Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39431891›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology2025

Perturbation graphs, invariant causal prediction and causal relations in psychology.

Lourens Waldorp, Jolanda Kossakowski, Han L J van der Maas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Perturbation graphs, invariant causal prediction and causal relations in psychology.The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lourens WaldorpUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jolanda KossakowskiUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Han L J van der MaasUniversity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Networks (graphs) in psychology are often restricted to settings without interventions. Here we consider a framework borrowed from biology that involves multiple interventions from different contexts (observations and experiments) in a single analysis. The method is called perturbation graphs. In gene regulatory networks, the induced change in one gene is measured on all other genes in the analysis, thereby assessing possible causal relations. This is repeated for each gene in the analysis. A perturbation graph leads to the correct set of causes (not nec-essarily direct causes). Subsequent pruning of paths in the graph (called transitive reduction) should reveal direct causes. We show that transitive reduction will not in general lead to the correct underlying graph. We also show that invariant causal prediction is a generalisation of the perturbation graph method and does reveal direct causes, thereby replacing transitive re-duction. We conclude that perturbation graphs provide a promising new tool for experimental designs in psychology, and combined with invariant causal prediction make it possible to re-veal direct causes instead of causal paths. As an illustration we apply these ideas to a data set about attitudes on meat consumption and to a time series of a patient diagnosed with major depression disorder.

Indexed as

CausalityPsychologyAlgorithmsGene Regulatory NetworksHumansMajor Depressive DisorderModels, Statisticalcausal graphdirected graphgraphical modelinvariant predictionperturbation graphstransitive reduction

Identifiers

PMID39431891
PMCPMC11701423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.