ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B

Acta Psychologica Sinica ›› 2025, Vol. 57 ›› Issue (6): 1108-1118.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1108

• Commentary • Previous Articles    

Distinguishing between causality, influence, correlation, and prediction*

WEN Zhonglin(), MA Peng(), MENG Jin, WANG Yifan   

  1. Center for Studies of Psychological Application / School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
  • Received:2025-03-18 Published:2025-06-25 Online:2025-04-15
  • Contact: WEN Zhonglin,MA Peng E-mail:wenzl@scnu.edu.cn;mapeng@m.scnu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China(32171091);Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Brain Cognition and Quality Development(2024B0303390003)

Abstract:

In response to Wen et al.’s (2024b) proposal of the new term called influence relationship, Ge (2025) raised the following doubts: (1) the new term lacks a clear definition; (2) influence relationship could not be distinguished from causal relationship; (3) one should not create a new objective (or relationship) simply because causality is not achieved; (4) the so-called influence relationship should be termed prediction instead. This article attempts to resolve his doubts as follows: (1) influence relationship has been defined rigorously, employing the “genus and differentia” method; (2) a causal relationship is necessarily an influence relationship, but an influence relationship is not necessarily a causal relationship; (3) establishing an influence relationship can be a goal for non-experimental research, which is superior to merely establishing a correlational relationship; (4) prediction is an application of variable relationships but is not the relationship itself and is not equivalent to the influence relationship.

Key words: influence relationship, correlation relationship, causal relationship, influence factor, prediction