Cited by 685Statistical Methods and ApplicationsMultidisciplinary Science and Engineering ResearchStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals*

Robinson, WS·2009·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

AN INDIVIDUAL CORRELATION is a correlation in which the statistical object or thing described is indivisible. The correlation between color and illiteracy for persons in the United States, shown later in Table I, is an individual correlation, because the kind of thing described is an indivisible unit, a person. In an individual correlation the variables are descriptive properties of individuals, such as height, income, eye color, or race, and not descriptive statistical constants such as rates or means. In an ecological correlation the statistical object is a group of persons. The correlation between the percentage of the population which is Negro and the percentage of the population which is illiterate for the 48 states, shown later as Figure 2, is an ecological correlation. The thing described is the population of a state, and not a single individual. The variables are percentages, descriptive properties of groups, and not descriptive properties of individuals. Ecological correlations are used in an impressive number of quantitative sociological studies, some of which by now have attained the status of classics: Cowles’ “Statistical Study of Climate in Relation to Pulmonary Tuberculosis”;1 Gosnell's “Analysis of the 1932 Presidential Vote in Chicago,”2 Factorial and Correlational Analysis of the 1934 Vote in Chicago,”3 and the more elaborate factor analysis in Machine Politics;4 Ogburn's “How women vote,”5 “Measurement of the Factors in the Presidential Election of 1928,”6…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/dyn357

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Researchers must be aware of the ecological fallacy, wherein researchers erroneously interpret and deduce inferences about individuals based on the group data.

    “We must be aware of the ecological fallacy (Robinson, 2009 ), wherein researchers erroneously interpret and deduce inferences about individuals based on the group data (Terjesen et al., 2016).”

    From Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program (2022) · cites this paper as Robinson, 2009

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 685

Authors
Robinson, W.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Robinson, WS
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2009-01-28
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
337-341
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2135605498
Cited by
685
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 23
FWCI
16.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Multidisciplinary Science and Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
ecological correlation, ecological fallacy, group-level data, individual behavior, illiteracy, racial composition, state-level analysis, delinquency, birth rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review