Field experiments provide the clearest window into the true impact of many policies, allowing us to understand what works, what does not, and why. Yet, their widespread use has not been accompanied by a deep understanding of the political economy of their adoption in policy circles. This study begins with a large-scale natural field experiment that demonstrates the ineffectiveness of a widely implemented intervention. We leverage this result to understand how policymakers and a representative sample of the U.S. population update their beliefs of not only the policy itself, but the use of science and the trust they have in government. Policymakers, initially overly optimistic about the program’s effectiveness, adjust their views based on evidence but show reduced demand for experimentation, suggesting experiment aversion when results defy expectations. Among the U.S. public, support for policy experiments is high and remains robust despite receiving disappointing results, though trust in the implementing institutions declines, particularly in terms of perceptions of competence and integrity. Providing additional information on the value of learning from unexpected findings partially mitigates this trust loss. These insights, from both the demand and supply side, reveal the complexities of managing policymakers’ expectations and underscore the potential returns to educating the public on the value of openmindedness in policy experimentation.

More on this topic

BFI Working Paper·Nov 4, 2025

The Mortgage Debt Channel of Monetary Policy when Mortgages are Liquid

Matthew Elias, Christian Gillitzer, Greg Kaplan, Gianni La Cava, and Nalini Prasad
Topics: Monetary Policy
BFI Working Paper·Aug 13, 2025

Implications of Fiscal-Monetary Interaction from HANK Models

Greg Kaplan
Topics: Monetary Policy
BFI Working Paper·Jul 29, 2025

When is Less More? Bank Arrangements for Liquidity vs Central Bank Support

Viral V. Acharya, Raghuram Rajan, and Zhi Quan (Bill) Shu
Topics: Monetary Policy