Abstract
The failure to recognize a correlation as spurious can lead people to adopt strategies to bring about a specific outcome that manipulate something other than a cause of the outcome. However, in a 2008 paper appearing in the journal Analysis, Bert Leuridan, Erik Weber and Maarten Van Dyck suggest that knowledge of spurious correlations can, at least sometimes, justify adopting a strategy aiming at bringing about some change. This claim is surprising and, if true, throws into question the claim of Nancy Cartwright and others that knowledge of laws of association is insufficient for distinguishing effective and ineffective strategies. This paper examines the nature of spurious correlations and their value in crafting strategies for change. The conclusion of the paper is that while knowledge of a spurious correlation may have practical value, the value depends on either having knowledge of the causal structure underlying the correlation or it depends on the use of ‘causal criteria’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
‘Formal education’ refers to the instruction received within an organized, institutional setting (e.g., a public school system or a University). In contrast, ‘effective education’ refers to what is in fact learned, whether that learning occurs within an organized, institutional setting or in some other fashion.
Following Kevin Hoover, we can understand a causal structure, generally, as “a network of counterfactual relations that maps out the underlying mechanisms through which one thing is used to control or manipulate another.” (Hoover 2001, p. 24).
One can also treat the econometric concept of a spurious correlation that results from a regression equation relating economic variables having strongly autocorrelated residuals as an example of a structural spurious correlation. (Granger and Newbold 1974, pp. 111, 113–114) However, econometricians often conclude in such cases that the relevant equation has been mis-specified (Granger and Newbold 1974, p. 117; Prather 1988), and it is this conclusion of mis-specification that differentiates it from the common cause example of a structural spurious correlation.
LWD use ‘policy’ rather than ‘strategy’. However, for many people ‘policy’ has a political connotation (e.g., public health policy, business policy), whereas the meaning of ‘strategy’ is more general (in this sense, all policies are strategies, but not all strategies are policies). Thus, because LWD’s claims are not limited to political contexts, this paper uses the expression ‘strategy’ rather than ‘policy’.
As previously noted, LWD use ‘policy’ rather than ‘strategy’.
References
Aldrich, J. (1995). Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and yule. Statistical Science, 10(4), 364–376.
Blalock, H. M, Jr. (1962). Spuriousness versus intervening variables: The problem of temporal sequences. Social Forces, 40(4), 330–336.
Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1985). Causal models in the social sciences (second.). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Brett, M. T. (2004). When is a correlation between non-independent variables “spurious”? Oikos, 105(3), 647–656. doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12777.x.
Burns, W. C. (1997). Spurious correlations. Retrieved from http://www.burns.com/wcbspurcorl.htm.
Cartwright, N. (1983). Causal laws and effective strategies. How the laws of physics lie (pp. 21–43). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. (2002). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Conner, J. K. (2003). Artificial selection: A powerful tool for ecologists. Ecology, 84(7), 1650–1660.
Cox, D. R. (1958). Some problems connected with statistical inference. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29(2), 357–372.
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining technical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farber, B. (1963). Response falsification and spurious correlation in survey research. American Sociological Review, 28(1), 123–130.
Field, H. (2005). Causation in a Physical World. In M. J. Loux & Dean W. Zimmerman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of metaphysics (pp. 435–460). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, R. H., & Fletcher, S. W. (2005). Clinical epidemiology: The essentials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott and Wilkins.
Granger, C. W. J., & Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2(2), 111–120. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(74)90034-7.
Haig, B. D. (2003). What is a spurious correlation? Understanding Statistics, 2(2), 125–132.
Hausman, D. M. (1986). Causation and experimentalism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 23(2), 143–154.
Hausman, D. M. (1998). Causal asymmetries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300.
Hitchcock, C. (2007). Three concepts of causation. Philosophy Compass, 2(3), 508–516. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00084.x.
Hitchcock, C., & Knobe, J. (2009). Cause and norm. The Journal of Philosophy, 106(11), 587–612.
Hoover, K. D. (2001). Causality in microeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hubbell, C. L. (1985). Beware the spurious correlation. Science News, 128(11), 163.
Humphreys, P. (1989). The chances of explanation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jackson, D. A., & Somers, K. M. (1991). The spectre of “spurious” correlations. Oecologia, 86(1), 147–151.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York, NY: Wiley.
Leuridan, B., & Weber, E. (2011). The IARC and mechanistic evidence. In P. M. Illari, F. Russo, & J. Williamson (Eds.), Causality in the sciences (pp. 91–109). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Leuridan, B., Weber, E., & Van Dyck, M. (2008). The practical value of spurious correlations: Selective versus manipulative policy. Analysis, 68, 298–303.
Pearl, J. (2001). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prairie, Y. T., & Bird, D. F. (1989). Some misconceptions about the spurious correlation problem in the ecological literature. Oecologia, 81(2), 285–288.
Prather, J. E. (1988). Spurious correlation. Encyclopedia of statistical science. New York, NY: Wiley.
Russo, F., & Williamson, J. (2007). Interpreting causality in the health sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2), 157–170.
Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shipley, B. (1999). Testing causal explanations in organismal biology: Causation, Correlation and Structural Equation Modelling. Oikos, 86(2), 374–382.
Simon, H. A. (1954). Spurious correlation: A causal interpretation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(267), 467–479.
Sober, E. (1984a). The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.
Sober, E. (1984b). Common cause explanation. Philosophy of Science, 51(2), 212–241.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (second.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stigler, S. (2005). Correlation and causation: A comment. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48(1), s88–s94.
Stroe-Kunold, E., & Werner, J. (2009). A drunk and her dog: A spurious correlation? Cointegration tests as instruments to detect spurious correlations between integrated time series. Quality & Quantity, 43(6), 913–940. doi:10.1007/s11135-008-9168-9.
Suppes, P. (1970). A probabilistic theory of causality. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Ward, A. C. (2009). The role of causal criteria in causal inferences: Bradford Hill’s “Aspects of Association.” Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovations, 6(2). doi:10.1186/1742-5573-6-2.
Williamson, J. (2005). Bayesian nets and causality: Philosophical and computational foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1977). Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. The Review of Metaphysics, 30(4), 569–593.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
I want to thank George Maldonado and Pamela Jo Johnson for very enjoyable discussions about epidemiology, causal inferences, and spurious correlations. I also want to thank two anonymous reviewers for Erkenntnis for their insightful and extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ward, A. “Spurious Correlations and Causal Inferences”. Erkenn 78, 699–712 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-012-9411-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-012-9411-6