公职人员如何感知算法自由裁量权:警务现状偏见研究

IF 6.1 1区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Muhammad Afzal, Panos Panagiotopoulos
{"title":"公职人员如何感知算法自由裁量权:警务现状偏见研究","authors":"Muhammad Afzal, Panos Panagiotopoulos","doi":"10.1111/puar.13957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithms are disrupting established decision-making practices in public administration. A key area of interest lies in <i>algorithmic discretion</i> or how public officials use algorithms to exercise discretion. The article develops a framework to explain algorithmic discretion by drawing on status quo bias theory and bureaucratic discretion. A study with police officers in the UK shows that—while officers still value their discretion—it is resistance via the aspects of status quo bias that accounts for a more substantial explanation. Transition costs, loss aversion, and performance uncertainty determine resistance and, in turn, reluctance to delegate discretion to algorithms. The study contributes to public administration research that demonstrates the influence of cognitive biases in the increasing use of algorithms in areas like policing. The article concludes with recommendations for embedding algorithmic discretion into the professional development of public officials to mitigate sources of status quo bias.","PeriodicalId":48431,"journal":{"name":"Public Administration Review","volume":"89 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Public Officials Perceive Algorithmic Discretion: A Study of Status Quo Bias in Policing\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Afzal, Panos Panagiotopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/puar.13957\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Algorithms are disrupting established decision-making practices in public administration. A key area of interest lies in <i>algorithmic discretion</i> or how public officials use algorithms to exercise discretion. The article develops a framework to explain algorithmic discretion by drawing on status quo bias theory and bureaucratic discretion. A study with police officers in the UK shows that—while officers still value their discretion—it is resistance via the aspects of status quo bias that accounts for a more substantial explanation. Transition costs, loss aversion, and performance uncertainty determine resistance and, in turn, reluctance to delegate discretion to algorithms. The study contributes to public administration research that demonstrates the influence of cognitive biases in the increasing use of algorithms in areas like policing. The article concludes with recommendations for embedding algorithmic discretion into the professional development of public officials to mitigate sources of status quo bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Administration Review\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-10\",\"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.13957\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13957","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

摘要

算法正在扰乱公共管理中既定的决策实践。感兴趣的一个关键领域在于算法自由裁量权或公职人员如何使用算法行使自由裁量权。本文借鉴现状偏向理论和官僚裁量权理论,构建了一个解释算法裁量权的框架。一项针对英国警察的研究表明,尽管警察仍然重视他们的自由裁量权,但对现状偏见的抵制才是一个更实质性的解释。转换成本、损失厌恶和性能不确定性决定了阻力,进而决定了不愿将自由裁量权委托给算法。这项研究为公共管理研究做出了贡献,该研究证明了认知偏见对警务等领域越来越多地使用算法的影响。文章最后提出了将算法自由裁量权嵌入公职人员专业发展的建议,以减轻现状偏见的来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Public Officials Perceive Algorithmic Discretion: A Study of Status Quo Bias in Policing
Algorithms are disrupting established decision-making practices in public administration. A key area of interest lies in algorithmic discretion or how public officials use algorithms to exercise discretion. The article develops a framework to explain algorithmic discretion by drawing on status quo bias theory and bureaucratic discretion. A study with police officers in the UK shows that—while officers still value their discretion—it is resistance via the aspects of status quo bias that accounts for a more substantial explanation. Transition costs, loss aversion, and performance uncertainty determine resistance and, in turn, reluctance to delegate discretion to algorithms. The study contributes to public administration research that demonstrates the influence of cognitive biases in the increasing use of algorithms in areas like policing. The article concludes with recommendations for embedding algorithmic discretion into the professional development of public officials to mitigate sources of status quo bias.
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
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