Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Decision Justification Strategies on Citizen Perceptions of Government

Abstract

Abundant literature documents a range of factors that shape citizen perceptions of government. However, attention to how the justification of a policy decision shapes citizen perceptions remains limited. In this study, we consider how justifications influence citizen trust and legitimacy through a 2 × 2 × 2 pre-registered factorial survey experiment that manipulates justification strategy, policy position, and policy type. Results indicate that opposing positions reduce trust and legitimacy while the context of a highly polarized policy has the opposite effect. Emotive-based strategies decrease trust but do not affect legitimacy. Further, the effect of a supportive or opposing position varies by level of policy polarization.

Keywords

policy justification legitimacy trust experiments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alon-Barkat

(2020). Can government public communications elicit undue trust? Exploring the interaction between symbols and substantive information in communications. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz013

Bagozzi

R. P.

Moore

D. J.

(1994). Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800105

Barber

Holbein

J. B.

(2020). The participatory and partisan impacts of mandatory vote-by-mail. Science Advances, 6(35), eabc7685. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc7685

Baum

M. A.

Potter

P. B.

(2008). The relationships between mass media, public opinion, and foreign policy: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060406.214132

Belardinelli

(2024). Mapping behavioral public policy: Citizens’ preferences and trust. Springer Nature.

Berinsky

A. J.

Burns

Traugott

M. W.

(2001). Who votes by mail?: A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of voting-by-mail systems. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1086/322196

Blind

P. K.

(2007). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of literature and emerging issues. 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government: Building Trust in Government (vol. 2007, pp. 26–29). June.

Bok

D. C.

(1998). The state of the nation: Government and the quest for a better society. Harvard University Press.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

Cook

F. L.

(2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0

10.

Broockman

D. E.

Butler

D. M.

(2017). The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12243

11.

Chambers

(2010). Theories of political justification. Philosophy Compass, 5(11), 893–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00344.x

12.

Christensen

H. S.

Himmelroos

Setälä

(2020). A matter of life or death: A survey experiment on the perceived legitimacy of political decision-making on euthanasia. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(3), 627–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsz014

13.

Clean Power Institute. (2021). Poll: National survey shows strong support for clean power among American voters. American Clean Power. Retrieved July 30, 2024, from https://cleanpower.org/resources/poll-national-survey-shows-strong-support-for-clean-power-among-american-voters/#access-form

14.

Cook

F. L.

Jacobs

L. R.

Kim

(2010). Trusting what you know: Information, knowledge, and confidence in Social Security. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 397–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000034

15.

Cox Edmondson

Munchus

(2007). Managing the unwanted truth: A framework for dissent strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710830993

16.

Cutler

B. D.

Javalgi

R. G.

(1993). Analysis of print ad features: Services versus products. Journal of Advertising Research, 33(2), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218499.1993.12466883

17.

Dahl

(1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.

18.

de Blok

Heermann

Schuessler

Leuffen

de Vries

C. E.

(2024). All on board? The role of institutional design for public support for differentiated integration. European Union Politics, 25(3), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165241246384

19.

de Fine Licht

(2014). Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: An experiment. Public Administration Review, 74(3), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12194

20.

de Fine Licht

Agerberg

Esaiasson

(2022). 'It’s not over when it’s over'—post-decision arrangements and empirical legitimacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(1), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab023

21.

de Fine Licht

Naurin

Esaiasson

Gilljam

(2014). When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance, 27(1), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12021

22.

Desilver

(2020). Mail-in voting became much more common in 2020 primaries as COVID-19 spread. Pew Research Center. October 13, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/13/mail-in-voting-became-much-more-common-in-2020-primaries-as-covid-19-spread/

23.

Deslatte

(2020). Positivity and negativity dominance in citizen assessments of intergovernmental sustainability performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa004

24.

Dunwoody

Peters

H. P.

(1992). Mass media coverage of technological and environmental risks: A survey of research in the United States and Germany. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 199. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004

25.

Esaiasson

Gilljam

Persson

(2012). Which decision-making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 785–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.02052.x

26.

Etzioni

(2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant? Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00366.x

27.

Feldman

M. S.

March

J. G.

(1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392467

28.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

29.

Garrison

Sergent

(2020). Where you can vote by mail, absentee ballot in the 2020 election. USA Today. September 16, 2020. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/politics/elections/2020/08/18/where-you-can-vote-mail-absentee-ballot-2020-election/3387044001/

30.

Golden

M. M.

(1992). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: Bureaucratic responses to presidential control during the Reagan administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 29–62.

31.

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2012). Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: An experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311429667

32.

Grimmelikhuijsen

Herkes

Leistikow

Verkroost

de Vries

Zijlstra

W. G.

(2021). Can decision transparency increase citizen trust in regulatory agencies? Evidence from a representative survey experiment. Regulation & Governance, 15(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12278

33.

Grimmelikhuijsen

Porumbescu

Hong

Tobin Im

(2013). The effect of transparency on trust in government: A cross-national comparative experiment. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12047

34.

Grimmer

Messing

Westwood

S. J.

(2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: The effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000457

35.

Grose

C. R.

Malhotra

Van Houweling

R. P.

(2015). Explaining explanations: How legislators explain their policy positions and how citizens react. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 724–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12164

36.

Gustafson

Goldberg

M. H.

Kotcher

J. E.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Maibach

E. W.

Ballew

M. T.

Leiserowitz

(2020). Republicans and Democrats differ in why they support renewable energy. Energy Policy, 141, 111448, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111448

37.

Hong

(2016). Representative bureaucracy, organizational integrity, and citizen coproduction: Does an increase in police ethnic representativeness reduce crime? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21876

38.

Hood

(2006). Transparency in historical perspective. In Hood

Heald

(Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance? (pp. 3–23). Oxford University Press.

39.

Houston

D. J.

Harding

L. H.

(2013). Public trust in government administrators: Explaining citizen perceptions of trustworthiness and competence. Public Integrity, 16(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922160103

40.

James

Moseley

(2014). Does performance information about public services affect Citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12066

41.

Jensen

Piatak

(2024). Public service motivation and trust in government: An examination across the federal, state, and local levels in the United States. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231200449

42.

Johar

J. S.

Sirgy

M. J.

(1991). Value-Expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising, 20(3), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673345

43.

Kahneman

Frederick

(2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In Gilovich

Griffin

Kahneman

(Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge University Press.

44.

Kampen

J. K.

Van de Walle

Bouckaert

(2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government: The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2006.11051881

45.

Kelman

H. C.

Hamilton

V. L.

(1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. Yale University Press.

46.

Kennedy

Tyson

(2024). How Republicans View Climate Change and Energy Issues. Pew Research Center. March 1, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/

47.

Klemm

Hartmann

Das

(2019). Fear-Mongering or fact-driven? Illuminating the interplay of objective risk and emotion-evoking form in the response to epidemic news. Health Communication, 34(1), 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1384429

48.

Korecki

Dixon

Brooks

Barnett

(2024). Republicans pushing to embrace mail-in voting encounter widespread resistance. NBC News. April 2, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republicans-trump-mail-voting-resistance-rnc-rcna145599

49.

Laporte

T. R.

Metlay

D. S.

(1996). Hazards and institutional trustworthiness: Facing a deficit of trust. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/976375

50.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.

51.

Lazarus

R. S.

(1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.

52.

Lindauer

Mayorga

Greene

Slovic

Västfjäll

Singer

(2020). Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007208

53.

Lipsky

(2023). The critical role of street level bureaucrats. In Social work (pp. 194–198). Routledge.

54.

Liu

Duarte

(2025). Repairing public trust through communication in health crises: A systematic review of the literature. Public Management Review, 27(5), 1292–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2284224

55.

Lockhart

Hill

S. J.

Merolla

Romero

Kousser

(2020). America’s electorate is increasingly polarized along partisan lines about voting by mail during the COVID-19 crisis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(40), 24640–24642. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008023117

56.

Love

Stevens

Gamio

(2020). Where Americans can vote by mail in the 2020 elections. The New York Times. August 14, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/08/11/us/politics/vote-by-mail-us-states.html

57.

Mackler

(2022). Manchin-Murkowski meeting could be the start of a bipartisan energy bargain. The Hill. April 28, 2022. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3468918-manchin-murkowski-meeting-could-be-the-start-of-a-bipartisan-energy-bargain/

58.

Mansbridge

(2009). A ‘selection model’ of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00337.x

59.

Marvel

J. D.

(2016). Unconscious bias in citizens’ evaluations of public sector performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu053

60.

Mazepus

van Leeuwen

(2020). Fairness matters when responding to disasters: An experimental study of government legitimacy. Governance, 33(3), 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12440

61.

McGhee

Paluch

Romero

(2022). Vote-by-mail policy and the 2020 presidential election. Research & Politics, 9(2), 20531680221089197, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221089197

62.

McGraw

K. M.

(1991). Managing blame: An experimental test of the effects of political accounts. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1133–1157. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963939

63.

McGraw

K. M.

(2001). Political accounts and attribution processes. In Kuklinski

J. H.

(Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 295–320). Cambridge University Press.

64.

Milgram

(1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.

65.

Miller

S. M.

Keiser

L. R.

(2021). Representative bureaucracy and attitudes toward automated decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 150–165.

66.

Mizrahi

Vigoda-Gadot

Van Ryzin

(2010). Public sector management, trust, performance, and participation: A citizens survey and national assessment in the United States. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(2), 268–312. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340207

67.

Molden

D. C.

Higgins

E. T.

(2005). Motivated thinking. In Holyoak

K. J.

Morrison

R. G.

(Eds), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 295–320). Cambridge University Press.

68.

Cui

(2022). Policy narrative, policy understanding and policy support intention: A survey experiment on energy conservation. Policy Studies, 43(6), 1361–1381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2021.1954609

69.

Nye

J. S.

Zelikow

P. D.

King

D. C.

(1997). Why people don't trust government. Harvard University Press.

70.

O'Leary

(2019). The ethics of dissent: Managing guerrilla government. Cq Press.

71.

Olsen

A. L.

(2015). Citizen (dis) satisfaction: An experimental equivalence framing study. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12337

72.

Ouzts

(2024). Where Americans can vote by mail in the 2020 elections. Energy News Network. February 2, 2024. https://energynews.us/2024/02/02/polls-show-most-conservatives-like-clean-energy-so-why-isnt-the-north-carolina-gop-doing-more-to-support-it/

73.

Park

Blenkinsopp

(2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399230

74.

Peters

B. G.

(2023). Governments and citizens under stress. In The problem of governing: Essays for richard rose (pp. 203–218). Springer Nature Switzerland.

75.

Pew Research Center. (2021). Republicans and democrats move further apart in views of voting access. Pew Research Center. April 22, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/04/22/republicans-and-democrats-move-further-apart-in-views-of-voting-access/

76.

Pew Research Center. (2023). Majorities of Americans prioritize renewable energy, back steps to address climate change. Pew Research Center Science & Society. June 28, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/06/28/majorities-of-americans-prioritize-renewable-energy-back-steps-to-address-climate-change/

77.

Pew Research Center. (2025). Public trust in government: 1958–2024. May 9. Pew Research Center website. Accessed May 9, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

78.

Pitkin

H. F.

(1967). The concept of representation. University of California Press.

79.

Plescia

Sevi

Blais

(2021). Who likes to vote by mail? American Politics Research, 49(4), 381–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211005684

80.

Pollitt

Bouckaert

(2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.

81.

Porumbescu

G. A.

Bellé

Cucciniello

Nasi

(2017a). Translating policy transparency into policy understanding and policy support: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration, 95(4), 990–1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12347

82.

Porumbescu

G. A.

Cucciniello

Bellé

Nasi

(2021). Only hearing what they want to hear: Assessing when and why performance information triggers intentions to coproduce. Public Administration, 99(4), 789–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12697

83.

Porumbescu

G. A.

Lindeman

M. I. H.

Ceka

Cucciniello

(2017b). Can transparency foster more understanding and compliant citizens? Public Administration Review, 77(6), 840–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12790

84.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

Lavena

C. F.

(2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu006

85.

Riccucci

N. M.

Van Ryzin

G. G.

(2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130.

86.

Rimkutė

Mazepus

(2025). Citizens’ perceptions of the legitimacy of independent agencies: The effects of expertise-based and reputation-sourced authority. Public Administration Review, 85(5), 1495–1511. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13916

87.

Robison

(2022). Can elites Escape blame by explaining themselves? Suspicion and the limits of elite explanations. British Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000071X

88.

Robison

Mullinix

K. J.

(2016). Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1055526

89.

Saul

Epstein

R. J.

(2020). Trump is pushing a false argument on vote-by-mail fraud. Here are the facts. The New York Times. September 28, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/article/mail-in-voting-explained.html

90.

Simon

H. A.

(1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. Macmillan Company.

91.

Sobczyk

(2021). How a pro-coal Republican became a climate deal-maker. E&E Daily. May 11, 2021. https://www.eenews.net/articles/how-a-pro-coal-republican-became-a-climate-deal-maker/

92.

Song

Lee

(2016). Citizens’ use of social media in government, perceived transparency, and trust in government. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1108798

93.

Taber

C. S.

Lodge

(2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

94.

Towfigh

E. V.

Goerg

S. J.

Glöckner

Leifeld

Llorente-Saguer

Bade

Kurschilgen

(2016). Do direct-democratic procedures lead to higher acceptance than political representation? Experimental survey evidence from Germany. Public Choice, 167, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-016-0330-y

95.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

96.

Tyler

T. R.

Jackson

(2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034514

97.

Van den Bekerom

Van der Voet

Christensen

(2021). Are citizens more negative about failing service delivery by public than private organizations? Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa027

98.

Van de Walle

Bouckaert

(2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352

99.

Wang

Wart

M. W.

(2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of Managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00712.x

100.

Widmann

(2021). How emotional are populists really? Factors explaining emotional appeals in the communication of political parties. Political Psychology, 42(1), 163–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12693

101.

Wines

(2020). Which party would benefit most from voting by mail? it’s complicated. The New York Times. May 25, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/us/vote-by-mail-coronavirus.html

102.

Younis

(2020). Most Americans favor voting by mail as option in November. Gallup. May 12, 2020. https://news.gallup.com/poll/310586/americans-favor-voting-mail-option-november.aspx

103.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB