删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

行为公共管理学视角下公共决策的社会许可机制：“一提两抑”

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01
张书维1, 申翊人1, 周洁2()
1 中山大学中国公共管理研究中心、政治与公共事务管理学院, 广州 510275
2 中国科学院心理研究所行为科学重点实验室, 北京 100101
收稿日期:2019-07-03出版日期:2020-02-25发布日期:2019-12-24
通讯作者:周洁E-mail:zhouj@psych.ac.cn

基金资助:* 国家社会科学基金青年项目(18CGL043)

Social license of public decision from the behavioral public administration perspective: Transparency effect and its moderation

ZHANG Shuwei1, SHEN Yiren1, ZHOU Jie2()
1 Center for Chinese Public Administration Research; School of Government, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275 China
2 Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101 China
Received:2019-07-03Online:2020-02-25Published:2019-12-24
Contact:ZHOU Jie E-mail:zhouj@psych.ac.cn






摘要/Abstract


摘要： 公共管理的本质是公共决策。“公共决策的社会许可”指当地民众对于公共决策的持续接受和支持程度, 是公共决策合法性的基石。本研究借助“行为公共管理学”的理论视角, 通过两个调查实验(N = 354 + 354), 一个现场调查(N = 520), 全面考察公共决策透明(过程透明和内容透明)与社会许可之间的因果关系, 进而明确这一关系的作用边界。结果发现：1) 决策过程透明与内容透明正向影响社会许可; 2) 政府信任调节决策内容透明与社会许可的关系; 3) 结果依赖调节两类透明与社会许可的关系。基于这些结果, 作者总结出正性的“决策透明效应”以及“谨慎的不介意”和“有选择的忽视”之双缓冲作用, 即“一提两抑”, 以更好地理解公共决策的社会许可机制。



图1理论模型
图1理论模型


表1描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究1)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.003
3. 政府信任操纵 - - 0.009 -0.021
4. 风险感知 3.91 1.36 -0.060 -0.151** -0.156**
5. 社会许可 4.53 1.27 0.308*** 0.169** 0.317*** -0.447***
6. 性别a - - -0.020 -0.026 -0.009 0.018 -0.013
7. 年龄 21.13 2.35 -0.018 0.014 -0.041 0.134* -0.173** -0.087
8. 专业b - - -0.051 0.032 -0.066 0.195*** -0.171** 0.257*** 0.181**

表1描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究1)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.003
3. 政府信任操纵 - - 0.009 -0.021
4. 风险感知 3.91 1.36 -0.060 -0.151** -0.156**
5. 社会许可 4.53 1.27 0.308*** 0.169** 0.317*** -0.447***
6. 性别a - - -0.020 -0.026 -0.009 0.018 -0.013
7. 年龄 21.13 2.35 -0.018 0.014 -0.041 0.134* -0.173** -0.087
8. 专业b - - -0.051 0.032 -0.066 0.195*** -0.171** 0.257*** 0.181**


表2决策透明对社会许可的影响及政府信任的调节作用
变异来源 Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 41.566 1 41.566 40.840 < 0.001 0.086
内容透明 7.905 1 7.905 7.767 0.006 0.016
政府信任 33.253 1 33.253 32.672 < 0.001 0.069
过程透明×内容透明 1.992 1 1.992 1.957 0.163 0.004
过程透明×政府信任 0.360 1 0.360 0.354 0.552 0.001
内容透明×政府信任 6.911 1 6.911 6.790 0.010 0.014
过程透明×内容透明×
政府信任		 1.741 1 1.741 1.710 0.192 0.004
Residual (残差) 325.692 320 1.018

表2决策透明对社会许可的影响及政府信任的调节作用
变异来源 Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 41.566 1 41.566 40.840 < 0.001 0.086
内容透明 7.905 1 7.905 7.767 0.006 0.016
政府信任 33.253 1 33.253 32.672 < 0.001 0.069
过程透明×内容透明 1.992 1 1.992 1.957 0.163 0.004
过程透明×政府信任 0.360 1 0.360 0.354 0.552 0.001
内容透明×政府信任 6.911 1 6.911 6.790 0.010 0.014
过程透明×内容透明×
政府信任		 1.741 1 1.741 1.710 0.192 0.004
Residual (残差) 325.692 320 1.018



图2决策内容透明与政府信任的交互作用
图2决策内容透明与政府信任的交互作用


表3描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究2)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.021
3. 结果依赖操纵 - - 0.009 -0.020
4. 风险感知 4.24 1.36 -0.103 -0.085 0.344**
5. 社会许可 4.35 1.33 0.204*** 0.274*** 0.161** -0.143**
6. 性别a - - 0.014 -0.061 0.078 -0.141** 0.095
7. 年龄 21.02 2.31 -0.051 -0.015 0.021 0.090 -0.132* 0.134*
8. 专业b - - 0.019 -0.006 0.027 0.164** -0.074 -0.260*** 0.018

表3描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究2)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. 过程透明操纵 - -
2. 内容透明操纵 - - 0.021
3. 结果依赖操纵 - - 0.009 -0.020
4. 风险感知 4.24 1.36 -0.103 -0.085 0.344**
5. 社会许可 4.35 1.33 0.204*** 0.274*** 0.161** -0.143**
6. 性别a - - 0.014 -0.061 0.078 -0.141** 0.095
7. 年龄 21.02 2.31 -0.051 -0.015 0.021 0.090 -0.132* 0.134*
8. 专业b - - 0.019 -0.006 0.027 0.164** -0.074 -0.260*** 0.018


表4决策透明对社会许可的影响及结果依赖的调节作用
变异来源 Type III Sum
of Squares		 df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 18.121 1 18.121 13.045 < 0.001 0.030
内容透明 38.248 1 38.248 27.534 < 0.001 0.064
结果依赖 26.668 1 26.668 19.198 < 0.001 0.045
过程透明×内容透明 3.371 1 3.371 2.427 0.120 0.006
过程透明×结果依赖 7.732 1 7.732 5.566 0.019 0.013
内容透明×结果依赖 6.944 1 6.944 4.999 0.026 0.012
过程透明×内容透明×结果依赖 14.866 1 14.866 10.702 0.001 0.028
Residual (残差) 459.788 331 1.389

表4决策透明对社会许可的影响及结果依赖的调节作用
变异来源 Type III Sum
of Squares		 df Mean Square F p η2
过程透明 18.121 1 18.121 13.045 < 0.001 0.030
内容透明 38.248 1 38.248 27.534 < 0.001 0.064
结果依赖 26.668 1 26.668 19.198 < 0.001 0.045
过程透明×内容透明 3.371 1 3.371 2.427 0.120 0.006
过程透明×结果依赖 7.732 1 7.732 5.566 0.019 0.013
内容透明×结果依赖 6.944 1 6.944 4.999 0.026 0.012
过程透明×内容透明×结果依赖 14.866 1 14.866 10.702 0.001 0.028
Residual (残差) 459.788 331 1.389



图3决策过程透明与结果依赖的交互作用
图3决策过程透明与结果依赖的交互作用



图4决策内容透明与结果依赖的交互作用
图4决策内容透明与结果依赖的交互作用


表5描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究3)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1.过程透明 3.14 0.88
2.内容透明 3.16 0.82 0.765***
3.政府信任 3.39 0.73 0.528*** 0.474***
4.结果依赖 3.72 0.68 0.111* 0.130** 0.241***
5.社会许可 3.52 0.63 0.431*** 0.452*** 0.670*** 0.279***

表5描述性统计结果和变量间相关(研究3)
变量 M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1.过程透明 3.14 0.88
2.内容透明 3.16 0.82 0.765***
3.政府信任 3.39 0.73 0.528*** 0.474***
4.结果依赖 3.72 0.68 0.111* 0.130** 0.241***
5.社会许可 3.52 0.63 0.431*** 0.452*** 0.670*** 0.279***


表6社会许可对决策透明、政府信任、结果依赖及其交互项的回归
变量 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5 模型6
过程透明 0.431*** 0.107*** 0.109***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.173*** 0.186***
政府信任 0.614*** 0.605*** 0.588*** 0.577***
过程透明×政府信任 -0.057
内容透明×政府信任 -0.097**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.455 0.457 0.203 0.470 0.478
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.271*** 0.003 0.204*** 0.268*** 0.009***
F值 105.75*** 194.84*** 131.27*** 119.14*** 207.05*** 142.98***
变量 模型7 模型8 模型9 模型10 模型11 模型12
过程透明 0.431*** 0.405*** 0.412***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.423*** 0.424***
结果依赖 0.234*** 0.227*** 0.224*** 0.213***
过程透明×结果依赖 -0.085*
内容透明×结果依赖 -0.114**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.236 0.242 0.203 0.250 0.262
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.054*** 0.007* 0.204*** 0.049*** 0.013**
F值 105.75*** 72.947*** 50.456*** 119.14*** 78.596*** 55.903***

表6社会许可对决策透明、政府信任、结果依赖及其交互项的回归
变量 模型1 模型2 模型3 模型4 模型5 模型6
过程透明 0.431*** 0.107*** 0.109***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.173*** 0.186***
政府信任 0.614*** 0.605*** 0.588*** 0.577***
过程透明×政府信任 -0.057
内容透明×政府信任 -0.097**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.455 0.457 0.203 0.470 0.478
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.271*** 0.003 0.204*** 0.268*** 0.009***
F值 105.75*** 194.84*** 131.27*** 119.14*** 207.05*** 142.98***
变量 模型7 模型8 模型9 模型10 模型11 模型12
过程透明 0.431*** 0.405*** 0.412***
内容透明 0.452*** 0.423*** 0.424***
结果依赖 0.234*** 0.227*** 0.224*** 0.213***
过程透明×结果依赖 -0.085*
内容透明×结果依赖 -0.114**
Adjust R2 0.184 0.236 0.242 0.203 0.250 0.262
Δ R2 0.186*** 0.054*** 0.007* 0.204*** 0.049*** 0.013**
F值 105.75*** 72.947*** 50.456*** 119.14*** 78.596*** 55.903***







[1] Battaglio R. P., Belardinelli P., Bellé N., & Cantarelli P . (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), 304-320.
[2] Birkinshaw P. J . (2006). Freedom of information and openness: Fundamental human rights. Administrative Law Review, 58(1), 177-218.
[3] Chen L. J., & Jin M . (2019). The integrity analysis framework of not in my back yard in the perspective of perception of risk. Journal of Gansu Administration Institute, (1), 37-46.
[ 陈丽君, 金铭 . (2019). 风险认知视角下的邻避冲突整体性分析框架. 甘肃行政学院学报, (1), 37-46.]
[4] Chi S. X., Chen C., & Xu Y . (2017). Environmental concern and willingness to pay for environmental protection: Moderating effects of Governmental Trust. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Science Edition), 17(5), 72-79.
[ 池上新, 陈诚, 许英 . (2017). 环境关心与环保支付意愿:政府信任的调节效应——兼论环境治理的困境. 中国地质大学学报: 社会科学版, 17(5), 72-79.]
[5] Clark J. T., & Wegener D. T . (2008). Unpacking outcome dependency: differentiating effects of dependency and outcome desirability on the processing of goal-relevant information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 586-599.
[6] Cucciniello M., Porumbescu G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen S . (2017). 25 years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32-44.
[7] Cummings L . (2014). The “trust” heuristic: arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043-1056.
[8] de Cremer, D., & Tyler T. R . (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639-649.
[9] de Fine Licht J . (2011). Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 183-201.
[10] de Fine Licht J . (2014a). Transparency actually: How transparency affects public perceptions of political decision making. European Political Science Review, 6(2), 309-330.
[11] de Fine Licht J . (2014b). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 361-371.
[12] de Fine Licht J., Naurin D., Esaiasson P., & Gilljam M . (2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111-134.
[13] Etzioni A . (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389-404.
[14] Fairbanks J., Plowman K. D., & Rawlins B. L . (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 23-37.
[15] Ferry L., & Eckersley P . (2015). Accountability and transparency: A nuanced response to Etzioni. Public Administration Review, 75(1), 11-12.
[16] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G . (2012). Transparency and trust: An experimental study of online disclosure and trust in government (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Utrecht University.
[17] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., Jilke S., Olsen A. L., & Tummers L . (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56.
[18] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Klijn A . (2015). The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: Evidence from a field experiment. Public Administration, 93(4), 995-1011.
[19] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Meijer A. J . (2014). Effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 137-157.
[20] Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., & Meijer A. J . (2015). Does twitter increase perceived police legitimacy? Public Administration Review, 75(4), 598-607.
[21] He Y. L. (2018). An intellectual history of public administration. Beijing: China Renmin University Press.
[ 何艳玲 . (2018). 公共行政学史. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.]
[22] Hood C., & Heald D . (2006) Transparency: The key to better governance? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[23] James O., Jilke S. R., & van Ryzin G . (2017a). Behavioural and experimental public administration: Emerging contributions and new directions. Public Administration, 95(4), 865-873.
[24] James O., Jilke S. R., & van Ryzin G . (2017b). Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
[25] Jost J. T., & van der Toorn J . (2012). System justification theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 313-343). London, UK: Sage
[26] Kahneman D . (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
[27] Kim S. E . (2005). The role of trust in the modern administrative state: An integrative model. Administration & Society, 37(5), 611-635.
[28] Kluemper D. H., Taylor S. G., Bowler W. M., Bing M. N& Halbesleben J. R. B . (2019). How leaders perceive employee deviance: Blaming victims while excusing favorites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(7), 946-964.
[29] Levi M., & Stoker L . (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 475-507.
[30] Levi M., Sacks A., & Tyler T . (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 354-375.
[31] Li S . (2018). No social licence, people say "no". Management Insights,(16), 78-81.
[ 李纾 . (2018). 无社会, 不许可?. 管理视野, (16), 78-81.]
[32] Li W. B., & Ho A. K . (2016). Government performance information, transparency and citizen satisfaction. Journal of Public Administration, 9(2), 93-111.
[ 李文彬, 何达基 . (2016). 政府客观绩效、透明度与公民满意度. 公共行政评论, 9(2), 93-111.]
[33] Lio M. C., Liu M. C., & Ou Y. P . (2011). Can the internet reduce corruption? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 47-53.
[34] Mansbridge J . (2009). A “selection model” of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 369-398.
[35] Meijer A . (2009). Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75(2), 255-269.
[36] Meng T. G., Yang P., & Su Z . (2015). Public opinion and local fiscal decision making in authoritarian China: Based on survey experiment to local government. Journal of Public Management, 12(3), 57-68.
[ 孟天广, 杨平, 苏政 . (2015). 转型中国的公民意见与地方财政决策——基于对地方政府的调查实验. 公共管理学报, 12(3), 57-68.]
[37] Pan L . (2012). Performance evaluation, communication environment, and decision legitimacy: A case in China (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Temple University.
[38] Piotrowski S. J., & Borry E . (2010). An analytic framework for open meetings and transparency. Public Administration & Management, 15(1), 138-176.
[39] Porumbescu G. A . (2017). Does transparency improve citizens' perceptions of government performance? Evidence from Seoul, South Korea. Administration & Society, 49(3), 443-468.
[40] Porumbescu G. A., & Grimmelikhuijsen S . (2017). Linking decision-making procedures to decision acceptance and citizen voice: Evidence from two studies. American Review of Public Administration, 48(8) 902-914.
[41] Porumbescu G., Bellé N., Cucciniello M., & Nasi G . (2017a). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration, 95(4), 990-1008.
[42] Porumbescu G. A., Lindeman M. I. H., Ceka E., & Cucciniello M . (2017b). Can transparency foster more understanding and compliant citizens? Public Administration Review, 77(6), 840-850.
[43] Rui G. Q., & Song D . (2012). An empirical research on how the public information disclosure affects government trust. Chinese Public Administration,(11), 96-101.
[ 芮国强, 宋典 . (2012). 信息公开影响政府信任的实证研究. 中国行政管理, (11), 96-101.]
[44] Scholz J. T., & Lubell M . (1998). Trust and taxpaying: testing the heuristic approach to collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 398-417.
[45] Simon H. A . (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. England: Macmillan.
[46] Tummers L., Olsen A. L., Jilke S., Grimmelikhuijsen S. G . (2016). Introduction to the virtual issue on Behavioral Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muv039.
[47] Tyler T. R . (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
[48] van der Toorn J., & Jost J. T . (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on “Ideology and system justification processes”. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413-419.
[49] van der Toorn J., Feinberg M., Jost J. T., Kay A. C., Tyler T. R., Willer R., & Wilmuth C . (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology, 36(1), 93-110.
[50] van der Toorn J., Tyler T. R., & Jost J. T . (2011). More than fair: Outcome dependence, system justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), 127-138.
[51] Whyte, M. K . (2009). Views of Chinese citizens on current inequalities. Sociological Studies,(1), 96-120.
[ 怀默霆 . (2009). 中国民众如何看待当前的社会不平等. 社会学研究, (1), 96-120.]
[52] Wu D. Z . (2015). The trust interpretation of political legitimacy. Peking University Law Review, 16(2), 223-271.
[ 伍德志 . (2015). 政治合法性的信任解释. 北大法律评论, 16(2), 223-271.]
[53] Wu W., Ma L., & Yu W . (2017). Government transparency and perceived social equity: Assessing the moderating effect of citizen trust in china. Administration & Society, 49(6), 882-906.
[54] Wu X. N., & Wang E. P . (2013). Outcome favorability as a boundary condition to voice effect on people’s reactions to public policymaking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 329-337.
[55] Yan C. W., & He X. L . (2019). The development of scientific discourse and the counteraction of risk discourse: The local government and the public in the policy process of the Maoming PX program. Comparative Economic & Social Systems, (1), 61-69.
[ 颜昌武, 何巧丽 . (2019). 科学话语的建构与风险话语的反制——茂名“PX”项目政策过程中的地方政府与公众. 经济社会体制比较, (1), 61-69.]
[56] Yang S. L., Guo Y. Y., Yu F., Rao T. T., Zhao L., & Xu L. Y . (2018). Three explanatory perspectives on the root of system justification. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(12), 2238-2248.
[ 杨沈龙, 郭永玉, 喻丰, 饶婷婷, 赵靓, 许丽颖 . (2018). 系统合理化何以形成——三种不同的解释视角. 心理科学进展, 26(12), 2238-2248.]
[57] Yu J. X., & Huang B . (2019). How to move beyond government-centered public administration? Evidence from “Visit Once” Reform. CASS Journal of Political Science,(2), 49-60+126.
[ 郁建兴, 黄飚 . (2019). 超越政府中心主义治理逻辑如何可能——基于“最多跑一次”改革的经验. 政治学研究, (2), 49-60+126.
[58] Yu, W. X . (2013). Government Transparency and political trust: Evidence from China. Chinese Public Administration,(2), 110-115.
[ 于文轩 . (2013). 政府透明度与政治信任: 基于2011中国城市服务型政府调查的分析. 中国行政管理, (2), 110-115.]
[59] Zhang A., Moffat K., Lacey J., Wang J., González R., Uribe K., ... Dai Y . (2015). Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: a comparative study of Australia, China and Chile. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 1063-1072.
[60] Zhang A. R., Chen J. F., Kuang Y., Wang X. M., Wu X. J., Yang S. W., ... Li. Y . (2018). Socio-environmental impacts and social licence: A critical review and future directions. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(10), 1711-1723.
[ 张爱荣, 陈俊芳, 匡仪, 王晓明, 吴小菊, 杨舒雯, ... 李纾 . (2018). 环境和生态意识催生的社会许可问题:缘起与应对. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1711-1723.]
[61] Zhang Q. M., & Zhang Y . (2017). Risk perception and NIMBY behavior of waste treatment plant neighboring residents. Environmental Science and Management, 42(2), 1-4.
[ 张启蒙, 张越 . (2017). 垃圾处理设施周边居民风险感知与邻避行为倾向研究. 环境科学与管理, 42(2), 1-4.]
[62] Zhang S. W . (2015). Psychosocial mechanism of environmental mass incidents. Politics Review of Sun Yat-sen University, 8, 16-34.
[ 张书维 . (2015). 环境污染群体性事件的社会心理机制. 中大政治学评论(第8辑), 16-34.]
[63] Zhang S. W . (2016a). Find out boundaries of rationality, open up black box of decision making: A review of ‘An equate-to-differentiate way of decision-making’. Journal of Public Administration, 9(5), 192-198.
[ 张书维 . (2016a). 寻找理性边界, 打开决策黑箱——评《决策心理: 齐当别之道》. 公共行政评论, 9(5), 192-198.]
[64] Zhang S. W . (2016b). The influencing factors and improving paths of trust in government. National Governance,(34), 43-48.
[ 张书维 . (2016b). 政府信任度的影响因素与提升路径研究. 国家治理, (34), 43-48.]
[65] Zhang S. W . (2017). Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(6), 794-813.
[ 张书维 . (2017). 社会公平感、机构信任度与公共合作意向. 心理学报, 49(6), 794-813.]
[66] Zhang S. W . (2018). Symposium introduction--Behavioral public administration: A bridge linking public administration and psychology. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 1-6.
[ 张书维 . (2018). 行为公共管理学:用“心”求“理”. 公共行政评论, 11(1), 1-6.]
[67] Zhang S. W., & Li S . (2018). Exploring behavioral public administration: Content, method and trend. Journal of Public Administration, 11(1), 7-36.
[ 张书维, 李纾 . (2018). 行为公共管理学探新:内容、方法与趋势. 公共行政评论, 11(1), 7-36.]
[68] Zhang S. W., Wang E. P., & Chen Y. W . (2011). Relative deprivation based on occupation: An effective predictor of Chinese life satisfaction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 14(2), 148-158.
[69] Zhang S. W., & Xu Z. G . (2018). Interaction mechanism of public decision-making from the behavioral public administration perspective: An analysis based on environmental projects. Chinese Public Administration,(12), 59-65.
[ 张书维, 许志国 . (2018). 行为公共管理学视角下政府决策的互动机制——基于环境型项目的分析. 中国行政管理, (12), 59-65.]
[70] Zhang S. W., Xu Z. G., & Xu Y . (2014). Social justice and political trust: The mechanism of cooperation with government. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(4), 588-595.
[ 张书维, 许志国, 徐岩 . (2014). 社会公正与政治信任:民众对政府的合作行为机制. 心理科学进展, 22(4), 588-595.]
[71] Zhang S. W., & Zhou J . (2018). Social justice and public cooperation intention: Mediating role of political trust and moderating effect of outcome dependence. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1381.
[72] Zheng J. J . (2017). An empirical study of the relationship between government function transformation and public service satisfaction: Model testing based on government transparency and citizen participation. Journal of Hit (Social Sciences Edition), 19(4), 15-21.
[ 郑建君 . (2017). 政府职能转变与公民公共服务满意度之关系——基于政府透明度和公民参与的实证分析. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版), 19(4), 15-21.]
[73] Zhou H., & Long L. R . (2004). Statistical remedies for common method biases. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942-950.
[ 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), 942-950.]
[74] Zhou J., & Xie Y . (2016). Does economic development affect life satisfaction? A spatial-temporal contextual analysis in China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(2), 643-658.




[1]杨伟文, 李超平. 资质过剩感对个体绩效的作用效果及机制：基于情绪-认知加工系统与文化情境的元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(5): 527-554.
[2]佘卓霖 李全 杨百寅 杨斌. 工作狂领导对团队绩效的双刃剑作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0.
[3]倪丹, 刘琛琳, 郑晓明. 员工正念对配偶家庭满意度和工作投入的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(2): 199-214.
[4]张银玲, 虞祯, 买晓琴. 社会价值取向对自我-他人风险决策的影响及其机制[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(7): 895-908.
[5]卢红旭,周帆,吴挺,严进,邵闫,刘艳彬. 工作压力对建设型和防御型建言的差异影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1375-1385.
[6]廖以臣,许传哲,龚璇. 网络环境下广告怀旧有助于品牌的口碑传播吗?基于情感双维度视角[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(8): 945-957.
[7]卫利华,刘智强,廖书迪,龙立荣,廖建桥. 集体心理所有权、地位晋升标准与团队创造力[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(6): 677-687.
[8]倪旭东,季百乐. 如何消除子团队的消极作用——子团队成员交换的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(2): 259-268.
[9]黄敏学, 姚舜禹, 刘茂红. 自强还是自嘲?名人代言如何提升社会化媒体广告的营销效果[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(8): 907-919.
[10]朱瑜, 谢斌斌. 差序氛围感知与沉默行为的关系：情感承诺的 中介作用与个体传统性的调节作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(5): 539-548.
[11]孙健敏, 陈乐妮, 尹奎. 挑战性压力源与员工创新行为： 领导−成员交换与辱虐管理的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(4): 436-449.
[12]张勇, 刘海全, 王明旋, 青 平. 挑战性压力和阻断性压力对员工创造力的影响：自我效能的中介效应与组织公平的调节效应[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(4): 450-461.
[13]彭坚, 王震. 做上司的“意中人”：负担还是赋能？ 追随原型−特质匹配的双刃剑效应[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(2): 216-225.
[14]王端旭, 曾恺, 郑显伟. 员工非伦理行为如何招致同事攻击：道义公正视角[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(6): 829-840.
[15]王建安,张钢. 集体问题解决中的知识、惯例和绩效[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(08): 862-872.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4636
相关话题/政府 过程 社会 心理 统计

Free考研考试FreeKaoYan.Com
欢迎来到Free考研考试，"为实现人生的Free而奋斗"

© 2020 FreeKaoYan! . All rights reserved.