CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Public Policy and Administration ResearchEmotional Labor in ProfessionsPublic Administration and Governance

Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape

Open access
Hattke, Fabian, Hensel, David, Kalucza, Janne·2020·Public Administration Review
DOI 10.1111/puar.13116
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Although red tape has a long history in public administration research, the emotional consequences of bureaucratic procedures for citizens have received little attention in the literature. Within the framework of behavioral public administration, this article investigates how varying conditions of administrative delay, administrative burden, and rule dysfunctionality in citizen‐state interactions spark discrete emotional reactions. Physiological measurements of emotions (e.g., facial coding, electrodermal activity, heart rate) from 136 participants in a laboratory study show that bureaucratic red tape evokes significant negative emotional responses, especially confusion, frustration, and anger. Experimental evidence also indicates that delay is less stirring than burden, while rule functionality has little placatory effect, regardless of the favorability of outcomes. These results support the conceptualization of red tape as an affective rather than a cognitive phenomenon. They also suggest that negative emotions of citizens are linked to the modus operandi of public administrations .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/puar.13116

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. American Psychological Association (APA). 2002. Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychologist 57(12): 1060-73. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060. · DOI
  2. Andersen, Simon Calmar, and Morten Hjortskov. 2016. Cognitive Biases in Performance Evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(4): 647-62. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv036. · DOI
  3. Ashkanasy, Neal M. 2002. Studies of Cognition and Emotion in Organisations: Attribution, Affective Events, Emotional Intelligence and Perception of Emotion. Special issue. Australian Journal of Management 27: 11-20. https://doi. org/10.1177/031289620202701S02. · DOI
  4. ---. 2003. Emotions in Organizations: A Multi-level Perspective. In Multi-level Issues in Organizational Behavior and Strategy, edited by Fred Dansereau and Francis J. Yammarino, 9-54. Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475- 9144(03)02002-2. · DOI
  5. Ashkanasy, Neal M., Ronald H. Humphrey, and Quy N. Huy. 2017. Integrating Emotions and Affect in Theories of Management. Academy of Management Review 42(2): 175-89. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0474. · DOI
  6. Baekgaard, Martin, and Marie Kjaergaard. 2016. Intergovernmental Grants and Public Expenditures: Evidence from a Survey Experiment. Local Government Studies 42(2): 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2015.1110521. · DOI
  7. Battaglio, R. Paul, Jr., Paolo Belardinelli, Nicola Bellé, and Paola Cantarelli. 2019. Behavioral Public Administration ad fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality, Cognitive Biases, and Nudging in Public Organizations. Public Administration Review 79(3): 304-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12994. · DOI
  8. Benedek, Mathias, and Christian Kaernbach. 2010. Decomposition of Skin Conductance Data by Means of Nonnegative Deconvolution. Psychophysiology 47(4): 647-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00972.x. · DOI
  9. Bennett, Rebecca J., and Sandra L. Robinson. 2000. Development of a Measure of Workplace Deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3): 349-60. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349. · DOI
  10. Borry, Erin L. 2016. A New Measure of Red Tape: Introducing the Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) Scale. International Public Management Journal 19(4): 573-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1143421. · DOI
  11. Bozeman, Barry. 1993. A Theory of Government "Red Tape." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3(3): 273-303. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordjournals.jpart.a037171. · DOI
  12. ---. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  13. ---. 2012. Multidimensional Red Tape: A Theory Coda. International Public Management Journal 15(3): 245-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2012. 725283. · DOI
  14. Bozeman, Barry, Pamela N. Reed, and Patrick Scott. 1992. Red Tape and Task Delays in Public and Private Organizations. Administration & Society 24(3): 290-322. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539979202400302. · DOI
  15. Bozeman, Barry, and Patrick Scott. 1996. Bureaucratic Red Tape and Formalization: Untangling Conceptual Knots. American Review of Public Administration 26(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409602600101. · DOI
  16. Deal, Jenifer J., David G. Altman, and Steven G. Rogelberg. 2010. Millennials at Work: What We Know and What We Need to Do (If Anything). Journal of Business and Psychology 25(2): 191-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010- 9177-2. · DOI
  17. DeHart-Davis, Leisha. 2009. Green Tape: A Theory of Effective Organizational Rules. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(2): 361-84.
  18. ---. 2017. Creating Effective Rules in Public Sector Organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  19. DeHart-Davis, Leisha, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(1): 133-48. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui007. · DOI
  20. Ekman, Paul. 1992. Are There Basic Emotions? Psychological Review 99(3): 550-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.550. · DOI
  21. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen. 1978. Facial Action Coding System. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  22. Feeney, Mary K. 2012. Organizational Red Tape: A Measurement Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(3): 427-44. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mus002. · DOI
  23. Finucane, Melissa L., Ali Alhakami, Paul Slovic, and Stephen M. Johnson. 2000. The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13(1): 1-17.
  24. Frijda, Nico H. 1988. The Laws of Emotion. American Psychologist 43(5): 349-58.
  25. George, Bert, Martin Baekgaard, Adelien Decramer, Mieke Audenaert, and Stijn Goeminne. 2018. Institutional Isomorphism, Negativity Bias and Performance Information Use by Politicians: A Survey Experiment. Public Administration. Published online February 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12390. · DOI
  26. George, Bert, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2017. We Know the Yin-But Where Is the Yang? Toward a Balanced Approach on Common Source Bias in Public Administration Scholarship. Review of Public Personnel Administration 37(2): 245-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17698189. · DOI
  27. Gill, Michael, J. 2015. A Phenomenology of Feeling: Examining the Experience of Emotion in Organizations. In New Ways of Studying Emotions in Organizations, edited by Charmine E. J. Härtel, Wilfred J. Zerbe, and Neal M. Ashkanasy, 29-50. Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746- 979120150000011003. · DOI
  28. Gooty, Janaki, Mark Gavin, and Neal M. Ashkanasy. 2009. Emotions Research in OB: The Challenges That Lie Ahead. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(6): 833-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.619. · DOI
  29. Greenberg, Jerald. 1987. The College Sophomore as Guinea Pig: Setting the Record Straight. Academy of Management Review 12(1): 157-9. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.1987.4306516. · DOI
  30. Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan, Sebstian Jilke, Asmus Leth Olsen, and Lars Tummers. 2017. Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology. Public Administration Review 77(1): 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609. · DOI
  31. Hattke, Fabian, and Janne Kalucza. 2019. What Influences the Willingness of Citizens to Coproduce Public Services? Results from a Vignette Experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 2(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.21.60. Hattke, Fabian, Rick Vogel, and Judith Znanewitz. 2018. Satisfied with Red Tape? Leadership, Civic Duty, and Career Intention in the Military. Public Management Review 20(4): 563-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1335341. · DOI
  32. Herd, Pamela, Thomas Deleire, Hope Harvey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2013. Shifting Administrative Burden to the State: The Case of Medicaid Take-Up. Special issue. Public Administration Review 73: S69-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12114. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Hollibaugh, Gary E., Jr., Matthew R. Miles, and Chad B. Newswander. 2019. Why Public Employees Rebel: Guerrilla Government in the Public Sector. Public Administration Review. Published electronically on November 19. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.13118. · DOI
  34. James, Oliver. 2011. Performance Measures and Democracy: Information Effects on Citizens in Field and Laboratory Experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(3): 399-418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq057. · DOI
  35. Kahn, Robert L., Daniel Katz, and Barbara Gutek. 1976. Bureaucratic Encounters- An Evaluation of Government Services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 12: 178-98.
  36. Kaufman, Herbert. 1977. Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
  37. Kaufmann, Wesley, Erin L. Borry, and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2018. More than Pathological Formalization: Understanding Organizational Structure and Red Tape. Public Administration Review 79(2): 236-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12958. · DOI
  38. Kaufmann, Wesley, and Mary K. Feeney. 2014. Beyond the Rules: The Effect of Outcome Favourability on Red Tape Perceptions. Public Administration 92(1): 178-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12049. · DOI
  39. Keiser, Lael R., and Susan M. Miller. 2019. Does Administrative Burden Influence Public Support for Government Programs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment. Public Administration Review. Published electronically on December 18. https:// doi.org/10.1111/puar.13133. · DOI
  40. Kemper, Theodore D. 1978. Toward a Sociology of Emotions: Some Problems and some Solutions. American Sociologist 13: 30-41. https://doi.org/10.2307/27702310. · DOI
  41. ---. 1991. Predicting Emotions from Social Relations. Social Psychology Quarterly 54(4): 330-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786845. · DOI
  42. ---. 2006. Power and Status and the Power-Status Theory of Emotions. In Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions, edited by Jan Stets and Jonathan H. Turner, 87-113. Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017- 9130-4. · DOI
  43. Kemper, Theodore D., and Randall Collins. 1990. Dimensions of Microinteractions. American Journal of Sociology 96(1): 32-68. https://doi.org/10.1086/229492. · DOI
  44. Lerner, Jennifer S., and Dacher Keltner. 2000. Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion-Specific Influences on Judgement and Choice. Cognition and Emotion 14: 473-93. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763. · DOI · Paper page
  45. Linos, Elizabeth, and Nefara Riesch. 2019. Thick Red Tape and the Thin Blue Line: A Field Study on Reducing Administrative Burden in Police Recruitment. Public Administration Review. Published electronically on November 14. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.13115. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Littlewort, Gwen, Jacob Whitehill, Tingfan Wu, Ian Fasel, Mark Frank, Javier Movellan, and Marian Bartlett. 2011. The Computer Expression Recognition Toolbox. In IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture 298-305. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
  47. Marvel, John D. 2016. Unconscious Bias in Citizens Evaluations of Public Sector Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 26(1): 143-58. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu053. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Meyers, Marcia K., and Susan Vorsanger. 2007. Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy. In The Handbook of Public Administration, edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 153-63. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  49. Mintz, Alex, Stephen B. Redd, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2006. Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5): 757-76. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022002706291052. · DOI
  50. Mok, Jue Y., Oliver James, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2017. Expectations of and Satisfaction with Public Services. In Experiments in Public Management Research: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Oliver James, Sebastian R. Jilke, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 345-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1017/978131667691. · DOI
  51. Moon, M. Jae, Jooho Lee, and Chul-Yong Roh. 2014. The Evolution of Internal IT Applications and E-Government Studies in Public Administration: Research Themes and Methods. Administration & Society 46(1): 3-36. https://doi. org/10.1177/0095399712459723. · DOI
  52. Moynihan, Donald, and Pamela Herd. 2010. Red Tape and Democracy: How Rules Affect Citizenship Rights. American Review of Public Administration 40(6): 654-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010366732. · DOI
  53. Moynihan, Donald, Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey. 2014. Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25(1): 43-69. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/muu009. · DOI
  54. Nakamura, Akira, and Soonhe Kim. 2010. Trust in Government in Japan and South Korea: Does the Rise of Critical Citizens Matter? Public Administration Review 70(5): 801-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02207.x. · DOI
  55. Nisar, Muhammad A. 2017. Children of a Lesser God: Administrative Burden and Social Equity in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(1): 104-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jopart/mux025. · DOI
  56. Nørgaard, Asbjørn S. 2018. Human Behavior Inside and Outside Bureaucracy: Lessons from Psychology. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 1(1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.11.13. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Stuart I. Bretschneider. 1997. The Impact of Red Tape's Administrative Delay on Public Organizations' Interest in New Information Technologies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(1): 113-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024335. · DOI
  57. Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald Moynihan. 2007. Organizational Effectiveness and Bureaucratic Red Tape: A Multimethod Study. Public Performance & Management Review 30(3): 398-425. https://doi.org/10.2753/ PMR1530-9576300305. · DOI
  58. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Gordon A. Kingsley. 2000. Examining Red Tape in Public and Private Organizations: Alternative Explanations from a Social Psychological Model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 779-800. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024291. · DOI
  59. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Justin Marlowe. 2015. Assessing Survey-Based Measurement of Personnel Red Tape with Anchoring Vignettes. Review of Public Personnel Administration 35(3): 215-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X14531988. · DOI
  60. Pandey, Sanjay K., Sheela Pandey, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2017. Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape. In Experiments in Public Management Research: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by Oliver James, Sebastian Jilke, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 219-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316676912.011. · DOI
  61. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Patrick G. Scott. 2002. Red Tape: A Review and Assessment of Concepts and Measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12(4): 553-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003547. · DOI
  62. Pandey, Sanjay K., and Eric W. Welch. 2005. Beyond Stereotypes. A Multistage Model of Managerial Perceptions of Red Tape. Administration & Society 37(5): 542-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705278594. · DOI
  63. Reina, Christopher S., Suzanne J. Peterson, and David A. Waldman. 2015. Neuroscience as a Basis for Understanding Emotions and Affect in Organizations. In Organizational Neuroscience, edited by David A. Waldmann and Pierre A. Balthazard, 213-32. Bingley: Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/ S1479-357120150000007008. · DOI
  64. Rodell, Jessica B., and Timothy A. Judge. 2009. Can "Good" Stressors Spark "Bad" Behaviors? The Mediating Role of Emotions in Links of Challenge and Hindrance Stressors with Citizenship and Counterproductive Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1438-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016752. · DOI
  65. Rosenfeld, Raymond A. 1984. An Expansion and Application of Kaufman's Model of Red Tape: The Case of Community Development Block Grants. Western Political Quarterly 37(4): 603-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/448476. · DOI
  66. Schwarz, Norbert. 2012. Feelings-as-Information Theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, edited by Paul A.M. van Lange, Arie Kruglanski, and E. Tory Higgins, 289-308. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  67. Scott, Patrick G., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2000. The Influence of Red Tape on Bureaucratic Behavior: An Experimental Simulation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 19(4): 615-33. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6688. · DOI
  68. Shelley, Kirk, and Stacey Shelley. 2001. Pulse Oximeter Waveform: Photoelectric Plethysmography. In Clinical Monitoring: Practical Applications for Anesthesia and Critical Care, edited by Carol L. Lake, Roberta L. Hines, and Casey D. Blitt, 420-8. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Thoits, Peggy A. 1989. The Sociology of Emotions. Annual Review of Sociology 15: 317-42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001533. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Tummers, Lars, Ulrike Weske, Robin Bouwman, and Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen. 2016. The Impact of Red Tape on Citizen Satisfaction: An Experimental Study. International Public Management Journal 19(3): 320-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10967494.2015.1027800. · DOI
  70. van Engen, Nadine A.M. 2017. A Short Measure of General Policy Alienation: Scale Development Using a 10-Step Procedure. Public Administration 95(2): 512-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12318. · DOI
  71. van Loon, Nina M. 2017. From Red Tape to Which Performance Results? Exploring the Relationship between Red Tape and Various Dimensions of Performance in Healthcare Work Units. Public Administration 95(1): 60-77. https://doi. org/10.1111/padm.12294. · DOI
  72. van Loon, Nina M., Peter L.M. Leisink, Eva Knies, and Gene A. Brewer. 2016. Red Tape: Developing and Validating a New Job-Centered Measure. Public Administration Review 76(4): 662-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12569. · DOI
  73. Weber, Maximilian. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  74. Weimer, David L. 2019. When Are Nudges Desirable? Benefit Validity when Preferences Are Not Consistently Revealed. Public Administration Review. Published electronically on November 14. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13114. · DOI
  75. Weiss, Howard M., and Daniel J. Beal. 2005. Reflections on Affective Events Theory. In The Effect of Affect in Organizational Settings, edited by Neal M. Ashkanasy, Wilfred J. Zerbe, and Charmine E. J. Härtel, 1-21. Bingley: Emerald. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1746-9791(05)01101-6. · DOI
  76. Zarychta, Alan, Tara Grillos, and Krister Andersson. 2019. Public Sector Governance Reform and the Motivation of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Developing Countries. Public Administration Review. Published electronically on December 8. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13132. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hattke, F., Hensel, D., & Kalucza, J.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
Corresponding author
Hattke, Fabian
ORCID
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-11-19
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
53-63
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
DOI
10.1111/puar.13116
OpenAlex
W2989816087
Cited by
179
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6
FWCI
31.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Public Administration Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Emotional Labor in Professions
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
Keywords
bureaucratic red tape, bureaucratic delays, administrative burden, state-citizen relations, behavioral public administration, emotional responses, confusion, frustration, anger, physiological measures of emotion, facial coding, electrodermal activity, heart rate

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