The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Taboo Against Explicit Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Psychology
Open accessAbstract
Causal inference is a central goal of research. However, most psychologists refrain from explicitly addressing causal research questions and avoid drawing causal inference on the basis of nonexperimental evidence. We argue that this taboo against causal inference in nonexperimental psychology impairs study design and data analysis, holds back cumulative research, leads to a disconnect between original findings and how they are interpreted in subsequent work, and limits the relevance of nonexperimental psychology for policymaking. At the same time, the taboo does not prevent researchers from interpreting findings as causal effects—the inference is simply made implicitly, and assumptions remain unarticulated. Thus, we recommend that nonexperimental psychologists begin to talk openly about causal assumptions and causal effects. Only then can researchers take advantage of recent methodological advances in causal reasoning and analysis and develop a solid understanding of the underlying causal mechanisms that can inform future research, theory, and policymakers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value
VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2607 · Cited by 6,350
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008) · doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 · Cited by 5,051
A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S., et al. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1010076108 · Cited by 4,885
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 2×
“Their lower prior probability in turn results in more nonsignificant findings and more false-positive findings (Diekmann, 2011; Fiedler, 2017; Ioannidis, 2005).2 Hence, theories without firmly established relationships and laws are not particularly useful, for example, for tackling the replication…”
Fixed Effects Regression Models
Allison, P. (2009) · doi:10.4135/9781412993869 · Cited by 3,999
On making causal claims: A review and recommendations
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010 · Cited by 2,441
Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions
Rubin, D. B. (2005) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214504000001880 · Cited by 2,173 · cited 3×
“Thinking about how things are for an individual and how things would be different if the individual had not experienced the treatment can be formally expressed using the potential-outcomes framework (for an accessible introduction, see Foster, 2010a; see also, e.g., Holland, 1986; Rubin, 2005).”
Cited by
Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question.
Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2022) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000922 · Cited by 393
Why the cross-lagged panel model is almost never the right choice
Lucas, R. E. (2023) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459231158378 · Cited by 361
That’s a Lot to Process! Pitfalls of Popular Path Models
Rohrer, J. M., Hünermund, P., Arslan, R. C., & Elson, M. (2022) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459221095827 · Cited by 267
Self-citationD’ya Like DAGs? A Survey on Structure Learning and Causal Discovery
Vowels, M. J., Camgoz, N. C., & Bowden, R. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3527154 · Cited by 237
Loneliness across time and space
Luhmann, M., Buecker, S., & Rüsberg, M. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00124-1 · Cited by 197
Metadata
- Authors
- Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., & Thoemmes, F.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-07-29
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1243-1255
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W3022698454
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 58
- FWCI
- 29.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Taboo Against Explicit Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Psychology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1745691620921521
- The paper
- Grosz, M. P., Rohrer, J. M., & Thoemmes, F. (2020). The Taboo Against Explicit Causal Inference in Nonexperimental Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620921521
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
