Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-hf9kg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-06T16:21:56.376Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2009

Stanford University
University of California at Berkeley
Michael Tomz is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Encina Hall West, Room 100, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 (
Robert P. Van Houweling is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 (


Candidates often make ambiguous statements about the policies they intend to pursue. In theory, ambiguity affects how voters make choices and who wins elections. In practice, measurement and endogeneity problems have impeded empirical research about the consequences of ambiguity. We conducted survey experiments that overcame these obstacles by manipulating a common form of ambiguity: the imprecision of candidate positions. Our data show that, on average, ambiguity does not repel and may, in fact, attract voters. In nonpartisan settings, voters who have neutral or positive attitudes toward risk, or who feel uncertain about their own policy preferences, tend to embrace ambiguity. In partisan settings, voters respond even more positively to ambiguity; they optimistically perceive the locations of ambiguous candidates from their own party without pessimistically perceiving the locations of vague candidates from the opposition. We further find, through analysis of two additional new data sets, that candidates often take—and voters frequently perceive—ambiguous positions like the ones in our experiments. The pervasive use of ambiguity in campaigns fits with our experimental finding that ambiguity can be a winning strategy, especially in partisan elections.

Research Article
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard G., Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W.. 1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.American Journal of Political Science 26 (2): 391414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Cukierman, Alex. 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (4): 829–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael. 1998. Information and Elections. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Franklin, Charles H.. 1994. “Uncertainty and Political Perceptions.Journal of Politics 56 (3): 671–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aragones, Enriqueta, and Neeman, Zvika. 2000. “Strategic Ambiguity in Electoral Competition.Journal of Theoretical Politics 112 (2): 183205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1986. “Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.American Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 709–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2004. “Spatial Models of Delegation.American Political Science Review 98 (2): 293310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2007. “An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate.Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2): 139–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Ansolabehere, Steven. 1989. “The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics.American Political Science Review 83 (1): 143–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Steven, and Wilson, Catherine H.. 2008. “Context-Dependent Voting and Political Ambiguity.Journal of Public Economics 92 (3–4): 565–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, James E. 1983. “The Electoral Consequences of Issue Ambiguity: An Examination of the Presidential Candidates' Issue Positions from 1968 to 1980.Political Behavior 5 (3): 277–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chester, Lewis, Hodgson, Godfrey, and Page, Bruce. 1969. An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1981. “A New Approach To Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.American Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 483–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, Jeff. 2005. “An Entropy Measure of Uncertainty in Vote Choice.Electoral Studies 24 (3): 371–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, Francis. 1953. “Stated Expectations as Functions of Probability and Desirability of Outcomes.Journal of Personality 21 (3): 329–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, Jon A. 2002. “The Challenges of Political Psychology: Lessons to be Learned from Research on Attitude Perception.” In Thinking about Political Psychology, ed. Kuklinski, James H.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 115–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirowitz, Adam. 2005. “Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity.Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (1): 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Scott, and Zechmeister, Elizabeth. 2001. “Better the Devil You Know Than the Saint You Don't? Risk Propensity and Vote Choice in Mexico.Journal of Politics 63 (1): 93119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I. 1976. “The Theory of Political Ambiguity.American Political Science Review 70 (3): 742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenhan, David, and Messick, Samuel. 1966. “Affect and Expectation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3 (1): 3844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1972. “The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition.American Political Science Review 66 (2): 555–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.American Political Science Review 102 (3): 303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, Donna M., and Kruglanski, Arie W.. 1994. “Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (6): 1049–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisberg, Herbert F., and Fiorina, Morris P.. 1980. “Candidate Preference under Uncertainty: An Expanded View of Rational Voting.” In The Electorate Reconsidered, eds. Pierce, John C. and Sullivan, John L.. Beverly Hills: Sage, 237–56.Google Scholar