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
Celebrating 86 Years American Society for Public Administration Code of Ethics Sea‐Level Rise Adaptation and Collaboration in Polycentric Governance: A Comparison of Three Regions Updating Tocqueville's Remedies Against Democratic Despotism: Civic Engagement, Local Self-Governance, and Public Administration Regulatory Offsetting Schemes as Effective Governmental Self-Binding Device? Lessons From the German Experience
×
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