Graphical Causal Models

This chapter discusses the use of directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) for causal inference in the observational social sciences. It focuses on DAGs’ main uses, discusses central principles, and gives applied examples. DAGs are visual representations of qualitative causal assumptions: They encode researchers’ beliefs about how the world works. Straightforward rules map these causal assumptions onto the associations and independencies in observable data. The two primary uses of DAGs are (1) determining the identifiability of causal effects from observed data and (2) deriving the testable implications of a causal model. Concepts covered in this chapter include identification, d-separation, confounding, endogenous selection, and overcontrol. Illustrative applications then demonstrate that conditioning on variables at any stage in a causal process can induce as well as remove bias, that confounding is a fundamentally causal rather than an associational concept, that conventional approaches to causal mediation analysis are often biased, and that causal inference in social networks inherently faces endogenous selection bias. The chapter discusses several graphical criteria for the identification of causal effects of single, time-point treatments (including the famous backdoor criterion), as well identification criteria for multiple, time-varying treatments.

[1]  J BERKSON,et al.  Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. , 1946, Biometrics.

[2]  H. Blalock Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research , 1966 .

[3]  R. Gronau Wage Comparisons--A Selectivity Bias , 1973, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  D. Rubin Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 1974 .

[5]  J. Heckman Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply , 1974 .

[6]  O. D. Duncan,et al.  Introduction to Structural Equation Models. , 1977 .

[7]  J. Heckman The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models , 1976 .

[8]  D. Rubin Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment , 1980 .

[9]  D. Basu Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test , 1980 .

[10]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[11]  P. Rosenbaum The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable that Has Been Affected by the Treatment , 1984 .

[12]  J. Robins A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect , 1986 .

[13]  J M Robins,et al.  Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. , 1986, International journal of epidemiology.

[14]  P. Holland Statistics and Causal Inference , 1985 .

[15]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  P. Holland CAUSAL INFERENCE, PATH ANALYSIS AND RECURSIVE STRUCTURAL EQUATIONS MODELS , 1988 .

[17]  P. Holland Causal Inference, Path Analysis and Recursive Structural Equations Models. Program Statistics Research, Technical Report No. 88-81. , 1988 .

[18]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Causal networks: semantics and expressiveness , 2013, UAI.

[19]  J. Robins The control of confounding by intermediate variables. , 1989, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Herbert L. Smith SPECIFICATION PROBLEMS IN EXPERIMENTAL AND NONEXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL RESEARCH , 1990 .

[21]  T. Speed,et al.  On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9 , 1990 .

[22]  J. Finn,et al.  Answers and Questions About Class Size: A Statewide Experiment , 1990 .

[23]  D. Rubin [On the Application of Probability Theory to Agricultural Experiments. Essay on Principles. Section 9.] Comment: Neyman (1923) and Causal Inference in Experiments and Observational Studies , 1990 .

[24]  J. Robins,et al.  Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects , 1992, Epidemiology.

[25]  J. Pearl [Bayesian Analysis in Expert Systems]: Comment: Graphical Models, Causality and Intervention , 1993 .

[26]  J. Pearl Causal diagrams for empirical research , 1995 .

[27]  James M. Robins,et al.  Probabilistic evaluation of sequential plans from causal models with hidden variables , 1995, UAI.

[28]  James M. Robins,et al.  Causal Inference from Complex Longitudinal Data , 1997 .

[29]  J. Pearl Graphs, Causality, and Structural Equation Models , 1998 .

[30]  J. Pearl,et al.  An Axiomatic Characterization of Causal Counterfactuals , 1998 .

[31]  G. Shaw,et al.  Maternal pesticide exposure from multiple sources and selected congenital anomalies. , 1999 .

[32]  James M. Robins,et al.  Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. , 1999 .

[33]  J. Pearl,et al.  Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal Inference , 1999 .

[34]  J. Robins Data, Design, and Background Knowledge in Etiologic Inference , 2001, Epidemiology.

[35]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Direct and Indirect Effects , 2001, UAI.

[36]  S. Cole,et al.  Fallibility in estimating direct effects. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[37]  M. Hernán,et al.  Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. , 2002, American journal of epidemiology.

[38]  S. Greenland Quantifying Biases in Causal Models: Classical Confounding vs Collider-Stratification Bias , 2003, Epidemiology.

[39]  B. Burns,et al.  The collider principle in causal reasoning: why the Monty Hall dilemma is so hard. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[40]  James M. Robins,et al.  Association, Causation, And Marginal Structural Models , 1999, Synthese.

[41]  J. Robins,et al.  Sensitivity Analyses for Unmeasured Confounding Assuming a Marginal Structural Model for Repeated Measures , 2022 .

[42]  J. Finn,et al.  Small Classes in the Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating From High School , 2005 .

[43]  J. Wooldridge VIOLATING IGNORABILITY OF TREATMENT BY CONTROLLING FOR TOO MANY FACTORS , 2005, Econometric Theory.

[44]  F. Elwert,et al.  Widowhood and Race , 2006 .

[45]  Judea Pearl,et al.  Identification of Conditional Interventional Distributions , 2006, UAI.

[46]  J. Wooldridge ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RELATED PRIOR WORK , 2006, Econometric Theory.

[47]  J. Robins,et al.  Four Types of Effect Modification: A Classification Based on Directed Acyclic Graphs , 2007, Epidemiology.

[48]  Judea Pearl,et al.  What Counterfactuals Can Be Tested , 2007, UAI.

[49]  Christopher Winship,et al.  Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research , 2007 .

[50]  M. Sobel Identification of Causal Parameters in Randomized Studies With Mediating Variables , 2008 .

[51]  M. Robins James,et al.  Estimation of the causal effects of time-varying exposures , 2008 .

[52]  Ian Shrier,et al.  Re: The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[53]  Christopher Winship,et al.  A Mechanism-Based Approach to the Identification of Age–Period–Cohort Models , 2008 .

[54]  T. VanderWeele On the Distinction Between Interaction and Effect Modification , 2009, Epidemiology.

[55]  J. Robins,et al.  Minimal sufficient causation and directed acyclic graphs , 2009, 0906.1720.

[56]  A. Sjölander Propensity scores and M‐structures , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[57]  J. Robins,et al.  Alternative Graphical Causal Models and the Identification of Direct E!ects , 2010 .

[58]  James M. Robins,et al.  On the Validity of Covariate Adjustment for Estimating Causal Effects , 2010, UAI.

[59]  J. Pearl 3. The Foundations of Causal Inference , 2010 .

[60]  R. Dechter,et al.  Effect Heterogeneity and Bias in Main-Effects-Only Regression Models , 2010 .

[61]  Nicholas A. Christakis,et al.  Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[62]  Hei Chan,et al.  Using Descendants as Instrumental Variables for the Identification of Direct Causal Effects in Linear SEMs , 2010, AISTATS.

[63]  D. Clayton,et al.  The Simpson's paradox unraveled. , 2011, International journal of epidemiology.

[64]  F. Elwert,et al.  Wives and ex-wives: A new test for homogamy bias in the widowhood effect , 2008, Demography.

[65]  T. VanderWeele Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks , 2011, Sociological methods & research.

[66]  F. Elwert,et al.  Neighborhood Effects in Temporal Perspective , 2011, American sociological review.

[67]  F. Elwert,et al.  The Legacy of Disadvantage: Multigenerational Neighborhood Effects on Cognitive Ability , 2011, American Journal of Sociology.

[68]  Johannes Textor,et al.  DAGitty: a graphical tool for analyzing causal diagrams. , 2011, Epidemiology.

[69]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[70]  I. Shpitser,et al.  A New Criterion for Confounder Selection , 2011, Biometrics.

[71]  Christopher Winship,et al.  Bringing Context and Variability Back into Causal Analysis , 2012 .

[72]  J. Pearl The Causal Foundations of Structural Equation Modeling , 2012 .