Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T21:49:40.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Methodology in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Rose McDermott
Rose McDermott*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, McGraw Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850. e-mail: rmm21@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments offer a useful methodological tool to examine issues of importance to political scientists. The historical and cultural differences between experiments in behavioral economics and social psychology are discussed. Issues of central concern to experimentalists are covered, including impact versus control, mundane versus experimental realism, internal versus external validity, deception, and laboratory versus field experiments. Advantages and disadvantages of experimentation are summarized.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Experimental Methods in Political Science , Autumn 2002 , pp. 325 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2002 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adair, J., Dushenki, T., and Lindsay, R. 1985. “Ethical Regulations and Their Impact on Research Practice.” American Psychologist 40:59–72.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., and Carlsmith, M. 1968. “Experimentation in Social Psychology.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology (rev. ed.), eds. Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–79.Google Scholar
Aronson, Eliot. 1966. “Avoidance of Inter-Subject Communication.” Psychological Reports 19:238.Google Scholar
Aronson, Eliot, Ellsworth, Pheobe, Merrill Carlsmith, J., and Gonzales, M. H. 1995. Methods of Research in Social Psychology, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Asch, Splomon. 1952. “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments.” In Groups, Leadership, and Men, ed. Guetzkow, H. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar
Bernoulli, D. (1738). “Specimin Theoriae Novae De Mensurea Sortis.” Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 5:175–192. (English translation in Econometrica, 1954, 22:23-36.)Google Scholar
Brock, T., and Becker, L. 1966. “‘Debriefing’ and Susceptibility to Subsequent Experimental Manipulation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2:314–323.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. 1988. “Deception in Psychological Research: When Is Its Use Justified?” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14:664–675.Google Scholar
Economist. 2000. “Rethinking Thinking.” December 16.Google Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. 1966. “Prior Deception and Subsequent Experimental Performance: The ‘Faithful’ Subject.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:532–537.Google Scholar
Gosnell, H. 1926. “An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting.” American Political Science Review 20:869–874.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S. 2000. “Presentation of Experimental Designs for Political Communication Research: From Shopping Malls to the Internet.” Experimental Methods Conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Kagel, Jack, and Roth, Alvin. 1995. Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kelman, Herbert. 1968. A Time to Speak Out: On Human Values and Social Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. 1975. “The Human Subject in the Psychology Experiment.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, ed. Berkowitz, L. New York: Academic Press, pp. 101–147.Google Scholar
Laibson, D. 2000. Presentation to the Experimental Methods Conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lepper, Mark, and Greene, D. 1978. “Overjustification Research and Beyond: Toward a Means-End Analysis of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.” In The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation, eds. Lepper, M. R. and Greene, D. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 109–148.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, Roger. February 11, 2001. Exuberance Is Rational. New York Times Magazine, 68.Google Scholar
McConahay, J. 1973. “Experimental Research.” In Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. Knutson, J. N. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 356–382.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose, and Cowden, Jonathan. 2001. “The Impact of Uncertainty and Sex in a Crisis Simulation Game.” International Interactions 27:353–380.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Orne, Martin. 1962. “On the Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment with Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications.” American Psychologist 17:776–783.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T., ed. 1991. Laboratory Research in Political Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Plott, C. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility Under Majority Rule.” American Economic Review 57:787–806.Google Scholar
Plott, C. 1979. “The Application of Laboratory Experimental Methods to Public Choice.” In Collective Decision Making: Applications from Public Choice Theory, ed. Russell, C. S. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, pp. 137–160.Google Scholar
Riker, W. 1967. “Bargaining in a Three-Person Game.” American Political Science Review 61:642–656.Google Scholar
Riker, W., and Zavonia, W. J. 1970. “Rational Behavior in Politics: Evidence from a Three Person Game.” American Political Science Review 64:48–60.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F., and Dickson, W. 1939. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. 1966. “Some Limits of Dissonance.” In Cognitive Consistency, ed. Feldman, S. New York: Academic Press, pp. 135–170.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. 1969. “The Conditions and Consequences of Evaluation Apprehension.” In Artifact in Behavioral Research, eds. Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. New York: Academic Press, pp. 249–279.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1966. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. 1969. “Interpersonal Expectations: Effects of the Experimenter's Hypothesis.” In Artifact in Behavioral Research, eds. Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. New York: Academic Press, pp. 181–277.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. 1958. “The Strategy of Conflict: Prospectus for the Reorientation of Game Theory.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2:203–264.Google Scholar
Siegel, S., and Fouraker, L. 1960. Bargaining and Group Decision Making: Experiments in Bilateral Monopoly. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Silverman, I., Shulman, A., and Wiesenthal, D. 1970. “Effects of Deceiving and Debriefing Psychological Subjects on Performance in Later Experiments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 14:203–212.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1966. “What Is the Experimental Analysis of Behavior?” Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior 9:213–218.Google Scholar
Smith, Eliot, and Mackie, Diano. 1995. Social Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Smith, S., and Richardson, D. 1983. “Amelioration of Deception and Harm in Psychological Research: The Important Role of Debriefing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44:1075–1082.Google Scholar
Striker, L., Messick, S., and Jackson, D. 1969. “Evaluating Deception in Psychological Research.” Psychological Bulletin 71:343–351.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. 1898. “Animal Intelligence.” Psychology Review of Monograph Supplement 2(4, Whole No. 8).Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. 1931. “The Indifference Function.” Journal of Social Psychology 2:139–167.Google Scholar
Uchitelle, Louis. 2001. “Some Economists Call Behavior a Key.” The New York Times, February 11, section 3, p. 1.Google Scholar
von Neumann, J., and Morganstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, T. 1976. “Microanalytic Approaches to Political Decision-Making.” American Behavioral Science 20:93–110.Google Scholar
Wallis, W. Allen, and Friedman, Milton. 1942. “The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions.” In Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics in Memory of Henry Schultz, eds. Lange, O., McIntyre, F., and Yntema, T. O. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar