Critical Analysis of Suicide-Homicide Geophysical Correlation Study

Introduction

The study under review — Stoupel et al.'s (2005) "Suicide-Homicide Temporal Interrelationship, Links with Other Fatalities, and Environmental Physical Activity," published in Crisis (Vol. 26, No. 2) — investigates the "temporal (monthly) distribution of death by the two extremes of human behavior, suicide and homicide" (p. 85). This comparison is intended to relate to the significance of another correlation and factor; namely "environmental physics activity," which includes "solar, geomagnetic and cosmic-ray monthly indices" (Stoupel et al., p. 85).

There are therefore four main variables in the study: suicide rates, homicide rates, their correlation to aspects of geophysical activity, and the correlation of these aspects over time. Other variables also considered include the relationship of homicide and suicide to additional environmental factors such as accidents, stroke, and heart disease, and the way these are distributed over time.

In the analysis of this article from a scientific point of view, it will be shown that while this study relates different factors — such as suicide and homicide — to external environmental factors, it does not present an entirely convincing case on a number of scientific and academic levels. There are too many areas where valid scientific questions have not been answered, and the range of possibilities encompassed by the variables used has not been adequately addressed.

Sources and Relevance

In terms of relevance, the date of the research is reasonably contemporary, with the study published in 2005. It was presented in a peer-reviewed journal, which adds to its verifiability, and the authors write from a standpoint of academic professionalism, as indicated by the level of their scholarly achievements.

However, on a more critical note, the data sample used was fairly restricted and regionally bound, with no account given of the various factors that necessitated this restricted database. One of the central criticisms of the study is that not enough attention has been given to comparative studies of similar areas of concern. There is therefore considerable doubt as to whether the data sample is sufficiently representative of the wider population to support results that fully validate the main hypothesis.

Central Argument and Hypothesis

The central argument and hypothesis is, in reality, an extrapolation and extension of studies and findings in other areas relating to the possible causes of suicide and homicide rates. The argument makes passing reference to various theories and research connected to the central hypothesis, but this engagement is cursory and not extensive enough to strongly support the main argument. Simply stated, the central argument is that homicide and suicide rates both show a significant correlation over time and tend to coincide within certain time frames or periods. On the basis of this correlation, it is suggested that geophysical and extra-sociological events — such as cosmic rays — can have an effect on suicide and homicide rates.

This hypothesis is essentially based on deductive reasoning extrapolated from other studies. For example, the view that depression can lead to cardiovascular pathology points to the assumption that external influences can be a determining factor in rates of both suicide and homicide. This is a fairly well-accepted starting point, which the researchers use to compare the possible influences of geophysical and solar activity on the rates and incidence of suicide and homicide within a given area. This approach raises the concern that the error of inferring causation from correlation may be present in this study — an aspect explored further below. Related to this is the question of whether there is a fallacy in assuming that what occurs in one field is necessarily replicated in another.

The central argument draws on prior suggestions and findings from other research that attempt to account for factors affecting suicide and homicide rates. For example, reference is made to studies that have posited that environmental factors — as well as social or other causative triggers — affect the rate and distribution of suicide and homicide occurrences. The authors note the connection between serotonin production and environmental physical aspects (Stoupel et al., p. 85).

The argument in the study goes on to suggest, through these references, that there is a correlation between suicide and homicide over time and in certain time periods. This would tend to imply, albeit in a relatively indirect way, that some factor or factors serve as a causative element in this correlation when time is taken into account. The authors deduce from these correlations that geophysical activities play a central role in the rates and distribution of suicide and homicide: "In our study it was shown that not only are homicide and suicide rates correlated by time…but also that both tragic events are linked to environmental physical activity" (Stoupel et al., p. 87). The authors state clearly and categorically that "Our data indicates that cosmic rays are involved in physical and behavioral aspects of human physiology and behavior regulation" (Stoupel et al., p. 87).

The above argument raises a number of concerns. Not least among them is the lack of clarity on the difference between proximate and distal causation. There is little evidence in the research that this distinction has been taken into account, which leads to many other crucial issues that are not dealt with adequately in the paper.

For instance, to what extent are the environmental and geophysical factors relevant given the myriad other aspects that impact the central variables in this study? Insufficient attention has been given to the interaction between variables such as homicide and suicide rates and other influencing factors, including social and psychological issues. There is, for example, only cursory reference to the social and political conditions that would have affected the sample group during the particular time period studied.

In essence, the central critique of this paper's argument — a critique which also extends to other areas of the analysis — is that too many variables are included without being delimited or explained with reference to prior studies and other relevant criteria. Simply put, too many aspects are left unexplained or poorly defined. While the research raises an interesting possibility that may or may not advance understanding of suicide and homicide, it fails to account for the various alternative causes and variables affecting the main issues.

One must also question the generalization involved in bracketing homicide and suicide together under the same overarching view, which tends to ignore the very real differences and the many variables that separate the two phenomena. This criticism also leads to the observation that almost no reference is made in the study to contradictory evidence, and no attempt is made to weigh such evidence in the analysis of findings. Finally, the paper's central argument fails to define its terms clearly and to demarcate the parameters of the study in clear and unequivocal scientific terminology.

References

Stoupel, E., et al. (2005). Suicide-homicide temporal interrelationship, links with other fatalities, and environmental physical activity. Crisis, 26(2), 85–89.

O'Shea, R. (2002). Writing for psychology: An introductory guide for students. Harcourt Brace.

Burton, L. J. (2002). An interactive approach to writing essays and research reports in psychology. John Wiley & Sons.