Thread by @FaceDeBengals

1/
🚨 NEW STUDY: The words we use to describe government workers change how citizens perceive them.
Are they “bureaucrats”? Or “public servants”?
The difference isn’t semantic—it’s psychological, political, and strategic. 🧵👇
#PublicAdmin #Framing #TrustInGov

2/
The study tackles a key paradox:
Citizens distrust bureaucracies, but often recall positive experiences with individual officials.
Why? And can this be manipulated through the framing of language?

3/
Authors tested if calling someone a “bureaucrat” vs. a “public servant” changes how people assess:
✅ Trust
✅ Satisfaction
✅ Attribution of responsibility
They ran a randomized survey experiment on 2,000+ Americans.

4/
📍Scenario: A DMV office introduces online services to reduce wait times.
Respondents were told the reform succeeded/failed. Responsibility was either attributed to:
1.The DMV (abstract)
2.The DMV director (individual)
wording: “bureaucrat”, “public servant”, or no label.

5/
🔥 Hypothesis 1:
People trust individuals (like a named director) more than abstract organizations (like “the DMV”).
📉 Result: Not confirmed.
Citizens made no significant distinction between the director and the DMV.

6/
🔥 Hypothesis 2:
“Public servant” is a more favorable label than “bureaucrat”.
📈 Result: Confirmed.
When labeled “public servant,” officials were seen as:
•More trustworthy
•More satisfying
•Less responsible when things go wrong!

7/
This matters.
Framing a gov employee as a “bureaucrat” increased blame and reduced satisfaction.
Framing as a “public servant” gave them more credit—and more forgiveness.

8/
Why?
“Bureaucrat” is culturally loaded. It evokes red tape, inefficiency, and detachment.
“Public servant” suggests benevolence, purpose, and service.
The term triggers different cognitive-emotional pathways.

9/
One key takeaway:
🧠 Language shapes perception.
And perception shapes trust in government, support for programs, and democratic legitimacy.

10/
🚨The authors highlight a danger:
Anti-government sentiment is deeply ingrained, but not immutable.
Strategic language in public communication can nudge perceptions.

11/
What’s also powerful here:
📉 Performance was controlled.
Even when service delivery was identical, just changing the label produced different attitudes.

12/
This goes beyond branding.
It’s about framing the identity of the state:
Are public actors faceless bureaucrats?
Or individuals dedicated to the public good?

13/
Général Implications:
✅ For communication strategists: Always humanize the actor. Use “public servant.”
✅ For survey designers: Framing effects must be controlled.
✅ For governance: Perception ≠ performance, but both matter.

For political purposes: you know what to use!

14/
Limitations:
🇺🇸 Only US-based. Results may differ in more collectivist cultures.
🧪 DMV setting was neutral—what about policing or welfare contexts?
🤖 Next step: Test framing effects on actual behavior, not just perceptions.

15/
In sum:
This study shows that fighting anti-government bias doesn’t always require big reforms.
Sometimes, it starts with a word.
👔 “Public servant” isn’t just polite.
It’s strategic.
📖 McCrea et al. (2025) —
#PublicAdmin #Framing #BehavioralGovdoi.org/10.1080/153095…