Why Don’t Politicians Admit When “More Research Is Needed"?

Elizabeth Warren often appeals to science, evidence, and evaluation.

Source: Open copyright via Wikimedia Commons

During last night’s Democratic primary debate, Senator Elizabeth Warren said something that likely stirred even the most politically agnostic of scientists: “We can double down on the research and find out what really works.” This was in response to a question about her stance on gun control, and she reiterated the sentiment when pressed for a more concrete answer: “We need to treat it like a serious research problem.”

Although this refrain—that “more research is needed”—will be familiar to anyone who has published a scientific paper, it is surprisingly absent from the political stage. Indeed, of last night’s 10 hopeful candidates, Senator Warren was the only one to explicitly mention science, research, or empirical evidence. Given that government and policy rely on empirical research and the scientific process, why does it seem so rare (and, to me, so relieving) to hear a politician forego certainty, admit that they don't know the right answer, and appeal to scientific study? Two psychological phenomena can help answer this question.

Experimentation Aversion

First, as my colleagues and I recently showed,¹ people have a natural aversion to scientific experiments. Even when they collectively approve of two individual policies that may help solve a problem (say, Policy A and Policy B), people continue to morally condemn a randomized experiment (or “A/B test”) designed specifically to learn which policy is better. Similarly, proposing an experiment to test two potential solutions carries with it the subtext that we don’t know the right answer. This may be off-putting to people who typically believe that their leaders are knowledgeable and highly educated. And so, when a politician like Senator Warren hints at the need for scientific study (or even more scandalously, randomized evaluation!), her reception may suffer when compared with another candidate who confidently proposes a simpler (but untested) solution.

Confidence Begets Competence

Second, claiming that “more research is needed” may not be perceived as a confident answer. Confidence is a staple of American culture; for example, Americans tend to believe that they are more intelligent than the average person.² And when it comes to guns, American gun owners and non-owners alike tend to overestimate their ability to handle and use firearms.³ Confidence is also a critical ingredient in political theater, and we (as observers) pay attention to it. People tend to infer greater social status from confidence,⁴ and both verbal and nonverbal expressions of confidence can bolster one’s reputation.^5,6 And so, given one candidate who answers a question with certainty and confidence, and another candidate who expresses any kind of deference—perhaps by admitting that “we don’t have a good answer yet”—people may prefer the candidate who has a clear answer, even in the absence of supporting evidence.

A Political Paradox

There is a troubling paradox lurking at the intersection of science, policy, and political discourse. We want proven solutions to major policy problems, but we also want our leaders to be certain and confident. In many cases, achieving the former will require relinquishing the latter. Senator Warren could have taken the most common route on the debate stage last night by confidently declaring that she already has all the right solutions to gun control. Or she could have committed to rolling out a flashy new policy to everyone: choosing “A” without ever knowing if “B” would have been better. Moderator Chuck Todd reinforced this type of thinking in his pressing follow-up question to her: "Do you think the federal government needs to ... go out and get the guns?" But instead, Warren took a chance by suggesting that even the experts don’t have all the answers yet. Tonight we will get to see if any of the remaining Democratic hopefuls roll the dice on research, but I'd wager that the appearance of confidence will come first.

Note: This is the kickoff essay for my new blog that explores the psychological tensions and tradeoffs between getting along with others and getting ahead in social interaction and daily life. Check back in the coming months for more posts on (over)confidence, experimentation and evidence, willful ignorance, and contemporary social science.