The 	Mechanism of Influence of Policy Implementation Deviation Degree on Public’s Local Governments Responsibility Judgment

ZHOU Yun; LIU Jian-Beng; YU Xin-Jiang; XU Xiu-Fen

PDF(639 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2018, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (4) : 910-915.

The Mechanism of Influence of Policy Implementation Deviation Degree on Public’s Local Governments Responsibility Judgment

yun zhou¹,², ⁴, ⁵

Author information +

History +

Abstract

In today’s society, there have been various mass disturbances emerging in an endless stream, due to local governments’ policy implementation deviation that is injurious to the public interest. Such disturbances have imposed severe damages on social stability and governmental reputation. The further the local government deviates its original intention and goal for policy making, the severer the consequence it brings to the public. For this purpose, this paper discusses the way that local governments’ policy implementation deviation influences on public’s responsibility judgment on local governments. This paper conducts a questionnaire survey on 728 citizens from 4 counties including Xingzi County and Anfu County in Jiangxi Province. This paper adopts 5 questionnaires, including questionnaire on local governments’ policy implementation deviation degree, questionnaire on public’s attribution for self-control of local governments and questionnaire on public’s judgment on local governments’ intention, as well as Mplus software for data collection. The results have shown that: (1) public’s judgment on local governments’ intention and public’s attribution for self-control of local governments intermediated the relationship between policy implementation deviation degree and public’s responsibility judgment on local governments; (2) policy implementation deviation degree also has an effect on the public’s moral responsibility judgment on local governments through the intermediary chain of public’s judgment on local governments’ intention→public’s attribution for self-control of local governments. After comparing the effect size between the mediating effect of public's judgment on local governments’ intention for policy implementation deviation degree and public's responsibility judgment on local governments, as well as the mediating effect of public's attribution for self-control of local governments policy implementation deviation degree and public's responsibility judgment on local governments, it is found that the mediating effect of the former is larger. The policy implementation deviation degree can not only has an effect on public's responsibility judgment on local governments through the mediating effect of the public's judgment on local governments' intention, but also affect public's responsibility judgment on local governments through the mediating chain formed by public's judgment on local governments' intention and public's attribution for self-control of local governments. It is clear that in case there is policy implementation deviation for governments, the effect of public's judgment on local governments' intention on public's responsibility judgment on local governments is larger than that of public's attribution for self-control of local governments. The results of this study play an enlightenment role for local governments to deal with the crises triggered by policy implementation deviation. When faced with such crisis, local governments can not only guide the public to make uncontrollable attribution for policy implementation deviation. Moreover, they’d spare no efforts to release good intentions of the local governments to the public, enabling them to believe that the deviation in policy implementation is unintentional. The public should be guided to believe that the local governments are “well-meaning but misguided” rather than intentional. This is aimed at relieving public’s responsibility judgment on local governments and subsequent moral outrage and aggressive behavior on this basis.

Key words

policy implementation deviation degree / public’s responsibility judgment on local governments / mechanism

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

yun zhou. The Mechanism of Influence of Policy Implementation Deviation Degree on Public’s Local Governments Responsibility Judgment[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2018, 41(4): 910-915

References

段蕾, 莫书亮, 范翠英, 刘华山. (2012). 道德判断中心理状态和事件因果关系的作用:兼对道德判断双加工过程理论的检验. 心理学报, 44(12), 1607-1617. 方杰, 温忠麟, 张敏强, 孙配贞. (2014). 基于结构方程模型的多重中介效应分析. 心理科学，37(3)，735 －741。林钟敏. (2001). 大学生对学习行为的责任归因. 心理学报, 33(1), 37-42. 柳士顺，凌文辁.( 2009) .多重中介模型及其应用.心理科学，32 (2)，433–435. 瞿雯, 高隽, 官锐园. (2016). 大众偏见对医疗纠纷中归因和责任推断的影响. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(2), 213-217. 王志良. (2012). 产品危机事件中消费者责任归因的作用机制研究. 上海大学学报(社会科学版), 29(4), 131-140. 温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 马什赫伯特. (2004). 结构方程模型检验:拟合指数与卡方准则. 心理学报, 36(2), 186-194. 温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2014). 中介效应分析:方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22(5), 731-745. 徐彪. (2014). 公共危机事件后政府信任受损及修复机理——基于归因理论的分析和情景实验. 公共管理学报(2), 27-38. 徐彪, 陆湾湾, 刘晓蓉, 张浩. (2016). 公共危机事件后公众对政府责任感知的形成机制研究. 公共行政评论, 9(6), 144-163. 张爱卿, 刘华山. (2003). 人际责任推断与行为应对策略的归因分析. 心理学报, 35(2), 231-236. 周浩,龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, 12(6), 942-942. Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 556-575. Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187-199. Coombs, W. Timothy，Holladay, Sherry J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets: initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 165-186. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communicationinsights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business Communication, 41(41), 265-289. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution theory as a guide for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 135-139. Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353–380. Fincham, F. (1982). Moral judgment and the development of causal schemes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 47-61. Gilbert, E. A., Tenney, E. R., Holland, C. R., & Spellman, B. A. (2015). Counterfactuals, control, and causation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(5), 643-658. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1),457. Lagnado, D. A., & Channon, S. (2008). Judgments of cause and blame: the effects of intentionality and foreseeability. Cognition, 108(3), 754-770. Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 300-326. Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame. Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147-186. Mcauley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russel, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: the revised causal dimension scale (cdsii). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 566-573. Nobes, G., Panagiotaki, G., & Pawson, C. (2009). The influence of negligence, intention, and outcome on children’s moral judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(4), 382-397. Philip J. Mazzocco, Mark D. Alicke, & Teresa L. Davis. (2004). On the robustness of outcome bias: no constraint by prior culpability. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 26(2-3), 131-146. Robbennolt, J. K. (2000). Outcome severity and judgments of “responsibility”: a meta-analytic review 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(12), 2575–2609. Udo Rudolph, Scott Roesch, Tobias Greitemeyer, & Bernard Weiner. (2004). A meta‐analytic review of help giving and aggression from an attributional perspective: contributions to a general theory of motivation. Cognition and Emotion, 18(6), 815-848. Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.