Inferring causation from correlation can lead to erroneous explanations of violent behavior and the development and implementation of ineffective or even harmful interventions and policies. This article explores the inferences that violence researchers draw from evidence related to violent offending. We invited authors of articles published in violence journals to complete an online survey in which they were asked to identify a factor that may be a cause of violence, cite a study that demonstrates the factor is associated with violence, and provide their inferences from that study. We read each study and coded its research design (description of a sample [ n = 9], cross-sectional/retrospective non-experiment [ n = 18], single-wave longitudinal non-experiment [ n = 10], multi-wave longitudinal non-experiment [ n = 0], or randomized experiment [ n = 5]) and the appropriate inferences (inter-rater reliability was adequate; κ = 0.73–1.00). Reassuringly, participants ( N = 42; 57.1% in United States; 59.5% women) rarely indicated that their identified study demonstrated that their factor was a cause of violence (0.0%–16.7%) when the study was not a randomized experiment. However, many participants failed to acknowledge any plausible alternate interpretations (e.g., reverse causality, third variable) of the results from non-experimental studies (50.0%–88.9%). Moreover, most participants incorrectly selected a causal implication as following from the results of non-experimental studies (77.8%–100%). Our results suggest that even among authors of articles published in peer-review scientific journals on violence, many appear to infer causation from correlation.

中文翻译：

---

关于暴力的相关证据的因果解释


从相关性推断因果关系可能导致对暴力行为的错误解释，以及制定和实施无效甚至有害的干预措施和政策。本文探讨了暴力研究人员从与暴力犯罪相关的证据中得出的推论。我们邀请了在暴力期刊上发表的文章的作者完成一项在线调查，要求他们确定可能导致暴力的因素，引用一项证明该因素与暴力相关的研究，并提供他们从该研究中得出的推论。我们阅读每项研究并对其研究设计（样本描述 [ n = 9]、横断面/回顾性非实验 [ n = 18]、单波纵向非实验 [ n = 10]、多波纵向非实验 [ n = 0] 或随机实验 [ n = 5]）和适当的推断（评分者间可靠性足够;κ = 0.73-1.00）。令人欣慰的是，当研究不是随机实验时，参与者（N = 42;美国为 57.1%;女性为 59.5%）很少表示他们确定的研究表明他们的因素是暴力的原因 （0.0%–16.7%）。然而，许多参与者未能承认对非实验性研究结果的任何合理的替代解释 （例如，反向因果关系、第三个变量） （50.0%–88.9%）。此外，大多数参与者从非实验研究的结果中错误地选择了以下因果关系 （77.8%-100%）。我们的结果表明，即使在同行评审科学期刊上发表的关于暴力的文章的作者中，许多人似乎也能从相关性中推断出因果关系。