使用中介分析或工具变量的因果推理——没有条件独立的完全中介

Thomas Otter, Max J. Pachali, Stefan Mayer, Jan R. Landwehr
{"title":"使用中介分析或工具变量的因果推理——没有条件独立的完全中介","authors":"Thomas Otter, Max J. Pachali, Stefan Mayer, Jan R. Landwehr","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3135313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both instrumental variable (IV) estimation and mediation analysis are tools for causal inference. However, IV estimation has mostly developed in economics for causal inference from observational data. In contrast, mediation analysis has mostly developed in psychology, as a tool to empirically establish the process by which an experimental manipulation brings about its effect on the dependent variable of interest. As a consequence, many researchers well versed in IV estimation are not familiar with mediation analysis, and vice versa. In this paper, we discuss the communalities and differences between IV estimation and mediation analysis. We highlight that IV estimation leverages an a priori assumption of full mediation for causal inference. In contrast, modern practice in mediation analysis focusses on testing the statistical significance of the indirect effect without too much regard for the specification of the estimated model. A drawback of this approach is that inferring mediation from the statistical significance of a (putative) indirect effect through the hypothesized mediator may be spurious altogether. We discuss specification issues and how they relate to inference about mediation, and specifically the distinction between full and partial mediation. Based on this discussion we argue in favor of further developing tests that are more diagnostic about the underlying causal structure, motivated by the implication that full mediation could be more common than currently believed.","PeriodicalId":443127,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Marketing eJournal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Inference Using Mediation Analysis or Instrumental Variables - Full Mediation in the Absence of Conditional Independence\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Otter, Max J. Pachali, Stefan Mayer, Jan R. Landwehr\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3135313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both instrumental variable (IV) estimation and mediation analysis are tools for causal inference. However, IV estimation has mostly developed in economics for causal inference from observational data. In contrast, mediation analysis has mostly developed in psychology, as a tool to empirically establish the process by which an experimental manipulation brings about its effect on the dependent variable of interest. As a consequence, many researchers well versed in IV estimation are not familiar with mediation analysis, and vice versa. In this paper, we discuss the communalities and differences between IV estimation and mediation analysis. We highlight that IV estimation leverages an a priori assumption of full mediation for causal inference. In contrast, modern practice in mediation analysis focusses on testing the statistical significance of the indirect effect without too much regard for the specification of the estimated model. A drawback of this approach is that inferring mediation from the statistical significance of a (putative) indirect effect through the hypothesized mediator may be spurious altogether. We discuss specification issues and how they relate to inference about mediation, and specifically the distinction between full and partial mediation. Based on this discussion we argue in favor of further developing tests that are more diagnostic about the underlying causal structure, motivated by the implication that full mediation could be more common than currently believed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":443127,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Marketing eJournal\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Marketing eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3135313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Marketing eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3135313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

工具变量(IV)估计和中介分析都是因果推理的工具。然而,在经济学中,IV估计主要用于从观测数据中进行因果推断。相比之下,中介分析主要是在心理学中发展起来的,作为一种工具,它从经验上确定实验操作对感兴趣的因变量产生影响的过程。因此,许多精通IV估计的研究人员并不熟悉中介分析,反之亦然。在本文中,我们讨论了IV估计和中介分析之间的共性和区别。我们强调,IV估计利用完全中介因果推理的先验假设。相比之下,现代中介分析的实践侧重于检验间接效应的统计显著性,而不太考虑估计模型的规格。这种方法的一个缺点是,通过假设的中介从(假定的)间接效应的统计显著性推断中介可能完全是虚假的。我们将讨论规范问题,以及它们如何与关于中介的推断相关,特别是完全中介和部分中介之间的区别。基于这一讨论,我们主张进一步开发对潜在因果结构更具诊断性的测试,其动机是暗示完全调解可能比目前认为的更普遍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Causal Inference Using Mediation Analysis or Instrumental Variables - Full Mediation in the Absence of Conditional Independence
Both instrumental variable (IV) estimation and mediation analysis are tools for causal inference. However, IV estimation has mostly developed in economics for causal inference from observational data. In contrast, mediation analysis has mostly developed in psychology, as a tool to empirically establish the process by which an experimental manipulation brings about its effect on the dependent variable of interest. As a consequence, many researchers well versed in IV estimation are not familiar with mediation analysis, and vice versa. In this paper, we discuss the communalities and differences between IV estimation and mediation analysis. We highlight that IV estimation leverages an a priori assumption of full mediation for causal inference. In contrast, modern practice in mediation analysis focusses on testing the statistical significance of the indirect effect without too much regard for the specification of the estimated model. A drawback of this approach is that inferring mediation from the statistical significance of a (putative) indirect effect through the hypothesized mediator may be spurious altogether. We discuss specification issues and how they relate to inference about mediation, and specifically the distinction between full and partial mediation. Based on this discussion we argue in favor of further developing tests that are more diagnostic about the underlying causal structure, motivated by the implication that full mediation could be more common than currently believed.
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信