Cited by 409Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPhilosophy and History of ScienceOptimal Experimental Design Methods

Experimental Designs for Identifying Causal Mechanisms

Open access
Imai, Kosuke, Tingley, Dustin, Yamamoto, Teppei·2013·Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society

Abstract

Summary: Experimentation is a powerful methodology that enables scientists to establish causal claims empirically. However, one important criticism is that experiments merely provide a black box view of causality and fail to identify causal mechanisms. Specifically, critics argue that, although experiments can identify average causal effects, they cannot explain the process through which such effects come about. If true, this represents a serious limitation of experimentation, especially for social and medical science research that strives to identify causal mechanisms. We consider several experimental designs that help to identify average natural indirect effects. Some of these designs require the perfect manipulation of an intermediate variable, whereas others can be used even when only imperfect manipulation is possible. We use recent social science experiments to illustrate the key ideas that underlie each of the designs proposed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01032.x

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The mediation results should be interpreted cautiously because the mediators were not experimentally manipulated.

    “The mediation results should be interpreted cautiously, however, because we did not experimentally manipulate the mediators35,36.”

    From Factual knowledge can reduce attitude polarization (2025) · cites this paper as [36]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 137 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Rothman, K. J. (1976) Causes. Am. J. Epidem., 104, 587-592. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jrsssa/article/176/1/5/7077805 by guest on 02 September 2023
  2. Hong, G. (2010) Ratio of mediator probability weighting for estimating natural direct and indirect effects. Proc. Biometr. Sect. Am. Statist. Ass., 2401-2415.
  3. Hong, G., Deutsch, J. and Hill, H. D. (201l) Parametric and non-parametric weighting methods for estimating mediation effects: an application to the National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies. Proc. Socl Statist. Sect. Am. Statist. Ass., 3215-3229.
  4. MacKinnon, D. P. and Pirlott, A. G. (2010) The unbearable lightness of b: approaches to improve causal inter- pretation of the M to Y relation. Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conf., Las Vegas.
  5. Pearl, J. (2001) Direct and indirect effects. In Proc. 17th Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (eds J. S. Breese and D. Koller), pp. 411-420. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  6. Rubin, D. B. (1975) Bayesian inference for causality: the importance of randomization. Proc. Socl Statist. Sect. Am. Statist. Ass., 233-239.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Imai, K., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
Published
2012-11-01
Volume
176
Issue
1
Pages
5-51
ISSN
  • 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-985X
OpenAlex
W2133554893
Cited by
408
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 9
FWCI
18.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society) (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES–0849715, SES–0918968)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
Keywords
causal mechanisms, experimental design, mediation, intermediate variables, causal inference, social science experiments

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