Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions

We study regressions with multiple treatments and a set of controls that is flexible enough to purge omitted variable bias. We show these regressions generally fail to estimate convex averages of heterogeneous treatment effects—instead, estimates of each treatment’s effect are contaminated by nonconvex averages of the effects of other treatments. We discuss three estimation approaches that avoid such contamination bias, including the targeting of easiest-to-estimate weighted average effects. A reanalysis of nine empirical applications finds economically and statistically meaningful contamination bias in observational studies; contamination bias in experimental studies is more limited due to smaller variability in propensity scores. (JEL C21, C31, C51, H75, I21, I28)

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
American Economic Review
Published
2024-11-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20221116
Citations
33
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods and Inference
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
22.69
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions

Peter Hull, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, Michal Kolesár
33 citations
American Economic Review
Statistical Methods and Inference
22.69
article

Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions

Peter Hull, Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham, Michal Kolesár
article en
33 citations

Abstract

We study regressions with multiple treatments and a set of controls that is flexible enough to purge omitted variable bias. We show these regressions generally fail to estimate convex averages of heterogeneous treatment effects—instead, estimates of each treatment’s effect are contaminated by nonconvex averages of the effects of other treatments. We discuss three estimation approaches that avoid such contamination bias, including the targeting of easiest-to-estimate weighted average effects. A reanalysis of nine empirical applications finds economically and statistically meaningful contamination bias in observational studies; contamination bias in experimental studies is more limited due to smaller variability in propensity scores. (JEL C21, C31, C51, H75, I21, I28)

American Economic ReviewVol. 114(12)
John Brown University (US), Princeton University (US), Yale University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Statistical Methods and Inference
22.69
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.