省略还是纳入?整合控制变量使用的节俭与多产观点

Fabian Mändli, Mikko Rönkkö
{"title":"省略还是纳入?整合控制变量使用的节俭与多产观点","authors":"Fabian Mändli, Mikko Rönkkö","doi":"10.1177/10944281231221703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the recent years, two perspectives on control variable use have emerged in management research: the first originates largely from within the management discipline and argues to remain frugal, to use control variables as sparsely as possible. The second is rooted in econometrics textbooks and argues to be prolific, to be generous in control variable inclusion to not risk omitted variable bias, and because including irrelevant exogenous variables has little consequences for regression results. We present two reviews showing that the frugal perspective is becoming increasingly popular in research practice, while the prolific perspective has received little explicit attention. We summarize both perspectives’ key arguments and test their specific recommendations in three Monte Carlo simulations. Our results challenge the two recommendations of the frugal perspective of “omitting impotent controls” and “avoiding proxies” but show the detrimental effects of including endogenous controls (bad controls). We recommend considering the control variable selection problem from the perspective of endogeneity and selecting controls based on theory using causal graphs instead of focusing on the many or few questions.","PeriodicalId":507528,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":"24 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Omit or to Include? Integrating the Frugal and Prolific Perspectives on Control Variable Use\",\"authors\":\"Fabian Mändli, Mikko Rönkkö\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10944281231221703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Over the recent years, two perspectives on control variable use have emerged in management research: the first originates largely from within the management discipline and argues to remain frugal, to use control variables as sparsely as possible. The second is rooted in econometrics textbooks and argues to be prolific, to be generous in control variable inclusion to not risk omitted variable bias, and because including irrelevant exogenous variables has little consequences for regression results. We present two reviews showing that the frugal perspective is becoming increasingly popular in research practice, while the prolific perspective has received little explicit attention. We summarize both perspectives’ key arguments and test their specific recommendations in three Monte Carlo simulations. Our results challenge the two recommendations of the frugal perspective of “omitting impotent controls” and “avoiding proxies” but show the detrimental effects of including endogenous controls (bad controls). We recommend considering the control variable selection problem from the perspective of endogeneity and selecting controls based on theory using causal graphs instead of focusing on the many or few questions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"volume\":\"24 18\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Organizational Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231221703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231221703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,管理研究中出现了两种关于控制变量使用的观点:第一种观点主要源于管理学科内部,主张保持节俭,尽可能少地使用控制变量。第二种观点源于计量经济学教科书,主张多用控制变量,慷慨地加入控制变量以避免遗漏变量偏差的风险,因为加入无关的外生变量对回归结果影响不大。我们提交的两篇评论显示,节俭观点在研究实践中越来越受欢迎,而多产观点则很少受到明确关注。我们总结了两种观点的主要论点,并通过三次蒙特卡罗模拟测试了它们的具体建议。我们的结果对节俭观点中 "省略无效控制 "和 "避免代理 "这两项建议提出了质疑,但也显示了包含内生控制(不良控制)的不利影响。我们建议从内生性的角度来考虑控制变量的选择问题,并根据理论利用因果图来选择控制变量,而不是只关注多或少的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
To Omit or to Include? Integrating the Frugal and Prolific Perspectives on Control Variable Use
Over the recent years, two perspectives on control variable use have emerged in management research: the first originates largely from within the management discipline and argues to remain frugal, to use control variables as sparsely as possible. The second is rooted in econometrics textbooks and argues to be prolific, to be generous in control variable inclusion to not risk omitted variable bias, and because including irrelevant exogenous variables has little consequences for regression results. We present two reviews showing that the frugal perspective is becoming increasingly popular in research practice, while the prolific perspective has received little explicit attention. We summarize both perspectives’ key arguments and test their specific recommendations in three Monte Carlo simulations. Our results challenge the two recommendations of the frugal perspective of “omitting impotent controls” and “avoiding proxies” but show the detrimental effects of including endogenous controls (bad controls). We recommend considering the control variable selection problem from the perspective of endogeneity and selecting controls based on theory using causal graphs instead of focusing on the many or few questions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mixed-Keying or Desirability-Matching in the Construction of Forced-Choice Measures? An Empirical Investigation and Practical Recommendations Building a Bigger Toolbox: The Construct Validity of Existing and Proposed Measures of Careless Responding to Cognitive Ability Tests Mixed-Keying or Desirability-Matching in the Construction of Forced-Choice Measures? An Empirical Investigation and Practical Recommendations Building a Bigger Toolbox: The Construct Validity of Existing and Proposed Measures of Careless Responding to Cognitive Ability Tests Confounding Effects of Insufficient Effort Responding Across Survey Sources: The Case of Personality Predicting Performance
×
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