Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity

  • MICHAEL TOMZ (a1) and ROBERT P. VAN HOUWELING (a2)
Abstract

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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Michael Tomz is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Encina Hall West, Room 100, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 (tomz@stanford.edu).
Robert P. Van Houweling is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley, 210 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720 (rpvh@berkeley.edu).
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

John H. Aldrich 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

John H. Aldrich , Richard G. Niemi , George Rabinowitz , and David W. Rohde . 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.

Alberto Alesina , and Alex Cukierman . 1990. “The Politics of Ambiguity.Quarterly Journal of Economics 105 (4): 829–50.

R. Michael Alvarez , and Charles H. Franklin . 1994. “Uncertainty and Political Perceptions.Journal of Politics 56 (3): 671–88.

Larry M. Bartels 1986. “Issue Voting Under Uncertainty: An Empirical Test.American Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 709–28.

Adam J. Berinsky , and Jeffrey B. Lewis . 2007. “An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate.Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2 (2): 139–54.

Steven Callander , and Catherine H. Wilson . 2008. “Context-Dependent Voting and Political Ambiguity.Journal of Public Economics 92 (3–4): 565–81.

James E. Campbell 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.

James Enelow , and Melvin J. Hinich . 1981. “A New Approach To Voter Uncertainty in the Downsian Spatial Model.American Journal of Political Science 25 (3): 483–93.

Jeff Gill . 2005. “An Entropy Measure of Uncertainty in Vote Choice.Electoral Studies 24 (3): 371–92.

Francis Irwin . 1953. “Stated Expectations as Functions of Probability and Desirability of Outcomes.Journal of Personality 21 (3): 329–35.

Adam Meirowitz . 2005. “Informational Party Primaries and Strategic Ambiguity.Journal of Theoretical Politics 17 (1): 107–36.

Scott Morgenstern , and Elizabeth Zechmeister . 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.

David Rosenhan , and Samuel Messick . 1966. “Affect and Expectation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3 (1): 3844.

Donna M. Webster , and Arie W. Kruglanski . 1994. “Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (6): 1049–62.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 4
Total number of PDF views: 117 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 384 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.