CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 678E-Government and Public ServicesPublic Policy and Administration ResearchAdministrative Law and Governance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 92 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Transparency on the Perceived Trustworthiness of a Government Organization: Evidence from an Online Experiment

Open access
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan G., Meijer, Albert J.·2014·Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
DOI 10.1093/jopart/mus048
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although the effect of government transparency on trust is heavily debated, our theoretical and empirical understanding of this relationship is still limited. The basic assumption tested in this article is whether transparency leads to higher levels of perceived trustworthiness. This article uses theories from social psychology to advance our understanding of the effects and mechanism of the relationship between transparency and the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization. Based on these theories, we propose two alternative hypotheses: (1) the general predisposition to trust government, and (2) prior knowledge about the specific issue moderates the relationship between transparency and trust. These assumptions are tested by online experimental research, which demonstrates that these factors indeed affect the relationship between transparency and perceived trustworthiness: changes in perceived competence occur mainly in the group of citizens with high trust and little knowledge, whereas changes in perceived benevolence occur predominantly in the group of citizens with low knowledge and low trust. These findings highlight that prior knowledge and general predisposition to trust should be incorporated in our theoretical models of the relationship between transparency and perceived trustworthiness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jopart/mus048

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Freeman, 2004, An examination of factors that affect the credibility of online health information, Technical Communication, 51, 239
  2. O’Neill Onora . 2002. A question of trust: The BBC Reith lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  3. Tiemeijer Will L . 2011. Hoe Mensen Keuzes Maken: de Psychologie van het Beslissen [How people decide: Psychology of decision-making]. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press.
  4. Zucker, 1986, Production of trust: Institutional sources of economics structures, 1840–1920, 8, 53

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 678

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-11-05
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
137-157
ISSN
  • 1053-1858 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9803
DOI
10.1093/jopart/mus048
OpenAlex
W2137678636
Cited by
678
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 146 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7
FWCI
78.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Law › Administrative Law and Governance
Keywords
government transparency, perceived trustworthiness, public trust in government, perceived competence, perceived benevolence, prior knowledge, public trust, government organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review