Province of Origin, Decision-Making Bias, and Responses to Bureaucratic Versus Algorithmic Decision-Making

IF 4.9 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1111/puar.13928
Ge Wang, Zhejun Zhang, Shenghua Xie, Yue Guo
{"title":"Province of Origin, Decision-Making Bias, and Responses to Bureaucratic Versus Algorithmic Decision-Making","authors":"Ge Wang, Zhejun Zhang, Shenghua Xie, Yue Guo","doi":"10.1111/puar.13928","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As algorithmic decision-making (ADM) becomes prevalent in certain public sectors, its interaction with traditional bureaucratic decision-making (BDM) evolves, especially in contexts shaped by regional identities and decision-making biases. To explore these dynamics, we conducted two survey experiments within traffic enforcement scenarios, involving 4816 participants across multiple provinces. Results indicate that non-native residents perceived ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM when they did not share a province of origin with local bureaucrats. Both native and non-native residents showed a preference for ADM in the presence of bureaucratic and algorithmic biases but preferred BDM when such biases were absent. When bureaucratic and algorithmic biases coexisted, the lack of a shared province of origin further reinforced non-native residents' perception of ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM. Our findings reveal the complex interplay among province of origin, decision-making biases, and responses to different decision-making approaches.","PeriodicalId":48431,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration Review","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13928","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As algorithmic decision-making (ADM) becomes prevalent in certain public sectors, its interaction with traditional bureaucratic decision-making (BDM) evolves, especially in contexts shaped by regional identities and decision-making biases. To explore these dynamics, we conducted two survey experiments within traffic enforcement scenarios, involving 4816 participants across multiple provinces. Results indicate that non-native residents perceived ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM when they did not share a province of origin with local bureaucrats. Both native and non-native residents showed a preference for ADM in the presence of bureaucratic and algorithmic biases but preferred BDM when such biases were absent. When bureaucratic and algorithmic biases coexisted, the lack of a shared province of origin further reinforced non-native residents' perception of ADM as fairer and more acceptable than BDM. Our findings reveal the complex interplay among province of origin, decision-making biases, and responses to different decision-making approaches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
原产省、决策偏差以及对官僚决策与算法决策的反应
随着算法决策(ADM)在某些公共部门的盛行,其与传统官僚决策(BDM)的互动也在不断发展,尤其是在受区域认同和决策偏见影响的背景下。为了探索这些动态,我们在交通执法场景下进行了两次调查实验,涉及多个省份的4816名参与者。结果表明,当非本地居民不与当地官员共享一个省份时,他们认为ADM比BDM更公平,更容易接受。在存在官僚主义和算法偏见的情况下,本地居民和非本地居民都更倾向于ADM,而在没有这种偏见的情况下,他们更倾向于BDM。当官僚主义和算法偏见并存时,缺乏共享的原籍省份进一步强化了非本地居民对ADM比BDM更公平、更可接受的看法。我们的研究结果揭示了产地、决策偏见和对不同决策方法的反应之间复杂的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Public Administration Review
Public Administration Review PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
10.80%
发文量
130
期刊介绍: Public Administration Review (PAR), a bi-monthly professional journal, has held its position as the premier outlet for public administration research, theory, and practice for 75 years. Published for the American Society for Public Administration,TM/SM, it uniquely serves both academics and practitioners in the public sector. PAR features articles that identify and analyze current trends, offer a factual basis for decision-making, stimulate discussion, and present leading literature in an easily accessible format. Covering a diverse range of topics and featuring expert book reviews, PAR is both exciting to read and an indispensable resource in the field.
期刊最新文献
Designing Behavioural Insights for Policy: Processes, Capacities and InstitutionsBy IshaniMukhurjee and AsselMussagulova, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: UK, 2024. 84 pp. $23. ISBN: 978‐1‐00‐926446‐4 Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Public Sector. By Wendy D.Chen and David B.Audretsch, New York: Oxford University Press, 2025. 221 pp. $39.95. ISBN: 978‐0‐19‐767944‐9 The Day the Chariot Moved: How India Grows at the Grassroots. By SubrotoBagchi, New Delhi: Penguin, 2025. xix+371 pp. ₹699.00 (hardcover). ISBN: 978‐0‐14‐347125‐7 Populism as Governmental Practice Spatial, Operational and Temporal DynamicsBy Toygar Sinan Baykan, New York: Routledge, 2024. 296 pp. £32.79 (paperback). ISBN: 978-1-03-227914-5 Celebrating 86 Years
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1