Advertisement

Experiments: Insights and Power in the Study of Causality

  • Tereza Capelos
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology Series book 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).

Keywords

Voter Turnout Dictator Game Survey Experiment American Political Science Review News Broadcast 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A. and Valentino, N. (1994) ‘Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate?’. American Political Science Review, 88 (December): 829–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. T. (1969) ‘Reforms as experiments’. American Psychologist, 24(4): 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capelos, T. (2010) ‘Feeling the issue: Citizens’ affective reactions and leadership perceptions on policy evaluations’. Journal of Political Marketing, 9: 9–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Carlsmith, J. M., Ellsworth, P. and Aronson, E. (1976) Methods of Research in Social Psychology. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, L. (1988) ‘Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified?’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14: 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Druckman, D. P. (1994) ‘Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis’. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38: 507–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H. and Lupia, A. (2011) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerber, A. S. and Green, D. P. (2012) Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerring, J. and McDermott, R. (2007) ‘An experimental template for case study research’. American Journal of Political Science, 51: 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geva, N. and Mintz, A. (1997) Decision Making on War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Inglehart, R. (1990) Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Iyengar, S. and Kinder, D. R. (1987) News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan, A. (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lau, R. R. and Redlawsk, D. P. (1997) ‘Voting correctly’. American Political Science Review, 91 (September): 585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lijphart, A. (1971) ‘Comparative politics and the comparative method’. American Political Science Review, 65: 682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lippmann, W. (1922) Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M. and Stroh, P. (1989) ‘An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation’. American Political Science Review, 83 (June): 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lowell, A. L. (1910) ‘The Physiology of Politics’. American Political Science Review 4 (February): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marcus, G. E. (2002) The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R. and MacKuen, M. B. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. McGraw, K. M. and Hoekstra, V. (1994) ‘Experimentation in political science’. Research in Micropolitics, 3: 3–29.Google Scholar
  47. Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Morton, R. and Williams, K. C. (2010) Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mutz, D. C. (2011) Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. Orr, L. L. (1999) Social Experiments: Evaluating Public Programs with Experimental Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Ortmann, A. and Hertwig, R. (2002) ‘The costs of deception: Evidence from psychology’. Experimental Economics, 5: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Quattrone, G. A. and Tversky, A. (1988) ‘Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice’. American Political Science Review, 82 (September): 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Roth, A. (2001) ‘Form and function in experimental design’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24: 427–428.Google Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sniderman, P. M. and Grob, D. B. (1996) ‘Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys’. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L. and Prior, M. (2004) ‘Predispositional factors and situational triggers’. American Political Science Review, 98: 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 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.
  62. Wantchekon, L. (2003) ‘Clientelism and voting behavior’. World Politics, 55: 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wilson, J. Q. and Kelling, G. L. (1982) ‘Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety’. Atlantic Monthly, March, 249(3): 29–38.Google Scholar
  64. Zimbardo, P. (2007) The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Tereza Capelos 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tereza Capelos

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations