•  
  •  
 

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Development planning ideally requires accurate information to translate distant solutions, where actions and impacts are separated by significant delays. However, the attention theory suggests that the attention of planners is constrained by familiarity bias, shaped by organizational procedures and communication channels. This study argues that planners are less likely to prioritize distant solutions due to a stronger sense of perceived self-efficacy. Even when presented with favorable information, decision-makers tend to rely on heuristics that filter out unfamiliar information. Employing a mixed-method approach by combining a discrete choice experiment and qualitative interviews with regional planners in Indonesia, this study discovers that familiarity bias influences decision-making. Planners not only adjust decisions based on human resource capacities but also favor familiar performance indicators drawn from the common information inventory. This study advances the attention theory and the behavioral approach in public sector decision-making, particularly in addressing new development challenges such as energy transitions and the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). By focusing on a developing country, this study bridges the development theory and practice in a more human-centered and critical context.

References

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.805

Benito, B., Guillamón, M.-D., & Ríos, A.-M. (2023). What factors make a municipality more involved in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals? Empirical evidence. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04330-6

Bisogno, M., Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., Rossi, F. M., & Peña-Miguel, N. (2023). Sustainable development goals in public administrations: Enabling conditions in local governments. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(4), 1223–1242. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221146458

Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of Self-Efficacy on Performance in a Cognitive Task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1990.9924591

Boyne, G. A. (Ed.). (2011). Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (paperback re-issue, 1. paperback ed). Cambridge Univ. Press.

Bryson, J. M., Edwards, L. H., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2018). Getting strategic about strategic planning research. Public Management Review, 20(3), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1285111

Cerna, L. (2013). The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches. OECD. https://www.luciecerna.com/uploads/5/1/2/5/5125288/the_nature_of_policy_change_and_implementation.pdf

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1992). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed). Blackwell Business.

Degeling, C., Chen, G., Gilbert, G. L., Brookes, V., Thai, T., Wilson, A., & Johnson, J. (2020). Changes in public preferences for technologically enhanced surveillance following the COVID-19 pandemic: A discrete choice experiment. BMJ Open, 10(11), e041592. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041592

Dieteren, C. M., Bonfrer, I., Brouwer, W. B. F., & Van Exel, J. (2023). Public preferences for policies promoting a healthy diet: A discrete choice experiment. The European Journal of Health Economics, 24(9), 1429–1440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01554-7

Dong, D., Xu, R. H., Wong, E. L., Hung, C., Feng, D., Feng, Z., Yeoh, E., & Wong, S. Y. (2020). Public preference for COVID‐19 vaccines in China: A discrete choice experiment. Health Expectations, 23(6), 1543–1578. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13140

Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2006). The Anchoring-and-Adjustment Heuristic: Why the Adjustments Are Insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01704.x

Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12609

Guarini, E., Mori, E., & Zuffada, E. (2022). Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals: A managerial perspective. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(5). https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-02-2021-0031

Gunst, R. F., & Mason, R. L. (2009). Fractional factorial design. WIREs Computational Statistics, 1(2), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.27

Halberstadt, J., & Catty, S. (2008). Analytic Thought Disrupts Familiarity-Based Decision Making. Social Cognition, 26(6), 755–765. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.6.755

Hoyos, D. (2010). The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 69(8), 1595–1603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.04.011

Islami, M. (2021). Implementasi Satu Data Indonesia: Tantangan dan Critical Success Factors (CSFs). Jurnal Komunika: Jurnal Komunikasi, Media Dan Informatika, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.31504/komunika.v10i1.3750

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 38(2), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-009-9060-6

LaRiviere, J., Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., Aanesen, M., Falk-Petersen, J., & Tinch, D. (2014). The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(2), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2014.07.004

Lerusse, A., & Van De Walle, S. (2021). Public managers’ valuation of secondary policy objectives in public procurement – results from a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.206

Madey, D. L. (1982). Some Benefits of Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Program Evaluation, with Illustrations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737004002223

Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A Perfect Time for Data Use: Using Data-Driven Decision Making to Inform Practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.667064

Mandinach, E. B., & Schildkamp, K. (2021). Misconceptions about data-based decision making in education: An exploration of the literature. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100842

Marvel, J. D. (2015). Unconscious Bias in Citizens’ Evaluations of Public Sector Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, muu053. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu053

Mutiarani, N. D., & Siswantoro, D. (2020). The impact of local government characteristics on the accomplishment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Cogent Business & Management, 7(1), 1847751. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1847751

Needham, K., & Hanley, N. (2019). Valuing a managed realignment scheme: What are the drivers of public willingness to pay? Ocean & Coastal Management, 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.015

Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75(6), 522–536. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026699

Nutt, P. C. (2006). Comparing Public and Private Sector Decision-Making Practices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(2), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui041

Ocasio, W. (1997). TOWARDS AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM: ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+%253C187::AID-SMJ936%253E3.0.CO;2-K

Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00058-1

Pérez-Domínguez, I., Del Prado, A., Mittenzwei, K., Hristov, J., Frank, S., Tabeau, A., Witzke, P., Havlik, P., Van Meijl, H., Lynch, J., Stehfest, E., Pardo, G., Barreiro-Hurle, J., Koopman, J. F. L., & Sanz-Sánchez, M. J. (2021). Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets. Nature Food, 2(12), 970–980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00385-8

Purwadi, A. (2013). HARMONISASI PENGATURAN PERENCANAAN PEMBANGUNAN ANTARA PUSAT DAN DAERAH ERA OTONOMI DAERAH. Perspektif, 18(2), 86. https://doi.org/10.30742/perspektif.v18i2.117

R Team. (n.d.). R for macOS. https://cran.r-project.org/bin/macosx/

Roaf, E., Larrington-Spencer, H., & Lawlor, E. R. (2024). Interventions to increase active travel: A systematic review. Journal of Transport & Health, 38, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2024.101860

Schwikert, S. R., & Curran, T. (2014). Familiarity and recollection in heuristic decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2341–2365. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000024

Shipp, A. J., & Aeon, B. (2019). Temporal focus: Thinking about the past, present, and future. Current Opinion in Psychology, 26, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.005

Siahaan, T. (2024). Compliance-gaining in policy announcement and willingness to co-produce: Experiment on psychosocial support policy. JKAP (Jurnal Kebijakan Dan Administrasi Publik), 28(2). https://journal.ugm.ac.id/jkap/article/view/99112

Siahaan, T. (2025). Attention to distant solutions amidst negative performance: A vignette experiment on development planners from multiple regions in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23822.88643

Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability (pp. 15–18). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5

Slovic, P. (1972). From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations and Some Evidence about Man’s Ability to Process Information. Oregon Research Institute. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/items/1b2bfbba-947c-400a-95c1-75f8b73d0ed5

Van Der Voet, J., & Lerusse, A. (2024). Performance information and issue prioritization by political and managerial decision-makers: A discrete choice experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 34(4), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae011

Van Der Voet, J., & Van Den Bekerom, P. (2024). Performance information, expectations and satisfaction with public service delivery in the context of co-production initiatives. Public Management Review, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2392131

Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174014

Vecchiato, R. (2015). Creating value through foresight: First mover advantages and strategic agility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.08.016

Wang, N., Tang, L., & Pan, H. (2017). Effectiveness of policy incentives on electric vehicle acceptance in China: A discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.08.009

Additional Files
timothy siahaan_authorship-statement.pdf (226 kB)
Authorship statement

First Page

166

Last Page

177

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.