Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Reasoning about Interference Between Units: A General Framework

  • Jake Bowers (a1), Mark M. Fredrickson (a2) and Costas Panagopoulos (a3)

If an experimental treatment is experienced by both treated and control group units, tests of hypotheses about causal effects may be difficult to conceptualize, let alone execute. In this article, we show how counterfactual causal models may be written and tested when theories suggest spillover or other network-based interference among experimental units. We show that the “no interference” assumption need not constrain scholars who have interesting questions about interference. We offer researchers the ability to model theories about how treatment given to some units may come to influence outcomes for other units. We further show how to test hypotheses about these causal effects, and we provide tools to enable researchers to assess the operating characteristics of their tests given their own models, designs, test statistics, and data. The conceptual and methodological framework we develop here is particularly applicable to social networks, but may be usefully deployed whenever a researcher wonders about interference between units. Interference between units need not be an untestable assumption; instead, interference is an opportunity to ask meaningful questions about theoretically interesting phenomena.

Corresponding author
e-mail: (corresponding author)
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

M. G. Hudgens , and M. E. Halloran 2008. Toward causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103(482): 832–42.

L. Keele , C. McConnaughy , and I. White 2012. Strengthening the experimenter's toolbox: Statistical estimation of internal validity. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 484–99.

E. Miguel , and M. Kremer 2004. Worms: identifying impacts on education and health in the presence of treatment externalities. Econometrica 72(1): 159217.

D. W. Nickerson 2008. Is voting contagious? Evidence from two field experiments. American Political Science Review 102 (l): 4957.

D. W. Nickerson 2011. Social networks and political context. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science, eds. J. N. Druckman , D. P. Green , J. H. Kuklinski , and A. Lupia , 273–86. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

T. L. Nolen , and M. Hudgens 2011. Randomization-based inference within principal strata. Journal of the American Statistical Association 106(494): 581–93.

Paul R. Rosenbaum 2010. Design of Observational studies. New York: Springer.

M. Rosenblum , and M. J. Van Der Laan 2009. Using regression models to analyze randomized trials: Asymptotically valid hypothesis tests despite incorrectly specified models. Biometrics 65(3): 937–45.

M. Rosenblum , and M. J. Van Der Laan 2009. Using regression models to analyze randomized trials: Asymptotically valid hypothesis tests despite incorrectly specified models. Biometrics 65(3): 937–45.

D. B. Rubin 2010. Reflections stimulated by the comments of Shadish (2010) and West and Thoemmes (2010). Psychological Methods 15(1): 3846.

D. A. Siegel 2009. Social networks and collective action. American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 122–38.

M. J. Silvapulle 1996. A test in the presence of nuisance parameters. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91(436): 16901693.

E. J. T. Tchetgen , and T. J. VanderWeele 2012. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 21(1): 5575.

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: 7 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 30 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 30th April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.