01636nam a2200181   4500999001900000008004100019100002400060245011700084260000900201300001500210520099200225650003201217700003001249773003301279906001801312942001201330952011201342  c509532d509532190513b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aBelle, Nicola95485  aProspect theory goes public: experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions  c2018  ap.828-840.  aThis article tests a broad range of cognitive biases branching out from prospect theory in the context of public policy and management. Results illuminate systematic deviations from rationality. In experiments 1 through 5, the framing of outcomes influenced decisions across policy and management domains. In experiment 6, public employees were prone to an anchoring bias when setting standards for responsiveness. Experiment 7 shows that public workers tend to put more effort into activities that affect higher percentages of beneficiaries, even if the absolute number of affected clients is constant. Experiments 8 and 9 suggest that public employees are more likely to stick to a suboptimal status quo as the number of superior alternatives increases. Experiment 10 provides evidence of an asymmetric dominance effect: decisions changed when a decoy was present. This article contributes to behavioral public administration by replicating and extending previous trials. - Reproduced.  aPublic administration95486  aBelardinelli, Paolo95487  aPublic Administration Review  aPublic policy  2ddccAR  00102ddc40709383472aIIPAbIIPAd2019-05-13h78(6), Nov/Dec, 2018: p.828-840.pAR119692r2019-05-13yAR