The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House
Abstract
The health of any democratic system depends on political ambition to generate a steady supply of quality candidates for office. Because most models of candidate entry assume ambition rather than model it, previous research fails to understand its roots in individual and institutional characteristics. We develop a two-stage model of progressive behavior that distinguishes between the formation of ambition for higher office and the decision to enter a particular race. Using data from a survey of state legislators, we demonstrate that the intrinsic costs and benefits associated with running for and holding higher office shape ambitions but do not influence the decision to run. For progressively ambitious legislators, the second-stage decision is a strategic choice about when to run rather than whether to run. Our research highlights how institutional characteristics that foster progressive ambition also increase the likelihood that national or local political conditions will be translated into meaningful choices at the ballot box.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States.
Sigel, R. S., & Schlesinger, J. A. (1968) · Midwest Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110340 · Cited by 897
Strategic Politicians and the Dynamics of U.S. House Elections, 1946–86
Jacobson, G. C. (1989) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1962060 · Cited by 497
A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives
Black, G. S. (1972) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1959283 · Cited by 485
Rohde, D. W. (1979) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110769 · Cited by 443
Jones, M. P., Saiegh, S., Spiller, P. T., & Tommasi, M. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088406 · Cited by 407
Party System Change: Approaches and Interpretations
Mair, P. (1998) · doi:10.1093/0198295499.001.0001 · Cited by 388
Strategy and Choice in the 1982 Congressional Elections
Jacobson, G. C., & Kernell, S. (1982) · PS: Political Science & Politics · doi:10.1017/s1049096500060479 · Cited by 360
The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress
Fulton, S. A., Maestas, C. D., Maisel, L. S., & Stone, W. J. (2006) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/106591290605900206 · Cited by 318
Self-citationExplaining Challenger Quality in Congressional Elections
Bond, J. R., Covington, C., & Fleisher, R. (1985) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2130894 · Cited by 281
Preempting Quality Challengers in House Elections
Krasno, J. S., & Green, D. P. (1988) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.2307/2131385 · Cited by 263
Cited by
Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition
FOX, R. L., & LAWLESS, J. L. (2014) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000227 · Cited by 385
Leech, B. L. (2010) · The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542628.003.0028 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- MAESTAS, C. D., FULTON, S., MAISEL, L. S., & STONE, W. J.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 195-208
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W1963623953
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 34.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055406062101
- The paper
- MAESTAS, C. D., FULTON, S., MAISEL, L. S., & STONE, W. J. (2006). When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055406062101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
