Abstract
A common way of analyzing the statistical relation between two tests of memory is to use contingency analyses. A potential problem with such analyses is known as Simpson’s paradox. The paradox is that collapsing two or more contingency tables may have the effect that the relationship expressed in the overall contingency table differs from the relationships expressed in the original tables. The paradox arises when covariates are correlated with each of the tests. It has been claimed that the paradox has implications for the analysis of memory retrieval, and ways of solving the problem have been called for (Hintzman, 1980). In this paper, partial gamma (Davis, 1967) is suggested as one possible solution. This method can be used to compute a weighted average of the results in the original tables. The use of partial gamma is exemplified by applying it to hypothetical instances of Simpson’s paradox.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Davis, J. A. (1967). A partial coefficient for Goodman and Kruskal’s Gamma. American Statistical Association Journal, 62, 189–193.
Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 732–764.
Hayman, C. A., & Tulving, E. (1989). Contingent dissociation between recognition and fragment completion: The method of triangulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 228–240.
Hintzman, D. L. (1972). On testing the independence of associations. Psychological Review, 79, 261–264.
Hintzman, D. L. (1980). Simpson’s paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 87, 398–410.
Martin, E. (1971). Verbal learning theory and independent retrieval phenomena. Psychological Review, 78, 314–332.
Martin, E. (1981). Simpson’s paradox resolved: A reply to Hintzman. Psychological Review, 88, 372–374.
Quade, D. (1974). Nonparametric partial correlation. In H. M. Blalock, Jr. (Ed.), Measurements in the social sciences: Theories and strategies (pp. 369–398). Chicago: Aldine.
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 238–241.
Tulving, E., & Watkins, M. J. (1975). Structure of memory traces. Psychological Review, 82, 261–275.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Thanks are due Fergus I. M. Craik, Arthur J. Flexser, John M. Gardiner, Douglas L. Hintzman, Lars-Göran Nilsson, Ulrich Olofsson, and Endel Tulving for comments on earlier versions of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nyberg, L. More on Simpson’s paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 31, 326–328 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334943
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334943