Experiments are a quantitative method for examining the relationships between one or more independent (antecedent) variables and one or more dependent (consequent) variables.
They differ from correlational studies in that the researcher manipulates at least one of the independent variables rather than measuring all of the variables. Most experiments are designed to develop and test theoretical propositions, but applied experiments are also sometimes performed with the aim of evaluating a proposed government policy or a new agency strategy in a realistic or simulated setting.
There are many advantages of doing experiments on social conflict, and the method has often been used in the study of social dilemmas, negotiation, and some kinds of third party interventions. However, students of other conflict phenomena have usually not adopted this method. That is partly because of a lack of training (McDermott, 2006), partly because there are no ready experimental paradigms that fit their theoretical problems, and partly because of a questionable belief that experiments - especially if done in the laboratory - lack external validity. Hence, experiments are a promising but underutilized method.
The chapter will begin with a description of two experiments that manipulated the independent variable in different ways. It will then turn to the advantages and disadvantages of doing experiments as opposed to correlational studies and of doing experiments in the laboratory rather than the field. External validity and the narrowness of current experimental paradigms will next be discussed. The final section will review some experimental findings on social conflict.