|
|
|
| An Empirical Study of the Promotion of Happiness by Anti-graft from the Perspective of Policy Framework |
| Nan Ri |
| Center for Public Policy Analysis and Research, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing 211815, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The research focuses on the frame effect and confirms the influence of anti-graft on happiness and its internal mechanism through two experiments. Our research confirms that, compared with anti-corruption framework, the influence of integrity framework on happiness is more positive, and this conclusion is highly stable when we use different experimental manipulation methods (such as field experiment and platform questionnaire), different situational materials (college or workplace), and different subjects (college students or social men). This reminds us that in the process of increasing our efforts to fight corruption, we should not be limited to focusing on the anti-corruption warning records such as hunting, loyalty and betrayal, but also to deploy the standard Party Central Committee to advocate integrity, extend the scope of the construction of a clean culture, and do a good job of advocating integrity. The psychological mechanism behind this influence is that the frame effect helps the trustor who receives the anti-graft information to verify the trustee’s perception of interest representation. In addition, we found that after receiving the anti-graft message, individuals verified the role of symbolic representation through other channels (such as power distance), and their experience of happiness changed. This conclusion reaffirms the critical mediating role of symbolic representation. Meanwhile, the indirect effect of anti-graft on happiness through symbolic representation is moderated by power distance orientation. The role of symbolic representatives mediates the relationships between anti-graft and happiness when the power distance orientation of individuals is much higher.Compared with existing researches, we put forward several innovative arguments. Firstly, starting from the frame effect, we try to expand the application field of characteristic framework and explore the relationship between policy framework and happiness. Most of the previous researches on framing effect focused on psychology. This paper tries to expand the research field of framing effect and discusses the influence of positive and negative attribute information titers on happiness. Taking the policy framework as the main line and introducing the two-dimensional structure of anti-corruption and advocating integrity, this paper puts forward a new research perspective to explain the heterogeneity of policy preferences under the condition of individual psychological perception. At the same time, in order to adhere to the broad and subtle, the construction of a better chain of happiness causal relationship awakens the concept of interdisciplinary research. Secondly, happiness is the subjective psychological experience that people pursue forever. Literature search shows that happiness research has a long history. However, we are the first to demonstrate the influence of anti-corruption and integrity on happiness and its internal mechanism by means of experimental research from the perspective of subjective psychological experience. Thirdly, this paper innovatively introduces symbolic representation, which is regarded as an internal factor from the perspective of social psychology of policy, and holds that symbolic representation eliminates the doubts of individuals on the representation of interests of bureaucrats and causes positive effects of policy framework. Most of the previous studies focused on the gender and race of symbolic representation, but this paper tries to expand and deepen the research in this field. Finally, in the process of examining the relationship between power distance orientation and symbolic representation, this paper finds that individual power distance orientation and the degree of matching of representative interests of bureaucrats are important reasons that affect the level of individual psychological well-being. This conclusion provides a new explanatory perspective for interpreting the influence mechanism of individual happiness in the context of policy framework.
|
|
Received: 26 December 2023
|
|
|
|
1 Graham C.， “The economics of happiness，” World Economics， Vol. 6， No. 3 （2005）， pp. 41-55.
2 胡鞍钢： 《腐败与社会不公——中国90年代后半期腐败经济损失的初步估计与分析》，《江苏社会科学》2001年第3期，第51-53页。
3 Easterlin R. A.， Morgan R. & Switek M. et al.， “China’s life satisfaction， 1990-2010，” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America， Vol. 109， No.25 （2012）， pp. 9775-9780.
4 Murphy K. M. & Shleifer A.， “Why is rent seeking so costly to growth？” American Economic Review， Vol. 83， No.2 （1993）， pp. 409-414.
5 Kreuger A. O.， “The political economy of the rent-seeking society，” American Economic Review， Vol. 64， No.3 （1974）， pp. 291-304.
6 Leff N.， “Economic development through bureaucratic corruption，” American Behavioral Scientist， Vol. 8， No.3 （1964）， pp. 8-14.
7 Egger P. & Winner H.， “Evidence on corruption as an incentive for foreign direct investment，” European Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 21， No. 4 （2005）， pp. 932-952.
8 Ram R.， “Government spending and happiness of the population： additional evidence from large cross-country samples，” Public Choice， Vol. 138， No. 3 （2009）， pp. 483-490.
9 Ng Y. K.， “Happiness studies： ways to improve comparability and some policy implications，” The Economic Record， Vol. 265， No. 84 （2008）， pp. 253-266.
10 张国林、任文晨： 《腐败、民生性支出与居民幸福感》，《现代财经》2015年第9期，第3-14页。
11 Mauro P.， “Corruption and the composition of government expenditure，” Journal of Public Economics， Vol. 69， No. 2 （1998）， pp. 263-279.
12 李湛、何鹏飞、梁若冰等： 《财政透明度与居民幸福感》，《宏观经济研究》2019年第10期，第88-102，143页。
13 王洁菲、姚树洁： 《收入差距、努力指数与居民主观幸福感》，《南开经济研究》2022年第4期，第3-21页。
14 Easterlin R. A.， “Does money buy happiness？” The Public Interest， Vol. 30， No. 3 （1973）， pp. 1-10.
15 Liu F.， “An equilibrium queuing model of bribery，” Journal of Political Economy， Vol. 93， No.4 （1985）， pp. 760-781.
16 夏婷、李静、郭永玉： 《家庭社会阶层与大学生物质主义的关系：自尊的中介作用》，《心理与行为研究》2017年第4期，第515-519页。
17 Tversky A. & Kahneman D.， “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice，” Science， Vol. 4481， No. 211 （1981）， pp. 453-458.
18 文桂婵、徐富明、于会会等： 《特征框架效应的心理机制与影响因素》，《心理科学进展》2011年第12期，第1822-1833页。
19 Levin I. P. & Gaeth G. J.， “How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product，” Journal of Consumer Research， Vol. 15， No. 3 （1988）， pp. 374-378.
20 Bigman C. A.， Cappella J. N. & Hornik R. C.， “Effective or ineffective： attribute framing and the human papillomavirus （HPV） vaccine，” Patient Education and Counseling， Vol. 81， No.1 （2010）， pp. 70-76.
21 Howard K. & Salkeld G.， “Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay？ results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer，” Value in Health， Vol. 12， No. 2 （2009）， pp. 354-363.
22 Sher S. & McKenzie C. R. M.， “Information leakage from logically equivalent frames，” Cognition， Vol. 101， No. 3 （2006）， pp. 467-494.
23 Kuvaas B. & Selart M.， “Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation，” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes， Vol. 95， No. 2 （2004）， pp. 198-207.
24 Tiedens L. Z. & Linton S.， “Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty： the effects of specific emotions on information processing，” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology， Vol. 81， No. 6 （2001）， pp. 973-988.
25 Keiser L. R.， “Representative bureaucracy，” in Durant R. F. （ed.）， American Bureaucracy， New York： Oxford University Press， 2010， pp. 714-737.
26 Krislov S.， Representative Bureaucracy， Englewood Cliffs： Prentice-Hall， 1974.
27 Mosher F. C.， Democracy and the Public Service， New York： Oxford University Press， 1968.
28 Meier K. J. & Nicholson-Crotty J.， “Gender， representative bureaucracy， and law enforcement： the case of sexual assault，” Public Administration Review， Vol. 66， No. 6 （2006）， pp. 850-860.
29 Gade D. M. & Wilkins V. M.， “Where did you serve？ veteran identity， representative bureaucracy， and vocational rehabilitation，” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， Vol. 23， No. 6 （2012）， pp. 267-288.
30 van Ryzin G. G. & Riccucci N. M.， “Representative bureaucracy： an experimental approach，” in James O.， Jilke S. R. & van Ryzin G. G. （eds.）， Experiments in Public Management Research， New York： Cambridge University Press， 2017， pp. 313-328.
31 Vinopal K.， “Understanding individual and organizational level representation： the case of parental involvement in schools，” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， Vol. 28， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 1-15.
32 Atkins D. N. & Wilkins V. M.， “Going beyond reading， writing， and arithmetic： the effects of teacher representation on teen pregnancy rates，” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， Vol. 23， No. 4 （2013）， pp. 771-790.
33 Gay C.， “The effect of black congressional representation on political participation，” American Political Science Review， Vol. 95， No. 3 （2001）， pp. 589-602.
34 Mansbridge J. & Tate K.， “Race trumps gender： the Thomas nomination in the black community，” Political Science & Politics， Vol. 25， No. 3 （1992）， pp. 488-492.
35 Hofstede G.， Culture’s Consequences： International Differences in Work Related Values， Beverly Hills： Saga Publications， 1980.
36 Brown M. E. & Mitchell M. S.， “Ethical and unethical leadership： exploring new avenues for future research，” Business Ethics Quarterly， Vol. 20， No. 4 （2010）， pp. 583-616.
37 Farh J. L.， Hackett R. D. & Liang J.， “Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China： comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality，” Academy of Management Journal， Vol. 50， No. 3 （2007）， pp. 715-729.
38 Geiger R. L.， The History of American Higher Education： Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War Ⅱ， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 2015.
39 Argo J. J.， White K. & Dahl D. W.， “Social comparison theory and deception in the interpersonal exchange of consumption information，” Journal of Consumer Research， Vol. 33， No. 1 （2006）， pp. 99-108.
40 Hills P. & Argyle M.， “The Oxford happiness questionnaire： a compact scale for the measurement of psychological well-being，” Personality and Individual Differences， Vol. 33， No. 7 （2022）， pp. 1073-1082．
41 Gade D. M. & Wilkins V. M.， “Where did you serve？ veteran identity， representative bureaucracy， and vocational rehabilitation，” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory， Vol. 23， No. 2 （2013）， pp. 267-288.
42 云祥、李小平： 《权力感的无意识启动：方法研究》，《心理与行为研究》2014年第3期，第315-320页。
43 Akram S.， “Representative bureaucracy and unconscious bias： exploring the unconscious dimension of active representation，” Public Administration， Vol. 96， No. 1 （2018）， pp. 119-133.
44 Maheswaran D. & Meyers-Levy J.， “The influence of message framing and issue involvement，” Journal of Marketing Research， Vol. 27， No. 3 （1990）， pp. 361-367.
45 Chang C. T.， “Health-care product advertising： the influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics，” Psychology and Marketing， Vol. 24， No. 2 （2007）， pp. 143-169.
46 Krishnamurthy P.， Carter P. & Blair E.， “Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions，” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes， Vol. 85， No. 2 （2001）， pp. 382-399. |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
