Experimentos de encuesta en la administración pública brasileña: conceptos, métodos y ejemplos
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Los experimentos de encuesta se han consolidado como una herramienta metodológica central en la investigación sobre administración pública, ya que permiten identificar relaciones causales en contextos controlados. A pesar de su uso creciente en la literatura internacional, su aplicación en Brasil sigue siendo limitada, especialmente en estudios que involucran a servidores públicos. Este artículo ofrece una guía práctica para la implementación de experimentos de encuesta en la administración pública brasileña y analiza sus ventajas, desafíos y buenas prácticas metodológicas. Se presentan tres tipos de experimentos ampliamente utilizados en el campo: los experimentos de lista, que reducen el sesgo de deseabilidad social en la medición de actitudes y comportamientos sensibles; los experimentos de viñeta, que analizan cómo las variaciones controladas en escenarios hipotéticos influyen en las percepciones y los juicios; y los experimentos de verificación de hechos, que evalúan la actualización de creencias tras la exposición a información verídica. Para cada diseño experimental, el artículo presenta ejemplos empíricos aplicados en Brasil y analiza su lógica causal. Asimismo, detalla el paso a paso para la formulación de hipótesis, la elaboración del cuestionario, la recopilación de datos y el análisis estadístico de los resultados. El artículo contribuye a la difusión de los métodos experimentales en el campo y al fortalecimento de la investigación basada en evidencias en la administración pública brasileña.
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
La RAP se compromete a contribuir con la protección de los derechos intelectuales del autor. En ese sentido:
- Adopta la licencia Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0, que permite que los artículos sean reutilizados y distribuidos sin restricciones, siempre que el trabajo original sea correctamente citado;
- Asegura los derechos morales y de uso del artículo a los autores, conforme a la licencia Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0. Los autores conservan los derechos de autor sobre el artículo publicado e la revista tiene el derecho de primera publicación;
- Adopta software de verificación de similitud de contenido - plagio (Crossref Similarity Check);
- Recomienda el uso de los criterios de autoría de CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy);
- Adopta acciones de combate al plagio y a la mala conducta ética, alineadas con las directrices del Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
- La revista se reserva el derecho de realizar en las versiones originales alteraciones únicamente de orden normativo, ortográfico y gramatical, con el fin de mantener el estándar culto de la lengua y la estandarización del formato (layout), respetando, no obstante, el estilo de los autores. Posteriormente, los autores recibirán las versiones finales para su aprobación antes de la publicación.
Más detalles del Código de Ética adoptado por RAP pueden ser vistos en Normas éticas y Código de conducta.
Citas
Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. (2018). Analyzing causal mechanisms in survey experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 357-378. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.19
Ahlquist, J. S. (2018). List experiment design, non-strategic respondent error, and item count technique estimators. Political Analysis, 26(1), 34-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.31
Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93-104. https://doi.org/10.1086/268432
Ames, B., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (Orgs.). (2025). Inside brazilian bureaucracy: politics and policy implementation in brazilian states. Routledge.
Ames, B., Guedes-Neto, J. V., & McCoy, D. (2025). Bureaucrats and political bias. In B. Ames & J. V. Guedes-Neto (Eds.), Inside brazilian bureaucracy: politics and policy implementation in brazilian states (pp. 31-53). Routledge.
Aruguete, N., Calvo, E., & Ventura, T. (2025). The fact-checking dilemma: fact-checking increases the reputation of the fact-checker but creates perceptions of ideological bias. Research & Politics, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251323120
Askim, J., Bach, T., & Kolltveit, K. (2024). The professional profile, competence, and responsiveness of senior bureaucrats: a paired survey experiment with citizens and elite respondents. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(1), 87-101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae024
Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104(2), 226-242. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000092
Battaglio, R. P., Jr., Belardinelli, P., Bellé, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2019). Behavioral public administration ad fontes: a synthesis of research on bounded rationality, cognitive biases, and nudging in public organizations. Public Administration Review, 79(3), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12994
Bersch, K., & Lotta, G. (2023). Political control and bureaucratic resistance: the case of environmental agencies in Brazil. Latin American Politics and Society, 66(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2023.22
Bhanot, S. P., & Linos, E. (2020). Behavioral public administration: past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 168-171. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13129
Blair, G., Coppock, A., & Moor, M. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: a social reference theory and evidence from 30 years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297-1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000374
Bouwman, R., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Experimental public administration from 1992 to 2014: a systematic literature review and ways forward. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 110-131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0129
Caro, F. G., Ho, T., McFadden, D., Gottlieb, A. S., Yee, C., Chan, T., & Winter, J. (2012). Using the internet to administer more realistic vignette experiments. Social Science Computer Review, 30(2), 184-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310391376
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070554
Coppock, A. (2019). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10
Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441-12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115
Finkel, S. E., & Geer, J. G. (1998). A spot check: casting doubt on the demobilizing effect of attack advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991771
Glynn, A. N. (2013). What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(S1), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs070
Gonzales-Ocantos, E., Jonge, C. K., Meléndez, C., Osorio, J., & Nickerson, D. W. (2012). Vote buying and social desirability bias: experimental evidence from Nicaragua. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 202-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00540.x
Gould, D. (1996). Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: how valid are the findings? Journal of Clinical Nursing, 5(4), 207-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.1996.tb00253.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
Guedes-Neto, J. V., & Peters, B. G. (2021). Working, shirking, and sabotage in times of democratic backsliding: an experimental study in Brazil. In M. W. Bauer, J. Pierre, K. Yesilkagit, B. G. Peters & S. Becker (Eds.), Democratic backsliding and public administration: how populists in government transform state bureaucracies (pp. 221-245). Cambridge University.
Guedes-Neto, J. V., & Peters, B. G. (2025). Bureaucratic resistance in times of democratic backsliding. Cambridge University.
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
Hansen, J. A., & Tummers, L. (2020). A systematic review of field experiments in public administration. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 921-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13181
Harden, J. J., Sokhey, A. E., & Runge, K. L. (2019). Accounting for noncompliance in survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 6(3), 199-202. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2019.13
Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2021). Qualitative vignette experiments: a mixed methods design. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(4), 526-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820977607
Hollibaugh, G. E., Jr., Miles, M. R., & Newswander, C. B. (2019). Why public employees rebel: Guerrilla Government in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13118
James, O., Jilke, S. R., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Behavioural and experimental public administration: emerging contributions and new directions. Public Administration, 95(4), 865-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12363
Jankowski, M., Prokop, C., & Tepe, M. (2020). Representative bureaucracy and public hiring preferences: evidence from a conjoint experiment among German municipal civil servants and private sector employees. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 596-618. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa012
Jilke, S., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Survey experiments for public management research. In O. James, S. R. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public management research: challenges and contributions (pp. 117-138). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316676912.007
Kasdan, D. O. (2020). Toward a theory of behavioral public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 605-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318801506
Kertzer, J. D., & Renshon, J. (2022). Experiments and surveys on political elites. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 529-550. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649
Krupnikov, Y., Nam, H. H., & Style, H. (2021). Convenience samples in political science experiments. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Political Science (pp. 165-183). Cambridge University.
Kuklinski, J. H., Cobb, M. D., & Gilens, M. (1997). Racial attitudes and the “New South”. Journal of Politics, 59(2), 323-349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381600053470
Lee, D. S., & Park, S. (2020). Ministerial leadership and endorsement of bureaucrats: experimental evidence from presidential governments. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 426-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13153
Li, Y., & Yu, H. (2026). Changes in the accountability obligation, intensity, and working drive of public employees: evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 36(1), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf027
Lobo, J. R. F. (2022). A resistência da burocracia brasileira diante de recuos democráticos: uma análise da PGFN [Dissertação de mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/32233
Lobo, J. R. F., Marinho, M., Peci, A., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (2025). Bureaucrats’ willingness to resist democratic backsliding: an experimental study in the brazilian federal government. Policy Studies, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2025.2546382
Lotta, G. S., Lima, I. A., Fernandez, M., Silveira, M. C., Pedote, J., & Guaranha, O. L. C. (2023). A resposta da burocracia ao contexto de retrocesso democrático: uma análise da atuação de servidores federais durante o Governo Bolsonaro. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, (40), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-3352.2023.40.266094
Meyer-Sahling, J-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2019). The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy071
Migchelbrink, K., & Van de Walle, S. (2020). When will public officials listen? A vignette experiment on the effects of input legitimacy on public officials’ willingness to use public participation. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 271-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13138
Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: from nature to the lab. Cambridge University.
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton University.
Mutz, D. C. (2021). Improving experimental treatments in political science. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 219-238). Cambridge University.
Nathan, N. L., & White, A. (2021). Experiments on and with street-level bureaucrats. In J. N. Druckman & D. P. Green (Eds.), Advances in experimental political science (pp. 509-525). Cambridge University.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127-132. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318279486b
Oliveros, V. (2016). Making it personal: clientelism, favors, and the personalization of public administration in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 48(3), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041516818254437
Oliveros, V. (2021a). Patronage at work: public jobs and political services in Argentina. Cambridge University.
Oliveros, V. (2021b). Working for the machine: patronage jobs and political services in Argentina. Comparative Politics, 53(3), 381-427. https://doi.org/10.5129/001041521X15974977783469
Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2017). Merit, tenure, and bureaucratic behavior: evidence from a conjoint experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 51(6), 759-792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710268
Pedersen, M. J., Stritch, J. M., & Thuesen, F. (2018). Punishment on the frontlines of public service delivery: client ethnicity and caseworker sanctioning decisions in a Scandinavian welfare state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy018
Peters, B. G., & Guedes-Neto, J. V. (2020). Experimental methods A: survey experiments in public administration. In E. Vigoda-Gadot & D. R. Vashdi (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in public administration, management and policy (pp. 218-233). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Porter, E., Wood, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2018). Sex Trafficking, Russian Infiltration, Birth Certificates, and Pedophilia: A Survey Experiment Correcting Fake News. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(2), 159-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2017.32
Shikano, S., Bräuninger, T., & Stoffel, M. (2012). Statistical analysis of experimental data. In B. Kittel, W. J. Luhan, & R. B. Morton (Eds.), Experimental political science: principles and practices (pp. 163-177). Palgrave Macmillan.
Silveira, M. C., Lotta, G. S., Cingolani, L., Guedes-Neto, J. V., Gomide, A. A., & Souza, P. M. S. (2026). The organizational dynamics of bureaucratic resistance to undemocratic pressures: a conjoint experiment in Brazil. Public Administration Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.70097
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior (4th ed.). Simon and Schuster.
Sniderman, P. M. (2011). The logic and design of the survey experiment: an autobiography of a methodological innovation. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (pp. 102-114). Cambridge University.
Sniderman, P. M., & Grob, D. B. (1996). Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377-399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.377
Sousa, C. A. S. (2024). A influência da remuneração variável na produtividade de analistas de processos de uma Autarquia Federal [Dissertação de mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/36317
Steiner, P. M., Atzmüller, C., & Su, D. (2016). Designing valid and reliable vignette experiments for survey research: a case study on the fair gender income gap. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(2), 52-94. https://doi.org/10.2458/v7i2.20321
Stolte, J. F. (1994). The context of satisficing in vignette research. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9923007
Taylor, B. J. (2006). Factorial Surveys: using vignettes to study professional judgement. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187-1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch345
Zimmermann, V. S. (2025). Identificação organizacional: uma alternativa para gestão de pessoas no contexto do regime de recuperação fiscal no estado do Rio de Janeiro? [Dissertação de Mestrado, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas]. Repositório FGV. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/36914