Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Ideological Signaling and Incumbency Advantage


This article develops a novel explanation for the incumbency advantage based on incumbents’ ability to signal positions that are ideologically distinct from those of their parties. Using voter-level data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study and controlling for unobserved district heterogeneity, the study finds that voters in US House elections primarily use information about the ideology of candidates’ parties to infer the location of challengers, while they instead rely on information about the individual candidates’ ideologies to place incumbents. In higher-profile Senate elections, the difference between challengers and incumbents is trivial. Decomposing the incumbency advantage into valence and signaling components, the study finds that the signaling mechanism explains 14 per cent of the incumbency advantage in House elections, but only 5 per cent of the advantage in Senate contests. It also finds that a 50 per cent increase in party polarization increases the incumbency advantage by 3 percentage points.

Hide All

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Emory University (email: I thank seminar audiences at Illinois Ohio State, Yale, the Harris School and Cyrus Aghamolla, Steve Callander, Kyle Dropp, Nick Eubank, Morris Fiorina, Alex Frankel, Justin Grimmer, Wesley Hartmann, Alex Hirsch, Keith Krehbiel, Neil Malhotra, Greg Martin, Eleanor Powell, Chris Stanton, Ken Shotts and Jonathan Wand for many helpful comments. I thank Gary Jacobson for generously providing his data on candidate experience in US House elections. An earlier version of this article circulated under the title ‘Candidate Positioning, Partisan Brands, and Election Outcomes’. Data replication sets are available at and online appendices are available at

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.

Alan I. Abramowitz , Brad Alexander , and Matthew Gunning . 2006. Incumbency, Redistricting, and the Decline of Competition in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Politics 68 (1):7588.

John R. Alford , and John R. Hibbing . 1981. Increased Incumbency Advantage in the House. Journal of Politics 43:10421061.

Stephen Ansolabehere , James M. Snyder Jr., and Charles Stewart III. 2000. Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44 (1):1734.

Scott Ashworth . 2006. Campaign Finance and Voter Welfare with Entrenched Incumbents. American Political Science Review 100 (1):5568.

Scott Ashworth , and Ethan Bueno de Mesquita . 2008. Electoral Selection, Strategic Challenger Entry, and the Incumbency Advantage. Journal of Politics 70 (4):10061025.

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):139154.

Dan Bernhardt , Odilon Camara , and Francesco Squintani . 2011. Competence and Ideology. Review of Economic Studies 78 (2):487522.

Barry C Burden . 2004. Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections. British Journal of Political Science 34 (2):211227.

Daniel M. Butler , and Eleanor Neff Powell . 2014. Understanding the Party Brand: Experimental Evidence on the Role of Valence. Journal of Politics 76 (2):492505.

Jamie L. Carson , Gregory Koger , Matthew J. Lebo , and Everett Young . 2010. The Electoral Costs of Party Loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54 (3):598616.

Pamela Johnston Conover , and Stanley Feldman . 1989. Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes. American Journal of Political Science 33 (4):912940.

Albert D. Cover , and Bruce S. Brumberg . 1982. Baby Books and Ballots: The Impact of Congressional Mail on Constituent Opinion. American Political Science Review 76 (2):347359.

Gary W. Cox , and Jonathan N. Katz . 1996. Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in U.S. House Elections Grow? American Journal of Political Science 40 (2):478497.

Kyle Dropp , and Zachary Peskowitz . 2012. Electoral Security and the Provision of Constituency Service. Journal of Politics 74 (1):220234.

Bradley Efron , and Robert J. Tibshirani . 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.

Gautam Gowrisankaran , Matthew F. Mitchell , and Andrea Moro . 2008. Electoral Design and Voter Welfare from the US Senate: Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model. Review of Economic Dynamics 11 (1):117.

Donald Philip Green , and Jonathan S. Krasno . 1988. Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 32 (4):884907.

John D Griffin . 2006. Electoral Competition and Democratic Responsiveness: A Defense of the Marginality Hypothesis. Journal of Politics 68 (4):911921.

Christopher Hare , David A. Armstrong , Ryan Bakker , Royce Carroll , and Keith T. Poole . 2015. Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 59 (3):759774.

Shigeo Hirano , and James M. Snyder Jr. 2009. Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2):292306.

Gary C Jacobson . 1989. Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86. American Political Science Review 83 (3):773793.

Gary C Jacobson . 2015. It’s Nothing Personal: The Decline of the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections. Journal of Politics 77 (3):861873.

David S Lee . 2008. Randomized Experiments from Non-Random Selection in U.S. House Elections. Journal of Econometrics 142:675697.

Steven D. Levitt , and Catherine D. Wolfram . 1997. Decomposing the Sources of Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1):4560.

Eric McGhee . 2008. National Tides and Local Results in US House Elections. British Journal of Political Science 38 (4):719738.

Richard D. McKelvey , and Raymond Riezman . 1992. Seniority in Legislatures. American Political Science Review 86 (4):951965.

Wendy M Rahn . 1993. The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing About Political Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):472496.

Jr., James M. Snyder and David Stromberg . 2010. Press Coverage and Political Accountability. Journal of Political Economy 118 (2):355408.

Donald E Stokes . 1963. Spatial Models of Party Competition. American Political Science Review 57 (2):368377.

Chris Tausanovitch , and Christopher Warshaw . 2013. Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities. Journal of Politics 75 (2):330342.

Jr., Gerald C. Wright , and Michael B. Berkman . 1986. Candidates and Policy in United States Senate Elections. American Political Science Review 80 (2):567588.

Recommend this journal

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

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Peskowitz supplementary material
Peskowitz supplementary material 1

 PDF (376 KB)
376 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 60 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 548 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 8th May 2017 - 25th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.