The article applies an experimental vignette research design to test how blame and credit expectations affect individuals’ willingness to support innovative programs. Respondents received a survey with three scenarios of innovative programs and were randomly allocated to being blamed if the program failed, credited if it succeeded, or a control group. Blame and credit framing had no statistically significant effect on willingness to support the programs. It was much more important for respondents whether the program was 'good for the community'. This calls into question current assumptions about anticipatory blame avoidance motivations as a primary antecedent of innovative behavior.
AguinisHBradleyKJBrodersenA (2014) Industrial–organisational psychologists in business schools: Brain drain or eye opener?Industrial and Organizational Psychology7(3): 284–303.
2.
AlexanderCSBeckerHJ (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly42(1): 93–104.
3.
AnsellCGashA (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4): 543–571.
4.
Aronow P, Baron J and Pinson L (2019) A note on dropping experimental subjects who fail a manipulation check. Political Analysis 27(4): 572--589.
5.
BaekgaardMBaethgeCBlom-HansenJ, et al. (2015) Conducting experiments in public management research: A practical guide. International Public Management Journal18(2): 323–342.
6.
BellanteDLinkAN (1981) Are public sector workers more risk averse than private sector workers?Industrial and Labor Relations Review34(3): 408–412.
7.
BernierLHafsiT (2007) The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review67(3): 488–503.
8.
BoinAHartPTMcConnellA, et al. (2010) Leadership style, crisis response and blame management: The case of hurricane Katrina. Public Administration88(3): 706–723.
9.
BorinsS (2001) Encouraging innovation in the public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital2(3): 310–319.
BrownLOsborneSP (2013) Risk and innovation. Public Management Review15(2): 186–208.
13.
BuhrmesterMKwangTGoslingSD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science6(1): 3–5.
14.
BystedRJespersenKR (2014) Exploring managerial mechanisms that influence innovative work behaviour: Comparing private and public employees. Public Management Review16(2): 217–241.
15.
CarpenterDP (2001) The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
CatneyPHenneberryJ (2012) (Not) exercising discretion: Environmental planning and the politics of blame-avoidance. Planning Theory & Practice13(4): 549–568.
17.
ConsidineMLewisJM (2007) Innovation and innovators inside government: From institutions to networks. Governance20(4): 581–607.
18.
ConstantDKieslerSSproullL (1994) What’s mine is ours, or is it? A study of attitudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research5(4): 400–421.
19.
DamanpourF (1991) Organisational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal34(3): 555–590.
20.
De VriesHBekkersVTummersLG (2016) Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration94(1): 146–166.
21.
FoxxRMMartellaRCMarchand-MartellaNE (1989) The acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of problem-solving skills by closed head-injured adults. Behavior Therapy20(1): 61–76.
22.
FurnhamABooHC (2011) A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics40(1): 35–42.
23.
GehlbachHBargeS (2012) Anchoring and adjusting in questionnaire responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology34(5): 417–433.
24.
GrimmelikhuijsenSJilkeSOlsenAL, et al. (2016) Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review77(1): 45–56.
25.
HansenMB (2011) Antecedents of organisational innovation: The diffusion of new public management into Danish local government. Public Administration89(2): 285–306.
26.
HattkeFKaluczaJ (2019) What influences the willingness of citizens to co-produce public services? Results from a vignette experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration2(1): 1--14.
27.
HinterleitnerMSagerF (2015) Avoiding Blame---A Comprehensive Framework and the Australian Home Insulation Program Fiasco. Policy Studies Journal43(1): 139–161.
28.
HoodC (2002) The risk game and the blame game. Government and Opposition37(1): 15–37.
HoodCJenningsWCopelandP (2016) Blame avoidance in comparative perspective: Reactivity, staged retreat and efficacy. Public Administration94(2): 542–562.
31.
HowlettM (2014) Why are policy innovations rare and so often negative? Blame avoidance and problem denial in climate change policy-making. Global Environmental Change29: 395–403.
32.
HughesRHubyM (2004) The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review11(1): 36–51.
33.
InbarYGilovichT (2011) Angry (or disgusted), but adjusting? The effect of specific emotions on adjustment from self-generated anchors. Social Psychological and Personality Science2(6): 563–569.
34.
JamesOJilkeSPetersenC, et al. (2016) Citizens’ blame of politicians for public service failure: Experimental evidence about blame reduction through delegation and contracting. Public Administration Review76(1): 83–93.
35.
JilkeSVan de WalleSKimS (2016) Generating usable knowledge through an experimental approach to public administration. Public Administration Review76(1): 69–72.
36.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
37.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–291.
38.
KnutssonHThomassonA (2014) Innovation in the public procurement process: A study of the creation of innovation-friendly public procurement. Public Management Review16(2): 242–255.
39.
LægreidPRonessPGVerhoestK (2011) Explaining the innovative culture and activities of state agencies. Organization Studies32(10): 1321–1347.
40.
LodgeMWegrichK (eds) (2014) The Problem-Solving Capacity of the Modern State: Governance Challenges and Administrative Capacities. 1st ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
McGrawKM (1990) Avoiding blame: An experimental investigation of political excuses and justifications. British Journal of Political Science20(1): 119–131.
42.
MarsdenPVWrightJD (2010) Handbook of Survey Research. UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
43.
MeijerAJ (2014) From Hero-Innovators to distributed heroism: An in-depth analysis of the role of individuals in public sector innovation. Public Management Review16(2): 199–216.
44.
MoynihanDP (2012) Extra-Network organisational reputation and blame avoidance in networks: The hurricane Katrina example. Governance25(4): 567–588.
45.
NielsenPABaekgaardM (2013) Performance information, blame avoidance, and politicians’ attitudes to spending and reform: Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(2): 545–569.
46.
O’LearyRVijN (2012) Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?The American Review of Public Administration42(5): 507–522.
47.
OsborneSP (1998) Naming the beast: Defining and classifying service innovations in social policy. Human Relations51(9): 1133–1154.
48.
OsborneSPBrownL (2011) Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king?Public Administration89(4): 1335–1350.
49.
OsborneSPFlemigSS (2015) Conceptualizing risk and social innovation: An integrated framework for risk governance. Society and Economy37(2): 165–182.
50.
PaolacciGChandlerJ (2014) Inside the Turk understanding mechanical Turk as a participant Pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science23(3): 184–188.
51.
PfeiferC (2011) Risk aversion and sorting into public sector employment. German Economic Review12(1): 85–99.
52.
PrinceMJ (2010) Avoiding blame, doing good, and claiming credit: Reforming Canadian income security. Canadian Public Administration53(3): 293–322.
53.
RobertsNCKingPJ (1991) Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory1(2): 147–175.
RossiPHAlvesWM (1980) Rejoinder to Faia. American Journal of Sociology85(4): 954–955.
56.
SchoemakerPJH (2013) Experiments on Decisions under Risk: The Expected Utility Hypothesis. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
57.
ShadishWRCookTDCampbellDT (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
58.
SinghJ (1986) Performance, slack, and risk-taking in organisational decision-making. Academy of Management Journal29(3): 562–585.
59.
StritchJMPedersenMJTaggartG (2017) The opportunities and limitations of using mechanical Turk (MTurk) in public administration and management scholarship. International Public Management Journal20(3): 489–511.
60.
Sulitzeanu-KenanR (2006) If they get it right: An experimental test of the effects of the appointment and reports of UK public inquiries. Public Administration84(3): 623–653.
61.
Sulitzeanu-KenanRHoodC (2005) Blame avoidance with adjectives? Motivation, opportunity, activity and outcome. In: ECPR joint sessions, blame avoidance and blame management workshop, Granada, Spain, 14--19 April 2005.
62.
TaylorG (2006) Ideology and Welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
63.
TiddJBessantJ (2013) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change. 5th ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
64.
TimeusK (2019) Passing the buck? How risk behaviours shape collaborative innovation. In: BachTWegrichK (eds) The Blind Spots of Public Bureaucracy and the Politics of Non‐Coordination. Berlin:Springer International Publishing, pp.151–170.
65.
TourangeauRCouperMPConradF (2004) Spacing, position, and order interpretive heuristics for visual features of survey questions. Public Opinion Quarterly68(3): 368–393.
66.
TummersLG (2011) Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: A policy alienation framework. International Review of Administrative Sciences77(3): 555–581.
67.
UrbachTFayDLaucheK (2016) Who will be on my side? The role of peers’ achievement motivation in the evaluation of innovative ideas. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology25(4): 540–560.
68.
VerschuereBBeddeleemEVerletD (2014) Determinants of innovative behaviour in Flemish nonprofit organisations: An empirical research. Public Management Review16(2): 173–198.
69.
VisBVan KersbergenK (2013) Towards an open functional approach to welfare state change: Pressures, ideas, and blame avoidance. Public Administration91(4): 840–854.
70.
WeaverRK (1986) The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy6(4): 371–398.
71.
WenzelburgerG (2014) Blame avoidance, electoral punishment and the perceptions of risk. Journal of European Social Policy24(1): 80–91.
