What is it about?
This study investigates how the types (hard vs. soft) and sources (internal vs. external) of performance information shape perceived credibility among different stakeholders. Using an experimental vignette methodology in Hong Kong's education and recycling sectors, we uncovered some critical dynamics.
Featured Image
Photo by Hannes Köttner on Unsplash
Why is it important?
- Key Findings: The Credibility Gold Standard: Hard performance information from external sources is perceived as the most credible. The "Less than Nothing" Effect: In certain contexts, internally produced soft information was viewed as less credible than providing no performance information at all. - for Public Managers: To build genuine trust, governments must move away from self-congratulatory narratives and prioritse objective, externally validated information in their reporting.
Perspectives
As a researcher in public management, I am interested in how citizens interpret government messages. People naturally try to read between the lines, meaning the type and source of information presented is often perceived as the government's underlying intent. By looking through the lens of behavioral science, this paper highlights a critical blind spot for administrators: telling people you are doing a great job can actually backfire because it may be read as a self-serving motive.
M. Jin Lee
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Perceived credibility of performance information: experimental evidence on type and source effects, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, April 2026, Taylor & Francis,
DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2026.2655792.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
