what is a correlational hypothesis

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.2: Correlation Hypothesis Test

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 25691

The correlation coefficient, \(r\), tells us about the strength and direction of the linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\). However, the reliability of the linear model also depends on how many observed data points are in the sample. We need to look at both the value of the correlation coefficient \(r\) and the sample size \(n\), together. We perform a hypothesis test of the "significance of the correlation coefficient" to decide whether the linear relationship in the sample data is strong enough to use to model the relationship in the population.

The sample data are used to compute \(r\), the correlation coefficient for the sample. If we had data for the entire population, we could find the population correlation coefficient. But because we have only sample data, we cannot calculate the population correlation coefficient. The sample correlation coefficient, \(r\), is our estimate of the unknown population correlation coefficient.

• The symbol for the population correlation coefficient is \(\rho\), the Greek letter "rho."
• \(\rho =\) population correlation coefficient (unknown)
• \(r =\) sample correlation coefficient (known; calculated from sample data)

The hypothesis test lets us decide whether the value of the population correlation coefficient \(\rho\) is "close to zero" or "significantly different from zero". We decide this based on the sample correlation coefficient \(r\) and the sample size \(n\).

If the test concludes that the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero, we say that the correlation coefficient is "significant."

• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) because the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero.
• What the conclusion means: There is a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\). We can use the regression line to model the linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population.

If the test concludes that the correlation coefficient is not significantly different from zero (it is close to zero), we say that correlation coefficient is "not significant".

• Conclusion: "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) because the correlation coefficient is not significantly different from zero."
• What the conclusion means: There is not a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\). Therefore, we CANNOT use the regression line to model a linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population.
• If \(r\) is significant and the scatter plot shows a linear trend, the line can be used to predict the value of \(y\) for values of \(x\) that are within the domain of observed \(x\) values.
• If \(r\) is not significant OR if the scatter plot does not show a linear trend, the line should not be used for prediction.
• If \(r\) is significant and if the scatter plot shows a linear trend, the line may NOT be appropriate or reliable for prediction OUTSIDE the domain of observed \(x\) values in the data.

PERFORMING THE HYPOTHESIS TEST

• Null Hypothesis: \(H_{0}: \rho = 0\)
• Alternate Hypothesis: \(H_{a}: \rho \neq 0\)

WHAT THE HYPOTHESES MEAN IN WORDS:

• Null Hypothesis \(H_{0}\) : The population correlation coefficient IS NOT significantly different from zero. There IS NOT a significant linear relationship(correlation) between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population.
• Alternate Hypothesis \(H_{a}\) : The population correlation coefficient IS significantly DIFFERENT FROM zero. There IS A SIGNIFICANT LINEAR RELATIONSHIP (correlation) between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population.

DRAWING A CONCLUSION:There are two methods of making the decision. The two methods are equivalent and give the same result.

• Method 1: Using the \(p\text{-value}\)
• Method 2: Using a table of critical values

In this chapter of this textbook, we will always use a significance level of 5%, \(\alpha = 0.05\)

Using the \(p\text{-value}\) method, you could choose any appropriate significance level you want; you are not limited to using \(\alpha = 0.05\). But the table of critical values provided in this textbook assumes that we are using a significance level of 5%, \(\alpha = 0.05\). (If we wanted to use a different significance level than 5% with the critical value method, we would need different tables of critical values that are not provided in this textbook.)

METHOD 1: Using a \(p\text{-value}\) to make a decision

Using the ti83, 83+, 84, 84+ calculator.

To calculate the \(p\text{-value}\) using LinRegTTEST:

On the LinRegTTEST input screen, on the line prompt for \(\beta\) or \(\rho\), highlight "\(\neq 0\)"

The output screen shows the \(p\text{-value}\) on the line that reads "\(p =\)".

(Most computer statistical software can calculate the \(p\text{-value}\).)

If the \(p\text{-value}\) is less than the significance level ( \(\alpha = 0.05\) ):

• Decision: Reject the null hypothesis.
• Conclusion: "There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) because the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero."

If the \(p\text{-value}\) is NOT less than the significance level ( \(\alpha = 0.05\) )

• Decision: DO NOT REJECT the null hypothesis.
• Conclusion: "There is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) because the correlation coefficient is NOT significantly different from zero."

Calculation Notes:

• You will use technology to calculate the \(p\text{-value}\). The following describes the calculations to compute the test statistics and the \(p\text{-value}\):
• The \(p\text{-value}\) is calculated using a \(t\)-distribution with \(n - 2\) degrees of freedom.
• The formula for the test statistic is \(t = \frac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-r^{2}}}\). The value of the test statistic, \(t\), is shown in the computer or calculator output along with the \(p\text{-value}\). The test statistic \(t\) has the same sign as the correlation coefficient \(r\).
• The \(p\text{-value}\) is the combined area in both tails.

An alternative way to calculate the \(p\text{-value}\) ( \(p\) ) given by LinRegTTest is the command 2*tcdf(abs(t),10^99, n-2) in 2nd DISTR.

THIRD-EXAM vs FINAL-EXAM EXAMPLE: \(p\text{-value}\) method

• Consider the third exam/final exam example.
• The line of best fit is: \(\hat{y} = -173.51 + 4.83x\) with \(r = 0.6631\) and there are \(n = 11\) data points.
• Can the regression line be used for prediction? Given a third exam score ( \(x\) value), can we use the line to predict the final exam score (predicted \(y\) value)?
• \(H_{0}: \rho = 0\)
• \(H_{a}: \rho \neq 0\)
• \(\alpha = 0.05\)
• The \(p\text{-value}\) is 0.026 (from LinRegTTest on your calculator or from computer software).
• The \(p\text{-value}\), 0.026, is less than the significance level of \(\alpha = 0.05\).
• Decision: Reject the Null Hypothesis \(H_{0}\)
• Conclusion: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between the third exam score (\(x\)) and the final exam score (\(y\)) because the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero.

Because \(r\) is significant and the scatter plot shows a linear trend, the regression line can be used to predict final exam scores.

METHOD 2: Using a table of Critical Values to make a decision

The 95% Critical Values of the Sample Correlation Coefficient Table can be used to give you a good idea of whether the computed value of \(r\) is significant or not . Compare \(r\) to the appropriate critical value in the table. If \(r\) is not between the positive and negative critical values, then the correlation coefficient is significant. If \(r\) is significant, then you may want to use the line for prediction.

Example \(\PageIndex{1}\)

Suppose you computed \(r = 0.801\) using \(n = 10\) data points. \(df = n - 2 = 10 - 2 = 8\). The critical values associated with \(df = 8\) are \(-0.632\) and \(+0.632\). If \(r <\) negative critical value or \(r >\) positive critical value, then \(r\) is significant. Since \(r = 0.801\) and \(0.801 > 0.632\), \(r\) is significant and the line may be used for prediction. If you view this example on a number line, it will help you.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{1}\)

For a given line of best fit, you computed that \(r = 0.6501\) using \(n = 12\) data points and the critical value is 0.576. Can the line be used for prediction? Why or why not?

If the scatter plot looks linear then, yes, the line can be used for prediction, because \(r >\) the positive critical value.

Example \(\PageIndex{2}\)

Suppose you computed \(r = –0.624\) with 14 data points. \(df = 14 – 2 = 12\). The critical values are \(-0.532\) and \(0.532\). Since \(-0.624 < -0.532\), \(r\) is significant and the line can be used for prediction

Exercise \(\PageIndex{2}\)

For a given line of best fit, you compute that \(r = 0.5204\) using \(n = 9\) data points, and the critical value is \(0.666\). Can the line be used for prediction? Why or why not?

No, the line cannot be used for prediction, because \(r <\) the positive critical value.

Example \(\PageIndex{3}\)

Suppose you computed \(r = 0.776\) and \(n = 6\). \(df = 6 - 2 = 4\). The critical values are \(-0.811\) and \(0.811\). Since \(-0.811 < 0.776 < 0.811\), \(r\) is not significant, and the line should not be used for prediction.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{3}\)

For a given line of best fit, you compute that \(r = -0.7204\) using \(n = 8\) data points, and the critical value is \(= 0.707\). Can the line be used for prediction? Why or why not?

Yes, the line can be used for prediction, because \(r <\) the negative critical value.

THIRD-EXAM vs FINAL-EXAM EXAMPLE: critical value method

Consider the third exam/final exam example. The line of best fit is: \(\hat{y} = -173.51 + 4.83x\) with \(r = 0.6631\) and there are \(n = 11\) data points. Can the regression line be used for prediction? Given a third-exam score ( \(x\) value), can we use the line to predict the final exam score (predicted \(y\) value)?

• Use the "95% Critical Value" table for \(r\) with \(df = n - 2 = 11 - 2 = 9\).
• The critical values are \(-0.602\) and \(+0.602\)
• Since \(0.6631 > 0.602\), \(r\) is significant.
• Conclusion:There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between the third exam score (\(x\)) and the final exam score (\(y\)) because the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero.

Example \(\PageIndex{4}\)

Suppose you computed the following correlation coefficients. Using the table at the end of the chapter, determine if \(r\) is significant and the line of best fit associated with each r can be used to predict a \(y\) value. If it helps, draw a number line.

• \(r = –0.567\) and the sample size, \(n\), is \(19\). The \(df = n - 2 = 17\). The critical value is \(-0.456\). \(-0.567 < -0.456\) so \(r\) is significant.
• \(r = 0.708\) and the sample size, \(n\), is \(9\). The \(df = n - 2 = 7\). The critical value is \(0.666\). \(0.708 > 0.666\) so \(r\) is significant.
• \(r = 0.134\) and the sample size, \(n\), is \(14\). The \(df = 14 - 2 = 12\). The critical value is \(0.532\). \(0.134\) is between \(-0.532\) and \(0.532\) so \(r\) is not significant.
• \(r = 0\) and the sample size, \(n\), is five. No matter what the \(dfs\) are, \(r = 0\) is between the two critical values so \(r\) is not significant.

Exercise \(\PageIndex{4}\)

For a given line of best fit, you compute that \(r = 0\) using \(n = 100\) data points. Can the line be used for prediction? Why or why not?

No, the line cannot be used for prediction no matter what the sample size is.

Assumptions in Testing the Significance of the Correlation Coefficient

Testing the significance of the correlation coefficient requires that certain assumptions about the data are satisfied. The premise of this test is that the data are a sample of observed points taken from a larger population. We have not examined the entire population because it is not possible or feasible to do so. We are examining the sample to draw a conclusion about whether the linear relationship that we see between \(x\) and \(y\) in the sample data provides strong enough evidence so that we can conclude that there is a linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population.

The regression line equation that we calculate from the sample data gives the best-fit line for our particular sample. We want to use this best-fit line for the sample as an estimate of the best-fit line for the population. Examining the scatter plot and testing the significance of the correlation coefficient helps us determine if it is appropriate to do this.

The assumptions underlying the test of significance are:

• There is a linear relationship in the population that models the average value of \(y\) for varying values of \(x\). In other words, the expected value of \(y\) for each particular value lies on a straight line in the population. (We do not know the equation for the line for the population. Our regression line from the sample is our best estimate of this line in the population.)
• The \(y\) values for any particular \(x\) value are normally distributed about the line. This implies that there are more \(y\) values scattered closer to the line than are scattered farther away. Assumption (1) implies that these normal distributions are centered on the line: the means of these normal distributions of \(y\) values lie on the line.
• The standard deviations of the population \(y\) values about the line are equal for each value of \(x\). In other words, each of these normal distributions of \(y\) values has the same shape and spread about the line.
• The residual errors are mutually independent (no pattern).
• The data are produced from a well-designed, random sample or randomized experiment.

Linear regression is a procedure for fitting a straight line of the form \(\hat{y} = a + bx\) to data. The conditions for regression are:

• Linear In the population, there is a linear relationship that models the average value of \(y\) for different values of \(x\).
• Independent The residuals are assumed to be independent.
• Normal The \(y\) values are distributed normally for any value of \(x\).
• Equal variance The standard deviation of the \(y\) values is equal for each \(x\) value.
• Random The data are produced from a well-designed random sample or randomized experiment.

The slope \(b\) and intercept \(a\) of the least-squares line estimate the slope \(\beta\) and intercept \(\alpha\) of the population (true) regression line. To estimate the population standard deviation of \(y\), \(\sigma\), use the standard deviation of the residuals, \(s\). \(s = \sqrt{\frac{SEE}{n-2}}\). The variable \(\rho\) (rho) is the population correlation coefficient. To test the null hypothesis \(H_{0}: \rho =\) hypothesized value , use a linear regression t-test. The most common null hypothesis is \(H_{0}: \rho = 0\) which indicates there is no linear relationship between \(x\) and \(y\) in the population. The TI-83, 83+, 84, 84+ calculator function LinRegTTest can perform this test (STATS TESTS LinRegTTest).

Formula Review

Least Squares Line or Line of Best Fit:

\[\hat{y} = a + bx\]

\[a = y\text{-intercept}\]

\[b = \text{slope}\]

Standard deviation of the residuals:

\[s = \sqrt{\frac{SSE}{n-2}}\]

\[SSE = \text{sum of squared errors}\]

\[n = \text{the number of data points}\]

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

7.2 Correlational Research

Learning objectives.

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of nonexperimental research.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of nonexperimental research in which the researcher measures two variables and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are essentially two reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms independent variable and dependent variable do not apply to this kind of research.

The other reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, Allen Kanner and his colleagues thought that the number of “daily hassles” (e.g., rude salespeople, heavy traffic) that people experience affects the number of physical and psychological symptoms they have (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). But because they could not manipulate the number of daily hassles their participants experienced, they had to settle for measuring the number of daily hassles—along with the number of symptoms—using self-report questionnaires. Although the strong positive relationship they found between these two variables is consistent with their idea that hassles cause symptoms, it is also consistent with the idea that symptoms cause hassles or that some third variable (e.g., neuroticism) causes both.

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 7.2 “Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists” shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. It is how the study is conducted.

Figure 7.2 Results of a Hypothetical Study on Whether People Who Make Daily To-Do Lists Experience Less Stress Than People Who Do Not Make Such Lists

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. However, because some approaches to data collection are strongly associated with correlational research, it makes sense to discuss them here. The two we will focus on are naturalistic observation and archival data. A third, survey research, is discussed in its own chapter.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is an approach to data collection that involves observing people’s behavior in the environment in which it typically occurs. Thus naturalistic observation is a type of field research (as opposed to a type of laboratory research). It could involve observing shoppers in a grocery store, children on a school playground, or psychiatric inpatients in their wards. Researchers engaged in naturalistic observation usually make their observations as unobtrusively as possible so that participants are often not aware that they are being studied. Ethically, this is considered to be acceptable if the participants remain anonymous and the behavior occurs in a public setting where people would not normally have an expectation of privacy. Grocery shoppers putting items into their shopping carts, for example, are engaged in public behavior that is easily observable by store employees and other shoppers. For this reason, most researchers would consider it ethically acceptable to observe them for a study. On the other hand, one of the arguments against the ethicality of the naturalistic observation of “bathroom behavior” discussed earlier in the book is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy even in a public restroom and that this expectation was violated.

Researchers Robert Levine and Ara Norenzayan used naturalistic observation to study differences in the “pace of life” across countries (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999). One of their measures involved observing pedestrians in a large city to see how long it took them to walk 60 feet. They found that people in some countries walked reliably faster than people in other countries. For example, people in the United States and Japan covered 60 feet in about 12 seconds on average, while people in Brazil and Romania took close to 17 seconds.

Because naturalistic observation takes place in the complex and even chaotic “real world,” there are two closely related issues that researchers must deal with before collecting data. The first is sampling. When, where, and under what conditions will the observations be made, and who exactly will be observed? Levine and Norenzayan described their sampling process as follows:

Male and female walking speed over a distance of 60 feet was measured in at least two locations in main downtown areas in each city. Measurements were taken during main business hours on clear summer days. All locations were flat, unobstructed, had broad sidewalks, and were sufficiently uncrowded to allow pedestrians to move at potentially maximum speeds. To control for the effects of socializing, only pedestrians walking alone were used. Children, individuals with obvious physical handicaps, and window-shoppers were not timed. Thirty-five men and 35 women were timed in most cities. (p. 186)

Precise specification of the sampling process in this way makes data collection manageable for the observers, and it also provides some control over important extraneous variables. For example, by making their observations on clear summer days in all countries, Levine and Norenzayan controlled for effects of the weather on people’s walking speeds.

The second issue is measurement. What specific behaviors will be observed? In Levine and Norenzayan’s study, measurement was relatively straightforward. They simply measured out a 60-foot distance along a city sidewalk and then used a stopwatch to time participants as they walked over that distance. Often, however, the behaviors of interest are not so obvious or objective. For example, researchers Robert Kraut and Robert Johnston wanted to study bowlers’ reactions to their shots, both when they were facing the pins and then when they turned toward their companions (Kraut & Johnston, 1979). But what “reactions” should they observe? Based on previous research and their own pilot testing, Kraut and Johnston created a list of reactions that included “closed smile,” “open smile,” “laugh,” “neutral face,” “look down,” “look away,” and “face cover” (covering one’s face with one’s hands). The observers committed this list to memory and then practiced by coding the reactions of bowlers who had been videotaped. During the actual study, the observers spoke into an audio recorder, describing the reactions they observed. Among the most interesting results of this study was that bowlers rarely smiled while they still faced the pins. They were much more likely to smile after they turned toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

Naturalistic observation has revealed that bowlers tend to smile when they turn away from the pins and toward their companions, suggesting that smiling is not purely an expression of happiness but also a form of social communication.

sieneke toering – bowling big lebowski style – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

When the observations require a judgment on the part of the observers—as in Kraut and Johnston’s study—this process is often described as coding . Coding generally requires clearly defining a set of target behaviors. The observers then categorize participants individually in terms of which behavior they have engaged in and the number of times they engaged in each behavior. The observers might even record the duration of each behavior. The target behaviors must be defined in such a way that different observers code them in the same way. This is the issue of interrater reliability. Researchers are expected to demonstrate the interrater reliability of their coding procedure by having multiple raters code the same behaviors independently and then showing that the different observers are in close agreement. Kraut and Johnston, for example, video recorded a subset of their participants’ reactions and had two observers independently code them. The two observers showed that they agreed on the reactions that were exhibited 97% of the time, indicating good interrater reliability.

Archival Data

Another approach to correlational research is the use of archival data , which are data that have already been collected for some other purpose. An example is a study by Brett Pelham and his colleagues on “implicit egotism”—the tendency for people to prefer people, places, and things that are similar to themselves (Pelham, Carvallo, & Jones, 2005). In one study, they examined Social Security records to show that women with the names Virginia, Georgia, Louise, and Florence were especially likely to have moved to the states of Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, and Florida, respectively.

As with naturalistic observation, measurement can be more or less straightforward when working with archival data. For example, counting the number of people named Virginia who live in various states based on Social Security records is relatively straightforward. But consider a study by Christopher Peterson and his colleagues on the relationship between optimism and health using data that had been collected many years before for a study on adult development (Peterson, Seligman, & Vaillant, 1988). In the 1940s, healthy male college students had completed an open-ended questionnaire about difficult wartime experiences. In the late 1980s, Peterson and his colleagues reviewed the men’s questionnaire responses to obtain a measure of explanatory style—their habitual ways of explaining bad events that happen to them. More pessimistic people tend to blame themselves and expect long-term negative consequences that affect many aspects of their lives, while more optimistic people tend to blame outside forces and expect limited negative consequences. To obtain a measure of explanatory style for each participant, the researchers used a procedure in which all negative events mentioned in the questionnaire responses, and any causal explanations for them, were identified and written on index cards. These were given to a separate group of raters who rated each explanation in terms of three separate dimensions of optimism-pessimism. These ratings were then averaged to produce an explanatory style score for each participant. The researchers then assessed the statistical relationship between the men’s explanatory style as college students and archival measures of their health at approximately 60 years of age. The primary result was that the more optimistic the men were as college students, the healthier they were as older men. Pearson’s r was +.25.

This is an example of content analysis —a family of systematic approaches to measurement using complex archival data. Just as naturalistic observation requires specifying the behaviors of interest and then noting them as they occur, content analysis requires specifying keywords, phrases, or ideas and then finding all occurrences of them in the data. These occurrences can then be counted, timed (e.g., the amount of time devoted to entertainment topics on the nightly news show), or analyzed in a variety of other ways.

Key Takeaways

• Correlational research involves measuring two variables and assessing the relationship between them, with no manipulation of an independent variable.
• Correlational research is not defined by where or how the data are collected. However, some approaches to data collection are strongly associated with correlational research. These include naturalistic observation (in which researchers observe people’s behavior in the context in which it normally occurs) and the use of archival data that were already collected for some other purpose.

Discussion: For each of the following, decide whether it is most likely that the study described is experimental or correlational and explain why.

• An educational researcher compares the academic performance of students from the “rich” side of town with that of students from the “poor” side of town.
• A cognitive psychologist compares the ability of people to recall words that they were instructed to “read” with their ability to recall words that they were instructed to “imagine.”
• A manager studies the correlation between new employees’ college grade point averages and their first-year performance reports.
• An automotive engineer installs different stick shifts in a new car prototype, each time asking several people to rate how comfortable the stick shift feels.
• A food scientist studies the relationship between the temperature inside people’s refrigerators and the amount of bacteria on their food.
• A social psychologist tells some research participants that they need to hurry over to the next building to complete a study. She tells others that they can take their time. Then she observes whether they stop to help a research assistant who is pretending to be hurt.

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4 , 1–39.

Kraut, R. E., & Johnston, R. E. (1979). Social and emotional messages of smiling: An ethological approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 , 1539–1553.

Levine, R. V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30 , 178–205.

Pelham, B. W., Carvallo, M., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Implicit egotism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 , 106–110.

Peterson, C., Seligman, M. E. P., & Vaillant, G. E. (1988). Pessimistic explanatory style is a risk factor for physical illness: A thirty-five year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 23–27.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Sciencing_Icons_Science SCIENCE

Sciencing_icons_biology biology, sciencing_icons_cells cells, sciencing_icons_molecular molecular, sciencing_icons_microorganisms microorganisms, sciencing_icons_genetics genetics, sciencing_icons_human body human body, sciencing_icons_ecology ecology, sciencing_icons_chemistry chemistry, sciencing_icons_atomic &amp; molecular structure atomic & molecular structure, sciencing_icons_bonds bonds, sciencing_icons_reactions reactions, sciencing_icons_stoichiometry stoichiometry, sciencing_icons_solutions solutions, sciencing_icons_acids &amp; bases acids & bases, sciencing_icons_thermodynamics thermodynamics, sciencing_icons_organic chemistry organic chemistry, sciencing_icons_physics physics, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-physics fundamentals, sciencing_icons_electronics electronics, sciencing_icons_waves waves, sciencing_icons_energy energy, sciencing_icons_fluid fluid, sciencing_icons_astronomy astronomy, sciencing_icons_geology geology, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geology fundamentals, sciencing_icons_minerals &amp; rocks minerals & rocks, sciencing_icons_earth scructure earth structure, sciencing_icons_fossils fossils, sciencing_icons_natural disasters natural disasters, sciencing_icons_nature nature, sciencing_icons_ecosystems ecosystems, sciencing_icons_environment environment, sciencing_icons_insects insects, sciencing_icons_plants &amp; mushrooms plants & mushrooms, sciencing_icons_animals animals, sciencing_icons_math math, sciencing_icons_arithmetic arithmetic, sciencing_icons_addition &amp; subtraction addition & subtraction, sciencing_icons_multiplication &amp; division multiplication & division, sciencing_icons_decimals decimals, sciencing_icons_fractions fractions, sciencing_icons_conversions conversions, sciencing_icons_algebra algebra, sciencing_icons_working with units working with units, sciencing_icons_equations &amp; expressions equations & expressions, sciencing_icons_ratios &amp; proportions ratios & proportions, sciencing_icons_inequalities inequalities, sciencing_icons_exponents &amp; logarithms exponents & logarithms, sciencing_icons_factorization factorization, sciencing_icons_functions functions, sciencing_icons_linear equations linear equations, sciencing_icons_graphs graphs, sciencing_icons_quadratics quadratics, sciencing_icons_polynomials polynomials, sciencing_icons_geometry geometry, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geometry fundamentals, sciencing_icons_cartesian cartesian, sciencing_icons_circles circles, sciencing_icons_solids solids, sciencing_icons_trigonometry trigonometry, sciencing_icons_probability-statistics probability & statistics, sciencing_icons_mean-median-mode mean/median/mode, sciencing_icons_independent-dependent variables independent/dependent variables, sciencing_icons_deviation deviation, sciencing_icons_correlation correlation, sciencing_icons_sampling sampling, sciencing_icons_distributions distributions, sciencing_icons_probability probability, sciencing_icons_calculus calculus, sciencing_icons_differentiation-integration differentiation/integration, sciencing_icons_application application, sciencing_icons_projects projects, sciencing_icons_news news.

• Share Tweet Email Print
• Home ⋅
• Math ⋅
• Probability & Statistics ⋅
• Distributions

How to Write a Hypothesis for Correlation

How to Calculate a P-Value

A hypothesis is a testable statement about how something works in the natural world. While some hypotheses predict a causal relationship between two variables, other hypotheses predict a correlation between them. According to the Research Methods Knowledge Base, a correlation is a single number that describes the relationship between two variables. If you do not predict a causal relationship or cannot measure one objectively, state clearly in your hypothesis that you are merely predicting a correlation.

Research the topic in depth before forming a hypothesis. Without adequate knowledge about the subject matter, you will not be able to decide whether to write a hypothesis for correlation or causation. Read the findings of similar experiments before writing your own hypothesis.

Identify the independent variable and dependent variable. Your hypothesis will be concerned with what happens to the dependent variable when a change is made in the independent variable. In a correlation, the two variables undergo changes at the same time in a significant number of cases. However, this does not mean that the change in the independent variable causes the change in the dependent variable.

Construct an experiment to test your hypothesis. In a correlative experiment, you must be able to measure the exact relationship between two variables. This means you will need to find out how often a change occurs in both variables in terms of a specific percentage.

Establish the requirements of the experiment with regard to statistical significance. Instruct readers exactly how often the variables must correlate to reach a high enough level of statistical significance. This number will vary considerably depending on the field. In a highly technical scientific study, for instance, the variables may need to correlate 98 percent of the time; but in a sociological study, 90 percent correlation may suffice. Look at other studies in your particular field to determine the requirements for statistical significance.

State the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis gives an exact value that implies there is no correlation between the two variables. If the results show a percentage equal to or lower than the value of the null hypothesis, then the variables are not proven to correlate.

Record and summarize the results of your experiment. State whether or not the experiment met the minimum requirements of your hypothesis in terms of both percentage and significance.

Related Articles

How to determine the sample size in a quantitative..., how to calculate a two-tailed test, how to interpret a student's t-test results, how to know if something is significant using spss, quantitative vs. qualitative data and laboratory testing, similarities of univariate & multivariate statistical..., what is the meaning of sample size, distinguishing between descriptive & causal studies, how to calculate cv values, how to determine your practice clep score, what are the different types of correlations, how to calculate p-hat, how to calculate percentage error, how to calculate percent relative range, how to calculate a sample size population, how to calculate bias, how to calculate the percentage of another number, how to find y value for the slope of a line, advantages & disadvantages of finding variance.

• University of New England; Steps in Hypothesis Testing for Correlation; 2000
• Research Methods Knowledge Base; Correlation; William M.K. Trochim; 2006
• Science Buddies; Hypothesis

About the Author

Brian Gabriel has been a writer and blogger since 2009, contributing to various online publications. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in history from Whitworth University.

