Book contents
- Experimental Sociology
- Methodological Tools in the Social Sciences
- Experimental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures, Tables, and Boxes
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Philosophy and Methodology of Experimentation in Sociology
- Part II The Practice of Experimentation in Sociology
- Part III Methodological Challenges of Experimentation in Sociology
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2024
Book contents
- Experimental Sociology
- Methodological Tools in the Social Sciences
- Experimental Sociology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures, Tables, and Boxes
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- Part I The Philosophy and Methodology of Experimentation in Sociology
- Part II The Practice of Experimentation in Sociology
- Part III Methodological Challenges of Experimentation in Sociology
- References
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Experimental SociologyOutline of a Scientific Field, pp. 159 - 191Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Abell, P. (2003). On the prospects for a unified social science: Economics & sociology. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, M., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2010). Migration decisions within dual-earner partnerships: A test of bargaining theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(4), 876–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguiar, F., Brañas, P., & Miller, L. (2008). Moral distance in dictator games. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(4), 344–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alfano, G. & Marwell, G. (1980). Experiments on the provision of public goods by groups III: Nondivisibility and free riding in “real” groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43(3), 300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alferes, V. R. (2012). Methods of Randomization in Experimental Designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, F. M. (2017). Reductive views of shared intention. In: Jankovic, M. & Ludwig, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. London: Routledge, pp. 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Ubaydli, O. & List, J. (2015). On the generalizability of experimental results in economics. In: Frechette, G. & Schotter, A., eds., Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 420–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Álvarez-Benjumea, A. & Winter, F. (2018). Normative change and culture of hate: An experiment in online environments. European Sociological Review, 34(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J., Burks, S., Carpenter, J., et al. (2013). Self-selection and variations in the laboratory measurement of other-regarding preferences across subject pools: Evidence from one college student and two adult samples. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angell, R. C. (1932). The difficulties of experimental sociology. Social Forces, 11(2), 207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. D. & Krueger, A. B. (1992). Estimating the payoff to schooling using the Vietnam-era draft lottery. NBER Working Paper 4067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J. S. (2015). Mastering Metrics: The Path from Cause to Effect. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ariely, D. & Norton, M. I. (2007). Psychology and experimental economics: A gap in abstraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auspurg, K. & Brüderl, J. (2022). How to increase reproducibility and credibility of sociological research. In: Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D., & Raub, W., eds., Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 512–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auspurg, K. & Hinz, T. (2015b). Multifactorial experiments in surveys: Conjoint analysis, choice experiments, and factorial surveys. In: Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T., eds., Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften: Soziale Welt. Sonderband 22. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 291–315.Google Scholar
Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., & Sauer, C. (2017). Why should women get less? Evidence on the gender pay gap from multifactorial survey experiments. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azmat, G. & Iriberri, N. (2010). The importance of relative performance feedback information: Evidence from a natural experiment using high school students. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7–8), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, F., Baumeister, B., Berger, R., & Keuschnigg, M. (2021). On the transportability of laboratory results. Sociological Methods and Research, 50(3), 1452–1481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balcells, L. & Torrats-Espinosa, G. (2018). Using a natural experiment to estimate the electoral consequences of terrorist attacks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(42), 10624–10629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldassarri, D. & Abascal, M. (2017). Field experiments across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137(6), 881–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barabas, J. & Jerit, J. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid? American Political Science Review, 104(02), 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N., Cubitt, R., Loomes, , et al. (2010). Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker Bausell, R. & Li, Y.-F. (2002). Power Analysis for Experimental Research: A Practical Guide for the Biological, Medical and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, A., Miller, L., & Ubeda, P. (2016). Moral consequences of becoming unemployed. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4676–4681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, A., Miller, L., & Ubeda, P. (2023). Is the acknowledgment of earned entitlement effect robust across experimental modes and populations? Sociological Methods and Research, 52(1), 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrera, D. (2014). Mechanisms of cooperation. In: Manzo, G., ed., Analytical Sociology, Actions and Networks. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 172–195.Google Scholar
Barrera, D. & Buskens, V. (2007). Imitation and learning under uncertainty: A vignette experiment. International Sociology, 22(3), 366–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrera, D. & Buskens, V. (2009). Third-party effects. In: Cook, K., Snijders, C., Buskens, V., & Cheshire, C., eds., eTrust. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 37–72.Google Scholar
Barrera, D., Buskens, V., & Raub, W. (2015). Embedded trust: The analytical approach in vignettes, laboratory experiments and surveys. In: Lyon, F., Möllering, G., Saunders, M., & Hatzakis, T., eds., Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 251–264.Google Scholar
Barrera, D. & Simpson, B. (2012). Much ado about deception: Consequences of deceiving research participants in the social sciences. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(3), 383–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception: Ethical issues revisited. American Psychologist, 40(2), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumrind, D. (2015). When subjects become objects: The lies behind the Milgram legend. Theory & Psychology, 25(5), 690–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, M. & Opp, K.-D. (2001). Der faktorielle Survey und die Messung von Normen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 53(2), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, C., Kröger, S., & van Soest, A. (2008). Measuring inequity aversion in a heterogeneous population using experimental decisions and subjective probabilities. Econometrica, 76(4), 815–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, M., Duch, R., & Miller, L. (2015). A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 113, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Conner, T. L., & Fişek, M. H. (1974). Expectation States Theory: A Theoretical Research Program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Fişek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1977). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectations States Approach. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential structures, Sociological Theory, 20(2), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B. (1966). Sociological Theories in Progress, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Berger, R. (2015). Das Laborexperiment als sozialer Prozess. In: Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T., eds., Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften, Soziale Welt Sonderband 22. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 58–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, T. C. (2003). Vernon Smith’s insomnia and the dawn of economics as an experimental science. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105(2), 181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betsch, T. & Haberstroh, S. (2001). Financial incentives do not pave the road to good experimentation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 404–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K., Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1985). Testing non-cooperative game theory: A preliminary study. American Economic Review, 75(5), 1178–1180.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bloom, H. S., Bos, J. M., & Lee, S.-W. (1999). Using cluster random assignment to measure program impacts: Statistical implications for the evaluation of education programs. Evaluation Review, 23(4), 445–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blossfeld, H. P. (2017a). Evidence of causation – The contribution of life course research, part I: Dominant models of causal inference and their limitations in life course research. In: Scott, R. A. & Kosslyn, S. M., eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0442.Google Scholar
Blossfeld, H. P. (2017b). Evidence of causation – The contribution of life course research, part II: Causation as generative process. In: Scott, R. A. & Kosslyn, S. M., eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0443.Google Scholar
Bocca, G., Romanò, S., & Barrera, D. (2021). Come stimolare la prosocialità: effetti di incentivi e frame in laboratorio. Polis, 36(2), 271–299.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E. & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boots, D. P., Cochran, J. K., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Capital punishment preferences for special offender populations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(6), 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, S. (2016). The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives Are No Substitute for Good Citizens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. & Polania-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), 368–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A. & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J. & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy vs. the direct-response method: A first review of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14(3), 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brearley, H. C. (1931). Experimental sociology in the United States. Social Forces, 10(2), 196–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, R. (2022). Causal inference with observational data. In: Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D.. & Raub, W., eds., Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (1990). Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Bröder, A. (1998). Deception can be acceptable. American Psychologist, 53(7), 805–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugarolas, P. & Miller, L. (2021). The causal effect of polls on turnout intention: A local randomization regression discontinuity approach. Political Analysis, 29(4), 554–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 182–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burhans, D. T. (1977). Coalition game research: A reexamination. American Journal of Sociology, 79(2), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buskens, V. & Raub, W. (2002). Embedded trust: Control and learning, Advances in Group Processes, 19, 167–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buskens, V. & Raub, W. (2013). Rational choice social research on social dilemmas: Embeddedness effects on trust. In: Wittek, R., Snijders, T. A. B., & Nee, V., eds., Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 113–150.Google Scholar
Buskens, V., Raub, W., & van der Veer, J. (2010). Trust in triads: An experimental study. Social Networks, 32(4), 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buskens, V. & Weesie, J. (2000). An experiment on the effects of embeddedness in trust situations: Buying a used car. Rationality and Society, 12(2), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2015). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. In: Frechette, G. & Schotter, A., eds., Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 249–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., et al. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351, 1433–1436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. In: Trochim, W. M. K., ed., Advances in Quasi-experimental Design and Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 67–77.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. & Russo, M. J. (1999). Social Experimentation, vol. 1. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Campos-Mercade, P., Meier, A. N., Schneider, F. H., et al. (2021). Monetary incentives increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Science, 374(6569), 879–882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caplow, T. (1956). A theory of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 21(4), 489–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplow, T. (1959). Further development of a theory of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Card, D. & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Burks, S., & Verhoogen, E. (2005). Comparing students to workers: The effects of social framing on behavior in distribution games. Research in Experimental Economics, 10, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Connolly, C., & Myers, C. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J. & Huet-Vaughn, E. (2019). Real-effort tasks. In: Schram, A. & Ule, A., eds., Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Experimental Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 368–383.Google Scholar
Carr, L. J. (1929). Experimental sociology: A preliminary note on theory and method. Social Forces, 8(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castilla, E. J., Lan, G. J., & Rissing, B. A. (2013). Social networks and employment: Outcomes (Part 2). Sociology Compass, 7(12), 1013–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattaneo, M. D., Idrobo, N., & Titiunik, R. (2020). A Practical Introduction to Regression Discontinuity Designs: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329, 1194–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centola, D., Willer, R., & Macy, M. W. (2005). The emperor’s dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. American Journal of Sociology, 110(4), 1009–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlin, E. H. (1948). An experimental imperfect market. Journal of Political Economy, 56(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1917a). The experimental method and sociology. The Scientific Monthly, 4(2), 133–144.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1917b). The experimental method and sociology II. The Scientific Monthly, 4(3), 238–247.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1931). The problem of controls in experimental sociology. Journal of Educational Sociology, 4(9), 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1932). The advantages of experimental sociology in the study of family group patterns. Social Forces, 11(2), 200–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1936). Social theory and social action. American Sociological Review, 1(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1938). Design for social experiments. American Sociological Review, 3(6), 786–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1940a). An experiment on the social effects of good housing. American Sociological Review, 5(6), 868–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1940b). A study of social adjustment using the technique of analysis by selective control. Social Forces, 18(4), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1947). Experimental Designs in Sociological Research. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. (1950). Experimental design in sociology: Limitations and abuses. Social Forces, 29(1), 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., Samek, A., & van de Veen, J. (2021). What is considered deception in experimental economics? Experimental Economics, 25(2), 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. & Tam, T. (2020). Uses of artificial and composite treatments in experimental methods: Reconsidering the problem of validity and its implications for stratification research. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 65, 100443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chmielewski, M. & Kucker, S. C. (2019). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, L. (1988). Deception in psychological research: When is its use justified? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(4), 664–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clampet-Lundquist, S. & Massey, D. S. (2008). Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleave, B. L., Nikiforakis, N., & Slonim, R. (2013). Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences. Experimental Economics, 16(3), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology, 91(6), 1309–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comte, A. (1875). The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte. Freely Translated and Condensed by Martineau, Harriet. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Conley, D. & Heerwig, J. (2012). The long-term effects of military conscription on mortality: Estimates from the Vietnam-era draft lottery. Demography, 49(3), 841–855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, K. S. & Cheshire, C. (2013). Social exchange, power, and inequality in networks. In: Wittek, R., Snijders, T. A. B., & Nee, V., eds., The Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences, pp. 185–219.Google Scholar
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., et al. (2013). Social exchange theory. In: DeLamater, J. & Ward, A., eds., Handbook of Social Psychology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 61–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S. & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S. & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S. & Yamagishi, T. (2008). A defense of deception on scientific grounds. Social Psychology Quarterly 71(3), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S., Yamagishi, T., Cheshire, C., et al. (2005). Trust building via risk taking: A cross-societal experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2), 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D., Bean, J. R., Calder, B. J., et al. (1970). Demand characteristics and three conceptions of the frequently deceived subjects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(3),185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Cooper, D. J. (2014). A note on deception in economic experiments. Journal of Wine Economics, 9(2), 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. J. & Kagel, J. H. (2016). Other-regarding preferences: A selective survey of experimental results. In: Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E., eds., The Handbook of Experimental Economics, vol. 2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 217–289.Google Scholar
Coppock, A. (2018). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(3), 1–16.Google Scholar
Coppock, A. & Green, D. P. (2015). Assessing the correspondence between experimental results obtained in the lab and field: A review of recent social science research. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(01), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, A., Leeper, Th., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441–12446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corman, H. & Mocan, N. (2005). Carrots, sticks, and broken windows. The Journal of Law and Economics, 48(1), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corra, M. & Willer, D. (2002). The gatekeeper. Sociological Theory, 20(2), 180–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correll, S. J. & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation states theory. In: Delamater, J., ed., Handbook of Social Psychology. Boston: Springer, pp. 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, V. P. (2002). Introduction to experimental game theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 104(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, S. (2021). Causal Inference: The Mixtape. New Haven, CT & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018). Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. D. & Holt, C. A. (1993). Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, A. P. & Musio, M. (2022). Effects of causes and causes of effects. Annual Review of Statistics and its Application, 9, 261–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A. & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denk, C. E., Benson, J. M., Fletcher, J. C., & Reigel, T. M. (1997). How do Americans want to die? A factorial vignette survey of public attitudes about end-of-life medical decision-making. Social Science Research, 26(1), 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Rooij, E. A., Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2009). Field experiments on political behavior and collective action. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Silva, D. G., McComb, R. P., Moh, Y. K., et al. (2010). The effect of migration on wages: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Economic Review, 100(2), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Souza Briggs, X., Popkin, S. J., & Goering, J. (2010). Moving to Opportunity: The Story of an American Experiment to Fight Ghetto Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. (1985). Volunteer’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(4), 605–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. (1986). Volunteer’s dilemma: A social trap without a dominant strategy and some empirical results. In: Diekmann, A. & Mitter, P., eds., Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior: Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg/Wien: Physica, pp. 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. (1993). Cooperation in an asymmetric volunteer’s dilemma game: Theory and experimental evidence. International Journal of Game Theory, 22, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. (2008). Soziologie und Ökonomie: Der Beitrag experimenteller Wirtschaftsforschung zur Sozialtheorie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 60(3), 528–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. (2022). Rational choice sociology: Heuristic potential, applications and limitation. In: Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D., & Raub, W., eds., Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A., Dittrich, R., Hatzinger, R., et al. (1981). ‘Diktator’. Hypothesen und Design für ein experimentelles Vierpersonenspiel. Arbeitskreis Experimentelle Spiele. Institutsarbeit 150. Wien: Institut für Höhere Studien.Google Scholar
Diekmann, A. & Przepiorka, W. (2016). “Take one for the team!” Individual heterogeneity and the emergence of latent norms in a volunteer’s dilemma. Social Forces, 94(3), 1309–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A., Przepiorka, W., & Rauhut, H. (2015). Lifting the veil of ignorance: An experiment on the contagiousness of norm violations. Rationality and Society, 27(3), 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, A. & Voss, T. (2016). Rational-Choice-Rezeption in der deutschsprachigen Soziologie. In: Moebius, S. & Ploder, A., eds., Handbuch Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Soziologie. Band 1: Geschichte der Soziologie im deutschsprachigen Raum. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 663–682.Google Scholar
Di Stasio, V. & Gërxhani, K. (2015). Employers’ social contacts and their hiring behavior in a factorial survey. Social Science Research, 51(1), 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, S. C. (1934). A Controlled Experiment on Rural Hygiene in Syria. Beirut: Publications of the American University in Beirut.Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., et al. (2011). Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9(3), 522–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychology approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31(4), 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dülmer, H. (2007). Experimental plans in factorial surveys: Random or quota design? Sociological Methods & Research, 35(3), 382–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences. A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1982 [1895]). The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duvendack, M, Palmer-Jones, R., & Reed, W. R. (2017). What is meant by “replication” and why does it encounter resistance in economics? American Economic Review, 107(5), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eifler, S. (2010). Validity of a factorial survey approach to the analysis of criminal behavior. Methodology, 6(3), 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eifler, S. & Petzold, K. (2019). Validity aspects of vignette experiments. Expected ‘what-if’ differences between reported and actual behavior. In: Lavrakas, P. J., Traugott, M. W., Kennedy, C., et al., eds., Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. (2007). Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 9(1), 217–241.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1964). Power-dependence relations: Two experiments. Sociometry, 27(3), 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1972a). Exchange theory, part I: A psychological basis for social exchange. In: Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B., eds., Sociological Theories in Progress, vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 38–57.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1972b). Exchange theory, part II: Exchange relations and networks. In: Berger, J., Zelditch, M. Jr., & Anderson, B., eds., Sociological Theories in Progress, vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 58–87.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R. S., & Stoker, L. (2011). Caught in the draft: The effects of Vietnam draft lottery status on political attitudes.” American Political Science Review, 105(2), 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, K., Strimling, P., Gelfand, M., et al. (2021). Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nature Communication, 12, 1481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esser, H. (1993). The rationality of everyday behavior. A rational choice reconstruction of the theory of action by Alfred Schütz. Rationality and Society, 5(1), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esser, H. & Kroneberg, C. (2015). An integrative theory of action: The model of frame selection. In: Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J., eds., Order on the Edge of Chaos: Social Psychology and the Problem of Social Order. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exadaktylos, F., Espín, A. M., & Brañas-Garza, P. (2013). Experimental subjects are not different. Scientific Reports, 3, 1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faas, T. & Huber, S. (2010). Experimente in der Politikwissenschaft: Vom Mauerblümchen zum Mainstream. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 51(4), 721–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global evidence on economic preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2008). Testing theories of fairness: Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. & Heckman, J. J. (2009). Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science, 326(5952), 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Meier, S., & Zehnder, C. (2013). Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(4), 839–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. & Gintis, H. (2007). Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillenbaum, S. (1966). Prior deception and subsequent experimental performance: The “faithful” subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(5), 532–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, B. A. IV (2006). A summary of important documents in the field of research ethics. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A. & Pointner, S. (2012). Anonymity in the dictator game revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A. & Pointner, S. (2013). The external validity of giving in the dictator game: A field experiment using the misdirected letter technique. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréchette, G. R. (2012). Session-effects in the laboratory. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 485–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréchette, G. R. (2015). Laboratory experiments: Professionals versus students. In: Fréchette, G. & Schotter, A., eds. Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 360–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freese, J. & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, D. (2006). Advancing beyond advances in behavioral economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 44(3), 694–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddis, S. M. (2018). An introduction to audit studies in the social sciences. In: Gaddis, S. M., ed., Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galizzi, M. & Navarro-Martinez, D. (2018). On the external validity of social preference games: A systematic lab-field study. Management Science, 65(3), 976–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallop, M. & Weschle, S. (2019). Assessing the impact of non-random measurement error on inference: A sensitivity analysis approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(2), 367–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, W. A. (1961a). An experimental test of a theory of coalition formation. American Sociological Review, 26(4), 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, W. A. (1961b). A theory of coalition formation. American Sociological Review, 26(3), 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangl, M. (2010). Causal inference in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaw, A. (2014). Reality and revisionism: New evidence for Andrew C Ivy’s claim to authorship of the Nuremberg Code. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(4), 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gerring, J. (2001). Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertler, P. J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B., & Vermeersch, C. M. (2011). Impact Evaluation in Practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Gërxhani, K. (2020). Status ranking and gender inequality: A cross-country experimental comparison. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 65, 100474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K., Brandts, J., & Schram, A. (2023). Competition and gender inequality: A comprehensive analysis of effects and mechanisms. American Journal of Sociology, 129(3), 715–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D., & Raub, W., eds. (2022). Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K. & Kosyakova, Y. (2022). The effect of co-ethnic social capital on immigrants’ labor market integration: A natural experiment. Comparative Migration Studies, 10(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K. & Miller, L. (2022). Experimental sociology. In: Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D., & Raub, W., eds., Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K. & Schram, A. (2006). Tax evasion and income source: A comparative experimental study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27(3), 402–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gërxhani, K., Volker, B., & van Breemen, J. (2021). Who will do it? Volunteering to change cooperation rules in a heterogeneous population. European Sociological Review, 37(3), 482–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, G. (1991). Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gil-White, F. J. (2001). A good experiment of choice behavior is a good caricature of a real situation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 409–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gintis, H. (2014). The Bounds of Reason. Game Theory and the Unification of the Social Sciences, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U. & List, J. (2013). The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life. New York: Public Affairs Books.Google Scholar
Gneezy, U., Niederle, M., & Rustichini, A. (2003). Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 1049–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000a). A fine is a price. The Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, U. & Rustichini, A. (2000b). Pay enough or don’t pay at all, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, S. & Macy, M. (2014). Digital footprints: Opportunities and challenges for online social research. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2001). Causation, statistics, and sociology. European Sociological Review, 17(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González, L. (2013). The effect of a universal child benefit on conceptions, abortions, and early maternal labor supply. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(3), 160–188.Google Scholar
Gosnell, H. F. (1927). Getting out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, P. E. & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement-for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 355–363.Google Scholar
Greenberg, D. & Shroder, M. (2004). The Digest of Social Experiments, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use. Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, E. (1945). Experimental Sociology: A Study in Method. New York: King’s Crown Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. (2005). The Methodology of Experimental Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. (2006). Paradigmatic experiments: The ultimatum game from testing to measurement device. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 658–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guala, F. (2012). Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(1), 1–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Güth, W. & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Pietrantuono, G. (2017). Catalyst or crown: Does naturalization promote the long-term social integration of immigrants? American Political Science Review, 111(2), 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Validating vignette and conjoint survey experiments against real-world behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(8), 2395–2400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halaby, Charles N. (2004). Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F., Cook, J. L., & Bird, G. (2017). The structure of social cognition: In(ter)dependence of sociocognitive processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harcourt, B. E. & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 271–320.Google Scholar
Harrison, G. W. & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. J. & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the Social: On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedström, P. & Bearman, P., eds. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Analytical Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R., eds., Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., et al. (2004). Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Science, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hersch, G. (2015). Experimental economics’ inconsistent ban on deception. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 52, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R. & Ortmann, A. (2001a). Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 383–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hertwig, R. & Ortmann, A. (2001b). Money, lies, and replicability: On the need for empirically grounded experimental practices and interdisciplinary discourse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertwig, R. & Ortmann, A. (2008). Deception in experiments: Revisiting the argument in its defense. Ethics and Behavior, 18(1), 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J. D. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(3), 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hikichi, H., Sawada, Y., Tsuboya, T., et al. (2017). Residential relocation and change in social capital: A natural experiment from the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hilton, D. J. (2001). Is the challenge for psychologists to return to behaviourism? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 415–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogarth, R. M. (2005). The challenge of representative design in psychology and economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 18, 449–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, C. (2003). The internal enforcement of norms. European Sociological Review, 19(4), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, C. & Mollborn, S. (2020). Norms: An integrated framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 46, 467–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummell, H. J. (1972a). Zur Problematik der Ableitung in sozialwissenschaftlichen Aussagesystemen. Ein Plädoyer for Formalisierung (Teil 1). Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1(1), 31–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummell, H. J. (1972b). Zur Problematik der Ableitung in sozialwissenschaftlichen Aussagesystemen. Ein Plädoyer for Formalisierung (Teil 2). Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 1(2), 118–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. & Cox, D. R. (2013). The principles of experimental design and their application in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamison, J., Karlan, D., & Schechter, L. (2008). To deceive or not to deceive: The effects of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3), 477–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankovic, M. & Ludwig, K., eds. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jann, B. & Przepiorka, W., eds. (2017). Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation. München: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasso, G. (2006). Factorial survey methods for studying beliefs and judgments. Sociological Methods & Research, 34(3), 334–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasso, G. & Opp, K.-D. (1997). Probing the character of norms: A factorial survey analysis of the norms of political action. American Sociological Review, 62(6), 947–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasso, G. & Rossi, P. H. (1977). Distributive justice and earned income. American Sociological Review, 42(4), 639–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimenez-Buedo, M. & Miller, L. (2010). Why a trade-off? The relationship between the internal and external validity of experiments. Theoria, 18(3), 271–282.Google Scholar
Jones, Stephen R. G. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne effect? American Journal of Sociology, 98(3), 451–468.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalkhoff, W. & Thye, S. R. (2006). Expectation states theory and research: New observations from meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 35(2), 219–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalwitzki, T., Kittel, B., Luhan, W., & Peuker, B. (2015). Strategische Wort-Wahl in der Politik: Ein qualitativer Ansatz zur Analyse experimenteller Gremienwahlen. In: Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., & Linhart, E., eds., Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie, Band 9: Deliberation und Aggregation. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalwitzki, T., Luhan, W. J., & Kittel, B. (2012). Experimental chats: Opening the black box of group experiments. In: Kittel, B., Luhan, W. J., & Morton, R. B., eds., Experimental Political Science: Principles and Practices. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 178–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karagözoglu, E. & Urhan, Ü. B. (2016). The effect of stake size in experimental bargaining and distribution games: A survey. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(2), 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keele, L. J. & Titiunik, R. (2015). Geographic boundaries as regression discontinuities. Political Analysis, 23(1), 127–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322 (5908), 1681–1685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2014). Doing field studies. What is it all about? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17(3), 404–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelling, G. L. & Sousa, W. H. (2001). Do Police Matter? An Analysis of the Impact of New York City’s Police Reforms. CCI Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.Google Scholar
Kennedy, R., Clifford, S., Burleigh, T., et al. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(4), 614–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, N. L. & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T. (2015a). Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 22. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T. (2015b). Disorder, social capital, and norm violation: Three field experiments on the broken windows thesis. Rationality & Society, 27(1), 96–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, O. & Walker, M. (1984). The free rider problem: Experimental evidence. Public Choice, 43(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmel, A. J. (1998). In defense of deception. American Psychologist, 53(7), 803–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, D. S. (2009). A natural experiment on residential change and recidivism: Lessons from hurricane Katrina. American Sociological Review, 74(3), 484–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, D. S. (2015). Geographic concentration of former prisoners. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(22), 6943–6948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kittel, B. (2006). A crazy methodology? On the limits of macroquantitative social science research. International Sociology, 21(5), 647–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittel, B. (2015). Experimente in der Wirtschaftssoziologie: Ein Widerspruch? In: Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T., eds., Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften, Soziale Welt, Sonderband 22. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 79–104.Google Scholar
Kittel, B. & Marcinkiewicz, K. (2012). Voting behavior and political institutions: An overview of challenging questions in theory and experimental research. In: Kittel, B., Luhan, W. J., & Morton, R. B., eds., Experimental Political Science: Principles and Practices. London: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 17–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasnja, M. & Titiunik, R. (2017). The incumbency curse: Weak parties, term limits, and unfulfilled accountability. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, J. H. (1997). Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Krasnow, M. M., Howard, R. M., & Eisenbruch, A. B. (2020). The importance of being honest? Evidence that deception may not pollute social science subject pools after all. Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1175–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krawczyk, M. (2019). What should be regarded as deception in experimental economics? Evidence from a survey of researchers and subjects. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 79, 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroher, M. & Wolbring, T. (2015). Social control, social learning, and cheating. Evidence from lab and online experiments on dishonesty. Social Science Research, 53, 311–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroneberg, C. & Kalter, F. (2012). Rational choice theory and empirical research: Methodological and theoretical contributions in Europe. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2014). The measurement of attitudes. In: Albarracín, D. & Johnson, B. T., eds., The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles. New York: Routledge, pp. 45–105.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, W. F., Tobias, R. D., & Garratt, M. (1994). Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larney, A., Rotella, A., & Barclay, P. (2019). Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavrakas, P. J., Traugott, M. W., Kennedy, C., et al. (2019). Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques That Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Menzel, H. (1961). On the relationship between individual and collective properties. In: Etzioni, A., ed., Complex Organizations: A Sociological Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 499–516.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods: A survey of experimental research. In: Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E., eds., The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 253–348.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, P. & Merrigan, P. (2008). Child-care policy and the labor supply of mothers with young children: A natural experiment from Canada. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(3), 519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legewie, J. (2013). Terrorist events and attitudes toward immigrants: A natural experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 118(5), 1199–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. (2004). Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: Four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. (2007). Viewpoint: On the generalizability of lab behaviour to the field. Canadian Journal of Economics, 40(2), 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. (2009). Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future. European Economic Review, 53(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S. D. & List, J. A. (2011). Was there really a Hawthorne effect at the Hawthorne plant? An analysis of the original illumination experiments. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 224–38.Google Scholar
Lewis, P. D. & Willer, D. (2017). Does social value orientation theory apply to social relations? Sociological Science, 3, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1175–1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebe, U., Gewinner, J., & Diekmann, A. (2021). Large and persistent effects of green energy defaults in the household and business sectors. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 576–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebe, U. & Meyerhoff, J. (2021). Mapping potentials and challenges of choice modelling for social science research. Journal of Choice Modelling, 38, 100270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, G. (2010). Die Emergenzfunktion des Dritten – Ihre Bedeutung für die Analyse der Ordnung einer funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 39(6), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1977). The direction of ordering and its relation to social phenomena. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 6(2), 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1997). Grounding groups in theory: Functional, cognitive, and structural interdependencies. Advances in Group Processes, 14, 281–331.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (2013). Social rationality, self-regulation, and well-being: The regulatory significance of needs, goals, and the self. In: Nee, V., Wittek, R., & Snijders, T. A. B., eds., The Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 72–112.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (2015). The sociology of groups. In: Wright, J. D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 434–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, R. J. & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Bayes and multiple imputation. In: Little, R. J. & Rubin, D. B., eds., Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, D. (1964). Social integration and system integration. In: Zollschan, G. K. & Hirsch, W., eds., Social Change: Explorations, Diagnosis and Conjectures. London: Routledge & Paul, pp. 244–257.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G. (1999). Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. The Economic Journal, 109(453), F25–F34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9020–9025.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovaglia, M. J., Lucas, J. W., & Thye, S. R. (1998). Status processes and mental ability test scores. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 195–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhan, W. J., Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2009). Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Experimental Economics, 12(1), 26–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M. W. & Sell, J. (1979). The role of the experiment in the social sciences. Sociological Quarterly, 20(4), 581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G. & Ames, R. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods. I. Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84(6), 1335–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G. & Ames, R. A. (1980). Experiments on the provision of public goods. II. Provision points, stakes, experience, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 926–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G. & Oliver, P. (1993). The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, S. E. & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
McDaniel, T. & Starmer, C. (1998). Experimental economics and deception: A comment. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19(3), 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeker, B. F. & Leik, R. K. (2007). Experimentation in sociological social psychology. In Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. London: Elsevier, pp. 630–649.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M. & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Mills, T. M. (1954). The coalition pattern in three person groups. American Sociological Review, 19(6), 657–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mize, T. D. & Manago, B. (2022). The past, present, and future of experimental methods in the social sciences. Social Science Research, 108, 102799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molm, L. D. (2010). The structure of reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, L. D. (2014). Experiments on exchange relations and exchange networks in sociology. In Webster, M. Jr. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, L. D., Collett, J. L., & Schaefer, D. R. (2007). Building solidarity through generalized exchange: A theory of reciprocity. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 205–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molm, L. D. & Cook, K. S. (1995). Social exchange and exchange networks. In: Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., & House, J., eds., Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 209–235.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. L. & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Methods and Principles for Social Research, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morton, R. B. & Williams, K. C. (2010). Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality. From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouw, T. (2006). Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public Choice III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, Th., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2016). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(02), 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munger, K. (2016). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39, 629–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, J., Falcó-Gimeno, A., & Hernández, E. (2020). Unexpected event during survey design: Promise and pitfalls for causal inference. Political Analysis, 28(2), 186–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. O. & Ackermann, K. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 85(5), 1313–1326.Google Scholar
Neuhofer, S. (2021). Let’s chat about justice in a fair distribution experiment. FOR2104 Working Paper 2021-03.Google Scholar
Neuhofer, S., Reindl, I., & Kittel, B. (2015). Social exchange networks: A review of experimental studies. Connections, 35(2), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, T., Kierspel, S., Windrich, I., Berger, R., & Vogt, B. (2018). How to split gains and losses? Experimental evidence of dictator and ultimatum games. Games, 9(4), 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M. (2015). Intelligent design: The relationship between economic theory and experiments: Treatment-driven experiments. In: Fréchette, G. R. & Schotter, A., eds., Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1067–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niza, C., Tung, B., & Marteau, T. M. (2013). Incentivizing blood donation: Systematic review and meta-analysis to test Titmuss’ hypotheses. Health Psychology, 32(9), 941.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A. & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nullmeier, F. & Pritzlaff, T. (2010). The implicit normativity of political practices. Analyzing the dynamics and power relations of committee decision making. Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, A. (1998). Experimentation and social interventions: A forgotten but important history. British Medical Journal, 317(7167), 1239–1242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ofshe, R. & Ofshe, S. L. (1970). Choice behavior in coalition games. Behavioral Science, 15(4), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, P. E. (1980). Selective incentives in an apex game: An experiment in coalition formation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, P. E. (1984). Rewards and punishments as selective incentives: An apex game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(1), 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opp, K.-D. (1970). Methodologie der Sozialwissenschaften: Einführung in Probleme ihrer Theorienbildung. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Opp, K.-D. (2002). When do norms emerge by human design and when by the unintended consequences of human action? The example of the no-smoking norm. Rationality and Society, 14(2), 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opp, K.-D. (2015). Norms. In: Wright, J. D., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, A. (2019). Deception. In: Schram, A. & Ule, A., eds., Handbook of Research Methods and Applications in Experimental Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 28–38.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Walker, J., & Gardner, R. (1992). Covenants with and without a sword: Self-governance is possible. American Political Science Review, 86(2), 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pager, D., Bonikowski, B., & Western, B. (2009). Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 777–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, T. R. (2009). Laboratory experiments in political economy. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. & Shils, E. (1951). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, J. & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Persson, T. & Tabellini, G. E. (2000). Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Petzold, K. & Wolbring, T. (2019). What can we learn from factorial surveys about human behavior? A validation study comparing field and survey experiments on discrimination. Methodology, 15(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phan, T. Q. & Airoldi, E. M. (2015). Social network formation and dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (21), 6595–6600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Przepiorka, W. & Diekmann, A. (2013). Temporal embeddedness and signals of trustworthiness: Experimental tests of a game theoretic model in the United Kingdom, Russia, and Switzerland. European Sociological Review, 29(5), 1010–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raub, W. (2017). Rational Models. Expanded Version of Farewell Lecture as Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Utrecht University. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Raub, W., de Graaf, N. D., & Gërxhani, K. (2022). Rigorous sociology. In: Gërxhani, K., de Graaf, N. D., & Raub, W., eds., Handbook of Sociological Science: Contributions to Rigorous Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 2–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raub, W. & Keren, G. (1993). Hostages as a commitment device: A game-theoretic model and an empirical test of some scenarios. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 21(1), 43–67.Google Scholar
Raub, W. & Voss, T. (1986). Conditions for cooperation in problematic social situations. In: Diekmann, A. & Mitter, P., eds., Paradoxical Effects of Social Behavior. Essays in Honor of Anatol Rapoport. Heidelberg/Wien: Physica, pp. 85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raub, W. & Voss, T. (2017). Micro-macro models in sociology: Antecedents of Coleman’s diagram. In: Jann, B. & Przepiorka, W., eds., Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raub, W. & Weesie, J. (1993). The management of matches: Decentralized mechanisms for cooperative relations with applications to organizations and households. ISCORE Papers 1. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Rauhut, H. (2013). Beliefs about lying and spreading of dishonesty: Undetected lies and their constructive and destructive social dynamics in dice experiments. PLoS ONE, 8(11), e77878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauhut, H. & Winter, F. (2010). A sociological perspective on measuring social norms by means of strategy method experiments. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1181–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7(6), 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dul, V., Bartlett, K., & Brewer, M. B. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reindl, I., Hoffmann, R., & Kittel, B. (2019) Let the others do the job: Comparing public good contribution behavior in the lab and in the field. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 81, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieken, H. W. & Boruch, R. F. (1978). Social experiments. Annual Review of Sociology, 4, 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the Worker. Oxford: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Romanò, S. & Barrera, D. (2021). The impact of market-oriented reforms on inequality in transitional countries: New evidence from Cuba. Socio-Economic Review, 19(2), 765–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Fode, K. L. (1963). The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science, 8(3), 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roskin, M. G. (2020). Political science. www.britannica.com/topic/political-science, Accessed 1 May 2021.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H. (1979). Vignette analysis: Uncovering the normative structure of complex judgments. In: Merton, R. K., Coleman, J., & Rossi, P. H., eds., Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research. Papers in Honor of Paul F. Lazarsfeld. New York: Free Press, pp. 176–185.Google Scholar
Roth, A. E. (1995). Introduction to experimental economics. In: Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E., eds., The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 3–109.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1980). Randomization analysis of experimental data: The Fisher randomization test. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(371), 591–593.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. J. (2018). Bit by Bit: Social Research in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311, 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, R. J. (2008). Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 189–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, C., Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2020). Designing multi-factorial survey experiments: Effects of presentation style (text or table), answering scales, and vignette order. mda: methods, data, analyses, 14(2), 195–214.Google Scholar
Sauermann, H. & Selten, R. (1959). Ein Oligopolexperiment. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 115(3), 427–471.Google Scholar
Schram, A. (2005). Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2), 225–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schram, A., Brandts, J., & Gërxhani, K. (2019). Status ranking: A hidden channel to gender inequality under competition. Experimental Economics, 22(2), 396–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A. (1967 [1932]). The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schwaninger, M., Neuhofer, S., & Kittel, B. (2019). Offers beyond the negotiating dyad: Including the excluded in a network exchange experiment. Social Science Research, 79, 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. T., Matland, R. E., Michelbach, P. A., & Bornstein, B. H. (2001). Just deserts: An experimental study of distributive justice norms. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 749–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for General Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Shamon, H., Dülmer, H., & Giza, A. (2022). The factorial survey: The impact of the presentation format of vignettes on answer behavior and processing time. Sociological Methods & Research, 51(1), 396–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, J. B., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Co-operation: The Robber’s Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.Google Scholar
Shikano, S., Bräuninger, T., & Stoffel, M (2012). Statistical analysis of experimental data. In: Kittel, B., Luhan, W. J., & Morton, R. B., eds., Experimental Political Science: Principles and Practices, Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, pp. 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B., McGrimmon, T., & Irwin, K. (2007). Are blacks really less trusting than whites? Revisiting the race and trust question. Social Forces, 86(2), 525–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B. & Willer, D. (2015). Beyond altruism: Sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, B., Willer, D., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Status hierarchies and the organization of collective action. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. (1962). An experimental study of competitive market behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 70(2), 111–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274–279.Google Scholar
Snowberg, E. & Yariv, L. (2021). Testing the waters: Behavior across participant pools. American Economic Review, 111(2), 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorokin, P. A. (1928a). Arbeitsleistung und Entlohnung. Kölner Vierteljahresschrift für Soziologie, 7(2), 186–198.Google Scholar
Sorokin, P. A. (1928b). Experimente zur Soziologie. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Soziologie, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Sorokin, P. A. (1936). Is accurate social planning possible? American Sociological Review, 1(1), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorokin, P. A, Tanquist, M., Parten, M., et al. (1930). An experimental study of efficiency of work under various specified conditions. American Journal of Sociology, 35(5), 765–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spadaro, G., Graf, C., Jin, S., et al. (2022a). Cross-cultural variation in cooperation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(5), 1024–1088.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spadaro, G., Tiddi, I., Columbus, S., et al. (2022b). The Cooperation Databank: Machine-readable science accelerates research synthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(5), 1472–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spears, R. (2021). Social influence and group identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahl, D. O. & Haruvy, E. (2008). Subgame perfection in ultimatum bargaining trees. Games and Economic Behavior, 63(1), 292–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang, D. J. (1976). Ineffective deception in conformity research: Some causes and consequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6(3), 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasser, G. & Abele, S. (2020). Collective choice, collaboration, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 589–612.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strodtbeck, F. L. (1954). The family as a three-person group. American Sociological Review, 19(1), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suleiman, R. (2001). Different perspectives of human behavior entail different experimental practices. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 429–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, A. (2020). The legitimacy of groups: Toward a we-reasoning view. Analyse & Kritik, 42(2), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taves, M. (1953). An experimental design to preserve randomization in social experiments. American Sociological Review, 18(1), 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teele, D. L., ed. (2014). Field Experiments and Their Critics: Essays on the Uses and Abuses of Experimentation in the Social Sciences. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36(6), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Thistlewaite, D. L. & Campbell, D. T. (1960). Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative to the ex post facto experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(6), 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. I. & Thomas, D. D. S. (1928). The Child in America: Behavior, Problems and Programs. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Thye, S. (2000). Reliability in experimental sociology. Social Forces 78(4), 1277–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thye, S. (2014). Logical and philosophical foundations of experimental research in the social sciences. In: Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. London: Elsevier, pp. 53–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titiunik, R. (2021). Natural experiments. In: Druckman, J. & Green, D., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titmuss, R. (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Traub, S., Schwaninger, M., Paetzel, F., & Neuhofer, S. (2023). Evidence on need-sensitive giving behavior: An experimental approach to the acknowledgment of needs. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 105, 102028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treischl, E. & Wolbring, T. (2022). The past, present and future of factorial survey experiments: A review for the social sciences. mda: methods, data, analyses, 16(2), 141–170.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2017). Non-reductive views of shared intention. In: Jankovic, M. & Ludwig, K., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality. London: Routledge, pp. 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 21(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. & Amodio, D. M. (2015). Psychology and economics: Areas of convergence and difference. In: Fréchette, G. R. & Schotter, A., eds., Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Rijt, A., Kang, S. M., Restivo, M., & Patil, A. (2014). Field experiments of success-breeds-success dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(19), 6934–6939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lange, P. A. M., Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2013). Social Dilemmas: Understanding Human Cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vinacke, W. E. & Arkoff, A. (1957). An experimental study of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 22(4), 406–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogt, S., Zaid, N. A. M., Ahmed, H. E. F., Fehr, E., & Efferson, C. (2016). Changing cultural attitudes on female genital cutting. Nature, 538(7726), 506–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wagstaff, G. F., Huggins, J. P., & Perfect, T. J. (1993). Equity, equality, and need in the adult family. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(4), 439–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallander, L. (2009). 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research, 38(3), 505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, E., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R., & Sechrest, L., eds. (2000 [1965]). Unobtrusive Measures, rev. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. (1978 [1921/22]). Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Webster, M. Jr. & Sell, J., eds. (2014a). Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Webster, M. Jr. & Sell, J. (2014b). Why do experiments? In: Webster, M. Jr. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimann, J. & Brosig-Koch, J. (2019). Methods in Experimental Economics. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, J., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1(19), 292–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weindling, P. (2001). The origins of informed consent: The international scientific commission on medical war crimes, and the Nuremberg Code. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 75(1), 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, D. J. (2001). Deception by researchers is necessary and not necessarily evil. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(3), 431–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicherts, J. M. & Bakker, M. (2014). Broken windows, mediocre methods, and substandard statistics. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17(3), 388–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, D. (1967). Scientific Sociology: Theory and Method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Willer, D. (1992). A comment on developed theory and theory development. Sociological Theory, 10(1), 106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, D. & Emanuelson, P. (2008). Testing ten theories. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 32(3), 165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, D., Emanuelson, P., Lovaglia, , et al. (2014). Elementary Theory: 25 years of expanding scope and increasing precision. In: Thye, S. R. & Lawler, E. J., eds., Advances in Group Processes, vol. 31. Bingley, UK: Emerald, pp. 175–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, D., Gladstone, E., & Berigan, N. (2013). Social values and social structure. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 37(2), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, D. & Walker, A. (2007). Building Experiments. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, R. Kuwabara, K., & Macy, M. (2009). The false enforcement of unpopular norms. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 451–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, R. H. & Willis, Y. A. (1970). Role playing versus deception: An experimental comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(3), 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 127(2), 29–38.Google Scholar
Winter, F., Rauhut, H., & Helbing, D. (2012). How norms can generate conflict: An experiment on the failure of cooperative micro-motives on the macro-level. Social Forces, 90(3), 919–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolbring, T. & Keuschnigg, M. (2015). Feldexperimente in den Sozialwissenschaften. Grundlagen, Herausforderungen, Beispiele. In: Keuschnigg, M. & Wolbring, T., eds. Experimente in den Sozialwissenschaften, Soziale Welt Sonderband 22. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 219–245.Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S., & Watabe, M. (1998). Uncertainty, trust, and commitment formation in the United States and Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 165–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, J., Thye, S. R., & Lawler, E. J. (2013). Exchange and cohesion in dyads and triads: A test of Simmel’s hypothesis. Social Science Research, 42, 1457–1466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M. (2014a). Thirty years of advances in group processes: A review essay. In: Thye, S. & Lawler, E. J., eds., Advances in Group Processes: 30th Anniversary Edition, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. (2014b). Laboratory experiments in sociology. In: Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds., Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 517–531.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. (2014c). The external validity of experiments that test theories. In: Webster, M. & Sell, J., eds. Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar