This study investigates the extent to which individuals exhibit consistency in their preferences during sequential budget simulation exercises, as well as the factors that shape these preferences. Grounded in behavioral and citizen participation frameworks, the analysis demonstrates that the simultaneous use of priority-setting and budget-balancing modules encourages participants to allocate resources in ways that reflect their previously articulated priorities. While instances of inconsistency remain common, preference consistency is associated with participants’ sustained support for their favored programs, their commitment to ensuring adequate resource allocation, and, to some extent, their willingness to finance these programs. The findings suggest that the integrated use of simulation modules effectively promotes the consistent preferences between public priorities and budgetary allocations. This study should encourage practitioners to utilize simulation modules not merely for surface-level assessments of citizen preferences, but as tools for fostering consensus by illustrating how citizens translate their stated priorities into concrete fiscal decisions.
AfonsoWhitneyMohrZachary. 2024. “More Than a Wink and a Nudge: Examining the Choice Architecture of Online Government Budget Simulations.” Behavioural Public Policy1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.38.
3.
AhmadAlaa Aldin A.GrizzleGloria A.PettijohnCarole D.2003. “Patterns of Change: Information Change and Congressional Budget Deliberations Revisited.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management5, no. 1: 1–22.
4.
AuldD. A. L.1980. “Preference Revelation for Public Goods: An Empirical Analysis.” Public Finance Quarterly8, no. 3: 277–89.
5.
BarnesLucyBlumenauJackLauderdaleBenjamin E.2021. “Measuring Attitudes toward Public Spending Using a Multivariate Tax Summary Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science66, no. 1: 205–221.
6.
BattaglioR. PaulJrBelardinelliPaoloBelléNicolaCantarelliPaola. 2019. “Behavioral Public Administration ad Fontes: A Synthesis of Research on Bounded Rationality, Cognitive Biases, and Nudging in Public Organizations.” Public Administration Review79, no. 3: 304–320.
BrunnerEric J.RobbinsMark D.SimonsenBill. 2021. “Experimental Evidence about Property Tax Word Aversion.” Public Budgeting & Finance41, no. 4: 50–70.
12.
CallahanKathe. 2002. “The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the Budget Process of Local Governments.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management14, no. 2: 295–319.
13.
ChandlerJesseRosenzweigCheskieMossAaron J.RobinsonJonathanLitmanLeib. 2019. “Online Panels in Social Science Research: Expanding Sampling Methods beyond Mechanical Turk.” Behavior Research Methods51, no. 5: 2022–38.
14.
ChongDennisDruckmanJames N.2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science10, no. 1: 103–126.
15.
CitrinJack. 1979. “Do People Want Something for Nothing: Public Opinion on Taxes and Government Spending.” National Tax Journal32, no. 2: 113–29.
16.
ClemensElisabeth S.2005. “Afterword: Logics of History? Agency, Multiplicity, and Incoherence in the Explanation of Change.” In Remaking Modernity: Politics, History, and Sociology, edited by AdamsJ.ClemensE. S.OrloffA. S., 493–515. Duke University Press.
17.
CourantPaul N.GramlichEdward M.RubinfeldDaniel L.1980. “Why Voters Support Tax Limitation Amendments: The Michigan Case.” National Tax Journal33, no. 1: 1–20.
18.
de GrootHansPommerEvert. 1989. “The Stability of Stated Preferences for Public Goods: Evidence from Recent Budget Games.” Public Choice60, no. 2: 123–32.
19.
DeslatteAaron. 2020. “To Shop or Shelter? Issue Framing Effects and Social-distancing Preferences in the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration3, no. 1: 1–13.
20.
EbdonCarol. 2000. “The Relationship between Citizen Involvement in the Budget Process and City Structure and Culture.” Public Productivity and Management Review23, no. 3: 383–93.
21.
EbdonCarol. 2002. “Beyond the Public Hearing: Citizen Participation in the Local Government Budget Process.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management14, no. 2: 273–94.
22.
EbdonCarolFranklinAimee L.2004. “Searching for a Role for Citizens in the Budget Process.” Public Budgeting and Finance24:32–49.
23.
EbdonCarolFranklinAimee L.2006. “Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory.” Public Administration Review66, no. 3: 437–47.
24.
EntmanRobert M.1993. “Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.”Journal of Communication 43, no. 4: 51–58.
25.
FranklinAimeeEbdonCarol. 2004. “Aligning Priorities in Local Budgeting Processes.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management16, no. 2: 210–27.
26.
FranklinAimee L.HoAlfred T.EbdonCarol. 2009. “Participatory Budgeting in Midwestern States: Democratic Connection or Citizen Disconnection?”Public Budgeting and Finance29, no. 3: 52–73.
27.
GamsonWilliam AModiglianiAndre. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology95:1–37.
28.
GeorgeBertDesmidtSebastianNielsenPoul A.BaekgaardMartin. 2017. “Rational Planning and Politicians’ Preferences for Spending and Reform: Replication and Extension of a Survey Experiment.” Public Management Review19, no. 9: 1251–71.
29.
GrimmelikhuijsenStephanJilkeSebastianOlsenAsmus LethTummersLars. 2017. “Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.” Public Administration Review77, no. 1: 45–56.
GuoHaiNeshkovaMilena I.2013. “Citizen Input in the Budget Process: When Does it Matter Most?” The American Review of Public Administration43, no. 3: 331–46.
32.
HockleyGraham CHarbourGerald. 1983. “Revealed Preferences between Public Expenditures and Taxation Cuts: Public Sector Choice.” Journal of Public Economics22, no. 3: 387–99.
33.
JacobyWilliam G.2000. “Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science44, no. 4: 750–67.
34.
JilkeSebastianVan RyzinGregg G.Van de WalleSteven. 2016. “Responses to Decline in Marketized Public Services: An Experimental Evaluation of Choice Overload.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26, no. 3: 421–32.
35.
KahnemanDanielTverskyAmos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica47, no. 2: 263–91.
36.
KavanaghShayne C.LemmieValerieCarcassonMartin. 2023. “Rethinking Public Engagement: Why We Need to Rethink Public Engagement and How to Promote a Culture of Active Citizenship.” Government Finance Review39, no. 2: 13–29.
37.
KerrGeoffrey N.CullenRossHugheyKenneth F. D.2010. “Choice Experiment Assessment of Public Expenditure Preferences.” New Zealand Economic Papers44, no. 3: 259–68.
38.
KinderDonald RSandersLynn M.1990. “Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks.” Social Cognition8, no. 1: 73–103.
39.
KingCheryl SimrellFelteyKathryn M.SuselBridget O’Neill. 1998. “The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration.” Public Administration Review58, no. 4: 317–26.
40.
LangellaCeciliaAnessi-PessinaEugenioRedmayneNives BoticaSiciliaMariafrancesca. 2021. “Financial Reporting Transparency, Citizens’ Understanding, and Public Participation: A Survey Experiment Study.” Public Administration101, no. 2: 584–603.
41.
LevineCharles H.1979. “More on Cutback Management: Hard Questions for Hard Times.” Public Administration Review39, no. 2: 179–83.
42.
LevinIrwin PSchneiderSandra L.GaethGary J.1998. “All Frames are not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, no. 2: 149–188.
43.
LiaoWei-Jie. 2023. “Assessing the Adoption and Implementation of Budget Simulations at the Municipal Level.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
44.
MallinsonDaniel J.2018. “California Budget Simulation.” Journal of Political Science Education14, no. 3: 418–21.
45.
MarloweJustin. 2021. “Stories and Sentiment in State and Local Government Finance.” State and Local Government Review53, no. 3: 248–59.
46.
MeltsnerArnold. 1971. The Politics of City Revenues. University of California Press.
47.
MohrZacharyAfonsoWhitney. 2024. “Budget Starting Position Matters: A ‘Field-in-lab’ Experiment Testing Simulation Engagement and Budgetary Preferences.” Public Budgeting and Finance44, no. 1: 60–80.
48.
MohrZacharyDavisJourdan. 2023. “Simon’s Behavior and Waldo’s Public: The ABCS Model of Public Behavior and Social Interactions.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration6, no. 1: 1–9.
49.
MohrZacharyKearneyLinwood. 2021. “Behavioral-experimental Public Budgeting and Financial Management: A Review of Experimental Studies in the Field.” Public Finance and Management20, no. 1: 11–44.
50.
MorrillChris. 2021. “To Increase Trust in Government, Reinvent the Local Government Budget.” State and Local Government Review53, no. 1: 10–13.
51.
MuthomiFrankline. 2022. “Impact of Budget Information Framing on Citizens’ Budgetary Choices: An Experiment.” Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University.
52.
MuthomiFrankline. 2024a. “Perceived Values of Public Participation Practices in Budgeting: Insights from Incorporated Local Governments in Oregon.” State and Local Government Review56, no. 2: 196–206.
53.
MuthomiFrankline. 2024b. “When are Public Preferences and Choices Bound to Change? An Experimental Survey of the Balancing Act Simulation.” Presented to the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management (ABFM) Annual Conference, Cleveland, OH, September26–28.
54.
NeshkovaMilena IGuoHai. 2012. “Public Participation and Organizational Performance: Evidence from State Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory22, no. 2: 267–88.
55.
NielsenPoul ABaekgaardMartin. 2013. “Performance Information, Blame Avoidance, and Politicians’ Attitudes to Spending and Reform: Evidence from an Experiment.”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25, no. 2: 545–69.
56.
OuelletteJudith AWoodWendy. 1998. “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes by Which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior.” Psychological Bulletin124, no. 1: 54.
PettijohnCarole DGrizzleGloria A.1997. “Structural Budget Reform: Does it Affect Budget Deliberations?” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management9, no. 1: 26.
62.
PiatakJaclynMohrZacharyLelandSuzanne. 2017. “Bureaucratic Accountability in Third-party Governance: Experimental evidence of Blame Attribution during Times of Budgetary Crisis.” Public Administration95, no. 4: 976–89.
RobbinsMark D.SimonsenBillFeldmanBarry. 2004. “The Impact of Tax Price on Spending Preferences.” Public Budgeting & Finance24, no. 3: 82–97.
66.
RobbinsMark D.SimonsenBillFeldmanBarry. 2008. “Citizens and Resource Allocation: Improving Decision Making with Interactive Web-based Citizen Participation.” Public Administration Review68, no. 3: 564–75.
67.
ScheufeleDietram A.1999. “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication49, no. 1: 103–122.
68.
ScheufeleDietram A.2000. “Agenda-setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication.” Mass Communication & Society3, no. 2–3: 297–316.
69.
SimonsenWilliamRobbinsMark D.2000. Citizen Participation in Resource Allocation. Routledge.
70.
SoguelNilsCaperchioneEugenioCohenSandra. 2020. “Allocating Government Budgets According to Citizen Preferences: A Cross-national Survey.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management32, no. 3: 487–504.
71.
StanfordKaren A.1992. “State Budget Deliberations: Do Legislators Have a Strategy?” Public Administration Review52, no. 1: 16–26.
72.
TanakaSusan. 2007. “Engaging the Public in National Budgeting: A Non-governmental Perspective.” OECD Journal on Budgeting7, no. 2: 139–77.
73.
ThalerRichard HSunsteinCass R.2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin.
74.
ThurmaierKurt MWilloughbyKatherine G.2001. Policy and Politics in State Budgeting. Routledge.
75.
TuxhornKim-LeeD’AttomaJohn W.SteinmoSven. 2019. “Trust in Government: Narrowing the Ideological Gap over the Federal Budget.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration2, no. 1: 1–13.
76.
TuxhornKim-LeeD’AttomaJohn W.SteinmoSven. 2021a. “Assessing the Stability of Fiscal Attitudes: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Public Administration100, no. 3: 633–52.
77.
TuxhornKim-LeeD’AttomaJohn W.SteinmoSven. 2021b. “Do Citizens Want Something for Nothing? Mass Attitudes and the Federal Budget.” Politics and Policy49, no. 3: 566–93.
78.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel. 1974. “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in Judgments Reveal Some Heuristics of Thinking under Uncertainty.” Science185, no. 4157: 1124–31.
