Collaborative Research: Candidate Ambiguity and Voter Choice

公职候选人经常发表含糊的声明，使选民不确定他们打算推行的政策。为什么候选人使用模糊性，后果是什么？有两个因素阻碍了对这些基本问题的实证研究。首先，现有的数据集不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。第二，以往的研究很难区分原因和影响;候选人的感知和实际模糊性可能取决于，以及影响，选民的喜好。首席调查员将寻求一个双管齐下的调查候选人模糊性和选民选择之间的关系。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政策立场具有不同程度模糊性的候选人之间进行选择。这些实验将揭示候选人是否以及在什么条件下可以通过采取模棱两可的立场来获得或失去支持。在研究的第二部分中，主要研究人员将通过分析自1960年以来所有总统辩论的记录来研究美国选举中模棱两可的实际使用。这些数据将为许多问题提供新的线索：当我们的实验表明模糊性是有害的时，候选人是否会避免或限制他们的模糊性？候选人在初选和大选中使用歧义的方式不同吗？候选人在复杂的问题上，还是在他们的政党或性别所拥有的问题上，更经常使用模棱两可的策略？当我们的实验表明歧义可能是有利的时候，候选人会注意到它吗？除了增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;开发可用于研究竞选活动其他特征的新实验方法;并为参与政治竞选的候选人，顾问和公民提供实用课程。

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.