The Causal Foundations of Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

The role of causality in SEM research is widely perceived to be, on the one hand, of pivotal methodological importance and, on the other hand, confusing, enigmatic and controversial. The confusion is vividly portrayed, for example, in the influential report of Wilkinson and Task Force s (1999) on Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations. In discussing SEM, the report starts with the usual warning: It is sometimes thought that correlation does not prove causation but causal modeling does. [Wrong! There are] dangers in this practice. But then ends with a startling conclusion: The use of complicated causal-modeling software [read SEM] rarely yields any results that have any interpretation as causal effects. The implication being that the entire enterprise of causal modeling, from Sewell Wright (1921) to Blalock (1964) and Duncan (1975), the entire literature in econometric research, including modern advances in graphical and nonparametric structural models have all been misguided, for they have been chasing parameters that have no causal interpretation.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Feb 16, 2012
Accession Number
ADA557445

Entities

People

  • Judea Pearl

Organizations

  • University of California, Los Angeles

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Behavioral Research
  • Behavioral Sciences
  • Causal Reasoning
  • Computer Science
  • Computers
  • Data Science
  • Equations
  • Information Science
  • Language
  • Linear Systems
  • Measurement
  • New York
  • Nonlinear Systems
  • Psychology
  • Reasoning
  • Social Psychology

Readers

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Military History of the United States in the 20th Century.
  • Theoretical Analysis.