从观察数据中探索因果关系:一个评估宗教信仰是否促进合作的例子。

IF 2.2 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Evolutionary Human Sciences Pub Date : 2023-06-27 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1017/ehs.2023.17
Daniel Major-Smith
{"title":"从观察数据中探索因果关系:一个评估宗教信仰是否促进合作的例子。","authors":"Daniel Major-Smith","doi":"10.1017/ehs.2023.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Causal inference from observational data is notoriously difficult, and relies upon many unverifiable assumptions, including no confounding or selection bias. Here, we demonstrate how to apply a range of sensitivity analyses to examine whether a causal interpretation from observational data may be justified. These methods include: testing different confounding structures (as the assumed confounding model may be incorrect), exploring potential residual confounding and assessing the impact of selection bias due to missing data. We aim to answer the causal question 'Does religiosity promote cooperative behaviour?' as a motivating example of how these methods can be applied. We use data from the parental generation of a large-scale (<i>n</i> = approximately 14,000) prospective UK birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), which has detailed information on religiosity and potential confounding variables, while cooperation was measured via self-reported history of blood donation. In this study, there was no association between religious belief or affiliation and blood donation. Religious attendance was positively associated with blood donation, but could plausibly be explained by unmeasured confounding. In this population, evidence that religiosity causes blood donation is suggestive, but rather weak. These analyses illustrate how sensitivity analyses can aid causal inference from observational research.</p>","PeriodicalId":36414,"journal":{"name":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","volume":"5 ","pages":"e22"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Major-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ehs.2023.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Causal inference from observational data is notoriously difficult, and relies upon many unverifiable assumptions, including no confounding or selection bias. Here, we demonstrate how to apply a range of sensitivity analyses to examine whether a causal interpretation from observational data may be justified. These methods include: testing different confounding structures (as the assumed confounding model may be incorrect), exploring potential residual confounding and assessing the impact of selection bias due to missing data. We aim to answer the causal question 'Does religiosity promote cooperative behaviour?' as a motivating example of how these methods can be applied. We use data from the parental generation of a large-scale (<i>n</i> = approximately 14,000) prospective UK birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), which has detailed information on religiosity and potential confounding variables, while cooperation was measured via self-reported history of blood donation. In this study, there was no association between religious belief or affiliation and blood donation. Religious attendance was positively associated with blood donation, but could plausibly be explained by unmeasured confounding. In this population, evidence that religiosity causes blood donation is suggestive, but rather weak. These analyses illustrate how sensitivity analyses can aid causal inference from observational research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"e22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10426067/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evolutionary Human Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2023.17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evolutionary Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2023.17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从观测数据中进行因果推断是出了名的困难,并且依赖于许多无法验证的假设,包括没有混淆或选择偏差。在这里,我们展示了如何应用一系列敏感性分析来检查观测数据的因果解释是否合理。这些方法包括:测试不同的混杂结构(因为假设的混杂模型可能不正确),探索潜在的残余混杂,以及评估由于数据缺失而产生的选择偏差的影响。我们的目的是回答“宗教信仰促进合作行为吗?”作为如何应用这些方法的一个激励性例子。我们使用了来自大规模(n=约14000)前瞻性英国出生队列(雅芳父母和儿童纵向研究)父母一代的数据,该队列有关于宗教信仰和潜在混杂变量的详细信息,而合作是通过自我报告的献血史来衡量的。在这项研究中,宗教信仰或信仰与献血之间没有关联。宗教参与与献血呈正相关,但可以用未测量的混淆来解释。在这一人群中,宗教信仰导致献血的证据是有启发性的,但相当薄弱。这些分析说明了敏感性分析如何有助于观察性研究的因果推断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation.

Causal inference from observational data is notoriously difficult, and relies upon many unverifiable assumptions, including no confounding or selection bias. Here, we demonstrate how to apply a range of sensitivity analyses to examine whether a causal interpretation from observational data may be justified. These methods include: testing different confounding structures (as the assumed confounding model may be incorrect), exploring potential residual confounding and assessing the impact of selection bias due to missing data. We aim to answer the causal question 'Does religiosity promote cooperative behaviour?' as a motivating example of how these methods can be applied. We use data from the parental generation of a large-scale (n = approximately 14,000) prospective UK birth cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), which has detailed information on religiosity and potential confounding variables, while cooperation was measured via self-reported history of blood donation. In this study, there was no association between religious belief or affiliation and blood donation. Religious attendance was positively associated with blood donation, but could plausibly be explained by unmeasured confounding. In this population, evidence that religiosity causes blood donation is suggestive, but rather weak. These analyses illustrate how sensitivity analyses can aid causal inference from observational research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evolutionary Human Sciences
Evolutionary Human Sciences Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
11.50%
发文量
49
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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