Understanding Micro-Level Budgeting Behavior: How Cognitive Biases Shape Politicians' Budget Preferences

IF 2.6 3区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Tom Overmans, Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen
{"title":"Understanding Micro-Level Budgeting Behavior: How Cognitive Biases Shape Politicians' Budget Preferences","authors":"Tom Overmans,&nbsp;Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen","doi":"10.1111/gove.70004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Decades of research emphasized collective behaviors in public budgeting, yet individual budget preferences remain underexplored. This paper argues that both well-known and lesser-known cognitive biases distort politicians' budget judgment, resulting in biased preferences. To test this, we conducted five preregistered experiments examining the impact of five biases—anchoring, herding, mental accounting, availability bias, and loss aversion—on budget preferences. Using data from 1825 municipal budgeters in The Netherlands, we reveal significant effects of anchoring, adherence to irrelevant budget labels (mental accounting), and overspending on items that attract media attention (availability bias) or emphasize gains (loss aversion). We also find that presenting decision information through infographics holds potential for improving judgment and mitigating biases in preferences. These findings challenge the view that budgeting is purely political, highlighting the role of cognitive factors in suboptimal budget decisions. We emphasize the need for further research into biases and debiasing mechanisms to advance budget decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":48056,"journal":{"name":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","volume":"38 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gove.70004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.70004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Decades of research emphasized collective behaviors in public budgeting, yet individual budget preferences remain underexplored. This paper argues that both well-known and lesser-known cognitive biases distort politicians' budget judgment, resulting in biased preferences. To test this, we conducted five preregistered experiments examining the impact of five biases—anchoring, herding, mental accounting, availability bias, and loss aversion—on budget preferences. Using data from 1825 municipal budgeters in The Netherlands, we reveal significant effects of anchoring, adherence to irrelevant budget labels (mental accounting), and overspending on items that attract media attention (availability bias) or emphasize gains (loss aversion). We also find that presenting decision information through infographics holds potential for improving judgment and mitigating biases in preferences. These findings challenge the view that budgeting is purely political, highlighting the role of cognitive factors in suboptimal budget decisions. We emphasize the need for further research into biases and debiasing mechanisms to advance budget decision-making.

Abstract Image

理解微观层面的预算行为:认知偏差如何塑造政治家的预算偏好
几十年的研究强调公共预算中的集体行为,但个人预算偏好仍未得到充分探讨。本文认为,众所周知的认知偏差和鲜为人知的认知偏差都会扭曲政治家的预算判断,从而导致偏见偏好。为了验证这一点,我们进行了五个预先注册的实验,检查五种偏见——锚定、羊群、心理会计、可用性偏见和损失厌恶——对预算偏好的影响。使用来自荷兰1825个市政预算人员的数据,我们揭示了锚定、坚持不相关的预算标签(心理会计)以及在吸引媒体关注的项目上超支(可用性偏见)或强调收益(损失厌恶)的显著影响。我们还发现,通过信息图表来呈现决策信息具有提高判断和减轻偏好偏差的潜力。这些发现挑战了预算是纯粹政治的观点,强调了认知因素在次优预算决策中的作用。我们强调有必要进一步研究偏见和消除偏见的机制,以促进预算决策。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
10.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Governance provides a forum for the theoretical and practical discussion of executive politics, public policy, administration, and the organization of the state. Published in association with International Political Science Association''s Research Committee on the Structure & Organization of Government (SOG), it emphasizes peer-reviewed articles that take an international or comparative approach to public policy and administration. All papers, regardless of empirical focus, should have wider theoretical, comparative, or practical significance.
×
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