The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study

By David K. Levine, Thomas R. Palfrey. American Political Science Review, 2007

318 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/21a5a95524e98e32c6fb969c8bcbb85447db145b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Stefano DellaVigna
2. Ulrike Malmendier
3. John A. List
4. Thomas R. Palfrey
5. Gautam Rao
6. John Duffy
7. Margit Tavits
8. Alvaro Sandroni

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Thomas R. Palfrey
2. John Duffy
3. Margit Tavits
4. Alvaro Sandroni
5. John A. List
6. Stefano DellaVigna
7. Gautam Rao
8. Ulrike Malmendier

In Safety Research

1. Stefano DellaVigna
2. John A. List
3. Ulrike Malmendier
4. Thomas R. Palfrey
5. Gautam Rao
6. John Duffy
7. Margit Tavits
8. Sean Gailmard

Citations in the corpus

• Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model (2008, methodology): “However, many subjects keep substantially overestimating their probability of being pivotal.”
• Voting to Tell Others (2014, background): “Levine and Palfrey (2007) estimate a pivotalvoting model, but use laboratory elections where parameters can be controlled.”
• Behavior in Group Contests: A Review of Experimental Research (2015, unknown): “The main reason is that group contests employing the lottery CSF usually have pure strategy equilibria, making it easier for subjects to learn and for researchers to analyze the data, while contests employing the auction CSF have only non-degenerate mixed strategy equilibria (Konrad, 2009).”
• Expenditures and Information Disclosure in Two-Stage Political Contests (2010, unknown): “The use of controlled experiments is a fruitful methodology in political science which has attracted the attention of many prominent scholars (Green and Gerber, 2003; Druckman, Green, Kuklinski and Lupia 2006; Battaglini, Morton and Palfrey 2007; Levine and Palfrey, 2007; Morton and Williams, 2008).”
• Laboratory Experiments in Political Economy (2009, background): “…the model are difficult to observe or measure accurately from field data, the best source of data is the laboratory, where one can observe small and mediumsized, carefully controlled elections.3 Levine & Palfrey (2007) conduct exactly this sort of test of a rational choice model of voter turnout.”
• Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence (2009, background): “7 See Levine and Palfrey (2007) for experimental evidence that standard models can explain turnout in large elections. elections.8 In expressive voting models, individuals are motivated to vote not out of a desire to directly impact the election outcome, but out of a sense of civic obligation or a…”