Post Hoc Fallacy
Not what you're looking for?
Post-hoc fallacy is that condition where regression shows a high degree of correlation (R square is high), but there is no real cause-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables. For example, when the rooster crows each morning, the sun pops up every time (even if we can't see it). R square would be 1.00 in this case, but does that mean the rooster's crow actually caused the sun to rise? Clearly not, that would be post-hoc fallacy to conclude otherwise...there is no real cause and effect.
After doing a regression analysis on two sets of data, how would you go about ensuring that you have not fallen into the post-hoc fallacy trap?
How would you explain post-hoc fallacy to your boss or CO, who has no statistical background?
Purchase this Solution
Solution Preview
In terms of explaining this to someone with no statistical background, the example in the first paragraph does a good job of this. Can you think of other instances in which there is a strong correlation (positive or negative) but no causation? For instance, ice cream sales and snow shovel ...
Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Terms and Definitions for Statistics
This quiz covers basic terms and definitions of statistics.
Measures of Central Tendency
This quiz evaluates the students understanding of the measures of central tendency seen in statistics. This quiz is specifically designed to incorporate the measures of central tendency as they relate to psychological research.
Measures of Central Tendency
Tests knowledge of the three main measures of central tendency, including some simple calculation questions.
Know Your Statistical Concepts
Each question is a choice-summary multiple choice question that presents you with a statistical concept and then 4 numbered statements. You must decide which (if any) of the numbered statements is/are true as they relate to the statistical concept.