Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science: Students as Experimental Participants

An experiment entails randomly assigning participants to various conditions or manipulations. Given common consent requirements, this means experimenters need to recruit participants who, in essence, agree to be manipulated. The ensuing practical and ethical challenges of subject recruitment have led many researchers to rely on convenience samples of college students. For political scientists who put particular emphasis on generalizability, the use of student participants often constitutes a critical, and according to some reviewers, fatal problem for experimental studies. In this chapter, we investigate the extent to which using students as experimental participants creates problems for causal inference. First, we discuss the impact of student subjects on a study's internal and external validity. In contrast to common claims, we argue that student subjects do not intrinsically pose a problem for a study's external validity. Second, we use simulations to identify situations when student subjects are likely to constrain experimental inferences. We show that such situations are relatively limited; any convenience sample poses a problem only when the size of an experimental treatment effect depends on a characteristic on which the convenience sample has virtually no variance. Third, we briefly survey empirical evidence that provides guidance on when researchers should be particularly attuned to taking steps to ensure appropriate generalizability from student subjects. We conclude with a discussion of the practical implications of our findings.

[1]  S. Iyengar,et al.  Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate , 1995 .

[2]  Arnold Vedlitz,et al.  Can We Generalize from Student Experiments to the Real World in Political Science, Military Affairs, and International Relations? , 2006 .

[3]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Paul K. MacDonald Useful Fiction or Miracle Maker: The Competing Epistemological Foundations of Rational Choice Theory , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[5]  Cindy D. Kam,et al.  Beyond the “Narrow Data Base”: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research , 2007 .

[6]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. , 1982 .

[7]  Richard A. Brody,et al.  Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology , 1991 .

[8]  C. Anderson,et al.  External Validity of “Trivial” Experiments: The Case of Laboratory Aggression , 1997 .

[9]  Cindy D. Kam Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences , 2005 .

[10]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias A Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[11]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations , 1978 .

[12]  Cindy D. Kam When Duty Calls, Do Citizens Answer? , 2007, The Journal of Politics.

[13]  Rebecca B. Morton,et al.  Experimentation in Political Science , 2008 .

[14]  James H. Kuklinski,et al.  The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science , 2006, American Political Science Review.

[15]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[16]  Dinah Pura T. Depositario,et al.  Should students be used as subjects in experimental auctions , 2009 .

[17]  W. Jones,et al.  Just Say No to Traditional Student Samples , 2001, Journal of Advertising Research.

[18]  R. McDermott Experimental Methodology in Political Science , 2002, Political Analysis.

[19]  John H. Aldrich,et al.  Treatment Spillover Effects across Survey Experiments , 2009, Political Analysis.

[20]  D. O. Sears College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. , 1986 .

[21]  Gregory A. Liyanarachchi Feasibility of using student subjects in accounting experiments: a review , 2007 .

[22]  David P. Redlawsk,et al.  How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns , 2006 .

[23]  D. Kinder COMMUNICATION AND OPINION , 1998 .

[24]  Stephan Meier,et al.  Do People Behave in Experiments as in the Field? Evidence from Donations , 2006 .

[25]  M. Friedman Essays in Positive Economics , 1954 .

[26]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  The Human Subject in the Psychology Experiment: Fact and Artifact , 1975 .

[27]  Jennifer Jerit,et al.  Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid? , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Ronald A. Ash,et al.  The Conscientiousness of Students in Subject Pools: Implications for “Laboratory” Research , 2001 .

[29]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Experimentation in social psychology. , 1998 .

[30]  D. Mook,et al.  In defense of external invalidity. , 1983 .

[31]  S. Milgram BEHAVIORAL STUDY OF OBEDIENCE. , 1963, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[32]  D. Green,et al.  Field Experiments and Natural Experiments , 2008 .

[33]  C. Plott Will Economics Become an Experimental Science , 1991 .

[34]  Brian J. Gaines,et al.  The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined , 2007, Political Analysis.

[35]  P. Converse,et al.  The American voter , 1960 .

[36]  James N. Druckman,et al.  On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? , 2001, The Journal of Politics.

[37]  Cindy D. Kam,et al.  Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis , 2007 .

[38]  F. Guala The Methodology of Experimental Economics: Bibliography , 2005 .

[39]  H. Schuman,et al.  Conversations at Random Survey Research As Interviewers See It , 1974 .

[40]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  A. Roth Introduction to Experimental Economics , 2004 .

[42]  J. Zaller,et al.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1992 .

[43]  R. Peterson On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second‐Order Meta‐analysis , 2001 .

[44]  M. Gordon,et al.  The “Science of the Sophomore” Revisited: from Conjecture to Empiricism , 1986 .