The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unexpected Event during Survey Design: Promise and Pitfalls for Causal Inference
Abstract
An increasing number of studies exploit the occurrence of unexpected events during the fieldwork of public opinion surveys to estimate causal effects. In this paper, we discuss the use of this identification strategy based on unforeseen and salient events that split the sample of respondents into treatment and control groups: the Unexpected Event during Survey Design. In particular, we focus on the assumptions under which unexpected events can be exploited to estimate causal effects and we discuss potential threats to identification, paying especial attention to the observable and testable implications of these assumptions. We propose a series of best practices in the form of various estimation strategies and robustness checks that can be used to lend credibility to the causal estimates. Drawing on data from the European Social Survey, we illustrate the discussion of this method with an original study of the impact of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks (Paris, 01/07/2015) on French citizens’ satisfaction with their national government.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hainmueller, J. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr025 · Cited by 6,026
How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12357 · Cited by 800 · cited 2×
“In the UESD, all covariates aremeasured posttreatment, so variables that can be potentially a ected by the event should not be included to avoid posttreatment bias (Montgomery, Nyhan, and Torres 2018).”
BackgroundHappiness in Everyday Life: The Uses of Experience Sampling
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hunter, J. (2003) · Journal of Happiness Studies · doi:10.1023/a:1024409732742 · Cited by 717
Cited by
The effect of COVID‐19 lockdowns on political support: Some good news for democracy?
Bol, D., Giani, M., Blais, A., & Loewen, P. J. (2021) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12401 · Cited by 701
Political trust during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Rally around the flag or lockdown effects?
Schraff, D. (2021) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/1475-6765.12425 · Cited by 369
Fixing the Past: The Effects of Human Rights Trials on Political Attitudes in Argentina
(2025) · doi:10.1017/s0007123424000206 · Cited by 19
Kikuta, K., & Uesugi, M. (2023) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818322000261 · Cited by 17
Motta, M., Hwang, J., & Stecula, D. (2024) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2254583 · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Muñoz, J., Falcó-Gimeno, A., & Hernández, E.
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2019-07-15
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 186-206
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W2907499077
- Cited by
- 329
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 23.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unexpected Event during Survey Design: Promise and Pitfalls for Causal Inference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/pan.2019.27
- The paper
- Muñoz, J., Falcó-Gimeno, A., & Hernández, E. (2020). Unexpected Event during Survey Design: Promise and Pitfalls for Causal Inference. Political Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.27
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.