Want Citizen Engagement?

Try Starting with a Budget Crisis

Researchers have found that participants in online budget simulations are more engaged when they’re given a budget to fix instead of one that is in balance. These findings highlight the importance of behavioral research in citizen engagement efforts and its role in helping governments formulate effective simulations.

Online budget simulations have become an increasingly popular governance tool. They engage and inform citizens by allowing them to provide input on their preferred budget (which they achieve by adjusting revenue and spending). Local governments in particular have embraced simulations, with more than 130 local governments in the US now using the simulation tool Balancing Act.

As e-governance continues to grow, it’s more important than ever for policymakers to carefully consider the design of tools like simulations by accounting for behavioral quirks. One pertinent question is: How can governments improve the engagement of their citizens through simulation design?

To answer this, researchers Zach Mohr and Whitney Afonso aimed to determine whether starting a simulation in a balance, deficit, or surplus could influence respondents’ engagement or affect their budget preferences in a budget simulation.

They found that starting a simulation in either a deficit or surplus increased the number of changes made, while starting in a deficit decreased the probability of completing the simulation. Beginning in a deficit or surplus also changed budgetary preferences more than a balanced budget.

“The broader point that something as small as starting position can have such a big impact on simulation outcomes is just very interesting and points to the need for budgeters that are developing simulations to think about the behavioral impacts of their choices,” explains Mohr, an Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Kansas.

The Role Of Behavioral Theory

Contrary to the assumption that people make decisions rationally, behavioural theory suggests that humans often act in ways that aren’t strictly logical. These latest findings shed some light on why this may happen during simulations.

Personal loss aversion refers to humans’ tendency to be more sensitive to losses than gains, meaning that people may try harder to avoid losing money than to gain money. This suggests that it may be more psychologically difficult to reduce expenditures and increase revenue in a budget simulation — which would encourage engagement when faced with a deficit. As expected, participants showed signs of loss aversion.

Another behavioral trend uncovered was “chunking,” meaning that people made larger changes when faced with a task that requires more attention or is more intellectually demanding. It’s more challenging to navigate a deficit than a balanced budget, which is one explanation for greater engagement.

Yet there were also some unexpected results. Originally, the researchers focused on time spent on the simulation as an indicator of engagement, predicting participants would spend the longest when in a deficit condition, followed by a balance in surplus and finally a balanced budget. But this wasn’t found to be the case.

“At first, I was really bummed out that the results on simulation engagement as measured in time were not significant. It was when (co-author) Whitney forced me to get back into it and started showing me some of the other interesting results that I realized why the simulation engagement might not have worked like I thought it would” says Mohr.

Although the number of changes made within the different simulations was originally a secondary measure of focus, it turned out to be statistically significant, with participants making more changes to revenues and expenditures when in a surplus or deficit (relative to a balanced budget).

Other Considerations For Future Simulations

While this research is a fascinating discovery for those in the field, there are a lot of factors at play in simulations — as tends to be the case with anything involving humans.

“It is an experiment that we are using as a basis for other experiments. That accumulation of causal knowledge is very exciting to me,” says Mohr.

When governments design their budget simulations, the budget starting point is one decision of many to consider.

Bill Simonsen, a Professor at the School of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut who was not involved in the study, believes that another crucial consideration is whether to provide participants with context. He outlines: “Research suggests that providing information can change people’s views. This process would provide real value to officials by providing what an informed citizenry would choose, especially if the decisions are controversial or if there is gridlock or indecision about the best way to approach the fiscal problems.”

He also points out that, in some cases, simulations can be vulnerable to selection bias: “If the simulation is open to everyone only the most motivated will likely participate. The preferences of this group are likely to be different from the overall community. Officials and savvy citizens might wonder about the value of such a process for decision-making.”

Some results from the study reflected this bias, as it found the population of college students used in the study tended to be less supportive of expenditure on policing than the population at large tends to be.

While these considerations open the door to a whole new world of research possibilities, the latest findings solidify the power of psychological factors in driving citizen engagement.

---

The research appeared in issue 44(1) of Public Budgeting and Finance.

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished.