Skip to main content

Survey Experiments: Partisan Cues in Multi-party Systems

  • Chapter
Experimental Political Science

Part of the book series: Research Methods Series ((REMES))

Abstract

While the vast majority of the chapters in this volume focus on experiments conducted in a laboratory setting, experiments have also long been prevalent in the discipline in the context of survey research. While many of these earlier experiments were designed with the idea of teasing out the nuances of survey research itself, the survey-based experiment remains an excellent option for researchers interested in exploring substantive questions of politics to this day (Gaines et al., 2006). With that in mind, the purpose of this chapter is two-fold. We begin by explaining the value of survey experiments as a research tool for political scientists generally. We then spend the bulk of the chapter illustrating the types of questions and challenges that can come up in survey experiments through the rubric of one particular experiment we designed to explore the effects of partisan cues in the multiparty systems of Poland, Hungary and Russia. We conclude the chapter with a brief discussion of the use of deception in survey experiments, including why it is often necessary and the extent to which it has different consequences from the use of deception in lab-based experiments.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shigeo Hirano, James M. Snyder and Michiko Ueda (2006) ‘Party and Incumbency Cues in Voting: Are They Substitutes?’ Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 1, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arceneaux, Kevin (2008) ‘Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?’ Political Psychology, 30, 139–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, Adam J. (2004) Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, Adam and Joshua A. Tucker (2006) ‘“Don’t Knows” And Public Opinion Towards Economic Reform: Evidence from Russia’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader, Ted and Joshua A. Tucker (2009) ‘What’s Left Behind When the Party’s Over: Survey Experiments on the Effects of Partisan Cues in Putin’s Russia’, Politics and Policy, 37, 843–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader, Ted and Joshua A. Tucker (forthcoming) ‘Following the Party’s Lead: Party Cues, Policy Opinion, and the Power of Partisanship in Three Multiparty Systems’, Comparative Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brader, Ted, Joshua A. Tucker, and Dominik Duell (forthcoming) ‘Which Parties Can Lead Opinion? Experimental Evidence on Partisan Cue-Taking in Multiparty Democracies’, Comparative Political Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, Henry E. and Paul M. Sniderman (1985) ‘Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning’, American Political Science Review, 79, 1061–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, John G. (2011) ‘ Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate’, American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coan, Travis G., Jennifer L. Merolla, Laura B. Stephenson and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (2008) ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green: Minor Party Labels as Heuristic Aids’, Political Psychology, 29, 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Geoffrey L. (2003) ‘Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colton, Timothy J. (2000) Transitional Citizens: Voters and What Influences Them in the New Russia (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, James N. (2001) ‘Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, Brian, James H. Kuklinski and Paul J. Quirk (2006) ‘The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined’, Political Analysis, 15, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Anthony, Stephen Fisher and Shawna Smith (2005) ‘The Globalization of Public Opinion Research’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 297–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kam, Cindy (2005) ‘Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences’, Political Behavior, 27, 163–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinder, Donald R. and Lynn M. Sanders (1990) ‘Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks’, Social Cognition, 8, 73–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuklinski, James H. and Norman L. Hurley (1994) ‘On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking’, Journal of Politics, 56, 729–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, Richard R. and David P. Redlawsk (2001) ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making’, American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupia, Arthur and Mathew D. McCubbins (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, Neil and Alexander G. Kuo (2008) ‘Attributing Blame: The Public’s Response to Hurricane Katrina’, Journal of Politics 70, 120–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merolla, Jennifer, Laura Stephenson and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (2007) ‘La Aplicación de los Métodos Experimentales en el Estudio de los Atajos Informativos en México’, Política y Gobierno, 14, 117–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merolla, Jennifer L., Laura B. Stephenson and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister (2008) ‘Can Canadians Take a Hint? The (In)Effectiveness of Party Labels as Information Shortcuts in Canada’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41, 673–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik, John R. (1996) ‘Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study’, American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, Samuel L. (1991) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popkin, Samuel L. (1994) The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahn, Wendy (1993) ‘The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates’, American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, Thomas J. (2006) ‘Triangulating Political Responsibility: The Motivated Formation of Responsibility Judgments’, Political Psychology, 27, 99–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, Brian F., Matthew Streb and Gerald Wright (2001) ‘Teams without Uniforms: The Nonpartisan Ballot in State and Local Elections’, Political Research Quarterly, 54, 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, Howard and Stanley Presser (1981) Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context (New York: Academic Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, Paul M. and Douglas B. Grob (1996) ‘Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys’, Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 377–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, Paul M. and A. Hagendoorn (2007) When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, Laura R., Jack Glaser and Peter Salovey (2005) ‘The Effects of Partisanship and Candidate Emotionality on Voter Preference’, Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 25, 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Transue, John E., Daniel J. Lee and John H. Aldrich (2009) ‘Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments’, Political Analysis, 17, 143–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomz, Michael and Paul M. Sniderman (2005) ‘Brand Name and the Organization of Mass Belief Systems’, Unpublished manuscript (Stanford University).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Houweling, Robert P. and Paul M. Sniderman (2005) ‘The Political Logic of a Downsian Space’, Working Paper Series 44, Institute of Government Studies, UC Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Ted A. Brader and Joshua A. Tucker

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brader, T., Tucker, J. (2012). Survey Experiments: Partisan Cues in Multi-party Systems. In: Kittel, B., Luhan, W.J., Morton, R.B. (eds) Experimental Political Science. Research Methods Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137016645_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics