Varieties of Ambiguity: How do Voters Evaluate Ambiguous Policy Statements?

• Author: Mohamed Nasr
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221089652
• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Varieties of Ambiguity:

How do Voters Evaluate

Ambiguous Policy

Statements?

Mohamed Nasr1

Abstract

Scholars voice increasing interest in strategic ambiguity—a strategy whereby

parties intentionally conceal their positions on divisive issues. Scholars

contend that strategic ambiguity can help European parties broaden

their electoral appeals. Although they identify several tactics and styles

of position-blurring, the observational literature has yet failed to capture

different variants of ambiguous rhetoric, let alone evaluate their effect on

the vote. In this article, I rely on cross-country survey experiments that

utilize representative samples of around 22,000 respondents from 14

European countries to evaluate the effect of four varieties of ambiguity:

vagueness, ambivalence, flip-flopping, and negative messaging. I investigate

the impact of ambiguous rhetoric vis-a-vis the context of competition facing

the party. The findings reveal that the consequences of ambiguity vary by

the actual form it takes and the context of competition facing the party.

First, among the varieties, vague and ambivalent variants were superior to

negative messaging or flip-flopping. Second, ambiguity helped the party in

the absence of popular policy offers in the party system, while it backfired

when competitors explicitly agreed with the voter. The findings imply that

ambiguity is generally a useful strategy, but its benefits do not extend to

rhetorical tactics that harm the party’s valence image.

Keywords

ambiguity, party rhetoric, voter perceptions, survey experiments, party

competition

1European University Institute, Florence, Italy and ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Corresponding Author:

Mohamed Nasr, ETH Zurich, Hald eneggsteig 4, Zurich 8092, Switzerland.

Email: mohamed.nasr@eup.gess.ethz.ch

1089652

CPSXXX10.1177/00104140221089652Comparative Political StudiesNasr

research-article2022

https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140221089652

Comparative Political Studies

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

journals.sagepub.com/home/cps

DOI: 10.1177/00104140221089652

2023, Vol. 56(6) 759–787

760 Comparative Political Studies 56(6)

Introduction

Theories of democratic representation require political parties to present dis-

tinct policy bundles since voters in representative democracies are repre-

sented by and through parties (Sartori, 1968). Without such clear policy

offerings, congruence could be broken, and as a result, democratic represen-

tation could be paralyzed (Powell, 2019). In practice, however, parties fre-

quently make ambiguous pronouncements to blur their ideological positions

on divisive issues. Consider, for example, the Labour party’s “Final Say on

Brexit.” The party repeatedly promises to reach a “sensible deal” but does not

explain how. More strikingly, the party explains its stance on the Brexit

debate by taking two contradictory positions at the same time: “Only Labour

will offer the choice of remaining in the EU, or leaving with a sensible deal.”1

Scholars have investigated the causes and consequences of ambiguous posi-

tioning for parties’ and candidates’ electoral success (Shepsle, 1972;

Campbell, 1983a; Bräuninger & Giger, 2018; Han, 2018; Nasr, 2021; Somer-

Topcu, 2015; Rovny, 2012, 2013).

Despite the growing attention to this strategy, the empirical literature has

been limited by inadequate measurements and abstract levels of analysis that

made inferences problematic.2 Scholars recognize that ambiguity is not a

single strategy, but rather a set of electoral tactics that parties employ to con-

ceal their policy positions on thorny issues. To name a few examples, the

party can make vague, even conflicting or contradictory, promises, denounce

challengers’ positions without disclosing its stance, or even cast inconsistent

messages to different audiences or over time (Cahill & Stone, 2018; Rovny,

2013; Somer-Topcu, 2015). However, previous studies have failed to capture

these various types from observational data, let alone evaluate their impact

on the vote. This is important because the identified electoral benefits from

ambiguity may not extend to the types that fail to attract the voter. Furthermore,

the observational investigations do not account for the strategic behavior of

competitors and voter preferences, which strongly shape the effectiveness of

party strategies (e.g., Meguid, 2005).

To overcome these shortcomings, I rely on large-scale survey experiments

that utilize representative samples from 14 European countries, comprising

around 22,000 respondents.3 The experiments seek to evaluate the impact of

four “varieties of ambiguity” vis-a-vis the context of political competition

facing the party, in terms of rivals’ and voters’ positions. Specifically, I ask

respondents to evaluate two parties, precise and ambiguous, in terms of their

positions on European integration, which has become increasingly politi-

cized in European competition in recent years (Hooghe & Marks, 2009;

Kriesi, 2016). I first randomize the type of ambiguity to investigate the effect