1. We focus on the linear model; we expect that many of the results hold, broadly speaking, for generalized linear models (GLM). However, GLM models come with a host of their own problems with respect to bias. For example, coefficients from unadjusted and covariate adjusted logistic regression models are not comparable (Freedman 2008; VanderWeele and Arahc 2011; Breen, Karlson, and Holm 2013), a problem sometimes referred to as “non-collapsibility” (cf. VanderWeele 2015). A discussion of the bias of adjusted and unadjusted GLM estimators is beyond the scope of this article.
2. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies.
3. Quantifying Biases in Causal Models: Classical Confounding vs Collider-Stratification Bias
4. In work that supports this contention, Clarke (2009) concludes that despite some awareness of the potential for bias, the common practice in political science is to include as many predictors as possible. The author does not specifically name fixed effects in the admonitions and instead uses simulation studies to characterize absolute bias differences under inclusion and exclusion of single predictors.
5. In our example, this translates understanding whether the randomized treatment assignment is a stronger predictor of whether or not someone will vote than the unobserved willingness to vote characteristic.