Abstract
The concepts of mediation and mechanism are contrasted and logical implications holding between theses two concepts are described. The concept of mediation can be formalized using counterfactual definitions of indirect effects; the concept of mechanism can be formalized within the sufficient cause framework. It is shown that both concepts can be illustrated using a single causal diagram. It is also shown that mediation implies mechanism but mechanism need not imply mediation. Discussion is given regarding how the distinction between “statistical causality” and “mechanistic causality” is blurred by recent work in causal inference concerning methods for testing for mediation and mechanism.
References
Hafeman D. A sufficient cause based approach to the assessment of mediation. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23:711–21. doi:10.1007/s10654-008-9286-7.
Judd CM, Kenny DA. Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Process Anal. 1981;5:602–19.
Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Bollen KA. Total, direct and indirect effects in structural equation models. In: Clogg CC, editor. Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1987. p. 37–69.
Holland PW. Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. In: Clogg CC, editor. Sociological methodology. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association; 1988. p. 449–84.
Sobel ME. Effect analysis and causation in linear structural equation models. Psychometrika. 1990;55:495–515. doi:10.1007/BF02294763.
Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143–55. doi:10.1097/00001648-199203000-00013.
Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty and artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001:411-420.
Kaufman JS, MacLehose RF, Kaufman S. A further critique of the analytic strategy of adjusting for covariates to identify biologic mediation. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2004;1:4. doi:10.1186/1742-5573-1-4.
Peterson ML, Sinisi SE, van der Laan MJ. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology. 2006;17:276–84. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000208475.99429.2d.
VanderWeele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009;20:18–26. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818f69ce.
Frangakis CE, Rubin DB. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics. 2002;58:21–9. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2002.00021.x.
Rubin DB. Direct and indirect effects via potential outcomes. Scand J Stat. 2004;31:161–70. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9469.2004.02-123.x.
VanderWeele TJ. Simple relations between principal stratification and direct and indirect effects. Stat Probab Lett. 2008;78:2957–62. doi:10.1016/j.spl.2008.05.029.
Rothman KJ. Causes. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104:587–92.
VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. The identification of synergism in the sufficient-component cause framework. Epidemiol. 2007;18:329–39. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000260218.66432.88.
VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Empirical and counterfactual conditions for sufficient cause interactions. Biometrika. 2008;95:49–61. doi:10.1093/biomet/asm090.
Cayley A. On a question in the theory of probabilities. Philos Mag. 1853;6:259.
Mackie JL. Causes and conditions. Am Philos Q. 1965;2:245–55.
MacMahon B, Pugh TF. Causes and entities of disease. In: Clark DW, MacMahon B, editors. Preventive medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; 1967. p. 11–8.
VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes and the properties of conditioning on a common effect. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1096–104. doi:10.1093/aje/kwm179.
VanderWeele TJ, Robins JM. Minimal sufficient causation and directed acyclic graphs. Ann Stat. 2009. (in press).
Hall N, Paul LA. Causation and preemption. In: Clark P, Hawley K, editors. Philosophy of science today. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 100–29.
Greenland S, Robins JM. Conceptual problems in the definition and interpretation of attributable fractions. Am J Epidemiol. 1988;128:1185–97.
Greenland S, Brumback B. An overview of relations among causal modeling methods. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:1030–7. doi:10.1093/ije/31.5.1030.
Hoffmann K, Heidemann C, Weikert C, Schulze MB, Boeing H. Estimating the proportion of disease due to classes of sufficient causes. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:76–83. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj011.
Aalen OO, Frigessi A. What can statistics contribute to a causal understanding? Scand J Stat. 2007;34:155–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9469.2006.00549.x.
Heckman JJ. The scientific model of causality. Sociol Methodol. 2005;1:1–98. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2006.00163.x.
Heckman JJ. Econometric causality. Int Stat Rev. 2007;76:1–27. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2007.00024.x.
Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF. Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci. 2000;67:1–25. doi:10.1086/392759.
Pearl J. Casual diagrams for empirical research (with discussion). Biometrika. 1995;82:669–710. doi:10.1093/biomet/82.4.669.
