). In this way, both mediums are primarily used for pushing information to the
public, with few avenues for receiving citizen feedback provided (Mossberger, Wu, & Crawford,
2013; Pina, Torres, & Royo, 2007). A second important similarity is that the characteristics of
those who use social media are not unlike the characteristics of those who use websites for information. Specifically, a number of studies have consistently uncovered a positive relationship
between government website use and determinants such as income, living in an urban area, level
of education, and age (Blanger & Carter, 2009; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008; Taipale,
2013). Similarly, a separate stream of literature has found that the same antecedents also play an
important role in predicting citizens use of social media (Barber & Rivero, 2014; Duggan &
Brenner, 2013; Valenzuela, 2013). As such, there is no strong evidence to suggest that significant
differences exist between the population that uses public sector social media accounts and the
population that uses government websites to obtain information about government.
Linking Transparency to Trust in Government: Do the

Differences Matter?
Although important differences exist between government-website-mediated transparency and
social-media-mediated transparency, both are argued to positively influence citizens perceptions
of government. As was explained earlier, the tacit assumption underpinning this argument is that
the cognitive mechanisms responsible for linking these different types of information to perceptions of government trustworthiness are the same, even though the way these two mediums present information to citizens differs considerably. Yet, there is an array of strong evidence to suggest
this assumption is flawed. In particular, one prominent vein of such evidence originates from
research in the field of social psychology and deals with the concept of psychological distance
(K. Kim, Zhang, & Li, 2008; Liberman & Frster, 2009; Todorov, Goren, & Trope, 2007).
Psychological distance is a term used to describe how far a stimulus feels from the self in an
abstract psychological space (Alter & Oppenheimer, 2008, p. 161; Lewin, 1951). In instances
where an object is perceived as being more psychologically distant, an individual will tend to pay
more attention to the general features of the object, whereas in instances where an object is perceived as being less psychologically distant (closer), greater attention will be paid to more specific features of the object.
Because of its role in influencing the way we perceive objects around us, psychological distance is also said to play an important part in framing our evaluations of objects. To this end,
empirical research from the field of consumer psychology offers more explicit insight into just
how altering an individuals perception of psychological distance can affect the way they evaluate an object. In general, what such research tends to demonstrate is that decreasing the psychological distance between an individual and an object will evoke negative evaluations of the
object. In part, this is because reducing psychological distance is thought to focus attention upon
more detailed aspects of the object, thereby piquing awareness of the potential for problems to
emerge with the object and, in turn, triggering a more critical evaluation of the object (Fiedler,
2007). Conversely, increasing ones sense of psychological distance is typically found to result in
more positive evaluations of the same object (Liberman, Trope, & Wakslak, 2007; Todorov etal.,
2007). This is because, by reducing psychological distance, individuals are less aware of potential issues or problems associated with the object, and in the absence of such information, are led
to focus upon the desirable traits of the object (Dhar & Kim, 2007).
Although there are a variety of ways in which to influence perceptions of psychological distance, perhaps one of the more common methods is by altering qualities of the information an
individual has about a particular object (Steinhart, Carmon, & Trope, 2013). For example, by
increasing an individuals exposure to more detailed information about a particular object, the
individuals attention is drawn to more specific aspects of the object, thereby reducing levels of
psychological distance (Fornell, Johnson, Anderson, Cha, & Bryant, 1996). In the same vein, by
increasing exposure to more general information about an object, an individuals attention is
drawn toward the more general/abstract features of the object, thereby heightening levels of psychological distance. As such, in keeping with the discussion to this point, studies have shown that
increasing ones exposure to detailed information about an object and, in turn, reducing psychological distance often result in more critical evaluations of the object (Liberman etal., 2007;
Trautmann & van de Kuilen, 2012). However, the aforementioned studies also show that, in
instances where an individual is exposed to less detailed information regarding the same object,
thereby triggering an increase in psychological distance, their evaluation of the object will generally be more positive.
The discussion provided above offers evidence to suggest that the two forms of computermediated transparency examined in this study have very different relationships with citizens
perceptions of government trustworthiness. On one hand, more frequent exposure to government
websites, which afford citizens access to large amounts of detailed information about government, is reasoned to reduce levels of psychological distance and, in turn, evoke more critical
evaluations of government trustworthiness. On the other hand, more frequent exposure to public
sector social media accounts, which afford citizens access to more general information about
government, will likely serve to enhance levels of psychological distance and, in turn, evoke
more positive evaluations of government trustworthiness. As such, the following hypotheses are
outlined:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Citizens who frequently use public sector social media accounts for information about government will have more positive perceptions of government
trustworthiness.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Citizens who frequently use government websites for information about
government will have more negative perceptions of government trustworthiness.
Porumbescu
Voice
In addition to improving perceptions of government trustworthiness, another often stated objective of enhancing transparency is to bolster accountability. Specifically, by publicly disclosing
information that discusses public sector processes and outcomes, citizens are better able to assess
the way their public institutions are performing and, when performance is seen as lacking, call
their government to account and instigate corrective action.
Within the context of public administration and political science, the exercise of voice is seen
as one method by which citizens can call their government to account. To this end, the exercise of
voice generally stems from low levels of satisfaction with public services and/or distrust in government (Dyck, 2009; Oakerson & Parks, 1988; Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Specifically, in situations
where citizens distrust their government or are not satisfied with a public service, they engage
government, through various channels, to express their discontent (Sharp, 1984). In this way,
voice constitutes a form of soft accountability that emphasizes the fundamental right to call
those in authority to justify their decisionsthe idea of answerability (Fox, 2007, p. 668). It
should also be noted that voice differs from hard forms of accountability because the exercise of
voice does not necessarily result in tangible consequences for those being questioned (p. 669).
The relationship between transparency and voice is a dynamic one in the sense that transparency can inform voice, whereas frequency of voice can also influence the type of information
citizens use. Specifically, because voice is typically exercised in the belief that government is not
doing as well as it should (Hirschman, 1970), citizens will, knowingly or subconsciously, attempt
to obtain information supporting their belief that the government is capable of doing better (Prior,
2013). This tendency for citizens to seek information that aligns with their extant beliefs is well
documented by research that has examined key tenets of prominent social psychology and communications theories, such as confirmation bias theory and selective media exposure theory
(Arceneaux, Johnson, & Murphy, 2012; Iyengar & Hahn, 2009; Nickerson, 1998; Sears &
Freedman, 1967; Stroud, 2008). As such, in light of this well-documented tendency, we reason
that those who exercise voice more frequently will exhibit a stronger preference for information
that is consonant with the belief that government should be doing a better job than it is currently,
when compared with those who exercise voice less frequently. In other words, citizens who exercise voice more frequently will seek out information that portrays their government critically,
whereas those who exercise voice less frequently will lack this pronounced bias in their search
for government information. Consequently, as citizens become more active in their use of voice,
more frequent use of both forms of computer-mediated transparency will lead to greater exposure
to critical information, which in turn will lead to more critical evaluations of government
trustworthiness.
In light of the arguments outlined here above, Hypotheses 3 and 4 are as follows:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The negative relationship between citizens frequency of use of government websites for information about their government and their perceptions of government
trustworthiness will be stronger for citizens who exercise voice more frequently.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The positive relationship between citizens frequency of use of public
sector social media accounts for information about their government, and their perceptions of
government trustworthiness will be weaker for those who exercise voice more frequently.
Data, Method, and Context

Data
For this study, a target sample of 1,100 respondents was chosen. This number constitutes
approximately 0.01% of the population of Seoul at the time the survey was administered.
Respondents were selected to reflect the population of Seoul on parameters of age, income,
location (administrative district), and gender. To recruit respondents under the age of 60, the
online survey firm, Macromill Embrain Co., Ltd., e-mailed an invitation to participate in this
study to its panel of 21,419 respondents. This panel of potential respondents was representative of the population of Seoul on key demographic parameters. In response to the invitation,
4,163 unique online surveys were returned. After discarding surveys that were incomplete,
making sure that the completed surveys matched the characteristics of the target sample in
terms of age (for age groups under 60), location, income, and gender, and discarding surveys
that were filled out in less than 5% of the allocated time, 898 online surveys remained.2 For
respondents over the age of 60, a second research firm named research lab, was used to
deliver the same survey items via face-to-face structured interviews. These respondents
matched the target sample in terms of age (for age groups above 60), location, income, and
gender. The number of surveys delivered to those over the age of 60 via face-to-face structured interviews was 202.
Taken together, the 202 surveys delivered via face-to-face interviews and the 898 online surveys totaled 1,100 usable surveys. These surveys matched the target sample on all parameters of
interest. The 1,100 usable surveys were then examined for response patterns.3 Surveys where a
response pattern was discernable were discarded because evidence of such patterns indicated
respondents likely selected responses before reading the actual items. As a result, the total number of surveys used dropped to 907. There was no evidence of systematic bias among the surveys
that were discarded. As Table B1 in Appendix B shows, the remaining 907 surveys did not deviate significantly from the parameters of the target sample.4
Context: Seoul, South Korea

Seoul provides an attractive setting in which to examine the effects of computer-mediated transparency on trust in government. Part of Seouls appeal stems from the fact that it shares important
points in common with administrative contexts elsewhere in the world. Perhaps the similarity
most relevant to the purposes of this study is that citizens of Seoul have grown increasingly critical of their government in recent years, just as citizens of other advanced democracies (S. Kim,
2010; Norris, 2011). In response to such developments, a second similarity of relevance is that
the SMG, just as many other governments around the world, has looked to a variety of increasingly sophisticated e-government applications as a means of improving communication with citizens, enhancing transparency, and, ultimately, fostering more positive perceptions of government
(Kim & Lee, 2012). These similarities are important for the reason that they help illustrate that
key problems facing the SMG, as well as the approaches adopted to confront such problems, are
not unique to Seoul, but rather held in common across administrative contexts elsewhere in the
world.
Another reason Seoul is an attractive context to examine the effects of computer-mediated
transparency on trust in government pertains to some very important points of distinction this
city possesses. Most pertinent to the purposes of this study is that the SMG is generally viewed
as a world leader in terms of its use of a variety of e-government mediums to enhance citizens
access to information pertaining to different aspects of its operations (Rutgers E-Governance
Institute, 2014). A second important point of distinction is that, due to the presence of a very
advanced and diffuse ICT infrastructure, citizens of Seoul are among the most active users of
e-government in the world (Hong, 2013; Im, Porumbescu, & Lee, 2013). As such, Seoul offers a
unique context in which to study the relationship between computer-mediated transparency and
trust in government for the reason that citizens of this city have access to some of the most
sophisticated applications of e-government in the world and, perhaps more important, are also
among the most active users of such applications.
Porumbescu
When taken together, these key similarities and differences contribute to making Seoul a very
novel, yet relevant context in which to study the contours of the relationship between citizens
use of e-government to enhance transparency and their levels of trust in government. Accordingly,
studying Seouls use of advanced applications of computer-mediated transparency to improve
citizens perceptions of government will provide helpful lessons for governments in other contexts that are also considering using new technologies in hopes of improving citizens perceptions of government.
Measures
The dependent, independent, and moderating variables in this study are measured using multiple
items, which were assessed using ordinal response scales instead of interval data. As such, composite measures were constructed using principal component factoring as opposed to averaging
responses to the items used to measure each of the constructs (DeVellis, 2003). Principal component factoring weights items used to measure a specific latent construct according to the amount
of variance it shares with the latent construct it intends to measure. This method is more accurate
for measuring latent constructs as it weights the contribution of each item to the latent construct
according to the degree of commonality it shares with said construct. For each of the latent constructs used in this study, explained variance ranged from 79% to 60%, while eigenvalues for the
factors ranged from 1.2 to 3.9, supporting the validity of the measures used in this study. Details
are provided in Appendix A.
We measure respondents perceptions of trustworthiness of a particular public sector government institutionthe SMG. We assessed respondents perceptions of SMG trustworthiness
according to their evaluations of the SMGs competence, benevolence, and honesty. Respondents
perceptions of competence were measured using 5 items, benevolence with 3 items, and honesty
with 5 items. The items that were used were slightly modified from a previously validated scale
used by McKnight etal. (2002) and S. Grimmelikhuijsen etal. (2013). All items were measured
using a 5-point Likert-type scalea score of 1 corresponds to strongly disagree, and a score of 5
corresponds to strongly agree.
Because of constraints that the format imposes upon users, the information disseminated via
social media is necessarily shorter and more general (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kietzmann
etal., 2011). Government websites, however, are generally free from such constraints, and can
therefore be used to publicly disseminate larger amounts of detailed information (A. Meijer,
2009). To gauge respondents frequency of use of social-media-mediated transparency, we asked
respondents how frequently they used official SMG social media accounts to obtain information
about public affairs. Respondents were asked to rate their frequency of use using a 7-point Likerttype scale, with a score of 0 indicating no use at all, and a score of 6 indicating usage several
times a day. Similarly, to assess respondents frequency of use of government-website-mediated
transparency, respondents were asked how frequently they used two forms of government websites to obtain information about public affairs. The forms of government websites used in this
study were the general SMG government e-portal, and e-government portals for local administrative districts. Frequency of use was evaluated using a 7-point Likert-type scale, with a score of 0
indicating no use at all, and a score of 6 indicating usage several times a day. This approach to
measuring the effects of computer-mediated transparency upon trust in government is common
in the body of empirical transparency literature (de Fine Licht, 2014; S. Grimmelikhuijsen etal.,
2013; Welch etal., 2005).
Voice refers to political participation that results from some form of discontent with the public
sector (Oakerson & Parks, 1988; Sharp, 1984). As such, voice is considered a form of accountability. However, as Parks and Oakerson (2000) point out, forms of voice exercised will depend
upon the political mechanisms inherent to a particular administrative context (p. 173). In this
10
study, voice was operationalized using 2 items. First, respondents were asked how frequently they
participated in SMG public meetings. Responses to this question were measured according to a
6-point Likert-type scale, where a score of 1 indicated respondents never attended meetings, and
a score of 6 indicated they attended such meetings every day. Second, respondents were asked
how frequently they called a government office to complain about an issue related to the SMG.
Responses were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale. A score of 1 indicated respondents never
called to complain, whereas a score of 6 indicated that they call to complain every day.
In addition to background demographic variables commonly used in public administration and
e-government research, such as gender, age, education, or income, this study also employs several
additional control variables to isolate the effects of primary interest to this study. We include an
item that accounts for the influence of nongovernment sources of online information related to
governmentonline media use. A control for political ideology was inserted as it is commonly
said to influence citizens evaluations of government. In addition, perceptions of performance are
also commonly found to influence perceptions of trustworthiness (Keele, 2007; Van de Walle &
Bouckaert, 2003). To account for this influence, three control variables were added. The first variable assesses citizens expectations of public sector performance, whereas the second accounts for
level of satisfaction with the SMGs provision of public services, while the third assesses citizens
overall evaluation of the quality of life in Seoul. Furthermore, because distrust and trust are distinct concepts, we also incorporate a variable to control for respondents distrust of government
(Cook & Gronke, 2005; Kramer & Lewicki, 2010). Finally, as surveys were delivered online, as
well as via face-to-face structured interviews (for those older than 60), we include a variable to
control for any effects that stem from the way the survey was administered.
Analysis and Findings

We examine the hypotheses outlined earlier using a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regressionstwo regression analyses per dimension of government trustworthiness. In the second
model, for each dimension of trustworthiness, two interaction terms were included: One combines social media use with frequency of voice, while the second combines government website
use with frequency of voice. We structure our analysis this way to provide a more nuanced picture of the complex relationships between different forms of computer-mediated transparency
and decisions to trust government.
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and offers some insights into characteristics of the
respondents. Regarding the three dimensions of government trustworthiness, respondents appear
to assess dimensions of trustworthiness differentlyrespondents were more positive in their
evaluation of public sector competence, and less positive in their perceptions of public sector
honesty. In addition, respondents use government websites more frequently than public sector
social media to obtain information about their public sector.
Estimates from the analyses are provided in Table 2. All of the variables used in the analysis
are standardized (Aiken & West, 1991; Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). Variance inflation
factors for the variables included in the analyses were all below 3, indicating that multicollinearity posed little concern for the analyses of this study. For each of the models, adjusted R2 values
range from .310 to .435.
Table 2 outlines the results of the regression analyses. Models 1 and 2 are used to explain citizens perceptions of public sector competence. In Model 1, citizens frequency of use of public
sector social media accounts possesses a strong positive relationship with perceptions of public
sector competence. However, for Model 2, where interaction terms are included, this relationship
becomes insignificant. In addition, citizens frequency of use of government websites was found
to lack a significant relationship with citizens perceptions of public sector competence in Models
1 and 2. Taken together, these findings offer some initial support for H1 but do not support H2.
11
Porumbescu
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Gender
Age
Education
Income
Member of Progressive Party (dummy)
Social Trust
Satisfaction With Public Services
Evaluation of the Quality of Life in Seoul
Frequency of Use of Online Mass Media
Ideology (dummy)
Expectations of Public Sector Performance
Survey Delivery (age)
Distrust of Government
Perceived Competence of Seoul Government
Perceived Benevolence of Seoul Government
Perceived Honesty of Seoul Government
Frequency of Voice
Frequency of Use of Government Websites
Frequency of Use of Social Media (gov)
Minimum
Maximum
SD
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
907
1.00
20.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.25
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.67
0.00
2.00
83.00
6.00
14.00
1.00
7.00
7.00
5.00
6.00
2.00
7.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
5.33
6.00
1.52
42.01
4.92
8.06
0.23
4.11
3.88
3.17
2.78
1.57
4.14
0.11
2.78
2.91
2.75
2.58
0.28
2.71
1.97
0.500
13.80
1.384
3.676
0.42
0.99
0.93
0.62
1.47
0.23
1.32
0.32
0.68
0.72
0.81
0.85
0.74
0.98
1.74
Moreover, they indicate that perceptions of competence are not strongly related to either form of
transparency.
As mentioned earlier, Model 2 also incorporates two interaction terms. These interaction
terms are used to examine whether the relationship between the two different forms of computermediated transparency and perceptions of public sector competence vary according to frequency
of voice. As Model 2 illustrates, only the interaction term combining frequency of government
website use with frequency of voice possesses a significant relationship with perceptions of competence. To better understand how the relationship between government website use and perceptions of government competence varies according to frequency of voice, a simple slopes analysis
is conducted. The results of the simple slopes analyses are provided in Table 3. As can be seen in
Panel 1 of Table 3, the relationship between government website use and perceptions of competence varies greatly according to how frequently respondents exercise voice. Specifically, for
respondents who exercise voice least, no significant relationship between government website
use and perceptions of competence is found. However, as frequency of voice increases, the relationship shifts from an insignificant one to a significant negative relationship, with the magnitude
of the coefficient in the high use group nearly twice that of the medium use group. As such, support is offered for H3 but not for H4.
Models 3 and 4 are used to explain respondents perceptions of government benevolence.
Respondents use of public sector social media accounts possesses a significant and positive
relationship with perceptions of government benevolence. This finding holds across Models 3
and 4. This finding differs from those of Models 1 and 2, indicating that perceptions of competence are relatively intransigent when compared with benevolence. However, frequency of use of
government websites is found to lack a significant relationship to perceptions of government
benevolence, in both Model 3 and 4. These findings differ from those of Models 1 and 2, and also
attest to the discriminant validity of the different forms of computer-mediated transparency and
three dimensions of government trustworthiness used in this study. Taken together, these findings
offer support for H1, but do not support H2.
12
*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
Frequency of Social Media Use (gov)

Frequency of Government Website Use
Voice
Frequency of Social Media Use Voice
Frequency of Government Website Use
Voice
Control Variables
Gender
Age
Education
Income
Social Trust
Satisfaction with Public Services
Performance Expectations
Evaluation of Quality of Life in Seoul
Use of Online Mass Media
Ideology
Distrust in Seoul Metropolitan
Government
Survey Delivery (dummy)
Constant
Adjusted R2
F value
Table 2. Regression Results.
0.101 (0.095)**
0.006 (0.185)
.435
41.971***
0.093 (0.095)**
0.021 (0.186)
.431
46.700***
0.079 (0.110)*
0.377 (0.203)**
.402
41.544***
0.000 (0.021)
0.042 (0.029)
0.039 (0.027)
0.028 (0.023)
0.066 (0.019)**
0.389 (0.026)***
0.022 (0.017)
0.238 (0.040)***
0.015 (0.021)
0.114 (0.094)***
0.133 (0.022)***
0.000 (0.019)
0.087 (0.025)**
0.030 (0.024)
0.072 (0.020)***
0.082 (0.017)***
0.421 (0.023)***
0.010 (0.014)
0.239 (0.035)***
0.082 (0.019)**
0.097 (0.081)***
0.106 (0.019)**
0.002 (0.019)
0.089 (0.025)***
0.030 (0.024)
0.069 (0.020)**
0.073 (0.016)***
0.421 (0.023)***
0.007 (0.014)*
0.244 (0.035)***
0.073 (0.019)*
0.093 (0.081)***
0.108 (0.019)***
Model 3:
Benevolence
0.049 (0.017)
0.125 (0.019)***
0.051 (0.024)
0.044 (0.027)
0.047 (0.036)
0.022 (0.021)
0.065 (0.018)
0.090 (0.023)***
Model 2:
Competence
0.060 (0.017)*
0.042 (0.024)
0.020 (0.019)
Model 1:
Competence
Model 5: Honesty
0.026 (0.024)
0.013 (0.033)
0.033 (0.031)
0.040 (0.026)
0.077 (0.021)***
0.362 (0.030)***
0.015 (0.019)
0.148 (0.045)***
0.036 (0.024)
0.118 (0.106)**
0.144 (0.025)***
0.083 (0.110)***
0.089 (0.124)*
0.362 (0.214)*
0.287 (0.228)***
.402
.310
36.891***
28.151***
0.001 (0.022)
0.041 (0.029)
0.039 (0.027)
0.030 (0.023)
0.072 (0.019)***
0.389 (0.026)***
0.023 (0.017)
0.235 (0.040)***
0.009 (0.022)
0.117 (0.094)***
0.131 (0.022)***
0.117 (0.020)***
0.092 (0.022)**
0.049 (0.027)
0.067 (0.031)*
0.042 (0.041)
0.023 (0.024)
0.044 (0.021)
0.058 (0.027)*
Model 4:
Benevolence
Perceptions of trustworthiness
0.092 (0.124)**
0.287 (0.242)
.313
25.305***
0.023 (0.024)
0.009 (0.033)
0.032 (0.031)
0.043 (0.026)
0.086 (0.022)***
0.364 (0.030)***
0.017 (0.019)
0.144 (0.045)***
0.043 (0.024)
0.123 (0.106)***
0.144 (0.025)***
0.098 (0.023)**
0.074 (0.031)**
0.002 (0.025)
0.037 (0.018)
0.058 (0.030)*
Model 6: Honesty
13
Porumbescu
Table 3. Simple Slopes Analysis.
Frequency of government website use Perceptions of government competence
Panel 1
Low frequency of voice Medium frequency of voice High frequency of voice
Slope of Coefficient (SE)
0.028 (0.043)
0.038 (0.032)
0.104 (0.046)***
Frequency of government website use Perceptions of government benevolence

Panel 2
0.007 (0.044)
0.041 (0.032)
0.089 (0.044)***
Frequency of government website use Perceptions of government honesty

Panel 3
0.016 (0.045)
0.074 (0.031)**
0.132 (0.044)***
Note. Low: 1 SD below the mean of the moderating variable; Medium: the mean of the moderating variable; High: 1
SD above the mean of the moderating variable (Aiken & West, 1991). Standard errors for the indirect effects are
calculated using a Sobel Test (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). SD = standard deviation.
*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
Model 4 also incorporates interaction terms. Similar to Model 2, the interaction term combining respondents frequency of use of government websites and frequency of voice is significant,
whereas the interaction term combining frequency of use of public sector social media and frequency of voice is insignificantly related to perceptions of benevolence. Panel 2 of Table 3 provides a clearer understanding of how voice moderates the relationship between respondents
frequency of government website use and perceptions of benevolence. As Panel 2 indicates, the
relationship between government website use for information and perceptions of benevolence
becomes increasingly negative as frequency of voice increases. To this end, there are some parallels between the results illustrated in Panel 1 and those in Panel 2, except for the medium frequency of voice group, where the relationship between frequency of government website use and
perceptions of benevolence is not significant. Therefore, these findings offer further support for
H3 but do not support H4.
Models 5 and 6 examine respondents perceptions of government honesty, the third dimension
of government trustworthiness. In these models, the direct effects of the two forms of computermediated transparency are strongest. Specifically, more frequent use of public sector social media
accounts is found to be strongly associated with more positive evaluations of government honesty. Conversely, greater use of government websites for information about public affairs is
found to be strongly associated with more negative evaluations of government honesty. These
relationships are present in both Models 5 and 6. Thus, these two forms of computer-mediated
transparency possess very different relationships with respondents perceptions of public sector
honesty. These findings offer support for H1 and H2.
The interaction terms included in Model 6 behave similar to those included in Models 4 and
2. Specifically, we observe that the interaction term combining frequency of government website
use and frequency of voice is significant, whereas the interaction term combining frequency of
use of public sector social media accounts and voice is insignificantly related to perceptions of
honesty. In addition, as Panel 3 of the simple slopes analysis in Table 3 illustrates, the relationship between frequency of government website use and perceptions of public sector honesty
becomes increasingly negative as respondents exercise voice more frequently. Together, these
findings support H3, but, again, do not support H4.
14
A final point to consider with respect to H4 is the lack of a significant relationship between the
interaction term used to examine how the relationship between frequency of use of public sector
social media accounts and perceptions of government trustworthiness varied according to frequency of voice. A possible explanation for the interaction terms lack of a significant relationship
with perceptions of government trustworthiness is that those who exercise voice more frequently
tend to seek out information that is critical of government, yet are unable to find such information
on public sector social media accounts. This may be because the content on public sector social
media tends to be more positive, or because the general information disseminated via this medium
tends to draw users attention to positive aspects of government, in keeping with the tenets of
psychological distance, as outlined earlier. This means that more frequent exercise of voice would
not result in greater exposure to information that is critical of government, for those who make use
of public sector social media. As a result, the relationship between frequency of social media use
and perceptions of government trustworthiness does not vary significantly according to voice.
Discussion and Conclusion

The benefits said to accompany enhanced transparency are diffuse. Accordingly, enhancing
transparency has been argued to foster greater public sector accountability, improve performance
of public organizations, and combat corruption (Benito & Bastida, 2009; Bertot etal., 2010; S.
Kim, Kim, & Lee, 2009). Moreover, because of its diffuse benefits, transparency has also garnered a great deal of attention for its potential to mitigate more intangible challenges facing
government today, such as declining levels of trust in government (S. Grimmelikhuijsen etal.,
2013). Yet, despite the positive rhetoric, a debate has emerged over whether transparency is actually capable of fostering greater trust in government.
This study contributes to this debate in two distinct and important ways. First, acknowledging
that advances in technology have affected the way government publicly communicates information, we provide a more nuanced assessment of how the different tools used to enhance transparency relate to citizens perceptions of government trustworthiness. Second, because transparency
and accountability are highly associated constructs, we also examine how relationships between
two forms of computer-mediated transparency and perceptions of government trustworthiness
differ according to how frequently citizens exercise voice.
The results of our analyses, overviewed in table 4, indicate that different forms of computer-mediated transparency possess distinct relationships with citizens perceptions of the different dimensions
of government trustworthiness. Specifically, greater use of public sector social media accounts was
found to have a significant positive relationship with perceptions of government competence, benevolence, and honesty. However, greater use of government websites for information was negatively
related to perceptions of government honesty and lacked a significant relationship with perceptions of
competence and benevolence. Furthermore, the significant relationship between government website
use and perceptions of trustworthiness varied heavily according to how frequently respondents exercised voicethe more frequently voice was exercised, the more negative the relationship between
frequency of government website use and perceptions of competence, honesty, and benevolence.
From these key findings, some important implications for public administration theory and
practice can be inferred. First, these findings demonstrate that not all forms of transparency lend
themselves to the same set of objectives. For example, although enhancing transparency through
the use of social media may do little for augmenting public sector accountability, this medium
appears to be highly effective at improving citizens perceptions of government. Conversely,
expanding transparency through government websites appears less effective at improving citizens perceptions of government, although the details afforded to citizens (or citizens reactions
to these details) may assist citizens in their exercise of accountability mechanisms, such as voice.
Drawing upon the notion of psychological distance, these findings provide initial insights into
why different types of transparency evoke distinct outcomes.
15
Porumbescu
Table 4. Summary of Hypotheses.
Hypothesis
Hypotheses testing direct effects
H1
Citizens who frequently use public
sector social media accounts for
information about government will
have more positive perceptions of
government trustworthiness.
H2
Citizens who frequently use

government websites for information
about government will have more
negative perceptions of government
trustworthiness.
Hypotheses testing moderating effects
H3
The negative relationship between
citizens frequency of use of
government websites for information
about their government and
their perceptions of government
trustworthiness will be stronger for
citizens who exercise voice more
frequently.
H4
The positive relationship between
citizens frequency of use of public
sector social media accounts for
information about their government
and their perceptions of government
trustworthiness will be weaker for
those who exercise voice more
frequently.
Accept/reject
Accept
Partially Accept
Explanation
This relationship is less
robust for perceptions
of competence than
for perceptions of the
other two dimensions of
trustworthiness.
No significant relationship
was found for competence
and benevolence. However,
government website use was
negatively related to honesty.
Accept
Reject
Building upon the ideas in the preceding paragraph, a second key implication that stems from
this studys findings is that less detailed, more general information resonates more positively
with citizens than detailed information. This finding corresponds with recent initiatives to make
government information more accessible to the general publicto simplify official communications. In the United States, the Plain Writing Act of 2010 best embodies this initiative. Although
the objectives of such initiatives are to make government easier to understand and, in turn, more
transparent to more people, these initiatives also appear to have benefits that go beyond making
information more accessible. For example, some have argued that by disseminating simpler
information through mediums such as social media, government presents itself in a more human
and personal manner (Kelman, 2015). As such, shorter, easy to understand depictions of government operations may enable the public sector to more effectively connect with the average citizen
and, in turn, improve citizens perceptions of government (A. Meijer & Thaens, 2013).
A third key implication of this study is that the patterns of government information use by
those who exercise voice more frequently may differ from those who exercise voice less frequently. Specifically, those who exercise voice more frequently likely do so in the belief that
government is capable of doing better and, in turn, may seek to document their claims of government shortcomings through the use of official documents. Because government websites provide
access to more detailed reports on government performance, this form of computer-mediated
transparency lends itself most explicitly to the objectives of those who seek to provide evidence
of government underperforming. Therefore, due to an innate preference for information that
16
paints government performance in a critical light, the relationship between government website
use and trust in government will be more negative for those who exercise voice more frequently.
Moreover, this relationship is also not likely to be unique to government websites, but also possible for any form of transparency that lends itself to the dissemination of detailed information on
government performance. Nevertheless, although government websites may be less effective in
building trust in government, this source of transparency may play an important role in improving the quality of democratic governance.
The analyses of this study are subject to some important limitations. First, we were not able to
account for the content of the information respondents accessed when they visited government websites and public sector social media accounts. Therefore, we are not able to assess whether the object
of the information present on government websites and public sector social media accounts was the
same. Although we attempted to address this concern by specifying a particular area of government
in the items used to measure citizens use of government websites and public sector social media
accounts, and also by incorporating relevant control variables to account for confounding influences,
such as distrust in government, future research that makes use of content analysis and/or experimental research designs would be helpful in building upon these preliminary findings.
A second limitation is the potential for common source bias. Common source bias is measurement error that results from the way data were collected. This form of error can cast doubt upon
estimates of the relationships predicted in the analysis (Podsakoff etal., 2003). One means of
testing for common source bias is by conducting Harmans single factor test. Using an exploratory factor analysis, this test indicates that common source bias is likely if a single factor
accounts for most of the variance in the variables examined. In the exploratory factor analysis,
items used to measure perceptions of government trustworthiness (competence, benevolence,
honesty) and the three independent variables used in this study were all included. The unrotated
principal component analysis showed that no single factor accounted for a majority of the variation among the items examined. Moreover, when rotated, the analysis demonstrated that all items
loaded onto their appropriate constructs, while cross-loadings of items were all below 0.3. As
such, these results support the discriminant validity of the measures and indicate that common
source bias is not a significant concern.
A final point that bears mentioning relates to the generalizability of this studys findings to
other contexts. When compared with many western democracies that are also looking to different
forms of transparency to enhance trust in government, the presence of a fully functional democracy in South Korea is a relatively recent phenomenon (ECI, 2008; Hahm, 2008). Moreover, the
Confucian cultural orientation of South Korea further distinguishes Seoul from contexts outside
of East Asia. How do these differences affect the generalizability of this studys findings to contexts outside of South Korea? According to one recent study, which compared the effects of
transparency on perceptions of government trustworthiness in South Korea and the Netherlands,
not a great deal (S. Grimmelikhuijsen etal., 2013). Specifically, the analyses generally indicated
that respondents in both contexts reacted similarly to the different types of government information they were exposed to. However, notwithstanding the similar patterns in responses across
national contexts, the analyses also revealed that South Korean respondents were slightly more
sensitive to negative information than their Dutch counterparts. Therefore, because South Korean
respondents may be more sensitive to information that portrays the government in a critical light
than respondents in other administrative settings, a degree of caution should be exercised when
attempting to apply the findings of this study to other national contexts.
Building upon the aforementioned limitations, the findings of this study can be used to guide
future research that seeks to improve our understanding of the complex relationship between transparency and trust in government. Two avenues for future research are mentioned in particular. The
first avenue relates to the growing number of tools that governments now use to enhance transparency, each of which serves to imbue the information government is making public with specific
17
Porumbescu
qualities (A. Meijer, 2009). This studys findings offer some initial evidence to suggest that different
forms of (computer-) mediated transparency can possess very distinct relationships with citizens
perceptions of their government. To extend the preliminary findings offered by this research and
contribute toward more effective transparency policies, future studies, which draw upon alternative
methods of analysis to examine how different forms of mediated transparency relate to citizens
perceptions of government trustworthiness, are necessary. In this respect, methods such as content
analysis would prove especially helpful in substantiating our understanding of these relationships.
A second avenue to be developed further relates to deepening our understanding of how citizens exercise of voice affects the relationship between different forms of transparency and perceptions of government trustworthiness. Although the findings of this study have been helpful in
demonstrating some of the contingencies that accompany the relationship between different varieties of computer-mediated transparency and perceptions of government trustworthiness, they
also demonstrate a need for further research to build upon these initial findings. In this vein, what
would be particularly useful are future studies that attempt to identify additional factors that
serve to shape the relationship between different forms of computer-mediated transparency and
perceptions of government trustworthiness. It is through identifying such moderating forces that
we will be better able to understand the complex relationship that exists between transparency
and citizens trust in government. In this sense, the approach adopted by this study can be seen as
an initial point of departure for future studies that seek to refine our understanding of how different forms of technology can be leveraged to improve relationships with citizens.
Appendix A
Measures
Perceptions of Government Trustworthiness.
Item
1
Competence
Eigenvalue: 3.51
Explained variance by factor:
0.70
Benevolence
Eigenvalue: 2.37
0.79
Integrity
Eigenvalue: 3.92
0.79
Generally, the Seoul

Metropolitan Government is
competent.
Rotated factor loading: 0.85
Metropolitan Government
works efficiently.
skillful.
professional.
does a good job in carrying
out its responsibilities.

tries to help citizens.
Generally, the Seoul Metropolitan
Government keeps the best
interest of citizens in mind.
cares about citizens happiness.

sincere.
honest.
not corrupt.
is fair.
keeps its promises.
18
Use of Public Sector Social Media and Government Websites.
Item
1
E-government website
Eigenvalue: 1.653
Explained variance by factor: 0.83
Public sector social media

Per week, I use public sector social media
accounts to find out information about
government times.
Per week, I use the official web portal of the Seoul

Metropolitan government to find out information
about government times.
Per week, I use my local administrative districts
government website to find out information
about government times.
Frequency of Voice.
Item
1
Frequency of voice
Eigenvalue: 1.207
Explained variance by factor: 0.60
How frequently do you participate in public meetings hosted by the Seoul Metropolitan
Government?
How frequently do you contact the Seoul Metropolitan Government to complain about
issues related to public service provision?
19
Competent
Benevolent
Honest
Gender
Age
Education
Income
Social Trust
Satisfaction With Public
Service Provision
Evaluation Quality of Life
Seoul
Use of Online Mass Media
Ideology
Expectations of Public
Sector Performance
Survey Delivery
Distrust in Seoul
Government
Frequency of Voice
Frequency of Use of
Government
Frequency of Use of Social
Media (gov)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
18
16
17
14
15
11
12
13
10
Variable
.454***
.355***
.063
.087*** .139***
1
.001
1
.155*** .358***
1
.065* .097***
.400***
.10
.117*** .073**
.034
.025
.077*
.045
1
.077**
.022
.161***
.178***
.148***
.056
.046
.044
.100*** .097*** .060
.005
.046
.007
.046
.061
.071*
.009
.299*** .335*** .339*** .021
.502***
10
.018
.050
.053
.010
.122*** .017
.166*** .057
.047
.260***
1
.289***
12
1
.187***
1
.115*** .125***
11
.041
.249***
.250*** .256***
.056
.242***
.119***
.110*** .020
.094**
.094*
.245*** .063
.088***
.144***
.003
.022
.063
.600***
.045
.491***
.003
.038
.171***
.092***
13
.120*** .026
.057
.110*
.663*** .573*** .263*** .097*** .138*** .156*** .595*** .160***

.140*** .074*
.058
.098** .302*** .191** .156*** .128***
.135*** .090*** .091*** .073** .501***

.406*** .176***
.154*** .166*** .170*** .032
.083*
.071*
.056
.034
.038
.033
.023
.148*** .088
.033
.467***
1
.761***
1
.702*** .809***
1
.026
.021
.052
.046
.001
.018
.045
.039
.040
.026
.009
.416***
.230*** .246*** .235***
.693*** .764*** .733***
Table B1. Zero Order Correlations.
Bivariate Correlations
Appendix B
15
16
17
18
.363*** .139*** .093*** .475*** 1
.011
.028
1
.392*** .106*** .089***
1
.070*
14
20
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by
the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A3A2044898).
Notes
1. A. Meijer (2009) explains that the most common form of mediated transparency today is computermediated transparency. He defines computer-mediated transparency as the use of computerized systems to enhance the transparency of public institutions (p. 259).
2. Completing the survey in less than 5% of the allotted time means that the respondent completed the
survey in 85 s. The average time to complete the survey was 25 min. Therefore, completing the survey
so quickly implied that respondents did not carefully read the items before responding.
3. Response patterns in surveys refer to surveys where respondents selected the same answer (e.g., 5) for
all of the items, or where answers demonstrated ascending and/or descending patterns (e.g., 5-4-3-2-1).
4. A table outlining the representativeness of the sample is available upon request.
References
Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond exit and voice. World Development,
32, 447-463.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. New York,
NY:Sage.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Effects of fluency on psychological distance and mental construal (or why New York is a large city, but New York is a civilized jungle). Psychological Science,
19, 161-167.
Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media
hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74, 174-186.
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for
research. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 137-147.
Barber, P., & Rivero, G. (2014). Understanding the political representativeness of Twitter users. Social
Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0894439314558836
Blanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications
of the ACM, 52, 132-135.
Benito, B., & Bastida, F. (2009). Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review, 69, 403-417.
Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with cynical citizens. Public Administration Review, 57, 105-112.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency:
E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government
Information Quarterly, 27, 264-271.
Bonsn, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens engagement on local governments Facebook sites. An
empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government
Bonsn, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate
transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123-132.
Buell, R. W., & Norton, M. (2013, November). Surfacing the submerged state with operational transparency in government services (Working Paper No. 14-034). Cambridge, MA: Havard Business
School.
Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in
government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239-256.
21
Porumbescu
Cook, T. E., & Gronke, P. (2005). The skeptical American: Revisiting the meanings of trust in government
and confidence in institutions. Journal of Politics, 67, 784-803.
Cook, F. L., Jacobs, L. R., & Kim, D. (2010). Trusting what you know: Information, knowledge, and confidence in social security. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 397-412.
Cuthill, M., & Fien, J. (2005). Capacity building: Facilitating citizen participation in local governance.
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 63-80.
de Fine Licht, J. (2014). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public
Administration Review, 74, 361-371.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Dhar, R., & Kim, E. Y. (2007). Seeing the forest or the trees: Implications of construal level theory for
consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology,17(2), 96-100.
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users, 2012 (Vol. 14). Washington,
DC: Pew Research Centers Internet & American Life Project.
Dyck, J. J. (2009). Initiated distrust: Direct democracy and trust in government. American Politics Research,
37, 539-568.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2008, May). The Economist Intelligence Units Index of Democracy
2010. London, England: The Economist.
Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18, 389-404.
Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision-making
research and consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 101-106.
Fiegenbaum, A., & Thomas, H. (1988). Attitudes toward risk and the riskreturn paradox: Prospect theory
explanations. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 85-106.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer
satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 7-18.
Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in
Practice, 17, 663-671.
Gordon, M. T. (2000). Public trust in government: The US media as an agent of accountability? International
Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 297-310.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2011). Being transparent or spinning the message? An experiment into the effects of
varying message content on trust in government. Information Polity, 16(1), 35-50.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78, 50-73.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., & Im, T. (2013). The effect of transparency on trust in
government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73, 575-586.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014). The effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness
of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 24, 137-157. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus048
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Developing and testing a theoretical framework for
computer-mediated transparency of local governments. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 562-571.
Gunawong, P. (2015). Open government and social media: A focus on transparency. Social Science
Computer Review, 33, 587-598. doi:0894439314560685
Hahm, C. (2008). South Koreas miraculous democracy. Journal of Democracy, 19(3), 128-142.
Hargittai, E., & Walejko, G. (2008). The participation divide: Content creation and sharing in the digital
age. Information, Community & Society, 11, 239256.
Heald, D. (2003). Fiscal transparency: Concepts, measurement and UK practice. Public Administration,
81, 723-759.
Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review,
92, 791-808.
Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hong, H. (2013). Government websites and social medias influence on government-public relationships.
Public Relations Review, 39, 346-356.
Hood, C. (2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In: C. Hood & D. Heald (Eds.), Proceedings of the
British Academy: Book 135, TransparencyThe key to better governance? (pp. 3-23). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
22
Hood, C. (2010). Accountability and transparency: Siamese twins, matching parts, awkward couple? West
European Politics, 33, 989-1009.
Im, T., Cho, W., Porumbescu, G., & Park, J. (2014). Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 741-763. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus037
Im, T., Porumbescu, G., & Lee, H. (2013). ICT as a buffer to change. Public Performance & Management
Review, 36, 436-455.
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use.
Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(4) .
Justice, J. B., Melitski, J., & Smith, D. L. (2006). E-government as an instrument of fiscal accountability and responsiveness: Do the best practitioners employ the best practices? The American Review of
Public Administration, 36, 301-322.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social
media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Keele, L. (2007). Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. American Journal of Political
Science, 51, 241-254.
Kelman, S. (2015, February 6). Why your agency should be blogging: The Lectern. The Business of Federal
Technology. Retrieved from http://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2015/02/why-your-agency-should-be-blogging.aspx?admgarea=thelectern
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious!
Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, 54, 241-251.
Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations.
Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 706-713.
Kim, S. (2010). Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of critical citizens matter? Public Administration Review, 70, 801-810.
Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 42-50.
Kim, S. E. (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration
& Society, 37, 611-635.
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration
Review, 72(6), 819-828.
Kramer, R. M., & Lewicki, R. J. (2010). Repairing and enhancing trust: Approaches to reducing organizational trust deficits. The Academy of Management Annals, 4, 245-277.
Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3,
475-507.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.
Liberman, N., & Frster, J. (2009). Distancing from experienced self: How global-versus-local perception affects estimation of psychological distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,
203-216.
Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal level theory and consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 17, 113-117.
Mathews, J. (1997). Power shift. Foreign Affairs, 76, 50-66.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for
e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13, 334-359.
Meijer, A. (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences,
75, 255-269.
Meijer, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review,
73(3), 429-439.
Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2013). Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North
American police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 343-350.
Meijer, A. J., & Torenvlied, R. (2014). Social media and the new organization of government communications: An empirical analysis of Twitter usage by the Dutch police. The American Review of Public
Administration. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0275074014551381
23
Porumbescu
Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government
Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state: How invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. American Political Science
Review, 68, 951-972.
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2005). What are the political consequences of trust? A test of cultural and institutional theories in Russia. Comparative Political Studies, 38, 1050-1078.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society and participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media
and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351-358.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2, 175-220.
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Nye, J. S., Jr. (1997). In government we dont trust. Foreign Policy, 108, 99-111.
Oakerson, R. J., & Parks, R. B. (1988). Citizen voice and public entrepreneurship: The organizational
dynamic of a complex metropolitan county. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18(4), 91-112.
Obama, B. (2009). Transparency and open government: Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 39(3): 429.
Parks, R. B., & Oakerson, R. J. (2000). Regionalism, localism, and metropolitan governance: Suggestions
from the research program on local public economies. State and Local Government Review, 32,
169-179.
Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2007). Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU
regional and local governments? An empirical study.Public Administration, 85(2), 449-472.
Piotrowski, S. J. (2007). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Piotrowski, S. J., & Borry, E. L. (2009). Transparency and local government websites. In C. G. Reddick
(Ed.), Handbook of research on strategies for local e-government adoption and implementation:
Comparative studies (pp. 390-407). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Porumbescu, G., & Im, T. (2015). Using transparency to reinforce responsibility and responsiveness. In J.
Perry & R. Christensen (Eds.), The Handbook of public administration (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA:
John Wiley.
Porumbescu, G. A. (2015a). Using transparency to enhance responsiveness and trust in local government:
Can it work? State and Local Government Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/01603
23X15599427
Porumbescu, G. A. (2015b). Does transparency improve citizens perceptions of government performance? Evidence from Seoul, South Korea. Administration & Society. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0095399715593314
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory,
methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 101-127.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone, the collapse and revival of civic America. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending.
American Journal of Political Science, 49, 660-671.
Rutgers E-Governance Institute. (2014). Digital governance in municipalities worldwideSixth global
e-governance survey: A longitudinal assessment of municipal websites throughout the world. Newark:
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
24
Scholz, J. T., & Lubell, M. (1998). Trust and taxpaying: Testing the heuristic approach to collective action.
American Journal of Political Science, 42, 398-417.
Schultz, F., Utz, S., & Gritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis
communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review, 37, 20-27.
Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 31, 194-213.
Sharp, E. B. (1984). Exit, voice, and loyalty in the context of local government problems. The Western
Political Quarterly, 37, 67-83.
Smith, A. (2010). Government online. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.
org/2010/04/27/government-online/
Steinhart, Y., Carmon, Z., & Trope, Y. (2013). Warnings of adverse side effects can backfire over time.
Psychological Science, 24, 1842-1847.
Stroud, N. J. (2008). Media use and political predispositions: Revisiting the concept of selective exposure.
Political Behavior, 30, 341-366.
Taipale, S. (2013). The use of e-government services and the Internet: The role of socio-demographic, economic and geographical predictors. Telecommunications Policy, 37, 413-422.
Todorov, A., Goren, A., & Trope, Y. (2007). Probability as a psychological distance: Construal and preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 473-482.
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354-369.
Trautmann, S. T., van de & Kuilen, G. (2012). Prospect theory or construal level theory? Diminishing sensitivity vs. psychological distance in risky decisions. Acta Psychologica, 139, 254-260.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,
1124-1131.
Valenzuela, S. (2013). Unpacking the use of social media for protest behavior: The roles of information,
opinion expression, and activism. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 920-942.
Van de Walle, S. (2004). Context-specific images of the archetypical bureaucrat: Persistence and diffusion
of the bureaucracy stereotype. Public Voices, 7(1), 3-12.
Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 891-913.
Verdegem, P., & Verleye, G. (2009). User-centered e-government in practice: A comprehensive model for
measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 487-497.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Citizens perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year
national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 285-305.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and
trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 371-391.
Woodly, D. (2008). New competencies in democratic communication? Blogs, agenda setting and political
participation. Public Choice, 134, 109-123.
Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performancetrust link: Implications for performance measurement.
Public Administration Review, 66, 114-126.
Author Biography
Gregory Porumbescu is an assistant professor in the School of Public and Global Affairs at Northern
Illinois University. His research interests include transparency, citizens perceptions of government, and
e-government. His work is forthcoming or appeared inJPART, PAR, American Review of Public
Administration, Public Management Review, and Administration & Society.s

2015 - ARPA - Linking Transparency To Trust in Gov

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 - ARPA - Linking Transparency To Trust in Gov

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

607301

ARPXXX10.1177/0275074015607301American Review of Public AdministrationPorumbescu

Linking Transparency to Trust in

American Review of Public Administration

Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

ICT and Transparency

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Linking Transparency to Trust in Government: Do the

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Data, Method, and Context

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Context: Seoul, South Korea

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Analysis and Findings

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Frequency of Social Media Use (gov)

Table 2. Regression Results.

Low frequency of voice Medium frequency of voice High frequency of voice

Slope of Coefficient (SE)

Frequency of government website use Perceptions of government benevolence

Low frequency of voice Medium frequency of voice High frequency of voice

Slope of Coefficient (SE)

Frequency of government website use Perceptions of government honesty

Low frequency of voice Medium frequency of voice High frequency of voice

Slope of Coefficient (SE)

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Discussion and Conclusion

Citizens who frequently use

American Review of Public Administration

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Generally, the Seoul

Generally, the Seoul

Generally, the Seoul

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Use of Public Sector Social Media and Government Websites.

Public sector social media

Per week, I use the official web portal of the Seoul

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

.663*** .573*** .263*** .097*** .138*** .156*** .595*** .160***

.135*** .090*** .091*** .073** .501***

Table B1. Zero Order Correlations.

.363*** .139*** .093*** .475*** 1

American Review of Public Administration

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

American Review of Public Administration

Downloaded from arp.sagepub.com at KOREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE on October 5, 2016

p < .1. p < .05. p < .01.

.663* .573* .263* .097* .138* .156* .595* .160*

.135* .090* .091* .073 .501***

.363* .139* .093* .475* 1