Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock Chalk Chick
.... I also don't understand how they can present such a study as anything more than a relationship. Using artificial sweeteners is more likely to be a symptom/result of excess weight, not a cause...
It's like saying recently married women are more likely to have a giant white dress in their house. Obviously, that means that if you want to get married, you need to go buy a giant white dress.
Or people with babies use more diapers than people without babies. Therefore, buying diapers causes people to have children. (Let's face it, if you're pregnant, not buying diapers isn't going to be the answer!)
Usually it's not the researchers that present the study this way, it's people in the common media, with no more education on the subject that the average person (which means slim to none). Even with the training and education (an undergrad degree in behavioral psych and a graduate degree in developmental psych and statistic classes at both levels), I sometimes find myself thinking down these paths myself. Because correlation does not mean causation, however correlational data does bring up questions about causation. That is, the appropriate next step is to consider the possible explanations for the correlation and then do more studies to test them.
Tobacco research for example is mostly correlational, done many ways to give a support to a theory of causation, giving strong evidence that people who are prone to cancer aren't more likely to seek out cigarrettes.
I think it's the fact that causation would generally show a correlation that gets people stumped. If a causal factor would be reasonable, our minds tend to go there. I think because it's an instinctive factor, a biological hardwiring to look for correlation. Operant and classical conditioning ARE correlational in nature. If bad (or good) things happen under a specific circumstance, the natural response, it's a natural tendency to try to avoid (or attempt to recreate or anticipate) the circumstances in the future.
Even pigeons (very tiny brains) will exhibit "superstitious" behaviors during intermittent reinforcement. Their food may be on a timer, but if they happen to be turning around or flapping their wings when the food comes down the shute, it's very likely that they will increase wing flapping and/or turning.
So it's natural for our minds to "go there," especially if the cause hypothesis makes any sense. With diapers and white dresses, it's so obvious you'd have to be pretty stupid or superstitious to fall for it - or would you? When it comes to many goals, but especially one that is emotionally charged such as getting married and starting a family (or losing weight, or making money), otherwise intelligent people are often willing to resort to superstitions, knowing there is no rational basis in fact, but "it's worth a chance."
How many people waste their time, money and effort on "too-good-to-be-true" products, programs and schemes on the very, very slim chance that it might bring them the answer to their prayers.
Consumers have to be educated and aware, and vigilant against superstition and the tendency to assume causal relationships.