Understanding L.O.V.E. (left out variables error): A method for estimating the effects of omitted variables.
Abstract
Whenever nonexperimental methods are used to test a hypothesis and 1 or more predictor (inde-pendent) variables that may affect the criterion (dependent) variable are omitted from the analyses, it is possible that the estimates of the effects of the predictors are biased or that the omitted variable could account entirely for the effects attributed to one or more of the predictors. In this article, a technique is developed for determining when a variable omitted from a linear model can account for the effects attributed to a predictor included in that model. Social scientists are rarely able to obtain information on all of the factors that may affect their criterion (outcome, dependent) variables. Whenever researchers use nonexperimental meth-ods and fail to account for all of the variables that affect a criterion, their inferences about the effects of the predictors (independent variables) on that criterion may be biased.1 Whenever a relevant variable is neither held constant nor en-tered into an analysis, that variable could account entirely for the effects attributed to one or more of the predictor variables
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Variables whose correlation with existing predictors is smaller may, all else equal, exert a larger independent biasing effect.
“variables whose correlation with existing predictors is smaller may, all else equal, exert a larger independent biasing effect (Mauro, 1990).”
From An Omitted Variables Approach to Disentangling Differential Prediction in College Admissions (2026) · cites this paper as Mauro, 1990
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 24 · Cited by 130
- Authors
- Mauro, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oregon (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mauro, Robert
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1990-09
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 314-329
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2010437482
- Cited by
- 130
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
- Keywords
- omitted variable bias, omitted variables, effect size estimation, linear models, causal inference, confounding
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
