EconBase
← All papers

A Binary IV Model for Persuasion: Profiling Persuasion Types among Compliers

Zeyang Yu

arXiv 25 Nov 2024 · Econometrics · publishedEconometrics Journal (2025) · 1 citations (OpenAlex)

arXiv:2411.16906 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text

Abstract

In an empirical study of persuasion, researchers often use a binary instrument to encourage individuals to consume information and take some action. We show that, with a binary Imbens-Angrist instrumental variable model and the monotone treatment response assumption, it is possible to identify the joint distribution of potential outcomes among compliers. This is necessary to identify the percentage of mobilised voters and their statistical characteristic defined by the moments of the joint distribution of treatment and covariates. Specifically, we develop a method that enables researchers to identify the statistical characteristic of persuasion types: always-voters, never-voters, and mobilised voters among compliers. These findings extend the kappa weighting results in Abadie (2003). We also provide a sharp test for the two sets of identification assumptions. The test boils down to testing whether there exists a nonnegative solution to a possibly under-determined system of linear equations with known coefficients. An application based on Green et al. (2003) is provided.

Citation extraction

26
references
101
in-text mentions
33
distinct cited
0
self-citations
10,592
main-text words

appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 49% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.

ReferenceIntensityMentionsSectionsMain text
1Green, D. P., A. S. Gerber, and D. W. Nickerson (2003) Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments1.000164100%
2Gerber, A. S., D. P. Green, and R. Shachar (2003) Voting may be habit-forming: evidence from a randomized field experiment0.92843100%
3Abadie, A (2003) Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models0.87412467%
4Bai, Y., A. Santos, and A. M. Shaikh (2022) On testing systems of linear inequalities with known coefficients0.87462100%
5DellaVigna, S. and M. Gentzkow (2010) Persuasion: empirical evidence0.81142100%
6Jun, S. J. and S. Lee (2023) Identifying the effect of persuasion0.80621652%
7Imbens, G. W. and D. B. Rubin (1997) Estimating outcome distributions for compliers in instrumental variables models0.7946350%
8Balke, A. and J. Pearl (1997) Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance0.6443267%
9Heckman, J. J., J. Smith, and N. Clements (1997) Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: Accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts0.64422100%
10Manski, C (1997) Monotone treatment response0.5113233%

Showing the top 10 of 33 scored citations.

Cited by, within the corpus

arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.

Citing paperIntensityMentionsSections
12503.060460.73733
22212.141050.64441
32410.148710.40511
42509.265170.40511