Strategic Ambiguity and Motivated Reasoning: How Voters’ Affective Predispositions Affect their Reaction to Party Ambiguity

Abstract

Scholars of European party competition have long argued that parties can catch all voters by blurring their ideological positions. The current study employs the theory of motivated reasoning to show this need not always be the case. In particular, it demonstrates that voters’ predispositions determine how they react to party ambiguity. First, voters employ a ‘likability’ heuristic: they perceive the party they (dis)like closer to (farther from) their position, regardless of the party’s actual position. Second, the likability effect boosts as the voter’s uncertainty increases. Facing an ambiguous party, voters disliking the party exaggerate the ideological distance, whereas voters liking the party underestimate this distance. These findings suggest that ambiguity might help the party to the extent that it is liked, but it can backfire if the party is not popular enough. More generally, the results bear important implications for the literature on party electoral strategies.