Advertisement

Studying European Union Attitude Formation Using Experiments

  • Julie Hassing Nielsen
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)

Abstract

The past decades have witnessed a true revolution when it comes to the use of experiments in political science (e.g. Druckman et al., 2011; Druckman et al., 2006; McDermott, 2002; Morton and Williams, 2010). Whereas experimentation has been extensively used as a tool for exploration of research questions in the neighbouring disciplines of psychology and economics, political scientists have until now only reluctantly endorsed experimental opportunities. Methodological aspects like external validity and representative sampling have been held against experimentation, leaving this approach second-ranked amongst other research methods.

Keywords

Average Treatment Effect Survey Experiment American Political Science Review Strategic Vote Vote Choice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J.A. (2001) ‘The Colonial Origins of Comparative Economic Development’, American Economic Review 91(5): 1369–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashraf, N., Bohnet, I. and Piankov, N. (2006) ‘Decomposing Trust and Trustworthiness’, Experimental Economics 9(3): 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabas, J. and Jerit, J. (2010) ‘Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid’, American Political Science Review 104(2): 226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J. and McCabe, K. (1995) ‘Trust;Reciprocity, and Social History’, Games and Economic Behaviour 10(1): 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, M.B. (2007) ‘The Importance of Being We: Human Nature and Intergroup Relations’, American Psychologist 62(8): 728–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruter, M. (2009) ‘Time Bomb? The Dynamic Effects of News and Symbols on the Political Identity of European Citizens’, Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1498–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D.T. (1957) ‘Factors Relevant to the Validity of Experiments in Social Settings’, Psychology Bulletin 54(4): 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, D.T. (1958) ‘Common Fate, Similarities, and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Person as Social Entities’, Behavioural Science 3(1): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlin, R.E. and Love, G.J. (2013) ‘The Politics of Interpersonal Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach’, Political Behaviour 35(1): 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalmers, D. (2003) ‘The Reconstitution of European Public Sphere’, European Law Journal 9(2): 127–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer-Lassen, D. and Serritzlew, S. (2011) ‘Jurisdiction Size and Local Democracy: Evidence on Internal Political Efficacy From Large-Scale Municipal Reform’, American Political Science Review 105(2): 238–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (2006) ‘The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science’, American Political Science Review 100(4): 627–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) (2011) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  14. Druckman, J.N. and Kam, C.D. (2011) ‘Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base”’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) (2011) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunning, T. (2008) ‘Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments’, Political Research Quarterly 61(2): 282–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksen, E.O. and Fossum, J.E. (2002) ‘Democracy Through Strong Publics in the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(3): 401–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fearon, J. (1998) ‘The Basis for Discussion’, in Elster, J. (ed.) Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  18. Fishkin, J.S. and Luskin, R.C. (2005) ‘Experimenting With a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Pooling and Public Opinion’, Acta Politica 40(3): 284–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foellesdal, A. and Hix, S. (2006) ‘Why There Is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik’, Journal of Common Market Studies 44(3): 533–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fung, A. (2003) ‘Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gadarian, S.K. and Lau, R.R. (2011) ‘Candidate Advertisements’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  22. Gaines, B.J., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Quirk, P.J. (2006) ‘The Logic of Survey Experiments Reexamined’, Political Analysis 15(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerber, A.S. (2011) ‘Field Experiments in Political Science’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  24. Gerber, A.S., Green, D.P. and Larimer, C.W. (2010) ‘An Experiment Testing the Relative Effectiveness of Encouraging Voter Participation by Inducting Feelings of Pride and Shame’, Political Behaviour 32(3): 409–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glaeser, E.L., Liabson, D.I., Scheinkman, J.A. and Soutter, C.L. (2000) ‘Measuring Trust’, Quarterly Journal of Econometrics 115(3): 811–46.Google Scholar
  26. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (1990) Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  28. Hariri, J.G. (2012) ‘The Autocratic Legacy of Early Statehood’, American Political Science Review 106(3): 471–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heinrich, C., Maffioli, A. and Vasquez, G. (2010) ‘A Primer for Applying Propensity-Score Matching’, Technical Note IDB-TN-161, Inter-American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  30. Hobolt, S.B. and Wittrock, J. (2011) ‘The Second-Order Election Model Revisited: An Experimental Test of Vote Choices in European Parliament Elections’, Electoral Studies 30(1): 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jupille, J. and Leblang, D. (2007) ‘Voting for Change: Calculation, Community, and Euro Referendums’, International Organization 61(4): 763–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karpowitz, C.F., Mendelberg, T. and Shaker, L. (2012) ‘Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation’, American Political Science Review 106(3): 533–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keltner, D. and Lerner, J.S. (2010) ‘Emotions’, in Fiske, S.T., Gilbert, D.T. and Lindzey, L. (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology (New York: John Wiley and Sons).Google Scholar
  34. Kumlin, S. (2011) ‘Claiming Blame and Giving Credit? Unintended Effects of How Government and Opposition Frame the Europeanization of Welfare’, European Union Politics 12(4): 575–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyengar, S. (2011) ‘Laboratory Experiments in Political Science’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  36. Maier, M., Silke, A. and Maier, J. (2012) ‘The Impact of Identity and Economic Cues on Citizens EU Support: An Experimental Study on the Effects of Party Communication in the Run-up to the 2009 European Parliament Elections’’, European Union Politics 13(4): 580–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marcus, G.E. (2003) ‘The Psychology of Emotions and Politics’, in Sears, D.O., Huddy, L. and Jervis, R. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  38. Marwell, G. and Ames, R.E. (1981) ‘Economists Free Ride — Does Anyone Else? Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods’, Journal of Public Economics 15(3): 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDermott, R. (2002) ‘Experimental Methods in Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science 5(1): 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDermott, R. (2011) ‘Internal and External Validity’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  41. McGraw, K.M. (2011) ‘Candidate Impressions and Evaluations’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  42. Mendelberg, T. and Oleske, J. (2000) ‘Race and Public Deliberation’, Political Communication 17(2):169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, G. (2011) ‘Legislative Voting and Cycling’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  44. Moravcsik, A. (2002) ‘In Defense of the “Democratic Deficit”: Reassessing the Legitimacy of the European Union’, Journal of Common Market Studies 40(4): 603–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrell, M.E. (2005) ‘Deliberation, Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political Efficacy’, Political Behaviour 27(1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morton, R.B. and Williams, K.C. (2010) Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Morton, R.B. and Williams, K.C. (2011) ‘Electoral Systems and Strategic Voting (Laboratory Election Experiments)’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  48. Mutz, D. (2006) Hearing the Other Side. Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy (Pennsylvania: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nielsen, J.H. (2012) ‘Do Deliberative and Participatory Processes Matter? Crafting Trust in Political Institutions’, Dissertation Manuscript (Florence: The European University Institute).Google Scholar
  50. Olsen, E.D.H. and Trenz, H. (2013) ‘From Citizens’ Deliberation to Popular Will Formation? Generating Democratic Legitimacy Through Transnational Deliberative Pooling’, IDEAS Working Paper.Google Scholar
  51. Scharpf, F.W. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schuck, A.R.T. and Vreese, C.H.D. (2008) ‘Reversed Mobilization in Referendum Campaigns: How Positive News Framing Can Mobilize the Skeptics’, The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1):40–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schuck, A.R.T. and Vreese, C.H.D. (2012) ‘When Good News Is Bad News: Explicating the Moderated Mediation Dynamic Behind the Reversed Mobilization Effect’, Journal of Communication 62(1): 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sekhon, J.S. and Titiunik, R. (2012) ‘When Natural Experiments Are Neither Natural Nor Experiments’, American Political Science Review 106(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selten, R. and Ockenfels, A. (1996) ‘An Experimental Solidarity’, Game Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization 34(4): 517–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sniderman, P.M. (2011) ‘The Logic of Design of the Survey Experiment: An Autobiography of a Methodological Innovation’, in Druckman, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinsky, J.H. and Lupia, A. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  57. Steenbergen, M.R. and Jones, B.S. (2002) ‘Modelling Multilevel Data Structures’, American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 218–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sulkin, T. and Simon, A.F. (2001) ‘Habermas in the Lab: A Study of Deliberation in an Experimental Setting’, Political Psychology 22(4): 809–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thistlethwaite, D.L. and Campell, D.T. (1960) ‘Regression-Discontinuity Analysis: An Alternative to the Ex Post Factor Experiment’, The Journal of Educational Psychology 51(6): 309–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vreese, C.H.D. (2004) ‘The Effects of Strategic News on Political Cynicism, Issue Evaluation, and Policy Support: A Two-Wave Experiment’, Mass Communication & Society 7(2): 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vreese, C.H.D. and Kandyla, A. (2009) ‘News Framing and Public Support for a Common Foreign and Security Policy’, Journal of Common Market Studies 47(3): 453–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, T.D., Aronson, E. and Carlsmith, K. (2010) ‘The Art of Laboratory Experiments’, in Fiske, S.T., Gilbert, D.T. and Lindzey, L. (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology (Boston: McGraw Hill).Google Scholar
  63. Zaller, J.R. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Julie Hassing Nielsen 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Hassing Nielsen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations