Experimentation in the Social and

Behavioral Sciences (Week 2)
Home

Apply to EITM
-Participants
-MFR's

More information
-Overview
-Design of Instruction
-FAQ for participants
-Participant bios
-MFR's

Schedule
-Week 1

Institutions and Institutional Analysis

-Week 2

Experimentation in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

-Week 3

Complexity: Computational Models and Social Networks

-Week 4

MFR and Student Presentations

 

Previous

EITM's
-UCLA (2007)
-Michigan (2006)
-UC-Berkeley (2005)

-Duke (2004)

-Michigan (2003)

-Harvard (2002)
 

Contact Info

-eitm@duke.edu

Instructor:  Wendy Wood

Visiting Lecturers: Catherine Eckel, Alan Gerber, Scott Huettel, Monique Lyle, David Neal, Efren Perez, and Laura Smart-Richman

Monday

9:00AM – Meet at Knight House

9:45AM – Drive to SSRI

10:00AM – Lab Tour

10:30AM – Internal validity & basic experimental building blocks

  • Marilynn B. Brewer (2000).  "Research Design and Issues of Validity." In H.R. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology Cambridge, UK:  Cambridge University Press. (pp. 3-16). 

11:30AM – Group task

  • Neal, David T., Anthony M. Pascoe, and Wendy Wood. 2008 (under review). "Effects of Goal Enhancement on Habit-Based Responding."

  • Aldrich, John H., Jacob M. Montgomery, and Wendy Wood. 2008 (under review). "Turnout as a Habit."

Noon – External validity

  • Mook, D. (1983). "In defense of external invalidity." American Psychologist, 38, 379-387.

12:30PM – Practical advice from the front lines

1:00PM – Lunch (choose any restaurant on 9th street)

2:15PM – Media Lab workshop (Pontus Leander)

4:00 – 6:00PM – Statistical Workshop with Fred Boehmke  (SSRI)

 

Tuesday

8:45AM – meet at main Lobby of Duke North Hospital (Just inside turnstile).  Brendan and Mike will meet you in dorms at 8:30 (don’t be late) to lead caravan.  John and Jason Reifler will lead MFRs over from Knight House.

9:00 – 10:00AM – Tour of the Duke-UNC Brain Imaging and Analysis Center (BIAC) with Scott Huettel and Michele Diaz.

Safety Note

The MRI scanners of the Duke-UNC Brain Imaging and Analysis Center (BIAC) are located within Duke Hospital. As such, the scanner tour will take you into a working hospital and research environment. Although you will not be entering the scanner rooms, there are some restrictions on entering the MR center itself. In particular, if you have a cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator or have an implanted aneurysm clip, you should not go on the tour. Fillings, pins in knees, etc., are fine. Please contact scott.huettel@duke.edu with any questions. Also, because storage outside the MR center is limited, you should bring as little as possible to the tour (i.e., don't bring huge bags or lots of electronic devices). There are a few lockers for small items, but there isn't really a place for storage of 30 folks' personal effects. Finally, while walking through the MR center, please be quiet and courteous of the patients and staff. Once you are in the MRI console rooms, feel free to talk and ask questions, etc.

10:30 (approx.) – 12:30 @SSRI – Scott Huettel

  • Harbaugh WT, Mayr U, Burghart DR (2007) Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316:1622-1625.

  • Knutson B, Rick S, Wimmer GE, Prelec D, Loewenstein G (2007) Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron 53:147-156.

Glimcher PW, Rustichini A (2004) Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and decision. Science 306:447-452.

1:30 – 4:00pm – Laura Smart-Richman

  • Smart Richman, Laura, and Charles Jonassaint. 2008. "The Effects of Race-related Stress on Cortisol Reactivity in the Laboratory: Implications of the Duke Lacrosse Scandal." Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 35(1):105-10.

  • Murphy, Mary C., Claude M. Steele, and James J. Gross. 2007. "Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings." Psychological Science. 18(10):879-885.

 

Wednesday

9:00 – 9:30 MFR/mentee time

9:30 - 12:00 @Knight House – Alan Gerber

  • "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: The Results of a Large Scale Field Experiment?" (with Green and Larimer). 2008. American Political Science Review (February).

  • "Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment" (with Green and Arceneaux).  2006.  Political Analysis (Winter).

  • "Does Campaign Spending Work? Field experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory?"  2004.  American Behavioral Scientist (January).

  • "Testing for Publication Bias in Political Science?" (with Nickerson and Green).  2001.  Political Analysis.

  • "The Effects of Canvassing, Phone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout:
    A Field Experiment?" (with Green).  2000.  American Political Science Review
    (September).

1:30 – 4:30 @Knight House – Efren Perez and Monique Lyle present from their own research related to the implicit attitudes test (IAT) and methodology. Also discuss the pros and cons of this approach (see readings) 

  • Perez, Efren O. 2008 "Juan for All: Implicit Attitudes and the Group-Specific Nature of Anti-Immigrant Opinion."

  • Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). "Attributions of Implicit Prejudice, or "Would Jesse Jackson 'Fail' the Implicit Association Test?" Psychological Inquiry, 15, 257 - 278.

    • paper here
    • plus read commentaries
    • also read Arkes and Tetlock's response

  • Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Gonzales, P. M., & Christie, C. (2006). "Decoding the implicit association test: Implications for criterion prediction." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 192-212.

  • Kristine M. Knutson, Jacqueline N. Wood, Maria V. Spampinato,* and Jordan Grafman (2008). "Politics on the Brain: An fMRI Investigation."  Social Neuroscience

 

Thursday – Catherine Eckel

Objective:

This course provides and introduction to experimental methodology as developed by economists and develops the role and relevance of experiments in political science.  Experiments are one of the tools available for use in the social sciences, and are often complementary to other tools such as formal theory and analysis of other forms of data. 

There are three goals for the course.  First, we want to illustrate the connection between theory development and experimental design.  Second, we want to examine key components of experimental design.  Third, we will explore examples of experiments in several key areas. 

COURSE OUTLINE: READINGS

(* If you can only read one, read this one in each section)

Part 1: 9-10:30

Public Goods:  Why use (incentivized) experiments (and how to do one)

  • Isaac, R. M. , and J. M. Walker. 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism." Quarterly Journal of Economics 103 (1): 179-99.

  • *Andreoni, James. 1995. Warm-Glow Versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments."  Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, Volume 110, Issue 1 (Feb., 1995), 1-21.

  • Ashley, Richard, Sheryl Ball and Catherine Eckel. 2005. "Motives for Giving: A Reanalysis of Two Classic Public Goods Experiments." Working paper.

  • Webster, Murray.  2007. "Funding Experiments, Writing Proposals." In Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, edited by Murray Webster and Jane Sell, 193-224. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

  • McDermott, Rose. 2002. "Experimental Methods in Political Science." Annual Review of Political Science 5 31-61.

Part 2: 10:30-12: Political markets

  • *Forsythe, R., F.D. Nelson, G.R. Neumann and J. Wright (1992) "Anatomy of an experimental political stock market," American Economic Review, 82:1142-1161.

  • Wolfers, Justin and Eric Zitzewitz. 2004. "Prediction Markets." Journal of Economic Perspectives. 18(2): 107-126.

Part 3: 1-2:30  Bargaining

  • *Eckel, Catherine C., and Philip Grossman. 1998. "Are Women Less Selfish Than Men?:  Evidence from Dictator Games." The Economic Journal 108 (448): 726-35.

  • *Eckel, Catherine C., Martin Johnson, and Rick K. Wilson. 2002. "Fairness and Rejection in the Ultimatum Bargaining Game." Political Analysis 10 (4): 376-93.

  • *Wilson, Rick K., and Catherine C. Eckel. 2006. "Judging a Book by Its Cover: Beauty and Expectations in the Trust Game." Political Research Quarterly 59 (2): 189-202.

  • Eavey, C. and G. Miller.  1984.  Fairness in majority rule games with a core.  American Political Science Review 78: 719-33.

Part 4: 2:30-4  Lab experiments in the field

  • Harrison, Glenn, and John List, "Field Experiments."  Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec., 2004), pp. 1009-1055  

  • Eckel, Catherine C., and Phillip J. Grossman, "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Natural Field Experiment Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies."  Forthcoming, Experimental Economics.

Measuring preferences in the field (no readings)

  • *Habyarimana, James, Humphreys Macartan, Daniel Posner and Jeremy Weinstein.  "Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision?" American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 4 November 2007

 

Friday

9:00am – participants report on their assignments.

Afternoon –TBA

 

 

Department of Political Science, 326 Perkins Library, Box 90204, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708.

Phone 919.660.4300 -- Fax 919.660.4330