{"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":"31 1","pages":"278 - 287"},"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\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"278 - 287\"},\"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。
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.
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.