BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research pathsDiscover
Research tools
Network
Opportunities
Account
Source author record
Peter M. Aronow appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.
Catalog footprint
Research graph
Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Published work
Book review published as: Aronow, Peter M. and Fredrik Sävje (2020), "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect." Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115: 482-485.
We present current methods for estimating treatment effects and spillover effects under "interference", a term which covers a broad class of situations in which a unit's outcome depends not only on treatments received by that unit, but also on treatments received by other units. To the extent that units react to each other, interact, or otherwise transmit effects of treatments, valid inference requires that we account for such interference, which is a departure from the traditional assumption that units' outcomes are affected only by their own treatment assignment. Interference and associated spillovers may be a nuisance or they may be of substantive interest to the researcher. In this chapter, we focus on interference in the context of randomized experiments. We review methods for when interference happens in a general network setting. We then consider the special case where interference is contained within a hierarchical structure. Finally, we discuss the relationship between interference and contagion. We use the interference R package and simulated data to illustrate key points. We consider efficient designs that allow for estimation of the treatment and spillover effects and discuss recent empirical studies that try to capture such effects.
King and Roberts (2015, KR) claim that a disagreement between robust and classical standard errors exposes model misspecification. We emphasize that KR's claim only generally applies to parametric models: models that assume a restrictive form of the distribution of the outcome. Many common models in use in political science, including the linear model, are not necessarily parametric -- rather they may be semiparametric. Common estimators of model parameters such as ordinary least squares have both robust (corresponding to a semiparametric model) and classical (corresponding to a more restrictive model) standard error estimates. Given a properly specified semiparametric model and mild regularity conditions, the classical standard errors are not generally consistent, but the robust standard errors are. To illustrate this point, we consider the case of the regression estimate of a semiparametric linear model with no model misspecification, and show that robust standard errors may nevertheless systematically differ from classical standard errors. We show that a disagreement between robust and classical standard errors is not generally suitable as a diagnostic for regression estimators, and that KR's reanalyses of Neumayer (2003) and Büthe and Milner (2008) are predicated on strong assumptions that the original authors did not invoke nor require.
We develop a general framework for conducting inference on the mean of dependent random variables given constraints on their dependency graph. We establish the consistency of an oracle variance estimator of the mean when the dependency graph is known, along with an associated central limit theorem. We derive an integer linear program for finding an upper bound for the estimated variance when the graph is unknown, but topological and degree-based constraints are available. We develop alternative bounds, including a closed-form bound, under an additional homoskedasticity assumption. We establish a basis for Wald-type confidence intervals for the mean that are guaranteed to have asymptotically conservative coverage. We apply the approach to inference from a social network link-tracing study and provide statistical software implementing the approach.
Recent approaches in causal inference have proposed estimating average causal effects that are local to some subpopulation, often for reasons of efficiency. These inferential targets are sometimes data-adaptive, in that they are dependent on the empirical distribution of the data. In this short note, we show that if researchers are willing to adapt the inferential target on the basis of efficiency, then extraordinary gains in precision can be obtained. Specifically, when causal effects are heterogeneous, any asymptotically normal and root-$n$ consistent estimator of the population average causal effect is superefficient for a data-adaptive local average causal effect. Our result illustrates the fundamental gain in statistical certainty afforded by indifference about the inferential target.
Dyadic data are common in the social sciences, although inference for such settings involves accounting for a complex clustering structure. Many analyses in the social sciences fail to account for the fact that multiple dyads share a member, and that errors are thus likely correlated across these dyads. We propose a nonparametric sandwich-type robust variance estimator for linear regression to account for such clustering in dyadic data. We enumerate conditions for estimator consistency. We also extend our results to repeated and weighted observations, including directed dyads and longitudinal data, and provide an implementation for generalized linear models such as logistic regression. We examine empirical performance with simulations and applications to international relations and speed dating.
Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a link-tracing procedure for surveying hidden or hard-to-reach populations in which subjects recruit other subjects via their social network. There is significant research interest in detecting clustering or dependence of epidemiological traits in networks, but researchers disagree about whether data from RDS studies can reveal it. Two distinct mechanisms account for dependence in traits of recruiters and recruitees in an RDS study: homophily, the tendency for individuals to share social ties with others exhibiting similar characteristics, and preferential recruitment, in which recruiters do not recruit uniformly at random from their available alters. The different effects of network homophily and preferential recruitment in RDS studies have been a source of confusion in methodological research on RDS, and in empirical studies of the social context of health risk in hidden populations. In this paper, we give rigorous definitions of homophily and preferential recruitment and show that neither can be measured precisely in general RDS studies. We derive nonparametric identification regions for homophily and preferential recruitment and show that these parameters are not point identified unless the network takes a degenerate form. The results indicate that claims of homophily or recruitment bias measured from empirical RDS studies may not be credible. We apply our identification results to a study involving both a network census and RDS on a population of injection drug users in Hartford, CT.
Respondent-driven sampling is a survey method for hidden or hard-to-reach populations in which sampled individuals recruit others in the study population via their social links. The most popular estimator for for the population mean assumes that individual sampling probabilities are proportional to each subject's reported degree in a social network connecting members of the hidden population. However, it remains unclear under what circumstances these estimators are valid, and what assumptions are formally required to identify population quantities. In this short note we detail nonparametric identification results for the population mean when the sampling probability is assumed to be a function of network degree known to scale. Importantly, we establish general conditions for the consistency of the popular Volz-Heckathorn (VH) estimator. Our results imply that the conditions for consistency of the VH estimator are far less stringent than those suggested by recent work on diagnostics for RDS. In particular, our results do not require random sampling or the existence of a network connecting the population.
Survey respondents may give untruthful answers to sensitive questions when asked directly. In recent years, researchers have turned to the list experiment (also known as the item count technique) to overcome this difficulty. While list experiments may be less prone to bias than direct questioning, list experiments are also more susceptible to sampling variability. We show that researchers do not have to abandon direct questioning altogether in order to gain the advantages of list experimentation. We develop a nonparametric estimator of the prevalence of sensitive behaviors that combines list experimentation and direct questioning. We prove that this estimator is asymptotically more efficient than the standard difference-in-means estimator, and we provide a basis for inference using Wald-type confidence intervals. Additionally, leveraging information from the direct questioning, we derive two nonparametric placebo tests of the identifying assumptions for the list experiment. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our combined estimator and placebo tests with an original survey experiment.
We propose a consistent estimator of sharp bounds on the variance of the difference-in-means estimator in completely randomized experiments. Generalizing Robins [Stat. Med. 7 (1988) 773-785], our results resolve a well-known identification problem in causal inference posed by Neyman [Statist. Sci. 5 (1990) 465-472. Reprint of the original 1923 paper]. A practical implication of our results is that the upper bound estimator facilitates the asymptotically narrowest conservative Wald-type confidence intervals, with applications in randomized controlled and clinical trials.