Quantities of Interest for Interactions and the Pitfalls of Assuming Linear Treatment Effects

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Josep Serrano-Serrat
{"title":"Quantities of Interest for Interactions and the Pitfalls of Assuming Linear Treatment Effects","authors":"Josep Serrano-Serrat","doi":"10.15195/v13.a36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although quantitative social sciences often rely on estimating models in which treatment effects vary across groups, researchers rarely specify which causal quantity they aim to estimate or justify their empirical modeling choices. This article makes two contributions. First, it clarifies the distinct quantities of interest when studying interactions: comparisons at different treatment intensities (the difference in conditional average marginal effects) and comparisons at similar intensities (what I term the average interactive partial effect). When treatment effects are nonlinear and treatment distributions differ across groups, these quantities diverge. Second, the article assesses estimation strategies to estimate these quantities. It demonstrates that linear interaction models produce biased estimates of either quantity when treatment effects are nonlinear and explores two alternatives that explicitly accommodate such nonlinearities. This article is accompanied by an R package that implements these approaches. Through simulations, stylized examples, and an empirical application, the article shows that explicitly defining the quantity of interest and selecting appropriate models is essential for valid interaction analysis.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"63 1","pages":"945-970"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v13.a36","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although quantitative social sciences often rely on estimating models in which treatment effects vary across groups, researchers rarely specify which causal quantity they aim to estimate or justify their empirical modeling choices. This article makes two contributions. First, it clarifies the distinct quantities of interest when studying interactions: comparisons at different treatment intensities (the difference in conditional average marginal effects) and comparisons at similar intensities (what I term the average interactive partial effect). When treatment effects are nonlinear and treatment distributions differ across groups, these quantities diverge. Second, the article assesses estimation strategies to estimate these quantities. It demonstrates that linear interaction models produce biased estimates of either quantity when treatment effects are nonlinear and explores two alternatives that explicitly accommodate such nonlinearities. This article is accompanied by an R package that implements these approaches. Through simulations, stylized examples, and an empirical application, the article shows that explicitly defining the quantity of interest and selecting appropriate models is essential for valid interaction analysis.
相互作用的兴趣量和假设线性处理效果的陷阱
虽然定量社会科学经常依赖于估计模型,其中治疗效果在不同群体中有所不同,但研究人员很少指定他们旨在估计或证明其经验模型选择的因果量。这篇文章有两个贡献。首先,它澄清了研究相互作用时不同的兴趣量:不同处理强度下的比较(条件平均边际效应的差异)和相似强度下的比较(我称之为平均交互部分效应)。当治疗效果是非线性的,并且治疗分布在组间不同时,这些数量就会出现分歧。其次,本文评估了估计这些数量的估计策略。它表明,当治疗效果是非线性的时候,线性相互作用模型会对任何一个量产生有偏差的估计,并探索了明确适应这种非线性的两种替代方案。本文附带了一个实现这些方法的R包。通过仿真、程式化示例和经验应用,本文表明,明确定义感兴趣的数量和选择适当的模型对于有效的交互分析是必不可少的。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书