Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-xx4dx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:46:34.290Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect Analysis and Causation in Linear Structural Equation Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Michael E. Sobel
Michael E. Sobel*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
*
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Michael E. Sobel, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ, 85721.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper considers total and direct effects in linear structural equation models. Adopting a causal perspective that is implicit in much of the literature on the subject, the paper concludes that in many instances the effects do not admit the interpretations imparted in the literature. Drawing a distinction between concomitants and factors, the paper concludes that a concomitant has neither total nor direct effects on other variables. When a variable is a factor and one or more intervening variables are concomitants, the notion of a direct effect is not causally meaningful. Even when the notion of a direct effect is meaningful, the usual estimate of this quantity may be inappropriate. The total effect is usually interpreted as an equilibrium multiplier. In the case where there are simultaneity relations among the dependent variables in tghe model, the results in the literature for the total effects of dependent variables on other dependent variables are not equilibrium multipliers, and thus, the usual interpretation is incorrect. To remedy some of these deficiencies, a new effect, the total effect of a factor X on an outcome Y, holding a set of variables F constant, is defined. When defined, the total and direct effects are a special case of this new effect, and the total effect of a dependent variable on a dependent variable is an equilibrium multiplier.

Keywords

Causal analysiscovariance structure analysisdirect effectindirect effectstructural equation modelstotal effect
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 495 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For helpful comments, I am grateful to G. Arminger, K. Bollen, W. Faris, R. m. Hauser, T. Petersen, three anonymous Psychometrikas reviewers, and the Editor. For computational assistance, I am grateful to B. D. Kim.

References

Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Freeman, E. H. (1983). Tests for stability in linear structural equation systems. Psychometrika, 48, 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1987). Total, direct and indirect effects in structural equation models. In Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Sociological methodology, 1987 (pp. 37–69). Washinton, D. C.: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Brand, M. (1976). Introduction: Defining causes. In Brand, M. (Eds.), The nature of causation (pp. 1–44). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Chow, G. C. (1975). Analysis and control of dynamic economic systems, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1981). Applied statistics, London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, O. D. (1975). Introduction to structural equation models, New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Fisher, F. M. (1970). A correspondence principle for simulataneous equation models. Econometrica, 38, 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J. (1985). Effect analysis in structural equation models. II: Calculation of specific infirect effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 14, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, D. A. (1987). As others see us: A case study in path analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, E. H. (1982). The implementation of effect decomposition methods for two general structural covariance modeling systems, Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angels, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1986). Statistics and metaphysics. Journal of the American Statitiscal Association, 81, 964–966.Google Scholar
Goldberger, A. S. (1959). Impact multipliers and dynamic properties of the Klein-Goldberger model, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Graff, J., & Schmidt, P. (1982). A general model for decomposition of effects. In Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, Part 1 (pp. 131–148). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Graybill, F. A. (1983). Matrices with applications in statistics, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Harary, F. R., Norman, Z., & Cartwright, D. (1965). Structural models: An introduction to the theory of directed graphs, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. In Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology, 1988 (pp. 449–484). Washington, D. C.: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1977). An enquiry concerning human understanding and A letter from a gentleman to his friend in Edinburgh, Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1978). A treatise of human nature, Cambridge: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: User's reference guide, Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1974). Ambition and attainment, Washigton, D. C.: Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Luenberger, D. C. (1979). Introduction to dynamic systems, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Pratt, J. W., & Schlaifer, R. (1984). On the nature and discovery of structure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozeboom, W. R. (1956). Mediation variables in scientific theory. Psychological Review, 63, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1978). Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1986). Comment: Which ifs have causal answers. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 961–962.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt, S. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology, 1982 (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In Tuma, N. B. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology, 1986 (pp. 159–186). Washinton, D. C.: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, M. E., & Arminger, G. (1986). Platonic and operational true scores in covariance structure analysis: An invited comment on Bielby's ‘Arbitrary metrics in multiple indicator models of latent variables’. Sociological Methods and Research, 15, 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strotz, R. H., & Wold, H. O. A. (1960). Recursive vs. nonrecursive systems: An attempt at synthesis. Econometrica, 28, 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, J. (1937). An econometric approach to business cycle problems, Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Wheaton, B., Muthén, B., Alwin, D., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. In Heise, D. R. (Eds.), Sociological Methodology, 1977 (pp. 84–136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical Principles in experimental design, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar