Yule’s Paradox (“Simpson’s Paradox”)

Comments on Yule (1903)
  • H. A. David
  • A. W. F. Edwards
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)

Abstract

George Udny Yule may be described as the father of the contingency table by virtue of his long pioneering paper, “On the association of attributes in statistics” published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1900. At the time Yule was closely associated with Karl Pearson at University College London, himself then deeply involved in developing coefficients of correlation and other measures of association in 2 × 2 tables arising from the grouping of normally distributed variables (Pearson introduced the term “contingency table” in 1904). A dozen years later the differing approaches of the two men led to an acrimonious public controversy (described by Mackenzie, 1981; see also Magnello, 1993, and Aldrich, 1995) which, however, lies outside our present topic, the creation of spurious associations through combining heterogeneous material.

Keywords

Contingency Table Heterogeneous Material Philosophical Transaction Spurious Correlation Spurious Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. (1995). Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Yule. Statist Sci., 10, 364–376.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, N.T.J. (1959). Statistical Methods in Biology. English Universities Press, London.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartlett, M.S. (1935). Contingency table interactions. J. Roy. Statist. Soc, Suppl. 2, 248–252.Google Scholar
  4. Birch, M.W. (1963). Maximum likelihood in three-way contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B, 25, 220–233.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Blyth, C.R. (1972). On Simpson’s paradox and the surething principle. J. Amer. Statist. Assn., 67, 364–366.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox, D.R. and Snell, E.J. (1989). Analysis of Binary Data, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, London.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Darroch, J.N. (1962). Interactions in multifactor contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B, 24, 251–263.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Edwards, A.W.F. (1963). The measure of association in a 2 × 2 table. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A, 126, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Good, I.J. (1963). Maximum entropy for hypothesis formulation, especially for multidimensional contingency tables. Ann. Math. Statist, 34, 911–934.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodman, L.A. (1964). Interactions in multidimensional contingency tables. Ann. Math. Statist, 35, 632–646.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendall, M.G. (1945). The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. I, 2nd edn. Griffin, London.Google Scholar
  12. Ku, H.H. and Kullback, S. (1968). Interaction in multidimensional contingency tables: An information theoretic approach. J. Research Nat. Bureau Standards—Math. Sci., 72B, 159–199.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis, B.N. (1962). On the analysis of interaction in multi-dimensional contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A, 125, 88–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackenzie, D.A. (1981). Statistics in Britain 1865–1930. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Magnello, M.E. (1993). Karl Pearson: Evolutionary biology and the emergence of a modern theory of statistics (1884–1936). D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Pearson, K. (1899). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. VI. Part I. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 192, 257–330.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pearson, K. (1904). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. XIII. On the theory of contingency and its relation to association and normal correlation. Drapers’ Company Research Memoirs, Biometrie Ser. I.Google Scholar
  18. Plackett, R.L. (1962). A note on interaction in contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist Soc. B, 24, 162–166.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Roy, S.N. and Kastenbaum, M.A. (1956). On the hypothesis of no “interaction” in a multi-way contingency table. Ann. Math. Statist., 27, 749–757.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Simpson, E.H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B, 13, 238–241.MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Stigler, S.M. (1980). Stigler’s law of eponymy. Trans. New York Acad. Sci. Ser. II, 39, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yule, G.U. (1900). On the association of attributes in statistics: With illustrations from the material of the Childhood Society, &c. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A, 194, 257–319.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yule, G.U. (1903). Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics. Biometrika, 2, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yule, G.U. (1911). An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. Griffin, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yule, G.U. and Kendall, M.G. (1937). An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 11th edn. Griffin, London.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Yule, G.U. and Kendall, M.G. (1950). An Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, 14th edn. Griffin, London.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. A. David
    • 1
  • A. W. F. Edwards
    • 2
  1. 1.Statistical Laboratory and Department of StatisticsIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Gonville and Caius CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations