Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology pp 107–124Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Experiments: Insights and Power in the Study of Causality

  • Chapter

  • 746 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology Series ((PSPP))

Abstract

As political psychologists, we face many challenges: our research involves a rapidly changing political environment; our dependent variables are subject to continuous change by multiple causes; and our measurement is subject to errors. So we seek to engage with methods of empirical enquiry that give us some level of control as we attempt to unlock the doors of the political world. Laboratory, survey and field experiments allow for testing cause-and-effect relationships and have transformed how we think about research in political psychology (Druckman et al., 2011).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aldrich, J. H. and Lupia, A. (2011). ‘Experiments and Game Theory’s Value to Political Science’. In Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A. and Valentino, N. (1994) ‘Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?’. American Political Science Review, 88 (December): 829–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A. and Lenz, G. S. (2012) ‘Using mechanical Turk as a subject recruitment tool for experimental research’. Political Analysis, 20(3): 351–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1969) ‘Reforms as experiments’. American Psychologist, 24(4): 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capelos, T. (2010) ‘Feeling the issue: Citizens’ affective reactions and leadership perceptions on policy evaluations’. Journal of Political Marketing, 9: 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capelos, T. (2013) ‘The Affective Implications of Scandals on Political Accountability Assessments’. In: Demertzis, N. ed. Emotions in Politics: The Affect Dimension in Political Tension. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelos, T. and van Troost, D. (2012) ‘Reason, Passion and Islam: The Impact of Fear and Anger on Political Tolerance’. In: Flood, C., Nickels, H., Hutchings, S., and Miazhevich, G. eds. Islam in the Plural: Identities, (Self)Perceptions and Politics. Netherlands: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, J. M., Ellsworth, P. and Aronson, E. (1976) Methods of Research in Social Psychology. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. (1988) ‘Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., McIntyre, C., Bauer-Kaase, P. and Kaase, M. (1999) ‘The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change’. American Political Science Review, 93 (September): 637–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, E. (2011) ‘Economics vs. Psychology Experiments: Stylization, Incentives, and Deception’. In: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, D. P. (1994) ‘Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38: 507–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. (2006) ‘The growth and development of experimental research in political science’. American Political Science Review, 100 (4): 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. (2011) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. and Kam, C. D. (2011) ‘Students as Experimental Participants: A Defence of the “Narrow Data Base”’. In: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, B., Hanmer, M., Park, W. and White, I. (2007) ‘Good excuses: Understanding who votes with an improved turnout question’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(1): 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R., Sanbonmatsu, D., Powell, M. and Kardes, F. (1986) ‘On the automatic activation of attitudes’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraz, C. and Finan, F. (2008) ‘Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123: 703–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney, P. (1987) ‘When consent information refers to risk and deception: Implications for social research’. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2: 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, C. (1996) ‘The impact of scandal on candidate evaluations: An experimental test of the role of candidate traits’. Political Behavior, 18 (1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P. (2000) ‘The effects of personal canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment’. American Political Science Review, 94(3): 653–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P. (2012) Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P. and Larimer, C. W. (2008) ‘Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment’. American Political Science Review, 102(1): 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. and McDermott, R. (2007) ‘An experimental template for case study research’. American Journal of Political Science, 51: 688–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geva, N. and Mintz, A. (1997) Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Gintis, H., Fehr, E. and Camerer, C. eds. (2004) Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, R. K., Voss, J. F., Schooler, T. Y. E. and Ciarrochi, J. (1997) ‘Images in international relations: An experimental test of cognitive schemata’. International Studies Quarterly, 41: 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L. and Capelos, T. (2002) ‘Gender Stereotyping and Candidate Evaluation: Good News and Bad News for Women Politicians’. In: Ottati, V., Tindale, S. R., O’Connell, D., Edwards, J., Posavac, E., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Heath, L. and Bryant, F. eds. Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues: Developments in Political Psychology. Vol. 5. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R. (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Peters, M. D. and Kinder, D. R. (1982) ‘Experimental demonstrations of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs’. American Political Science Review, 76 (December): 848–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, C. D., Wilking, J. R. and Zechmeister, E. J. (2007) ‘Beyond the “narrow database”: An alternative convenience sample for experimental research’. Political Behavior, 29 (4): 415–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. (2011) ‘Laboratory Experiments in Political Science’. In: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, D. R. and Palfrey, T. R. (1993) ‘On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science’. In: Kinder, D. R. and Palfrey, T. R. eds. Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, J. H., Riggle, E., Ottati, V., Schwarz, N. and Wyer, R. S. (1991) ‘The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgements’. American Journal of Political Science, 35(1): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P. (1997) ‘Voting correctly’. American Political Science Review, 91 (September): 585–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Q. and Brewer, M. B. (2004) ‘What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, nationalism, and American identity after 9/11’. Political Psychology, 25(5): 727–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’. American Political Science Review, 65: 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, W. (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M. and Stroh, P. (1989) ‘An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation’. American Political Science Review, 83 (June): 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, A. L. (1910) ‘The Physiology of Politics’. American Political Science Review 4 (February): 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E. (2002) The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R. and MacKuen, M. B. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margetts, H. and Stoker, G. (2010) ‘The Experimental Method: Prospects for Laboratory and Field Studies’. In: Marsh, D. and Stokes, G. eds. Theory and Methods in Political Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. M. and Hoekstra, V. (1994) ‘Experimentation in political science’. Research in Micropolitics, 3: 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R. and Williams, K. C. (2008) ‘Experimentation in Political Science’. In: Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. eds. The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R. and Williams, K. C. (2010) Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, C. D. (2012) ‘A survey or experimental methods courses in political science departments’. Newsletter of the APSA Experimental Section, 3(2): 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, F. B. and Lusk, J. J. (2011) ‘Social desirability bias in real, hypothetical, and inferred valuation experiments’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(2): 528–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, L. L. (1999) Social Experiments: Evaluating Public Programs with Experimental Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, A. and Hertwig, R. (2002) ‘The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology’. Experimental Economics, 5: 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, G. A. and Tversky, A. (1988) ‘Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice’. American Political Science Review, 82 (September): 719–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. (2001) ‘Form and function in experimental design’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24: 427–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M. (2011) ‘The Logic and Design of the Survey Experiment: An Autobiography of a Methodological Innovation’. In: Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M. and Grob, D. B. (1996) ‘Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys’. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L. and Prior, M. (2004) ‘Predispositional factors and situational triggers’. American Political Science Review, 98: 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varia, J. (2011) ‘Get Better Results with Amazon Mechanical Turk’. Masters. Amazon Web Services Blog: http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2011/06/amazon-mechanical-turk-master-workers.html.

  • Wantchekon, L. (2003) ‘Clientelism and voting behavior’. World Politics, 55: 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982) ‘Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety’. Atlantic Monthly, March, 249(3): 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Tereza Capelos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Huron University College, Canada

    Paul Nesbitt-Larking

  2. Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden

    Catarina Kinnvall

  3. Department of Politics, University of Surrey, UK

    Tereza Capelos

  4. Graduate School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, The Netherlands

    Henk Dekker

Copyright information

© 2014 Tereza Capelos

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Capelos, T. (2014). Experiments: Insights and Power in the Study of Causality. In: Nesbitt-Larking, P., Kinnvall, C., Capelos, T., Dekker, H. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology. Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-29118-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation