IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jexpos/v2y2015i02p192-215_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Mutz, Diana C.
  • Pemantle, Robin

Abstract

In this essay, we closely examine three aspects of the Reporting Guidelines for this journal, as described by Gerber et al. (2014, Journal of Experimental Political Science 1(1): 81–98) in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Experimental Political Science. These include manipulation checks and when the reporting of response rates is appropriate. The third, most critical, issue concerns the committee's recommendations for detecting errors in randomization. This is an area where there is evidence of widespread confusion about experimental methods throughout our major journals. Given that a goal of the Journal of Experimental Political Science is promoting best practices and a better understanding of experimental methods across the discipline, we recommend changes to the Standards that will allow the journal to play a leading role in correcting these misunderstandings.

Suggested Citation

  • Mutz, Diana C. & Pemantle, Robin, 2015. "Standards for Experimental Research: Encouraging a Better Understanding of Experimental Methods," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 192-215, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:2:y:2015:i:02:p:192-215_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2052263015000044/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Palma, Marco & Feldman, Paul, 2024. "Incentives and Payment Mechanisms in Preference Elicitation," MPRA Paper 120898, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Achilleas Vassilopoulos & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr, 2018. "Loss Aversion, Expectations and Anchoring in the BDM Mechanism," Working Papers 2018-1, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    3. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Cerjak, Marija & Kovačić, Damir & Juračak, Josip, 2024. "To be(tween) or not to be(tween)? Combining between- and within-subjects design characteristics in preference elicitation for organic and local apples," MPRA Paper 120880, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Mol, Jantsje M. & Botzen, W. J. Wouter & Blasch, Julia E., 2020. "Risk reduction in compulsory disaster insurance: Experimental evidence on moral hazard and financial incentives," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    5. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Game form recognition in preference elicitation, cognitive abilities, and cognitive load," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 49-65.
    6. Andreas C Drichoutis & Rodolfo M Nayga, 2020. "Economic Rationality under Cognitive Load," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(632), pages 2382-2409.
    7. Luke Fowler & Stephen Utych, 2021. "Are people better employees than machines? Dehumanizing language and employee performance appraisals," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2006-2019, July.
    8. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Stathis Klonaris & Georgia Papoutsi, 2016. "Do good things come in small packages? Willingness to pay for pomegranate wine and bottle size effects," Working Papers 2016-2, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    9. S. Rinken & S. Pasadas-del-Amo & M. Rueda & B. Cobo, 2021. "No magic bullet: estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(6), pages 2139-2159, December.
    10. Amelia Ahles & Marco A. Palma & Andreas C. Drichoutis, 2024. "Testing the effectiveness of lottery incentives in online experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(4), pages 1435-1453, August.
    11. Allen, William L. & Ruiz, Isabel & Vargas-Silva, Carlos, 2024. "Policy preferences in response to large forced migration inflows," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Mombeuil, Claudel & Uhde, Helena, 2021. "Relative convenience, relative advantage, perceived security, perceived privacy, and continuous use intention of China’s WeChat Pay: A mixed-method two-phase design study," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jexpos:v:2:y:2015:i:02:p:192-215_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/xps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.