Assumption Smuggling in Intermediate Outcome Tests of Causal Mechanisms

Abstract

Political scientists are increasingly attuned to the promises and pitfalls of establishing causal effects. But the vital question for many is not if a causal effect exists but why and how it exists. Even so, many researchers avoid causal mediation analyses due to the assumptions required, instead opting to explore causal mechanisms through what we call intermediate outcome tests. These tests use the same research design used to estimate the effect of treatment on the outcome to estimate the effect of the treatment on one or more mediators, with authors often concluding that evidence of the latter is evidence of a causal mechanism. We show in this paper that, without further assumptions, this can neither establish nor rule out the existence of a causal mechanism. Instead, such conclusions about the indirect effect of treatment rely on implicit and usually very strong assumptions that are often unmet. Thus, such causal mechanism tests, though very common in political science, should not be viewed as a free lunch but rather should be used judiciously, and researchers should explicitly state and defend the requisite assumptions.