Playing It Safe? Voters Decode Politicians' Not Answering as an Answer

Political candidates running for office often use nondisclosure to avoid taking explicit positions on contentious issues to maintain broader appeal. While selecting noncommittal responses (e.g., “prefer not to answer”) in public surveys may be intended to display impartiality, it remains unclear how voters actually interpret such ambiguity. Modeled after the structure of a real‐world candidate survey, this study examines whether noncommittal responses lead voters to infer that candidates hold minority opinions rather than remaining neutral. Participants ( N = 97) evaluated these survey responses from candidates, where one candidate selected “prefer not to answer” while others endorsed a clear stance. The results showed that non‐disclosing candidates were consistently inferred to hold minority opinions, suggesting that rather than preserving neutrality, choosing not to answer may reinforce perceptions of concealing an unpopular stance. The findings provide insights into how voters interpret political ambiguity and highlight the potential limitations of nondisclosure as an electoral strategy for candidates seeking public office.