Cited by 1

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape

Hattke, Fabian, Hensel, David, Kalucza, Janne·2019·Academy of Management Proceedings

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

Crossref · 10.5465/ambpp.2019.134

Cites

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hattke, F., Hensel, D., & Kalucza, J.
Affiliations
  • U. of Hamburg
  • Helmut Schmidt U.
Venue
Academy of Management Proceedings
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