点击蓝字 ● 关注我们
New Program
《公共行政》微信公众号开始向之前在《公共行政》上发表过文章的作者征集之前发表的文章简介，如果您有兴趣在本公众号上推广您的文章，您可以将您文章的简介发送至邮箱：larsonse@miamioh.edu。唯一的要求是需要作者本人提供文章简介。
我们期待您的投稿！
今天为大家带来的是Julian Christensen的研究：《有偏见，但并不盲目：对服务用户绩效信息评估中的自利偏见的实验测试》。
摘要
基于有关动机推理的文献，本文提出，在众多竞争性选择中选择一个公共服务提供者可能会使服务用户在评估所选提供者的绩效时偏向积极方向。用户需要通过目标重新排序过程来捍卫自己的选择，这意味着他们将根据信息的（不）便利性改变分配给给定信息的权重。本文使用九项实验研究来测试对最近选择在某所大学而不是竞争性大学学习的学生的这种期望。正如预期的那样，研究结果显示学生的评价存在偏见，但偏见很小且并不总是显著。因此，先前的研究可能对公共部门绩效信息的总体潜力过于悲观。
Based on literature about motivated reasoning, this article proposes that choosing a public service provider from among competing options may bias service users in a positive direction when evaluating the performance of their chosen provider. Users are expected to defend their choice through processes of goal reprioritization, meaning that they will alter the weight they assign to given pieces of information depending on the (in)convenience of that information. This article uses nine experimental studies to test this expectation on students who had recently chosen to study at one university instead of competing universities. As expected, findings show signs of biases in students’ evaluations, but the biases are small and not consistently significant. Thus, prior research may have been too pessimistic regarding the general potential of performance information in the public sector.
文章来源：
Christensen J. Biased, not blind: An experimental test of self-serving biases in service users’ evaluations of performance information. Public Admin. 2018; 96: 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12520
原文链接：
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12520
（或点击文末“阅读原文”查看）
《公共行政》微信公众号刚刚上线不久，我们期待来自各界的宝贵意见，您可将您的建议发送给后台。如果您对我们推送的文章感兴趣，也可在下方留言评论，与其他读者一起交流。