Greenland S, Pearl J, Robins JM. Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. 1999;10:37–48. doi:10.1097/00001648-199901000-00008.
Glymour MM, Greenland S. Causal diagrams. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. p. 183–209.
Robins JM. Testing and estimation of direct effects by reparameterizing directed acyclic graphs with structural nested models. In: Glymour C, Cooper GF, editors. Computation, causation, and discovery. Menlo Park, CA, Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press; 1999. p. 349–405.
Robins JM. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In: Green P, Hjort NL, Richardson S, editors. Highly structured stochastic systems. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 70–81.
Joffe M, Small D, Hsu CY. Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Stat Sci. 2007;22:74–97. doi:10.1214/088342306000000655.
VanderWeele TJ. Sufficient cause interactions and statistical interactions. Epidemiology. 2009;20:6–13. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818f69e7.
Cox DR, Wenmuth N. Causality: a statistical view. Int Stat Rev. 2004;72:285–305.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Technical appendix
Technical appendix
Mediation, controlled direct effects, and natural direct and indirect effects
Note that the total effect Y1−Y0 decomposes as the sum of a total direct effect and a pure indirect effect, Y1−Y0 = \({\rm{(Y_{1M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{1}})}}+{\rm{(Y_{0M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{0}})}}\), or as the sum of a total indirect effect and a pure direct effect, Y1−Y0 = \({\rm{(Y_{1M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{1M_{0}})}}+{\rm{(Y_{1M_{0}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{0}})}}\). If both the pure indirect effect and the total indirect effect are zero, i.e., if both \({\rm{Y_{0M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{0}}}=0}\) and \({\rm{Y_{1M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{1}}}=0}\), then we will have that Y1−Y0 = \({\rm{Y_{1M_{1}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{1}}}}\) and that Y1−Y0 = \({\rm{Y_{1M_{0}}}}\!-\!{\rm{Y_{0M_{0}}}}\) so that the total effect, the total direct effect and the pure direct effect all coincide. We thus say that “M mediates the effect of X on Y” whenever one of the natural indirect effects is non-zero since, if they are both zero then the total effect and the natural direct effects coincide.
Note that it is more difficult to use the controlled direct effect to draw conclusions about mediation. The controlled direct effect takes the form Y1m−Y0m. Even if X has no effect on M so that there is no mediation, the controlled direct effect Y1m−Y0m may differ from the total effect. For example, suppose that X has no effect on M so that there is no mediation of the effect of X on Y by M but suppose there is interaction between X and M. If there is interaction between the effects of X and M on Y, then Y1m−Y0m will differ for different values of m and thus one of the controlled direct effects Y11−Y01 or Y10−Y00 will differ from Y1−Y0. Obtaining a controlled direct effect that is different than the total effect is thus not evidence that mediation is present. If there is no interaction between the effects of X and M on Y then Robins [35] has shown that the controlled direct, the total direct effect and the pure direct effect all coincide; furthermore all of these quantities will be equal to the total effect if there are no natural indirect effects; in this case one can compare total effects and controlled direct effects to assess mediation. Thus only under the assumption of no interaction can one use controlled direct effects to assess mediation. See the work of Robins and Greenland [7] and Kaufman et al. [9] for further critique of using controlled direct effects to assess mediation and indirect effects.
Relationship between direct and indirect effects, with a sufficient cause taken as the mediator, and the probabilities of the background component causes
Here we express controlled direct effects, with some sufficient cause S taken as the mediator, in terms of the probabilities of the background components of the sufficient causes in Fig. 1. Note that if S were set to 1 then Y would be 1 since S is a sufficient cause for Y; it thus does not make sense to discuss controlled direct effects of the form Yx=1,s=1−Yx=0,s=1 since this controlled direct effect is zero for any sufficient cause and we report only the controlled direct effects of the form Yx=1,s=0−Yx=0,s=0. Note that a binary variable Z can be treated as an event and so we will let P(Z) denote P(Z = 1).
For S = BM:
For S = CX:
For S = FXM:
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
VanderWeele, T.J. Mediation and mechanism. Eur J Epidemiol 24, 217–224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-009-9331-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-009-9331-1