Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers

• Author: Mariafrancesca Sicilia,Paolo Belardinelli,Nicola Bellé,Ileana Steccolini
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12969
• Date: 01 November 2018

Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers 841

Abstract: Combining insights from public administration, accounting, and psychology, this article explores the

microprocesses by which public managers use performance information, investigating whether the type of performance

information use and the request to justify decisions affect the way in which information is processed. The study draws

on data from a series of artifactual survey experiments with Italian municipal executives. Findings show that managers

process information differently under ex post rather than ex ante performance information uses. More specifically,

managers are more likely to be subject to framing bias under ex post than under ex ante uses of performance

information. This interaction seems to be robust when subjects are asked to provide justification for their decisions.

Evidence for Practice

• Managers will process performance information differently depending on its use.

• Managers are less prone to framing bias under ex ante uses of performance information (e.g., allocation of

resources) than under ex post uses (e.g., performance evaluation).

• Asking managers to provide justification for their decisions may not be sufficient to reduce framing effects.

• Increased attention should be given to avoid framing effects, especially in ex post uses of performance

information, as this could affect the fairness of evaluation processes, performance-related sanctions, and

rewards.

Performance measurement has been heralded by

New Public Management reformers as a core

element in the modernization of public sector

organizations, translating into practice principles

of managerialism, economic rationality, and results

orientation (Hood 1991; Osborne and Gaebler 1992;

Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). As these principles

became globally diffused and recognized as the new

mantra for the public sector, both performance

measurement practices and related empirical research

gained momentum (Kroll 2014; Moynihan et al.

2011). Research looking at the implementation

and effects of performance measurement systems

increasingly pointed to the limited use of performance

information and started to explore the conditions

under which it is used (Kroll 2015). If a rich literature

now exists on the factors that enable the use of such

information (for reviews, see Kroll 2014, 2015)—that

is, on when performance information is used and

by whom—less consideration has been devoted to

understanding why and how performance information

is used. Therefore, performance information use still

remains a “black box” that needs unpacking.

The use of performance information has often

been seen as a monodimensional concept, with

most research only investigating whether or not use

occurs (see, e.g., Moynihan and Pandey 2010). This

suggests that there is a need to further explore the

implications of differences in the conditions under

which information is used (e.g., Moynihan 2009;

Speklé and Verbeeten 2014). Moreover, most authors

so far have focused on understanding the drivers

of use, rather than the ways in which performance

information is processed by users. This indicates that

more investigation may be needed to understand how

users deal with performance information.

Interestingly, the few studies focusing on how

information is processed in the public realm refer

to either citizens or politicians and show that the

use of performance information, far from being a

purely rational and reflective process, is affected

by, among other things, primes, frames, and prior

beliefs (Andersen and Hjortskov 2015; Baekgaard

and Serritzlew 2016; George et al. 2018; Nielsen

and Baekgaard 2013; Nielsen and Moynihan 2017;

Olsen 2015). Surprisingly, little is known about how

public managers process performance information

and engage with it when taking decisions related

to their responsibilities and whether they process

information differently in different situations of

Paolo Belardinelli

Bocconi University, Italy

Nicola Bellé

Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Italy

Mariafrancesca Sicilia

University of Bergamo, Italy

Ileana Steccolini

Newcastle University London, United Kingdom

Framing Effects under Different Uses of Performance

Information: An Experimental Study on Public Managers

Research Article

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 6, pp. 841–851. © 2018 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12969.

Mariafrancesca Sicilia is associate

professor at the University of Bergamo, Italy,

and visiting fellow in the Department of

Public Leadership and Social Enterprise at

the Open University, United Kingdom. Her

research covers public sector accounting

and accountability and models of public

service delivery.

E-mail: mariafrancesca.sicilia@unibg.it

Nicola Bellé is assistant professor in the

Institute of Management of the Sant’Anna

School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

His research focuses on behavioral public

administration and management.

E-mail: nicola.belle@santannapisa.it

Paolo Belardinelli is a PhD candidate in

public policy and administration at Bocconi

University, Milan, Italy. His research focuses

on behavioral public administration and

management.

E-mail: paolo.belardinelli@unibocconi.it

Ileana Steccolini is professor of

accounting and finance and director of

research at Newcastle University London.

Her research is situated at the interface of

public administration, management, and

accounting and focuses on public sector

accounting and accountability, performance

management, and governmental financial

resilience.

E-mail: ileana.steccolini@newcastle.ac.uk

The authors are listed alphabetically.