Causal Interpretations of Correlational Evidence Regarding Violence.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Kevin L Nunes, Cassidy E Hatton, Anna T Pham, Carolyn Blank, Sacha Maimone
{"title":"Causal Interpretations of Correlational Evidence Regarding Violence.","authors":"Kevin L Nunes, Cassidy E Hatton, Anna T Pham, Carolyn Blank, Sacha Maimone","doi":"10.1177/08862605241285996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inferring causation from correlation can lead to erroneous explanations of violent behavior and the development and implementation of ineffective or even harmful interventions and policies. This article explores the inferences that violence researchers draw from evidence related to violent offending. We invited authors of articles published in violence journals to complete an online survey in which they were asked to identify a factor that may be a cause of violence, cite a study that demonstrates the factor is associated with violence, and provide their inferences from that study. We read each study and coded its research design (description of a sample [<i>n</i> = 9], cross-sectional/retrospective non-experiment [<i>n</i> = 18], single-wave longitudinal non-experiment [<i>n</i> = 10], multi-wave longitudinal non-experiment [<i>n</i> = 0], or randomized experiment [<i>n</i> = 5]) and the appropriate inferences (inter-rater reliability was adequate; κ = 0.73-1.00). Reassuringly, participants (<i>N</i> = 42; 57.1% in United States; 59.5% women) rarely indicated that their identified study demonstrated that their factor was a cause of violence (0.0%-16.7%) when the study was not a randomized experiment. However, many participants failed to acknowledge any plausible alternate interpretations (e.g., reverse causality, third variable) of the results from non-experimental studies (50.0%-88.9%). Moreover, most participants incorrectly selected a causal implication as following from the results of non-experimental studies (77.8%-100%). Our results suggest that even among authors of articles published in peer-review scientific journals on violence, many appear to infer causation from correlation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":" ","pages":"8862605241285996"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241285996","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inferring causation from correlation can lead to erroneous explanations of violent behavior and the development and implementation of ineffective or even harmful interventions and policies. This article explores the inferences that violence researchers draw from evidence related to violent offending. We invited authors of articles published in violence journals to complete an online survey in which they were asked to identify a factor that may be a cause of violence, cite a study that demonstrates the factor is associated with violence, and provide their inferences from that study. We read each study and coded its research design (description of a sample [n = 9], cross-sectional/retrospective non-experiment [n = 18], single-wave longitudinal non-experiment [n = 10], multi-wave longitudinal non-experiment [n = 0], or randomized experiment [n = 5]) and the appropriate inferences (inter-rater reliability was adequate; κ = 0.73-1.00). Reassuringly, participants (N = 42; 57.1% in United States; 59.5% women) rarely indicated that their identified study demonstrated that their factor was a cause of violence (0.0%-16.7%) when the study was not a randomized experiment. However, many participants failed to acknowledge any plausible alternate interpretations (e.g., reverse causality, third variable) of the results from non-experimental studies (50.0%-88.9%). Moreover, most participants incorrectly selected a causal implication as following from the results of non-experimental studies (77.8%-100%). Our results suggest that even among authors of articles published in peer-review scientific journals on violence, many appear to infer causation from correlation.

对暴力相关证据的因果解读。
从相关性中推断因果关系可能会导致对暴力行为的错误解释,并导致制定和实施无效甚至有害的干预措施和政策。本文探讨了暴力研究人员从与暴力犯罪相关的证据中得出的推论。我们邀请在暴力期刊上发表文章的作者完成一份在线调查,要求他们确定一个可能导致暴力的因素,引用一项研究证明该因素与暴力有关,并提供他们从该研究中得出的推论。我们阅读了每份研究报告,并对其研究设计(样本描述 [n = 9]、横断面/回顾性非实验 [n = 18]、单波纵向非实验 [n = 10]、多波纵向非实验 [n = 0] 或随机实验 [n = 5])和相应的推论进行了编码(评分者之间的可靠性足够高;κ = 0.73-1.00)。令人欣慰的是,参与者(N = 42;57.1% 在美国;59.5% 为女性)很少表示他们所确定的研究表明其因素是暴力的原因(0.0%-16.7%),如果该研究不是随机实验的话。然而,许多参与者不承认对非实验研究结果的任何似是而非的解释(如反向因果关系、第三变量)(50.0%-88.9%)。此外,大多数参与者错误地选择了非实验研究结果的因果含义(77.8%-100%)。我们的研究结果表明,即使是在同行评审科学杂志上发表有关暴力问题文章的作者中,许多人似乎也会从相关性中推断出因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信