Correlation vs.

Causation: Differences & Definition

Study.com

When conducting experiments and analyzing data, many people often

confuse the concepts of correlation and causation. In this lesson, you will
learn the differences between the two and how to identify one over the
other.
Correlation vs. Causation
Brandy works in a clothing store.
As she is restocking shelves, she
notices that the sweaters are

ASK QUESTIONS: Did the

sweaters cause her coworkers to
get sick? Explain your answer.

completely gone. She goes into the

inventory area of the store and
finds the sweater boxes. In the
meantime, she gets a call: another
one of her co-workers is calling in
sick. That's the third person this
week! As she restocks the sweaters, Brandy has a thought. Are the sweater
sales causing her coworkers to become ill? Brandy is faced with a common
problem, correlation versus causation.

In this lesson, you will learn about correlation and causation, the differences
between the two and when to tell if something is a correlation or a
causation.
First, correlation and causation both need an independent and dependent
variable. An independent variable is a condition or piece of data in an
experiment that can be controlled or changed. A dependent variable is a
CIRCLE the terms independent variable and dependent variable.
Define each in your own words.

condition or piece of data in an experiment that is controlled or influenced

by an outside factor, most often the independent variable.
If there is a correlation, then sometimes we can assume that the dependent
variable changes solely because the independent variables change. This is
where the debate between correlation and causation occurs. However, there
is a difference between cause and effect (causation) and relationship
(correlation). Sometimes these areas can be confused and muddled when
analyzing data.
Defining Correlation
You probably know that a correlation is the relationship between two sets
of variables used to describe or predict information. There is an emphasis

here on relationship. Sometimes we can use correlation to find causality, but

not always. Remember that
correlation can either be positive or
negative.

CIRCLE the term correlation

and then define the term in your
own words using the information
in the paragraph.

Graph 1 is called a positive

correlation, where the dependent
variables and independent variables
in a data set increase or decrease
together. This means that there is a
positive relationship between the number of sweaters sold at Brandy's store
and the frequency of illnesses that occur with Brandy's coworkers.

If the numbers sloped downward, like the line in Graph 2, then you have a
data set with a negative correlation where the dependent variables and
independent variables in a data set either increase or decrease opposite
from one another. That means if the independent variables decrease, then
the dependent variable would increase, and vice versa. In this example,
Brandy notices that the more shorts that are sold, the fewer illnesses there
SUMMARY: Draw an example of a positive and negative correlation and
label each.

are, but the more vacation time her coworkers use.

So the question is: do shorts or sweater sales cause illnesses or vacation?
You might have guessed that it isn't the clothing that is causing this change;
these things are just correlated, but not cause and effect.
Defining Causation
Causation, also known as cause and effect, is when an observed event or
action appears to have caused a second event or action. For example, I
bought a brand new bed comforter and placed it in my washing machine to
be cleaned. After cleaning the comforter, my washing machine stopped
working. I may assume that the first action, washing the comforter, caused

the second action, broken washing

machine.

CIRCLE the term causation and

define the term in your own words
using the information in the
paragraph.

Brandy decides to rearrange the inventory on her floor. She puts the athletic
wear and shoes in a prominent spot in the store, puts the swimwear next to
the front register and moves the
business attire to a less conspicuous

CIRCLE the term conspicuous

and use the dictionary to define
the term.

spot. Over the next few weeks she

notices a change in her employees.
They are more active, eat healthier
and take walks on their breaks. Could the athletic wear in a prominent spot
cause the employees to have the motivation to be healthier? She tries an
experiment, exchanging the athletic wear and the business wear. Over the
next few weeks, Brandy doesn't notice a change in the employees' behavior.
She asks them what caused them to suddenly want to work out and live a

SUMMARY: What made the employees change their behavior? Was this
a causation or correlation?

healthier life style. Was it the athletic wear? No, they tell her. It was the
swimsuits by the front register reminding them that spring break was
coming around the corner.

Identifying Correlation or Causation

Unfortunately, there is no tried and true way of identifying causation. We
can find many correlations in research, but the causation often requires a
separate experiment. For example, Brandy did not know if the athletic wear
was the causation or just a correlation until she rearranged the inventory a
second time. However, you can identify instances of likely causation. Let's
look at a few examples.

Causation vs Correlation
by Rebecca Goldin | Aug 19, 2015 | Causality, Savvy stats reporting, Correlation is not causation

Journalists are constantly being reminded that correlation doesnt imply

CIRCLE at least two words that
you do not know. Then use the
SUMMARY: What is the difference between correlation and causation?
dictionary to find the definitions.

causation; yet, conflating the two

remains one of the most common errors

in

news reporting on scientific and healthrelated studies. In theory, these are

easy to distinguishan action or
occurrence can cause another (such as
smoking causes lung cancer), or it
can correlate with another (such as
smoking is correlated with high alcohol
consumption). If one action causes another, then they are most certainly correlated.
But just because two things occur together does not mean that one caused the other,
even if it seems to make sense.
Unfortunately, intuition can lead us astray when it comes to distinguishing
between the two. For example, eating breakfast has long been correlated with success
in school for elementary school children. It would be easy to conclude that eating
breakfast causes students to be better learners. Is this a causal relationshipdoes
breakfast by itself create better students? Or is it only a correlation: perhaps not having
breakfast correlates highly with other challenges in kids lives that make them poorer

students, such as less educated parents, worse socio-economic status, less focus on
school at home, and lower expectations.

ASK QUESTIONS: Ask at

least one question about
this paragraph.

SUMMARY: Do you think eating breakfast causes students to be better

learners or is it a correlation? Explain your response.

It turns out that kids who dont eat breakfast are also more likely to be absent or
tardyand absenteeism plays a significant role in their poor performance. This may
lead one to believe that there is not a causal relationship. Yet breakfast may encourage
kids to come to school (and on-time), which then improves their performance in school,
and so perhaps encourages attendance, which then results in better performance. In
a recent literature review, there were
mixed results suggesting that the
advantages of breakfast depend on the

CIRCLE the term literature

review. Use context clues to
predict what you think the term
means.

population, the type of breakfast

provided, and the measurement of
benefit for the kids. Breakfast seems

to

have an overall positive impact on

cognitive performance, especially memory tasks and focus. Not surprisingly, the benefit
seems greater for kids who are undernourished. But the clear message here is that a
causal relationship has been extremely hard to establish, and remains in question.
Many studies are designed to test a correlation, but cannot possibly lead us to a
causal conclusion; and yet, obvious reasons for the correlation abound, tempting us
toward a potentially incorrect conclusion. People learn of a study showing that girls
who watch soap operas are more likely to have eating disorders a
correlation between soap opera watching and eating disordersbut then
they incorrectly conclude that watching soap operas gives girls eating disorders. It is

entirely possible that girls who are prone to eating disorders are also attracted to soap
operas.
SUMMARY: What would be another example of a correlation that could
mistakenly be identified as a causation?

There are several reasons why common sense conclusions about cause and
effect might be wrong. Correlated occurrences may
ASK QUESTIONS: Ask at
least one question about
this paragraph.

be due to a common cause. For example, the fact

that red hair is correlated with blue eyes stems from
a common genetic specification that codes for both.
A correlation may also be observed when there is
causality behind itfor example, it is well
established that cigarette smoking not only
correlates with lung cancer but actually causes it.

But in order to establish cause, we have to rule out the possibility that smokers are
more likely to live in urban areas, where there is more pollutionand any other
possible explanation for the observed correlation.
In many cases, it seems obvious that one action causes another; however, there
are also many cases when it is not so clear (except perhaps to the already-convinced
observer). In the case of soap-opera watching anorexics, we can neither exclude nor
embrace the hypothesis that the television is a cause of the problemadditional

research would be needed to make a convincing argument for causality. Another

hypothesis might be that girls inclined to suffer poor body image are drawn to soap
operas on television because it satisfies some need related to their poor body image.
Or it could be that neither causes the other, but rather there is a common traitsay, an
overemphasis on appearance in the girls environmentthat causes both an interest in
soap operas and an inclination to develop eating disorders. None of these hypotheses
are tested in a study that simply asks who is watching soaps and who is developing
HIGHLIGHT the one sentence that you find most interesting in the
paragraph above.
eating disorders, and finding a correlation between the two.
How, then, does one ever establish causality? This is one of the most daunting
challenges of public health professionals and pharmaceutical companies. The most
effective way of doing this is through a controlled study. In a controlled study, two
groups of people who are comparable in almost
every way are given two different sets of
experiences (such one group watching soap

CIRCLE the term

controlled study. Define
the term using the
information found in this
paragraph.

operas and the other game shows), and the

outcome is compared. If the two groups have
substantially different outcomes, then the different
experiences may have caused the different
outcome.
There are obvious ethical limits to controlled
studies: it would be problematic to take two comparable groups and make one smoke
while denying cigarettes to the other in order to see if cigarette smoking really causes

lung cancer. This is why epidemiological (or observational) studies are so important.
These are studies in which large groups of people are followed over time, and their
behavior and outcome is also observed. In these studies, it is extremely difficult
(though sometimes still possible) to tease out cause and effect, versus a mere
correlation.
Typically, one can only establish a causal relationship if the effects are extremely
notable and there is no reasonable explanation that challenges causality. This was the
CIRCLE at least two words
that you do not know.
Then use the dictionary to
find the definitions.

case with cigarette smoking, for example. At the

time that scientists, industry trade groups, activists
and individuals were debating whether the
observed correlation between heavy cigarette
smoking and lung cancer was causal or not, many
other hypotheses were considered (such as sleep
deprivation or excessive drinking) and each one
dismissed as insufficiently describing the data. It is
now a widespread belief among scientists and

health professionals that smoking does indeed cause lung cancer.

When the stakes are high, people are much more likely to jump to causal
conclusions. This seems to be doubly true when it comes to public suspicion about
chemicals and environmental pollution. There has been a lot of publicity over the
purported relationship between autism and vaccinations, for example. As vaccination
rates went up across the United States, so did autism. And if you splice the data in just

the right way, it looks like some kids with autism have had more vaccinations.
However, this correlation (which has led many to
conclude that vaccination causes autism) has

ASK QUESTIONS: Ask at

least one question about
this paragraph.

been widely dismissed by public health experts.

The rise in autism rates is likely to do with
increased awareness and diagnosis, or one of
many other possible factors that have changed
over the past 50 years.
Language further contorts the distinction, as some media outlets use words that
imply causality without saying it. A recent example in Oklahoma occurred when its
Governor, Mary Fallin, said there was a direct correlation between a recent increase
in earthquakes and wastewater disposal wells. She would have liked to say that the
wells caused the earthquakes, but the research only shows a correlation. Rather than
misspeak, she embellished correlation with direct so that it sounds causal.
At times, a correlation does not have a clear explanation, and at other times we fill in
the explanation. A recent news story reports that housing prices in D.C. correlate with
reading proficiency. Many stories can be crafted to explain the phenomenon, but most
people would be reluctant to conclude that a childs reading proficiency could cause the
price of their house to be higher or lower, or vice-versa. In contrast, a
news story reporting that 30 years of research found a positive correlation between
family involvement and a students academic success in Florida feels like it has the

weight of causality. The big difference between these two different correlations is our
own belief in a likely mechanism for family to contribute to better grades.
In general, we should all be wary of our own bias: we like explanations. The media
often concludes a causal relationship among correlated observances when causality
was not even considered by the study itself. Without clear reasons to accept causality,
we should only accept the existence of a correlation. Two events occurring in close
proximity does not imply that one caused the other, even if it seems to makes perfect
sense.
HIGHLIGHT two phrases that make correlation sound like causation.