Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science: Mediation Analysis Is Harder Than It Looks

110 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Beyond Total Effects: Exploring the Interplay of Personality and Attitudes in Affecting Turnout in the 2009 German Federal Election (2013, methodology): “This method of mediation analysis rests on several strong assumptions (Bullock et al. 2010; Bullock & Ha 2011; Coffman 2011; Green et al. 2010; Imai et al. 2011).”
Meaningful Mediation Analysis: Plausible Causal Inference and Informative Communication (2017, background): “…strong case for a specific causal direction between mediator and outcome, or between mediators, cannot be made it is good advice to refrain from statistical mediation analysis and treat the presumed mediators and outcome as separate, correlated outcomes of the treatment (Bullock and Ha 2011, 517).”
Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change? (2018, background): “Future work should also attend, more carefully than we were able given our design (Bullock & Ha, 2011), to specific causal relationships between variables in the gateway belief model—our work is only suggestive of causal pathways.”