Collaborative Research: Candidate Ambiguity and Voter Choice

竞选公职的候选人经常发表含糊其辞的声明，让选民对他们打算推行的政策不确定。为什么候选人会使用歧义，后果是什么？两个因素阻碍了对这些基本问题的实证研究。首先，现有的数据集没有测量候选语句中的模糊性，并将其与其他不确定性来源区分开来。其次，以前的研究很难区分原因和结果；候选人的感知和实际模糊性可能取决于选民的偏好，也可能影响选民的偏好。主要调查人员将对候选人模糊性和选民选择之间的关系进行双管齐下的调查。首先，他们将进行调查实验，操纵候选平台的模糊性。在他们的实验中，一个具有全国代表性的美国成年人样本将在阐述不同程度模棱两可的政策立场的候选人之间做出选择。这些实验将揭示候选人是否以及在什么条件下会通过采取模棱两可的立场来赢得或失去支持。在研究的第二个阶段，首席调查人员将通过分析1960年以来所有总统辩论的文字记录，研究歧义在美国选举中的实际用途。这些数据将揭示许多问题：当我们的实验表明模棱两可是有害的情况下，候选人是避免还是限制他们的模棱两可？候选人在初选和大选中使用歧义的方式不同吗？候选人是在复杂的问题上，还是在自己政党或性别的问题上，更经常地使用模棱两可的策略？当我们的实验表明模棱两可可能是有利的，候选人是否会引起人们的注意？除了促进我们对政治的理解，该项目还将产生几个更广泛的影响。它将积极吸引本科生和研究生参与学术研究；开发新的实验方法，可用于研究活动的其他特征；并为参与政治竞选的候选人、顾问和公民提供实践课程。

Candidates for public office regularly make vague statements that leave voters uncertain about the policies they intend to pursue. Why do candidates employ ambiguity, and what are the consequences? Two factors have impeded empirical research on these fundamental questions. First, existing datasets do not measure the ambiguity in candidate statements and distinguish it from other sources of uncertainty. Second, previous research had difficulty distinguishing causes from effects; the perceived and actual ambiguity of candidates may depend on, as well as influence, the preferences of voters. The Principal Investigators will puruse a two-pronged investigation of the relationship between candidate ambiguity and voter choice. First, they will run survey experiments that manipulate the ambiguity of candidate platforms. In their experiments, a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults will chose between candidates who state policy positions with varying levels of ambiguity. The experiments will reveal whether, and under what conditions, candidates can gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions. In the second prong of the study, the Principal Investigators will study the actual uses of ambiguity in U.S. elections by analyzing the transcripts of all presidential debates since 1960. The data will shed new light on many questions: Do candidates avoid or limit their ambiguity in circumstances when our experiments suggest that ambiguity would be harmful? Do candidates use ambiguity differently in primaries than in general elections? Do candidates employ strategies of ambiguity more often on complex issues, or on issues owned by their party or gender? And do candidates call attention to ambiguity when our experiments show that it could be advantageous? In addition to advancing our understanding of politics, the project will have several broader impacts. It will actively involve undergraduate and graduate students in scholarly research; develop new experimental methods that could be used to study other features of campaigns; and provide practical lessons for candidates, advisors, and citizens who are involved in political campaigns.