The benefits of experimental methods for the study of campaign effects

Political Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 199-215

  Arceneaux, Kevin ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Campaign effects; Experimental methods; Research design

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952500793     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584601003709407     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Achen, C. H. (1986). The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
2. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
3. Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1999). Replicating experiments using aggregate and survey data: The case of negative advertising: Demobilizer or mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93, 901-910.
4. Arceneaux, K. (2007). I'm asking for your support: The effects of personally delivered campaign messages on voting decisions and opinion formation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2, 43-65.
5. Arceneaux, K., Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2006). Comparing experimental and matching methods using a large-scale field experiment on voter mobilization. Political Analysis, 14, 37-62.
6. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2010). Comparing negative and positive campaign messages: Evidence from two field experiments. American Politics Research, 38, 54-83.
7. Bartels, L. M. (2006). Three virtues of panel data for the analysis of campaign effects. In H. E. Brady & R. Johnston (Eds.), Capture campaign effects (pp. 78-112). Ann Arbor,MI: University of Michigan Press.
8. Bartels, L. M. (2008). The study of electoral behavior. In J. E. Leighley (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of American elections and political behavior (pp. 239-261). New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388-405.
10. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
12. Clinton, J. D., & Lapinski, J. S. (2004). "Targeted" advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election. Journal of Politics, 66, 69-96.
13. Druckman, J. N. (2007). Competing frames in a political campaign: How frames work and the challenges of studying them. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.
14. Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (2006). The growth and development of experimental research in political science. American Political Science Review, 100, 627-635.
15. Dunning, T. (2008). Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 282-293.
16. Eldersveld, S. J. (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review, 50, 154-165.
17. Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2007). Do political ads persuade? Political Behavior, 29, 465-491.
18. Freedman, P., Franz, M., & Goldstein, K. (2004). Campaign advertising and democratic citizenship. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 723-741.
19. Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1189-1208.
20. Funk, C. L. (1997). Implications of political expertise in candidate trait evaluations. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 675-697.
21. Gentzkow, M. (2006). Television and voter turnout. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 931-972.
22. Gerber, A. S. (1998). Estimating the effect of campaign spending on Senate election outcomes using instrumental variables. American Political Science Review, 92, 401-411.
23. Gerber, A. (2004). Does campaign spending work? Field experiments provide evidence and suggest new theory. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 541-574.
24. Gerber, A. S., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2008). The size and duration of campaign television advertising effects: Results from a large-scale randomized experiment. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University.
25. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of personal canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94, 653-664.
26. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Kaplan, E. H. (2004). The illusion of learning from observational research. In I. Shapiro, R. Smith, & T. Massoud (Eds.), Problems and methods in the study of politics (pp. 251-274). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2004). Get out the vote! Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28. Green, D. P., Gerber, A. S., & Nickerson, D. W. (2003). Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics, 65, 1083-1096.
29. Green, D. P., & Krasno, J. (1988). Salvation for the spendthrift incumbent: Reestimating the effects of campaign spending in House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 884-907.
30. Green, D. P., & Vavreck, L. (2008). Analysis of cluster-randomized experiments: A comparison of alternative estimation approaches. Political Analysis, 16, 138-152.
31. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
32. Goldstein, K., Franz, M., & Ridout, T. (2002). Political advertising in 2000: Combined file [dataset]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
33. Gordon, S. C., & Huber, G. A. (2007). The effect of electoral competitiveness on incumbent behavior. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2, 107-138.
34. Gosnell, H. F. (1927). Getting out the vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35. Hillygus, D. S. (2005). Campaign effects and the dynamics of turnout intention in election 2000. Journal of Politics, 67, 50-68.
36. Hillygus, D. S.,& Shields, T. (2008). The persuadable voter:Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 957-977.
38. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1988). Choice, social structure, and political information: The information coercion of minorities. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 467-482.
39. Jacobson, G. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 72, 469-491.
40. Johnston, R., Hagen, M. G., & Jamieson, K. H. (2004). The 2000 presidential election and the foundations of party politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Krasno, J. S., & Green, D. P. (2008). Do televised presidential ads increase voter turnout? Evidence from a natural experiment. Journal of Politics, 70, 245-261.
43. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (1997). Voting correctly. American Political Science Review, 91, 585-598.
44. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951-971.
45. Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89, 309-326.
46. McDermott, M. L. (2006). Not for members only: Group endorsements as electoral information cues. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 249-257.
47. Mendelberg, T. (2001). The race card: Campaign strategy, implicit messages, and the norm of equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48. Nickerson, D. W. (2005). Scalable protocols offer efficient design for field experiments. Political Analysis, 13, 233-252.
49. Nickerson, D. W. (2006). Volunteer phone calls can increase turnout: Evidence from eight field experiments. American Politics Research, 34, 271-292.
50. Nickerson, D. W. (2007). Quality is job one: Comparing professional and volunteer phone banks. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 269-282.
51. Nickerson, D. W. (2008). Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review, 102, 49-57.
52. Panagopoulos, C., & Green, D. P. (2008a). Field experiments testing the impact of radio advertisements on electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 156-168.
53. Panagopoulos, C., & Green, D. P. (2008b, April). Spanish-language radio advertisements and Latino voter turnout in the 2006 congressional elections: Field experimental evidence. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL.
54. Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 29-58.
55. Stevens, D. (2008). Measuring exposure to political advertising in surveys. Political Behavior, 30, 47-72.
56. Vavreck, L. (2007). The exaggerated effects of advertising on turnout: The dangers of self-reports. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2, 325-343.
57. Wattenberg, M. P., & Brians, C. L. (1999). Negative campaign advertising: Demobilizer or mobilizer? American Political Science Review, 93, 891-899.
58. Wielhouwer, P. W. (2003). In search of Lincoln's perfect list: Targeting in grassroots campaigns. American Politics Research, 31, 632-669.
59. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-79). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.