The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments
Abstract
Social scientists increasingly exploit natural experiments in their research. This article surveys recent applications in political science, with the goal of illustrating the inferential advantages provided by this research design. When treatment assignment is less than “as if” random, studies may be something less than natural experiments, and familiar threats to valid causal inference in observational settings can arise. The author proposes a continuum of plausibility for natural experiments, defined by the extent to which treatment assignment is plausibly “as if” random, and locates several leading studies along this continuum.
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
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Economic Shocks and Civil Conflict: An Instrumental Variables Approach
Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., & Sergenti, E. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/421174 · Cited by 2,460
POSNER, D. N. (2004) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055404041334 · Cited by 940
Imbens, G. W., Rubin, D. B., & Sacerdote, B. I. (2001) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.91.4.778 · Cited by 512
Cited by
Does Indiscriminate Violence Incite Insurgent Attacks?: Evidence from Chechnya
Lyall, J. (2009) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002708330881 · Cited by 499
Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?
BARABAS, J., & JERIT, J. (2010) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055410000092 · Cited by 481
Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942–2008
Caughey, D., & Sekhon, J. S. (2011) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr032 · Cited by 331
DUNNING, T., & NILEKANI, J. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055412000573 · Cited by 264
Self-citationConstraining Dictatorship: From Personalized Rule to Institutionalized Regimes
Meng, A. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108877497 · Cited by 215
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunning, T.
- Venue
- Political Research Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-02-09
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 282-293
- ISSN
- 1065-9129 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2026567561
- Cited by
- 352
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 12.31
- 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: Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1065912907306470
- The paper
- Dunning, T. (2008). Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments. Political Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907306470
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.
