Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how the sequencing of budget simulations influences the alignment between priority goals and budgetary decisions. Drawing on behavioral perspectives, the study posits that two simulation sequences—goal setting to budgeting (default) and budgeting to goal setting (alternative)—shape individuals' budgetary responses, particularly the proximity between a program's total cost and the corresponding budgetary allocations. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a quasi-experimental research design using Balancing Act modules that enable participants to articulate their priority goals and corresponding resource allocations. Adult Americans (aged 18 and above) were recruited through an online crowdsourcing platform and randomly assigned to treatment conditions to complete the task. The analysis—based on descriptive statistics, independent sample t-tests, and OLS regression models—provides supporting evidence regarding the role of simulation sequencing in shaping decision alignment. Findings The findings indicate that the sequence of the simulation facilitates decision alignment, with alignment being comparatively stronger under the alternative sequence. Moreover, the results demonstrate that participants' budget-balancing strategies—particularly the ways in which their allocation choices unfolded during the simulation—significantly contribute to this alignment. Originality/value The study offers valuable insights by demonstrating how the sequencing of budget simulation tools can promote participatory outcomes such as decision alignment, preference consistency, and consensus building. Integrating such tools into budgeting processes can foster more meaningful and informed public engagement. Importantly, the study provides a proof of concept for both researchers and practitioners to further test and refine these approaches in practice, thereby contributing to the advancement of theories in behavioral public budgeting.
Frankline Muthomi (Sun,) studied this question.