Reverse Causation

Reverse Causation Definition

As earlier described, reverse causation is the false belief that event A causes event B to happen when the truth is that the reverse is true. Reverse causation—which is sometimes called reverse causality—typically occurs because someone notices that two things share a causal relationship (think the chicken and the egg), but they don't understand the order of causation.

It challenges the conventional direction of causality and suggests that the dependent variable is causing changes in the independent variable, rather than the other way around.

People also frequently confuse causal relationships for things that are correlated.

Fig. 1 - Correlation does not imply causation: The crowing rooster does not cause the sun to rise.

Two things that are correlated may appear to share a causal relationship because they are clearly linked, but there is another relevant adage here: “Correlation does not imply causation.” This means that just because two things are connected does not mean that one causes the other.

For example, someone might argue that statistics showing higher levels of opioid addiction in lower socioeconomic areas prove that poverty causes addiction. While this might make sense at first pass, there is no way to prove this because the reverse could just as easily be true; addiction might be a contributing factor to poverty.

Repeatable positive correlations are typically evidence of causal relationships, but it’s not always easy to tell which event is causing which.

The Effects of Reverse Causation

The assumption that one thing depends on another simply because they are connected is a logical fallacy.

Reverse causation is an informal fallacy—meaning it doesn’t have to do with the format of the argument—of questionable cause. Another term for this is non causa pro causa, which means non-cause for cause in Latin.

Reverse causation has applications in economics, science, philosophy, and more. When and if you identify an argument with a logical fallacy, you should discredit the entire argument because it is not based on sound logic. This can mean serious implications, depending on the subject and scenario.

For example, statistics show that people struggling with depression also smoke cigarettes. A doctor could conclude that smoking cigarettes causes depression, and simply recommend the patient stop smoking instead of prescribing anti-depressants or other helpful treatments. This could easily be a case of reverse causation, though, as people with depression may be more likely to smoke as a way to cope with their symptoms.

Reverse Causation Synonym

As previously mentioned, reverse causation is also known as reverse causality. There are a few other terms you can use to communicate reverse causation:

• Retrocausality (or retrocausation)

• Backwards causation

Fig. 2 - Order is important; the horse must go before the cart for the cart to function properly.

Reverse Causation Examples

A classic example of reverse causality is the relationship between health and wealth.

1. It is generally accepted that wealth leads to better health due to access to better healthcare and living conditions. However, reverse causality suggests that good health can lead to increased wealth as healthier individuals are often more productive.
2. Another example involves education and income. While it's commonly believed that more education leads to higher income, reverse causality would suggest that higher income enables more education due to increased access to educational resources.

People may also call reverse causation “cart before the horse bias” because reverse causation is essentially like putting the cart before the horse. In other words, the effect is confused for the cause, which is the exact opposite of a functional scenario.

The following examples of reverse causality illustrate how easy it is to confuse causation in a situation where there is a connection between two things. Topics with an emotional element—such as politics, religion, or conversations involving children—are especially likely to result in reverse causation. This is because people become entrenched in a particular camp and can be so anxious to find any evidence to support their perspective that they might miss a logical fallacy in their argument.

While it's difficult to establish a definite causal connection on this topic—there are many variables to consider—it is definitely possible it is a simple case of reverse causation.

Lice → healthy people

Sick people → inhospitable environment for lice

This is a true example of reverse causation. The truth about lice was the reverse of the common understanding of what lice do and how they affect human beings.

In this example, there is no measurable way to know for sure if the video games cause violent behavior or if the two are simply correlated. In this instance, it would be “easier” to blame violent video games for violence among children because parents could ban them from their homes, and even rally to ban them from the market. But it’s probable that there would not be a significant decrease in violent behavior. Remember, correlation does not imply causation.

Identifying Reverse Causality

There is no secret formula to test for reverse causation; identifying it is usually a matter of applying common sense and logic. For example, someone unfamiliar with windmills might see one spinning quickly, notice the wind blowing harder, and believe that the windmill is creating the wind. Logic would suggest that the opposite is true because the wind can be felt no matter how close you are to the windmill, so the windmill cannot be the source.Note: Subjective language. Please rephrase

There is no official way to test for reverse causality, but there are a few questions you can ask yourself to determine if it’s a possibility. If you believe that thunder (event A) causes lightning (event B), for example, ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is it possible that it can lightning (B) before you hear thunder (A)?

If the answer is yes, then it's potentially a case of reverse causation.

2. Can I definitively rule out the possibility that lightning (B) causes thunder (A)?

If the answer is yes, then it's not a case of reverse causation.

3. Do I find that changes in lightning (B) can happen before thunder (A) occurs?

If the answer is yes, then it's potentially a case of reverse causation.

Once you have answered these questions, you can either rule out reverse causation or identify it in the argument you’re considering.

Reverse Causality and Simultaneity

Simultaneity and reverse causality are two concepts that are so closely related that they can easily be confused.

Two events that share a simultaneous relationship may appear as an instance of reverse causation, or even regular causation, because of the way they are connected.

For example, the “Matthew effect” refers to the belief that intellects and professionals with higher status tend to receive more credit for their endeavors than those of lower status with the same achievements. More credit gains the higher-status intellect additional recognition and awards. As a result, the higher status becomes emphasized and creates a cycle of advantages from which the lower-status intellect is excluded.

In this instance, there is a self-feeding loop; more status generates more recognition, which generates more status.

The bottom line is that when two things appear to be connected, it is necessary to investigate further to determine the nature of their relationship rather than assume causation.