Network Effects in Field Experiments on Interactive Groups: Cases from Legislative Studies

S. Phadke, B. Desmarais
{"title":"Network Effects in Field Experiments on Interactive Groups: Cases from Legislative Studies","authors":"S. Phadke, B. Desmarais","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2799074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most social processes involve complex interaction among units through some form of social, communication, or collaboration network. The stable unit treatment value assumption (SUTVA) — the assumption that a unit’s outcome is unaffected by other units’ treatment statuses — is required in conventional approaches to causal inference. When SUTVA is violated, as in networked social interaction, treatment effects spread to control units through the network structure. We evaluate the evidence for spillover effects in data from three field experiments on US state legislatures. Randomized field experiments represent the gold standard in causal inference when studying political elites. It is rarely possible to bring political elites into a controlled laboratory environment, and causal identification with observational data is fraught with problems. We review recently-developed methods for testing for causal effects — including interference effects — while relaxing SUTVA. We propose new specifications for treatment spillover models, and construct networks through geographical or ideological proximity and co-sponsorship. Considering different combinations of spillover models and networks, we evaluate the robustness of recently developed non-parametric tests for interference. The approaches we illustrate can be applied to any experimental setting in which interference is suspected.","PeriodicalId":345692,"journal":{"name":"Political Methods: Experiments & Experimental Design eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Methods: Experiments & Experimental Design eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2799074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most social processes involve complex interaction among units through some form of social, communication, or collaboration network. The stable unit treatment value assumption (SUTVA) — the assumption that a unit’s outcome is unaffected by other units’ treatment statuses — is required in conventional approaches to causal inference. When SUTVA is violated, as in networked social interaction, treatment effects spread to control units through the network structure. We evaluate the evidence for spillover effects in data from three field experiments on US state legislatures. Randomized field experiments represent the gold standard in causal inference when studying political elites. It is rarely possible to bring political elites into a controlled laboratory environment, and causal identification with observational data is fraught with problems. We review recently-developed methods for testing for causal effects — including interference effects — while relaxing SUTVA. We propose new specifications for treatment spillover models, and construct networks through geographical or ideological proximity and co-sponsorship. Considering different combinations of spillover models and networks, we evaluate the robustness of recently developed non-parametric tests for interference. The approaches we illustrate can be applied to any experimental setting in which interference is suspected.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
互动群体现场实验中的网络效应:来自立法研究的案例
大多数社会过程涉及单位之间通过某种形式的社会、沟通或协作网络的复杂互动。传统的因果推理方法需要稳定的单位治疗值假设(SUTVA)——假设一个单位的结果不受其他单位的治疗状态的影响。当违反SUTVA时,如在网络社会互动中,治疗效果通过网络结构传播到控制单位。我们从美国州立法机构的三个实地实验数据中评估了溢出效应的证据。在研究政治精英时,随机场实验代表了因果推理的黄金标准。把政治精英带到受控的实验室环境中几乎是不可能的,用观测数据进行因果关系鉴定也充满了问题。我们回顾了最近开发的测试因果效应的方法,包括干扰效应,同时放松SUTVA。我们提出了治疗溢出模型的新规范,并通过地理或意识形态接近和共同赞助构建网络。考虑到溢出模型和网络的不同组合,我们评估了最近开发的非参数干扰检验的鲁棒性。我们所说明的方法可以应用于任何有干扰嫌疑的实验环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Do American Voters Really Not Punish Overt Undemocratic Behavior at the Polls? Natural Experimental Evidence from the 2021 Insurrection of the U.S. Capitol Absolute versus Relative: Asymmetric Framing and Feedback in a Heterogeneous-Endowment Public Goods Game Improving Studies of Sensitive Topics Using Prior Evidence: A Unified Bayesian Framework for List Experiments Are More Children Better Than One? Evidence from a Lab Experiment of Decision Making Financial Vulnerability and Seeking Expert Advice: Evidence from a Survey Experiment
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1