非线性相互作用效应估计中模型不精确的后果

IF 4.7 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Analysis Pub Date : 2022-10-17 DOI:10.1017/pan.2022.25
Janina Beiser-McGrath, Liam F. Beiser-McGrath
{"title":"非线性相互作用效应估计中模型不精确的后果","authors":"Janina Beiser-McGrath, Liam F. Beiser-McGrath","doi":"10.1017/pan.2022.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recent research has shown that interaction effects may often be nonlinear (Hainmueller, Mummolo, and Xu [2019, Political Analysis 27, 163–192]). As standard interaction effect specifications assume a linear interaction effect, that is, the moderator conditions the effect at a constant rate, this can lead to bias. However, allowing nonlinear interaction effects, without accounting for other nonlinearities and nonlinear interaction effects, can also lead to biased estimates. Specifically, researchers can infer nonlinear interaction effects, even though the true interaction effect is linear, when variables used for covariate adjustment that are correlated with the moderator have a nonlinear effect upon the outcome of interest. We illustrate this bias with simulations and show how diagnostic tools recommended in the literature are unable to uncover the issue. We show how using the adaptive Lasso to identify relevant nonlinearities among variables used for covariate adjustment can avoid this issue. Moreover, the use of regularized estimators, which allow for a fuller set of nonlinearities, both independent and interactive, is more generally shown to avoid this bias and more general forms of omitted interaction bias.","PeriodicalId":48270,"journal":{"name":"Political Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Consequences of Model Misspecification for the Estimation of Nonlinear Interaction Effects\",\"authors\":\"Janina Beiser-McGrath, Liam F. Beiser-McGrath\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/pan.2022.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Recent research has shown that interaction effects may often be nonlinear (Hainmueller, Mummolo, and Xu [2019, Political Analysis 27, 163–192]). As standard interaction effect specifications assume a linear interaction effect, that is, the moderator conditions the effect at a constant rate, this can lead to bias. However, allowing nonlinear interaction effects, without accounting for other nonlinearities and nonlinear interaction effects, can also lead to biased estimates. Specifically, researchers can infer nonlinear interaction effects, even though the true interaction effect is linear, when variables used for covariate adjustment that are correlated with the moderator have a nonlinear effect upon the outcome of interest. We illustrate this bias with simulations and show how diagnostic tools recommended in the literature are unable to uncover the issue. We show how using the adaptive Lasso to identify relevant nonlinearities among variables used for covariate adjustment can avoid this issue. Moreover, the use of regularized estimators, which allow for a fuller set of nonlinearities, both independent and interactive, is more generally shown to avoid this bias and more general forms of omitted interaction bias.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.25\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2022.25","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

最近的研究表明,相互作用效应往往是非线性的(Hainmueller, Mummolo, and Xu [2019, Political Analysis 27, 163-192])。由于标准的相互作用效应规范假设了线性的相互作用效应,即慢化剂以恒定的速率调节作用,这可能导致偏差。然而,允许非线性相互作用效应,而不考虑其他非线性和非线性相互作用效应,也可能导致有偏差的估计。具体来说,研究人员可以推断非线性相互作用效应,即使真正的相互作用效应是线性的,当用于协变量调整的变量与调节因子相关时,对感兴趣的结果产生非线性影响。我们通过模拟来说明这种偏差,并展示了文献中推荐的诊断工具如何无法发现问题。我们展示了如何使用自适应Lasso来识别用于协变量调整的变量之间的相关非线性可以避免这个问题。此外,正则估计的使用,它允许更全面的非线性集,既独立又相互作用,更普遍地显示避免这种偏差和更一般形式的忽略的相互作用偏差。
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
The Consequences of Model Misspecification for the Estimation of Nonlinear Interaction Effects
Abstract Recent research has shown that interaction effects may often be nonlinear (Hainmueller, Mummolo, and Xu [2019, Political Analysis 27, 163–192]). As standard interaction effect specifications assume a linear interaction effect, that is, the moderator conditions the effect at a constant rate, this can lead to bias. However, allowing nonlinear interaction effects, without accounting for other nonlinearities and nonlinear interaction effects, can also lead to biased estimates. Specifically, researchers can infer nonlinear interaction effects, even though the true interaction effect is linear, when variables used for covariate adjustment that are correlated with the moderator have a nonlinear effect upon the outcome of interest. We illustrate this bias with simulations and show how diagnostic tools recommended in the literature are unable to uncover the issue. We show how using the adaptive Lasso to identify relevant nonlinearities among variables used for covariate adjustment can avoid this issue. Moreover, the use of regularized estimators, which allow for a fuller set of nonlinearities, both independent and interactive, is more generally shown to avoid this bias and more general forms of omitted interaction bias.
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
Political Analysis
Political Analysis POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Political Analysis chronicles these exciting developments by publishing the most sophisticated scholarship in the field. It is the place to learn new methods, to find some of the best empirical scholarship, and to publish your best research.
期刊最新文献
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models NonRandom Tweet Mortality and Data Access Restrictions: Compromising the Replication of Sensitive Twitter Studies Generalizing toward Nonrespondents: Effect Estimates in Survey Experiments Are Broadly Similar for Eager and Reluctant Participants Estimators for Topic-Sampling Designs Flexible Estimation of Policy Preferences for Witnesses in Committee Hearings
×
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