Network threats to causal inference: Variations in network position by participation in randomized controlled trials

Researchers and practitioners rely on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to make causal inferences. However, most people who participate in RCTs are part of multiple, overlapping social networks that shape their behaviors and attitudes. As a result, variations in trial participants’ and non-participants’ network positions may impede the generalizability of a RCT’s conclusions. The current project evaluates the extent and impact of these variations by comparing the network positions of RCT participants to RCT non-participants. As an informative case study, we considered a workplace-based RCT at a large hospital where a subset of employees was randomized to a healthy eating intervention or control group from 2016 to 2019. We constructed longitudinal social networks from data about employees’ cafeteria purchases and applied stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs) to determine whether RCT participants and non-participants occupied significantly different structural positions. Then, we performed a series of computational knockout experiments to assess whether the elimination of specific network-related phenomena impacted estimates of the intervention’s effect. Results suggest that RCT participants made cafeteria co-purchases with more of their colleagues than non-participants did. These differences downwardly biased estimates of the intervention’s impact, both with respect to the trial’s efficacy among participants and its expected effectiveness in the larger population of employees.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
CrimRxiv
Published
2026-04-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21428/cb6ab371.0b840dc8
Primary Topic
Mental Health Research Topics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Network threats to causal inference: Variations in network position by participation in randomized controlled trials

Douglas E. Levy, Mark C. Pachucki, Cassie McMillan, Anne N. Thorndike et al.
CrimRxiv
Mental Health Research Topics
article

Network threats to causal inference: Variations in network position by participation in randomized controlled trials

Douglas E. Levy, Mark C. Pachucki, Cassie McMillan, Anne N. Thorndike, Jiaao Yu, A. James O’Malley
article en

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners rely on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to make causal inferences. However, most people who participate in RCTs are part of multiple, overlapping social networks that shape their behaviors and attitudes. As a result, variations in trial participants’ and non-participants’ network positions may impede the generalizability of a RCT’s conclusions. The current project evaluates the extent and impact of these variations by comparing the network positions of RCT participants to RCT non-participants. As an informative case study, we considered a workplace-based RCT at a large hospital where a subset of employees was randomized to a healthy eating intervention or control group from 2016 to 2019. We constructed longitudinal social networks from data about employees’ cafeteria purchases and applied stochastic actor-oriented models (SAOMs) to determine whether RCT participants and non-participants occupied significantly different structural positions. Then, we performed a series of computational knockout experiments to assess whether the elimination of specific network-related phenomena impacted estimates of the intervention’s effect. Results suggest that RCT participants made cafeteria co-purchases with more of their colleagues than non-participants did. These differences downwardly biased estimates of the intervention’s impact, both with respect to the trial’s efficacy among participants and its expected effectiveness in the larger population of employees.

CrimRxiv
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Mental Health Research Topics
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.