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

IF 6.1 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
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":6.1000,"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.
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信