47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Simpson's paradox in psychological science: a practical guide

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The direction of an association at the population-level may be reversed within the subgroups comprising that population—a striking observation called Simpson's paradox. When facing this pattern, psychologists often view it as anomalous. Here, we argue that Simpson's paradox is more common than conventionally thought, and typically results in incorrect interpretations—potentially with harmful consequences. We support this claim by reviewing results from cognitive neuroscience, behavior genetics, clinical psychology, personality psychology, educational psychology, intelligence research, and simulation studies. We show that Simpson's paradox is most likely to occur when inferences are drawn across different levels of explanation (e.g., from populations to subgroups, or subgroups to individuals). We propose a set of statistical markers indicative of the paradox, and offer psychometric solutions for dealing with the paradox when encountered—including a toolbox in R for detecting Simpson's paradox. We show that explicit modeling of situations in which the paradox might occur not only prevents incorrect interpretations of data, but also results in a deeper understanding of what data tell us about the world.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect.

              This paper describes the statistical similarities among mediation, confounding, and suppression. Each is quantified by measuring the change in the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable after adding a third variable to the analysis. Mediation and confounding are identical statistically and can be distinguished only on conceptual grounds. Methods to determine the confidence intervals for confounding and suppression effects are proposed based on methods developed for mediated effects. Although the statistical estimation of effects and standard errors is the same, there are important conceptual differences among the three types of effects.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                12 August 2013
                2013
                : 4
                : 513
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychological Methods, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [2] 2Medical Research Council – Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit Cambridge, UK
                [3] 3Department of Developmental Psychology, Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Joshua A. McGrane, The University of Western Australia, Australia

                Reviewed by: Mike W. L. Cheung, National University of Singapore, Singapore; Rink Hoekstra, University of Groningen, Netherlands

                *Correspondence: Rogier A. Kievit, Medical Research Council - Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit, 15 Chaucer Rd, Cambridge, CB2 7EF, Cambridgeshire, UK e-mail: rogier.kievit@ 123456mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk

                This article was submitted to Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a specialty of Frontiers in Psychology.

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513
                3740239
                23964259
                fe0dc7fd-69dd-42a7-b4d0-3c12ec5204c2
                Copyright © 2013 Kievit, Frankenhuis, Waldorp and Borsboom.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 04 May 2013
                : 19 July 2013
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 110, Pages: 14, Words: 12533
                Categories
                Psychology
                Hypothesis and Theory Article

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                paradox,measurement,reductionism,simpson's paradox,statistical inference,ecological fallacy

                Comments

                Comment on this article