We describe a data-driven discovery method that leverages Simpson's paradox to uncover interesting patterns in behavioral data. Our method systematically disaggregates data to identify subgroups within a population whose behavior deviates significantly from the rest of the population. Given an outcome of interest and a set of covariates, the method follows three steps. First, it disaggregates data into subgroups, by conditioning on a particular covariate, so as minimize the variation of the outcome within the subgroups. Next, it models the outcome as a linear function of another covariate, both in the subgroups and in the aggregate data. Finally, it compares trends to identify disaggregations that produce subgroups with different behaviors from the aggregate. We illustrate the method by applying it to three real-world behavioral datasets, including Q &A site Stack Exchange and online learning platforms Khan Academy and Duolingo.
When data from two or more groups are combined, patterns previously seen in the data can reverse or disappear altogether. H. James Norton and George Divine explain why this happens, and how to prevent it from leading researchers astray Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. The graduate departments that are easier to enter tend to be those that require more mathematics in the undergraduate preparatory curriculum. The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system. Women are shunted by their socialization and education toward fields of graduate study that are generally more crowded, less productive of completed degrees, and less well funded, and that frequently offer poorer professional employment prospects. 