The Annals of Applied Statistics

Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment

Peter M. Aronow and Cyrus Samii

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text


This paper presents a randomization-based framework for estimating causal effects under interference between units motivated by challenges that arise in analyzing experiments on social networks. The framework integrates three components: (i) an experimental design that defines the probability distribution of treatment assignments, (ii) a mapping that relates experimental treatment assignments to exposures received by units in the experiment, and (iii) estimands that make use of the experiment to answer questions of substantive interest. We develop the case of estimating average unit-level causal effects from a randomized experiment with interference of arbitrary but known form. The resulting estimators are based on inverse probability weighting. We provide randomization-based variance estimators that account for the complex clustering that can occur when interference is present. We also establish consistency and asymptotic normality under local dependence assumptions. We discuss refinements including covariate-adjusted effect estimators and ratio estimation. We evaluate empirical performance in realistic settings with a naturalistic simulation using social network data from American schools. We then present results from a field experiment on the spread of anti-conflict norms and behavior among school students.

Article information

Ann. Appl. Stat. Volume 11, Number 4 (2017), 1912-1947.

Received: January 2016
Revised: November 2016
First available in Project Euclid: 28 December 2017

Permanent link to this document

Digital Object Identifier

Interference potential outcomes causal inference randomization inference SUTVA networks


Aronow, Peter M.; Samii, Cyrus. Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11 (2017), no. 4, 1912--1947. doi:10.1214/16-AOAS1005.

Export citation


  • Airoldi, E. M. (2016). Estimating Causal Effects in the Presence of Interfering Units. Paper Presented at YINS Distinguished Lecture Series, Yale University.
  • Angrist, J. D. and Krueger, A. B. (1999). Empirical strategies in labor economics. In Handbook of Labor Economics (O. C. Ahsenfelter and D. Card, eds.) 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
  • Aral, S. and Walker, D. (2011). Creating social contagion through viral product design: A randomized trial of peer influence in networks. Manage. Sci. 57 1623–1639.
  • Aronow, P. M. (2013). Model Assisted Causal Inference. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. Political Science, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT.
  • Aronow, P. M. and Middleton, J. A. (2013). A class of unbiased estimators of the average treatment effect in randomized experiments. Journal of Causal Inference 1 135–144.
  • Aronow, P. M. and Samii, C. (2013). Conservative variance estimation for sampling designs with zero pairwise inclusion probabilities. Surv. Methodol. 39 231–241.
  • Aronow, P. M., Samii, C. and Assenova, V. A. (2015). Cluster robust variance estimation for dyadic data. Polit. Anal. 23 546–577.
  • Baird, S., Bohren, J. A., McIntosh, C. and Ozler, B. (2016). Designing Experiments to Measure Spillover Effects. Unpublished manuscript, George Washington Univ., Univ. Pennsylvania, Univ. California, San Diego, and World Bank.
  • Basu, D. (1971). An essay on the logical foundations of survey sampling. I. In Foundations of Statistical Inference (V. Godambe and D. A. Sprott, eds.) 203–242. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto.
  • Bowers, J., Fredrickson, M. M. and Panagopolous, C. (2013). Reasoning about interference between units: A general framework. Polit. Anal. 21 97–124.
  • Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H. and Fortin, B. (2009). Identification of peer effects through social networks. J. Econometrics 150 41–55.
  • Brewer, K. R. W. (1979). A class of robust sampling designs for large-scale surveys. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 74 911–915.
  • Chen, J., Humphreys, M. and Modi, V. (2010). Technology Diffusion and Social Networks: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Uganda. Manuscript, Columbia Univ., New York.
  • Chen, L. H. Y. and Shao, Q.-M. (2004). Normal approximation under local dependence. Ann. Probab. 32 1985–2028.
  • Chung, H., Lanza, S. T. and Loken, E. (2008). Latent transition analysis: Inference and estimation. Stat. Med. 27 1834–1854.
  • Cole, S. R. and Frangakis, C. E. (2009). The consistency statement in causal inference: A definition or an assumption? Epidemiology 20 3–5.
  • Cox, D. R. (1958). Planning of Experiments. Wiley, New York.
  • Eckles, D., Karrer, B. and Ugander, J. (2014). Design and analysis of experiments in networks: Reducing bias from interference. Preprint. Available at arXiv:1404.7530 [stat.ME].
  • Fattorini, L. (2006). Applying the Horvitz–Thompson criterion in complex designs: A computer-intensive perspective for estimating inclusion probabilities. Biometrika 93 269–278.
  • Freedman, D., Pisani, R. and Purves, R. (1998). Statistics, 2nd ed. W.W. Norton, New York.
  • Fuller, W. A. (2009). Sampling Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken.
  • Goel, S. and Salganik, M. J. (2010). Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 107 6743–6747.
  • Goodreau, S. M. (2007). Advances in exponential random graph (p-star) models applied to a large social network. Soc. Netw. 29 231–248.
  • Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A. and Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescents in social networks. Demography 46 103–125.
  • Hájek, J. (1971). Comment on “An essay on the logical foundations of survey sampling, part one”. In Foundations of Statistical Inference (V. P. Godambe and D. A. Sprott, eds.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Toronto.
  • Handcock, M. S., Raftery, A. E. and Tantrum, J. M. (2007). Model-based clustering for social networks. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 170 301–354.
  • Hartley, H. O. and Ross, A. (1954). Unbiased ratio estimators. Nature 174 270–271.
  • Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 81 945–970.
  • Horvitz, D. G. and Thompson, D. J. (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47 663–685.
  • Hudgens, M. G. and Halloran, M. E. (2008). Toward causal inference with interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 103 832–842.
  • Hunter, D. R., Goodreau, S. M. and Handcock, M. S. (2008). Goodness of fit of social network models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 103 248–258.
  • Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87 706–710.
  • Imbens, G. W. and Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
  • Imbens, G. W. and Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. J. Econ. Lit. 47 5–86.
  • Isaki, C. T. and Fuller, W. A. (1982). Survey design under the regression superpopulation model. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 77 89–96.
  • Lin, W. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. Ann. Appl. Stat. 7 295–318.
  • Liu, L. and Hudgens, M. G. (2014). Large sample randomization inference of causal effects in the presence of interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 109 288–301.
  • MacKinnon, J. G. and White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimators with improved finite sample properties. J. Econometrics 29 305–325.
  • Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Manski, C. F. (2013). Identification of treatment response with social interactions. Econom. J. 16 S1–S23.
  • Middleton, J. A. and Aronow, P. M. (2011). Unbiased estimation of the average treatment effect in cluster-randomized experiments. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
  • Ogburn, E. L. and VanderWeele, T. J. (2014). Causal diagrams for interference. Statist. Sci. 29 559–578.
  • Paluck, E. L. (2011). Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment examining social network change. J. Exp. Psychol. 47 350–358.
  • Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H. and Aronow, P. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 113 566–571.
  • Raj, D. (1965). On a method of using multi-auxiliary information in sample surveys. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60 270–277.
  • Robinson, P. M. (1982). On the convergence of the Horvitz–Thompson estimator. Austral. J. Statist. 24 234–238.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Reduced sensitivity to hidden bias at upper quantiles in observational studies with dilated treatment effects. Biometrics 55 560–564.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Interference between units in randomized experiments. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 102 191–200.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: The role of randomization. Ann. Statist. 6 34–58.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1990). Formal Models of Statistical Inference for Causal Effects. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 25 279–292.
  • Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B. and Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer, New York.
  • Sobel, M. E. (2006). What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate?: Causal inference in the face of interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101 1398–1407.
  • Neyman, J. S. (1990). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statist. Sci. 5 465–472.
  • Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. and VanderWeele, T. J. (2012). On causal inference in the presence of interference. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 21 55–75.
  • Toulis, P. and Kao, E. (2013). Estimation of causal peer influence effects. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 28 1489–1497.
  • Ugander, J., Karrer, B., Backstrom, L. and Kleinberg, J. (2013). Graph cluster randomization: Network exposure to multiple universes. Preprint. Available at arXiv:1305.6979 [cs.SI].
  • VanderWeele, T. J. (2009). Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology 20 880–883.
  • Wood, J. (2008). On the covariance between related Horvitz–Thompson estimators. J. Off. Stat. 24 53–78.