Comments
jonathansanto OP t1_ix0dcdj wrote
Yes, that’s called the “protection hypothesis”. What these findings show is that above and beyond the main effects of having friends, they can also buffer the effect of peer victimization as well. A number of studies have highlighted this buffering effect, controlling for how friends help prevent kids from being victimized.
Vince_peak t1_ix0xlda wrote
I think in this case we're falling into the Simpson paradox, that's a don't do in data analysis, hence the conclusions are a logical fallacy.
jonathansanto OP t1_ix1d94j wrote
There’s a large body of literature on this topic. I think it’s a little simplistic to dismiss it all out of hand.
Vince_peak t1_ix1uzjc wrote
I'm only referring to the statistical aspect, I don't doubt that having friend helps coping with any problem in life. That actually seems so obvious that it feels absurd that anyone wants to publish a paper about it... Hence I'm not surprised the statistical méthod is rubbish.
jonathansanto OP t1_ix2f165 wrote
I’m curious. What would propose having done instead?
Vince_peak t1_iwlpz8d wrote
As if the number of closer friends didn't also influenced the extent of the bullying...
A confounding variable is a variable that influences both the dependent variable and independent variable, causing a spurious association. Confounding is a causal concept, and as such, cannot be described in terms of correlations or associations. The existence of confounders is an important quantitative explanation why correlation does not imply causation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding