Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-23T13:53:31.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Warm Behavior Mitigate the Negative Effect of Unfavorable Governmental Decisions on Citizens’ Trust?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2021

Frederik Godt Hansen Open the ORCID record for Frederik Godt Hansen [Opens in a new window]
Frederik Godt Hansen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, Aarhus C, 8000, Denmark. Twitter: @FrederikGodt
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For decades, scholars have discussed how to build greater citizen trust in government. I hypothesize that to increase trust in government, we should consider whether decisions made in bureaucrat–citizen encounters (e.g. applications for welfare benefits) are favorable to citizens. Building on insights from social psychology, I argue that in cases where citizens are presented with unfavorable decisions (e.g. rejection of applications), public employees can mitigate the negative impact on trust in government by appearing warm and friendly in the decision-making process. The argument is tested in a large-scale randomized survey experiment on a representative sample of Danish citizens, where I manipulate decision favorability and warmth. The findings reveal that outcome favorability and warmth strongly influence citizens’ trust in government.

Keywords

Warmthsurvey experimenttrust in governmentpolitical trustcitizen–state encounter
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 2023 , pp. 62 - 75
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

References

Abele, Andrea E., Cuddy, Amy J. C., Judd, Charles M., and Yzerbyt, Vincent Y.. 2008. Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology 38 (7): 1063–1065. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abele, Andrea E., and Hauke, Nicole. 2020. Comparing the Facets of the Big Two in Global Evaluation of Self versus Other People. European Journal of Social Psychology 50 (5): 969–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abele, Andrea E., and Wojciszke, Bogdan. 2007. Agency and Communion from the Perspective of Self versus Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (5): 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen, Nicholas, and Sarah, Birch. 2015. Process Preferences and British Public Opinion: Citizens’ Judgements about Government in an Era of Anti-Politics. Political Studies 63 (2): 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Monika, and Tobias, Johansson. 2020. Building Institutional Trust Through Service Experiences|Private Versus Public Provision Matter. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30 (2): 290–306. https//doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz029.Google Scholar
Berlingske. 2019. DI: Der kommer til at mangle 35.000 plejehjemspladser i 2030 [in da]. https://www.berlingske.dk/content/item/1336777.Google Scholar
Bøggild, Troels. 2016. How Politicians’ Reelection Efforts Can Reduce Public Trust, Electoral Support, and Policy Approval. Political Psychology 37 (6): 901–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bøggild, Troels, and Michael, Bang Petersen. 2016. The Evolved Functions of Procedural Fairness: An Adaptation for Politics [in en]. In The Evolution of Morality, edited by Todd, K. Shackelford and Ranald, D. Hansen, 247–276. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambilla, Marco, Rusconi, Patrice, Sacchi, Simona, and Cherubini, Paolo. 2011. Looking for Honesty: The Primary Role of Morality (vs. Sociability and Competence) in Information Gathering [in en]. European Journal of Social Psychology 41 (2): 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambilla, Marco, Sacchi, Simona, Rusconi, Patrice, Cherubini, Paolo, and Yzerbyt, Vincent Y.. 2012. You Want to Give a Good Impression? Be Honest! Moral Traits Dominate Group Impression Formation [in eng]. British Journal of Social Psychology 51 (1): 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x.Google ScholarPubMed
Brockner, Joel. 2011. A Contemporary Look at Organizational Justice: Multiplying Insult Times Injury. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brockner, Joel, and Wiesenfeld, Batia M.. 1996. An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures. Psychological Bulletin 120 (2): 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.2.189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, Daniel. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chanley, Virginia A., Rudolph, Thomas J., and Rahn, Wendy M.. 2000. The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis. The Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3): 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/317987.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citrin, Jack, and Philip Green, Donald. 1986. Presidential Leadership and the Resurgence of Trust in Government. British Journal of Political Science 16 (4): 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, and Laura, Stoker. 2018. Political Trust in a Cynical Age. Annual Review of Political Science 21 (11): 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpolisci-050316-092550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquitt, Jason A., Conlon, Donald E., Wesson, Michael J., Porter, Christopher OLH, and Yee Ng, K.. 2001. Justice at the Millennium: A Meta- Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, Christopher A., Gibbs Knotts, H., and Brennan, Kathleen M.. 2008. The Importance of Trust in Government for Public Administration: The Case of Zoning. Public Administration Review 68 (3): 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00882.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuddy, Amy J. C., Fiske, Susan T., and Peter, Glick. 2007. The BIAS Map: Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (4): 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dalton, Russell J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies [in English]. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter, Persson, Mikael, Gilljam, Mikael, and Lindholm, Torun. 2019. Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance. British Journal of Political Science 49 (1): 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000508.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T. 2018. Political Cognition Helps Explain Social Class Divides: Two Dimensions of Candidate Impressions, Group Stereotypes, and Meritocracy Beliefs. Cognition 188:108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.11.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J. C., and Peter, Glick. 2007. Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, Susan T., Cuddy, Amy J. C., Peter, Glick, and Jun, Xu. 2002. A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow from Perceived Status and Competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (6): 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.Google Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., Juan, Xu, Cuddy, Amy C., and Peter, Glick. 1999. (Dis) Respecting versus (Dis) Liking: Status and Interdependence Predict Ambivalent Stereotypes of Competence and Warmth. Journal of Social Issues 55 (3): 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Geoffrey P., Piazza, Jared, and Rozin, Paul. 2014. Moral Character Predominates in Person Perception and Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (US) 106 (1): 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimes, Marcia. 2006. Organizing Consent: The Role of Procedural Fairness in Political Trust and Compliance. European Journal of Political Research 45 (2): 285–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., and Meijer, Albert J.. 2014. Effects of Transparency on the Perceived Trustworthiness of a Government Organization: Evidence from an Online Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (1): 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halkias, Georgios, and Diamantopoulos, Adamantios. 2020. Universal Dimensions of Individuals’ Perception: Revisiting the Operationalization of Warmth and Competence with a Mixed-Method Approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Frederik Godt. 2021. Replication Data for: Can Warm Behavior Mitigate the Negative Effect of Unfavorable Governmental Decisions on Citizens’ Trust? https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KAMSQK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 1998. The Political Relevance of Political Trust. American Political Science Review 92 (4): 791–808. https://doi.org/doi:10.2307/2586304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Alford, John R.. 2004. Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 62–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review 105 (4): 765–789. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0003055411000414.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, Tingley, Dustin, and Keele, Luke. 2010. A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis. Psychological Methods 15 (4): 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judd, Charles M., Laurie, James-Hawkins, Vincent, Yzerbyt, and Yoshihisa, Kashima. 2005. Fundamental Dimensions of Social Judgment: Understanding the Relations between Judgments of Competence and Warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keele, Luke. 2007. Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government. American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00248.x.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Webster, Donna M.. 1996. Motivated Closing of the Mind: “Seizing” and “Freezing.” Psychological Review (US) 103 (2): 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laustsen, Lasse, and Alexander, Bor. 2017. The Relative Weight of Character Traits in Political Candidate Evaluations: Warmth Is More Important than Competence, Leadership and Integrity. Electoral Studies 49:96–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2017.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, Colin Wayne, Ellemers, Naomi, and Barreto, Manuela. 2007. Group Virtue: The Importance of Morality (vs. Competence and Sociability) in the Positive Evaluation of in-Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (US) 93 (2): 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, Danbee, and Van Ryzin, Gregg G.. 2020. Bureaucratic Reputation in the Eyes of Citizens: An Analysis of US Federal Agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86 (1): 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Stegmaier, Mary. 2013. The VP-Function Revisited: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after over 40 Years [in en]. Public Choice 157 (3–4): 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-013-0086-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Magalhaes, Pedro C., and Aguiar-Conraria, Luis. 2019. Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities [in English]. Political Psychology 40 (1): 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marien, Sofie, and Marc, Hooghe. 2011. Does Political Trust Matter? An Empirical Investigation into the Relation between Political Trust and Support for Law Compliance. European Journal of Political Research 50 (2): 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01930.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Roger C., Davis, James H., and David Schoorman, F.. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard-Moody, Steven Williams, and Musheno, Michael. 2003. Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Health. 2017. Plejecentre. https://www.sum.dk/Aeldre/Boliger-tilaeldre/Plejecentre.aspx.Google Scholar
Nannestad, Peter, and Paldam, Martin. 1994. The VP-Function: A Survey of the Literature on Vote and Popularity Functions after 25 Years. Public Choice 79 (3): 213–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01047771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. 2017. Government at a Glance 2017. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Rasmus T. 2017. Politicians Appear More Competent When Using Numerical Rhetoric [in en]. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4 (2): 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, David N. 1985. Postprimary Education Has Little Impact on Informal Reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology 77 (5): 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pop-Eleches, Cristian, and Pop-Eleches, Grigore. 2012. Targeted Government Spending and Political Preferences [in en]. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7 (3): 285–320. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00011017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns Chicago. London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redlawsk, David P, Civettini, Andrew JW, and Emmerson, Karen M. 2010. The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”? Political Psychology 31 (4): 563–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, John T., and Lubell, Mark. 1998. Trust and Taxpaying: Testing the Heuristic Approach to Collective Action. American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 398–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, Keith E., and West, Richard F.. 2007. Natural Myside Bias Is Independent of Cognitive Ability. Thinking & Reasoning 13 (3): 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600780796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, Keith E., West, Richard F., and Toplak, Maggie E.. 2013. Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22 (4): 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480174.Google Scholar
Statistics Denmark. 2020a. NYT: Flest kvinder bor p_a plejehjem eller i pleje- bolig [in da]. https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/nyt/NytHtml?cid=30746.Google Scholar
Statistics Denmark. 2020b. NYT: Fortsat f_rre _ldre bor i pleje- og _ldreboliger [in da]. https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/nyt/NytHtml?cid=32187.Google Scholar
Thomsen, Mette Kjaergaard, and Jensen, Ulrich Thy. 2020. Service Professionals’ Response to Volunteer Involvement in Service Production. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 30 (2): 220–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin, Yamamoto, Teppei, Hirose, Kentaro, Keele, Luke, and Imai, Kosuke. 2014. Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 59 (1): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Van Erkel, Patrick F.A., and Van der Meer, Tom W.G.. 2016. Macroeconomic Performance, Political Trust and the Great Recession: A Multilevel Analysis of the Effects of within-Country Fluctuations in Macroeconomic Performance on Political Trust in 15 EU Countries, 1999–2011. European Journal of Political Research 55 (1): 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/14756765.12115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ryzin, Gregg G. 2011. Outcomes, Process, and Trust of Civil Servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (4): 745–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojciszke, Bogdan, Bazinska, Roza, and Jaworski, Marcin. 1998. On the Dominance of Moral Categories in Impression Formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24 (12): 1251–1263. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Christopher R., Anne Britt, M., and Butler, Jodie A.. 2009. Argumentation Schema and the Myside Bias in Written Argumentation. Written Communication 26 (2): 183–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088309333019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Hansen Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KAMSQK
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Hansen supplementary material

Hansen supplementary material

Download Hansen supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 187 KB