Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T17:49:23.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Experiments

An Introduction to Core Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
Donald P. Green
Affiliation:
Yale University
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

The experimental study of politics has grown explosively in the past two decades. Part of that explosion takes the form of a dramatic increase in the number of published articles that use experiments. Perhaps less evident, and arguably more important, experimentalists are exploring topics that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago. Laboratory researchers have studied topics ranging from the effects of media exposure (Iyengar and Kinder 1987) to the conditions under which groups solve collective action problems (Ostrom, Walker, and Gardner 1992), and, at times, have identified empirical anomalies that produced new theoretical insights (McKelvey and Palfrey 1992). Some survey experimenters have developed experimental techniques to measure prejudice (Kuklinski, Cobb, and Gilens 1997) and its effects on support for policies such as welfare or affirmative action (Sniderman and Piazza 1995); others have explored the ways in which framing, information, and decision cues influence voters' policy preferences and support for public officials (Druckman 2004; Tomz 2007). And although the initial wave of field experiments focused on the effects of campaign communications on turnout and voters' preferences (Eldersveld 1956; Gerber and Green 2000; Wantchekon 2003), researchers increasingly use field experiments and natural experiments to study phenomena as varied as election fraud (Hyde 2009), representation (Butler and Nickerson 2009), counterinsurgency (Lyall 2009), and interpersonal communication (Nickerson 2008).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albertson, Bethany, and Lawrence, Adria. 2009. “After the Credits Roll: The Long-Term Effects of Educational Television on Public Knowledge and Attitudes.” American Politics Research 37: 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D. 1990. “Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records.” American Economic Review 80: 313–36.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borenstein, Michael, Hedges, Larry V., Higgins, Julian P. T., and Rothstein, Hannah R.. 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M., and Nickerson, David W.. 2009. “How Much Does Constituency Opinion Affect Legislators' Votes? Results from a Field Experiment.” Unpublished manuscript, Institution for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1957. “Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings.” Psychological Bulletin 54: 297–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clingingsmith, David, Khwaja, Asim Ijaz, and Kremer, Michael. 2009. “Estimating the Impact of the Hajj: Religion and Tolerance in Islam's Global Gathering.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124: 1133–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, Daniel. 1994. “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 507–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2003. “The Power of Television Images: The First Kennedy-Nixon Debate Revisited.” Journal of Politics 65: 559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98: 671–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50: 154–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 94: 653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., Kaplan, Edward H., and Kern, Holger L.. 2010. “Baseline, Placebo, and Treatment: Efficient Estimation for Three-Group Experiments.” Political Analysis 18: 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, Susan D. 2009. “The Causes and Consequences of Internationally Monitored Elections.” Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, Mark D., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political Science Review 76: 848–58.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Cobb, Michael D., and Gilens, Martin. 1997. “Racial Attitudes and the New South.” Journal of Politics 59: 323–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Babbitt, Paul. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Review.” American Political Science Review 93: 851–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Peter John, Koop, Royce, and Fowler, James H.. 2009. “The Power to Propose: A Natural Experiment in Politics.” Unpublished paper, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Lyall, Jason. 2009. “Does Indiscriminant Violence Incite Insurgent Attacks?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53: 331–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKelvey, Richard D., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1992. “An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game.” Econometrica 4: 803–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, Sendhil, Washington, Ebonya, and Azari, Julia R.. 2010. “The Impact of Electoral Debate on Public Opinions: An Experimental Investigation of the 2005 New York City Mayoral Election.” In Political Representation, eds. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan, Wood, Elizabeth, and Kirshner, Alexander S.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 324–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyman, Jerzy. 1923. “On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments: Essay on Principles.” Statistical Science 5: 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious?: Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor, Walker, James, and Gardner, Roy. 1992. “Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible.” American Political Science Review 86: 404–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, and Green, Donald P.. 2008. “Field Experiments Testing the Impact of Radio Advertisements on Electoral Competition.” American Journal of Political Science 52: 156–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Piazza, Thomas. 1995. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization 61: 821–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior.” World Politics 55: 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×