Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A synoptic history and typology of experimental research in political science

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a brief chronicle of experimental research in political science. It is based upon an empirical analysis of 217 published experiments from ten major scholarly journals. A number of different subject areas where experimental designs have been employed are identified and dated as to when such designs were initially used. This sample of experiments is then analyzed, and four dimensions are identified and used to characterize these published experiments. The defining criteria for these dimensions include level of analysis, experimental environment, assumptions concerning rationality, and the nature of the experimental stimulus.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Becker, L., and Doolittle, S. (1975). How repetition affects evaluation and information seeking about candidates.Journalism Quarterly 52:611–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., and Tuchfarber, A. (1980). Experiments in filtering political opinions.Political Behavior 2:339–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., and Tuchfarber, A. (1982). Effects of presenting one versus two sides of an issue in survey questions.Public Opinion Quarterly 46:69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., and Tuchfarber, A. (1983). Effects of filter questions in public opinion surveys.Public Opinion Quarterly 47:528–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G., Oldendick, R., and Tuchfarber, A. (1984). Interest in political campaigns: the influence of question order and electoral context.Political Behavior 6:159–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blydenburgh, J. C. (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning.Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bositis, D. A., Baer, D., and Miller, R. (1985). Cognitive information levels, voters preferences, and local partisan political activity: a field experimental study on the effects of timing and order of message presentation.Political Behavior 7:266–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckout, R., Weg, S., and Reilly, F. (1977). Jury comparison of 6- vs 12-person juries and unanimous vs. majority decision rule in a murder trial.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 10:175–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, F. S., Peters, J. G., and Strom, G. S. (1974). Bandwagon, ballot position and party effects: an experiment in voting choice.Experimental Study of Politics 3:31–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, A. (1985). The electoral impact of franked congressional mail.Polity 17:649–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, A., and Brumberg, B. (1982). Baby books and ballots: the impact of congressional mail on constituent opinion.American Political Science Review 76:347–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S., and Hurley, T. (1984). Political rhetoric and the Structure of political opinion: some experimental findings.Western Political Quarterly 37:632–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabelko, D. (1981). Evaluation of public policy.Experimental Study of Politics 7:39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1961). The behavioral approach in political science: epitaph for a monument to a successful protest.American Political Science Review 55:763–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darcy, R. (1974). Viewing a small nation with limited information: image formation in two societies.Experimental Study of Politics 3:18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, L. D., Cook, T. J., and Dyson, J. W. (1971). Socialization principles and attitude modification: a note on the learning process.Experimental Study of Politics 1:98–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohrenwend, B. (1970). An experimental study of payments to respondents.Public Opinion Quarterly 34:621–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, J., and Brownstein, C. (1979). Campaign information, attitudinal voting, and the electoral context: an experimental investigation.Experimental Study of Politics 7:1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldersveld, S. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior.American Political Science Review 50:154–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldersveld, S., Heard, A., Huntington, S., Janowitz, M., Leirson, A., McKean, D., and Truman, D. (1961). Research in political behavior. In S. S. Ulmer (ed.),Introductory Readings in Political Behavior. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eulau, H. (1962). Segments of political science most susceptible to behavioristic treatment. In J. C. Charlesworth (ed.),The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleitas, D. (1971). Bandwagon and underdog effects in minimal information elections.American Political Science Review 65:434–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godwin, K. (1979). The consequnces of large monetary incentives in mail surveys of elites.Public Opinion Quarterly 43:378–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell, H. F. (1927).Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackler, J., and Bourgette, P. (1973). Dollars, dissonance and surrogates.Public Opinion Quarterly 37:276–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, G. (1936). A field experiment on the comparative effectiveness of “emotional” and “rational” political leaflets in determining election results.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 31:99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinckley, B. (1977). The effect of information on choice of coalition partner.Experimental Study of Politics 6:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C., Lumsdaine, A. A., and Sheffield, F. (1949).Experiments in Mass Communications. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C., and Mandell, W. (1957). Is there a “law of primacy” in persuasion? InYale Studies in Attitude and Communication, Vol. 1,The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, D. (1972). Biochemical desocialization: depressants and political behavior.Midwest Journal of Political Science 16:1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaros, D., and Darcy, R. (1972). The elusive impact of political science: more negative findings.Experimental Study of Politics 2:14–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H., and Shapiro, M. (1954). An experiment on conformity to group norms where conformity is detrimental to group achievement.American Sociological Review 19:667–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N., Atkin, R., Staser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R., and Davis, J. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: effects of concept definition and assigned decisional rule on the judgments of mock juries.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34:282–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, D., and Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors.Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 5:141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, F. (1925). The psychology of belief.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 20:174–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupfer, M., and Wald, K. (1979). An experimental study of the first Carter-Ford debate.Experimental Study of Politics 7:20–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S. (1962).A History of the Sciences. New York: Collier Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarland, S. (1981). Effects of question order on survey responses.Public Opinion Quarterly 45:208–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadow, G., and Sigelman, L. (1982). Some effects and noneffects of campaign commercials: an experimental study.Political Behavior 4:163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgram, S. (1974).Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1974).A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive. Text Edition, J. M. Robson (ed). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P. (1984). Alternative question forms for attitude scale questions in telephone interviews.Public Opinion Quarterly 48:766–778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. E. (1981). Experimental studies. In D. Nimmo and K. Sanders (eds.),Handbook of Political Communication. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, T. (1954). The coalition pattern in three-person groups.American Sociological Review 19:657–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G., Murphy, L., and Newcomb, T. (1937).Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. (1977). What's wrong with political science.Washington Monthly, September, pp. 13–20.

  • Nemeth, C., and Sosis, R. (1973). A simulated jury study: character of the defendant and the jurors.Journal of Social Psychology 90:221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskamp, S. (1965). Attitudes toward US and Russian actions: a double standard.Psychological Reports 16:43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S. (1929). Contagious bias in the interview: a methodological note.American Journal of Sociology 35:420–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. J. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: the case of “The Selling of the Pentagon”.American Political Science Review 70:409–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. L. (1969).Artifact in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salisbury, B. (1983). Evaluative voting behavior: an experimental examination.Western Political Quarterly 36:88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1958). The strategy of conflict: prospectus for a reorientation.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:203–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schewe, C., and Cournoyer, N. (1976). Prepaid vs. promised monetary incentives to questionnaire response: further evidence.PUblic Opinion Quarterly 40:105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, T., and Bonono, T. (1978). Fun and games: the validity of games for the study of conflict.Journal of Conflict Resolution 22:7–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, G. (1983). The evolution of political science: paradigms of physics, biology and politics.Politics and the Life Science 1:97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., Presser, S., and Ludwig, J. (1981). Context effects on survey responses to questions about abortion.Public Opinion Quarterly 45:216–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D., Freedman, J., and O'Connor, E. (1964). The effects of anticipated debate and commitment on the polarization of audience opinion.Public Opinion Quarterly 28:615–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, C., and Lodge, M. (1985). Partisan and ideological belief systems: do they differ?Political Behavior 7:147–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L. (1981). Question-order effects on presidential popularity.Public Opinion Quarterly 45:199–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., and Sigelman, C. (1981). Presidential leadership of public opinion: from “benevolent leader” to “kiss of death.”Experimental Study of Politics 7:1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., and Thomas, D. (1984). Opinion leadership and the crystallization of nonattitudes: some experimental results.Polity 16:484–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, R. C., Bruck, H. W., and Sapin, B. (1954).Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Policy Analysis Project, Princeton University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strodtbeck, F. (1954). The case for the study of small groups.American Sociological Review 19:651–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strodtbeck, F., and Mann, R. (1956). Sex role differentiation in jury deliberations.Sociometry 19:3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taebel, D. (1975). The effect of ballot position on electoral success.American Journal of Political Science 19:519–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorson, S., and McKeever, M. (1983). Thematic memory for politics in children.Political Behavior 5:421–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truman, D. B. (1951).The Governmental Process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, J. C. (1979). Pre-behavioralism in political science.American Political Science Review 79:9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, R., and Joseph, M. (1959). Bargaining behavior: prominence as a predictor of the outcomes of games of agreement.Journal of Conflict Resolution 3:102–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, K. H. (ed. and trans.) (1950).The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, The George Washington University, 20052, Washington, DC

    David A. Bositis & Douglas Steinel

Authors
  1. David A. Bositis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Steinel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bositis, D.A., Steinel, D. A synoptic history and typology of experimental research in political science. Polit Behav 9, 263–284 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988616

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988616

Keywords

Search

Navigation