Does symbolic representation matter? A meta‐analysis of the passive‐symbolic representation link
对286个效应量的元分析发现，被动代表性与象征性结果之间存在显著但微弱正相关，且这种效应在前线岗位和实验设计中更强。
Abstract The theory of symbolic representation expects that passive representativeness of bureaucrats can heighten agencies' perceived legitimacy and enhance citizen outcomes. Empirical evidence on the consequences of symbolic representation, however, is mixed. By performing a meta‐analysis of 286 effect sizes, this study finds a significantly positive, though weak, association between passive representation and its anticipated symbolic outcomes. A meta‐regression analysis further examined how the salience of symbolic representation is moderated by multiple aspects of passive representativeness, symbolic outcomes, policy and geographical contexts, and research design. Results suggest that the symbolic benefits of passive representation are more observed at the frontline than in managerial settings, and the effects are stronger in experimental research designs than observational ones. This research echoes the increasing attention dedicated to the importance of context to representative bureaucracy research and contributes to a more refined theoretical exploration of symbolic representation.