|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior
Kevin Arceneaux
Yale University Institution for Social and Policy Studies
Voter mobilization experiments are often conducted using individual-level randomization, which can be difficult to implement. A simpler approach is to randomly assign voting precincts, rather than individuals nested within them, to treatment and control groups. Not only is it easier and potentially less expensive to implement, it may allow researchers to study vote preference effects without collecting survey data. This article explores various methodological concerns that researchers should consider when designing and analyzing precinct-level experiments. These concerns are illustrated using data from a precinct-level randomized field experiment conducted in Kansas City, Missouri.
Key Words: voter mobilization • vote choice • clustering • cluster randomization • group randomization • field experiments
References
- Bingenheimer, Jeffrey B., and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2004. Statistical and substantive inferences in public health: Issues in the application of multilevel models. Annual Review of Public Health 25:53-77.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Bloom, Howard S., Johannes M. Bos, and Suk-Won Lee. 1999. Using cluster random assignment to measure program impacts: Statistical implications for the evaluation of education programs. Evaluation Review 23 (4): 445-469.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Cornfield, J. 1978. Randomization by group: A formal analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 108 (2): 100-102.[Free Full Text]
- Donner, Allan, and Neil Klar. 2000. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. London: Arnold.
- Eldersveld, Samuel J. 1956. Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review 50 (1): 154-165.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. The effects of personal canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review 94 (3): 653-664.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Miller, Roy E., David A. Bositis, and Denise L. Baer. 1981. Stimulating voter turnout in a primary: Field experiment with a precinct committeeman. International Political Science Review 2 (4): 445-460.
- Murray, David M. 1998. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Raudenbush, Stephen W. 1997. Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods 2 (2): 173-185.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Stoker, Laura, and Jake Bowers. 2002. Designing multilevel studies: Sampling voters and electoral contexts. Electoral Studies 21:235-267.
- White, Halbert. 1980. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48 (4): 817-830.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2002. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 601, No. 1,
169-179 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716205277804
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
K. Arceneaux and D. W. Nickerson
Modeling Certainty with Clustered Data: A Comparison of Methods
Political Analysis,
April 10, 2009;
(2009)
mpp004v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. P. Green and L. Vavreck
Analysis of Cluster-Randomized Experiments: A Comparison of Alternative Estimation Approaches
Political Analysis,
April 1, 2008;
16(2):
138 - 152.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
