Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- 4 Causal Inference and the Design and Analysis of Experiments
- 5 Field Experiments in Public Management
- 6 Survey Experiments for Public Management Research
- 7 Laboratory Experiments: Their Potential for Public Management Research
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
7 - Laboratory Experiments: Their Potential for Public Management Research
from Part II - Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2017
Book contents
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Experiments in Public Management Research
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Part I Context
- Part II Methods
- 4 Causal Inference and the Design and Analysis of Experiments
- 5 Field Experiments in Public Management
- 6 Survey Experiments for Public Management Research
- 7 Laboratory Experiments: Their Potential for Public Management Research
- Part III Substantive Contributions
- Part IV Issues and Implications
- Appendix Recommended Reporting Guidelines for Experiments in Public Management, a Checklist1
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experiments in Public Management ResearchChallenges and Contributions, pp. 139 - 164Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Alatas, V., Cameron, L., Chaudhuri, A., Erkal, N., and Gangadharan, L. 2009. ‘Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: a comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students’, Experimental Economics 12 (1): 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. A. and Bushman, B. J. 1997. ‘External validity of “trivial” experiments: the case of laboratory aggression’, Review of General Psychology 1 (1): 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, D. M. and Edwards, B. C. 2015. ‘Unfulfilled promise: laboratory experiments in public administration research’, Public Management Review 17 (10): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronson, E., Brewer, M. B., and Carlsmith, M. J. 1985. ‘Experimentation in social psychology’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Random House, pp. 441–86.Google Scholar
Baekgaard, M., Baethge, C., Blom-Hansen, J., Dunlop, C., Esteve, M., M. J., Kisida, B., et al. 2015. ‘Conducting experiments in public management research: a practical guide’, International Public Management Journal 18 (2): 323–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., and McCabe, K. 1995. ‘Trust, reciprocity, and social history’, Games and Economic Behavior 10 (1): 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, O., Nicklisch, A., and Baetge, I. 2012. ‘Hroot: Hamburg registration and organization online tool’, WiSo-HH Working Paper Series, no. 1.Google Scholar
Bozeman, B. and Scott, P. 1992. ‘Laboratory experiments in public policy and management’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2 (3): 293–313.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. and Charbonneau, J. 2009. ‘Improving mail survey response rate using chocolate and replacement questionnaires’, Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (2): 368–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, G. A. and Brewer, G. A. Jr. 2011. ‘Parsing public/private differences in work motivation and performance: an experimental study’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (suppl 3): i347–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, D., Schonger, M., and Wickens, C. 2015. ‘oTree – an open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments – otree.pdf’, www.otree.org/oTree.pdf (accessed November 29).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S. and Yamagishi, T. 2008. ‘A defense of deception on scientific grounds’, Social Psychology Quarterly 21 (3): 215–21.Google Scholar
De Fine Licht, J. 2014. ‘Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: an experiment’, Public Administration Review 74 (3): 361–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delfgaauw, J. and Dur, R. 2010. ‘Managerial talent, motivation, and self-selection into public management’, Journal of Public Economics 94 (9): 654–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, E. S. 2011. ‘Economics vs. psychology experiments: stylization, incentives, and deception’, in Druckman, , Green, , Kuklinski, , and Lupia, (eds.), pp. 58–70.Google Scholar
Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., and Steiner, D. D. 1988. ‘A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: don’t throw out the baby with the bath water’, Journal of Organizational Behavior 9 (3): 281–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., and Lupia, A. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. and Kam, C. D. 2011. ‘Students as experimental participants: a defense of the narrow data base’, in Druckman, , Green, , Kuklinski, , and Lupia, (eds.), pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. and Leeper, T. J. 2012. ‘Learning more from political communication experiments: pretreatment and its effects’, American Journal of Political Science 56 (4): 875–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteve, M., Urbig, D., van Witteloostuijn, A., and Boyne, G. 2016. ‘Prosocial behavior and public service motivation’, Public Administration Review 76 (1): 177–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esteve, M., van Witteloostuijn, A., and Boyne, G. 2015. ‘The effects of public service motivation on collaborative behavior: evidence from three experimental games’, International Public Management Journal 18 (2): 171–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. 2007. ‘Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments’, Experimental Economics 10 (2): 171–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gailmard, S. and Patty, J. W. 2012. ‘Formal models of bureaucracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 15: 353–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D. and Prowse, V. 2015. A Novel Computerized Real Effort Task Based on Sliders. (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~nuff0229/GillProwseSliders.pdf).Google Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., and Soutter, C. L. 2000. ‘Measuring trust’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 811–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. 2015. ‘Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE’, Journal of the Economic Science Association 1 (1): 114–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. and Klijn, A. 2015. ‘The effects of judicial transparency on public trust: evidence from a field experiment’, Public Administration 93(4): 995–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Porumbescu, G., Hong, B., and Im, T. 2013. ‘The effect of transparency on trust in government: a cross-national comparative experiment’, Public Administration Review 73 (4): 575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W. and List, J. A. 2004. ‘Field experiments’, Journal of Economic Literature 42 (4): 1009–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. and Ortmann, A. 2001. ‘Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists?’ Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3): 383–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S. 2011. ‘Laboratory experiments in political science’, in Druckman, , Green, , Kuklinski, , and Lupia, (eds.), pp. 73–88.Google Scholar
James, O. 2011. ‘Performance measures and democracy: information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (3): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. H. and Kim, S. 2014. ‘National culture and social desirability bias in measuring public service motivation’, Administration and Society, published online first.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittel, B., Luhan, W. J., and Morton, R. B. (eds.) 2012. Experimental Political Science: Principles and Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knott, J. H., Miller, G. J., and Verkuilen, J. 2003. ‘Adaptive incrementalism and complexity: experiments with two-person cooperative signaling games’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (3): 341–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W. 1975. ‘The human subject in the psychology experiment: fact and artifact’, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 8: 101–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. 2007. ‘What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (2): 153–74.Google Scholar
Lucas, J. W. 2003. ‘Theory-testing, generalization, and the problem of external validity’, Sociological Theory 21 (3): 236–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luechinger, S., Stutzer, A., and Winkelmann, R. 2010. ‘Self-selection models for public and private sector job satisfaction’, Research in Labor Economics 30: 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccoby, E. E. and Maccoby, N. 1954. ‘The interview: a tool of social science’, in Lindzey, and Aronsen, (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 449–87.Google Scholar
Margetts, H. Z. 2011. ‘Experiments for public management research’, Public Management Review 13 (2): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, N. and Meirowitz, A. 2007. Political Game Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, M. D., Noll, R. G., and Weingast, B. R. 1987. ‘Administrative procedures as instruments of political control’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3 (2): 243–77.Google Scholar
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Morrow, J. D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, R. B. 1999. Methods and Models. A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R. B. and Williams, K. C. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niskanen, W. A. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.Google Scholar
Nutt, P. C. 2006. ‘Comparing public and private sector decision-making practices’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (2): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. and Walker, J. 2005. Trust and Reciprocity: Russell Sage Foundation Series on Trust, Vol. 6. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Pott, C. R. 1991. ‘Will economics become an experimental science?’ Southern Economic Journal 57: 450–61.Google Scholar
Remus, W. 1986. ‘Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making’, Journal of Business Research 14 (1): 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E. 1995. ‘Introduction to experimental economics’, in Kagel, J. H. and Roth, A. E. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–109.Google Scholar
Scott, P. G. 1997. ‘Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: an experiment in street-level decision making’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7 (1): 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, J. 2008. ‘Introduction to deception debate’, Social Psychology Quarterly 71 (3): 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A. 1992. ‘Bureaucratic drift, coalitional drift, and time consistency: a comment on Macey’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 8 (1): 111–18.Google Scholar
Smith, J. 2016. ‘The motivational effects of mission matching: a lab-experimental test of a moderated mediation model’, Public Administration Review, 76(4): 626–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. L. 1976. ‘Experimental economics: induced value theory’, The American Economic Review 66 (2): 274–9.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. 1982. ‘Microeconomic systems as an experimental science’, The American Economic Review 72 (5): 923–55.Google Scholar
Tepe, M. 2016. ‘In public servants we trust? A behavioral experiment on public service motivation and trust among students of public administration, business sciences and law’, Public Management Review 18 (4): 508–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Walle, S. and Van Ryzin, G. G. 2011. ‘The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: lessons from a split-ballot experiment’, Public Administration 89 (4): 1436–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, M. and Sell, J. 2014. Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Weingast, B. R. and Moran, M. J. 1983. ‘Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the federal trade commission’, Journal of Political Economy 91 (5): 765–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilde, L. 1981. ‘On the use of laboratory experiments in economics’, in Pitt, Joseph. (ed.), The Philosophy of Economics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 137–43.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. and Eckel, C. 2011. ‘Trust and social exchange’, in Druckman, , Green, , Kuklinski, , and Lupia, (eds.), pp. 243–57.Google Scholar
Woon, J. 2012. ‘Laboratory tests of formal theory and behavioral inference’, in Kittel, , Luhan, , and Morton, (eds.), pp. 54–71.Google Scholar
- 10
- Cited by