PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
In a recent meta-analysis, Giletta et al. (2021) [1] found a positive effect of peers\' behavior at time 1 on target youths\' behavior at time 2 while adjusting for target youths\' behavior at time 1 and claimed to have quantified peer influence. However, it is established that controlled cross-lagged effects could be due to correlations with measurement errors and reversion in the direction of the mean rather than due to true decreasing or increasing effects. Here, in a reanalysis of the same meta-analytic data as used by Giletta et al., we found that peer influence, as operationalized by Giletta et al., may have been distorted (i.e. spurious). We do not claim that peer influence does not exist, but it may be hard, maybe not even possible, to prove by analyses of observational data that it does exist. Difficulties to prove causal effects by analyses of observational data is common for all areas of research and not specific for research on peer influence.
摘要：
在最近的荟萃分析中，Gilettaetal.(2021)[1]发现同龄人“时间1的行为”对目标青少年“时间2的行为有积极影响，同时调整目标青少年“时间1的行为”，并声称量化了同龄人的影响。然而,可以确定，受控的交叉滞后效应可能是由于与测量误差的相关性以及均值方向的回归，而不是由于真正的减少或增加效应。这里,在对Giletta等人使用的相同荟萃分析数据的重新分析中。,我们发现同伴的影响，正如Giletta等人所操作的那样。,可能已经失真（即虚假）。我们不声称同伴影响不存在，但可能很难,也许根本不可能,通过对观测数据的分析来证明它确实存在。难以通过对观察数据的分析来证明因果效应在所有研究领域都很常见，而不是针对同伴影响的研究。
