Administrative Neuroscience

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

Over a decade of research, policy and practice on behavioral public administration and policy has demonstrated the existence of several cognitive biases among policy actors (Battaglio et al., 2019; Behavioral Insights Team, 2018; James et al., 2020). There are several definitions of cognitive bias, ranging from cognitive bias being a systematic deviation from some sort of norms or rationality when judging a situation (Hasselton et al., 2005), to a form of engaging in information processing but without paying much attention (Payne and Gawronski, 2010). No matter the definition, cognitive bias can be linked to a sort of heuristic, a cognitive shortcut for people to make fast decisions, which often works well and has been useful from a biological and evolutionary perspective, but which may result in suboptimal decision-making in contemporary society (Kahneman, 2011).

However, despite the increasing research demonstrating the existence of cognitive biases in public administration and policy (Belle et al., 2019; Marvel, 2016; Szydlowski et al., 2024) important research avenues remain. Most studies on the subject have focused on direct effects, linking a cognitive bias directly to a specific attitude, preference, intention or behavior (Battaglio et al., 2019). Studies investigating why cognitive bias may affect specific behavioral or attitudinal outcomes remain scarce. Additionally, the field has been dominated by survey experiments, which explain attitudes, preferences and intentions, but typically omit to measure actual behavioral and cognitive variables (Wulff and Villadsen, 2020). In other words, more public administration and policy research centered on explaining why cognitive biases have specific effects and especially focusing on behavioral and cognitive variables can help advance the field. Such insights have application for policy implementation, notably how people experience administrative encounters that are a central feature of public policy delivery. Specifically, we seek to connect how people experience, respond to and evaluate policy implementation in terms of their cognitive processes. 

To address these concerns constructs (i.e., cognitive processing), theories (i.e., memory effect) and methods (i.e., eye-tracking) from neuroscience can fruitfully be brought into public administration and policy. This panel develops the concept of Administrative Neuroscience, which we define as the use of theories, methods and constructs from neuroscience in public administration and policy with the aim of better understanding administrative behavior broadly defined. Administrative Neuroscience puts brain processes at the heart of public administration and policy, thus seeking to provide a better understanding of how administrative procedures affect our brain. Nascent, related work in public administration has already shown the importance of bringing affective and cognitive neuroscience into the mix when studying policy questions (Hattke et al., 2020; Hohensinn et al., 2025; Walker et al. 2020), and we argue that an overarching approach to such research can help to systemize and integrate knowledge, disseminate best practices, and encourage more work on the subject. It opens a new frontier of research possibilities for public administration and policy, and recent evolutions in technology have made neuroscientific methods like eye-tracking, facial expression analysis, galvanic skin response systems, electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram more widely available, mobile and cost-effective.

Policy Area

• Public and Nonprofit Management and Finance

Chair

• Richard M. M. Walker

Discussant

• Gregory porumbescu

Organizer

• Richard M. M. Walker

Individual Presentations

• How Cognition Affects Citizen-State Relationships: Laboratory Experiments on Cognitive Processing, Equivalence Framing and Citizens’ Evaluations - Presenting Author: Bert George, City University of Hong Kong

• Face-to-face with Administrative Burdens: Physiological Measures and Behavioral Consequences of Psychological Costs - Presenting Author: Donald Moynihan, University of Michigan

• The Neurological Effects of Administrative Burden: An EEG-based Laboratory Experiment - Presenting Author: Qianhui LI, City University of Hong Kong