ScholarGate
Assistente

Confronta i metodi

Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.

Difference-in-Means Estimator×Field Experiment in Politics×
CampoPolitical SciencePolitical Science
FamigliaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Anno di origine19232000
IdeatoreJerzy Neyman (design-based potential-outcomes framework)Gerber & Green (modern political field experiments)
TipoDesign-based estimator of the average treatment effectRandomized experiment conducted in a real political setting
Fonte seminaleGerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W. W. Norton. ISBN: 9780393979954Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663. DOI ↗
AliasNeyman estimator, Design-based ATE estimator, Difference of sample means, Mean-difference treatment effect estimatorPolitical field experiment, Get-out-the-vote experiment, GOTV experiment, Voter mobilization experiment
Correlati44
SintesiThe difference-in-means estimator is the design-based workhorse for analyzing randomized experiments: it estimates the average treatment effect simply as the difference between the average outcome among treated units and the average outcome among control units. Rooted in Jerzy Neyman's potential-outcomes framework and central to modern treatments by Imbens and Rubin and by Gerber and Green, it is unbiased under randomization, comes with a conservative Neyman variance estimator, and supports exact randomization inference, requiring no model of how outcomes are generated.A field experiment in political science randomizes a real intervention — such as a get-out-the-vote canvass, mailing, or phone call — among genuine political actors in their natural environment and compares behavioral outcomes like validated turnout. Revived for the discipline by Gerber and Green's 2000 voter-mobilization study and codified in their 2012 textbook, the approach combines the causal leverage of randomization with the realism of consequential, real-world settings, while carefully distinguishing the effect of being assigned a treatment from the effect of actually receiving it.
ScholarGateInsieme di dati
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fonti
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fonti
  3. PUBLISHED

Vai alla ricerca Scarica le diapositive

ScholarGateConfronta i metodi: Difference-in-Means Estimator · Field Experiment in Politics. Consultato il 2026-06-25 da https://scholargate.app/it/compare