Two-Way Risk Communication,Public Value Consensus,and Citizens’ Policy Compliance Willingness About COVID-19: Multilevel Analysis Based on a Nudge View

Abstract

COVID-19 has spawned a surge in the number of public epidemic prevention policies. More important than active policy-making is how to increase citizens’ policy compliance willingness. Based on public value theory and nudge theory, this study adopts a multilevel mediation and moderation model to analyze the relationships among the government’s authoritarian control, two-way risk communication, public value consensus, nudge, and citizens’ policy compliance willingness. A sample of 2,616 citizens nested in 86 Chinese cities was collected. The study found that (a) local governments can improve citizens’ policy compliance willingness by adopting both “stick” (authoritarian control) and “sermon” (two-way risk communication) policies, whereas two-way risk communication demonstrates a uniquely positive effect on public value consensus; and (b) the effect of two-way risk communication on policy compliance willingness is mediated by public value consensus. By enhancing public value consensus, two-way risk communication helps establish consensus between citizens and the government on “what needs/needs not to be done” and “what should/should not be done” to slow down the pandemic, thus coalescing efforts in a cooperative spirit; (c) nudge intervention positively moderates the effect of two-way risk communication on public value consensus, but has no effect on the authoritarian control–policy compliance willingness relationship. In other words, nudge intervention is a better companion to “sermons,” not “sticks.” Findings of the nuanced relationship manifested the differentiated effect of authoritarian control and two-way risk communication on citizens’ policy compliance willingness during a pandemic. The results provide theoretical implications for scholars to unlock the “black box” of public values and practical implications for strategies from behavioral public administration aspects to curb the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords

authoritarian control two-way risk communication policy compliance willingness public value consensus nudge

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acciai

Capano

(2020). Policy instruments at work: A meta-analysis of their applications. Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12673

Akers

R. L.

(1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: The path not taken. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(3), 653–676.

Allcott

(2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1082–1095.

Allen

Tamindael

L. E.

Bickerton

S. H.

Cho

(2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), Article 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412

Andersen

L. B.

Jorgensen

T. B.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

Pedersen

L. H.

Vrangbaek

(2013). Public values and public service motivation: Conceptual and empirical relationships. American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 292–311.

Bao

Wang

Larsen

Morgan

(2013). Beyond new public governance: A value-based global framework for performance management, governance, and leadership. Administration & Society, 45(4), 443–467.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Benavides

A. D.

Nukpezah

Keyes

L. M.

Soujaa

(2020). Adoption of multilingual state emergency management websites: Responsiveness to the risk communication needs of a multilingual society. International Journal of Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1728549

Benington

Moore

M. H.

(2011). Public value: Theory and practice. Macmillan.

10.

Bozeman

(2002). Public value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161.

11.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.

12.

Bozeman

(2009). Public values theory: Three big questions. International Journal of Public Policy, 4(5), 369–375.

13.

Bozeman

(2019). Public values: Citizens’ perspective. Public Management Review, 21(5–6), 817–838.

14.

Bozeman

Johnson

(2015). The political economy of public values: A case for the public sphere and progressive opportunity. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 61–85.

15.

Brodmerkel

(2019). Should brands “nudge us for good”? Towards a critical assessment of neuro-liberal corporate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, 19(1), 1–7.

16.

Buntaine

M. T.

Hunnicutt

Komakech

(2020). The challenges of using citizen reporting to improve public services: A field experiment on solid waste services in Uganda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa026

17.

Chen

Yang

Wang

Bärnighausen

(2020). COVID-19 control in China during mass population movements at New Year. The Lancet, 395(10226), 764–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30421-9

18.

Cheng

Shen

Huang

(2020). Coproducing responses to COVID-19 with community-based organizations: Lessons from Zhejiang Province, China. Public Administration Review, 80, 866–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13244

19.

Christensen

Lægreid

(2020). Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: How the Norwegian government handled the COVID-19 crisis as a high performer. Public Administration Review, 80, 774–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13241

20.

Covello

Sandman

P. M.

(2001). Risk communication: Evolution and revolution. John Hopkins University Press.

21.

De Graaf

Huberts

Smulders

(2016). Coping with public value conflicts. Administration & Society, 48(9), 1101–1127.

22.

De Graaf

Van der Wal

(2017). Without blinders: Public values scholarship in political science, economics, and law—Content and contribution to public administration. Public Integrity, 19(3), 196–218.

23.

Duvanova

(2017). Delegation of political authority to bureaucratic agencies in an authoritarian regime: An analysis of regional economic regulation in Kazakhstan. Studies in Comparative International Development, 52(1), 87–114.

24.

Edwards

J. R.

Cable

D. M.

(2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.

25.

Entwistle

(2020). Why nudge sometimes fails: Fatalism and the problem of behaviour change. Policy & Politics, 49, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320X15832072208458

26.

Esmark

(2019). Communicative governance at work: How choice architects nudge citizens towards health, wealth and happiness in the information age. Public Management Review, 21(1), 138–158.

27.

Ewert

(2020). Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour: Towards a broader understanding of Behavioural Public Policy. Public Policy and Administration, 35(3), 337–360.

28.

(2020). Fostering voluntary compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analytical framework of information disclosure. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 685–691.

29.

Fukumoto

Bozeman

(2019). Public values theory: What is missing? The American Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 635–648.

30.

Giles

M. W.

Gatlin

D. S.

(1980). Mass-level compliance with public policy: The case of school desegregation. The Journal of Politics, 42(3), 722–746.

31.

Gofen

(2015). Reconciling policy dissonance: Patterns of governmental response to policy noncompliance. Policy Sciences, 48(1), 3–24.

32.

Goldstein

N. J.

Cialdini

R. B.

Griskevicius

(2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.

33.

Gordon

Kornberger

Clegg

S. R.

(2009). Power, rationality and legitimacy in public organizations. Public Administration, 87(1), 15–34.

34.

Grabill

J. T.

Simmons

W. M.

(1998). Toward a critical rhetoric of risk communication: Producing citizens and the role of technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 415–441.

35.

Greer

S. L.

King

E. J.

da Fonseca

E. M.

Peralta-Santos

(2020). The comparative politics of COVID-19: The need to understand government responses. Global Public Health, 15(9), 1413–1416.

36.

Grimmelikhuijsen

Knies

(2017). Validating a scale for citizen trust in government organizations. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(3), 583–601.

37.

Guan

(2020). Does performance pressure is a double-edged sword in local government environmental governance: Empirical analysis based on public value conflict view. Journal of Public Management, 17(2), 53–69. (In Chinese)

38.

Halpern

(2015). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. Random House.

39.

Heath

R. L.

Bradshaw

Lee

(2002). Community relationship building: Local leadership in the risk communication infrastructure. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(4), 317–353.

40.

Herbert

(1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58(2), 361–382.

41.

A. T. K.

Cho

(2017). Government communication effectiveness and satisfaction with police performance: A large-scale survey study. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 228–239.

42.

Hodzi

Åberg

J. H.

(2020). Introduction to the Special Issue: Strategic deployment of the China model in Africa. Politics & Policy, 48(5), 804–814.

43.

Howlett

(2018). Matching policy tools and their targets: Beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design. Policy & Politics, 46(1), 101–124.

44.

Howlett

Ramesh

Capano

(2020). Policy-makers, policy-takers and policy tools: Dealing with behaviourial issues in policy design. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22(6), 487–497.

45.

Ifinedo

(2014). Information systems security policy compliance: An empirical study of the effects of socialisation, influence, and cognition. Information & Management, 51(1), 69–79.

46.

Cho

Porumbescu

Park

(2014). Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 741–763.

47.

Innes

J. E.

(2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20.

48.

Jørgensen

T. B.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

49.

Jørgensen

T. B.

Rutgers

M. R.

(2015). Public values: Core or confusion? Introduction to the centrality and puzzlement of public values research. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 3–12.

50.

Jensen

U. T.

Andersen

L. B.

Jacobsen

C. B.

(2019). Only when we agree! How value congruence moderates the impact of goal-oriented leadership on public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 79(1), 12–24.

51.

John

(2013). All tools are informational now: How information and persuasion define the tools of government. Policy & Politics, 41(4), 605–620.

52.

Jun

J. S.

Muto

(1995). The hidden dimensions of Japanese administration: Culture and its impact. Public Administration Review, 55, 125–134.

53.

Jung

D. I.

Avolio

B. J.

(2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949–964.

54.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

55.

Kasperson

(2014). Four questions for risk communication. Journal of Risk Research, 17(9–10), 1233–1239.

56.

Kenny

D. A.

Korchmaros

J. D.

Bolger

(2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 115–128.

57.

Kim

M.-H.

Cho

Choi

Hur

J.-Y.

(2020). Assessing the South Korean model of emergency management during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Studies Review, 44, 567–578.

58.

Kostka

(2016). Command without control: The case of China’s environmental target system. Regulation & Governance, 10(1), 58–74.

59.

Krause

N. M.

Freiling

Beets

Brossard

(2020). Fact-checking as risk communication: The multi-layered risk of misinformation in times of COVID-19. Journal of Risk Research, 23, 1052–1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756385

60.

Krull

J. L.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(2), 249–277.

61.

Kupferschmidt

Cohen

(2020). Can China’s COVID-19 strategy work elsewhere? Science, 367(6482), 1061–1062.

62.

Lee

Yeo

(2020). Learning from the past: Distributed cognition and crisis management capabilities for tackling COVID-19. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 729–735.

63.

Leggett

(2014). The politics of behaviour change: Nudge, neoliberalism and the state. Policy & Politics, 42(1), 3–19.

64.

(2020). Communication for coproduction: Increasing information credibility to fight the coronavirus. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 692–697.

65.

Linder

S. H.

Peters

B. G.

(1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9, 35–58.

66.

Lodge

Wegrich

(2016). The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law & Policy, 38(3), 250–267.

67.

Shi

(2015). The battle of ideas and discourses before democratic transition: Different democratic conceptions in authoritarian China. International Political Science Review, 36(1), 20–41.

68.

Lundgren

R. E.

McMakin

A. H.

(2009). Risk communication: A handbook for communicating environmental, safety, and health risks. John Wiley & Sons.

69.

Masters

Thart

(2012). Prime ministerial rhetoric and recession politics: Meaning making in economic crisis management. Public Administration, 90(3), 759–780.

70.

May

P. J.

(2004). Compliance motivations: Affirmative and negative bases. Law & Society Review, 38(1), 41–68.

71.

McLeod

L. J.

Hine

D. W.

Please

P. M.

Driver

A. B.

(2015). Applying behavioral theories to invasive animal management: Towards an integrated framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 63–71.

72.

Mei

(2020). Policy style, consistency and the effectiveness of the policy mix in China’s fight against COVID-19. Policy and Society, 39(3), 309–325.

73.

Mohr

Spekman

(1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135–152.

74.

Moore

M. H.

(1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.

75.

Moore

R. C.

Lee

Hancock

J. T.

Halley

Linos

(2020). Experience with social distancing early in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: Implications for Public Health Messaging. MedRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.08.20057067

76.

Murphy

Williamson

Sargeant

McCarthy

(2020). Why people comply with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions: Self-interest or duty? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 53, 477–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865820954484

77.

Nabatchi

(2012). Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708.

78.

Nabatchi

(2018). Public values frames in administration and governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(1), 59–72.

79.

National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. National Academy Press.

80.

Olejniczak

Śliwowski

Leeuw

(2020). Comparing behavioral assumptions of policy tools: Framework for policy designers. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22, 498–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1808465

81.

Oliver

(2013). Should behavioural economic policy be anti-regulatory? Health Economics, 22(4), 373–375.

82.

Palenchar

M. J.

Heath

R. L.

(2007). Strategic risk communication: Adding value to society. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 120–129.

83.

Park

(2015). State renewable energy governance: Policy instruments, markets, or citizens. Review of Policy Research, 32(3), 273–296.

84.

Pedersen

M. J.

Favero

(2020). Social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Who are the present and future non-compliers? Public Administration Review, 80, 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13240

85.

Pellegrini

E. K.

Scandura

T. A.

(2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566–593.

86.

Porumbescu

G. A.

Bellé

Cucciniello

Nasi

(2017). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 95(4), 990–1008.

87.

Porumbescu

G. A.

Lindeman

M. I.

Ceka

Cucciniello

(2017). Can transparency foster more understanding and compliant citizens? Public Administration Review, 77(6), 840–850.

88.

Rakoff

T. D.

(2000). The choice between formal and informal modes of administrative regulation. Administrative Law Review, 52(1), 159–174.

89.

Raymond

Cason

T. N.

(2011). Can affirmative motivations improve compliance in emissions trading programs? Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), 659–678.

90.

Renn

(2014). Four questions for risk communication: A response to Roger Kasperson. Journal of Risk Research, 17(9–10), 1277–1281.

91.

Rickard

L. N.

(2019). Pragmatic and (or) constitutive? On the foundations of contemporary risk communication research. Risk Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13415

92.

Rivera

J. E.

DeLeon

(2008). Voluntary environmental programs: Are carrots without sticks enough? Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 61–63.

93.

Rutgers

M. R.

(2015). As good as it gets? On the meaning of public value in the study of policy and management. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 29–45.

94.

Sager

(2009). Governance and coercion. Political Studies, 57(3), 537–558.

95.

Schneider

Ingram

(1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.

96.

Schwartz

S. H.

Sagie

(2000). Value consensus and importance: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 465–497.

97.

Sinclair

(1997). Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy, 19(4), 529–559.

98.

Smith

J. B.

Barclay

D. W.

(1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 3–21.

99.

Spyridonidis

Hendy

Barlow

(2015). Understanding hybrid roles: The role of identity processes amongst physicians. Public Administration, 93(2), 395–411.

100.

Thaler

R. H.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

101.

Van der Wal

(2014). Elite ethics: Comparing public values prioritization between administrative elites and political elites. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(14), 1030–1043.

102.

VanDeVeer

(2014). Paternalistic intervention: The moral bounds on benevolence. Princeton University Press.

103.

Vedung

(1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In Bemelmans-Videc

M.-L.

Rist

Vedung

(Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction.

104.

Walker

R. M.

Yeung

Y.-L.

Lee

M. J.

Lee

I. P.

(2020). Assessing information-based policy tools: An eye-tracking laboratory experiment on public information posters. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22, 558–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2020.1753035

105.

Weaver

R. K.

(2014). Compliance regimes and barriers to behavioral change. Governance, 27(2), 243–265.

106.

Weimer

D. L.

(2020). When are nudges desirable? Benefit validity when preferences are not consistently revealed. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 118–126.

107.

Woo

(2020). Policy capacity and Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy and Society, 39(3), 345–362.

108.

Wright

B. E.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—Organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502–521.

109.

(2021). To repress or to co-opt? Authoritarian control in the age of digital surveillance. American Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12514

110.

Yan

Zhang

Zhu

Chen

(2020). Why do countries respond differently to COVID-19? A comparative study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 762–769.

111.

Zhang

Chen

(2020). Effective risk communication for public health emergency: Reflection on the COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) outbreak in Wuhan, China. Healthcare, 64(8), 1–13.

112.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

Preacher

K. J.

(2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719.

113.

Zhao

S. Z.

Wong

J. Y. H.

Choi

E. P. H.

Wang

M. P.

Lam

T. H.

(2020). Social distancing compliance under Covid-19 pandemic and mental health impacts: A population-based study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186692

114.

Zhao

(2020). Citizen–State Collaboration in combating COVID-19 in China: Experiences and lessons from the perspective of co-production. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 777–783.

115.

Zhao

Chen

(2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

116.

Zhu

(2014). Mandate versus championship: Vertical government intervention and diffusion of innovation in public services in authoritarian China. Public Management Review, 16(1), 117–139.