Cited by 454Political Science Research and EducationAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base”

Druckman, James N., Kam, Cindy D.·2011·Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511921452.004

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is no difference between student and non-student samples in terms of a variety of factors, such that selecting any one issue may represent mundane realism as opposed to any real effect.

    “However, Druckman and Kam [84] have suggested that there is no difference between student and non-student samples in terms of a variety of factors, such that selecting any one issue may represent mundane realism as opposed to any real effect.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Venue
Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science
Published
2011-06-06
Pages
41-57
OpenAlex
W1562888238
Cited by
454
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
208.50
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
student participants, convenience sampling, generalizability, internal validity, causal inference, treatment effect heterogeneity, random assignment, participant recruitment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review