Advertisement

Eight Myths About Causality and Structural Equation Models

  • Kenneth A. BollenEmail author
  • Judea Pearl
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

Causality was at the center of the early history of structural equation models (SEMs) which continue to serve as the most popular approach to causal analysis in the social sciences. Through decades of development, critics and defenses of the capability of SEMs to support causal inference have accumulated. A variety of misunderstandings and myths about the nature of SEMs and their role in causal analysis have emerged, and their repetition has led some to believe they are true. Our chapter is organized by presenting eight myths about causality and SEMs in the hope that this will lead to a more accurate understanding. More specifically, the eight myths are the following: (1) SEMs aim to establish causal relations from associations alone, (2) SEMs and regression are essentially equivalent, (3) no causation without manipulation, (4) SEMs are not equipped to handle nonlinear causal relationships, (5) a potential outcome framework is more principled than SEMs, (6) SEMs are not applicable to experiments with randomized treatments, (7) mediation analysis in SEMs is inherently noncausal, and (8) SEMs do not test any major part of the theory against the data. We present the facts that dispel these myths, describe what SEMs can and cannot do, and briefly present our critique of current practice using SEMs. We conclude that the current capabilities of SEMs to formalize and implement causal inference tasks are indispensible; its potential to do more is even greater.

Keywords

Latent Variable Structural Equation Model Causal Relation Causal Effect Path Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Shawn Bauldry, Stephen Cole, Keith Marcus, Cameron McIntosh, Stan Mulaik, Johannes Textor, and other researchers from SEMNET for their comments on and critiques of our chapter. Bollen’s work was partially supported by NSF SES 0617276. Pearl’s work was partially supported by grants from NIH #1R01 LM009961-01, NSF #IIS-0914211 and #IIS-1018922, and ONR #N000-14-09-1-0665 and #N00014-10-0933.

References

  1. Ali, R., Richardson, T., & Spirtes, P. (2009). Markov equivalence for ancestral graphs. The Annals of Statistics, 37, 2808–2837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumrind, D. (1983). Specious causal attributions in the social sciences: The reformulated stepping-stone theory of heroin use as exemplar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1289–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K.-H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berk, R. A. (2004). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bhrolcháin, M. N., & Dyson, T. (2007). On causation in demography: Issues and illustrations. Population and Development Review, 33, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1960). Correlation analysis and causal inferences. American Anthropologist, 62, 624–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1961). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1962). Four-variable causal models and partial correlations. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1963). Making causal inferences for unmeasured variables from correlations among indicators. American Journal of Sociology, 69, 53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1969). Multiple indicators and the casual approach to measurement error. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1985). Causal models in the social sciences. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bollen, K. A. (1987). Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 17, 37–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Bollen, K. A. (1990). Outlier screening and a distribution-free test for vanishing tetrads. Sociological Methods & Research, 19, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bollen, K. A. (1996). An alternative 2SLS estimator for latent variable models. Psychometrika, 61, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bollen, K. A. (2001). Two-stage least squares and latent variable models: Simultaneous estimation and robustness to misspecifications. In R. Cudeck, S. D. Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future, a Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 119–138). Lincoln: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  20. Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 605–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bollen, K. A., & Bauer, D. J. (2004). Automating the selection of model-implied instrumental variables. Sociological Methods & Research, 32, 425–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1993). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 111–135). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K.-F. (1993). Confirmatory tetrad analysis. Sociological Methodology, 23, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brito, C., & Pearl, J. (2002). Generalized instrumental variables. In A. Darwiche & N. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 85–93). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  26. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Costner, H. L. (1971). Utilizing causal models to discover flaws in experiments. Sociometry, 34, 398–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Leeuw, J. (1985). Reviews. Psychometrika, 50, 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duncan, O. D. (1966). Path analysis: Sociological examples. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duncan, O. D. (1975). Introduction to structural equation models. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Everitt, B. S. (1984). An introduction to latent variable models. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  33. Folmer, H. (1981). Measurement of the effects of regional policy instruments by means of linear structural equation models and panel data. Environment and Planning A, 13, 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fox, J. (1980). Effect analysis in structural equation models: Extensions and simplified methods of computation. Sociological Methods & Research, 9, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freedman, D. A. (1981). Pitfalls in large econometric models: A case study. Journal of Business, 54, 479–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Freedman, D. A. (1987). As others see us: A case study in path analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freedman, D. A. (2004). Graphical models for causation, and the identification problem. Evaluation Review, 28, 267–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Freedman, D. A. (2009). Diagnostics cannot have much power against general alternatives. International Journal of Forecasting, 25, 833–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Galles, D., & Pearl, J. (1998). An axiomatic characterization of causal counterfactuals. Foundations of Science, 3(1), 151–182, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  40. Glymour, C. (1986). Statistics and causal inference: Comment: Statistics and metaphysics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 964–966.Google Scholar
  41. Glymour, C., Scheines, R., Spirtes, P., & Kelly, K. (1987). Discovering causal structure: Artificial intelligence, philosophy of science, and statistical modeling. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  42. Goldberger, A. S. (1972). Structural equation methods in the social sciences. Econometrica, 40, 979–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Goldberger, A. S. (1973). Structural equation models: An overview. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 1–18). New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  44. Goldberger, A. S., & Duncan, O. D. (1973). Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  45. Goldthorpe, J. H. (2001). Causation, statistics, sociology. European Sociological Review, 17, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relationships by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37, 424–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Greenland, S., Pearl, J., & Robins, J. M. (1999). Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology, 10, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Guttman, L. (1977). What is not what in statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 26, 81–107.Google Scholar
  49. Haavelmo, T. (1943). The statistical implications of a system of simultaneous equations. Econometrica, 11, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Halpern, J. (1998). Axiomatizing causal reasoning. In G. Cooper & S. Moral (Eds.), Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 202–210). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  51. Hershberger, S. L. (2003). The growth of structural equation modeling: 1994–2001. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Holland, P. W. (1995). Some reflections on Freedman’s critiques. Foundations of Science, 1, 50–57.Google Scholar
  54. Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. James, C. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for the analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57, 239–251.Google Scholar
  58. Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). A general model for estimating a linear structural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), Structural equation models in the social sciences. New York: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
  59. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1978). LISREL IV [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL V [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Joffe, M. (2011). Principal stratification and attribution prohibition: Good ideas taken too far. International Journal of Biostatistics, 7, 1--13.Google Scholar
  62. Joffe, M., Yang, W. P., & Feldman, H. I. (2010). Selective ignorability assumptions in causal inference. International Journal of Biostatistics, 6.Google Scholar
  63. Kaufman, S., Kaufman, J. S., & Maclehose, R. F. (2009). Analytic bounds on causal risk differences in directed acyclic graphs involving three observed binary variables. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 139(10), 3473–3487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Kirby, J. B., & Bollen, K. A. (2009). Using instrumental variable tests to evaluate model specification in latent variable structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 39, 327–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kyono, T. (2010). Commentator: A front-end user-interface module for graphical and structural equation modeling (Tech. Rep. (R-364)). Los Angeles: Department of Computer Science, University of California. Available at http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r364.pdf
  67. Lee, J. L. (2012). Correlation and causation in the study of personality. European Journal of Personality, 26, 372–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lindquist, M. A., & Sobel, M. E. (2011). Graphical models, potential outcomes and causal inference: Comment on Ramsey, Spirtes and Glymour. NeuroImage, 57, 334–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Long, J. S. (1983a). Confirmatory factor analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Long, J. S. (1983b). Covariance structure models: An introduction to LISREL. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Miller, A. D. (1971). Logic of causal analysis: From experimental to nonexperimental designs. In H. M. Blalock Jr. (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences (pp. 273–294). Chicago: Aldine Atherton.Google Scholar
  72. Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Linear causal modeling with structural equations. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Muthén, B. (2011). Applications of causally defined direct and indirect effects in mediation analysis using SEM in Mplus (Tech. Rep.). Los Angeles: Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
  76. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed., 2009). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Pearl, J. (2001). Direct and indirect effects. In J. Breese & D. Koller (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 411–420). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/R273-U.pdf
  78. Pearl, J. (2004, July). Robustness of causal claims. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 446–453). Banff, Canada.Google Scholar
  79. Pearl, J. (2009a). Myth, confusion, and science in causal analysis (Tech. Rep. (R-348)). UCLA Cognitive Systems Laboratory. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r348-warning.pdf
  80. Pearl, J. (2009b). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pearl, J. (2010). The foundations of causal inference. Sociological Methodology, 40, 75–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pearl, J. (2011a). Principal stratification – A goal or a tool? International Journal of Biostatistics, 7(1), 20.Google Scholar
  83. Pearl, J. (2011b). The causal mediation formula – A guide to the assessment of pathways and mechanisms. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/statser/r379.pdf, online. Intervention Science, doi:  10.1007/S11121-0270-1.
  84. Pearl, J. (2011c). Forthcoming, Econometric Theory. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r391.pdf
  85. Pearl, J. (2012a). The causal foundation of structural equation modeling. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 68–91). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Pearl, J. (2012b). Interpretable conditions for identifying direct and indirect effects (Tech. Rep. (R-389)). http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r389-tr.pdf
  87. Petersen, M. (2011). Compound treatments, transportability, and the structural causal model: The power and simplicity of causal graphs. Epidemiology, 22, 378–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Provine, W. B. (1986). Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Robins, J. M. (1986). A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period – Applications to control of the healthy workers survivor effect. Mathematical Modeling, 7, 1393–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Robins, J. M. (2003). Semantics of causal (DAG) models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In P. Green, N. Hjort, & S. Richardson (Eds.), Highly structured stochastic systems (pp. 70–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Robins, J., & Greenland, S. (1992). Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology, 3, 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rubin, D. B. (2004). Direct and indirect causal effects via potential outcomes. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 31, 162–170.Google Scholar
  94. Rubin, D. B. (2009). Should observational studies be designed to allow lack of balance in covariate distributions across treatment groups. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 1420–1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rubin, D. B. (2010). Reflections stimulated by the comments of Shadish (2010) and West and Thoemmes (2010). Psychological Methods, 15, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sargan, J. D. (1958). The estimation of economic relationships using instrumental variables. Econometrica, 26, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Saris, W., & Stronkhorst, H. (1984). Causal modeling in nonexperimental research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  98. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. V. Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  99. Schnoll, R. A., Fang, C. Y., & Manne, S. L. (2004). The application of SEM to behavioral research in oncology: Past accomplishments and future opportunities. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 583–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schumacker, R. E., & Marcoulides, G. A. (Eds.). (1998). Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling. Mahway: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  101. Shadish, W. R., & Sullivan, K. J. (2012). Theories of causation in psychological science. In H. M. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  102. Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 148–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Shapiro, A. (1986). Asymptotic theory of overparameterized structural models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Shpitser, I., & Pearl, J. (2008a). Complete identification methods for the causal hierarchy. Journal of Machine Learning, 9, 1941–1979.Google Scholar
  105. Shpitser, I., & Pearl, J. (2008b). Dormant independence. In Proceedings of the twenty-third conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1081–1087). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  106. Shpitser, I., & Pearl, J. (2009). Effects of treatment on the treated: Identification and generalization. In J. Bilmes & A. Ng (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Montreal: AUAI Press.Google Scholar
  107. Simon, H. A. (1954). Spurious correlation: A causal interpretation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 467–479.Google Scholar
  108. Sjolander, A. (2011). Reaction to Pearl’s critique of principal stratification. International Journal of Biostatistics, 7, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2005). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal, and structural equation models. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  110. Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sobel, M. E. (2008). Identification of causal parameters in randomized studies with mediating variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 230–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Spirtes, P., Glymour, C., & Scheines, R. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  113. Stolzenberg, R. M. (1979). The measurement and decomposition of causal effects in nonlinear and nonadditive models. Sociological Methodology, 11, 459–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Principal stratification – Uses and limitations. International Journal of Biostatistics, 7, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. VanderWeele, T., & Vansteelandt, S. (2009). Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and Its Interface, 2, 457–468.Google Scholar
  116. Verma, T., & Pearl, J. (1990). Equivalence and synthesis of causal models. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Proceedings of the sixth conference, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  117. White, H., & Chalak, K. (2009). Settable systems: An extension of Pearl’s causal model with optimization, equilibrium and learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10, 1759–1799.Google Scholar
  118. Winship, C., & Mare, R. D. (1983). Structural equations and path analysis with discrete data. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 54–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Wright, S. S. (1918). On the nature of size factors. Genetics, 3, 367–374.Google Scholar
  120. Wright, S. S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585.Google Scholar
  121. Wright, P. G. (1928). The tariff on animal and vegetable oils. New York: The MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
  122. Wright, S. S. (1934). The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 5, 161–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations