Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:44:03.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of psychological bias on public officials’ attitudes towards the implementation of policy instruments: evidence from survey experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2022

Bingsheng Liu ,
Zengqiang Qin Open the ORCID record for Zengqiang Qin [Opens in a new window]  and
Jinfeng Zhang
Bingsheng Liu
Affiliation:
School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, China
Zengqiang Qin
Affiliation:
School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, China
Jinfeng Zhang*
Affiliation:
School of Public Policy and Administration, Chongqing University, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: psyzhangjf@cqu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As implementers, public officials have historically enjoyed substantial influence in the public policy process, but little attention has been paid to the effect of psychological elements on their attitudes towards implementing policy instruments. The authors argue that from a behavioural public administration perspective, public officials’ attitudes towards implementing certain policy instruments are not rational, but instead biased. Using two survey experiments on 1,024 Chinese public officials, this study examines the cognitive and motivational bias of public officials’ attitudes towards implementing policy instruments. The findings indicate that when public officials are presented with risk information in a negative framing, they are more reluctant to implement indirect policy instruments than direct ones, and this phenomenon becomes more pronounced when their public interest orientation is activated, rather than their personal interest orientation. The findings contribute to the theoretical understanding of the effect of psychological biases on public officials’ attitudes towards policy implementation.

Keywords

cognitive biasmotivational biaspolicy instrumentpublic interest orientationsurvey experiment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 261 - 283
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M (2005) The Influence of Attitudes on Behavior. The Handbook of Attitudes, 173(221): 31.Google Scholar
Alraja, MN, Farooque, MMJ and Khashab, B (2019) The Effect of Security, Privacy, Familiarity, and Trust on User’s Attitudes Toward the Use of the IoT-Based Healthcare: The Mediation Role of Risk Perception. Ieee Access, 7, 111341–111354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, SC and Jakobsen, M (2017) Policy Positions of Bureaucrats at the Front Lines: Are They Susceptible to Strategic Communication? Public Administration Review, 77(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, JW (1957) Motivational Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6): 359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, MM and Nigol, RA (1989) Selecting Policy Instruments - Neo-Institutional and Rational Choice Interpretations of Automobile Insurance in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Political Science-Revue Canadienne De Science Politique, 22(1): 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglio, RP Jr, Belardinelli, P, Bellé, N and Cantarelli, P (2019) Behavioral Public Administration Ad Fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality, Cognitive Biases, and Nudging in Public Organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3): 304–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, MH and Gino, F (2012) Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belardinelli, P, Belle, N, Sicilia, M and Steccolini, I (2018) Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 78(6): 841–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belle, N, Cantarelli, P and Belardinelli, P (2017) Cognitive Biases in Performance Appraisal: Experimental Evidence on Anchoring and Halo Effects With Public Sector Managers and Employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3): 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belle, N, Cantarelli, P and Belardinelli, P (2018) Prospect Theory Goes Public: Experimental Evidence on Cognitive Biases in Public Policy and Management Decisions. Public Administration Review, 78(6): 828–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bereby-Meyer, Y and Shalvi, S (2015) Deliberate Honesty. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bressers, HTA and O’Toole, LJ (1998) The Selection of Policy Instruments: a Network-based Perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3): 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burth, HP and Gorlitz, A (1999) Public Policy Instruments. Evaluating the Tools of Public Administration. Public Administration, 77(4): 934–937.Google Scholar
Buurman, M, Delfgaauw, J, Dur, R and Van den Bossche, S (2012) Public Sector Employees: Risk Averse and Altruistic? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(3): 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capano, G and Lippi, A (2017) How Policy Instruments are Chosen: Patterns of Decision Makers’ Choices. Policy Sciences, 50(2): 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, J, van der Voet, J and van den Bekerom, P (2021) Are Citizens More Negative About Failing Service Delivery by Public Than Private Organizations? Evidence From a Large-Scale Survey Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(1): 128–149.Google Scholar
Desmidt, S and Meyfroodt, K (2021) How Does Public Disclosure of Performance Information Affect Politicians’ Attitudes Towards Effort Allocation? Evidence from a Survey Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(4): 756–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, JN (2004) Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4): 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppel, EA and Rhodes, ML (2018) Complexity Theory and Public Management: A ‘becoming’ Field. Public Management Review, 20(7): 949–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ermasova, N, Clark, D, Lam, N and Ermasov, S (2018) Russian Public Sector Employees’ Reasoning of Ethical Behavior: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(5–6): 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, JST (2003) In Two Minds: Dual-process Accounts of Reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(10): 454–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farazmand, A (2017) Ethics and Accountability in the Age of Predatory Globalization: An Impossibility Theorem? In Jurkiewicz, C and Giacalone, R (eds.), Radical Thoughts on Ethical Leadership. Charlotte, NC: NCInformation Age Publishing Inc, 199–220.Google Scholar
Feldman, Y (2014) Behavioral Ethics Meets Behavioral Law and Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuenzalida, J, Van Ryzin, GG and Olsen, AL (2020) Are Managers Susceptible to Framing Effects? An Experimental Study of Professional Judgment of Performance Metrics. International Public Management Journal, 24(3): 314–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgellis, Y, Iossa, E and Tabvuma, V (2011) Crowding Out Intrinsic Motivation in the Public Sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3): 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geys, B and Sørensen, RJ (2018) Never Change a Winning Policy? Public Sector Performance and Politicians’ Preferences for Reforms. Public Administration Review, 78(2): 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G and Gaissmaier, W (2011) Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, S (2020) Performance Management Meets Red Tape: Bounded Rationality, Negativity Bias, and Resource Dependence. Public Administration Review, 80(6): 932–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, C (1983) Tools of Government. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, M and Ramesh, M (1993) Policy-Instrumente, Policy-Lernen und Privatisierung: Theoretische Erklärungen für den Wandel in der Instrumentenwahl. In Héritier, A. (eds.), Policy-Analyse. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, J, Payne, JW and Puto, C (1982) Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives - Violations Of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(1): 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, O and Moseley, A (2014) Does Performance Information about Public Services Affect Citizens’ Perceptions, Satisfaction, and Voice Behaviour? Field Experiments with Absolute and Relative Performance Information. Public Administration, 92(2): 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. Journal of Communication, 172(1): 139.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D and Frederick, S (2002) Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. In Gilovich, T, Griffin, D and Kahneman, D (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, Knetsch, JL and Thaler, RH (1991) Nomalies - The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status-Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1): 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kammermann, L and Angst, M (2018) The Effect of Beliefs on Policy Instrument Preferences: The Case of Swiss Renewable Energy Policy(sic)(sic)(sic)Palabras clave. Policy Studies Journal, 49, 757–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, NO, Revesz, RL and Stavins, RN (1998) The Choice of Regulatory Instruments in Environmental Policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22(2): 313–367.Google Scholar
Krause, RM, Hawkins, CV, Park, AYS and Feiock, RC (2019) Drivers of Policy Instrument Selection for Environmental Management by Local Governments. Public Administration Review, 79(4): 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z (1990) The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, IP, Schneider, SL and Gaeth, GJ (1998) All Frames are not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, SH and Peters, BG (1989) Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvel, JD and Girth, AM (2016) Citizen Attributions of Blame in Third-Party Governance. Public Administration Review, 76(1): 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matland, RE (1995) Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-conflict Model of Policy Implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2): 145–174.Google Scholar
Meyer-Sahling, J-H, Mikkelsen, KS and Schuster, C (2019) The Causal Effect of Public Service Motivation on Ethical Behavior in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Large-Scale Survey Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3): 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montibeller, G and von Winterfeldt, D (2015) Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis, 35(7): 1230–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagtegaal, R, Tummers, L, Noordegraaf, M and Bekkers, V (2020) Designing to Debias: Measuring and Reducing Public Managers’ Anchoring Bias. Public Administration Review, 80(4): 565–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, PA and Baekgaard, M (2015) Performance Information, Blame Avoidance, and Politicians’ Attitudes to Spending and Reform: Evidence from an Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2): 545–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AL (2015a) Citizen (Dis)satisfaction: An Experimental Equivalence Framing Study. Public Administration Review, 75(3): 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, AL (2015b) Negative Performance Information Causes Asymmetrical Evaluations and Elicits Strong Responsibility Attributions. In 111th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association San Francisco.Google Scholar
Perez Duran, I (2016) Assessing Formal Accountability for Public Policies: The Case of Health Policy in Spain. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(4): 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, JL (1996) Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct Reliability and Validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, JL and Wise, LR (1990) The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review, 50(3): 367–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, JL, Hondeghem, A and Wise, LR (2010) Revisiting the Motivational Bases of Public Service: Twenty Years of Research and an Agenda for the Future. Public Administration Review, 70(5): 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, NBG (2020) Whoever Has Will be Given More: The Effect of Performance Information on Frontline Employees’ Support for Managerial Policy Initiatives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4): 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, LM and Elliott, OV (2002) The Tools of Government Action: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sezer, O, Gino, F and Bazerman, MH (2015) Ethical Blind Spots: Explaining Unintentional Unethical Behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 77–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, HA (1947) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Simon, HA (1956) Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment. Psychological Review, 63(2): 129–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slovic, P (2000) Rational Actors and Rational Fools: The Influence of Affect on Judgment and Decision-making. Roger Williams UL Rev., 6, 163.Google Scholar
Smith, SR and Ingram, H (2002) Policy Tools and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Song, M, Kwon, I, Cha, S and Min, N (2017) The Effect of Public Service Motivation and Job Level on Bureaucrats’ Preferences for Direct Policy Instruments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1): 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stazyk, EC and Davis, RS (2015) Taking the ‘High Road’: Does Public Service Motivation Alter Ethical Decision Making Processes? Public Administration, 93(3): 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, T (2009) Campaign Appeals and Legislative Action. Journal of Politics, 71(3): 1093–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepe, M and Prokop, C (2018) Are Future Bureaucrats More Risk Averse? The Effect of Studying Public Administration and PSM on Risk Preferences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2): 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tummers, L, Steijn, B and Bekkers, V (2012) Explaining the Willingness of Public Professionals to Implement Public Policies: Content, Context, and Personality Characteristics. Public Administration, 90(3): 716–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1974) Judgment under Uncertainty - Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157): 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamir, E and Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R (2018) Explaining Self-Interested Behavior of Public-Spirited Policy Makers. Public Administration Review, 78(4): 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, P (2021) Target Interactions and Target Aspiration Level Adaptation: How Do Government Leaders Tackle the “Environment-Economy” Nexus? Public Administration Review, 81(2): 220–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Liu et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/1VFTDW
Link
Supplementary material: File

Liu et al. supplementary material

Liu et al. supplementary material 1

Download Liu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 569.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Liu et al. supplementary material

Liu et al. supplementary material 2

Download Liu et al. supplementary material(File)
File 12.3 KB