Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals*
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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