IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/somere/v41y2012i1p3-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A General Method for Detecting Interference Between Units in Randomized Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Peter M. Aronow

Abstract

Interference between units may pose a threat to unbiased causal inference in randomized controlled experiments. Although the assumption of no interference is often necessary for causal inference, few options are available for testing this assumption. This article presents an ex post method for detecting interference between units in randomized experiments. With a test statistic of the analyst’s choice, a conditional randomization test allows for the calculation of the exact significance level of the causal dependence of outcomes on the treatment status of other units. The robustness of the method is demonstrated through simulation studies. Moreover, using this method, interference between units is detected in a field experiment designed to assess the effect of mailings on voter turnout in a U.S. primary election.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter M. Aronow, 2012. "A General Method for Detecting Interference Between Units in Randomized Experiments," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 41(1), pages 3-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:41:y:2012:i:1:p:3-16
    DOI: 10.1177/0049124112437535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0049124112437535
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0049124112437535?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hudgens, Michael G. & Halloran, M. Elizabeth, 2008. "Toward Causal Inference With Interference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 832-842, June.
    2. Nickerson, David W., 2008. "Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 49-57, February.
    3. Rosenbaum, Paul R., 2007. "Interference Between Units in Randomized Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 191-200, March.
    4. Case, Anne C. & Rosen, Harvey S. & Hines, James Jr., 1993. "Budget spillovers and fiscal policy interdependence : Evidence from the states," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 285-307, October.
    5. Baicker, Katherine, 2005. "The spillover effects of state spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 529-544, February.
    6. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    7. Kost, James T. & McDermott, Michael P., 2002. "Combining dependent P-values," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 183-190, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Baird & Aislinn Bohren & Craig McIntosh & Berk Ozler, 2014. "Designing Experiments to Measure Spillover Effects," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-032, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    2. Baylis, Kathy & Ham, Andres, 2015. "How important is spatial correlation in randomized controlled trials?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205586, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Mathias Lundin & Maria Karlsson, 2014. "Estimation of causal effects in observational studies with interference between units," Statistical Methods & Applications, Springer;Società Italiana di Statistica, vol. 23(3), pages 417-433, August.
    4. David Choi, 2017. "Estimation of Monotone Treatment Effects in Network Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 1147-1155, July.
    5. Susan Athey & Guido Imbens, 2016. "The Econometrics of Randomized Experiments," Papers 1607.00698, arXiv.org.
    6. Susan Athey & Dean Eckles & Guido W. Imbens, 2018. "Exact p-Values for Network Interference," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(521), pages 230-240, January.
    7. Sarah Baird & Aislinn Bohren & Craig McIntosh & Berk Ozler, 2017. "Optimal Design of Experiments in the Presence of Interference*, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 16-025, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 30 Nov 2017.
    8. Karlsson, Maria & Lundin, Mathias, 2016. "On statistical methods for labor market evaluation under interference between units," Working Paper Series 2016:24, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    9. Sarah Baird & Aislinn Bohren & Craig McIntosh & Berk Ozler, 2015. "Designing Experiments to Measure Spillover Effects, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-021, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Jun 2015.
    10. Taylor, Marshall A., 2019. "Visualization Strategies for Regression Estimates with Randomization Inference," SocArXiv bsd7g, Center for Open Science.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Choi, 2017. "Estimation of Monotone Treatment Effects in Network Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 112(519), pages 1147-1155, July.
    2. Kosuke Imai & Zhichao Jiang, 2020. "Identification and sensitivity analysis of contagion effects in randomized placebo‐controlled trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1637-1657, October.
    3. Galletta, Sergio, 2017. "Law enforcement, municipal budgets and spillover effects: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in Italy," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 90-105.
    4. Kristien Werck & Bruno Heyndels & Benny Geys, 2008. "The impact of ‘central places’ on spatial spending patterns: evidence from Flemish local government cultural expenditures," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 32(1), pages 35-58, March.
    5. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    6. Giovanni Cerulli, 2014. "ntreatreg: a Stata module for estimation of treatment effects in the presence of neighborhood interactions," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2014 15, Stata Users Group.
    7. Finan, Frederico & Seira, Enrique & Simpser, Alberto, 2021. "Voting with one’s neighbors: Evidence from migration within Mexico," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    8. Baicker, Katherine & Clemens, Jeffrey & Singhal, Monica, 2012. "The rise of the states: U.S. fiscal decentralization in the postwar period," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1079-1091.
    9. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    10. Cassette, Aurélie & Creel, Jérôme & Farvaque, Etienne & Paty, Sonia, 2013. "Governments under influence: Country interactions in discretionary fiscal policy," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 79-89.
    11. Saeid Mahdavi & Joakim Westerlund, 2017. "Are state–local government expenditures converging? New evidence based on sequential unit root tests," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 373-403, September.
    12. Martin Schmitz, 2014. "Financial remoteness and the net external position," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(1), pages 191-219, February.
    13. Tengku Munawar Chalil, 2020. "Fiscal competitions among Indonesian municipalities: a spatial econometric analysis," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 241-260, February.
    14. Janeba, Eckhard & Osterloh, Steffen, 2013. "Tax and the city — A theory of local tax competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 89-100.
    15. Geys, Benny, 2006. "Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 443-462, November.
    16. Fosco, Constanza & Laruelle, Annick & Sánchez, Angel, 2009. "Turnout Intention and Social Networks," IKERLANAK info:eu-repo/grantAgreeme, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    17. Luis Ayala & Ana Herrero & Jorge Martinez‐Vazquez, 2021. "Welfare benefits in highly decentralized fiscal systems: Evidence on interregional mimicking," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(5), pages 1178-1208, October.
    18. Revelli, Federico, 2006. "Performance rating and yardstick competition in social service provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 459-475, February.
    19. Hoffman, Mitchell & León, Gianmarco & Lombardi, María, 2017. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-115.
    20. Guillaume Cheikbossian, 2016. "The political economy of (De)centralization with complementary public goods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 315-348, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:somere:v:41:y:2012:i:1:p:3-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.