Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
CrossRef.
Jenke, Libby
Bansak, Kirk
Hainmueller, Jens
and
Hangartner, Dominik
2019.
Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision-Making in Conjoint Experiments.
SSRN Electronic Journal ,
Miwa, Hirofumi
Arami, Reiko
and
Taniguchi, Masaki
2019.
Detecting Voter Understanding of Ideological Labels Using a Conjoint Experiment.
SSRN Electronic Journal ,
Wicki, Michael
Huber, Robert Alexander
and
Bernauer, Thomas
2020.
Can policy-packaging increase public support for costly policies? Insights from a choice experiment on policies against vehicle emissions.
Journal of Public Policy,
Vol. 40,
Issue. 4,
p.
599.
Bansak, Kirk
Hainmueller, Jens
Hopkins, Daniel J.
and
Yamamoto, Teppei
2020.
Using Conjoint Experiments to Analyze Elections: The Essential Role of the Average Marginal Component Effect (AMCE).
SSRN Electronic Journal ,
Treger, Clareta
2020.
When Do People Accept Paternalism? Experimental Evidence.
SSRN Electronic Journal ,
Rincon, Leire
2021.
A Robin Hood for all: a conjoint experiment on support for basic income.
Journal of European Public Policy,
p.
1.
Lavezzolo, Sebastián
Ramiro, Luis
and
Fernández-Vázquez, Pablo
2021.
The will for reason: voter demand for experts in office.
West European Politics,
Vol. 44,
Issue. 7,
p.
1506.
Martini, Sergio
and
Olmastroni, Francesco
2021.
From the lab to the poll: The use of survey experiments in political research.
Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica,
Vol. 51,
Issue. 2,
p.
231.
Beiser-McGrath, Liam F.
Bernauer, Thomas
Song, Jaehyun
and
Uji, Azusa
2021.
Understanding public support for domestic contributions to global collective goods.
Climatic Change,
Vol. 166,
Issue. 3-4,
Funck, Amy S.
and
McCabe, Katherine T.
2021.
Partisanship, Information, and the Conditional Effects of Scandal on Voting Decisions.
Political Behavior,
Miwa, Hirofumi
Arami, Reiko
and
Taniguchi, Masaki
2021.
Detecting Voter Understanding of Ideological Labels Using a Conjoint Experiment.
Political Behavior,
Demirel-Pegg, Tijen
and
Dusso, Aaron
2021.
Partisanship Versus Democracy: Voting in Turkey’s Competitive Authoritarian Elections.
Political Studies Review,
p.
147892992110304.
Leal, Marcelo
and
Musgrave, Paul
2022.
Cheerleading in Cyberspace: How the American Public Judges Attribution Claims for Cyberattacks.
Foreign Policy Analysis,
Vol. 18,
Issue. 2,
Crabtree, Charles
Holbein, John B.
and
Monson, J. Quin
2022.
Patient traits shape health-care stakeholders’ choices on how to best allocate life-saving care.
Nature Human Behaviour,
Vol. 6,
Issue. 2,
p.
244.
Jurado, Ignacio
León, Sandra
and
Walter, Stefanie
2022.
Brexit Dilemmas: Shaping Postwithdrawal Relations with a Leaving State.
International Organization,
Vol. 76,
Issue. 2,
p.
273.
Bremer, Björn
and
Bürgisser, Reto
2022.
Public opinion on welfare state recalibration in times of austerity: evidence from survey experiments.
Political Science Research and Methods,
p.
1.
Zhirkov, Kirill
2022.
Estimating and Using Individual Marginal Component Effects from Conjoint Experiments.
Political Analysis,
Vol. 30,
Issue. 2,
p.
236.
Krewson, Christopher N.
and
Owens, Ryan J.
2022.
How State Judicial Selection Methods May Influence Views of US Supreme Court Nominees.
Journal of Law and Courts,
p.
000.
Henderson, John A.
Sheagley, Geoffrey
Goggin, Stephen N.
Dancey, Logan
and
Theodoridis, Alexander G.
2022.
Primary Divisions: How Voters Evaluate Policy and Group Differences in Intraparty Contests.
The Journal of Politics,
Vol. 84,
Issue. 3,
p.
1760.
Kohama, Shoko
Himichi, Toshiyuki
Inamasu, Kazunori
Mifune, Nobuhiro
Ohtsubo, Yohsuke
and
Tago, Atsushi
2022.
Crafting international apologies that work: A conjoint analysis approach.
Conflict Management and Peace Science,
p.
073889422210947.