Interest in causes can range from a superficial and often trivial curiosity about the phenomena of everyday life to systematic, rigorous scientific inquiry. Due to the wide variety of forms of interest in causal relationships, it is important to clearly define the main distinguishing properties of causal thinking. As an epistemological process, the attribution of causality (designating certain events as causes and other events as effects) requires taking into account certain considerations. Hume gives three criteria for causation:
- contiguous appearance of supposed cause and effect in space and time;
- temporal ordering of events, in which the supposed cause precedes the effect;
- covariation of supposed cause and effect: whenever one changes, the other will also change.
Hume concluded that causality cannot be empirically demonstrated and that it is rather inferred from observable events.
Illusory causation refers to the situation in which the inferred relationship between a specific cause (A) and effect (B) is actually the result of a third, unspecified factor (C) that is the cause of both A and B. To make sure that there is indeed a causal relationship between A and B, other causal factors, such as C, must be identified and included in this analysis. the effects of causally relevant variables such as B. These four conditions necessary for inferring causality underlie causal thinking in the behavioral sciences. Hence the statement «A causes B» really means that (as has been empirically established) A and B exhibit covariance in the proper temporal sequence, and that there are strong theoretical6 and methodological grounds for believing that B is a consequence of A.
Causal thinking in the behavioral sciences differs from what might be called a more general view of the understanding of causality. Causality is usually understood as a complex of necessary and sufficient conditions for the occurrence of causal events, by analogy with the action of a billiard ball hitting another ball. The works of Hume and Mill mentioned above reflect just such an intellectual position.
Subsequently, the criteria for inferring causality have been replaced by a more compromise and private view of causation. Events are considered probabilistically, and the «causes» of these events are considered sufficient (but not necessarily both necessary and sufficient) for the occurrence of a certain effect. Theoretically, causal thinking is limited only by the skill and imagination of the researcher; however, when it is used in the design of a study and the presentation of its results, there are certain limitations to causal analysis, two of which are discussed below:
- First, the factors identified as «causes» are not final, absolute, or primary causes in any epistemological sense. Therefore, penetrating into the causes of human behavior is only an exploratory and never-ending process of inquiry. Within any field of scientific inquiry, the search for causes is limited by many circumstances; however, the relatively complex, non-deterministic, and dynamic nature of human behavior, as it is understood today, presents an additional challenge to the behavioral sciences.
- Second, although the putative causal relationships inferred by such causal thinking can never be empirically proven, it still requires an explicit research concept and, in particular, dictates that the consequences of every theoretical argument used formulated as precisely as possible. Subject to the requirements for explicitness (certainty), such causal thinking is a powerful tool for analyzing human behavior. Moreover, it entails attempts, relying on the apparatus of formal logic, to fill the gap between the development of theory, on the one hand, and the improvement of research methodology, on the other.
The indirect nature of inferences about causality is a major concern of the behavioral scientists and has led to some confusion in the field about the meaning of the concept of causality and debate about whether this concept plays a necessary and productive role in science. There have also been debates about whether the field of causal thinking should be limited to experimental and quasi-experimental studies, in which, as is commonly believed, the variables under study can be «manipulated» many times. It is argued that a clearer understanding of the hidden causal dynamics can only be realized if the research design allows for the manipulation of variables. However, contrary to popular notions or expectations, the actual degree of manipulation provided by experimental designs may turn out to be significantly lower. Moreover, although experimental designs do allow one to operate with a simpler set of a priori assumptions, it has been found that the fundamental features of causal analysis based on experimental designs on the one hand and on non-experimental or observational designs on the other turn out to be identical.
The exact role of causal thinking in behavioral research remains a matter of debate; however, as long as the study of human behavior, at least implicitly (not expressed explicitly), continues to be guided by the question of causation, causal thinking and causal models provide a fairly clear and rigorous conceptual framework for scientific inquiry.
Causality (Latin causalis — causal, causa — cause) or causality is a concept used in traditional philosophy to denote the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect).
In this context, causality was interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, as an internal connection between what already exists and what is generated by it, what is still becoming. It was assumed that this causality differs from other forms of communication, which are characterized by the correlation of one phenomenon to another. Internal connection was considered as the essence of causality, it was understood as an internal relation inherent in things themselves. Causality was assumed to be universal, because, according to the natural scientific views of that time, there are no phenomena that would not have their own causes, just as there are no phenomena that would not have (would not give rise to) certain consequences. The connection between cause and effect was considered necessary: if there is a cause and the corresponding conditions are present, then an effect inevitably arises. Subsequently (especially in the XNUMXth century), the principle of causality underwent a radical rethinking.