Photo Credits

Thinkstock/Comstock/Getty Images

Find Your Next Great Science Fair Project! GO

We Have More Great Sciencing Articles!

How to Determine the Sample Size in a Quantitative Research Study

User Preferences

Content preview.

Arcu felis bibendum ut tristique et egestas quis:

• Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris
• Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate
• Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident

Keyboard Shortcuts

1.9 - hypothesis test for the population correlation coefficient.

There is one more point we haven't stressed yet in our discussion about the correlation coefficient r and the coefficient of determination \(R^{2}\) — namely, the two measures summarize the strength of a linear relationship in samples only . If we obtained a different sample, we would obtain different correlations, different \(R^{2}\) values, and therefore potentially different conclusions. As always, we want to draw conclusions about populations , not just samples. To do so, we either have to conduct a hypothesis test or calculate a confidence interval. In this section, we learn how to conduct a hypothesis test for the population correlation coefficient \(\rho\) (the greek letter "rho").

In general, a researcher should use the hypothesis test for the population correlation \(\rho\) to learn of a linear association between two variables, when it isn't obvious which variable should be regarded as the response. Let's clarify this point with examples of two different research questions.

Consider evaluating whether or not a linear relationship exists between skin cancer mortality and latitude. We will see in Lesson 2 that we can perform either of the following tests:

• t -test for testing \(H_{0} \colon \beta_{1}= 0\)
• ANOVA F -test for testing \(H_{0} \colon \beta_{1}= 0\)

For this example, it is fairly obvious that latitude should be treated as the predictor variable and skin cancer mortality as the response.

By contrast, suppose we want to evaluate whether or not a linear relationship exists between a husband's age and his wife's age ( Husband and Wife data ). In this case, one could treat the husband's age as the response:

...or one could treat the wife's age as the response:

In cases such as these, we answer our research question concerning the existence of a linear relationship by using the t -test for testing the population correlation coefficient \(H_{0}\colon \rho = 0\).

Let's jump right to it! We follow standard hypothesis test procedures in conducting a hypothesis test for the population correlation coefficient \(\rho\).

Steps for Hypothesis Testing for \(\boldsymbol{\rho}\) Section  

Step 1: hypotheses.

First, we specify the null and alternative hypotheses:

• Null hypothesis \(H_{0} \colon \rho = 0\)
• Alternative hypothesis \(H_{A} \colon \rho ≠ 0\) or \(H_{A} \colon \rho < 0\) or \(H_{A} \colon \rho > 0\)

Step 2: Test Statistic

Second, we calculate the value of the test statistic using the following formula:

Test statistic:  \(t^*=\dfrac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-R^2}}\) 

Step 3: P-Value

Third, we use the resulting test statistic to calculate the P -value. As always, the P -value is the answer to the question "how likely is it that we’d get a test statistic t* as extreme as we did if the null hypothesis were true?" The P -value is determined by referring to a t- distribution with n -2 degrees of freedom.

Step 4: Decision

Finally, we make a decision:

• If the P -value is smaller than the significance level \(\alpha\), we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative. We conclude that "there is sufficient evidence at the\(\alpha\) level to conclude that there is a linear relationship in the population between the predictor x and response y."
• If the P -value is larger than the significance level \(\alpha\), we fail to reject the null hypothesis. We conclude "there is not enough evidence at the  \(\alpha\) level to conclude that there is a linear relationship in the population between the predictor x and response y ."

Example 1-5: Husband and Wife Data Section  

Let's perform the hypothesis test on the husband's age and wife's age data in which the sample correlation based on n = 170 couples is r = 0.939. To test \(H_{0} \colon \rho = 0\) against the alternative \(H_{A} \colon \rho ≠ 0\), we obtain the following test statistic:

\begin{align} t^*&=\dfrac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-R^2}}\\ &=\dfrac{0.939\sqrt{170-2}}{\sqrt{1-0.939^2}}\\ &=35.39\end{align}

To obtain the P -value, we need to compare the test statistic to a t -distribution with 168 degrees of freedom (since 170 - 2 = 168). In particular, we need to find the probability that we'd observe a test statistic more extreme than 35.39, and then, since we're conducting a two-sided test, multiply the probability by 2. Minitab helps us out here:

Student's t distribution with 168 DF

The output tells us that the probability of getting a test-statistic smaller than 35.39 is greater than 0.999. Therefore, the probability of getting a test-statistic greater than 35.39 is less than 0.001. As illustrated in the following video, we multiply by 2 and determine that the P-value is less than 0.002.

Since the P -value is small — smaller than 0.05, say — we can reject the null hypothesis. There is sufficient statistical evidence at the \(\alpha = 0.05\) level to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship between a husband's age and his wife's age.

Incidentally, we can let statistical software like Minitab do all of the dirty work for us. In doing so, Minitab reports:

Correlation: WAge, HAge

Pearson correlation of WAge and HAge = 0.939

P-Value = 0.000

Final Note Section  

One final note ... as always, we should clarify when it is okay to use the t -test for testing \(H_{0} \colon \rho = 0\)? The guidelines are a straightforward extension of the "LINE" assumptions made for the simple linear regression model. It's okay:

• When it is not obvious which variable is the response.
• For each x , the y 's are normal with equal variances.
• For each y , the x 's are normal with equal variances.
• Either, y can be considered a linear function of x .
• Or, x can be considered a linear function of y .
• The ( x , y ) pairs are independent

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Non-Experimental Research

29 Correlational Research

Learning objectives.

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of non-experimental research.
• Interpret the strength and direction of different correlation coefficients.
• Explain why correlation does not imply causation.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables (binary or continuous) and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are many reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one or are not interested in causal relationships. Recall two goals of science are to describe and to predict and the correlational research strategy allows researchers to achieve both of these goals. Specifically, this strategy can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables and if there is a relationship between the variables then the researchers can use scores on one variable to predict scores on the other (using a statistical technique called regression, which is discussed further in the section on Complex Correlation in this chapter).

Another reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher  cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, while a researcher might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory abilities they cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, they must rely on the correlational research strategy; they must simply measure the frequency that people use cannabis and measure their memory abilities using a standardized test of memory and then determine whether the frequency people use cannabis is statistically related to memory test performance. 

Correlation is also used to establish the reliability and validity of measurements. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms  independent variable  and dependent variabl e  do not apply to this kind of research.

Another strength of correlational research is that it is often higher in external validity than experimental research. Recall there is typically a trade-off between internal validity and external validity. As greater controls are added to experiments, internal validity is increased but often at the expense of external validity as artificial conditions are introduced that do not exist in reality. In contrast, correlational studies typically have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or controlled but they often have high external validity. Since nothing is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter the results are more likely to reflect relationships that exist in the real world.

Finally, extending upon this trade-off between internal and external validity, correlational research can help to provide converging evidence for a theory. If a theory is supported by a true experiment that is high in internal validity as well as by a correlational study that is high in external validity then the researchers can have more confidence in the validity of their theory. As a concrete example, correlational studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) [1] .

Does Correlational Research Always Involve Quantitative Variables?

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of daily hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 6.2 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. What defines a study is how the study is conducted.

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. 

Correlations Between Quantitative Variables

Correlations between quantitative variables are often presented using scatterplots . Figure 6.3 shows some hypothetical data on the relationship between the amount of stress people are under and the number of physical symptoms they have. Each point in the scatterplot represents one person’s score on both variables. For example, the circled point in Figure 6.3 represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Taking all the points into account, one can see that people under more stress tend to have more physical symptoms. This is a good example of a positive relationship , in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other. In other words, they move in the same direction, either both up or both down. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. In other words, they move in opposite directions. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example, because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning.

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic called  Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson's  r ) . As Figure 6.4 shows, Pearson’s r ranges from −1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. When Pearson’s  r  is 0, the points on a scatterplot form a shapeless “cloud.” As its value moves toward −1.00 or +1.00, the points come closer and closer to falling on a single straight line. Correlation coefficients near ±.10 are considered small, values near ± .30 are considered medium, and values near ±.50 are considered large. Notice that the sign of Pearson’s  r  is unrelated to its strength. Pearson’s  r  values of +.30 and −.30, for example, are equally strong; it is just that one represents a moderate positive relationship and the other a moderate negative relationship. With the exception of reliability coefficients, most correlations that we find in Psychology are small or moderate in size. The website http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/ , created by Kristoffer Magnusson, provides an excellent interactive visualization of correlations that permits you to adjust the strength and direction of a correlation while witnessing the corresponding changes to the scatterplot.

There are two common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading. Pearson’s  r  is a good measure only for linear relationships, in which the points are best approximated by a straight line. It is not a good measure for nonlinear relationships, in which the points are better approximated by a curved line. Figure 6.5, for example, shows a hypothetical relationship between the amount of sleep people get per night and their level of depression. In this example, the line that best approximates the points is a curve—a kind of upside-down “U”—because people who get about eight hours of sleep tend to be the least depressed. Those who get too little sleep and those who get too much sleep tend to be more depressed. Even though Figure 6.5 shows a fairly strong relationship between depression and sleep, Pearson’s  r  would be close to zero because the points in the scatterplot are not well fit by a single straight line. This means that it is important to make a scatterplot and confirm that a relationship is approximately linear before using Pearson’s  r . Nonlinear relationships are fairly common in psychology, but measuring their strength is beyond the scope of this book.

The other common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading is when one or both of the variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population. This problem is referred to as  restriction of range . Assume, for example, that there is a strong negative correlation between people’s age and their enjoyment of hip hop music as shown by the scatterplot in Figure 6.6. Pearson’s  r  here is −.77. However, if we were to collect data only from 18- to 24-year-olds—represented by the shaded area of Figure 6.6—then the relationship would seem to be quite weak. In fact, Pearson’s  r  for this restricted range of ages is 0. It is a good idea, therefore, to design studies to avoid restriction of range. For example, if age is one of your primary variables, then you can plan to collect data from people of a wide range of ages. Because restriction of range is not always anticipated or easily avoidable, however, it is good practice to examine your data for possible restriction of range and to interpret Pearson’s  r  in light of it. (There are also statistical methods to correct Pearson’s  r  for restriction of range, but they are beyond the scope of this book).

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

You have probably heard repeatedly that “Correlation does not imply causation.” An amusing example of this comes from a 2012 study that showed a positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.79) between the per capita chocolate consumption of a nation and the number of Nobel prizes awarded to citizens of that nation [2] . It seems clear, however, that this does not mean that eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel prizes, and it would not make sense to try to increase the number of Nobel prizes won by recommending that parents feed their children more chocolate.

There are two reasons that correlation does not imply causation. The first is called the  directionality problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related because X  causes  Y  or because  Y  causes  X . Consider, for example, a study showing that whether or not people exercise is statistically related to how happy they are—such that people who exercise are happier on average than people who do not. This statistical relationship is consistent with the idea that exercising causes happiness, but it is also consistent with the idea that happiness causes exercise. Perhaps being happy gives people more energy or leads them to seek opportunities to socialize with others by going to the gym. The second reason that correlation does not imply causation is called the  third-variable problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related not because  X  causes  Y , or because  Y  causes  X , but because some third variable,  Z , causes both  X  and  Y . For example, the fact that nations that have won more Nobel prizes tend to have higher chocolate consumption probably reflects geography in that European countries tend to have higher rates of per capita chocolate consumption and invest more in education and technology (once again, per capita) than many other countries in the world. Similarly, the statistical relationship between exercise and happiness could mean that some third variable, such as physical health, causes both of the others. Being physically healthy could cause people to exercise and cause them to be happier. Correlations that are a result of a third-variable are often referred to as  spurious correlations .

Some excellent and amusing examples of spurious correlations can be found at http://www.tylervigen.com  (Figure 6.7  provides one such example).

“Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence”

Although researchers in psychology know that correlation does not imply causation, many journalists do not. One website about correlation and causation, http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm , links to dozens of media reports about real biomedical and psychological research. Many of the headlines suggest that a causal relationship has been demonstrated when a careful reading of the articles shows that it has not because of the directionality and third-variable problems.

One such article is about a study showing that children who ate candy every day were more likely than other children to be arrested for a violent offense later in life. But could candy really “lead to” violence, as the headline suggests? What alternative explanations can you think of for this statistical relationship? How could the headline be rewritten so that it is not misleading?

As you have learned by reading this book, there are various ways that researchers address the directionality and third-variable problems. The most effective is to conduct an experiment. For example, instead of simply measuring how much people exercise, a researcher could bring people into a laboratory and randomly assign half of them to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and the rest to sit on a couch for 15 minutes. Although this seems like a minor change to the research design, it is extremely important. Now if the exercisers end up in more positive moods than those who did not exercise, it cannot be because their moods affected how much they exercised (because it was the researcher who used random assignment to determine how much they exercised). Likewise, it cannot be because some third variable (e.g., physical health) affected both how much they exercised and what mood they were in. Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships.

Media Attributions

• Nicholas Cage and Pool Drownings  © Tyler Viegen is licensed under a  CC BY (Attribution)  license
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ↵
• Messerli, F. H. (2012). Chocolate consumption, cognitive function, and Nobel laureates. New England Journal of Medicine, 367 , 1562-1564. ↵

A graph that presents correlations between two quantitative variables, one on the x-axis and one on the y-axis. Scores are plotted at the intersection of the values on each axis.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other.

A statistic that measures the strength of a correlation between quantitative variables.

When one or both variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population, making the value of the correlation coefficient misleading.

The problem where two variables, X  and  Y , are statistically related either because X  causes  Y, or because  Y  causes  X , and thus the causal direction of the effect cannot be known.

Two variables, X and Y, can be statistically related not because X causes Y, or because Y causes X, but because some third variable, Z, causes both X and Y.

Correlations that are a result not of the two variables being measured, but rather because of a third, unmeasured, variable that affects both of the measured variables.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Correlation Studies in Psychology Research

Determining the relationship between two or more variables.

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin

• Characteristics

Potential Pitfalls

Frequently asked questions.

A correlational study is a type of research design that looks at the relationships between two or more variables. Correlational studies are non-experimental, which means that the experimenter does not manipulate or control any of the variables.

A correlation refers to a relationship between two variables. Correlations can be strong or weak and positive or negative. Sometimes, there is no correlation.

There are three possible outcomes of a correlation study: a positive correlation, a negative correlation, or no correlation. Researchers can present the results using a numerical value called the correlation coefficient, a measure of the correlation strength. It can range from –1.00 (negative) to +1.00 (positive). A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

• Positive correlations : Both variables increase or decrease at the same time. A correlation coefficient close to +1.00 indicates a strong positive correlation.
• Negative correlations : As the amount of one variable increases, the other decreases (and vice versa). A correlation coefficient close to -1.00 indicates a strong negative correlation.
• No correlation : There is no relationship between the two variables. A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

Characteristics of a Correlational Study

Correlational studies are often used in psychology, as well as other fields like medicine. Correlational research is a preliminary way to gather information about a topic. The method is also useful if researchers are unable to perform an experiment.

Researchers use correlations to see if a relationship between two or more variables exists, but the variables themselves are not under the control of the researchers.

While correlational research can demonstrate a relationship between variables, it cannot prove that changing one variable will change another. In other words, correlational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.

When you encounter research that refers to a "link" or an "association" between two things, they are most likely talking about a correlational study.

Types of Correlational Research

There are three types of correlational research: naturalistic observation, the survey method, and archival research. Each type has its own purpose, as well as its pros and cons.

Naturalistic Observation

The naturalistic observation method involves observing and recording variables of interest in a natural setting without interference or manipulation.  

Can inspire ideas for further research

Option if lab experiment not available

Variables are viewed in natural setting

Can be time-consuming and expensive

Extraneous variables can't be controlled

No scientific control of variables

Subjects might behave differently if aware of being observed

This method is well-suited to studies where researchers want to see how variables behave in their natural setting or state.   Inspiration can then be drawn from the observations to inform future avenues of research.

In some cases, it might be the only method available to researchers; for example, if lab experimentation would be precluded by access, resources, or ethics. It might be preferable to not being able to conduct research at all, but the method can be costly and usually takes a lot of time.  

Naturalistic observation presents several challenges for researchers. For one, it does not allow them to control or influence the variables in any way nor can they change any possible external variables.

However, this does not mean that researchers will get reliable data from watching the variables, or that the information they gather will be free from bias.

For example, study subjects might act differently if they know that they are being watched. The researchers might not be aware that the behavior that they are observing is not necessarily the subject's natural state (i.e., how they would act if they did not know they were being watched).

Researchers also need to be aware of their biases, which can affect the observation and interpretation of a subject's behavior.  

Surveys and questionnaires are some of the most common methods used for psychological research. The survey method involves having a  random sample  of participants complete a survey, test, or questionnaire related to the variables of interest.   Random sampling is vital to the generalizability of a survey's results.

Cheap, easy, and fast

Can collect large amounts of data in a short amount of time

Results can be affected by poor survey questions

Results can be affected by unrepresentative sample

Outcomes can be affected by participants

If researchers need to gather a large amount of data in a short period of time, a survey is likely to be the fastest, easiest, and cheapest option.  

It's also a flexible method because it lets researchers create data-gathering tools that will help ensure they get the information they need (survey responses) from all the sources they want to use (a random sample of participants taking the survey).

Survey data might be cost-efficient and easy to get, but it has its downsides. For one, the data is not always reliable—particularly if the survey questions are poorly written or the overall design or delivery is weak.   Data is also affected by specific faults, such as unrepresented or underrepresented samples .

The use of surveys relies on participants to provide useful data. Researchers need to be aware of the specific factors related to the people taking the survey that will affect its outcome.

For example, some people might struggle to understand the questions. A person might answer a particular way to try to please the researchers or to try to control how the researchers perceive them (such as trying to make themselves "look better").

Sometimes, respondents might not even realize that their answers are incorrect or misleading because of mistaken memories .

Archival Research

Many areas of psychological research benefit from analyzing studies that were conducted long ago by other researchers, as well as reviewing historical records and case studies.

For example, in an experiment known as  "The Irritable Heart ," researchers used digitalized records containing information on American Civil War veterans to learn more about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Large amount of data

Can be less expensive

Researchers cannot change participant behavior

Can be unreliable

Information might be missing

No control over data collection methods

Using records, databases, and libraries that are publicly accessible or accessible through their institution can help researchers who might not have a lot of money to support their research efforts.

Free and low-cost resources are available to researchers at all levels through academic institutions, museums, and data repositories around the world.

Another potential benefit is that these sources often provide an enormous amount of data that was collected over a very long period of time, which can give researchers a way to view trends, relationships, and outcomes related to their research.

While the inability to change variables can be a disadvantage of some methods, it can be a benefit of archival research. That said, using historical records or information that was collected a long time ago also presents challenges. For one, important information might be missing or incomplete and some aspects of older studies might not be useful to researchers in a modern context.

A primary issue with archival research is reliability. When reviewing old research, little information might be available about who conducted the research, how a study was designed, who participated in the research, as well as how data was collected and interpreted.

Researchers can also be presented with ethical quandaries—for example, should modern researchers use data from studies that were conducted unethically or with questionable ethics?

You've probably heard the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." This means that while correlational research can suggest that there is a relationship between two variables, it cannot prove that one variable will change another.

For example, researchers might perform a correlational study that suggests there is a relationship between academic success and a person's self-esteem. However, the study cannot show that academic success changes a person's self-esteem.

To determine why the relationship exists, researchers would need to consider and experiment with other variables, such as the subject's social relationships, cognitive abilities, personality, and socioeconomic status.

The difference between a correlational study and an experimental study involves the manipulation of variables. Researchers do not manipulate variables in a correlational study, but they do control and systematically vary the independent variables in an experimental study. Correlational studies allow researchers to detect the presence and strength of a relationship between variables, while experimental studies allow researchers to look for cause and effect relationships.

If the study involves the systematic manipulation of the levels of a variable, it is an experimental study. If researchers are measuring what is already present without actually changing the variables, then is a correlational study.

The variables in a correlational study are what the researcher measures. Once measured, researchers can then use statistical analysis to determine the existence, strength, and direction of the relationship. However, while correlational studies can say that variable X and variable Y have a relationship, it does not mean that X causes Y.

The goal of correlational research is often to look for relationships, describe these relationships, and then make predictions. Such research can also often serve as a jumping off point for future experimental research. 

Heath W. Psychology Research Methods . Cambridge University Press; 2018:134-156.

Schneider FW. Applied Social Psychology . 2nd ed. SAGE; 2012:50-53.

Curtis EA, Comiskey C, Dempsey O. Importance and use of correlational research .  Nurse Researcher . 2016;23(6):20-25. doi:10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Carpenter S. Visualizing Psychology . 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2012:14-30.

Pizarro J, Silver RC, Prause J. Physical and mental health costs of traumatic war experiences among civil war veterans .  Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2006;63(2):193. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.2.193

Post SG. The echo of Nuremberg: Nazi data and ethics .  J Med Ethics . 1991;17(1):42-44. doi:10.1136/jme.17.1.42

Lau F. Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies . In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, eds. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach . University of Victoria.

Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients .  Turk J Emerg Med . 2018;18(3):91-93. doi:10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

Price PC. Research Methods in Psychology . California State University.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is an assumption that is neither proven nor disproven. In the research process, a hypothesis is made at the very beginning and the goal is to either reject or not reject the hypothesis. In order to reject or or not reject a hypothesis, data, e.g. from an experiment or a survey, are needed, which are then evaluated using a hypothesis test .

Usually, hypotheses are formulated starting from a literature review. Based on the literature review, you can then justify why you formulated the hypothesis in this way.

An example of a hypothesis could be: "Men earn more than women in the same job in Austira."

To test this hypothesis, you need data, e.g. from a survey, and a suitable hypothesis test such as the t-test or correlation analysis . Don't worry, DATAtab will help you choose the right hypothesis test.

How do I formulate a hypothesis?

In order to formulate a hypothesis, a research question must first be defined. A precisely formulated hypothesis about the population can then be derived from the research question, e.g. men earn more than women in the same job in Austria.

Hypotheses are not simple statements; they are formulated in such a way that they can be tested with collected data in the course of the research process.

To test a hypothesis, it is necessary to define exactly which variables are involved and how the variables are related. Hypotheses, then, are assumptions about the cause-and-effect relationships or the associations between variables.

What is a variable?

A variable is a property of an object or event that can take on different values. For example, the eye color is a variable, it is the property of the object eye and can take different values (blue, brown,...).

If you are researching in the social sciences, your variables may be:

• Attitude towards environmental protection

If you are researching in the medical field, your variables may be:

• Body weight
• Smoking status

What is the null and alternative hypothesis?

There are always two hypotheses that are exactly opposite to each other, or that claim the opposite. These opposite hypotheses are called null and alternative hypothesis and are abbreviated with H0 and H1 .

Null hypothesis H0:

The null hypothesis assumes that there is no difference between two or more groups with respect to a characteristic.

The salary of men and women does not differ in Austria.

Alternative hypothesis H1:

Alternative hypotheses, on the other hand, assume that there is a difference between two or more groups.

The salary of men and women differs in Austria.

The hypothesis that you want to test or that you have derived from the theory usually states that there is an effect e.g. gender has an effect on salary . This hypothesis is called an alternative hypothesis.

The null hypothesis usually states that there is no effect e.g. gender has no effect on salary . In a hypothesis test, only the null hypothesis can be tested; the goal is to find out whether the null hypothesis is rejected or not.

Types of hypotheses

What types of hypotheses are available? The most common distinction is between difference and correlation hypotheses , as well as directional and non-directional hypotheses .

Differential and correlation hypotheses

Difference hypotheses are used when different groups are to be distinguished, e.g., the group of men and the group of women. Correlation hypotheses are used when the relationship or correlation between variables is to be tested, e.g., the relationship between age and height.

Difference hypotheses

Difference hypotheses test whether there is a difference between two or more groups.

Examples of difference hypotheses are:

• The "group" of men earn more than the "group" of women.
• Smokers have a higher risk of heart attack than non-smokers
• There is a difference between Germany, Austria and France in terms of hours worked per week.

Thus, one variable is always a categorical variable, e.g., gender (male, female), smoking status (smoker, nonsmoker), or country (Germany, Austria, and France); the other variable is at least ordinally scaled, e.g., salary, percent risk of heart attack, or hours worked per week.

Correlation hypotheses

Correlation hypotheses test correlations between two variables, for example height and body weight

Correlation hypotheses are, for example:

• The taller a person is, the heavier he is.
• The more horsepower a car has, the higher its fuel consumption.
• The better the math grade, the higher the future salary.

As can be seen from the examples, correlation hypotheses often take the form "The more..., the higher/lower...". Thus, at least two ordinally scaled variables are being examined.

Directional and non-directional hypotheses

Hypotheses are divided into directional and non-directional or one-sided and two-sided hypotheses. If the hypothesis contains words like "better than" or "worse than", the hypothesis is usually directional.

In the case of a non-directional hypothesis, one often finds building blocks such as "there is a difference between" in the formulation, but it is not stated in which direction the difference lies.

• With a non-directional hypothesis , the only thing of interest is whether there is a difference in a value between the groups under consideration.
• In a directional hypothesis , what is of interest is whether one group has a higher or lower value than the other.

Non-directional hypotheses

Non-directional hypotheses test whether there is a relationship or a difference, and it does not matter in which direction the relationship or difference goes. In the case of a difference hypothesis, this means there is a difference between two groups, but it does not say whether one of the groups has a higher value.

• There is a difference between the salary of men and women (but it is not said who earns more!).
• There is a difference in the risk of heart attack between smokers and non-smokers (but it is not said who has the higher risk!).

In regard to a correlation hypothesis, this means there is a relationship or correlation between two variables, but it is not said whether this relationship is positive or negative.

• There is a correlation, between height and weight.
• There is a correlation between horsepower and fuel consumption in cars.

In both cases it is not said whether this correlation is positive or negative!

Directional hypotheses

Directional hypotheses additionally indicate the direction of the relationship or the difference. In the case of the difference hypothesis a statement is made which group has a higher or lower value.

• Men earn more than women

In the case of a correlation hypothesis, a statement is made as to whether the correlation is positive or negative.

• The taller a person is the heavier he is
• The more horsepower a car has, the higher its fuel economy

The p-value for directional hypotheses

Usually, statistical software always calculates the non-directional test and then also outputs the p-value for this.

To obtain the p-value for the directional hypothesis, it must first be checked whether the effect is in the right direction. Then the p-value must be divided by two. This is because the significance level is not split on two sides, but only on one side. More about this in the tutorial about the p-value .

If you select a directed alternative hypothesis in DATAtab for the calculated hypothesis test, the conversion is done automatically and you only need to read the result.

Step-by-step instructions for testing hypotheses

• Literature research
• Formulation of the hypothesis
• Define scale level
• Determine significance level
• Determination of hypothesis type
• Which hypothesis test is suitable for the scale level and hypothesis type?

Next tutorial about hypothesis testing

The next tutorial is about hypothesis testing. You will learn what hypothesis tests are, how to find the right one and how to interpret it.

Statistics made easy

• many illustrative examples
• ideal for exams and theses
• statistics made easy on 301 pages
• 4rd revised edition (February 2024)
• Only 6.99 €

"Super simple written"

"It could not be simpler"

"So many helpful examples"

Cite DATAtab: DATAtab Team (2024). DATAtab: Online Statistics Calculator. DATAtab e.U. Graz, Austria. URL https://datatab.net

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Correlation Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Correlation Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Table of Contents

Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis is a statistical method used to evaluate the strength and direction of the relationship between two or more variables . The correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1.

• A correlation coefficient of 1 indicates a perfect positive correlation. This means that as one variable increases, the other variable also increases.
• A correlation coefficient of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation. This means that as one variable increases, the other variable decreases.
• A correlation coefficient of 0 means that there’s no linear relationship between the two variables.

Correlation Analysis Methodology

Conducting a correlation analysis involves a series of steps, as described below:

• Define the Problem : Identify the variables that you think might be related. The variables must be measurable on an interval or ratio scale. For example, if you’re interested in studying the relationship between the amount of time spent studying and exam scores, these would be your two variables.
• Data Collection : Collect data on the variables of interest. The data could be collected through various means such as surveys , observations , or experiments. It’s crucial to ensure that the data collected is accurate and reliable.
• Data Inspection : Check the data for any errors or anomalies such as outliers or missing values. Outliers can greatly affect the correlation coefficient, so it’s crucial to handle them appropriately.
• Choose the Appropriate Correlation Method : Select the correlation method that’s most appropriate for your data. If your data meets the assumptions for Pearson’s correlation (interval or ratio level, linear relationship, variables are normally distributed), use that. If your data is ordinal or doesn’t meet the assumptions for Pearson’s correlation, consider using Spearman’s rank correlation or Kendall’s Tau.
• Compute the Correlation Coefficient : Once you’ve selected the appropriate method, compute the correlation coefficient. This can be done using statistical software such as R, Python, or SPSS, or manually using the formulas.
• Interpret the Results : Interpret the correlation coefficient you obtained. If the correlation is close to 1 or -1, the variables are strongly correlated. If the correlation is close to 0, the variables have little to no linear relationship. Also consider the sign of the correlation coefficient: a positive sign indicates a positive relationship (as one variable increases, so does the other), while a negative sign indicates a negative relationship (as one variable increases, the other decreases).
• Check the Significance : It’s also important to test the statistical significance of the correlation. This typically involves performing a t-test. A small p-value (commonly less than 0.05) suggests that the observed correlation is statistically significant and not due to random chance.
• Report the Results : The final step is to report your findings. This should include the correlation coefficient, the significance level, and a discussion of what these findings mean in the context of your research question.

Types of Correlation Analysis

Types of Correlation Analysis are as follows:

Pearson Correlation

This is the most common type of correlation analysis. Pearson correlation measures the linear relationship between two continuous variables. It assumes that the variables are normally distributed and have equal variances. The correlation coefficient (r) ranges from -1 to +1, with -1 indicating a perfect negative linear relationship, +1 indicating a perfect positive linear relationship, and 0 indicating no linear relationship.

Spearman Rank Correlation

Spearman’s rank correlation is a non-parametric measure that assesses how well the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic function. In other words, it evaluates the degree to which, as one variable increases, the other variable tends to increase, without requiring that increase to be consistent.

Kendall’s Tau

Kendall’s Tau is another non-parametric correlation measure used to detect the strength of dependence between two variables. Kendall’s Tau is often used for variables measured on an ordinal scale (i.e., where values can be ranked).

Point-Biserial Correlation

This is used when you have one dichotomous and one continuous variable, and you want to test for correlations. It’s a special case of the Pearson correlation.

Phi Coefficient

This is used when both variables are dichotomous or binary (having two categories). It’s a measure of association for two binary variables.

Canonical Correlation

This measures the correlation between two multi-dimensional variables. Each variable is a combination of data sets, and the method finds the linear combination that maximizes the correlation between them.

Partial and Semi-Partial (Part) Correlations

These are used when the researcher wants to understand the relationship between two variables while controlling for the effect of one or more additional variables.

Cross-Correlation

Used mostly in time series data to measure the similarity of two series as a function of the displacement of one relative to the other.

Autocorrelation

This is the correlation of a signal with a delayed copy of itself as a function of delay. This is often used in time series analysis to help understand the trend in the data over time.

Correlation Analysis Formulas

There are several formulas for correlation analysis, each corresponding to a different type of correlation. Here are some of the most commonly used ones:

Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (r)

Pearson’s correlation coefficient measures the linear relationship between two variables. The formula is:

   r = Σ[(xi – Xmean)(yi – Ymean)] / sqrt[(Σ(xi – Xmean)²)(Σ(yi – Ymean)²)]

• xi and yi are the values of X and Y variables.
• Xmean and Ymean are the mean values of X and Y.
• Σ denotes the sum of the values.

Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient (rs)

Spearman’s correlation coefficient measures the monotonic relationship between two variables. The formula is:

   rs = 1 – (6Σd² / n(n² – 1))

• d is the difference between the ranks of corresponding variables.
• n is the number of observations.

Kendall’s Tau (τ)

Kendall’s Tau is a measure of rank correlation. The formula is:

   τ = (nc – nd) / 0.5n(n-1)

• nc is the number of concordant pairs.
• nd is the number of discordant pairs.

This correlation is a special case of Pearson’s correlation, and so, it uses the same formula as Pearson’s correlation.

Phi coefficient is a measure of association for two binary variables. It’s equivalent to Pearson’s correlation in this specific case.

Partial Correlation

The formula for partial correlation is more complex and depends on the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the variables.

For partial correlation between X and Y given Z:

  rp(xy.z) = (rxy – rxz * ryz) / sqrt[(1 – rxz^2)(1 – ryz^2)]

• rxy, rxz, ryz are the Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

Correlation Analysis Examples

Here are a few examples of how correlation analysis could be applied in different contexts:

• Education : A researcher might want to determine if there’s a relationship between the amount of time students spend studying each week and their exam scores. The two variables would be “study time” and “exam scores”. If a positive correlation is found, it means that students who study more tend to score higher on exams.
• Healthcare : A healthcare researcher might be interested in understanding the relationship between age and cholesterol levels. If a positive correlation is found, it could mean that as people age, their cholesterol levels tend to increase.
• Economics : An economist may want to investigate if there’s a correlation between the unemployment rate and the rate of crime in a given city. If a positive correlation is found, it could suggest that as the unemployment rate increases, the crime rate also tends to increase.
• Marketing : A marketing analyst might want to analyze the correlation between advertising expenditure and sales revenue. A positive correlation would suggest that higher advertising spending is associated with higher sales revenue.
• Environmental Science : A scientist might be interested in whether there’s a relationship between the amount of CO2 emissions and average temperature increase. A positive correlation would indicate that higher CO2 emissions are associated with higher average temperatures.

Importance of Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis plays a crucial role in many fields of study for several reasons:

• Understanding Relationships : Correlation analysis provides a statistical measure of the relationship between two or more variables. It helps in understanding how one variable may change in relation to another.
• Predicting Trends : When variables are correlated, changes in one can predict changes in another. This is particularly useful in fields like finance, weather forecasting, and technology, where forecasting trends is vital.
• Data Reduction : If two variables are highly correlated, they are conveying similar information, and you may decide to use only one of them in your analysis, reducing the dimensionality of your data.
• Testing Hypotheses : Correlation analysis can be used to test hypotheses about relationships between variables. For example, a researcher might want to test whether there’s a significant positive correlation between physical exercise and mental health.
• Determining Factors : It can help identify factors that are associated with certain behaviors or outcomes. For example, public health researchers might analyze correlations to identify risk factors for diseases.
• Model Building : Correlation is a fundamental concept in building multivariate statistical models, including regression models and structural equation models. These models often require an understanding of the inter-relationships (correlations) among multiple variables.
• Validity and Reliability Analysis : In psychometrics, correlation analysis is used to assess the validity and reliability of measurement instruments such as tests or surveys.

Applications of Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis is used in many fields to understand and quantify the relationship between variables. Here are some of its key applications:

• Finance : In finance, correlation analysis is used to understand the relationship between different investment types or the risk and return of a portfolio. For example, if two stocks are positively correlated, they tend to move together; if they’re negatively correlated, they move in opposite directions.
• Economics : Economists use correlation analysis to understand the relationship between various economic indicators, such as GDP and unemployment rate, inflation rate and interest rates, or income and consumption patterns.
• Marketing : Correlation analysis can help marketers understand the relationship between advertising spend and sales, or the relationship between price changes and demand.
• Psychology : In psychology, correlation analysis can be used to understand the relationship between different psychological variables, such as the correlation between stress levels and sleep quality, or between self-esteem and academic performance.
• Medicine : In healthcare, correlation analysis can be used to understand the relationships between various health outcomes and potential predictors. For example, researchers might investigate the correlation between physical activity levels and heart disease, or between smoking and lung cancer.
• Environmental Science : Correlation analysis can be used to investigate the relationships between different environmental factors, such as the correlation between CO2 levels and average global temperature, or between pesticide use and biodiversity.
• Social Sciences : In fields like sociology and political science, correlation analysis can be used to investigate relationships between different social and political phenomena, such as the correlation between education levels and political participation, or between income inequality and social unrest.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Correlation Analysis

About the author.

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Statistics and probability

Course: statistics and probability   >   unit 5.

• Example: Correlation coefficient intuition
• Correlation coefficient intuition
• Calculating correlation coefficient r

Correlation coefficient review

What is a correlation coefficient.

• It always has a value between − 1 ‍   and 1 ‍   .
• Strong positive linear relationships have values of r ‍   closer to 1 ‍   .
• Strong negative linear relationships have values of r ‍   closer to − 1 ‍   .
• Weaker relationships have values of r ‍   closer to 0 ‍   .

Practice problem

Want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Frequently asked questions

What’s the difference between correlational and experimental research.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

Frequently asked questions: Methodology

Quantitative observations involve measuring or counting something and expressing the result in numerical form, while qualitative observations involve describing something in non-numerical terms, such as its appearance, texture, or color.

To make quantitative observations , you need to use instruments that are capable of measuring the quantity you want to observe. For example, you might use a ruler to measure the length of an object or a thermometer to measure its temperature.

Scope of research is determined at the beginning of your research process , prior to the data collection stage. Sometimes called “scope of study,” your scope delineates what will and will not be covered in your project. It helps you focus your work and your time, ensuring that you’ll be able to achieve your goals and outcomes.

Defining a scope can be very useful in any research project, from a research proposal to a thesis or dissertation . A scope is needed for all types of research: quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods .

To define your scope of research, consider the following:

• Budget constraints or any specifics of grant funding
• Your proposed timeline and duration
• Specifics about your population of study, your proposed sample size , and the research methodology you’ll pursue
• Any inclusion and exclusion criteria
• Any anticipated control , extraneous , or confounding variables that could bias your research if not accounted for properly.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are predominantly used in non-probability sampling . In purposive sampling and snowball sampling , restrictions apply as to who can be included in the sample .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are typically presented and discussed in the methodology section of your thesis or dissertation .

The purpose of theory-testing mode is to find evidence in order to disprove, refine, or support a theory. As such, generalisability is not the aim of theory-testing mode.

Due to this, the priority of researchers in theory-testing mode is to eliminate alternative causes for relationships between variables . In other words, they prioritise internal validity over external validity , including ecological validity .

Convergent validity shows how much a measure of one construct aligns with other measures of the same or related constructs .

On the other hand, concurrent validity is about how a measure matches up to some known criterion or gold standard, which can be another measure.

Although both types of validity are established by calculating the association or correlation between a test score and another variable , they represent distinct validation methods.

Validity tells you how accurately a method measures what it was designed to measure. There are 4 main types of validity :

• Construct validity : Does the test measure the construct it was designed to measure?
• Face validity : Does the test appear to be suitable for its objectives ?
• Content validity : Does the test cover all relevant parts of the construct it aims to measure.
• Criterion validity : Do the results accurately measure the concrete outcome they are designed to measure?

Criterion validity evaluates how well a test measures the outcome it was designed to measure. An outcome can be, for example, the onset of a disease.

Criterion validity consists of two subtypes depending on the time at which the two measures (the criterion and your test) are obtained:

• Concurrent validity is a validation strategy where the the scores of a test and the criterion are obtained at the same time
• Predictive validity is a validation strategy where the criterion variables are measured after the scores of the test

Attrition refers to participants leaving a study. It always happens to some extent – for example, in randomised control trials for medical research.

Differential attrition occurs when attrition or dropout rates differ systematically between the intervention and the control group . As a result, the characteristics of the participants who drop out differ from the characteristics of those who stay in the study. Because of this, study results may be biased .

Criterion validity and construct validity are both types of measurement validity . In other words, they both show you how accurately a method measures something.

While construct validity is the degree to which a test or other measurement method measures what it claims to measure, criterion validity is the degree to which a test can predictively (in the future) or concurrently (in the present) measure something.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity . You need to have face validity , content validity , and criterion validity in order to achieve construct validity.

Convergent validity and discriminant validity are both subtypes of construct validity . Together, they help you evaluate whether a test measures the concept it was designed to measure.

• Convergent validity indicates whether a test that is designed to measure a particular construct correlates with other tests that assess the same or similar construct.
• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related. This type of validity is also called divergent validity .

You need to assess both in order to demonstrate construct validity. Neither one alone is sufficient for establishing construct validity.

Face validity and content validity are similar in that they both evaluate how suitable the content of a test is. The difference is that face validity is subjective, and assesses content at surface level.

When a test has strong face validity, anyone would agree that the test’s questions appear to measure what they are intended to measure.

For example, looking at a 4th grade math test consisting of problems in which students have to add and multiply, most people would agree that it has strong face validity (i.e., it looks like a math test).

On the other hand, content validity evaluates how well a test represents all the aspects of a topic. Assessing content validity is more systematic and relies on expert evaluation. of each question, analysing whether each one covers the aspects that the test was designed to cover.

A 4th grade math test would have high content validity if it covered all the skills taught in that grade. Experts(in this case, math teachers), would have to evaluate the content validity by comparing the test to the learning objectives.

Content validity shows you how accurately a test or other measurement method taps  into the various aspects of the specific construct you are researching.

In other words, it helps you answer the question: “does the test measure all aspects of the construct I want to measure?” If it does, then the test has high content validity.

The higher the content validity, the more accurate the measurement of the construct.

If the test fails to include parts of the construct, or irrelevant parts are included, the validity of the instrument is threatened, which brings your results into question.

Construct validity refers to how well a test measures the concept (or construct) it was designed to measure. Assessing construct validity is especially important when you’re researching concepts that can’t be quantified and/or are intangible, like introversion. To ensure construct validity your test should be based on known indicators of introversion ( operationalisation ).

On the other hand, content validity assesses how well the test represents all aspects of the construct. If some aspects are missing or irrelevant parts are included, the test has low content validity.

• Discriminant validity indicates whether two tests that should not be highly related to each other are indeed not related

Construct validity has convergent and discriminant subtypes. They assist determine if a test measures the intended notion.

The reproducibility and replicability of a study can be ensured by writing a transparent, detailed method section and using clear, unambiguous language.

Reproducibility and replicability are related terms.

• A successful reproduction shows that the data analyses were conducted in a fair and honest manner.
• A successful replication shows that the reliability of the results is high.
• Reproducing research entails reanalysing the existing data in the same manner.
• Replicating (or repeating ) the research entails reconducting the entire analysis, including the collection of new data . 

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method . Unlike probability sampling (which involves some form of random selection ), the initial individuals selected to be studied are the ones who recruit new participants.

Because not every member of the target population has an equal chance of being recruited into the sample, selection in snowball sampling is non-random.

Snowball sampling is a non-probability sampling method , where there is not an equal chance for every member of the population to be included in the sample .

This means that you cannot use inferential statistics and make generalisations – often the goal of quantitative research . As such, a snowball sample is not representative of the target population, and is usually a better fit for qualitative research .

Snowball sampling relies on the use of referrals. Here, the researcher recruits one or more initial participants, who then recruit the next ones. 

Participants share similar characteristics and/or know each other. Because of this, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample, giving rise to sampling bias .

Snowball sampling is best used in the following cases:

• If there is no sampling frame available (e.g., people with a rare disease)
• If the population of interest is hard to access or locate (e.g., people experiencing homelessness)
• If the research focuses on a sensitive topic (e.g., extra-marital affairs)

Stratified sampling and quota sampling both involve dividing the population into subgroups and selecting units from each subgroup. The purpose in both cases is to select a representative sample and/or to allow comparisons between subgroups.

The main difference is that in stratified sampling, you draw a random sample from each subgroup ( probability sampling ). In quota sampling you select a predetermined number or proportion of units, in a non-random manner ( non-probability sampling ).

Random sampling or probability sampling is based on random selection. This means that each unit has an equal chance (i.e., equal probability) of being included in the sample.

On the other hand, convenience sampling involves stopping people at random, which means that not everyone has an equal chance of being selected depending on the place, time, or day you are collecting your data.

Convenience sampling and quota sampling are both non-probability sampling methods. They both use non-random criteria like availability, geographical proximity, or expert knowledge to recruit study participants.

However, in convenience sampling, you continue to sample units or cases until you reach the required sample size.

In quota sampling, you first need to divide your population of interest into subgroups (strata) and estimate their proportions (quota) in the population. Then you can start your data collection , using convenience sampling to recruit participants, until the proportions in each subgroup coincide with the estimated proportions in the population.

A sampling frame is a list of every member in the entire population . It is important that the sampling frame is as complete as possible, so that your sample accurately reflects your population.

Stratified and cluster sampling may look similar, but bear in mind that groups created in cluster sampling are heterogeneous , so the individual characteristics in the cluster vary. In contrast, groups created in stratified sampling are homogeneous , as units share characteristics.

Relatedly, in cluster sampling you randomly select entire groups and include all units of each group in your sample. However, in stratified sampling, you select some units of all groups and include them in your sample. In this way, both methods can ensure that your sample is representative of the target population .

When your population is large in size, geographically dispersed, or difficult to contact, it’s necessary to use a sampling method .

This allows you to gather information from a smaller part of the population, i.e. the sample, and make accurate statements by using statistical analysis. A few sampling methods include simple random sampling , convenience sampling , and snowball sampling .

The two main types of social desirability bias are:

• Self-deceptive enhancement (self-deception): The tendency to see oneself in a favorable light without realizing it.
• Impression managemen t (other-deception): The tendency to inflate one’s abilities or achievement in order to make a good impression on other people.

Response bias refers to conditions or factors that take place during the process of responding to surveys, affecting the responses. One type of response bias is social desirability bias .

Demand characteristics are aspects of experiments that may give away the research objective to participants. Social desirability bias occurs when participants automatically try to respond in ways that make them seem likeable in a study, even if it means misrepresenting how they truly feel.

Participants may use demand characteristics to infer social norms or experimenter expectancies and act in socially desirable ways, so you should try to control for demand characteristics wherever possible.

A systematic review is secondary research because it uses existing research. You don’t collect new data yourself.

Ethical considerations in research are a set of principles that guide your research designs and practices. These principles include voluntary participation, informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, potential for harm, and results communication.

Scientists and researchers must always adhere to a certain code of conduct when collecting data from others .

These considerations protect the rights of research participants, enhance research validity , and maintain scientific integrity.

Research ethics matter for scientific integrity, human rights and dignity, and collaboration between science and society. These principles make sure that participation in studies is voluntary, informed, and safe.

Research misconduct means making up or falsifying data, manipulating data analyses, or misrepresenting results in research reports. It’s a form of academic fraud.

These actions are committed intentionally and can have serious consequences; research misconduct is not a simple mistake or a point of disagreement but a serious ethical failure.

Anonymity means you don’t know who the participants are, while confidentiality means you know who they are but remove identifying information from your research report. Both are important ethical considerations .

You can only guarantee anonymity by not collecting any personally identifying information – for example, names, phone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, physical characteristics, photos, or videos.

You can keep data confidential by using aggregate information in your research report, so that you only refer to groups of participants rather than individuals.

Peer review is a process of evaluating submissions to an academic journal. Utilising rigorous criteria, a panel of reviewers in the same subject area decide whether to accept each submission for publication.

For this reason, academic journals are often considered among the most credible sources you can use in a research project – provided that the journal itself is trustworthy and well regarded.

In general, the peer review process follows the following steps:

• First, the author submits the manuscript to the editor.
• Reject the manuscript and send it back to author, or
• Send it onward to the selected peer reviewer(s)
• Next, the peer review process occurs. The reviewer provides feedback, addressing any major or minor issues with the manuscript, and gives their advice regarding what edits should be made.
• Lastly, the edited manuscript is sent back to the author. They input the edits, and resubmit it to the editor for publication.

Peer review can stop obviously problematic, falsified, or otherwise untrustworthy research from being published. It also represents an excellent opportunity to get feedback from renowned experts in your field.

It acts as a first defence, helping you ensure your argument is clear and that there are no gaps, vague terms, or unanswered questions for readers who weren’t involved in the research process.

Peer-reviewed articles are considered a highly credible source due to this stringent process they go through before publication.

Many academic fields use peer review , largely to determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication. Peer review enhances the credibility of the published manuscript.

However, peer review is also common in non-academic settings. The United Nations, the European Union, and many individual nations use peer review to evaluate grant applications. It is also widely used in medical and health-related fields as a teaching or quality-of-care measure.

Peer assessment is often used in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Both receiving feedback and providing it are thought to enhance the learning process, helping students think critically and collaboratively.

• In a single-blind study , only the participants are blinded.
• In a double-blind study , both participants and experimenters are blinded.
• In a triple-blind study , the assignment is hidden not only from participants and experimenters, but also from the researchers analysing the data.

Blinding is important to reduce bias (e.g., observer bias , demand characteristics ) and ensure a study’s internal validity .

If participants know whether they are in a control or treatment group , they may adjust their behaviour in ways that affect the outcome that researchers are trying to measure. If the people administering the treatment are aware of group assignment, they may treat participants differently and thus directly or indirectly influence the final results.

Blinding means hiding who is assigned to the treatment group and who is assigned to the control group in an experiment .

Explanatory research is a research method used to investigate how or why something occurs when only a small amount of information is available pertaining to that topic. It can help you increase your understanding of a given topic.

Explanatory research is used to investigate how or why a phenomenon occurs. Therefore, this type of research is often one of the first stages in the research process , serving as a jumping-off point for future research.

Exploratory research is a methodology approach that explores research questions that have not previously been studied in depth. It is often used when the issue you’re studying is new, or the data collection process is challenging in some way.

Exploratory research is often used when the issue you’re studying is new or when the data collection process is challenging for some reason.

You can use exploratory research if you have a general idea or a specific question that you want to study but there is no preexisting knowledge or paradigm with which to study it.

To implement random assignment , assign a unique number to every member of your study’s sample .

Then, you can use a random number generator or a lottery method to randomly assign each number to a control or experimental group. You can also do so manually, by flipping a coin or rolling a die to randomly assign participants to groups.

Random selection, or random sampling , is a way of selecting members of a population for your study’s sample.

In contrast, random assignment is a way of sorting the sample into control and experimental groups.

Random sampling enhances the external validity or generalisability of your results, while random assignment improves the internal validity of your study.

Random assignment is used in experiments with a between-groups or independent measures design. In this research design, there’s usually a control group and one or more experimental groups. Random assignment helps ensure that the groups are comparable.

In general, you should always use random assignment in this type of experimental design when it is ethically possible and makes sense for your study topic.

Clean data are valid, accurate, complete, consistent, unique, and uniform. Dirty data include inconsistencies and errors.

Dirty data can come from any part of the research process, including poor research design , inappropriate measurement materials, or flawed data entry.

Data cleaning takes place between data collection and data analyses. But you can use some methods even before collecting data.

For clean data, you should start by designing measures that collect valid data. Data validation at the time of data entry or collection helps you minimize the amount of data cleaning you’ll need to do.

After data collection, you can use data standardisation and data transformation to clean your data. You’ll also deal with any missing values, outliers, and duplicate values.

Data cleaning involves spotting and resolving potential data inconsistencies or errors to improve your data quality. An error is any value (e.g., recorded weight) that doesn’t reflect the true value (e.g., actual weight) of something that’s being measured.

In this process, you review, analyse, detect, modify, or remove ‘dirty’ data to make your dataset ‘clean’. Data cleaning is also called data cleansing or data scrubbing.

Data cleaning is necessary for valid and appropriate analyses. Dirty data contain inconsistencies or errors , but cleaning your data helps you minimise or resolve these.

Without data cleaning, you could end up with a Type I or II error in your conclusion. These types of erroneous conclusions can be practically significant with important consequences, because they lead to misplaced investments or missed opportunities.

Observer bias occurs when a researcher’s expectations, opinions, or prejudices influence what they perceive or record in a study. It usually affects studies when observers are aware of the research aims or hypotheses. This type of research bias is also called detection bias or ascertainment bias .

The observer-expectancy effect occurs when researchers influence the results of their own study through interactions with participants.

Researchers’ own beliefs and expectations about the study results may unintentionally influence participants through demand characteristics .

You can use several tactics to minimise observer bias .

• Use masking (blinding) to hide the purpose of your study from all observers.
• Triangulate your data with different data collection methods or sources.
• Use multiple observers and ensure inter-rater reliability.
• Train your observers to make sure data is consistently recorded between them.
• Standardise your observation procedures to make sure they are structured and clear.

Naturalistic observation is a valuable tool because of its flexibility, external validity , and suitability for topics that can’t be studied in a lab setting.

The downsides of naturalistic observation include its lack of scientific control , ethical considerations , and potential for bias from observers and subjects.

Naturalistic observation is a qualitative research method where you record the behaviours of your research subjects in real-world settings. You avoid interfering or influencing anything in a naturalistic observation.

You can think of naturalistic observation as ‘people watching’ with a purpose.

Closed-ended, or restricted-choice, questions offer respondents a fixed set of choices to select from. These questions are easier to answer quickly.

Open-ended or long-form questions allow respondents to answer in their own words. Because there are no restrictions on their choices, respondents can answer in ways that researchers may not have otherwise considered.

You can organise the questions logically, with a clear progression from simple to complex, or randomly between respondents. A logical flow helps respondents process the questionnaire easier and quicker, but it may lead to bias. Randomisation can minimise the bias from order effects.

Questionnaires can be self-administered or researcher-administered.

Self-administered questionnaires can be delivered online or in paper-and-pen formats, in person or by post. All questions are standardised so that all respondents receive the same questions with identical wording.

Researcher-administered questionnaires are interviews that take place by phone, in person, or online between researchers and respondents. You can gain deeper insights by clarifying questions for respondents or asking follow-up questions.

In a controlled experiment , all extraneous variables are held constant so that they can’t influence the results. Controlled experiments require:

• A control group that receives a standard treatment, a fake treatment, or no treatment
• Random assignment of participants to ensure the groups are equivalent

Depending on your study topic, there are various other methods of controlling variables .

An experimental group, also known as a treatment group, receives the treatment whose effect researchers wish to study, whereas a control group does not. They should be identical in all other ways.

A true experiment (aka a controlled experiment) always includes at least one control group that doesn’t receive the experimental treatment.

However, some experiments use a within-subjects design to test treatments without a control group. In these designs, you usually compare one group’s outcomes before and after a treatment (instead of comparing outcomes between different groups).

For strong internal validity , it’s usually best to include a control group if possible. Without a control group, it’s harder to be certain that the outcome was caused by the experimental treatment and not by other variables.

A questionnaire is a data collection tool or instrument, while a survey is an overarching research method that involves collecting and analysing data from people using questionnaires.

A Likert scale is a rating scale that quantitatively assesses opinions, attitudes, or behaviours. It is made up of four or more questions that measure a single attitude or trait when response scores are combined.

To use a Likert scale in a survey , you present participants with Likert-type questions or statements, and a continuum of items, usually with five or seven possible responses, to capture their degree of agreement.

Individual Likert-type questions are generally considered ordinal data , because the items have clear rank order, but don’t have an even distribution.

Overall Likert scale scores are sometimes treated as interval data. These scores are considered to have directionality and even spacing between them.

The type of data determines what statistical tests you should use to analyse your data.

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

Cross-sectional studies are less expensive and time-consuming than many other types of study. They can provide useful insights into a population’s characteristics and identify correlations for further research.

Sometimes only cross-sectional data are available for analysis; other times your research question may only require a cross-sectional study to answer it.

Cross-sectional studies cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship or analyse behaviour over a period of time. To investigate cause and effect, you need to do a longitudinal study or an experimental study .

Longitudinal studies and cross-sectional studies are two different types of research design . In a cross-sectional study you collect data from a population at a specific point in time; in a longitudinal study you repeatedly collect data from the same sample over an extended period of time.

Longitudinal studies are better to establish the correct sequence of events, identify changes over time, and provide insight into cause-and-effect relationships, but they also tend to be more expensive and time-consuming than other types of studies.

The 1970 British Cohort Study , which has collected data on the lives of 17,000 Brits since their births in 1970, is one well-known example of a longitudinal study .

Longitudinal studies can last anywhere from weeks to decades, although they tend to be at least a year long.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

As a rule of thumb, questions related to thoughts, beliefs, and feelings work well in focus groups . Take your time formulating strong questions, paying special attention to phrasing. Be careful to avoid leading questions , which can bias your responses.

Overall, your focus group questions should be:

• Open-ended and flexible
• Impossible to answer with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (questions that start with ‘why’ or ‘how’ are often best)
• Unambiguous, getting straight to the point while still stimulating discussion
• Unbiased and neutral

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favourably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias in research can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behaviour accordingly.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of four types of interviews .

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
• You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualise your initial thoughts and hypotheses
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

A structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions in a set order to collect data on a topic. They are often quantitative in nature. Structured interviews are best used when:

• You already have a very clear understanding of your topic. Perhaps significant research has already been conducted, or you have done some prior research yourself, but you already possess a baseline for designing strong structured questions.
• You are constrained in terms of time or resources and need to analyse your data quickly and efficiently
• Your research question depends on strong parity between participants, with environmental conditions held constant

More flexible interview options include semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

When conducting research, collecting original data has significant advantages:

• You can tailor data collection to your specific research aims (e.g., understanding the needs of your consumers or user testing your website).
• You can control and standardise the process for high reliability and validity (e.g., choosing appropriate measurements and sampling methods ).

However, there are also some drawbacks: data collection can be time-consuming, labour-intensive, and expensive. In some cases, it’s more efficient to use secondary data that has already been collected by someone else, but the data might be less reliable.

Data collection is the systematic process by which observations or measurements are gathered in research. It is used in many different contexts by academics, governments, businesses, and other organisations.

A mediator variable explains the process through which two variables are related, while a moderator variable affects the strength and direction of that relationship.

A confounder is a third variable that affects variables of interest and makes them seem related when they are not. In contrast, a mediator is the mechanism of a relationship between two variables: it explains the process by which they are related.

If something is a mediating variable :

• It’s caused by the independent variable
• It influences the dependent variable
• When it’s taken into account, the statistical correlation between the independent and dependent variables is higher than when it isn’t considered

Including mediators and moderators in your research helps you go beyond studying a simple relationship between two variables for a fuller picture of the real world. They are important to consider when studying complex correlational or causal relationships.

Mediators are part of the causal pathway of an effect, and they tell you how or why an effect takes place. Moderators usually help you judge the external validity of your study by identifying the limitations of when the relationship between variables holds.

You can think of independent and dependent variables in terms of cause and effect: an independent variable is the variable you think is the cause , while a dependent variable is the effect .

In an experiment, you manipulate the independent variable and measure the outcome in the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment about the effect of nutrients on crop growth:

• The  independent variable  is the amount of nutrients added to the crop field.
• The  dependent variable is the biomass of the crops at harvest time.

Defining your variables, and deciding how you will manipulate and measure them, is an important part of experimental design .

Discrete and continuous variables are two types of quantitative variables :

• Discrete variables represent counts (e.g., the number of objects in a collection).
• Continuous variables represent measurable amounts (e.g., water volume or weight).

Quantitative variables are any variables where the data represent amounts (e.g. height, weight, or age).

Categorical variables are any variables where the data represent groups. This includes rankings (e.g. finishing places in a race), classifications (e.g. brands of cereal), and binary outcomes (e.g. coin flips).

You need to know what type of variables you are working with to choose the right statistical test for your data and interpret your results .

Determining cause and effect is one of the most important parts of scientific research. It’s essential to know which is the cause – the independent variable – and which is the effect – the dependent variable.

You want to find out how blood sugar levels are affected by drinking diet cola and regular cola, so you conduct an experiment .

• The type of cola – diet or regular – is the independent variable .
• The level of blood sugar that you measure is the dependent variable – it changes depending on the type of cola.

No. The value of a dependent variable depends on an independent variable, so a variable cannot be both independent and dependent at the same time. It must be either the cause or the effect, not both.

Yes, but including more than one of either type requires multiple research questions .

For example, if you are interested in the effect of a diet on health, you can use multiple measures of health: blood sugar, blood pressure, weight, pulse, and many more. Each of these is its own dependent variable with its own research question.

You could also choose to look at the effect of exercise levels as well as diet, or even the additional effect of the two combined. Each of these is a separate independent variable .

To ensure the internal validity of an experiment , you should only change one independent variable at a time.

To ensure the internal validity of your research, you must consider the impact of confounding variables. If you fail to account for them, you might over- or underestimate the causal relationship between your independent and dependent variables , or even find a causal relationship where none exists.

A confounding variable is closely related to both the independent and dependent variables in a study. An independent variable represents the supposed cause , while the dependent variable is the supposed effect . A confounding variable is a third variable that influences both the independent and dependent variables.

Failing to account for confounding variables can cause you to wrongly estimate the relationship between your independent and dependent variables.

There are several methods you can use to decrease the impact of confounding variables on your research: restriction, matching, statistical control, and randomisation.

In restriction , you restrict your sample by only including certain subjects that have the same values of potential confounding variables.

In matching , you match each of the subjects in your treatment group with a counterpart in the comparison group. The matched subjects have the same values on any potential confounding variables, and only differ in the independent variable .

In statistical control , you include potential confounders as variables in your regression .

In randomisation , you randomly assign the treatment (or independent variable) in your study to a sufficiently large number of subjects, which allows you to control for all potential confounding variables.

In scientific research, concepts are the abstract ideas or phenomena that are being studied (e.g., educational achievement). Variables are properties or characteristics of the concept (e.g., performance at school), while indicators are ways of measuring or quantifying variables (e.g., yearly grade reports).

The process of turning abstract concepts into measurable variables and indicators is called operationalisation .

In statistics, ordinal and nominal variables are both considered categorical variables .

Even though ordinal data can sometimes be numerical, not all mathematical operations can be performed on them.

A control variable is any variable that’s held constant in a research study. It’s not a variable of interest in the study, but it’s controlled because it could influence the outcomes.

Control variables help you establish a correlational or causal relationship between variables by enhancing internal validity .

If you don’t control relevant extraneous variables , they may influence the outcomes of your study, and you may not be able to demonstrate that your results are really an effect of your independent variable .

‘Controlling for a variable’ means measuring extraneous variables and accounting for them statistically to remove their effects on other variables.

Researchers often model control variable data along with independent and dependent variable data in regression analyses and ANCOVAs . That way, you can isolate the control variable’s effects from the relationship between the variables of interest.

An extraneous variable is any variable that you’re not investigating that can potentially affect the dependent variable of your research study.

A confounding variable is a type of extraneous variable that not only affects the dependent variable, but is also related to the independent variable.

There are 4 main types of extraneous variables :

• Demand characteristics : Environmental cues that encourage participants to conform to researchers’ expectations
• Experimenter effects : Unintentional actions by researchers that influence study outcomes
• Situational variables : Eenvironmental variables that alter participants’ behaviours
• Participant variables : Any characteristic or aspect of a participant’s background that could affect study results

The difference between explanatory and response variables is simple:

• An explanatory variable is the expected cause, and it explains the results.
• A response variable is the expected effect, and it responds to other variables.

The term ‘ explanatory variable ‘ is sometimes preferred over ‘ independent variable ‘ because, in real-world contexts, independent variables are often influenced by other variables. This means they aren’t totally independent.

Multiple independent variables may also be correlated with each other, so ‘explanatory variables’ is a more appropriate term.

On graphs, the explanatory variable is conventionally placed on the x -axis, while the response variable is placed on the y -axis.

• If you have quantitative variables , use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your response variable is categorical, use a scatterplot or a line graph.
• If your explanatory variable is categorical, use a bar graph.

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

An independent variable is the variable you manipulate, control, or vary in an experimental study to explore its effects. It’s called ‘independent’ because it’s not influenced by any other variables in the study.

Independent variables are also called:

• Explanatory variables (they explain an event or outcome)
• Predictor variables (they can be used to predict the value of a dependent variable)
• Right-hand-side variables (they appear on the right-hand side of a regression equation)

A dependent variable is what changes as a result of the independent variable manipulation in experiments . It’s what you’re interested in measuring, and it ‘depends’ on your independent variable.

In statistics, dependent variables are also called:

• Response variables (they respond to a change in another variable)
• Outcome variables (they represent the outcome you want to measure)
• Left-hand-side variables (they appear on the left-hand side of a regression equation)

Deductive reasoning is commonly used in scientific research, and it’s especially associated with quantitative research .

In research, you might have come across something called the hypothetico-deductive method . It’s the scientific method of testing hypotheses to check whether your predictions are substantiated by real-world data.

Deductive reasoning is a logical approach where you progress from general ideas to specific conclusions. It’s often contrasted with inductive reasoning , where you start with specific observations and form general conclusions.

Deductive reasoning is also called deductive logic.

Inductive reasoning is a method of drawing conclusions by going from the specific to the general. It’s usually contrasted with deductive reasoning, where you proceed from general information to specific conclusions.

Inductive reasoning is also called inductive logic or bottom-up reasoning.

In inductive research , you start by making observations or gathering data. Then, you take a broad scan of your data and search for patterns. Finally, you make general conclusions that you might incorporate into theories.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

There are many different types of inductive reasoning that people use formally or informally.

Here are a few common types:

• Inductive generalisation : You use observations about a sample to come to a conclusion about the population it came from.
• Statistical generalisation: You use specific numbers about samples to make statements about populations.
• Causal reasoning: You make cause-and-effect links between different things.
• Sign reasoning: You make a conclusion about a correlational relationship between different things.
• Analogical reasoning: You make a conclusion about something based on its similarities to something else.

It’s often best to ask a variety of people to review your measurements. You can ask experts, such as other researchers, or laypeople, such as potential participants, to judge the face validity of tests.

While experts have a deep understanding of research methods , the people you’re studying can provide you with valuable insights you may have missed otherwise.

Face validity is important because it’s a simple first step to measuring the overall validity of a test or technique. It’s a relatively intuitive, quick, and easy way to start checking whether a new measure seems useful at first glance.

Good face validity means that anyone who reviews your measure says that it seems to be measuring what it’s supposed to. With poor face validity, someone reviewing your measure may be left confused about what you’re measuring and why you’re using this method.

Face validity is about whether a test appears to measure what it’s supposed to measure. This type of validity is concerned with whether a measure seems relevant and appropriate for what it’s assessing only on the surface.

Statistical analyses are often applied to test validity with data from your measures. You test convergent validity and discriminant validity with correlations to see if results from your test are positively or negatively related to those of other established tests.

You can also use regression analyses to assess whether your measure is actually predictive of outcomes that you expect it to predict theoretically. A regression analysis that supports your expectations strengthens your claim of construct validity .

When designing or evaluating a measure, construct validity helps you ensure you’re actually measuring the construct you’re interested in. If you don’t have construct validity, you may inadvertently measure unrelated or distinct constructs and lose precision in your research.

Construct validity is often considered the overarching type of measurement validity ,  because it covers all of the other types. You need to have face validity , content validity, and criterion validity to achieve construct validity.

Construct validity is about how well a test measures the concept it was designed to evaluate. It’s one of four types of measurement validity , which includes construct validity, face validity , and criterion validity.

There are two subtypes of construct validity.

• Convergent validity : The extent to which your measure corresponds to measures of related constructs
• Discriminant validity: The extent to which your measure is unrelated or negatively related to measures of distinct constructs

Attrition bias can skew your sample so that your final sample differs significantly from your original sample. Your sample is biased because some groups from your population are underrepresented.

With a biased final sample, you may not be able to generalise your findings to the original population that you sampled from, so your external validity is compromised.

There are seven threats to external validity : selection bias , history, experimenter effect, Hawthorne effect , testing effect, aptitude-treatment, and situation effect.

The two types of external validity are population validity (whether you can generalise to other groups of people) and ecological validity (whether you can generalise to other situations and settings).

The external validity of a study is the extent to which you can generalise your findings to different groups of people, situations, and measures.

Attrition bias is a threat to internal validity . In experiments, differential rates of attrition between treatment and control groups can skew results.

This bias can affect the relationship between your independent and dependent variables . It can make variables appear to be correlated when they are not, or vice versa.

Internal validity is the extent to which you can be confident that a cause-and-effect relationship established in a study cannot be explained by other factors.

There are eight threats to internal validity : history, maturation, instrumentation, testing, selection bias , regression to the mean, social interaction, and attrition .

A sampling error is the difference between a population parameter and a sample statistic .

A statistic refers to measures about the sample , while a parameter refers to measures about the population .

Populations are used when a research question requires data from every member of the population. This is usually only feasible when the population is small and easily accessible.

Systematic sampling is a probability sampling method where researchers select members of the population at a regular interval – for example, by selecting every 15th person on a list of the population. If the population is in a random order, this can imitate the benefits of simple random sampling .

There are three key steps in systematic sampling :

• Define and list your population , ensuring that it is not ordered in a cyclical or periodic order.
• Decide on your sample size and calculate your interval, k , by dividing your population by your target sample size.
• Choose every k th member of the population as your sample.

Yes, you can create a stratified sample using multiple characteristics, but you must ensure that every participant in your study belongs to one and only one subgroup. In this case, you multiply the numbers of subgroups for each characteristic to get the total number of groups.

For example, if you were stratifying by location with three subgroups (urban, rural, or suburban) and marital status with five subgroups (single, divorced, widowed, married, or partnered), you would have 3 × 5 = 15 subgroups.

