36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments

      ,
      Political Analysis
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Social scientists are often interested in testing multiple causal mechanisms through which a treatment affects outcomes. A predominant approach has been to use linear structural equation models and examine the statistical significance of the corresponding path coefficients. However, this approach implicitly assumes that the multiple mechanisms are causally independent of one another. In this article, we consider a set of alternative assumptions that are sufficient to identify the average causal mediation effects when multiple, causally related mediators exist. We develop a new sensitivity analysis for examining the robustness of empirical findings to the potential violation of a key identification assumption. We apply the proposed methods to three political psychology experiments, which examine alternative causal pathways between media framing and public opinion. Our analysis reveals that the validity of original conclusions is highly reliant on the assumed independence of alternative causal mechanisms, highlighting the importance of proposed sensitivity analysis. All of the proposed methods can be implemented via an open source R package, mediation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects.

          The estimation of controlled direct effects can be carried out by fitting a marginal structural model and using inverse probability of treatment weighting. To use marginal structural models to estimate natural direct and indirect effects, 2 marginal structural models can be used: 1 for the effects of the treatment and mediator on the outcome and 1 for the effect of the treatment on the mediator. Unlike marginal structural models typically used in epidemiologic research, the marginal structural models used to estimate natural direct and indirect effects are made conditional on the covariates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches.

            In recognition of the increasingly important role of moderators and mediators in clinical research, clear definitions are sought of the two terms to avoid inconsistent, ambiguous, and possibly misleading results across clinical research studies. The criteria used to define moderators and mediators proposed by the Baron & Kenny approach, which have been long used in social/behavioral research, are directly compared to the criteria proposed by the recent MacArthur approach, which modified the Baron & Kenny criteria. After clarifying the differences in criteria between approaches, the rationale for the modifications is clarified and the implications for the design and interpretation of future studies considered. Researchers may find modifications introduced in the MacArthur approach more appropriate to their research objectives, particularly if their research might have a direct influence on decision making.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                applab
                Political Analysis
                Polit. anal.
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1047-1987
                1476-4989
                2013
                January 2017
                : 21
                : 02
                : 141-171
                Article
                10.1093/pan/mps040
                7aff95d2-82cf-4930-aea5-0bfbcabb1368
                © 2013
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article