Cited by 1,194Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesBayesian Modeling and Causal InferencePhilosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 120 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 75 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable

Open access
Elwert, Felix, Winship, Christopher·2014·Annual Review of Sociology

Abstract

Endogenous selection bias is a central problem for causal inference. Recognizing the problem, however, can be difficult in practice. This article introduces a purely graphical way of characterizing endogenous selection bias and of understanding its consequences (Hernán et al. 2004). We use causal graphs (direct acyclic graphs, or DAGs) to highlight that endogenous selection bias stems from conditioning (e.g., controlling, stratifying, or selecting) on a so-called collider variable, i.e., a variable that is itself caused by two other variables, one that is (or is associated with) the treatment and another that is (or is associated with) the outcome. Endogenous selection bias can result from direct conditioning on the outcome variable, a post-outcome variable, a post-treatment variable, and even a pre-treatment variable. We highlight the difference between endogenous selection bias, common-cause confounding, and overcontrol bias and discuss numerous examples from social stratification, cultural sociology, social network analysis, political sociology, social demography, and the sociology of education.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

60 Own interpretation · 27 No full text of the sources · 18 No basis given · 9 Sources not found · 7 Not checked yet · 4 Supported · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 70 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
58 of 58
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The DAGs in this review display all observed and unobserved common causes in the process under investigation.

    “we assume that the DAGs in this review display all observed and unobserved common causes in the process under investigation.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the Hollywood example, beauty and talent are unassociated in the general population.

    “Suppose, for argument’s sake, that beauty and talent are unassociated in the general population”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the Hollywood example, beauty and talent are separately sufficient for becoming a successful Hollywood actor.

    “Suppose further that beauty and talent are separately sufficient for becoming a successful Hollywood actor.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the Hausman and Wise example, education and the error term U are independent in the population.

    “Assume, for clarity and without loss of generality, that E and U are independent in the population”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the Lin et al. example, income and child support payments are treated as sharing no common causes.

    “Without loss of generality, we neglect that I and P may share common causes.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the music study example, additional explanatory variables are not considered.

    “For clarity, we do not consider additional explanatory variables in the study.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the music example, topping the Billboard charts has a positive effect on inclusion in the Rolling Stone 500 in the population of all albums.

    “The treatment is topping the Billboard charts, B, which presumably has a positive effect on R in the population of all albums.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the music example, there is no common-cause confounding.

    “In the absence of common-cause confounding (as encoded in Figure 7)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most albums ever released neither topped the charts nor won inclusion in the Rolling Stone 500.

    “most albums ever released neither topped the charts nor won inclusion in the Rolling Stone 500.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Motherhood affects a woman's reservation wage.

    “Following standard labor market theory, assume that motherhood will affect a woman’s reservation wage, WR, i.e., the wage that would be necessary to draw her out of the home and into the workforce.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A woman accepts employment only if the wage offer meets or exceeds her reservation wage.

    “Employment, E, is a function of both the wage offer and the reservation wage because a woman will only accept the job if the wage offer meets or exceeds her reservation wage.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Motherhood and offer wages share no common cause.

    “(For simplicity, assume that M and WO share no common cause.)”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In Figure 9a, attrition is completely random with respect to both treatment and outcome.

    “attrition is assumed to be completely random with respect to both treatment and outcome.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In Figure 9b, poverty affects the risk of dropping out.

    “In Figure 9b, poverty is assumed to affect the risk of dropping out, P→C.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many social science data sets include information on motherhood but not on women's reservation wage.

    “Many social science data sets include information on motherhood, M, but they typically do not include information on women’s reservation wage, WR.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Data typically include information on offer wages only for women who are employed.

    “Importantly, the data typically include information on offer wages, WO, only for those women who are actually employed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most prospective longitudinal studies experience attrition over time.

    “Most prospective longitudinal (panel) studies experience attrition over time.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Schooling is not randomly assigned, and individuals with higher innate ability are more likely to obtain more schooling and favorable later outcomes regardless of schooling.

    “Schooling, of course, is not randomly assigned to students: On average, individuals with higher innate ability are both more likely to obtain more schooling and more likely to achieve favorable outcomes later in life regardless of their level of schooling.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Innate ability confounds the effect of schooling on wages.

    “Figure 10a starts by positing the usual assumption that innate ability, U, confounds the effect of schooling on wages via the unblocked noncausal path S←U→W.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    True innate ability is unobserved.

    “Because true innate ability is unobserved, the path cannot be blocked, and the effect S→Y is not identified.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Civic engagement does not spread between friends.

    “For expositional clarity, assume that civic engagement does not spread between friends [i.e., no arrow Yi(t)→Yj(t+1)].”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Each person's civic engagement is caused by their own characteristics, which are at least partially unobserved.

    “Instead, each person’s civic engagement is caused by their own characteristics, U, such as altruism, which are at least partially unobserved [giving arrows Yi(t)←Ui→Yi(t+1) and Yj(t)←Uj→Yj(t+1)].”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Tie formation is homophilous, such that altruistic people form preferential attachments.

    “Tie formation is homophilous, such that altruistic people form preferential attachments, Ui→Fi,j←Uj.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The analyst assumes that controlling for some combination of observed pre-treatment variables is sufficient to identify the total causal effect of treatment.

    “If the analyst is willing to assume that controlling for some combination of observed pre-treatment variables is sufficient to identify the total causal effect of treatment, then it is sufficient to control for all variables that (directly or indirectly) cause treatment or outcome or both (VanderWeele & Shpitser 2011).”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There exists some sufficient set of observed controls.

    “Nevertheless, the advice is still conditional on some theory of data generation, however coarsely articulated, specifically that there exists some sufficient set of observed controls.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Assumption-free causal inference is impossible.

    “Given that assumption-free causal inference is impossible, sociologists must rely on theory, prudent substantive judgment, and well-founded prior knowledge to assess the threat of bias.”
26 of 26

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 120 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Angrist JD, 1996, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 8, 328
  2. Bareinboim E, 2012, Proc. 15th Int. Conf. Artif. Intell. Stat.(AISTATS), April 21–23, 2012, La Palma, Canary Islands, 22, 100
  3. Farr W, 1858, Transaction National Association Promotion Social Science, 504
  4. Glymour MM, 2008, Modern Epidemiology, 183
  5. Hausman JA, 1981, The Econometrics of Discrete Data, 365
  6. Heckman JJ, 1976, Ann. Econ. Soc. Meas., 5, 475
  7. Kim JH, 1983, Proc. 8th Int. Jt. Conf. Artif. Intell. (IJCAI-83), Karlsruhe, FRG, Aug. 8–12, 1983, 190
  8. Lin I, 1999, J. Off. Stat., 15, 143
  9. Pearl J, 2001, Proc. 17th Conf. Uncertain. Artif. Intell., Aug. 2–5, 2001, Seattle, WA, 411
  10. VanderWeele TJ, 2009, J. Mach. Learn., 10, 699
  11. Ver Steeg G, 2011, Proc. 27th Conf. Uncertain. Artif. Intell.(UAI2011), July 14–17, 2011, Barcelona, Spain, 717
  12. Verma T, 1988, Proc. 4th Workshop Uncertain. Artif. Intell., 352

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,194

Metadata

Authors
Elwert, F., & Winship, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Annual Review of Sociology
Published
2014-07-30
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
31-53
ISSN
  • 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2115
OpenAlex
W2097829006
Cited by
1,168
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 156 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 122 · 2021: 125 · 2020: 150 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 7
FWCI
4.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG017266)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD047873)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
Keywords
collider bias, causal inference, causal graphs, social stratification, sociology of culture, social network analysis, political sociology, social demography, sociology of education

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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