Skip to main content Accessibility help

Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments

  • Kosuke Imai (a1) and Teppei Yamamoto (a2)


Social scientists are often interested in testing multiple causal mechanisms through which a treatment affects outcomes. A predominant approach has been to use linear structural equation models and examine the statistical significance of the corresponding path coefficients. However, this approach implicitly assumes that the multiple mechanisms are causally independent of one another. In this article, we consider a set of alternative assumptions that are sufficient to identify the average causal mediation effects when multiple, causally related mediators exist. We develop a new sensitivity analysis for examining the robustness of empirical findings to the potential violation of a key identification assumption. We apply the proposed methods to three political psychology experiments, which examine alternative causal pathways between media framing and public opinion. Our analysis reveals that the validity of original conclusions is highly reliant on the assumed independence of alternative causal mechanisms, highlighting the importance of proposed sensitivity analysis. All of the proposed methods can be implemented via an open source R package, mediation.


Corresponding author

e-mail: (corresponding author)


Hide All

Authors' note: The proposed methods can be implemented via open-source software mediation that is freely available as an R package at the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN, The replication archive for this article is available online as Imai and Yamamoto (2012). We are grateful to Ted Brader, Jamie Druckman, and Rune Slothuus for sharing their data with us. We thank Dustin Tingley and Mike Tomz for useful discussions that motivated this article. John Bullock, Adam Glynn, and Tyler VanderWeele provided helpful suggestions. We also thank the Associate Editor and two anonymous referees for their comments that significantly improved the paper. An earlier version of this article was circulated under the title “Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects under Alternative Exogeneity Conditions.”



Hide All
Albert, J. M., and Nelson, S. 2011. Generalized causal mediation analysis. Biometrics 67(3): 1028–38.
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., and Rubin, D. B. 1996. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 434, 444–55.
Avin, C., Shpitser, I., and Pearl, J. 2005. Identifiability of path-specific effects. In Proceedings of the nineteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, 357–63. Edinburgh: Morgan Kaufmann.
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–82.
Brader, T., Valentino, N., and Suhay, E. 2008. What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 959–78.
Bullock, J., Green, D., and Ha, S. 2010. Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(4): 550–8.
Callaghan, K., and Schnell, F., eds. 2005. Framing American politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Chong, D., and Druckman, J. N. 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication 57: 99118.
Druckman, J. N., and Nelson, K. R. 2003. Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science 47(4): 729–45.
Glynn, A. N. 2012. The product and difference fallacies for indirect effects. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 257–69.
Hafeman, D. 2008. Opening the black box: A reassessment of mediation from a counterfactual perspective. PhD thesis, Columbia University.
Holland, P. W. 1986. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.
Imai, K., and Yamamoto, T. 2012. Replication data for: Identification and sensitivity analysis for multiple causal mechanisms: Revisiting evidence from framing experiments. Dataverse Network, hdl:1902.1/19036.
Imai, K., Keele, L., and Tingley, D. 2010a. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods 15(4): 309–34.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., and Yamamoto, T. 2010b. Advances in social science research using R. In Causal mediation analysis using R, ed. Vinod, H. D., 129–54. Lecture Notes in Statistics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., and Yamamoto, T. 2011. Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review 105(4): 765–89.
Imai, K., Keele, L., and Yamamoto, T. 2010c. Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science 25(1): 5171.
Imai, K., Tingley, D., and Yamamoto, T. 2013. Experimental designs for identifying causal mechanisms. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (Statistics in Society) 176(1): 551.
Imbens, G. W., and Manski, C. F. 2004. Confidence intervals for partially identified parameters. Econometrica 72(6): 1845–57.
Isbell, L., and Ottati, V. 2002. The emotional voter: Effects of episodic affective reactions on candidate evaluation. In The social psychology of politics: Social psychological application to social issues, eds. Ottati, V., Tindale, R., Edwards, J., Bryant, F., Heath, L., O'Connell, D., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., and Posavac, E., Vol. 5, 5574. New York: Kluwer.
Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kaufman, S., Kaufman, J. S., and MacLehose, R. F. 2009. Analytic bounds on causal risk differences in directed acyclic graphs involving three observed binary variables. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 139: 3473–87.
Kinder, D. R., and Sanders, L. M. 1990. Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition 8(1): 73103.
Kraemer, H. C., Kiernan, M., Essex, M., and Kupfer, D. J. 2008. How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches. Health Psychology 27(2): S1018.
Miller, J. M. 2007. Examining the mediators of agenda setting: A new experimental paradigm reveals the role of emotions. Political Psychology 28(6): 689717.
Nelson, T. E., and Kinder, D. R. 1996. Issue framing and group-centrism in american public opinion. Journal of Politics 58: 1055–78.
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., and Oxley, Z. M. 1997. Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91(3): 567–83.
Neyman, J. 1923. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: Essay on principles, section 9 (translated in 1990). Statistical Science 5: 465–80.
Pearl, J. 2001. Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 411–20. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Petersen, M. L., Sinisi, S. E., and van der Laan, M. J. 2006. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology 17(3): 276–84.
Robins, J. M. 1986. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with sustained exposure periods: Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modeling 7: 1393–512.
Robins, J. M. 2003. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In Highly structured stochastic systems, eds. Green, P. J., Hjort, N. L., and Richardson, S., 7081. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Robins, J. M., and Greenland, S. 1992. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 3(2): 143–55.
Robins, J. M., and Richardson, T. 2010. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects. In Causality and psychopathology: Finding the determinants of disorders and their cures, eds. Shrout, P., Keyes, K., and Omstein, K., 103–59. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, D. B. 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66: 688701.
Rubin, D. B. 2004. Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes (with discussions). Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 31(2): 161–70.
Sjölander, A. 2009. Bounds on natural direct effects in the presence of confounded intermediate variables. Statistics in Medicine 28(4): 558–71.
Slothuus, R. 2008. More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology 29(1): 128.
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., and Tein, J.-Y. 2008. Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods 11(2): 241–69.
Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., and Shpitser, I. 2011. Semiparametric theory for causal mediation analysis: Efficiency bounds, multiple robustness, and sensitivity analysis. Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University School of Public Health.
Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T., Keele, L., and Imai, K. 2012. Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Available at the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN),
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–8.
VanderWeele, T. J. 2009. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 20(1): 1826.
VanderWeele, T. J. 2010. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology 21(4): 540–51.
Zaller, J. 1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed