Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T13:40:38.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Putting Politics in the Lab: A Review of Lab Experiments in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2018

Damien Bol
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments are now common in political science. They are an excellent methodological tool to estimate the causal effect of a treatment on an outcome. In this article, I review the use of lab experiments in political science. After a brief report on their popularity and advantages, I distinguish two ideal-types (economics-based and psychology-based) and outline the main lines of division between them. In the final section, I discuss the main challenges that lab experimentalists are facing today.

Keywords

experimentlabmethodpolitical science
Type
Review Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 167 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Damien Bol is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Economy at King’s College London. Contact email: [email protected].

References

REFERENCES

Adida, C.L., Laitin, D.D. and Valfort, M.-A. (2016), ‘“One Muslim is Enough!” Evidence from a Field Experiment in France’, Annals of Economics and Statistics, 121/122: 121–160.Google Scholar
Amorim Neto, O. and Cox, G.W. (1997), ‘Electoral Institutions, Cleavage Structures, and the Number of Parties’, American Journal of Political Science, 41(1): 149–174.Google Scholar
Angrist, J.D. and Pischke, J.-S. (2010), ‘The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2): 3–30.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016), ‘1,500 Scientists Lift the Lid on Reproducibility’, Nature, 533(7604): 452–454.Google Scholar
Bawn, K. (1993), ‘The Logic of Institutional Preferences: German Electoral Law as a Social Choice Outcome’, American Journal of Political Science, 37(4): 965–989.Google Scholar
Belot, M., Duch, R. and Miller, L. (2015), ‘A Comprehensive Comparison of Students and Non-students in Classic Experimental Games’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 113(1): 26–33.Google Scholar
Benjamin, D.J., Berger, J.O., Johannesson, M. et al. (2018), ‘Redefining Statistical Significance’, Nature Human Behavior, 2: 6–10.Google Scholar
Blais, A. and Carty, K.R. (1990), ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?’, European Journal of Political Research, 18(2): 167–181.Google Scholar
Blais, A., Labbé St-Vincent, S., Pilet, J.-B. and Treibich, R. (2016), ‘Voting Correctly in Lab Elections with Monetary Incentives: The Impact of District Magnitude’, Party Politics, 22(4): 544–551.Google Scholar
Boix, C. (1999), ‘Setting the Rules of the Game: The Choice of Electoral Systems in Advanced Democracies’, American Political Science Review, 93(3): 609–624.Google Scholar
Bol, D. (2019), ‘Experiments: A Tool to Test Causal Relationships’, in F. Morin, C. Olsson and E. Ozlem Atikcan (eds), Key Concepts in Research Methods (Cambridge: Routledge).Google Scholar
Bol, D., Labbé St-Vincent, S. and Lavoie, J.-M. (2016), ‘Recruiting for Laboratory Voting Experiments: Exploring the (Potential) Sampling Bias’, in A. Blais, J.-F. Laslier and K. Van der Straeten (eds), Voting Experiments (New York: Springer): 271–286.Google Scholar
Bol, D., Blais, A. and Labbé St-Vincent, S. (2018), ‘Which Matters Most: Party Strategic Exit or Voter Strategic Voting? A Laboratory Experiment’, Political Science Research and Methods, 6(2): 229–244.Google Scholar
Carey, J.M. and Hix, S. (2011), ‘The Electoral Sweet Spot: Low Magnitude Proportional Electoral Systems’, American Journal of Political Science, 55(2): 383–397.Google Scholar
Cliffort, S. and Jerit, J. (2014), ‘Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies’, Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(2): 120–131.Google Scholar
Coppock, A. and Green, D.P. (2015), ‘Assessing the Correspondence between Experimental Results Obtained in the Lab and Field: A Review of Recent Social Science Research’, Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1): 113–131.Google Scholar
Desposato, S. (2016) (ed.), Ethics in Experiments: Problems and Solutions for Social Scientists and Policy Professionals (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
Dickson, E.S. (2011), ‘Economics Versus Psychology Experiments: Stylization, Incentives, and Deception’, in J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski and A. Lupia (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 58–71.Google Scholar
Dickson, E.S., Gordon, S.C. and Huber, G.A. (2015), ‘Institutional Sources of Legitimate Authority: An Experimental Investigation’, American Journal of Political Science, 59(1): 109–127.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinski, J.H. and Lupia, A. (2011), ‘Experimentations in Political Science’, in J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski and A. Lupia (eds), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 3–13.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N., Fein, J. and Leeper, T.J. (2012), ‘Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability’, American Political Science Review, 106(2): 430–454.Google Scholar
Duffy, J. and Tavits, M. (2008), ‘Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(3): 603–618.Google Scholar
Eldersveld, S.J. (1956), ‘Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior’, American Political Science Review, 50(1): 154–165.Google Scholar
Feddersen, T., Gailmard, S. and Sandron, A. (2009), ‘Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence’, American Political Science Review, 103(2): 175–192.Google Scholar
Gartner, S.S. (2008), ‘The Multiple Effects of Casualties on Public Support for War: An Experimental Approach’, American Political Science Review, 102(1): 95–106.Google Scholar
Gilligan, M.J., Pasquale, B.J. and Samii, C. (2014), ‘Civil War and Social Cohesion: Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Nepal’, American Journal of Political Science, 58(3): 604–619.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. and Loken, E. (2013), ‘The Garden of Forking Paths: Why Multiple Comparisons Can Be a Problem, Even When There Is No “Fishing Expedition” or “P-Hacking” And the Research Hypothesis Was Posited Ahead of Time’, mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Gosnell, H.F. (1926), ‘An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 20(4): 869–874.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, J. (2017), ‘Explaining Variation in Broker Strategies: A Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in Senegal’, Comparative Political Studies, 50(11): 1556–1592.Google Scholar
Herrera, H., Morelli, M. and Palfrey, T. (2014), ‘Turnout and Power Sharing’, Economic Journal, 124(574): 131–162.Google Scholar
Jerit, J., Barabas, J. and Clifford, S. (2013), ‘Comparing Contemporaneous Laboratory and Field Experiments on Media Effects’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(1): 256–282.Google Scholar
Kam, C.D. and Zechmeister, E.J. (2013), ‘Name Recognition and Candidate Support’, American Journal of Political Science, 57(4): 971–986.Google Scholar
Kam, C.D., Wilking, J.R. and Zechmeister, E. (2007), ‘“Beyond the Narrow Data Base”: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research’, Political Behavior, 29(4): 415–440.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K. and Woon, J. (2015), ‘Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry’, American Journal of Political Science, 59(3): 595–612.Google Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O. and Verba, S. (1994), Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Labbé St-Vincent, S., Blais, A. and Pilet, J.-B. (2016), ‘The Electoral Sweet Spot in the Lab’, Journal of Experimental Political Science, 3(1): 75–83.Google Scholar
Lau, R.R. and Redlawsk, D.P. (1997), ‘Voting Correctly’, American Political Science Review, 91(3): 585–598.Google Scholar
Levendusky, M.S. (2013), ‘Why Do Partisan Media Polarize Viewers?’, American Journal of Political Science, 57(3): 611–623.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1971), ‘Comparative Politics and the Comparative Methods’, American Political Science Review, 65(3): 682–693.Google Scholar
Lowell, A.L. (1910), ‘The Physiology of Politics’, American Political Science Review, 4(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
McCauley, J.F. (2014), ‘The Political Mobilization of Ethnic and Religious Identities in Africa’, American Political Science Review, 108(4): 801–816.Google Scholar
McClendon, G. (2012), ‘Ethics of Using Public Officials as Field Experiment Subjects’, Newsletter of the APSA Experiments Section, 3(1): 13–20.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (2002a), ‘Experimental Methodology in Political Science’, Political Analysis, 10(4): 325–342.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (2002b), ‘Experimental Methods in Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 5: 31–61.Google Scholar
Morton, R.B. and Williams, K.C. (2010), From Nature to the Lab: The Methodology of Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. and Reeves, B. (2005), ‘The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust’, American Political Science Review, 99(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015), ‘Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science’, Science, 349(6251): aac4716.Google Scholar
Palfrey, T.R. (2009), ‘Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 12: 379–388.Google Scholar
Przeworski, A. and Teune, H. (1970), The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (Oxford: Wiley Interscience).Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (1989), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Sanders, D. (2012), ‘The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-wide Experiment: Five Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation’, British Journal of Political Science, 42(3): 617–640.Google Scholar
Sauermann, J. and Kaiser, A. (2010), ‘Taking Others into Account: Self-interest and Fairness in Majority Decision Making’, American Journal of Political Science, 54(3): 667–685.Google Scholar
Schram, A. (2005), ‘Artificiality: The Tension Between Internal and External Validity in Economic Experiments’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(2): 225–237.Google Scholar
Terris, L.G. and Tykocinsky, O.E. (2016), ‘Inaction Inertia in International Negotiations: The Consequences of Missed Opportunities’, British Journal of Political Science, 46(3): 701–717.Google Scholar
White, I., Laird, C.N. and Allen, T.D. (2014), ‘Selling Out? The Politics of Navigating Conflicts between Racial Group Interest and Self-interest’, American Political Science Review, 108(4): 783–800.Google Scholar
Willis, D. (2014), ‘Professors’ Research Project Stirs Political Outrage in Montana’, New York Times, 29 October.Google Scholar