Advertisement

Experimental Research in Political Science

  • Naoko TaniguchiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Experiments are a way of verifying the correctness of a theory or hypothesis under an artificial condition. They are especially effective in identifying causalities in a certain situation. Experiments have always been the driving force of natural and biological sciences. To take a simple example, early humans must have done experiments in agriculture: planting seeds in different fields with the same climate conditions and giving varying amounts of water and fertilizers would have led to different yields. Adopting the methods with the highest yields was precisely how agriculture made progress.

References

  1. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. (1952). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgement. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
  3. Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Miller, W., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84, 772–793.Google Scholar
  6. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2011). Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Olyver and Boyd Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  9. Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. A. (1992). Choosing justice: An experimental approach to ethical theory. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gerber, A. S., Arceneaux, K., Boudreau, C., Dowling, C., Hillygus, S., Palfrey, T., et al. (2014). Reporting guidelines for experimental research: A report from the experimental research section standards committee. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gosnell, H. (1926). An experiment in the stimulation of voting. American Political Science Review, 20, 869–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horiuchi, Y., Imai, K., & Taniguchi, N. (2007). Designing and analyzing randomized experiments: Application to a Japanese election survey experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lupia, A. (2002). New ideas in experimental political science. Political Analysis, 10, 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDermott, R. (2002). Experimental methodology in political science. Political Analysis, 10, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michelbach, P. A., Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., & Bornstein, B. H. (2003). Doing rawls justice: An Experimental study of income distribution norms. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 523–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  20. Morton, R. B., & Tucker, J. (2014). Experiment, journals, and ethics. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental political science and the study of causality: From nature to the lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nie, N. H., Verba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ogami, M., Taniguchi, N., & Shibutani, M. (2016). If you were to be reborn, which income distribution would be desirable for you?: An experimental study about effects of the veil of ignorance. A paper presented for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Japan Public Choice Society.Google Scholar
  25. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, rev. ed.Google Scholar
  26. Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1978). Ideological constraint in the mass public: A methodological critique and some new findings. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taniguchi, N. (2016). Experimental researches in political science (Seinjigaku ni okeru Jikken Kenkyu in Japanese). Presented for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Japan Public Choice Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of System Design and ManagementKeio UniversityYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations