Politische Vierteljahresschrift

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 721–749 | Cite as

Experimente in der Politikwissenschaft: Vom Mauerblümchen zum Mainstream

Literaturbericht

Zusammenfassung

Experimentelle Forschung ist auf dem Vormarsch. Ein Blick in die internationale Forschungslandschaft zeigt in vielerlei Hinsicht – Fachzeitschriften, Bücher, Tagungen – ihre Etablierung. Im deutschsprachigen Raum sind experimentelle Methoden in der Politikwissenschaft bislang aber weniger weit verbreitet. Nach einem Überblick über den Stellenwert von Experimenten in der Politikwissenschaft gehen wir auf Logik und Formen experimenteller Forschung ein, ehe wir uns einigen Beispielen in der Politikwissenschaft zuwenden. Dabei geben wir zunächst einen kursorischen Überblick über experimentelle Forschung in den Bereichen Wahlen und politische Einstellungen, Kollektivgüter und kollektives Handeln, soziales Vertrauen sowie legislative Entscheidungen und Verhandlungen. Daneben stellen wir exemplarisch ein Forschungsfeld im Detail dar: die Erforschung der Wahlbeteiligung mittels Feldexperimenten.

Schlagwörter

Experimente Methoden Forschungsdesign 

Experiments in Political Science: From Wallflower to Mainstream

Abstract

The use of experimental research designs is on the rise. Internationally, experiments are becoming ever more established in the field, as shown by the increasing number of journal articles, books, and conferences. In German political science, however, using experimental methods is still rather uncommon. After a (brief) discussion of the relevance of experiments for political science, we will—in general terms—introduce the logic of experimental research as well as different types of experiments. Then we shall provide a (selective) overview of experimental research in political science that has been conducted: First, we cursorily review the state of (experimental) research done in the fields of elections and public opinion, public goods and collective action, social trust and finally legislative bargaining and decision-making. Following that, we discuss in greater detail the field experimental strand of research studying voter mobilization.

Keywords

Experiments Methods Research Design 

Literatur

  1. Adams, William C., und Dennis J. Smith. 1980. Effects of telephone canvassing on turnout and preferences. A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 44:389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Addonizio, Elizabeth M., Donald P. Green, und James M. Glaser. 2007. Putting the party back into politics. An experiment testing whether election day festivals increase voter turnout. PS: Political Science & Politics 40:721–727.Google Scholar
  3. Amodio, David M., und Patricia G. Devine. 2006. Stereotypes and prejudice. Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91:652–661.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, Stephen, und Shanto Iyengar. 1995. Going negative. How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arceneaux, Kevin, und Martin Johnson. 2008. Choice, attention, and reception in political communication research. The experimental study of selective exposure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, 9. Juli 2008.Google Scholar
  6. Arceneaux, Kevin, und David W. Nickerson. 2009. Who is mobilized to vote? A Re-analysis of 11 field experiments. American Journal of Political Science 53:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arceneaux, Kevin, und David W. Nickerson. 2010. Comparing negative and positive campaign messages evidence from two field experiments. American Politics Research 38:54–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aronson, Elliot, Marilynn B. Brewer, und J. Merrill Carlsmith. 1985. Experimentation in social psychology. In Handbook of social psychology, Hrsg. Lindzey Gardner und Elliot Aronson, 441–486. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  9. Bargh, John, Annette Chen, und Lara Burrrows. 1996. Automaticity of social behavior. Direct effects of the trait construct stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baron, David P., und John A. Ferejohn. 1989. Bargaining in legislatures. American Political Science Review 89:1181–1206.Google Scholar
  11. Bazerman, Max H., Jared R. Curhan, Don A. Moore, und Kathleen L. Valley. 2000. Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology 51:279–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bedolla, Lisa G., und Melissa R. Michelson. 2009. What do voters need to know? American Politics Research 37:254–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Behnke, Joachim. 2008. Strategisches Wählen bei der Nachwahl in Dresden zur Bundestagswahl 2005. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49:695–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Behnke, Joachim, Nina Baur, und Nathalie Behnke. 2006. Empirische Methoden der Politikwissenschaft. Schöningh: Paderborn.Google Scholar
  15. Bellemare, Charles, und Sabine Kröger. 2007. On representative social capital. European Economic Review 51:183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bergan, Daniel E., Alan S. Gerber, Donald P. Green, und Costas Panagopoulos. 2005. Grassroots mobilization and voter turnout in 2004. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:760–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Berinsky, Adam J. 2002. Political context and the survey response. The dynamics of racial policy opinion. Journal of Politics 64:567–584.Google Scholar
  18. Bianco, William T., Michael S. Lynch, Gary Miller, und Itai Sened. 2008. The constrained instability of majority rule. Experiments on the robustness of the uncovered set. Political Analysis 16:115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bohnet, Iris, Bruno S. Frey, und Steffen Huck. 2001. More order with less law. On contract enforcement, trust, and crowding. American Political Science Review 95:131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bottom, William, Cheryl Eavey, und Gary Miller. 1996. Getting to the core. coalitional integrity as a constraint on the power of agenda setters. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40:298–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brader, Ted. 2005. Striking a responsive chord. How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science 49:388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brody, Richard A., und Charles N. Brownstein. 1975. Experimentation and simulation. In Handbook of Political Science, Volume 7. Strategies of Inquiry, Hrsg. Fred I. Greenstein und Nelson W. Polsby, 211–263. Reading: Addisson-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Brown, Steven R., und Lawrence E. Melamed. 1990. Experimental design and analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Camerer, Colin, und Robin Hogarth. 1999. The effects of financial incentives in experiments. A review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19:7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Campbell, Donald T., und Julian C. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  26. Cardenas, Juan-Camilo. 2000. How do groups solve local commons dilemmas? Lessons from experimental economics in the field. Environment, Development and Sustainability 2:305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cassino, Dan, Charles S. Taber, und Milton Lodge. 2007. Information processing and public opinion. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48:205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chong, Dennis, und James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101:637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clarke, Harold D., Allan Kornberg, Chris McIntyre, Petra Bauer-Kaase, und Max Kaase. 1999. The effect of economic priorities on the measurement of value change. New experimental evidence. American Political Science Review 93:637–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Coleman, Eric A., und Brian Steed. 2009. Monitoring and sanctioning on the commons. An application to forestry. Ecological Economics 68:2106–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cook, Thomas D., und Donald T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation. Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  32. Croson, Rachel, und Uri Gneezy. 2009. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47:448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dale, Allison, und Aaron Strauss. 2009. Don’t forget to vote. text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science 53:787–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Davenport, Tiffancy C., Alan S. Gerber, und Donald P. Green. 2010. Field experiments and the study of political behavior. In The Oxford handbook of American elections and political behavior, Hrsg. Jan E. Leighley, 69–88. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Diermeier, Daniel, und Rebecca Morton. 2005. Experiments in majoritarian bargaining. In Social choice and strategic decisions. Essays in honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, Hrsg. David Austen-Smith und John Duggan, 201–226. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Driscoll, Jean M., und Charles S. Hyneman. 1955. Methodology for political studies. Perspectives for study. American Political Science Review 49:192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Druckman, James N. 2001. On the limits of framing effects. Journal of Politics 63:1041–1066.Google Scholar
  38. Druckman, James N. 2003. The power of television images. The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. The Journal of Politics 65:559–571.Google Scholar
  39. Druckman, James N. 2004. Political preference formation. American Political Science Review 98:671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, und Arthur Lupia. 2006. The growth and delevopment of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review 100:627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Druckman, James N., Donald P. Greene, James H. Kuklinski, und Arthur Lupia. Hrsg. Im Erscheinen. Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behaviour. American Political Science Review 50:154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Emmer, Martin, und Gerhard Vowe. 2004. Mobilisierung durch das Internet? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Längsschnittuntersuchung zum Einfluss des Internets auf die politische Kommunikation der Bürger. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45:191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Faas, Thorsten. 2009. Das Experiment – ein unbekanntes Wesen? In Datenwelten. Datenerhebung und Datenbestände in der Politikwissenschaft, Hrsg. Kai-Uwe Schnapp, Nathalie Behnke, und Joachim Behnke, 72–93. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  45. Faas, Thorsten, und Harald Schoen. 2010. Mehrwertsteuer und Staatsverschuldung: Lassen sich die Einstellungen der Bevölkerung durch Framing verschieben? In Information – Wahrnehmung – Emotion, Hrsg. Thorsten Faas, Kai Arzheimer, und Sigrid Roßteutscher, 123–143. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  46. Faas, Thorsten, und Jürgen Maier. 2004. Mobilisierung, Verstärkung, Konversion? Ergebnisse eines Experiments zur Wahrnehmung der Fernsehduelle im Vorfeld der Bundestagswahl 2002. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 45:55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fershtman, Chaim, und Uri Gneezy. 2001. Discrimination in a segmented society. An experimental approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fiorina, Morris P., und Charles R. Plott. 1978. Committee decisions under majority rule. An experimental study. American Political Science Review 72:575–598.Google Scholar
  49. Fisher, Ronald A. 1935. The design of experiments. London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  50. Fréchette, Guillaume R., John H. Kagel, und Steven F. Lehrer. 2003. Bargaining in legislatures. An experimental investigation of open versus closed amendment rules. American Political Science Review 97:221–232.Google Scholar
  51. Frohlich, Norman, und Joe A. Oppenheimer. 1998. Some consequences of e-mail vs. face-to-face communication in experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 35:389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gaines, Brian J., James H. Kuklinski, und Paul J. Quirk. 2007. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis 15:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gerber, Alan S. Im Erscheinen. Field Experiments in Political Science. In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, Hrsg. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski und Arthur Lupia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Gerber, Alan S., und Donald P. Green. 2000. The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout. A field experiment. American Political Science Review 94:653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Gerber, Alan S., und Donald P. Green. 2001. Do phone calls increase voter turnout? Public Opinion Quarterly 65:75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gerber, Alan S., und Donald P. Green. 2005. Do phone calls increase voter turnout? An update. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gerber, Alan S., und Donald P. Green. 2008. Field experiments and natural experiments. In Oxford handbook of political methodology, Hrsg. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, und David Collier, 357–381. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gerber, Alan S., und Todd Rogers. 2009. Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote. Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics 71:178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, und Matthew N. Green. 2003. Partisan mail and voter turnout. Results from randomized field experiments. Electoral Studies 22:563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, und Christopher W. Larimer. 2008. Social pressure and voter turnout. Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review 102:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gerber, Alan S., Dean Karlan, und Daniel Bergan. 2009. Does the media matter? A Field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1:35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, Edward H. Kaplan, und Holger L. Kern. 2010a. Baseline, placebo, and treatment. efficient estimation for three-group experiments. Political Analysis 18:297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, und Christopher W. Larimer. 2010b. An experiment testing the relative effectiveness of encouraging voter participation by inducing feelings of pride or shame. Political Behavior 32:409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Gosnell, Harold F. 1927. Getting out the vote. An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Green, Donald P. 2004. Mobilizing African-American voters using direct mail and commercial phone banks. A field experiment. Political Research Quarterly 57:245–255.Google Scholar
  66. Green, Donald P., und Alan S. Gerber. 2003. The underprovision of experiments in political science. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589:94–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Green, Donald P., und Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist 47:485–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Green, Donald P., und Alan S. Gerber. 2008. Get out the vote. How to increase voter turnout. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  69. Green, Donald P., und Alan S. Gerber. 2010. Introduction to social pressure and voting. New experimental evidence. Political Behavior 32:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Green, Donald P., Alan S. Gerber, und David W. Nickerson. 2003. Getting out the vote in local elections. Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics 65:1083–1096.Google Scholar
  71. Ha, Shang E., und Dean S. Karlan. 2009. Get-out-the-vote phone calls. American Politics Research 37:353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Habyarimana, James, Macartan Humphreys, Daniel N. Posner, und Jeremy M. Weinstein. 2007. Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review 101:709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hardin, Garrett. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Harrison, Glenn W., und John A. List. 2004. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature 42:1009–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hastie, Reid, und Bernadette Park. 1986. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93:258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Hofinger, Christoph, und Günther Ogris. 2002. Orakel der Neuzeit. Was leisten Wahlbörsen, Wählerstromanalysen und Wahltagshochrechnungen? Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 31:143–158.Google Scholar
  77. Horiuchi, Yusaku, Kosuke Imai, und Naoko Taniguchi. 2007. Designing and analyzing randomized experiments. Application to a Japanese election survey experiment. American Journal of Political Science 51:669–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Huber, Gregory A., und Kevin Arceneaux. 2007. Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science 51:957–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Huber, Sascha. 2008. Personalisierung der Politik, Informationsverarbeitung und institutioneller Kontext. Eine experimentelle Studie. In Politik und Persönlichkeit, Hrsg. Johannes Pollak, 139–154. Wien: Facultas.Google Scholar
  80. Huber, Sascha. 2009. The consequences of casting one or two ballots. Effects of different proportional electoral systems on voting behaviour. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference Potsdam, 10.–12. September 2009. Google Scholar
  81. Huber, Sascha. 2010. Kognition und Motivation bei der Wahrnehmung politischer Positionen. Eine experimentelle Untersuchung zur Rolle von Ideologie-Hinweisen. In Information-Wahrnehmung-Emotion, Hrsg. Thorsten Faas, Kai Arzheimer, und Sigrid Roßteutscher, 145–168. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Huddy, Leonie, und Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science 37:119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hutchings, Vincent L., und Nicholas Valentino. 2004. The centrality of race in American politics. Annual Review of Political Science 7:383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hyde, Susan D. 2010. Experimenting in democracy promotion. International observers and the 2004 presidential elections in Indonesia. Perspectives on Politics 8:511–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Imai, Kosuke. 2005. Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review 99:283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Isaac, R. Mark, und James M. Walker. 1988a. Communication and free-riding behavior. The voluntary contribution mechanism. Economic Inquiry 26:585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Isaac, R. Mark, und James M. Walker. 1988b. Group size effects in public goods provision. The voluntary contribution mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 103:179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Iyengar, Shanto. 2002. Experimental designs for political communication research. from shopping malls to the internet. http://pcl.stanford.edu/common/docs/research/iyengar/2002/expdes2002.pdf. Zugegriffen: 22. Okt. 2010.
  90. Iyengar, Shanto, und Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that matters. Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  91. Jamison, Julian, Dean Karlan, und Laura Schechter. 2008. To deceive or not to deceive. The effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 68:477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. John, Peter, und Tessa Brannan. 2008. How different are telephoning and canvassing? Results from a ‚Get Out the Vote‘ field experiment in the British 2005 general election. British Journal of Political Science 38:565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Johnson, Noel D., und Alexandra Mislin. 2008. Cultures of kindness. A meta-analysis of trust game experiments. SSRN Working Paper.Google Scholar
  94. Kagel, John H., und Alvin E. Roth. 1995. The handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Kam, Cindy D. 2005. Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior 27:163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Kam, Cindy D., Jennifer R. Wilking, und Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2007. Beyond the ‚Narrow Data Base‘. Another convenience sample for experimental research. Political Behavior 29:415–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Karpowitz, Christopher F., und Tali Mendelberg. 2007. Groups and deliberation. Swiss Political Science Review 13:645–662.Google Scholar
  98. Kinder, Donald R. 1998. Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science 1:167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Kinder, Donald R., und Thomas R. Palfrey. 1991. An experimental political science? Yes, an experimental political science. The Political Methodologist 4:2–8.Google Scholar
  100. Kinder, Donald R., und Thomas R. Palfrey. 1993. On behalf on an experimental political science. In Experimental foundations of political science, Hrsg. Donald R. Kinder und Thomas R. Palfrey, 1–39. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  101. King, Gary. 1995. Replication, replication. Political Science & Politics 28:444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Kittel, Bernhard. 2009. Eine Disziplin auf der Suche nach Wissenschaftlichkeit. Entwicklung und Stand der Methoden in der deutschen Politikwissenschaft. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 50:577–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Klein, Markus. 2006. Jenseits von Distanz und Richtung. Die Verbundmessung von Politikpräferenzen im Vergleich mit dem Distanz- und dem Richtungsmodell des Wählens – empirische Befunde eines Methodenexperiments. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 47:595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Klein, Markus, und Ulrich Rosar. 2009. Sie, Sie, Sie oder Er? Die Kanzlerkandidatur von Angela Merkel im Spiegel der Daten einer experimentellen Befragung. In Wahlen und Wähler. Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 2005, Hrsg. Oscar W. Gabriel, Jürgen W. Falter und Bernhard Weßels, 346–357. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften .Google Scholar
  105. Köllner, Patrick. 2005. Informelle Parteistrukturen und institutioneller Wandel. Japanische Erfahrungen nach den politischen Reformen des Jahres 1994. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 46:39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Kuklinski, James H., und Norman L. Hurley. 1994. On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages. A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking. Journal of Politics 56:729–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Kuklinski, James H., Paul J. Quirk, Jennifer Jerit, David Schwieder und Robert F. Rich. 2000. Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics 62:790–816.Google Scholar
  108. Lau, Richard R., und David P. Redlawsk. 1997. Voting correctly. American Political Science Review 91:585–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Lau, Richard R., und David P. Redlawsk. 2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science 45:951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Lau, Richard R., und David P. Redlawsk. 2006. How voters decide. Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Lau, Richard R., Lee Sigelman, und Ivy Brown Rovner. 2007. The effects of negative political campaigns. A Meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics 69:1176–1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lavine, Howard. 2002. On-line versus memory-based process models of candidate evaluation. In Political Psychology, Hrsg. Kristen R. Monroe, 225–247. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  113. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65:682–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Lin, Jie-Shin. 2008. Learning and party competition. Swiss Political Science Review 14:131–155.Google Scholar
  115. Linhart, Eric, und Sascha Huber. 2009. Der rationale Wähler in Mehrparteiensystemen. Theorie und experimentelle Befunde. In Parteienwettbewerb, Wahlverhalten und Koalitionsbildung, Hrsg. Christian Henning, Eric Linhart, und Susumu Shikano, 133–160. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  116. Lodge, Milton, und Charles Taber. 2005. The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues. An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology 26:455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Lodge, Milton, Kathleen McGraw, und Patrick Stroh. 1989. An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review 83:399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Lowell, A. Lawrence. 1910. The physiology of politics. American Political Science Review 4:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Lupia, Arthur. 2002. New ideas in experimental political science. Political Analysis 10:319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Lupia, Arthur, und Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998. The democratic dilemma. Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Mann, Christopher B. 2010. Is there backlash to social pressure? A large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Behavior 32:387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. McConahay, John B. 1973. Experimental research. In Handbook of Political Psychology, Hrsg. Jeanne N. Knutson, 356–382. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  123. McDermott, Rose. 2002a. Experimental methods in political science. Annual Review of Political Science 5:31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. McDermott, Rose. 2002b. Experimental methodology in political science. Political Analysis 10:325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. McDermott, Rose. 2006. Editor’s introduction. Political Psychology 27:347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. McGraw, Kathleen. 1996. Political methodology. Research design and experimental methods. In A new handbook of political science, Hrsg. Robert E. Goodin und Hans-Dieter Klingemann, 769–786. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  127. McGraw, Kathleen, und Valerie Hoekstra. 1994. Experimentation in political science. Historical trends and future directions. Research in Micropolitics 4:3–29.Google Scholar
  128. McGraw, Kathleen, und Marco Steenbergen. 1995. Pictures in the head. Memory representations of political candidates. In Political Judgment. Structure and Process, Hrsg. Milton Lodge und Kathleen McGraw, 15–42. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  129. McGraw, Kathleen M., Edward Hasecke, und Kimberly Conger. 2003. Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology 24:421–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. McGraw, Kathleen M., Milton Lodge, und Jeffrey Jones. 2002. The pandering politicians of suspicious minds. Journal of Politics 64:362–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. McKelvey, Richard D. 1976. Intransitivities in multidimensional voting models and some implications for agenda control. Journal of Economic Theory 12:472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. McKelvey, Richard D. 1991. An experimental test of a stochastic game model of committee bargaining. In Laboratory research in political economy, Hrsg. Thomas R. Palfrey, 74–96. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  133. McKelvey, Richard D., und Peter C. Ordeshook. 1985a. Elections with limited information. A fulfilled expectations model using contemporaneous poll and endorsement data as informational sources. Journal of Economic Theory 36:55–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. McKelvey, Richard D., und Peter C. Ordeshook. 1985b. Sequential elections with limited information. American Journal of Political Science 29:480–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Meffert, Michael F., und Thomas Gschwend. 2007. Polls, coalition signals, and strategic voting. An experimental investigation of perceptions and effects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, 24.–28. Mai 2007.Google Scholar
  136. Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The race card. Campaign strategy, implicit messages and the norm of equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Messick, David M. 1993. Equality as a decision heuristic. In Psychological perspectives on justice. Theory and applications, Hrsg. Barbara A. Mellers und Jonathan Baron, 11–31. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Michelson, Melissa R. 2003. Getting out the latino vote. How door-to-door canvassing influences voter turnout in rural central california. Political Behavior 25:247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Michelson, Melissa R. 2005. Meeting the challenge of latino voter mobilization. Annals of the American academy of political and social science 601:85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Michelson, Melissa R., und Nickerson, David. Im Erscheinen. Voter mobilization. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, Hrsg. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, und Arthur Lupia. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Miettinen, Topi, und Sigrid Suetens. 2008. Communication and guilt in a prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution 52:945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Miller, Joanne M., und Jon A. Krosnick. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations. Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science 44:301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Miller, Roy E., David A. Bositis, und Denise L. Baer. 1981. Stimulating voter turnout in a primary. International Political Science Review 2:445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Mintz, Alex, Steven B. Redd, und Arnold Vedlitz. 2006. Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations? Journal of Conflict Resolution 50:757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Morton, Rebecca B., und Kenneth C. Williams. 1999. Information asymmetries and Simultaneous versus sequential voting. American Political Science Review 93:51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Morton, Rebecca B., und Kenneth C. Williams. 2008. Experimentation in political science. In The Oxford handbook of political methodology, Hrsg. Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, und David Collier, 339–356. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Morton, Rebecca B., und Kenneth C. Williams. 2010. Experimental political science and the study of causality. From nature to the lab. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  148. Mutz, Diana C., Paul M. Sniderman, und Richard A. Brody. Hrsg. 1996. Political persuasion and attitude change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  149. Nannestad, Peter. 2008. What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political Science 11:413–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Nelson, Thomas E., und Donald R. Kinder. 1996. Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics 58:1055–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, und Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91:567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Nickerson, David W. 2007. Quality is job one. Professional and volunteer voter mobilization calls. American Journal of Political Science 51:269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Nickerson, David W. 2008. Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review 102:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Nickerson, W. David, und Todd Rogers. 2010. Do you have a voting plan? Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychological Science 21:194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Olken, Benjamin. 2010. Direct democracy and local public goods. Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review 104:243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The logic of collective action. Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  157. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  158. Ostrom, Elinor, James Walker, und Roy Gardner. 1992. Covenants with and without a sword. American Political Science Review 86:404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, und James Walker. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  160. Palfrey, Thomas R. 2007. Laboratory experiments. In The oxford handbook of political economy, Hrsg. Barry R. Weingast und Donald Wittman, 915–937. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  161. Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009a. Street fight. The impact of a street sign campaign on voter turnout. Electoral Studies 28:309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009b. Partisan and nonpartisan message content and voter mobilization. Political Research Quarterly 62:70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Panagopoulos, Costas. 2010. Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation. Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior 32:369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Peffley, Mark, und Jon Hurwitz. 2007. Persuasion and resistance. Race and the death penalty in America. American Journal of Political Science 51:996–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Peters, B. Guy. 1998. Comparative politics. Theory and methods. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  166. Plott, Charles R. 1991. Will economics become an experimental science? Southern Economic Journal 57:901–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Poteete, Amy R., Marco A. Janssen, und Elinor Ostrom. 2010. Working together. collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  168. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  169. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  170. Quattrone, George A., und Amos Tversky. 1988. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review 82:719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Ramírez, Ricardo. 2005. Giving voice to Latino voters. A field experiment on the effectiveness of a national nonpartisan mobilization effort. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Riker, William H. 1986. The art of political manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  173. Robinson, Gregory, John E. McNulty, und Jonathan S. Krasno. 2009. Observing the counterfactual? The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis 17:341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Rosenberg, Shawn, und Patrick McCafferty. 1987. The image and the vote. Manipulating voter’s preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly 51:31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Roth, Alvin E. 1995. Introduction to experimental economics. In The handbook of experimental economics, Hrsg. John H. Kagel und Alvin E. Roth, 3–109. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  176. Sally, David. 1995. Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to1992. Rationality and Society 7:58–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Schotter, Andrew, und Barry Sopher. 2006. Trust and trustworthiness in games: An experimental study of intergenerational advice. Experimental Economics 9:123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, und Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  180. Smith, Vernon L. 1976. Experimental economics. Induced value theory. American Economic Review 66:274–279.Google Scholar
  181. Sniderman, Paul M., und Douglas B. Grob. 1996. Innovations in experimental design in attitude surveys. Annual Review of Sociology 22:377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Sniderman, Paul M., und Thomas Piazza. 1993. The scar of race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  183. Sniderman, Paul M., und Sean M. Theriault. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Studies in public opinion. Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change, Hrsg. Willem E. Saris und Paul M. Sniderman, 133–156. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  184. Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, und Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and choice. Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Sniderman, Paul M., Look Hagendoorn, und Markus Prior. 2004. Predispositional factors and situational triggers. American Political Science Review 98:35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Sommerfeld, Ralf D., Hans-Juergen Krambeck, und Manfred Milinski. 2008. Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 275:2529–2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Steenbergen, Marco, und Milton Lodge. 2003. Process matters. Cognitive models of candidate evaluation. In Electoral democracy, Hrsg. Michael MacKuen und George Rabinowitz, 125–171. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  188. Sutter, Matthias, und Martin G. Kocher. 2007. Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior 59:364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Swanson, Jane E., Laurie Rudman, und Anthony G. Greenwald. 2001. Using the implicit association test to investigate attitude-behaviour consistency for stigmatised behavior. Cognition & Emotion 15:207–230.Google Scholar
  190. Taylor, Michael. 1987. The possibility of cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  191. Tomz, Michael, und Robert P. van Houweling. 2009. The electoral implications of candidate ambiguity. American Political Science Review 103:83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. Trivedi, Neema. 2005. The effect of identity-based GOTV direct mail appeals on the turnout of Indian Americans. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. Tversky, Amos, und Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Uslaner, Eric M. 2002. The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Van Swol, Lyn M. 2003. The effects of regulation on trust. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 25:221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. Verhulst, Brad, Milton Lodge, und Howard Lavine. 2010. The attractiveness halo. Why some candidates are perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 34:111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. Weir, Blair T. 1985. The American tradition of the experimental treatment of elections. A review essay. Electoral Studies 4:125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Wilkerson, John. 1999. Killer amendments in congress. American Political Science Review 93:535–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. Wilson, Richard. 1986. Forward and backward agenda procedures. Committee experiments on structurally induced equilibrium. Journal of Politics 48:390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. Wilson, Richard. 2008. Structure-induced equilibrium in spatial committee games. In Handbook of experimental economics results, Hrsg. Charles R. Plott und Vernon Smith, 872–879. Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Wilson, Rick K., und Catherine C. Eckel. 2006. Judging a book by its cover. Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly 59:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Wong, Janelle S. 2005. Mobilizing Asian American voters. A field experiment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:102–122.Google Scholar
  203. Zimmermann, Ekkart. 1972. Das Experiment in den Sozialwissenschaften. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
  204. Zuckerman, Alan S. Hrsg. 2005. The social logic of politics. Personal networks as contexts for political behaviour. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  205. Zuckerman, Alan S. 2007. The social logic of political choice. Picking a political party in the context of immediate social circles. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 48:633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politikwissenschaft, insbes. WählerverhaltenUniversität MannheimMannheimDeutschland
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Politische Wissenschaft I, Politische SoziologieUniversität MannheimMannheimDeutschland

Personalised recommendations