Forschungsfelder der experimentellen Politikwissenschaft



Experimentelle Designs werden in der Politikwissenschaft in nahezu allen Forschungsfeldern angewandt. Die Vielzahl und thematische Vielfalt experimenteller Untersuchungen ist mittlerweile so groß, dass es im Rahmen eines Literaturberichts nicht möglich ist, diese auch nur annähernd vollständig darzustellen. Insgesamt zeigt sich, dass dabei auf alle Typen und Varianten des experimentellen Designs zurückgegriffen wird. Inzwischen gibt es einige Überblicksdarstellungen, die verschiedene Teilbereiche der experimentellen Politikwissenschaft illustrieren. Im Folgenden werden einige Forschungsbereiche beispielhaft herausgegriffen und überblicksartig vorgestellt, um das Potenzial und die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten experimenteller Forschung noch einmal zu verdeutlichen.


  1. Addonizio, E. M., Green, D. P., & Glaser, J. M. (2007). Putting the party back into politics. An experiment testing whether election day festivals increase voter turnout. Political Science and Politics, 40, 721–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1997). Going negative. How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Austen-Smith, D., & Duggan, J. (Hrsg.). (2005). Social choice and strategic decisions. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, D. P., & Ferejohn, J. A. (1989). Bargaining in legislatures. The American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., Moore, D. A., & Valley, K. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellemare, C., & Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51(1), 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Political context and the survey response. The dynamics of racial policy opinion. Journal of Politics, 64, 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottom, W. P., Eavey, C. L., & Miller, G. J. (1996). Getting to the core: Coalitional integrity as a constraint on the power of agenda setters. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(2), 298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bozoyan, C. (2015). Vertrauen und Vertrauenswürdigkeit. In M. Keuschnigg & T. Wolbring (Hrsg.), Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. Sonderband der Sozialen Welt (S. 195–216). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  10. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cardenas, J.-C. (2000). How do groups solve local commons dilemmas? Lessons from experimental economics in the field. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2(3), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlin, R. E., & Love, G. J. (2013). The politics of interpersonal trust and reciprocity: An experimental approach. Political Behavior, 35(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlson, E. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in Africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics, 67(2), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 47–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman, E. A., & Steed, B. C. (2009). Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: An application to forestry. Ecological Economics, 68(7), 2106–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 448–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2009). Don’t forget to vote. Text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Druckman, J. N. (Hrsg.). (2011). Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kurklinski, J. H., & Lupai, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100(4), 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eckel, C. C., & Wilson, R. K. (2003). Conditional trust: Sex, race and facial expressions in a trust game. Trust and Institutions, 24, 1–23.Google Scholar
  23. Ermisch, J., Gambetta, D., Laurie, H., Siedler, T., & Uhrig, S. C. N (2009). Measuring people’s trust. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 172(4), 749–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Faas, T., & Huber, S. (2010). Experimente in der Politikwissenschaft. Vom Mauerblümchen zum Mainstream. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 51(4), 721–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Faas, T., & Maier, J. (2004). Mobilisierung, Verstärkung, Konversion? Ergebnisse eines Experiments zur Wahrnehmung der Fernsehduelle im Vorfeld der Bundestagswahl 2002. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 45, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fershtman, C., & Gneezy, U. (2001). Discrimination in a segmented society. An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fiorina, M. P., & Plott, C. R. (1978). Committee decisions under majority rule: An experimental study. American Political Science Review, 72(2), 575–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fröhlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. (1998). Some consequences of e-mail vs. face-to-face communication in experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35(3), 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gartner, S. S. (2008). The multiple effects of casualties on public support for war: An experimental approach. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gintis, H. (2005). Moral sentiments and material interests. The foundations of cooperation in economic life. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Glaser, J. M. (2003). Social context and inter-group political attitudes: Experiments in group conflict theory. British Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 607–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Habyarimana, J., Humphrey, J., Posner, D., & Weinstein, J. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101(4), 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hamenstädt, U. (2015). Experimentelle Politikwissenschaft. Über die Untersuchung von Entscheidungen in der experimentellen Forschung. In A. Glatzmeier & H. Hilgert (Hrsg.), Entscheidungen: Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Beiträge zu Theorie und Praxis (S. 43–54). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  34. Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 957–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hutchings, V. L., & Valentino, N. A. (2004). The centrality of race in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 7(1), 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011). Trust games. A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 865–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kittel, B., & Luhan, W. (2013). Decision making in networks. An experiment on structure effects in a group dictator game. Social Choice and Welfare, 40(1), 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Information processing during election campaigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lodge, M., McGraw, K., & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83, 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M., & Jones, J. M. (2002). The pandering politicians of suspicious minds. Journal of Politics, 64(2), 362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meffert, M. F., & Gschwend, T. (2011). Polls, coalition signals and strategic voting. An experimental investigation of perceptions and effects. European Journal of Political Research, 50(5), 636–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Miettinen, T., & Suetens, S. (2008). Communication and guilt in a prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(6), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ostrom, E. (2014). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 6(4), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  52. Panagopoulos, C. (2009). Street fight. The impact of a street sign campaign on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 28, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  54. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 58–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sniderman, P., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Hrsg.), Studies in public opinion (S. 133–165). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M. (2008). Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings. Biological Sciences/The Royal Society, 275(1650), 2529–2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(2), 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van den Bos, W., Westenberg, M., van Dijk, E., & Crone, E. A. (2010). Development of trust and reciprocity in adolescence. Cognitive Development, 25(1), 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Swol, L. M. (2003). The effects of regulation on trust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiens, M. (2013). Vertrauen in der ökonomischen Theorie. Eine mikrofundierte und verhaltensbezogene Analyse. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
  64. Wilkerson, J. D. (1999). „Killer“ amendments in Congress. American Political Science Review, 93(3), 535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover. Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Young, A. I., Ratner, K. G., & Fazio, R. H. (2014). Political attitudes bias the mental representation of a presidential candidate’s face. Psychological Science, 25(2), 503–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PolitikwissenschaftLeuphana Universität LüneburgLüneburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations