The Underappreciated Effects of Unreliability on Multiple Regression and Mediation

David Trafimow

Applied Finance and Accounting, 2021, vol. 7, issue 2, 14-30

Abstract: There is an increasing trend for researchers in the social sciences to draw causal conclusions from correlational data. Even researchers who use relatively causally neutral language in describing their findings, imply causation by including diagrams with arrows. Moreover, they typically make recommendations for intervention or other applications in their discussion sections, that would make no sense without an implicit assumption that the findings really do indicate causal pathways. The present manuscript commences with the generous assumption that regression-based procedures extract causation out of correlational data, with an exploration of the surprising effects of unreliability on causal conclusions. After discussing the pros and cons of correcting for unreliability, the generous assumption is questioned too. The conclusion is that researchers should be more cautious in interpreting findings based on correlational research paradigms.

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/afa/article/download/5292/5514 (application/pdf)
https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/afa/article/view/5292 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rfa:afajnl:v:7:y:2021:i:2:p:14-30

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Applied Finance and Accounting from Redfame publishing Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Redfame publishing ().