你认为人类的行为是稳定的还是可塑的?你的回答会影响你对政策工具的偏好

Malte Dewies, I. Merkelbach, W. van der Scheer, Kirsten I. M. Rohde, S. Denktaş
{"title":"你认为人类的行为是稳定的还是可塑的?你的回答会影响你对政策工具的偏好","authors":"Malte Dewies, I. Merkelbach, W. van der Scheer, Kirsten I. M. Rohde, S. Denktaş","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Government officials can have a disposition to conceptualise the behaviour of policy target groups as stable, malleable, or something in-between. This paper hypothesizes these conceptualisations to influence preferences for policy instruments: Officials seeing behaviour to be more stable are hypothesised to prefer enforcement when aiming to change behaviour, whereas officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable are hypothesised to prefer information provision and behavioural instruments. Using a survey among local government officials from the Netherlands (N = 717), we tested these hypotheses in the context of compliance with rules to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Results show that officials assuming behaviour to be more stable preferred more enforcement and information provision to change behaviour than officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable. This may suggest that seeing behaviour as more stable leads officials to prefer more government intervention in general. Conceptualisations about the changeableness of behaviour were not related to preferences for behavioural instruments. Implications for government officials are discussed.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"9 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do you consider human behaviour to be stable or malleable? Your answer can influence your preferences for policy instruments\",\"authors\":\"Malte Dewies, I. Merkelbach, W. van der Scheer, Kirsten I. M. Rohde, S. Denktaş\",\"doi\":\"10.30636/jbpa.51.276\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Government officials can have a disposition to conceptualise the behaviour of policy target groups as stable, malleable, or something in-between. This paper hypothesizes these conceptualisations to influence preferences for policy instruments: Officials seeing behaviour to be more stable are hypothesised to prefer enforcement when aiming to change behaviour, whereas officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable are hypothesised to prefer information provision and behavioural instruments. Using a survey among local government officials from the Netherlands (N = 717), we tested these hypotheses in the context of compliance with rules to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Results show that officials assuming behaviour to be more stable preferred more enforcement and information provision to change behaviour than officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable. This may suggest that seeing behaviour as more stable leads officials to prefer more government intervention in general. Conceptualisations about the changeableness of behaviour were not related to preferences for behavioural instruments. Implications for government officials are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":407938,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration\",\"volume\":\"9 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-31\",\"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.51.276\",\"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.51.276","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

政府官员可能倾向于将政策目标群体的行为定义为稳定、可塑或介于两者之间。本文假设这些概念会影响政策工具的偏好:假设看到行为更稳定的官员在旨在改变行为时更倾向于执行,而假设行为更具可塑性的官员更倾向于信息提供和行为工具。通过对荷兰地方政府官员(N = 717)的调查,我们在遵守规则以防止Covid-19传播的背景下测试了这些假设。结果表明,假设行为更稳定的官员比假设行为更具可塑性的官员更倾向于更多的执法和信息提供来改变行为。这可能表明,将行为视为更稳定,通常会导致官员倾向于更多的政府干预。关于行为可变性的概念化与行为工具的偏好无关。讨论了对政府官员的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do you consider human behaviour to be stable or malleable? Your answer can influence your preferences for policy instruments
Government officials can have a disposition to conceptualise the behaviour of policy target groups as stable, malleable, or something in-between. This paper hypothesizes these conceptualisations to influence preferences for policy instruments: Officials seeing behaviour to be more stable are hypothesised to prefer enforcement when aiming to change behaviour, whereas officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable are hypothesised to prefer information provision and behavioural instruments. Using a survey among local government officials from the Netherlands (N = 717), we tested these hypotheses in the context of compliance with rules to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Results show that officials assuming behaviour to be more stable preferred more enforcement and information provision to change behaviour than officials assuming behaviour to be more malleable. This may suggest that seeing behaviour as more stable leads officials to prefer more government intervention in general. Conceptualisations about the changeableness of behaviour were not related to preferences for behavioural instruments. Implications for government officials are discussed.
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
×
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