了解COVID-19大流行期间有关有效性、成本和平等的绩效信息。参考点对公民绩效信息使用的重要性

Maria Falk Mikkesen
{"title":"了解COVID-19大流行期间有关有效性、成本和平等的绩效信息。参考点对公民绩效信息使用的重要性","authors":"Maria Falk Mikkesen","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.42.205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses the COVID-19 pandemic as an extreme case to test whether reference points affect how citizens use performance information on effectiveness, cost, and equality. Drawing on the evaluability hypothesis, the paper argues that citizens are more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality and disregard performance information on effectiveness and costs when no reference points are available to aid interpretation. The paper uses a pre-registered between-subject conjoint survey experiment on 2,025 Danish citizens to test expectations. Respondents were randomly drawn to rate either one fictive government strategy to combat the Coronavirus—with no opportunity to compare performance information between strategies—or two strategies—with the opportunity to compare performance information between strategies. The strategies varied on effectiveness (mortality rate), costs (overall economic costs) and equality (distribution of the economic costs and access to testing). Results show that when respondents are presented with one strategy, only performance information on equality affects ratings. Strategies with lower fatality and lower economic costs are thus not rated higher than strategies with higher fatality and higher economic costs holding other factors constant. In contrast, when respondents are presented with two strategies, performance information on mortality rate and economic cost plays a significant role for citizens’ ratings. Even during a high-information high salience crisis such as COVID-19, citizens are thus more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality than effectiveness and cost when no ‘yardstick’ is available. Results imply that performance information on effectiveness and cost risk being drown out by other information easier to interpret if not presented with relevant reference points.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making sense of performance information on effectiveness, costs, and equality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of reference points for citizens’ performance information use\",\"authors\":\"Maria Falk Mikkesen\",\"doi\":\"10.30636/JBPA.42.205\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper uses the COVID-19 pandemic as an extreme case to test whether reference points affect how citizens use performance information on effectiveness, cost, and equality. Drawing on the evaluability hypothesis, the paper argues that citizens are more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality and disregard performance information on effectiveness and costs when no reference points are available to aid interpretation. The paper uses a pre-registered between-subject conjoint survey experiment on 2,025 Danish citizens to test expectations. Respondents were randomly drawn to rate either one fictive government strategy to combat the Coronavirus—with no opportunity to compare performance information between strategies—or two strategies—with the opportunity to compare performance information between strategies. The strategies varied on effectiveness (mortality rate), costs (overall economic costs) and equality (distribution of the economic costs and access to testing). Results show that when respondents are presented with one strategy, only performance information on equality affects ratings. Strategies with lower fatality and lower economic costs are thus not rated higher than strategies with higher fatality and higher economic costs holding other factors constant. In contrast, when respondents are presented with two strategies, performance information on mortality rate and economic cost plays a significant role for citizens’ ratings. Even during a high-information high salience crisis such as COVID-19, citizens are thus more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality than effectiveness and cost when no ‘yardstick’ is available. Results imply that performance information on effectiveness and cost risk being drown out by other information easier to interpret if not presented with relevant reference points.\",\"PeriodicalId\":407938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.42.205\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.42.205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以2019冠状病毒病大流行为极端案例,检验参考点是否会影响公民如何使用有关有效性、成本和平等的绩效信息。根据可评估性假设,本文认为,当没有参考点可以帮助解释时,公民更有可能根据关于平等的绩效信息做出决策,而忽视关于有效性和成本的绩效信息。本文采用预先注册的主体间联合调查实验,对2025名丹麦公民进行了预期测试。受访者被随机抽取,要么对一项有效的政府抗击冠状病毒的战略进行评价——没有机会比较战略之间的绩效信息,要么对两项战略进行评价——有机会比较战略之间的绩效信息。这些战略在有效性(死亡率)、成本(总体经济成本)和平等性(经济成本的分配和获得检测的机会)方面各不相同。结果表明,当被调查者面对一种策略时,只有关于平等的绩效信息会影响评级。因此,在保持其他因素不变的情况下,具有较低死亡率和较低经济成本的战略的评级并不高于具有较高死亡率和较高经济成本的战略。相反,当被调查者面对两种策略时,关于死亡率和经济成本的绩效信息对公民的评级起着重要作用。因此,即使在COVID-19等信息高度突出的危机期间,在没有“标准”的情况下,公民也更有可能根据有关平等的绩效信息而不是有效性和成本做出决策。结果表明,如果没有提供相关参考点,有关有效性和成本风险的绩效信息将被其他更容易解释的信息所淹没。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Making sense of performance information on effectiveness, costs, and equality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The importance of reference points for citizens’ performance information use
This paper uses the COVID-19 pandemic as an extreme case to test whether reference points affect how citizens use performance information on effectiveness, cost, and equality. Drawing on the evaluability hypothesis, the paper argues that citizens are more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality and disregard performance information on effectiveness and costs when no reference points are available to aid interpretation. The paper uses a pre-registered between-subject conjoint survey experiment on 2,025 Danish citizens to test expectations. Respondents were randomly drawn to rate either one fictive government strategy to combat the Coronavirus—with no opportunity to compare performance information between strategies—or two strategies—with the opportunity to compare performance information between strategies. The strategies varied on effectiveness (mortality rate), costs (overall economic costs) and equality (distribution of the economic costs and access to testing). Results show that when respondents are presented with one strategy, only performance information on equality affects ratings. Strategies with lower fatality and lower economic costs are thus not rated higher than strategies with higher fatality and higher economic costs holding other factors constant. In contrast, when respondents are presented with two strategies, performance information on mortality rate and economic cost plays a significant role for citizens’ ratings. Even during a high-information high salience crisis such as COVID-19, citizens are thus more likely to make decisions based on performance information on equality than effectiveness and cost when no ‘yardstick’ is available. Results imply that performance information on effectiveness and cost risk being drown out by other information easier to interpret if not presented with relevant reference points.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bringing “Behavioral” Fully into Behavioral Public Administration Administrative Informatics Simon’s Behavior and Waldo’s Public Revisiting Our Assumptions About the Nature of Man Ambiguous COVID-19 Messaging Increases Unsafe Socializing Intentions
×
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:481959085
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