Abstract

Analyses of treatments, experiments, policies, and observational data, are confounded when people's treatment outcomes and/or participation decisions are influenced by those of their friends and acquaintances. This invalidates standard matching techniques as estimation tools. For instance, the vaccination decisions of a person's peers affect the person's choice to vaccinate and the probability that the person is exposed to a disease (violating the usual Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption). We account for these interferences by explicitly modeling peer interaction in treatment participation decisions, and balancing matchings to overcome correlation in outcomes. We incorporate these interaction effects into one of the most common techniques used to evaluate treatment effects: propensity score matching, and provide asymptotic results. We illustrate that peer-influenced propensity score matching gives more accurate results than standard propensity score matching in the estimation of the effectiveness of vaccinations and estimation of the impact of exercise participation on depression.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.