The Electoral Implications of Candidate Ambiguity

By Michael Tomz, R. Houweling. American Political Science Review, 2009

248 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d5037a8035fba00f7b470e2b95e27ef43cc506cb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Kosuke Imai
2. Teppei Yamamoto
3. Dustin Tingley
4. Luke Keele
5. Thomas J. Leeper
6. Rune Slothuus
7. C. Jensen
8. Daniel P. Aldrich

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Kosuke Imai
2. Teppei Yamamoto
3. Dustin Tingley
4. Luke Keele
5. Thomas J. Leeper
6. Rune Slothuus
7. Elizabeth A. Stuart
8. Sophie Lecheler

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Dustin Tingley
2. Luke Keele
3. Kosuke Imai
4. Teppei Yamamoto
5. Judea Pearl
6. Martin Huber
7. Thomas J. Leeper
8. Rune Slothuus

Citations in the corpus

• Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies (2011, background): “One such example appears in a recent survey experiment by Tomz and van Houweling (2009), who investigate how the ambiguity of candidates’ position-taking influences voters’ evaluation of these candidates.”
• Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Public Opinion Formation (2014, background): “Similarly, parties may have incentives to influence reasoning through the strategic provision of ambiguous information, for example about economic conditions, their policy positions (Tomz & van Houweling, 2009), or the impact of proposed policy (Jerit, 2009).”