Journal of Behavioral Public Administration <p><em>Journal of Behavioral Public Administration (JBPA)</em> is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary open access journal that focuses on behavioral and experimental research in public administration, broadly defined.&nbsp; JBPA encourages submissions of both basic scholarly and applied work conducted by academics or practitioners.</p> Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration en-US Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 2576-6465 <p>Manuscripts accepted for publicaction in JBPA are licensed under a <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License</a> (CC-BY 4.0).&nbsp; It allows all uses of published manuscripts but requires attribution.</p> <p>The CC-BY license applies also to data, code and experimental material, except when it conflicts with a prior copyright.&nbsp; Common courtesy requires informing authors of new uses of their data, as well as acknowledging the source.</p> Simon’s Behavior and Waldo’s Public <p>Most research in behavioral public administration (BPA) focuses on the micro or individual level outcomes. This article argues that BPA should recognize the importance of social interactions as both an outcome of interest and an outcome that can be explored within a BPA framework. We present the Affect, Behavior, Cognition and Social Interaction (ABCS) model and call on researchers to study not just social interactions from the lens of BPA, but also study the linking mechanisms of affect, behavior, and cognition. We also examine the importance of public for public administration theory, and we discuss advances in research methods that allow BPA to further examine the public through social interactions. In the conclusion, we call on further research of the ABCS model, its limitations, and the need for an expanded research agenda in BPA with a focus on the public and social interactions.</p> Zachary Mohr Jourdan Davis Copyright (c) 2023 2023-01-30 2023-01-30 6 10.30636/jbpa.61.297 Revisiting Our Assumptions About the Nature of Man <p>Behavioral public administration was coined as a term to describe a field focused on the psychologically based study of individual level behavior and attitudes with relevance for the public sector. Although it holds important insights on human behavior, the literature on behavioral genetics has so far largely been missing in this field. In this paper, I propose that behavioral genetics is concurrent with the scope of behavioral public administration and that it complements the popular theory of bounded rationality. Next, I outline the logics of the twin studies that underlie much of behavioral genetics, and synthesize relevant existing results both inside and outside public administration that relies on behavioral genetics. Functionally, I arrange these insights as they relate to citizens, employees, and managers and present examples of how gene-environment interactions allow for integration of behavioral public administration and behavioral genetics. I argue that insights from behavioral genetics are needed to maximize explanatory power and avoid biased estimates of the effects of socialization when examining these three groups. I conclude by presenting points for practitioners.</p> Christoffer Florczak Copyright (c) 2023 2023-01-30 2023-01-30 6 10.30636/jbpa.61.294 Ambiguous COVID-19 Messaging Increases Unsafe Socializing Intentions <p>Before and during the vaccine roll out, governments reported surging COVID-19 cases due to unsafe socializing among younger individuals. Officials continue to search for effective ways to encourage safe socializing behaviour within this demographic. However, a key challenge is that public health advice is necessarily nuanced and complex, which can create ambiguity. Appropriate behaviour depends on specific circumstances and public messaging cannot detail every situation. When people confront ambiguity in expert guidance, they may engage in motivated reasoning—that is, people’s underlying motivations may influence how they process information and make decisions. In a pre-registered experiment, we look at the effect of ambiguous public health messaging on people’s inferences regarding the behaviours the government expects them to avoid and intentions to engage in unsafe socializing. We find no evidence of an effect on inferences—that is, people who receive an ambiguous message about COVID-19 make inferences about correct behaviour that are similar to the inferences of those who receive no message. However, we find ambiguous messaging increases unsafe socializing intentions, especially among people aged 18-39 who socialized before the pandemic. Our findings underscore the need for unambiguous communications during public health crises.</p> Vincent Hopkins Mark Pickup Scott Matthews Copyright (c) 2023 2023-01-30 2023-01-30 6 10.30636/jbpa.61.299