Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-k9l4c Total loading time: 0.331 Render date: 2023-02-06T15:04:30.013Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2006

JAMES N. DRUCKMAN
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
DONALD P. GREEN
Affiliation:
Yale University
JAMES H. KUKLINSKI
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
ARTHUR LUPIA
Affiliation:
University of Michigan

Abstract

Although political scientists have long expressed skepticism about the prospects for experimental science, an analysis of the first hundred volumes of the American Political Science Review reveals that randomized experiments have grown in impact and prominence. We document how thinking about experimentation has evolved over the century, and demonstrate the growing influence of laboratory, survey, and field experiments. A number of experiments have transformed how political scientists think about causal relationships in specific substantive areas. There are limits to the kinds of questions that experiments can address, but experiments have made important contributions in an array of political science subfields.

Type
“THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE” ESSAYS
Copyright
© 2006 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ansolabehere Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, and Nicholas Valentino. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?American Political Science Review 88 (December): 82938.Google Scholar
Bartels Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received.” American Political Science Review 87 (June): 26785.Google Scholar
Bergan Daniel E. 2006. “Does E-Activism Work?” Unpublished manuscript, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University.
Campbell Donald T. 1969. “Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24 (4): 40929.Google Scholar
Clarke Harold D., Allan Kornberg, Chris McIntyre, Petra Bauer-Kaase, and Max Kaase. 1999. “The Effect of Economic Priorities on the Measurement of Value Change.” American Political Science Review 93 (September): 63747.Google Scholar
Cook Thomas D., and Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cover Albert D., and Bruce S. Brumberg. 1982. “Baby Books and Ballots.” American Political Science Review 76 (June): 34759.Google Scholar
Druckman James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation.” American Political Science Review 98 (November): 67186.Google Scholar
Druckman James N., and Arthur Lupia. 2006. “Mind, Will, and Choice.” In Charles Tilly and Robert E. Goodin, (eds.). The Oxford Handbook on Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Druckman James N., and Joanne M. Miller. 2004. “The Political Psychology of Electoral Campaigns.” Political Psychology 25 (4): 501506.Google Scholar
Eldersveld Samuel J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50 (March): 15465.Google Scholar
Fiorina Morris P., and Charles R. Plott. 1978. “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule.” American Political Science Review 72 (June): 57598.Google Scholar
Fisher Ronald. 1935. Design of Experiments. New York: Hafner Publishin.
Fréchette Guillaume, John H. Kagel, and Steven F. Lehrer. 2003. “Bargaining in Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 97 (June): 22132.Google Scholar
Gerber Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 94 (September): 65363.Google Scholar
Gerber Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2005. “Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), Replication of Disputed Findings, and Reply to Imai (2005).” American Political Science Review 99 (June): 301313.Google Scholar
Gerber Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Ron Shachar. 2003. “Voting May be Habit Forming.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (July): 54050.Google Scholar
Gilens Martin. 1996. “‘Race Coding’ and White Opposition to Welfare.” American Political Science Review 90 (September): 593604.Google Scholar
Green Donald P. 1992. “The Price Elasticity of Mass Preferences.” American Political Science Review 86 (March): 12848.Google Scholar
Guetzkow Harold, and Joseph J. Valadez, eds. 1981. Simulated International Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hermann Charles F., and Margaret G. Hermann. 1967. “An Attempt to Simulate the Outbreak of World War I.” American Political Science Review 61 (June): 40016.Google Scholar
Inglehart Ronald. 1971. “The Silent Revolution in Europe.” American Political Science Review 65 (December): 9911017.Google Scholar
Inglehart Ronald. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart Ronald. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Iyengar Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs. American Political Science Review 76 (December): 84858.Google Scholar
Lasswell Harold D. 1951. “The Immediate Future of Research Policy and Method in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 45 (March): 13342.Google Scholar
Lau Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” American Political Science Review 91 (September): 58598.Google Scholar
Lodge Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, and Patrick Stroh. 1989. “An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83 (June): 399419.Google Scholar
Lodge Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive Voter.” American Political Science Review 89 (June): 30926.Google Scholar
Lowell A. Lawrence. 1910. “The Physiology of Politics.” American Political Science Review 4 (February): 115.Google Scholar
Mahoney Robert, and Daniel Druckman. 1975. “Simulation, Experimentation, and Context.” Simulation & Games 6 (September): 23570.Google Scholar
McDermott Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methods in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 5: 3161.Google Scholar
McGraw Kathleen M., and Valerie Hoekstra. 1994. “Experimentation in Political Science.” Research in Micropolitics 3: 329.Google Scholar
Morton Rebecca B. 1993. “Incomplete Information and Ideological Explanations of Platform Divergence.” American Political Science Review 87 (June): 38292.Google Scholar
Morton Rebecca B., and Kenneth C. Williams. 2006. “Experimentation in Political Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Janet Box-Steffensmeier, David Collier, and Henry Brady. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mutz Diana C. 2002. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks.” American Political Science Review 96 (March): 11126.Google Scholar
Nelson Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (September): 56783.Google Scholar
Nickerson David W. 2006. “Measuring Interpersonal Influence.” Doctoral thesis, Department of Political Science, Yale University.
Ostrom Elinor, James Walker, and Roy Gardner. 1992. “Covenants with and Without a Sword.” American Political Science Review 86 (June): 40417.Google Scholar
Quattrone George A., and Amos Tversky. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82 (September): 71936.Google Scholar
Roth Alvin E. 1995. “Introduction to Experimental Economics.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, ed. John H. Kagel and Alvin E. Roth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sniderman Paul M. 1995. “Evaluation Standards for a Slow-Moving Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28 (September): 46467.Google Scholar
Sniderman Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman Paul M., and Douglas B. Grob. 1996. “Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 22: 37799.Google Scholar
Sniderman Paul M., Look Hagendoorn, and Markus Prior. 2004. “Predispositional Factors and Situational Triggers.” American Political Science Review 98 (February): 3550.Google Scholar
Tetlock Philip E., and Richard Ned Lebow. 2001. “Pocking Counterfactual Holes in Covering Laws.” American Political Science Review 95 (December): 82943.Google Scholar
211
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *