References

James N. Druckman

doi:10.1017/9781108991353.008

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 May 2022

James N. Druckman

Show author details

James N. Druckman: Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois

Book contents

Get access

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.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Experimental Thinking
A Primer on Social Science Experiments
, pp. 169 - 200

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108991353.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

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

References

Aczel, Balazs, Barnabas, Szaszi, Alexandra, Sarafoglou, et al. 2020. “A Consensus-Based Transparency Checklist.” Nature Human Behaviour 4: 4–6.Google Scholar

Alferes, Valentim R. 2012. Methods of Randomization in Experimental Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRef Google Scholar

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Al-Ubaydli, Omar, Lee, Min Sok, List, John A., Mackevicius, Claire L., and Dana, Suskind. 2021. “How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? Twelve Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling.” Behavioural Public Policy 5: 2–49.Google Scholar

Al-Ubaydli, Omar, List, John A., and Suskind, Dana L.. 2017. “What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results.” American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 107: 282–286.CrossRef Google Scholar

Al-Ubaydli, Omar, List, John A., and Suskind, Dana. 2020. “The Science of Using Science: Towards an Understanding of the Threats to Scalability.” International Economic Review 61: 1387–1409.Google Scholar

American Political Science Association (APSA). 2012. A Guide to Professional Ethics in Political Science. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar

Anderson, Christopher J., Štěpán, Bahník, Michael, Barnett-Cowan, Bosco, Frank A., et al. 2016. “Response to Comment on ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.’” Science 351: 1037-c.Google Scholar

Anderson, Richard G. 2013. “Registration and Replication: A Comment.” Political Analysis 21: 38–39.Google Scholar

Andrews, Isaiah, and Maximilian, Kasy. 2019. “Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias.” American Economic Review 109: 2766–2794.Google Scholar

Angrist, Joshua D. 1990. “Lifetime Earnings and the Vietnam Era Draft Lottery: Evidence from Social Security Administrative Records.” American Economic Review 80: 313–336.Google Scholar

Angrist, Joshua D., Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 444–455.Google Scholar

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Jonathan, Rodden, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102: 215–232.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto, Iyengar, Adam, Simon, and Nicholas, Valentino. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88: 829–838.Google Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin, Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2006. “Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment.” Political Analysis 14: 37–62.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arceneaux, Kevin, and Martin, Johnson. 2013. Changing Minds or Changing Channels? Partisan News in Age of Choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Arechar, Antonio A., and Rand, David G.. 2021. “Turking in the Time of COVID.” Behavior Research Methods, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01588-4.Google Scholar

Arechar, Antonio A., Kraft-Todd, Gordon T., and Rand, David G.. 2017. “Turking Overtime: How Participant Characteristics and Behavior Vary Over Time and Day on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Journal of the Economic Science Association 3: 1–11.Google Scholar

Aronow, Peter M., Josh, Kalla, Lilla, Orr, and John, Ternovski. 2020. “Evidence of Rising Rates of Inattentiveness on Lucid in 2020.” Working paper, Yale University.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aronson, Elliot, Brewer, Marilynn B., and Carlsmith, J. Merill. 1985. “Experimentation in Social Psychology.” In Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Aronson, Elliot, and Merill Carlsmith, J.. 1968. “Experimentation in Social Psychology.” In Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Aronson, Elliot, Wilson, Timothy D., and Brewer, Marilynn B.. 1998. “Experimentation in Social Psychology.” In Gilbert, Daniel T., Fiske, Susan T., and Lindzey, Gardner, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Asch, Solomon E. 1956. “Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70: 1–70.Google Scholar

Baker, Monya, 2016. “Is There a Reproducibility Crisis?” Nature 533: 452–455.Google Scholar

Bandiera, Oriana, Prat, Andrea, and Valletti, Tommaso. 2009. “Active and Passive Waste in Government Spending: Evidence from a Policy Experiment.” American Economic Review 99: 1278–1308.Google Scholar

Banerjee, Abhijit V., and Duflo, Esther. 2009. “The Experimental Approach to Development Economics.” Annual Review of Economics 1: 151–178.Google Scholar

Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2021. “Conjoint Survey Experiments.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review 104: 226–242.Google Scholar

Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–1182.Google Scholar

Bassi, Anna. 2020. “Experiments.” In Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, Badie, Bertrand, and Morlino, Leonardo, eds., The SAGE Handbook of Political Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Bayes, Robin, Druckman, James N., Goods, Avery, and Molden, Daniel C.. 2020. “When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning.” Political Psychology 41: 1031–1052.Google Scholar

Beath, Andrew, Christia, Fotini, and Enikolopov, Ruben. 2013. “Empowering Women through Development Aid: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan.” American Political Science Review 107: 540–557.Google Scholar

Beatty, Paul C., and Willis, Gordon B.. 2007. “Research Synthesis: The Practice of Cognitive Interviewing.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71: 287–311.Google Scholar

Bechtel, Michael M., and Scheve, Kenneth F.. 2013. “Mass Support for Global Climate Agreements Depends on Institutional Design.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110: 13763–13768.Google Scholar

Belli, Robert F., Moore, Sean E., and VanHoewyk, John. 2006. “An Experimental Comparison of Question Forms Used to Reduce Vote Overreporting.” Electoral Studies 25: 751–759.Google Scholar

Ben-Akiva, Moshe, McFadden, Daniel, and Train, Kenneth. 2019. “Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis.” Foundations and Trends® in Econometrics 10: 1–144.Google Scholar

Benjamin, Daniel J., Berger, James O., Johannesson, Magnus, et al. 2018. “Redefine Statistical Significance.” Nature Human Behavior 2: 6–10.Google Scholar

Berent, Matthew K., Krosnick, Jon A., and Lupia, Arthur. 2016. “Measuring Voter Registration and Turnout in Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80: 597–621.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bergan, Daniel E., and Cole, Richard T.. 2015. “Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting.” Political Behavior 37: 27–42.Google Scholar

Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20: 351–368.Google Scholar

Berinsky, Adam J., Druckman, James N., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2021. “Publication Biases in Replication Studies.” Political Analysis 29: 370–384.Google Scholar

Berinsky, Adam J., Margolis, Michele F., and Sances, Michael W.. 2014. “Separating the Shirkers from the Workers? Making Sure Respondents Pay Attention on Self‐Administered Surveys.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 739–753.Google Scholar

Berkowitz, Leonard, and Donnerstein, Edward. 1982. “External Validity Is More than Skin Deep: Some Answers to Criticisms of Laboratory Experiments.” American Psychologist 37: 245–257.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bethlehem, Jelke, and Callegaro, Mario. 2014. “Introduction to Part IV: Weighting Adjustments.” In Callegaro, Mario, Baker, Reg, Bethlehem, Jelke, et al., eds. Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Biemer, Paul P. 2010. “Total Survey Error: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 817–848.Google Scholar

Bigler, Rebecca S., and Hughes, Julie Milligan. 2010. “Reasons for Skepticism about the Efficacy of Simulated Social Contact Interventions.” American Psychologist 65: 132–133.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bilgen, Ipek, Michael Dennis, J., and Ganesh, Nadarajasundaram. 2018. “Measuring the Undercounted in Policy Attitude Surveys: Probability-Based Panel Recruitment Nonresponse Follow-Up Impact on Sample Composition and Outcome Measures.” Working paper, NORC at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Bisgaard, Martin. 2019. “How Getting the Facts Right Can Fuel Partisan-Motivated Reasoning.” American Journal of Political Science 63: 824–839.Google Scholar

Blair, Edward, and Blair, Johnny. 2015. Applied Survey Sampling. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Blair, Graeme, Coppock, Alexander, and Moor, Margaret. 2020. “When to Worry about Sensitivity Bias: Evidence from 30 Years of List Experiments.” American Political Science Review 114: 1297–1315.Google Scholar

Blair, Graeme, and McClendon, Gwyneth. 2021. “Conducting Experiments in Multiple Contexts.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blair, Graeme, Cooper, Jasper, Coppock, Alexander and Humphreys, Macartan. 2019. “Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs.” American Political Science Review 113: 838–859.Google Scholar

Blalock, Hubert M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Blatt, Jessica. 2018. Race and the Making of American Political Science. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Blattman, Christopher, Hartman, Alexandria C., and Blair, Robert A.. 2014. “How to Promote Order and Property Rights under Weak Rule of Law? An Experiment in Changing Dispute Resolution Behavior through Community Education.” American Political Science Review 108: 100–120.Google Scholar

Bloom, Howard S., ed. 2005. Learning More from Social Experiments: Evolving Analytic Approaches. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Bollen, Kenneth, Cacioppo, John T., Kaplan, Robert M., et al. 2015. “Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Perspectives on Robust and Reliable Science.” Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, www.nsf.gov/sbe/AC_Materials/SBE_Robust_and_Reliable_Research_Report.pdf.Google Scholar

Bolsen, Toby, Druckman, James N., and Cook, Fay Lomax. 2015. “Citizens’, Scientists’, and Legislators’ Beliefs about Global Climate Change.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658: 271–295.Google Scholar

Bond, Robert M. Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Jason J., et al. 2012. “A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization.” Nature 489: 295–298.Google Scholar

Bond, Rod, and Smith, Peter B.. 1996. “Culture and Conformity: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) Line Judgment Task.” Psychological Bulletin 119: 111–137.Google Scholar

Borenstein, Michael, Hedges, Larry V., Higgins, Julian P. T., and Rothstein, Hannah R.. 2009. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Boudreau, Cheryl. 2021. “Transparency in Experimental Research.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brandt, Mark J., Hans, IJzerman, Dijksterhuis, Ap, et al. 2014. “The Replication Recipe: What Makes for a Convincing Replication?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 50: 217–224.Google Scholar

Brodeur, Abel, Cook, Nikolai, and Heyes, Anthony. 2020. “Methods Matter: P-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics.” American Economic Review 110: 3634–3660.Google Scholar

Brown, Andrew W., Mehta, Tapan S., and Allison, David B.. 2017. “Publication Bias in Science.” In Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Kahan, Dan M., and Scheufele, Dietram A., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Buhrmester, Michael, Kwang, Tracy, and Gosling, Samuel D.. 2011. “Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bulkeley, Harriet, and Broto, Vanesa Castán. 2013. “Government by Experiment? Global Cities and the Governing of Climate Change.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38: 361–375.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105: 496–515.Google Scholar

Bullock, John G. 2020. “Party Cues.” In Elizabeth, Suhay, Bernard, Grofman, and Trechsel, Alexander H., eds., Oxford Handbook of Electoral Persuasion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bullock, John G., Gerber, Alan S., Hill, Seth J., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2015. “Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10: 519–578.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bullock, John G., and Green, Donald P.. 2021 “The Failings of Conventional Mediation Analysis and a Design-Based Alternative.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4: 1–18.Google Scholar

Bullock, John G., and Shang, E. Ha. 2011. “Mediational Analysis Is Harder Than It Looks.” In Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burden, Barry C. 2000. “Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies.” Political Analysis 8: 389–398.Google Scholar

Burden, Barry C., Ono, Yoshikuni, and Yamada, Masahiro. 2017. “Reassessing Public Support for a Female President.” The Journal of Politics 79: 1073–1078.Google Scholar

Burnham, Terence C., and Kurzban, Robert. 2005. “On the Limitations of Quasi-Experiments.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 818–819.Google Scholar

Busby, Ethan C., and Druckman, James N.. 2018. “Football and Public Opinion: A Partial Replication and Extension.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 5: 4–10.Google Scholar

Busby, Ethan C., Druckman, James N., and Fredendall, Alexandria. 2017. “The Political Relevance of Irrelevant Events.” The Journal of Politics 79: 346–350.Google Scholar

Butler, Daniel M. 2014. Representing the Advantaged: How Politicians Reinforce Inequality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, Daniel M., and Crabtree, Charles. 2017. “Moving Beyond Measurement: Adapting Audit Studies to Test Bias-Reducing Interventions.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 4: 57–67.Google Scholar

Butler, Daniel M., and Crabtree, Charles. 2021. “Audit Studies in Political Science.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Butler, Daniel M., and Broockman, David E.. 2011. “Do Politicians Racially Discriminate against Constituents? A Field Experiment on State Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 55: 463–477.Google Scholar

Butler, Daniel M., and Homola, Jonathan. 2017. “An Empirical Justification for the Use of Racially Distinctive Names to Signal Race in Experiments.” Political Analysis 25: 122–130.Google Scholar

Buzin, Andrei, Brondum, Kevin, and Robertson, Graeme. 2016. “Election Observer Effects: A Field Experiment in the Russian Duma Election of 2011.” Electoral Studies 44: 184–191.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E., and Morris, Katherine J.. 1983. “Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall, and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 805–818.Google Scholar

Camerer, Colin G. Dreber, Anna, Forsell, Rskil, et al. 2016. “Evaluating Replicability of Laboratory Experiments in Economics.” Science 351: 1433–1436.Google Scholar

Camerer, Colin F., Dreber, Anna, Holzmeister, Felix, et al. 2018. “Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science Experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015.” Nature Human Behaviour 2: 637–644.Google Scholar

Campbell, Donald T. 1969a. “Prospective: Artifact and Control.” In Rosenthal, Robert and Rosnow, Robert, eds., Artifact in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, Donald T. 1969b. “Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24: 409–429.Google Scholar

Campbell, Donald T., and Fiske, Donald W.. 1959. “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix.” Psychological Bulletin 56: 81–105.Google Scholar

Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C.. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company.Google Scholar

Campbell, Susanna P., and Gabriele, Spilker. 2020. “Aiding War or Peace? The Insiders’ View on Aid to Post-Conflict Transitions.” Working paper, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3576116.Google Scholar

Card, David, and Krueger, Alan. 1994. “Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” American Economic Review 84: 772–793.Google Scholar

Cárdenas, Juan Camilo, and Carpenter, Jeffrey. 2008. “Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World.” Journal of Development Studies 44: 337–364.Google Scholar

Chmielewski, Michael, and Kucker, Sarah C.. 2020. “An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 11: 464–473.Google Scholar

Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101: 637–655.Google Scholar

Christensen, Garret, and Miguel, Edward. 2018. “Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research.” Journal of Economic Literature 56: 920–980.Google Scholar

Christensen, Garret, Freese, Jeremy, and Miguel, Edward 2019. Transparent and Reproducible Social Science Research: How to Do Open Science. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cirone, Alexandra, and Van Coppenolle, Brenda. 2018. “Cabinets, Committees, and Careers: The Causal Effect of Committee Service.” The Journal of Politics 80: 948–963.Google Scholar

Clifford, Scott, Leeper, Thomas J., and Rainey, Carlisle. 2019. “Increasing the Generalizability of Survey Experiments Using Randomized Topics: An Application to Party Cues.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Clifford, Scott, Sheagley, Gregory, and Piston, Spencer. 2021. “Increasing Precision without Altering Treatment Effects: Repeated Measures Designs in Survey Experiments.” American Political Science Review 115: 1048–1065.Google Scholar

Coffman, Lucas C., and Niederle, Muriel. 2015. “Pre-analysis Plans Have Limited Upside, Especially Where Replications Are Feasible.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 29: 81–97.Google Scholar

Cohn, Nate and Quealy, Kevin. 2019. “The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Democratic Electorate.” The New York Times, April 9.Google Scholar

Collins, H. M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry. 2016. “Reproducibility of Experiments: Experimenters’ Regress, Statistical Uncertainty Principle, and the Replication Imperative.” In Atmanspacher, Harald, and Maasen, Sabine, eds., Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, and Prospects. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Connors, Elizabeth C., Krupnikov, Yanna, and Ryan, John Barry. 2019. “How Transparency Affects Survey Responses.” Public Opinion Quarterly 83: 185–209.Google Scholar

Cook, Thomas D. 2002. “Randomized Experiments in Educational Policy Research: A Critical Examination of the Reasons the Educational Evaluation Community Has Offered for Not Doing Them.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24: 175–199.Google Scholar

Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand-McNally.Google Scholar

Cooper, Russell, DeJong, Douglas V., Forsythe, Robert, and Ross, Thomas W.. 1993. “Forward Induction in the Battle-of-the-Sexes Games.” American Economic Review 83: 1303–1316.Google Scholar

Coppock, Alexander. 2019a. “Avoiding Post-Treatment Bias in Audit Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 6: 1–4.Google Scholar

Coppock, Alexander. 2019b. “Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach.” Political Science Research and Methods 7: 613–628.Google Scholar

Coppock, Alexander, and Green, Donald P.. 2015. “Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research.” Political Science Research Methods 3: 113–131.Google Scholar

Coppock, Alexander, Hill, Seth J., and Vavreck, Lynn. 2020. “The Small Effects of Political Advertising Are Small Regardless of Context, Message, Sender, or Receiver: Evidence from 59 Real-Time Randomized Experiments.” Science Advances 6: eabc4046.Google Scholar

Coppock, Alexander, Leeper, Thomas J., and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2018. “Generalizability of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimates across Samples.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 12441–12446.Google Scholar

Costa, Mia. 2017. “How Responsive Are Political Elites?” Journal of Experimental Political Science 4: 241–254.Google Scholar

Cox, David R. 1958. Planning of Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Crabtree, Charles, and Chykina, Volha. 2018. “Last Name Selection in Audit Studies.” Sociological Science 5: 21–28.Google Scholar

Craig, Maureen A., Rucker, Julian M., and Richeson, Jennifer A.. 2018. “Racial and Political Dynamics of an Approaching ‘Majority-Minority’ United States.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 677: 204–214.Google Scholar

Crawfurd, Lee. 2021. “Contact and Commitment to Development: Evidence from Quasi‐Random Missionary Assignments.” Kyklos 74: 3–18.Google Scholar

Crisp, Richard J., and Turner, Rhiannon N.. 2009. “Can Imagined Interactions Produce Positive Perceptions? Reducing Prejudice through Simulated Contact.” American Psychologist 64: 231–240.Google Scholar

Crisp, Richard J., Stathi, Sofia, Turner, Rhiannon N., and Husnu, Senel. 2009. “Imagined Intergroup Contact: Theory, Paradigm and Practice.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 3: 1–18.Google Scholar

Cumming, Geoff. 2008. “Replication and P Intervals: P Values Predict the Future Only Vaguely, but Confidence Intervals Do Much Better.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3: 286–300.Google Scholar

Dafoe, Allan, Zhang, Baobao, and Caughey, Devin. 2018. “Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments.” Political Analysis 26: 399–416.Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, Taylor, Hennes, Erin P., and Raymond, Leigh. 2018. “Cultural Evolution of Normative Motivations for Sustainable Behaviour.” Nature Sustainability 1: 218–224.Google Scholar

de Rooij, Eline A., Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2009. “Field Experiments on Political Behavior and Collective Action.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 389–395.Google Scholar

DeBell, Matthew. 2018. “Best Practices for Creating Survey Weights.” In Vannette, David and Krosnick, Jon, eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

DeBell, Matthew, Krosnick, Jon A., Gera, Katie, Yeager, David S., and McDonald, Michael P.. 2020. “The Turnout Gap in Surveys: Explanations and Solutions.” Sociological Methods & Research 49: 1133–1162.Google Scholar

Carpini, Delli, Michael, X., and Keeter, Scott. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Desposato, Scott, ed. 2016. Ethics and Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Devezer, Berna, Navarro, Danielle J., Vandekerckhove, Joachim, and Erkan, Ozge Buzbas. 2021. “The Case for Formal Methodology in Scientific Reform.” Royal Society Open Science 8: 200805, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200805.Google Scholar

Dickhaut, John W., Leslie Livingstone, J., and Watson, David J. H.. 1972. “On the Use of Surrogates in Behavioral Experimentation.” The Accounting Review 47, Supplement: 455–471.Google Scholar

Disch, Lisa. 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation.” American Political Science Review 105: 100–114.Google Scholar

Doherty, Daniel, Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2006. “Personal Income and Attitudes toward Redistribution: A Study of Lottery Winners.” Political Psychology 27: 441–458.Google Scholar

Doleac, Jennifer L, and Hansen, Benjamin. 2020. “The Unintended Consequences of ‘Ban the Box’: Statistical Discrimination and Employment Outcomes When Criminal Histories Are Hidden.” Journal of Labor Economics 38: 321–374.Google Scholar

Doyen, Stéphane, Klein, Olivier, Pichon, Cora-Lise, and Cleeremans, Axel. 2012. “Behavioral Priming: It’s All in the Mind, but Whose Mind?” PLoS One 7: e29081.Google Scholar

Dreber, Anna, Pfeiffer, Thomas, Almenberg, Johan, et al. 2015. “Using Prediction Markets to Estimate the Reproducibility of Scientific Research.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 15343–15347.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 1996. “Party Factionalism and Cabinet Durability.” Party Politics 2: 397–407.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2001. “On The Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” The Journal of Politics 63: 1041–1066.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2004. “Priming the Vote: Campaign Effects in a U.S. Senate Election.” Political Psychology 25: 577–594.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2014. “Pathologies of Studying Public Opinion, Political Communication, and Democratic Responsiveness.” Political Communication 31: 467–492.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N. 2015. “Merging Research and Undergraduate Teaching in Political Behavior Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48: 53–57.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Fein, Jordan, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. “A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106: 430–454.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Gilli, Mauro, Klar, Samara, and Robison, Joshua. 2015. “Measuring Drug and Alcohol Use among College Student-Athletes.” Social Science Quarterly 96: 369–380.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Green, Donald P., eds. 2021. Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research Political Science.” American Political Science Review 100: 627–636.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Gubitz, S. R., Levendusky, Matthew S., and Lloyd, Ashley. 2019. “How Incivility on Partisan Media (De-)polarizes the Electorate.” The Journal of Politics 81: 291–295.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Hennessy, Cari Lynn, St. Charles, Kristi, and Jonathan, Weber. 2010. “Competing Rhetoric over Time: Frames versus Cues.” The Journal of Politics 72: 136–148.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Howat, Adam J., and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2018a. “Graduate Advising in Experimental Research Groups.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51: 620–624.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” In Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, Levendusky, Matthew, and Ryan, John Barry. 2021a. “Affective Polarization, Local Contexts, and Public Opinion in America.” Nature Human Behavior 5: 28–38.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Samara, Klar, Yanna, Krupnikov, Matthew, Levendusky, and Ryan, John Barry. n.d. “(Mis-)estimating Affective Polarization.” The Journal of Politics, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012a. “Is Public Opinion Stable? Resolving the Micro/Macro Disconnect in Studies of Public Opinion.” Daedalus 141: 50–68.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012b. “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects.” American Journal of Political Science 56: 875–896.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Levendusky, Matthew S.. 2019. “What Do We Measure When We Measure Affective Polarization?” Public Opinion Quarterly 83: 114–122.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Levendusky, Matthew S., and McLain, Audrey. 2018b. “No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Inter-personal Discussions.” American Journal of Political Science 62: 99–112.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Levy, Jeremy, and Sands, Natalie. 2021b. “Bias in Education Disability Accommodations” Economics of Education Review 85: 102176.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “Mind, Will, and Choice: Lessons from Experiments in Contextual Variation.” In Goodin, Robert E. and Tilly, Charles, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and McGrath, Mary C.. 2019. “The Evidence for Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Preference Formation.” Nature Climate Change 9: 111–119.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 729–745.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 170: 57–79.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Shafranek, Richard M.. 2020. “The Intersection of Racial and Partisan Discrimination: Evidence from a Correspondence Study of Four-Year Colleges.” The Journal of Politics 82: 1602–1606.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., Trawalter, Sophie, Montes, Ivonne, et al. 2018c. “Racial Bias in Sport Medical Staff’s Perceptions of Others’ Pain.” The Journal of Social Psychology 158: 721–729.Google Scholar

Druckman, James N., and Valdes, Julia. 2019. “How Private Politics Alters Legislative Responsiveness.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14: 115–130.Google Scholar

Dunbar, Kevin, and Fugelsang, Jonathan. 2005. “Scientific Thinking and Reasoning.” In Holyoak, Keith J. and Morrison, Robert G., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dunning, Thad. 2012. Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Dunning, Thad. 2016. “Transparency, Replication, and Cumulative Learning: What Experiments Alone Cannot Achieve.” Annual Review of Political Science 19: S1–S23.Google Scholar

Dunning, Thad, Grossman, Guy, Humphreys, Macartan, et al. 2019. Information, Accountability, and Cumulative Learning: Lessons from Metaketa I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dwyer, Patrick C., Maki, Alexander, and Rothman, Alexander J.. 2015. “Promoting Energy Conservation Behavior in Public Settings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 41: 30–34.Google Scholar

Eckel, Catherine, and Candelo, Natalia. 2021. “How to Tame Lab-in-the-Field Experiments.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Egami, Naoki, and Hartman, Erin. 2020. “Elements of External Validity: Framework, Design, and Analysis.” Working paper, Columbia University and University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Egami, Naoki, and Kosuke, Imai. 2015. “Causal Interaction in High Dimension.” Working paper, Princeton University.Google Scholar

Egger, Peter, and Koethenbuerger, Marko. 2010. “Government Spending and Legislative Organization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Germany.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2: 200–212.Google Scholar

Einstein, Katherine Levine and Glick, David M.. 2017. “Does Race Affect Access to Government Services? An Experiment Exploring Street-Level Bureaucrats and Access to Public Housing.” American Journal of Political Science 61: 100–116.Google Scholar

Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. “Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior.” American Political Science Review 50: 154–165.Google Scholar

Elman, Colin, Kapiszewski, Diana, and Lupia, Arthur. 2018. “Transparent Social Inquiry: Implications for Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 21: 29–47.Google Scholar

Elman, Colin, Gerring, John, and Mahoney, James, eds. 2020. The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enos, Ryan D., and Gidron, Noam. 2016. “Intergroup Behavioral Strategies as Contextually Determined: Experimental Evidence from Israel.” The Journal of Politics 78: 851–867.Google Scholar

Erikson, Robert S, Mackuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Erikson, Robert S., and Stoker, Laura. 2011. “Caught in the Draft: The Effects of Vietnam Draft Lottery Status on Political Attitudes.” American Political Science Review 105: 221–237.Google Scholar

Fanelli, Daniele. 2018. “Is Science Really Facing a Reproducibility Crisis, and Do We Need It To?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2628–2631.Google Scholar

Fanelli, Daniele, Costas, Rodrigo, and Ioannidis, John P. A.. 2017. “Meta-Assessment of Bias in Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 3714–3719.Google Scholar

Fazio, Russell H. 1995. “Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations: Determinants, Consequences, and Correlates of Attitude Accessibility.” In Petty, Richard E., and Krosnick, Jon A., eds., Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar

Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Findley, Michael G., Jensen, Nathan M., Malesky, Edmund J., and Pepinsky, Thomas B.. 2016. “Can Results-Free Review Reduce Publication Bias? The Results and Implications of a Pilot Study.” Comparative Political Studies 49: 1667–1703.Google Scholar

Findley, Michael G., Nielson, Daniel L., and Sharman, J. C.. 2014. Global Shell Games: Experiments in Transnational Relations, Crime, and Terrorism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Finkel, Eli J., Eastwick, Paul W., and Reis, Harrty T.. 2015. “Best Research Practices in Psychology: Illustrating Epistemological and Pragmatic Considerations with the Case of Relationship Science.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108: 275–297.Google Scholar

Fiorina, Morris P., and Plott, Charles R.. 1978. “Committee Decisions under Majority Rule.” American Political Science Review 72: 575–598.Google Scholar

Fowler, Anthony. 2020. “Partisan Intoxication or Policy Voting?” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 15: 141–179.Google Scholar

Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, and Simonovits, Gabor. 2014. “Publication Bias in the Social Sciences: Unlocking the File Drawer.” Science 345: 1502–1505.Google Scholar

Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, and Simonovits, Gabor. 2015. “Underreporting in Political Science Survey Experiments: Comparing Questionnaires to Published Results.” Political Analysis 23: 306–312.Google Scholar

Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, and Simonovits, Gabor. 2016. “Underreporting in Psychology Experiments: Evidence from a Study Registry.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 7: 8–12.Google Scholar

Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, Simonovits, Gabor, and Zigerell, L. J.. 2017. “Developing Standards for Post-Hoc Weighting in Population-Based Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 4: 161–172.Google Scholar

Freese, Jeremy, and Pager, Devah. 2004. “Who Deserves a Helping Hand? Attitudes about Government Assistance for the Unemployed by Race, Incarceration Status, and Worker History.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar

Freese, Jeremy, and Peterson, David. 2017. “Replication in Social Science.” Annual Review of Sociology 43: 147–165.Google Scholar

Friedman, Daniel, and Sunder, Shyam. 1994. Experimental Economics: A Primer for Economists. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Milton. 1953. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Lisa. 2019. “E.P.A. to Limit Science Used to Write Public Health Rules.” The New York Times, November 11, www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/climate/epa-science-trump.html.Google Scholar

Fryer, Roland G. Jr., and Levitt, Steven D.. 2004. “The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively Black Names.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119: 767–805.Google Scholar

Gaddis, S. Michael. 2017. “How Black Are Lakisha and Jamal? Racial Perceptions from Names Used in Correspondence Audit Studies.” Sociological Science 4: 469–489.Google Scholar

Gaddis, S. Michael, ed. 2018. Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., and Quirk, Paul J.. 2007. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis 15: 1–20.Google Scholar

Gay, Claudine. 2012. “Moving to Opportunity: The Political Effects of a Housing Mobility Experiment.” Urban Affairs Review 48: 147–179.Google Scholar

Geddes, Barbara. 2003. Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Geering, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Critical Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew. 2013. “Preregistration of Studies and Mock Reports.” Political Analysis 21: 40–41Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and Loken, Eric. 2014. “The Statistical Crisis in Science: Data-Dependent Analysis–a ‘Garden of Forking Paths’–Explains Why Many Statistically Significant Comparisons Don’t Hold Up.” American Scientist 102: 460–465.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Arceneaux, Kevin, Boudreau, Cheryl, Dowling, Conor, and Hillygus, Sunshine. 2015. “Reporting Balance Tables, Response Rates and Manipulation Checks in Experimental Research: A Reply from the Committee That Prepared the Reporting Guidelines.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2: 216–229.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan, Arceneaux, Kevin, Boudreau, Cheryl, et al. 2014. “Reporting Guidelines for Experimental Research: A Report from the Experimental Research Section Standards Committee.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1: 81–98.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout.” American Political Science Review 94: 653–663.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2008. “Field Experiments and Natural Experiments.” In Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102: 33–48.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Nickerson, David. 2000. “Testing for Publication Bias in Political Science.” Political Analysis 9: 385–392.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., and Malhotra, Neil. 2008. “Publication Bias in Empirical Sociological Research: Do Arbitrary Significance Levels Distort Published Results?” Sociological Methods & Research 37: 3–30.Google Scholar

Gerber, Alan S., Malhotra, Neil, Dowling, Connor M., and Doherty, David. 2010. “Publication Bias in Two Political Behavior Literature.” American Political Research 38: 591–613.Google Scholar

Gilligan, Michael J., Pasquale, Benjamin J., and Samii, Cyrus. 2014. “Civil War and Social Cohesion: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Nepal.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 604–619.Google Scholar

Gilligan, Michael J., Mvukiyehe, Eric N., and Samii, Cyrus. 2013. “Reintegrating Rebels into Civilian Life: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Burundi.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57: 598–626.Google Scholar

Glennerster, Rachel, and Kudzai, Takavarasha. 2013. Running Randomized Evaluations: A Practical Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Glynn, Adam N. 2021. “Advances in Experimental Mediation Analysis.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gneezy, Uri, and Imas, Alex. 2017. “Lab in the Field.” In Banerjee, Abhijit and Duflo, Esther, eds., Handbook of Economic Field Experiments. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Goldberg, Matthew H., Sander van der, Linden, Matthew, Ballew, Rosenthal, Seth A., and Anthony, Leiserowitz. 2020. “Convenient but Biased? The Reliability of Convenience Samples in Research about Attitudes toward Climate Change.” Working paper, Yale University, https://osf.io/2h7as.Google Scholar

Goodman, Steven N., Fanelli, Daniele, and Ioannidis, John P. A.. 2016. “What Does Research Reproducibility Mean?” Science Translational Medicine 8: 341ps12341ps12.Google Scholar

Goodman, Steven, and Greenland, Sander. 2007. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: Problems in the Analysis.” PLoS Medicine 4: e168.Google Scholar

Goroff, Daniel L., Lewis, Neil A. Jr., Scheel, Anne M., Laura, Scherer, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2019. “The Inference Engine: A Grand Challenge to Address the Context Sensitivity Problem in Social Science Research.” Working paper, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Gosnell, Harold F. 1926. “An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting.” American Political Science Review 20: 869–874.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2010. “Introduction to Social Pressure and Voting: New Experimental Evidence.” Political Behavior 32: 331–336.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., and Tusicisny, Andrej. 2012. “Statistical Analysis of Results from Laboratory Studies in Experimental Economics: A Critique of Current Practice.” Paper presented at the North American Economic Science Association (ESA) Conference, Tucson, AZ, November 16–17.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., and Kern, Holger L.. 2012. “Modeling Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in Survey Experiments with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76: 491–511.Google Scholar

Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. “Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 23: 27–48.Google Scholar

Green, Paul E., and Srinivasan, V.. 1978. “Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.” Journal of Consumer Research 5: 103–123.Google Scholar

Grimmer, Justin, Westwood, Sean J., and Messing, Solomon. 2015. The Impression of Influence: Legislator Communication, Representation, and Democratic Accountability. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Grose, Christian R. 2014. “Field Experimental Work on Political Institutions.” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 355–370.Google Scholar

Grose, Christian R. 2021. “Experiments, Political Elites, and Political Institutions.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grose, Christian R., and Wood, Abby K.. 2020. “Randomized Experiments by Government Institutions and American Political Development. Public Choice 185: 401–413.Google Scholar

Groves, Robert M. 2011. “Three Eras of Survey Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75: 861–871.Google Scholar

Groves, Robert M., Fowler, Floyd J. Jr., Couper, Mick P., et al. 2009. Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Guala, Francesco. 2005. The Methodology of Experimental Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Guala, Francesco. 2009. “Methodological Issues in Experimental Design and Interpretation.” In Kincaid, Harold, and Ross, Don, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Guess, Andrew M. 2021. “Experiments Using Social Media Data.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Guetzkow, Harold, and Valadez, Joseph J., eds. 1981. Simulated International Processes. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar

Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel N., and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?” American Political Science Review 101: 709–725.Google Scholar

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H., et al. 2016. “A Multilab Preregistered Replication of the Ego-Depletion Effect.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11: 546–573.Google Scholar

Hainmueller, Jens, and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2015. “The Hidden American Immigration Consensus: A Conjoint Analysis of Attitudes toward Immigrants.” American Journal of Political Science 59: 529–548.Google Scholar

Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22: 1–30.Google Scholar

Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 2395–2400.Google Scholar

Hall, Andrew B., Huff, Connor, and Kuriwaki, Shiro. 2019. “Wealth, Slaveownership, and Fighting for the Confederacy: An Empirical Study of the American Civil War.” American Political Science Review 113: 658–673.Google Scholar

Halpern-Manners, Andrew, and Warren, John Robert. 2012. “Panel Conditioning in Longitudinal Studies: Evidence from Labor Force Items in the Current Population Survey.” Demography 49: 1499–1519.Google Scholar

Halpern-Manners, Andrew, Warren, John Robert, and Torche, Florencia. 2017. “Panel Conditioning in the General Social Survey.” Sociological Methods & Research 46: 103–124.Google Scholar

Han, Hahrie. 2016. “The Organizational Roots of Political Activism: Field Experiments on Creating a Relational Context.” American Political Science Review 110: 296–307.Google Scholar

Hankinson, Michael. 2018. “When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.” American Political Science Review 112: 473–493.Google Scholar

Hart, William, Albarracín, Dolores, Eagly, Alice H., et al. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct.” Psychological Bulletin 135: 555–588.Google Scholar

Hartman, Erin. 2021. “Generalizing Experimental Results.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hauser, David J. and Schwarz, Norbert. 2015. “It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on ‘Tricky’ Tasks.” SAGE Open, https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015584617.Google Scholar

Hauser, David J., Ellsworth, Phoebe C., and Gonzalez, Richard. 2018. “Are Manipulation Checks Necessary?” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 998.Google Scholar

Healy, Andrew J., and Malhotra, Neil. 2010. “Random Events, Economic Losses, and Retrospective Voting: Implications for Democratic Competence.” International Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5: 193–208.Google Scholar

Heck, Patrick R., Chabris, Christopher F., Watts, Duncan J., and Meyer, Michelle N.. 2020. “Objecting to Experiments Even While Approving of the Policies or Treatments They Compare.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 18948–18950.Google Scholar

Heckman, James J. 1998. “Detecting Discrimination.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 101–116.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hedges, Larry V. 2019. “The Statistics of Replication.” Working paper, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Hedges, Larry V., and Schauer, Jacob. 2019. “More Than One Replication Study Is Needed for Unambiguous Tests of Replication.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 44: 543–570.Google Scholar

Hemker, Johannes, and Rink, Anselm. 2017. “Multiple Dimensions of Bureaucratic Discrimination: Evidence from German Welfare Offices.” American Journal of Political Science 61: 786–803.Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Boyd, Robert, Bowles, Samuel, et al. 2005. “‘Economic Man’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 795–815.Google Scholar

Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J., and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. “The Weirdest People in the World?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33: 61–83.Google Scholar

Hermann, Charles F., and Hermann, Margaret G.. 1967. “An Attempt to Simulate the Outbreak of World War I.” American Political Science Review 61: 400–416.Google Scholar

Hillygus, D. Sushine, Jackson, Natalie, and Young, McKenzie. 2014. “Professional Respondents in Non-probability Online Panels.” In Callegaro, Mario, Baker, Reg, Bethlehem, Jelke, et al., eds., Online Panel Research: A Data Quality Perspective. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Ho, , Daniel, E., and Imai, Kosuke. 2008. “Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment: The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 216–240.Google Scholar

Hoenig, John M., and Heisey, Dennis M.. 2001. “The Abuse of Power.” The American Statistician 55: 19–24.Google Scholar

Holbrook, Allyson L., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2010. “Measuring Voter Turnout By Using the Randomized Response Technique: Evidence Calling into Question the Method’s Validity.” Public Opinion Quarterly 74: 328–343.Google Scholar

Holland, Paul W. 1986. “Statistics and Causal Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–960.Google Scholar

Hopkins, Daniel J., and Mummolo, Jonathan. 2017. “Assessing the Breadth of Framing Effects.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 12: 37–57.Google Scholar

Horowitz, Michael C., and Levendusky, Matthew S.. 2011. “Drafting Support for War: Conscription and Mass Support for Warfare.” The Journal of Politics 73: 524–534.Google Scholar

Hoynes, Hilary, Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore, and Almond, Douglas. 2016. “Long-Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net.” American Economic Review 106: 903–934.Google Scholar

Hoynes, Hilary, McGranahan, Leslie, and Schanzenbach, Diane. 2015. “SNAP and Food Consumption.” In Bartfeld, Judith, Gundersen, Craig, Smeeding, Timothy, and Ziliak, James P., eds., SNAP Matters: How Food Stamps Affect Health and Well-Being. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Huber, John. 2013. “Is Theory Getting Lost in the ‘Identification Revolution’?” The Political Economist Summer: 1–3.Google Scholar

Huff, Connor, and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Who Are These People? Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 2: 1–12.Google Scholar

Humphreys, Macartan, de la Sierra, Raul Sanchez, and van der Windt, Peter. 2013. “Fishing, Commitment, and Communication: A Proposal for Comprehensive Nonbinding Research Registration.” Political Analysis 21: 1–20.Google Scholar

Humphreys, Macartan, and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2009. “Field Experiments and the Political Economy of Development.” Annual Review of Political Science 12: 367–378.Google Scholar

Husnu, Senel, and Crisp, Richard J.. 2010. “Elaboration Enhances the Imagined Contact Effect.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 943–950.Google Scholar

Husnu, Senel, and Crisp, Richard J.. 2011 “Enhancing the Imagined Contact Effect.” The Journal of Social Psychology 151: 113–116.Google Scholar

Hyde, Susan D. 2007. “The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” World Politics 60: 37–63.Google Scholar

Hyde, Susan D. 2015. “Experiments in International Relations: Lab, Survey, and Field.” Annual Review of Political Science 18: 403–424Google Scholar

Hyde, Susan D., and Marinov, Nikolay. 2014. “Information and Self-Enforcing Democracy: The Role of International Election Observation.” International Organization 68: 329–359.Google Scholar

Ichino, Nahomi, and Schündeln, Matthias. 2012. “Deterring or Displacing Electoral Irregularities? Spillover Effects of Observers in a Randomized Field Experiment in Ghana.” The Journal of Politics 74: 292–307.Google Scholar

Imai, Kosuke, Tingley, Dustin and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2013. “Experimental Designs for Identifying Causal Mechanisms.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 176: 5–51.Google Scholar

Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2011. “Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies.” American Political Science Review 105: 765–789.Google Scholar

Imai, Kosuke, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2013. “Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments.” Political Analysis 21: 141–171.Google Scholar

Imbens, Guido W., and Rubin, Donald B.. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ioannidis, John P. A. 2005. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2: e124.Google Scholar

Ioannidis, John P. A. 2017. “Statistical Biases in Science Communication: What We Know About Them and How They Can Be Addressed.” In Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, Kahan, Dan M., and Scheufele, Dietram A., eds., Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76: 405–431.Google Scholar

Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication 59: 19–39.Google Scholar

Iyengar, Shanto, Peters, Mark D., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political Science Review 76: 848–858.Google Scholar

Jamieson, Thomas, and Weller, Nicholas. 2020. “The Effects of Certain and Uncertain Incentives on Effort and Knowledge Accuracy.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 7: 218–231.Google Scholar

Janz, Nicole, and Freese, Jeremy. 2021. “Replicate Others as You Would Like to Be Replicated Yourself.” PS: Political Science and Politics 54: 305–308.Google Scholar

Jardina, Ashley, and Piston, Spencer. 2019. “Racial Prejudice, Racial Identity, and Attitudes in Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, doi: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.966.Google Scholar

Jayachandran, Seema, de Laat, Joost, Lambin, Eric F., et al. 2017. “Cash for Carbon: A Randomized Trial of Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Deforestation.” Science 357: 267–273.Google Scholar

Jenke, Libby, Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, and Hangartner, Dominik. 2021. “Using Eye-Tracking to Understand Decision-Making in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis 29: 75–101.Google Scholar

John, Peter. 2011. Making Policy Work. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

John, Peter. 2017. Field Experiments in Political Science and Public Policy: Practical Lessons in Design and Delivery. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kahan, Dan M. 2017. “Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition.” Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973067 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973067.Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel. 2002. “Daniel Kahneman: Biographical.” NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2002/kahneman/biographical.Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Kalla, Joshua L., and Broockman, David E.. 2016. “Campaign Contributions Facilitate Access to Congressional Officials: A Randomized Field Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 60: 545–558.Google Scholar

Kam, Cindy D., Wilking, Jennifer R., and Zechmeister, Elizabeth J.. 2007. “Beyond the ‘Narrow Data Base’: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research.” Political Behavior 29: 415–440.Google Scholar

Kane, John V., and Barabas, Jason. 2019. “No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 63: 234–249.Google Scholar

Kane, John V., Velez, Yamil R., and Barabas, Jason. 2020. “Analyze the Attentive & Bypass Bias: Mock Vignette Checks in Survey Experiments.” Working paper, New York University.Google Scholar

Karlan, Dean, and Appel, Jacob. 2016. Failing in the Field: What We Can Learn When Field Research Goes Wrong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kenny, David A., and Judd, Charles M.. 2019. “The Unappreciated Heterogeneity of Effect Sizes: Implications for Power, Precision, Planning of Research, and Replication.” Psychological Methods 24: 578–589.Google Scholar

Kertzer, Joshua D., and Brutger, Ryan. 2016. “Decomposing Audience Costs: Bringing the Audience Back into Audience Cost Theory.” American Journal of Political Science 60: 234–249.Google Scholar

Kim, Eunji. 2019. “Entertaining Beliefs in Economic Mobility.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Kinder, Donald R., and Palfrey, Thomas R., eds. 1993. Experimental Foundations of Political Science. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

King, Gary. 1991. “‘Truth’ Is Stranger than Prediction, More Questionable than Causal Inference.” American Journal of Political Science 35: 1047–1053.Google Scholar

King, Gary, and Sands, Melissa. 2015. “How Human Subjects Research Rules Mislead You and Your University, and What to Do About It.” Working paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar

King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Klar, Samara, and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2019. “Identities and Intersectionality: A Case for Purposive Sampling in Survey Experimental Research.” In Lavrakas, Paul J., Traugott, Michael W., Kennedy, Courtney, et al., eds., Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques That Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Klein, Richard A., Ratliff, Kate A., Vianello, Michelangelo, et al. 2014. “Investigating Variation in Replicability: A ‘Many Labs’ Replication Project.” Social Psychology 45: 142–152.Google Scholar

Klein, Stanley B. 2014. “What Can Recent Replication Failures Tell Us about the Theoretical Commitments of Psychology?” Theory & Psychology 24: 326–338.Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kraft-Todd, Gordon T., and Rand., David G. 2021. “Practice What You Preach: Credibility-Enhancing Displays and the Growth of Open Science.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 164: 1–10.Google Scholar

Kramer, Adam D. I., Guillory, Jamie E., and Hancock, Jeffrey T.. 2014. “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 8788–8790.Google Scholar

Krosnick, Jon A., and Presser, Stanley. 2010. “Question and Questionnaire Design.” In Marsden, Peter V. and Wright, James D., eds., Handbook of Survey Research. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Kruglanski, Arie W. 1975. “The Human Subject in the Psychology Experiment: Fact and Artifact.” In Berkowitz, Leonard, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Krupnikov, Yanna. 2011. “When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 55: 797–813.Google Scholar

Krupnikov, Yanna, and Levine, Adam Seth. 2014. “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1: 59–80.Google Scholar

Krupnikov, Yanna, Nam, Hannah, and Style, Hillary. 2021a. “Convenience Samples in Political Science Experiments.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Krupnikov, Yanna, Style, Hillary, and Yontz, Michael. 2021b. “Does Measurement Affect the Gender Gap in Political Partisanship?” Public Opinion Quarterly 85: 678–693.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Künzel, Sören R., Sekhon, Jasjeet S., Bickel, Peter J., and Bin, Yu. 2019. “Metalearners for Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Using Machine Learning.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 4156–4165.Google Scholar

Laitin, David D. 2013. “Fisheries Management.” Political Analysis 21: 42–47.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Landy, Justin F., Jia, Miaolei Liam, Ding, Isabel L., et al. 2020. “Crowdsourcing Hypothesis Tests: Making Transparent How Design Choices Shape Research Results.” Psychological Bulletin 146: 451–479.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 951–971.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, and Babbitt, Paul. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” American Political Science Review 93: 851–875.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, and Rovner, Ivy Brown. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 69: 1176–1209.Google Scholar

Lavrakas, Paul J., Traugott, Michael W., Kennedy, Courtney, et al., eds. 2019. Experimental Methods in Survey Research: Techniques that Combine Random Sampling with Random Assignment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People’s Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Leeper, Thomas J. 2011. “The Role of Protocol in the Design and Reporting of Experiments.” Newsletter of the American Political Science Association, Experimental Section 2: 6–10.Google Scholar

Leeper, Thomas J., Hobolt, Sara B., and Tilley, James. 2020. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis 28: 207–221.Google Scholar

Lelkes, Yphtach, and Westwood, Sean. 2017. “The Limits of Partisan Prejudice.” The Journal of Politics 79: 485–501.Google Scholar

León, Federico R., Lundgren, Rebecka, Sinai, Irit, Sinha, Ragini, and Jennings, Victoria. 2014. “Increasing Literate and Illiterate Women’s Met Need for Contraception via Empowerment: A Quasi-Experiment in Rural India.” Reproductive Health 11: 74.Google Scholar

Lepper, Mark R., Henderlong, Jennifer, and Gingras, Isabelle. 1999. “Understanding the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation—Uses and Abuses of Meta-Analysis: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan.” Psychological Bulletin 125: 669–676.Google Scholar

Levay, Kevin E., Freese, Jeremy, and Druckman, James N.. 2016. “The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples.” SAGE Open 6: 1–17.Google Scholar

Levendusky, Matthew. 2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior 32: 111–131.Google Scholar

Levendusky, Matthew. 2013. How Partisan Media Polarize America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levine, Adam Seth. 2021. “How to Form Organizational Partnerships to Run Experiments” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Liebman, Jeffrey, Ludwig, Jens, Katz, Lawrence, et al. 2020. “Evaluating the Impact of Moving to Opportunity in the United States.” The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). Accessed at www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/evaluating-impact-moving-opportunity-united-states.Google Scholar

Lin, Winston, and Green, Donald P.. 2016. “Standard Operating Procedures: A Safety Net for Pre-analysis Plans.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49: 495–500.Google Scholar

Liyanarachchi, Gregory A. 2007. “Feasibility of Using Student Subjects in Accounting Experiments: A Review.” Pacific Accounting Review 19: 47–67.Google Scholar

Lowell, A. Lawrence. 1910. “The Physiology of Politics.” American Political Science Review 4: 1–15.Google Scholar

Luce, R. Duncan, and Tukey, John W.. 1964. “Simultaneous Conjoint Measurement: A New Type of Fundamental Measurement.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1: 1–27.Google Scholar

Luo, Yu, and Zhao, Jiaying. 2019. “Motivated Attention in Climate Change Perception and Action.” Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1541.Google Scholar

Lupia, Arthur, and Elman, Colin. 2014. “Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency.” PS: Political Science and Politics 47: 19–42.Google Scholar

Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lupton, Danielle L. 2019. “The External Validity of College Student Subject Pools in Experimental Research: A Cross-Sample Comparison of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity.” Political Analysis 27: 90–97.Google Scholar

Lynott, Dermot, Corker, Katherine S., Wortman, Jessica, et al. 2014. “Replication of ‘Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth.’” Social Psychology 45: 216–222.Google Scholar

MacDonald, Paul. 2003. “Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory.” American Political Science Review 97: 551–565.Google Scholar

MacInnis, Bo, Krosnick, Jon A., Ho, Annabell S., and Cho, Mu-Jung. 2018. “The Accuracy of Measurements with Probability and Nonprobability Survey Samples: Replication and Extension.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82: 707–744.Google Scholar

Mahoney, James. 2010. “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research.” World Politics 62: 120–147.Google Scholar

Mahoney, Robert, and Druckman, Daniel. 1975. “Simulation, Experimentation, and Context.” Simulation & Games 6: 235–270.Google Scholar

Malhotra, Neil. 2021. “The Scientific Credibility of Experiments.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Neil, Malhotra, and Kuo, Alexander G.. 2008. “Attributing Blame: The Public’s Response to Hurricane Katrina.” The Journal of Politics 70: 120–135.Google Scholar

Malhotra, Neil, and Popp, Elizabeth. 2012. “Bridging Partisan Divisions over Antiterrorism Policies: The Role of Threat Perceptions.” Political Research Quarterly 65: 34–47.Google Scholar

Maniaci, Michael R., and Rogge, Ronald D.. 2014. “Caring about Carelessness: Participant Inattention and Its Effects on Research.” Journal of Research in Personality 48: 61–83Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97: 515–528.Google Scholar

Matanock, Aila M. 2021. “Experiments in Post-Conflict Contexts.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McDermott, Rose. 2002. “Experimental Methodology in Political Science.” Political Analysis 10: 325–342.Google Scholar

McDermott, Rose. 2011. “Internal and External Validity.” In Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McFadden, Daniel. 2017. “Stated Preference Methods and Their Applicability to Environmental Use and Non-use Valuations.” In McFadden, Daniel and Train, Kenneth, eds., Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods: A Comprehensive Critique. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

McKelvey, Richard D., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1990. “A Decade of Experimental Research on Spatial Models of Elections and Committees.” In Enelow, James M. and Hinich, Melvin J., eds., Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McShane, Blakeley B., Tackett, Jennifer L., Böckenholt, Ulf, and Gelman, Andrew. 2019. “Large-Scale Replication Projects in Contemporary Psychological Research.” The American Statistician 73: 99–105.Google Scholar

Meredith, Marc. 2009. “Persistence in Political Participation.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 4: 187–209.Google Scholar

Messick, Samuel. 1998. “Test Validity: A Matter of Consequence.” Social Indicators Research 45: 35–44.Google Scholar

Mettler, Suzanne, and Soss, Joe. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship: Bridging Policy Studies and Mass Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2: 55–73.Google Scholar

Meyer, Michelle N., Heck, Patrick R., Holtzman, Geoffrey S., et al. 2019a. “Objecting to Experiments That Compare Two Unobjectionable Policies or Treatments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 10723–10728.Google Scholar

Meyer, Michelle N., Heck, Patrick R., Holtzman, Geoffrey S., et al. 2019b. “Reply to Mislavsky et al.: Sometimes People Really Are Averse to Experiments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 23885–23886.Google Scholar

Miguel, E., Camerer, C., Casey, K., et al. 2014. “Promoting Transparency in Social Science Research.” Science 343: 30–31.Google Scholar

Miles, Eleanor, and Crisp, Richard J.. 2014. “A Meta-Analytic Test of the Imagined Contact Hypothesis.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 17: 3–26.Google Scholar

Miller, David, ed. 1985. Popper Selections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, David. 1994. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 295–309.Google Scholar

Miratrix, Luke W., Sekhon, Jasjeet S., Theodoridis, Alexander G., and Campos, Luis F.. 2018. “Worth Weighting? How to Think About and Use Weights in Survey Experiments.” Political Analysis 26: 275–291.Google Scholar

Mislavsky, Robert, Dietvorst, Berkeley J., and Simonsohn, Uri. 2019. “The Minimum Mean Paradox: A Mechanical Explanation for Apparent Experiment Aversion.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 23883–23884.Google Scholar

Mislavsky, Robert, Dietvorst, Berkeley, and Simonsohn, Uri. 2020. “Critical Condition: People Don’t Dislike a Corporate Experiment More than They Dislike Its Worst Condition.” Marketing Science 39:1092–1104.Google Scholar

Monroe, Kristen Renwick. 2018 “The Rush to Transparency: DA-RT and the Potential Dangers for Qualitative Research.” Perspectives on Politics 16: 141–148.Google Scholar

Montgomery, David B, and Wittink, Dick R.. 1979. “Predictive Validity of Trade-Off Analysis for Alternative Segmentation Schemes.” Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference, research collection, Lee Kong Chian School of Business.Google Scholar

Mook, Douglas G. 1983. “In Defense of External Invalidity.” American Psychologist 38: 379–387.Google Scholar

Morgenstern, Oskar. 1976. “The Collaboration between Oskar Morgenstern and John von Neumann on the Theory of Games.” Journal of Economic Literature 14: 805–816.Google Scholar

Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2008. “Experimentation in Political Science.” In Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Brady, Henry E., and Collier, David, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Morton, Rebecca B. and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Motyl, Matt, Demos, Alexander P., Carsel, Timothy S., et al. 2017. “The State of Social and Personality Science: Rotten to the Core, Not So Bad, Getting Better, or Getting Worse?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113: 34–58.Google Scholar

Mullinix, Kevin J., Leeper, Thomas J., Druckman, James N., and Freese, Jeremy. 2015. “The Generalizability of Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2: 109–138.Google Scholar

Mummolo, Jonathan, and Peterson, Erik. 2019. “Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment.” American Political Science Review 113: 517–529.Google Scholar

Munger, Kevin, Nagler, Jonathan, Tucker, Joshua and Luca, Mario. 2019. “Everyone on Mechanical Turk Is Above a Threshold of Digital Literacy: Sampling Strategies for Studying Digital Media Effects.” Working paper, Pennsylvania State University. Available at http://kmunger.github.io/pdfs/clickbait_mturk.pdf.Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C. 2005. “Social Trust and E-Commerce: Experimental Evidence for the Effects of Social Trust on Individuals’ Economic Behavior.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69: 393–416.Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C. 2007. “Effects of ‘In-Your-Face’ Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition.” American Political Science Review 101: 621–635.Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C. 2011. Population-Based Survey Experiments. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C. 2021. “Improving Experimental Treatments in Political Science.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana C., and Pemantle, Robin. 2015. “Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 2: 192–215.Google Scholar

Nathan, Noah L., and White, Ariel. 2021. “Experiments On and with Street-Level Bureaucrats.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Nature. 2014. “Journals Unite for Reproducibility.” Nature 515: 7.Google Scholar

Neblo, Michael A., Esterling, Kevin M., and Lazer, David M. J.. 2018. Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nelsen, Matthew D. 2021. “Cultivating Youth Engagement: Race & the Behavioral Effects of Critical Pedagogy.” Political Behavior 43: 751–784.Google Scholar

Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91: 567–583.Google Scholar

Neumark, David. 2012. “Detecting Discrimination in Audit and Correspondence Studies.” The Journal of Human Resources 47: 1128–1157.Google Scholar

Neumark, David. 2018. “Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination.” Journal of Economic Literature 56: 799–866.Google Scholar

Neyman, Jerzy. 1923 [1990]. “On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9.” Statistical Science 5: 465–472, trans. Dabrowska, Dorota M. and Speed, Terence P..Google Scholar

Nickerson, David W. 2008. “Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments.” American Political Science Review 102: 49–57.Google Scholar

Nosek, B. A., Alter, G., Banks, G. C., et al. 2015. “Promoting an Open Research Culture.” Science 348: 1422–1425.Google Scholar

Nosek, Brian A., Ebersole, Charles R., DeHaven, Alexander C., and Mellor, David T.. 2018. “The Preregistration Revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 2600–2606.Google Scholar

Nosek, Brian A., and Errington, Timothy M.. 2019. “What Is Replication?” Working paper, Center for Open Science.Google Scholar

Nyhan, Brendan. 2015. “Increasing the Credibility of Political Science Research: A Proposal for Journal Reforms.” PS: Political Science & Politics 48: 78–83.Google Scholar

Oliver, Jack E. 2004. The Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery. Ithaca, NY: Internet-First University Press.Google Scholar

Olken, Benjamin A. 2015. “Promises and Perils of Pre-analysis Plans.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 29: 61–80.Google Scholar

Open Science Collaboration (OSC). 2015. “Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science.” Science 349: aac4716–1-aac4716–8.Google Scholar

Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Meyvis, Tom, and Davidenko, Nicolas. 2009. “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45: 867–872.Google Scholar

Oreskes, Naomi. 2019. Why Trust Science? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Oschatz, Corinna, and Marker, Caroline. 2020. “Long-Term Persuasive Effects in Narrative Communication Research: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 70: 473–496.Google Scholar

Packer, Milton. 2017. “Are Meta-Analyses a Form of Medical Fake News? Thoughts about How They Should Contribute to Medical Science and Practice.” Circulation 136: 2097–2099.Google Scholar

Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108: 937–975.Google Scholar

Pager, Devah, and Shepherd, Hana. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 34: 181–209.Google Scholar

Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, Green, Seth, and Green, Donald P.. 2019. “The Contact Hypothesis Re-evaluated.” Behavioural Public Policy 3: 129–158.Google Scholar

Paolacci, Gabriele, Chandler, Jesse, and Ipeirotis, Panagiotis G.. 2010. “Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk.” Judgment and Decision Making 5: 411–419.Google Scholar

Patil, Prasad, Peng, Roger D., and Leek, Jeffrey T.. 2016. “What Should Researchers Expect When They Replicate Studies? A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11: 539–544.Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea. 2000. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pearl, Judea, with Mackenzie, Dana. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Persson, Mikael, and Solevid, Maria. 2014. “Measuring Political Participation—Testing Social Desirability Bias in a Web-Survey Experiment.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26: 98–112.Google Scholar

Perugini, Marco, Gallucci, Marcello, and Costantini, Giulio. 2018. “A Practical Primer to Power Analysis for Simple Experimental Designs.” International Review of Social Psychology 31: 20, 1–23.Google Scholar

Peterson, Erik. 2017. “The Role of the Information Environment in Partisan Voting.” The Journal of Politics 79: 1191–1204.Google Scholar

Peterson, Erik, Goel, Sharad, and Iyengar, Shanto. 2021. “Echo Chambers and Partisan Polarization: Evidence from the 2016 Presidential Campaign.” Political Science Research and Methods 9: 242–258.Google Scholar

Peyton, Kyle, Huber, Gregory A., and Coppock, Alexander. 2021. “The Generalizability of Online Experiments Conducted During The COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Experimental Political Science: 1–16. doi:10.1017/XPS.2021.17.Google Scholar

Pfaff, Steven, Crabtree, Charles Kern, Holger L., and Holbein, John B.. 2021. “Does Religious Bias Shape Access to Public Services? A Large-Scale Audit Experiment among Street-Level Bureaucrats.” Pubic Administration Review 81: 244–259.Google Scholar

Piazza, Thomas. 2010. “Fundamental of Applied Sampling.” In Marsden, Peter V. and Wright, James D., eds. Handbook of Survey Research. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Pirlott, Angela G., and MacKinnon, David P.. 2016. “Design Approaches to Experimental Mediation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66: 29–38.Google Scholar

Plott, Charles R. 1991. “Will Economics Become an Experimental Science?” Southern Economic Journal 57: 901–919.Google Scholar

Plott, Charles R., and Pogorelskiy, Kirill. 2017. “Call Market Experiments: Efficiency and Price Discovery through Multiple Calls and Emergent Newton Adjustments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 9: 1–41.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1962. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. (edited by Schilpp, Paul A.). 1974. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Prior, Markus, Sood, Gaurav, and Khanna, Kabir. 2015. “You Cannot Be Serious: The Impact of Accuracy Incentives on Partisan Bias in Reports of Economic Perceptions.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10: 489–518.Google Scholar

Quadlin, Natasha. 2018. “The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic Performance in Hiring.” American Sociological Review 83: 331–360.Google Scholar

Quattrone, George A., and Tversky, Amos. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82: 719–736.Google Scholar

Quillian, Lincoln, Heath, Anthony, Pager, Devah, et al. 2019. “Do Some Countries Discriminate More Than Others? Evidence from 97 Field Experiments of Racial Discrimination in Hiring.” Sociological Science 6: 467–496.Google Scholar

Quillian, Lincoln, Lee, John J., and Oliver, Mariana. 2020. “Evidence from Field Experiments in Hiring Shows Substantial Additional Racial Discrimination after the Callback.” Social Forces 99: 732–759.Google Scholar

Quillian, Lincoln, Pager, Devah, Hexel, Ole, and Midtbøen, Arnfinn H.. 2017. “Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments Shows No Change in Racial Discrimination in Hiring Over Time.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 10870–10875.Google Scholar

Ratkovic, Marc. 2021. “Subgroup Analysis: Pitfalls, Promise, and Honesty.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ratkovic, Marc, and Tingley, Dustin. 2017. “Sparse Estimation and Uncertainty with Application to Subgroup Analysis.” Political Analysis 25: 1–40.Google Scholar

Redish, A. David, Kummerfeld, Erich, Morris, Rebecca Lea, and Love, Alan C.. 2018. “Reproducibility Failures Are Essential to Scientific Inquiry.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115: 5042–5046.Google Scholar

Robison, Joshua, Stevenson, Randy T., Druckman, James N., et al. 2018. “An Audit of Political Behavior Research.” SAGE Open 8: 1–14.Google Scholar

Rogowski, Ronald. 2016. “The Rise of Experimentation in Political Science.” In Scott, Robert A and Kosslyn, Stephan M., eds., Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, Bryn, Imai, Kosuke, and Shapiro, Jacob N.. 2016. “An Empirical Validation Study of Popular Survey Methodologies for Sensitive Questions” American Journal of Political Science 60: 783–802.Google Scholar

Rosenthal, Robert. 1979. “The File Drawer Problem and Tolerance for Null Results.” Psychological Bulletin 86: 638–641.Google Scholar

Roth, Alvin E. 1995. “Introduction to Experimental Economics.” In Kagel, John H. and Roth, Alvin E., eds., The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Rubin, Donald B. 1974. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688–701.Google Scholar

Ruggeri, Kai, Alí, Sonia, Berge, Mari Louise, et al. 2020. “Replicating Patterns of Prospect Theory for Decision under Risk.” Nature Human Behavior 4: 622–633.Google Scholar

Schneider, Sandra L., ed. 2013. Experimental Design in the Behavioral and Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Schwarz, Susanne, and Coppock, Alexander. 2020. “What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of 67 Factorial Survey Experiments.” The Journal of Politics, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Sears, David O. 1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influence of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 515–530.Google Scholar

Seawright, Jason. 2016. Multi-method Social Science: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Tools. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sekhon, Jasjeet S., and Titiunik, Roćio. 2012. “When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural nor Experiments.” American Political Science Review 106: 35–57.Google Scholar

Settle, Jaime E. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shadish, William R., and Cook, Thomas D.. 2009. “The Renaissance of Field Experimentation in Evaluating Interventions.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 607–629.Google Scholar

Shadish, William, R., Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inferences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Shafranek, Richard M. 2021 “Political Considerations in Nonpolitical Decisions: A Conjoint Analysis of Roommate Choice.” Political Behavior 43: 271–300.Google Scholar

Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn W.. 1953. Groups in Harmony and Tension: An Integration of Studies on Intergroup Relations. New York: Harper.Google Scholar

Simmons, Joseph P., Nelson, Leif D., and Simonsohn, Uri. 2011. “False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant.” Psychological Science 22: 1359–1366.Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert A. 1963. “Problems of Methodology Discussion.” American Economic Review Proceedings 53: 229–231.Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert A. 1979. “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations.” American Economic Review 69: 493–513.Google Scholar

Simonsohn, Uri. 2015. “Small Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results.” Psychological Science 26: 559–569.Google Scholar

Sinclair, Betsy. 2012. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Slothuus, Rune. 2016. “Assessing the Influence of Political Parties on Public Opinion: The Challenge from Pretreatment Effects.” Political Communication 33: 302–327.Google Scholar

Slothuus, Rune, and Bisgaard, Martin. 2020. “How Political Parties Shape Public Opinion in the Real World.” American Journal of Political Science, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12550.Google Scholar

Smaldino, Paul. 2019. “Better Methods Can’t Make Up for Mediocre Theory.” Nature 575: 9.Google Scholar

Smaldino, Paul E., and McElreath, Richard. 2016. “The Natural Selection of Bad Science.” Royal Society Open Science 3: 160384.Google Scholar

Smith, Rogers M. 1993. “Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions of America.” American Political Science Review 87: 549–566.Google Scholar

Smith, Rogers M. 2020. “What Good Can Political Science Do? From Pluralism to Partnerships.” Perspectives on Politics 18: 10–26.Google Scholar

Smith, Vernon L. 1976. “Experimental Economics: Induced Value Theory.” American Economic Review 66: 274–279.Google Scholar

Smith, Vernon L. 1982. “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science.” American Economic Review 72: 923–955.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M. 1995. “Evaluation Standards for a Slow-Moving Science.” Political Science and Politics 28: 464–467.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M. 2018. “Some Advances in the Design of Survey Experiments.” Annual Review of Political Science 21: 259–275.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M., and Grob, Douglas B.. 1996. “Innovations in Experimental Design in Attitude Surveys.” Annual Review of Sociology 22: 377–399.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M., eds., Studies in Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sokal, Alan, and Bricmont, Jean. 1997. Intellectual Impostures: Postmodern Philosophers’ Abuse of Science. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Sollors, Werner, Titcomb, Caldwell, and Underwood, Thomas A., eds. 1993. Blacks at Harvard: A Documentary History of African-American Experience at Harvard and Radcliffe. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Sondheimer, Rachel Milstein. 2011. “Analyzing the Downstream Effects of Randomized Experiments.” In Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stark, Tobias H., Silber, Henning, Krosnick, Jon A., et al. 2020. “Generalization of Classic Question Order Effects across Cultures.” Sociological Methods & Research 49: 567–602.Google Scholar

Stewart, Neil, Ungemach, Christoph, Harris, Adam J. L., et al. 2015. “The Average Laboratory Samples a Population of 7,300 Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers.” Judgment & Decision Making 10: 479–491.Google Scholar

Stroebe, Wolfgang, and Strack, Fritz. 2014. “The Alleged Crisis and the Illusion of Exact Replication.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9: 59–71.Google Scholar

Swedberg, Richard. 2020. “Exploratory Research.” In Elman, Colin, Geering, John, and Mahoney, James, eds., The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50: 755–769.Google Scholar

Tappin, Ben M. 2020. “Estimating the Between-Issue Variation in Party Elite Cue Effects.” Working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p48zb.Google Scholar

Thelen, Kathleen, and Mahoney, James. 2015. “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science.” In Mahoney, James and Thelen, Kathleen, eds., Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tipton, Elizabeth, Spybrook, Jessaca, Fitzgerald, Katie, Wang, Qian, and Davidson, Caryn. 2019. “The Convenience of Large Urban School Districts: A Study of Recruitment Practices in 37 Randomized Trials.” Working paper, Northwestern University.Google Scholar

Titiunik, Roćio. 2016. “Drawing Your Senator from a Jar: Term Length and Legislative Behavior.” Political Science Research and Methods 4: 293–316.Google Scholar

Titiunik, Roćio. 2021. “Natural Experiments.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomz, Michael. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization 61: 821–840.Google Scholar

Tourangeau, Roger, and Yan, Ting. 2007. “Sensitive Questions in Surveys.” Psychological Bulletin 133: 859–883.Google Scholar

Twenge, Jean M., Konrath, Sara, Foster, Joshua D., Keith Campbell, W., and Bushman, Brad J.. 2008. “Egos Inflating over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.” Journal of Personality 76: 875–902.Google Scholar

Valenzuela, Ali, and Reny, Tyler. 2021. “Evolution of Experiments on Racial Priming.” In Druckman, James N. and Green, Donald P., eds., Advances in Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, Jay J., Mende-Siedlecki, Peter, Brady, William J., and Reinero, Diego A.. 2016a. “Contextual Sensitivity in Scientific Reproducibility.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 6454–6459.Google Scholar

Van Bavel, Jay J., Mende-Siedlecki, Peter, Brady, William J., and Reinero, Diego A.. 2016b. “Reply to Inbar: Contextual Sensitivity Helps Explain the Reproducibility Gap Between Social and Cognitive Psychology.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: E4935–E4936.Google Scholar

VanderWeele, Tyler J. 2015. Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vannette, David L., and Krosnick, Jon A., eds. 2018. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Vavreck, Lynn, and Rivers, Douglas. 2008. “The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 18: 355–366.Google Scholar

Wagenmakers, E. J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., et al. 2016. “Registered Replication Report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988).” Perspectives on Psychological Science 11: 917–928.Google Scholar

Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. “Clientelism and Voting Behavior.” World Politics 55: 399–422.Google Scholar

Westreich, Daniel, Edwards, Jessie K., Lesko, Catherine R., Cole, Stephen R., and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2019. “Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.” American Journal of Epidemiology 188: 438–443.Google Scholar

Westwood, Sean J., Peterson, Erik, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2019. “Are There Still Limits on Partisan Prejudice?” Public Opinion Quarterly 83: 584–597.Google Scholar

White, Ariel R., Nathan, Noah L., and Faller, Julie K.. 2015. “What Do I Need to Vote? Bureaucratic Discretion and Discrimination by Local Election Officials.” American Political Science Review 109: 129–142.Google Scholar

Williamson, Vanessa. 2016. “On the Ethics of Crowdsourced Research.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49: 77–81.Google Scholar

Willis, Allison W. 2015. “Using Administrative Data to Examine Health Disparities and Outcomes in Neurological Diseases of the Elderly.” Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports 15: 75.Google Scholar

Wong, Vivian C., and Steiner, Peter M.. 2018. “Replication Designs for Causal Inference.” EdPolicyWorks Working Paper Series No. 62, University of Virginia.Google Scholar

Wood, Abby K., and Grose, Christian R.. n.d. “Campaign Finance Transparency Affects Legislators’ Election Outcomes and Behavior.” American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar

Wright, James D., and Marsden, Peter V.. 2010. “Survey Research and Social Science: History, Current Practice, and Future Prospects.” In Marsden, Peter V. and Wright, James D., eds. Handbook of Survey Research. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

Yeager, David S., Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., Holbrook, Allyson L., and Tahk, Alex M.. 2019. “Moderation of Classic Social Psychological Effects by Demographics in the U.S. Adult Population: New Opportunities for Theoretical Advancement.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117: e84–e99.Google Scholar

Zigerell, L. J. 2017. “Reducing Political Bias in Political Science Estimates.” PS: Political Science & Politics 50: 179–183.Google Scholar

Zigerell, L. J. 2018. “Black and White Discrimination in the United States: Evidence from an Archive of Survey Experiment Studies.” Research & Politics 5: 205316801775386.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive