The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape
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. This study advances a multidimensional framework for bureaucratic red tape in citizen-state interactions and investigates how varying conditions of administrative delay, administrative burden, and rule dysfunctionality spark discrete emotional reactions. Physiological measurements of emotions (i.e. 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 administrative delay is less stirring than administrative burden, while rule functionality has little placatory effect, regardless of the favorability of outcomes. These results stress the importance of treating red tape as a multidimensional phenomenon. They also suggest that negative emotions of citizens are linked to the modus operandi of public administrations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Christensen, J., Aarøe, L., Baekgaard, M., Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2020) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13134 · Cited by 458
Metadata
- Authors
- Hattke, F., Hensel, D., & Kalucza, J.
- Affiliations
- U. of Hamburg
- Helmut Schmidt U.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Proceedings
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 2019-08-01
- Volume
- 2019
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12696
- ISSN
- 0065-0668
- 2151-6561
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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