Help me help you: Conducting field experiments with political elites

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 628, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 165-175

  Loewen, Peter John ^a   Rubenson, Daniel ^b   Wantchekon, Leonard ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Clientelism; Direct mail; Field experiments; Information; Political campaigns; Political elites

Indexed keywords

EID: 77649244649     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: 15523349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716209351522     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Blais, André. 2005. Accounting for the electoral success of the Liberal Party in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Research 38:821-40.
2. Bowers, Jake, and Ben Hansen. 2009. Attributing effects to a cluster randomized get-out-the-vote campaign. Journal of the American Statistical Association (posted online July 29, 2009).
3. Browning, Lynnley. 2002. Professors offer a reality check for politicians. New York Times, August 31.
4. Burtless, Gary. 1986. The work response to a guaranteed income: A survey of experimental evidence. In Lesson from the Income Maintenance Experiments, ed. Alicia Mundell, 22-52. Boston: Federal Reserve of Boston.
5. Chong, Dennis, and James Druckman. 2007. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101:637-55.
6. Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. 2006. The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review 100:627-37.
7. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Edward H. Kaplan. 2004. The illusion of learning from observational research. In Problems and methods in the study of politics, ed. Ian Shapiro, Roger Smith, and Tarek Massoud, 251-73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2002. Reclaiming the experimental tradition in political science. In Political science: The state of the discipline, 3rd ed., ed. Helen V. Milner and Ira Katznelson. New York: Norton.
9. Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Get out the vote. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10. Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2001. Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics 63 (2): 520-43.
11. Loewen, Peter John, and Daniel Rubenson. 2008. Both sides now: A field experiment with competing messages. University of British Columbia Working Paper, Vancouver, Canada.
12. Loewen, Peter John, and Daniel Rubenson. Forthcoming. For want of a nail: Negative persuasions in a party leadership campaign. Party Politics.
13. Nickerson, David. 2005. Scalable protocols offer efficient design for field experiments. Political Analysis 13:233-52.
14. Peffley, Mark, and Jon Hurwitz. 2007. Resistance and persuasion in response to arguments against the death penalty among whites and blacks. American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 996-1012.
15. Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2000. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
16. Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. Clientelism and voting behavior: Evidence from a field experiment in Benin. World Politics 55:399-422.
17. Wantchekon, Leonard. 2008. Expert information, public deliberation and electoral support for good governance: Experimental evidence from Benin. Working Paper, New York University, New York.