Mind the (Collaborative) Gap: How the Public Symbolically Rewards and Punishes Policy Actors for Their Collaborative Choices

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article explores how informing residents about the resolution of collaborative gaps by leading government agencies—specifically gaps with civil‐society organizations—affects public perceptions. While recent research demonstrates that knowledge of collaboration with civil society groups can impact public trust in policy actors, the focus has been on the rewards of closing gaps (the collaborative reward hypothesis), with scant attention to the potential penalties for failing to do so (the collaborative punishment hypothesis). Additionally, research testing the reward hypothesis has been limited to cross‐sectional observational studies in highly specific contexts, raising concerns about causality and context dependence. To address these limitations, we leverage a conjoint experiment with a nationally representative U.S. sample to test both the collaborative reward and punishment hypotheses across two policy areas. Our findings confirm that respondent awareness of collaborative gap closure improves public perceptions of agencies across policy contexts, whereas awareness of gap openness degrades public perceptions, highlighting both the risks and rewards associated with collaborative choices.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.