Revisiting Robinson: The perils of individualistic and ecologic fallacy

Abstract

Applying a historically informed multilevel perspective to Robinson's profoundly influential study, we demonstrate that meaningful analysis of individual-level relationships requires attention to substantial heterogeneity in state characteristics. The implication is that perils are posed by not only ecological fallacy but also individualistic fallacy. Multilevel thinking, grounded in historical and spatiotemporal context, is thus a necessity, not an option.

Bringing the individual back to small-area variation studies: A multilevel analysis of all-cause mortality in Andalusia, Spain

“…Our study also gives further evidence concerning the unsuitability of ecological/spatial analyses for investigating contextual effects (Aitkin M & Longford N, 1986;Bullen et al, 1996;Duncan et al, 1993Duncan et al, , 1995Duncan et al, , 1996Duncan et al, , 1998Duncan et al, , 1999Jones et al, 1991;Merlo et al, 2001;Subramanian et al, 2009;Twigg et al, 2000). As expressed by Morgenstern, "Several epidemiologists have recently called for a greater emphasis on understanding differences in health status between populations-a return to a public health orientation in contrast to the individual (reductionist) orientation of modern epidemiology….…”

“…This recommendation … cannot be met by conducting ecologic studies; multiple level of measurement and analysis are needed" (Morgenstern, 1998). Our investigation, however, expands this critique beyond the "ecological fallacy" (Morgenstern, 1998;Robinson, 2009;Subramanian et al, 2009), and emphasizes the incapacity of ecological analyses of quantifying general contextual effects because they lack information on how variance is partitioned across the different levels of analysis (e.g., individual and areas) (Merlo, 2003;Merlo et al, 2009;Subramanian SV et al, 2007).…”

“…In contrast, others scholars have explicitly concluded that the analysis of variance provides indispensable information for understanding place effects on health (Boyle MH & Willms JD, 1999;Clarke P & Wheaton B, 2007;Duncan et al, 1993;Merlo, 2003;Merlo et al, 2004;Merlo et al, 2009;Riva et al, 2007) Moreover, all around the world, a persistent amount of observational information on place effects is still being obtained from ecological/spatial studies of "small-area variations" , frequently in the form of coloured atlases and disease maps (Benach et al, 2003;Benach et al, 2004;Borrell et al, 2010;Collaboration, 2010;MacNab & Dean, 2002;Middleton et al, 2008;Ocana-Riola & Mayoral-Cortes, 2010;Ocana-Riola et al, 2008a;Pickle et al, 1999;Shaw, 2008;Turrell & Mengersen, 2000). From an empirical perspective, the advantages of multilevel versus ecological regression analyses were clearly identified by the seminal work performed by Aitkins and Longford (Aitkin M & Longford N, 1986) as well as by Jones,4 Duncan, Moon, Subramanian and colleagues (Bullen et al, 1996;Duncan et al, 1993Duncan et al, , 1995Duncan et al, , 1996Duncan et al, , 1998Duncan et al, , 1999Jones et al, 1991;Subramanian et al, 2009;Twigg et al, 2000). We also contributed to this discussion in a previous publication (Merlo et al, 2001).…”

“…Regarding ecological studies of small-area variations the concerns are not only against the legendary "ecological fallacy" (Morgenstern, 1998;Robinson, 2009) and the advantages of the multilevel analysis for preventing it (Merlo et al, 2001;Subramanian et al, 2009), but rather on the incapacity of ecological analyses for quantifying general contextual effects because they lack information on how variance is partitioned across the different levels of analysis (e.g., individual and areas) (Merlo, 2003;Merlo et al, 2009;Subramanian SV et al, 2007).…”

Claiming too much, delivering too little: testing some of Hofstede’s generalisations

“…Pairings, families, peer groups, schools, laws, institutions and other contexts alter social outcomes in ways not explicable by studies which focus solely on individuals (Susser, 1994). Perils are posed not only by the ecological fallacy but also by the individualistic fallacy (Subramanian, et al, 2009). This is not an argument against multilevel research but a rejection of that which, upwards or downwards, conflates/ subsumes one level into the other (Archer, 1988).…”