Three Criteria for Ecological Fallacy
Alvaro J. Idrovo
Center for Health Systems Research, National Institute of Public Health, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico, E-mail: email@example.com
Environ Health Perspect 119:a332-a332 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103768 [online 01 August 2011]
The author declares that he has no competing financial interests.
In a large cohort study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Brenner et al. (2011) confirmed previous results on I-131 exposure and thyroid cancer among a Ukranian population. According to the authors, one motivation to study this association was based on evidence from ecological studies (Jacob et al. 1999) with two methodological limitations: use of grouped doses and poor control of confounding. With these new findings, evidence from ecological, case–control, and cohort studies are consistent; thus, an interesting question is whether there was an ecological fallacy.
Although ecological studies are important to epidemiology (especially in environmental and social epidemiology), public health practitioners seem afraid of ecological studies. It is a common practice to assume the presence of ecological fallacy (Robinson 1950) and low-level validity when analyzing an ecological study. Most epidemiologists prefer an exclusive individualistic approach, although the importance of a multilevel causal approach is widely recognized (Diez-Roux 2002). In this sense, some authors suggest that it is as important to recognize the presence of ecological fallacy as to recognize psychologistic or individualistic fallacy (Subramanian et al. 2009) (Figure 1).
Thus, it is necessary to have clear guidelines on when there is or not an ecological fallacy. In this sense, I propose three criteria for the identification of ecological fallacy; all three of these should be present to confirm its existence:
- Results must be obtained with ecological (population) data.
- Data must be inferred to individuals. One use of ecological studies is to explore individual-level association when individual data are not available. When the focus of the study was contextual or based on population effects and there is no inference to individuals, ecological fallacy is not possible. When only the first two criteria are present—which is insufficient to affirm ecological fallacy—it is appropriate to acknowledge that there is a possible relationship and that further study is required.
- Results obtained with individual data are contradictory.
Only when empirical data are available is it possible to confirm that an ecological fallacy is present.
Related EHP Articles
- Brenner AV, Tronko MD, Hatch M, Bogdanova TI, Oliynik VA, Lubin JH, et al. 2011. I-131 dose response for incident thyroid cancers in Ukraine related to the Chornobyl accident. Environ Health Perspect 119:933–939; doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002674 [Online 17 March 2011].
- Diez-Roux AV. 2002. A glossary for multilevel analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 56(8):588–594.
- Jacob P, Kenigsberg Y, Zvonova I, Goulko G, Buglova E, Heidenreich WF, et al. 1999. Childhood exposure due to the Chernobyl accident and thyroid cancer risk in contaminated areas of Belarus and Russia. Br J Cancer 80(9):1461–1469.
- Robinson WS. 1950. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev 15(3):351–357.
- Subramanian SV, Jones K, Kaddour A, Krieger N. 2009. Revisiting Robinson: the perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy. Int J Epidemiol 38(2):342–360.
EHP is pleased to present the abstracts from the 28th annual meeting of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE), held in Rome, Italy, 1–4 September 2016, and hosted by the Department of Epidemiology Lazio Regional Health Service, ASL Roma 1, and the Italian Epidemiological Association. The focus of this year’s conference is current and future challenges in exposure assessment, study design, and data analyses.
For a number of years, EHP has posted accepted manuscripts online as what we termed Advance Publications. The concept here was simple—to get the content online as quickly as possible in an effort both to get authors the attention they deserve and to get readers the information they need. This product has served our community well, but it is not without its flaws. … MORE
Featured Children’s Health
Birgit Claus Henn, Adrienne S. Ettinger, Marianne R. Hopkins, Rebecca Jim, Chitra Amarasiriwardena, David C. Christiani, Brent A. Coull, David C. Bellinger, and Robert O. Wright
Diane Gilbert-Diamond, Jennifer A. Emond, Emily R. Baker, Susan A. Korrick, and Margaret R. Karagas
Benjamin B. Green, Margaret R. Karagas, Tracy Punshon, Brian P. Jackson, David J. Robbins, E. Andres Houseman, and Carmen J. Marsit