IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v628y2010i1p200-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Enough Already about “Black Box†Experiments: Studying Mediation Is More Difficult than Most Scholars Suppose

Author

Listed:
  • Donald P. Green

    (Yale University)

  • Shang E. Ha

    (Brooklyn College-City University of New York)

  • John G. Bullock

    (Yale University)

Abstract

The question of how causal effects are transmitted is fascinating and inevitably arises whenever experiments are presented. Social scientists cannot be faulted for taking a lively interest in “mediation,†the process by which causal influences are transmitted. However, social scientists frequently underestimate the difficulty of establishing causal pathways in a rigorous empirical manner. We argue that the statistical methods currently used to study mediation are flawed and that even sophisticated experimental designs cannot speak to questions of mediation without the aid of strong assumptions. The study of mediation is more demanding than most social scientists suppose and requires not one experimental study but rather an extensive program of experimental research.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald P. Green & Shang E. Ha & John G. Bullock, 2010. "Enough Already about “Black Box†Experiments: Studying Mediation Is More Difficult than Most Scholars Suppose," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 200-208, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:200-208
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716209351526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716209351526
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716209351526?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2008. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(1), pages 33-48, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Arunachalam, S. & Ramaswami, Sridhar N. & Patel, Pankaj C. & Chai, Linlin, 2022. "Innovation-based strategic flexibility (ISF): Role of CEO ties with marketing and R&D," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 927-946.
    2. Scott Ashworth, 2024. "Explanation, formal models, and rational choice," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 328-343, October.
    3. Simone Busetti, 2023. "Causality is good for practice: policy design and reverse engineering," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 419-438, June.
    4. Sam C Lin & Zeljko Rezek & Aylar Abdolahzadeh & David R Braun & Tamara Dogandžić & George M Leader & Li Li & Shannon P McPherron, 2022. "The mediating effect of platform width on the size and shape of stone flakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cantoni, Enrico & Gazzè, Ludovica & Schafer, Jerome, 2021. "Turnout in concurrent elections: Evidence from two quasi-experiments in Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    3. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Mitchell Hoffman & Gianmarco Leon, 2011. "Social Networks and Voting," Working Papers 11-08, NET Institute, revised Nov 2011.
    5. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    6. Finan, Frederico & Seira, Enrique & Simpser, Alberto, 2021. "Voting with one’s neighbors: Evidence from migration within Mexico," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    7. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    8. Bamieh, Omar & Cintolesi, Andrea, 2021. "Intergenerational transmission in regulated professions and the role of familism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 857-879.
    9. Anya Samek & Roman M. Sheremeta, 2017. "Selective Recognition: How to Recognize Donors to Increase Charitable Giving," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(3), pages 1489-1496, July.
    10. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    11. Yoichi Hizen & Kengo Kurosaka, 2021. "Monetary Costs Versus Opportunity Costs in a Voting Experiment," Working Papers SDES-2021-1, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2021.
    12. Patricia Funk, 2012. "How accurate are surveyed preferences for public policies? Evidence from a unique institutional setup," Economics Working Papers 1334, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Nov 2013.
    13. Michael Becher & Stegmueller, Daniel & Käppner, Konstantin, 2016. "Local Union Organization and Lawmaking in the U.S. Congress," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 304, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    14. Ethan Kaplan & Fernando Saltiel & Sergio S. Urzúa, 2019. "Voting for Democracy: Chile's Plebiscito and the Electoral Participation of a Generation," NBER Working Papers 26440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Mechtenberg, Lydia & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2019. "Voter motivation and the quality of democratic choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 241-259.
    16. Lydia Mechtenberg & Grischa Perino & Nicolas Treich & Jean-Robert Tyran & Stephanie Wang, 2021. "Self-Signaling in Moral Voting," Discussion Papers 21-01, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    17. Zuzana Berná & Jiøí Špalek, 2012. "The decentralization of punishments in experiments with public goods," MUNI ECON Working Papers 05, Masaryk University, revised Mar 2013.
    18. Leonardo Bursztyn & Michael Callen & Bruno Ferman & Saad Gulzar & Ali Hasanain & Noam Yuchtman, 2014. "Identifying Ideology: Experimental Evidence on Anti-Americanism in Pakistan," NBER Working Papers 20153, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2020. "Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the Corona crisis," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 391, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    20. Mason, Malia F. & Dyer, Rebecca & Norton, Michael I., 2009. "Neural mechanisms of social influence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 152-159, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:200-208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.