You should use stratified sampling when your sample can be divided into mutually exclusive and exhaustive subgroups that you believe will take on different mean values for the variable that you’re studying.

Using stratified sampling will allow you to obtain more precise (with lower variance ) statistical estimates of whatever you are trying to measure.

For example, say you want to investigate how income differs based on educational attainment, but you know that this relationship can vary based on race. Using stratified sampling, you can ensure you obtain a large enough sample from each racial group, allowing you to draw more precise conclusions.

In stratified sampling , researchers divide subjects into subgroups called strata based on characteristics that they share (e.g., race, gender, educational attainment).

Once divided, each subgroup is randomly sampled using another probability sampling method .

Multistage sampling can simplify data collection when you have large, geographically spread samples, and you can obtain a probability sample without a complete sampling frame.

But multistage sampling may not lead to a representative sample, and larger samples are needed for multistage samples to achieve the statistical properties of simple random samples .

In multistage sampling , you can use probability or non-probability sampling methods.

For a probability sample, you have to probability sampling at every stage. You can mix it up by using simple random sampling , systematic sampling , or stratified sampling to select units at different stages, depending on what is applicable and relevant to your study.

Cluster sampling is a probability sampling method in which you divide a population into clusters, such as districts or schools, and then randomly select some of these clusters as your sample.

The clusters should ideally each be mini-representations of the population as a whole.

There are three types of cluster sampling : single-stage, double-stage and multi-stage clustering. In all three types, you first divide the population into clusters, then randomly select clusters for use in your sample.

• In single-stage sampling , you collect data from every unit within the selected clusters.
• In double-stage sampling , you select a random sample of units from within the clusters.
• In multi-stage sampling , you repeat the procedure of randomly sampling elements from within the clusters until you have reached a manageable sample.

Cluster sampling is more time- and cost-efficient than other probability sampling methods , particularly when it comes to large samples spread across a wide geographical area.

However, it provides less statistical certainty than other methods, such as simple random sampling , because it is difficult to ensure that your clusters properly represent the population as a whole.

If properly implemented, simple random sampling is usually the best sampling method for ensuring both internal and external validity . However, it can sometimes be impractical and expensive to implement, depending on the size of the population to be studied,

If you have a list of every member of the population and the ability to reach whichever members are selected, you can use simple random sampling.

The American Community Survey  is an example of simple random sampling . In order to collect detailed data on the population of the US, the Census Bureau officials randomly select 3.5 million households per year and use a variety of methods to convince them to fill out the survey.

Simple random sampling is a type of probability sampling in which the researcher randomly selects a subset of participants from a population . Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Data are then collected from as large a percentage as possible of this random subset.

Sampling bias occurs when some members of a population are systematically more likely to be selected in a sample than others.

In multistage sampling , or multistage cluster sampling, you draw a sample from a population using smaller and smaller groups at each stage.

This method is often used to collect data from a large, geographically spread group of people in national surveys, for example. You take advantage of hierarchical groupings (e.g., from county to city to neighbourhood) to create a sample that’s less expensive and time-consuming to collect data from.

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling , and quota sampling .

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

While a between-subjects design has fewer threats to internal validity , it also requires more participants for high statistical power than a within-subjects design .

Advantages:

• Prevents carryover effects of learning and fatigue.
• Shorter study duration.

Disadvantages:

• Needs larger samples for high power.
• Uses more resources to recruit participants, administer sessions, cover costs, etc.
• Individual differences may be an alternative explanation for results.

In a factorial design, multiple independent variables are tested.

If you test two variables, each level of one independent variable is combined with each level of the other independent variable to create different conditions.

Yes. Between-subjects and within-subjects designs can be combined in a single study when you have two or more independent variables (a factorial design). In a mixed factorial design, one variable is altered between subjects and another is altered within subjects.

Within-subjects designs have many potential threats to internal validity , but they are also very statistically powerful .

• Only requires small samples
• Statistically powerful
• Removes the effects of individual differences on the outcomes
• Internal validity threats reduce the likelihood of establishing a direct relationship between variables
• Time-related effects, such as growth, can influence the outcomes
• Carryover effects mean that the specific order of different treatments affect the outcomes

Quasi-experimental design is most useful in situations where it would be unethical or impractical to run a true experiment .

Quasi-experiments have lower internal validity than true experiments, but they often have higher external validity  as they can use real-world interventions instead of artificial laboratory settings.

In experimental research, random assignment is a way of placing participants from your sample into different groups using randomisation. With this method, every member of the sample has a known or equal chance of being placed in a control group or an experimental group.

A quasi-experiment is a type of research design that attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. The main difference between this and a true experiment is that the groups are not randomly assigned.

In a between-subjects design , every participant experiences only one condition, and researchers assess group differences between participants in various conditions.

In a within-subjects design , each participant experiences all conditions, and researchers test the same participants repeatedly for differences between conditions.

The word ‘between’ means that you’re comparing different conditions between groups, while the word ‘within’ means you’re comparing different conditions within the same group.

A confounding variable , also called a confounder or confounding factor, is a third variable in a study examining a potential cause-and-effect relationship.

A confounding variable is related to both the supposed cause and the supposed effect of the study. It can be difficult to separate the true effect of the independent variable from the effect of the confounding variable.

In your research design , it’s important to identify potential confounding variables and plan how you will reduce their impact.

Triangulation can help:

• Reduce bias that comes from using a single method, theory, or investigator
• Enhance validity by approaching the same topic with different tools
• Establish credibility by giving you a complete picture of the research problem

But triangulation can also pose problems:

• It’s time-consuming and labour-intensive, often involving an interdisciplinary team.
• Your results may be inconsistent or even contradictory.

There are four main types of triangulation :

• Data triangulation : Using data from different times, spaces, and people
• Investigator triangulation : Involving multiple researchers in collecting or analysing data
• Theory triangulation : Using varying theoretical perspectives in your research
• Methodological triangulation : Using different methodologies to approach the same topic

Experimental designs are a set of procedures that you plan in order to examine the relationship between variables that interest you.

To design a successful experiment, first identify:

• A testable hypothesis
• One or more independent variables that you will manipulate
• One or more dependent variables that you will measure

When designing the experiment, first decide:

• How your variable(s) will be manipulated
• How you will control for any potential confounding or lurking variables
• How many subjects you will include
• How you will assign treatments to your subjects

Exploratory research explores the main aspects of a new or barely researched question.

Explanatory research explains the causes and effects of an already widely researched question.

The key difference between observational studies and experiments is that, done correctly, an observational study will never influence the responses or behaviours of participants. Experimental designs will have a treatment condition applied to at least a portion of participants.

An observational study could be a good fit for your research if your research question is based on things you observe. If you have ethical, logistical, or practical concerns that make an experimental design challenging, consider an observational study. Remember that in an observational study, it is critical that there be no interference or manipulation of the research subjects. Since it’s not an experiment, there are no control or treatment groups either.

These are four of the most common mixed methods designs :

• Convergent parallel: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time and analysed separately. After both analyses are complete, compare your results to draw overall conclusions. 
• Embedded: Quantitative and qualitative data are collected at the same time, but within a larger quantitative or qualitative design. One type of data is secondary to the other.
• Explanatory sequential: Quantitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by qualitative data. You can use this design if you think your qualitative data will explain and contextualise your quantitative findings.
• Exploratory sequential: Qualitative data is collected and analysed first, followed by quantitative data. You can use this design if you think the quantitative data will confirm or validate your qualitative findings.

Triangulation in research means using multiple datasets, methods, theories and/or investigators to address a research question. It’s a research strategy that can help you enhance the validity and credibility of your findings.

Triangulation is mainly used in qualitative research , but it’s also commonly applied in quantitative research . Mixed methods research always uses triangulation.

Operationalisation means turning abstract conceptual ideas into measurable observations.

For example, the concept of social anxiety isn’t directly observable, but it can be operationally defined in terms of self-rating scores, behavioural avoidance of crowded places, or physical anxiety symptoms in social situations.

Before collecting data , it’s important to consider how you will operationalise the variables that you want to measure.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

There are five common approaches to qualitative research :

• Grounded theory involves collecting data in order to develop new theories.
• Ethnography involves immersing yourself in a group or organisation to understand its culture.
• Narrative research involves interpreting stories to understand how people make sense of their experiences and perceptions.
• Phenomenological research involves investigating phenomena through people’s lived experiences.
• Action research links theory and practice in several cycles to drive innovative changes.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organise your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

In mixed methods research , you use both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods to answer your research question .

Methodology refers to the overarching strategy and rationale of your research project . It involves studying the methods used in your field and the theories or principles behind them, in order to develop an approach that matches your objectives.

Methods are the specific tools and procedures you use to collect and analyse data (e.g. experiments, surveys , and statistical tests ).

In shorter scientific papers, where the aim is to report the findings of a specific study, you might simply describe what you did in a methods section .

In a longer or more complex research project, such as a thesis or dissertation , you will probably include a methodology section , where you explain your approach to answering the research questions and cite relevant sources to support your choice of methods.

The research methods you use depend on the type of data you need to answer your research question .

• If you want to measure something or test a hypothesis , use quantitative methods . If you want to explore ideas, thoughts, and meanings, use qualitative methods .
• If you want to analyse a large amount of readily available data, use secondary data. If you want data specific to your purposes with control over how they are generated, collect primary data.
• If you want to establish cause-and-effect relationships between variables , use experimental methods. If you want to understand the characteristics of a research subject, use descriptive methods.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

• Chat with us
• Email [email protected]
• Call +44 (0)20 3917 4242
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our support team is here to help you daily via chat, WhatsApp, email, or phone between 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. CET.

Our APA experts default to APA 7 for editing and formatting. For the Citation Editing Service you are able to choose between APA 6 and 7.

Yes, if your document is longer than 20,000 words, you will get a sample of approximately 2,000 words. This sample edit gives you a first impression of the editor’s editing style and a chance to ask questions and give feedback.

How does the sample edit work?

You will receive the sample edit within 24 hours after placing your order. You then have 24 hours to let us know if you’re happy with the sample or if there’s something you would like the editor to do differently.

Read more about how the sample edit works

Yes, you can upload your document in sections.

We try our best to ensure that the same editor checks all the different sections of your document. When you upload a new file, our system recognizes you as a returning customer, and we immediately contact the editor who helped you before.

However, we cannot guarantee that the same editor will be available. Your chances are higher if

• You send us your text as soon as possible and
• You can be flexible about the deadline.

Please note that the shorter your deadline is, the lower the chance that your previous editor is not available.

If your previous editor isn’t available, then we will inform you immediately and look for another qualified editor. Fear not! Every Scribbr editor follows the  Scribbr Improvement Model  and will deliver high-quality work.

Yes, our editors also work during the weekends and holidays.

Because we have many editors available, we can check your document 24 hours per day and 7 days per week, all year round.

If you choose a 72 hour deadline and upload your document on a Thursday evening, you’ll have your thesis back by Sunday evening!

Yes! Our editors are all native speakers, and they have lots of experience editing texts written by ESL students. They will make sure your grammar is perfect and point out any sentences that are difficult to understand. They’ll also notice your most common mistakes, and give you personal feedback to improve your writing in English.

Every Scribbr order comes with our award-winning Proofreading & Editing service , which combines two important stages of the revision process.

For a more comprehensive edit, you can add a Structure Check or Clarity Check to your order. With these building blocks, you can customize the kind of feedback you receive.

You might be familiar with a different set of editing terms. To help you understand what you can expect at Scribbr, we created this table:

View an example

When you place an order, you can specify your field of study and we’ll match you with an editor who has familiarity with this area.

However, our editors are language specialists, not academic experts in your field. Your editor’s job is not to comment on the content of your dissertation, but to improve your language and help you express your ideas as clearly and fluently as possible.

This means that your editor will understand your text well enough to give feedback on its clarity, logic and structure, but not on the accuracy or originality of its content.

Good academic writing should be understandable to a non-expert reader, and we believe that academic editing is a discipline in itself. The research, ideas and arguments are all yours – we’re here to make sure they shine!

After your document has been edited, you will receive an email with a link to download the document.

The editor has made changes to your document using ‘Track Changes’ in Word. This means that you only have to accept or ignore the changes that are made in the text one by one.

It is also possible to accept all changes at once. However, we strongly advise you not to do so for the following reasons:

• You can learn a lot by looking at the mistakes you made.
• The editors don’t only change the text – they also place comments when sentences or sometimes even entire paragraphs are unclear. You should read through these comments and take into account your editor’s tips and suggestions.
• With a final read-through, you can make sure you’re 100% happy with your text before you submit!

You choose the turnaround time when ordering. We can return your dissertation within 24 hours , 3 days or 1 week . These timescales include weekends and holidays. As soon as you’ve paid, the deadline is set, and we guarantee to meet it! We’ll notify you by text and email when your editor has completed the job.

Very large orders might not be possible to complete in 24 hours. On average, our editors can complete around 13,000 words in a day while maintaining our high quality standards. If your order is longer than this and urgent, contact us to discuss possibilities.

Always leave yourself enough time to check through the document and accept the changes before your submission deadline.

Scribbr is specialised in editing study related documents. We check:

• Graduation projects
• Dissertations
• Admissions essays
• College essays
• Application essays
• Personal statements
• Process reports
• Reflections
• Internship reports
• Academic papers
• Research proposals
• Prospectuses

Calculate the costs

The fastest turnaround time is 24 hours.

You can upload your document at any time and choose between three deadlines:

At Scribbr, we promise to make every customer 100% happy with the service we offer. Our philosophy: Your complaint is always justified – no denial, no doubts.

Our customer support team is here to find the solution that helps you the most, whether that’s a free new edit or a refund for the service.

Yes, in the order process you can indicate your preference for American, British, or Australian English .

If you don’t choose one, your editor will follow the style of English you currently use. If your editor has any questions about this, we will contact you.

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

• A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
• It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
• A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
• Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
• For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
• Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

• Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

• Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
• However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

• Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
• Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
• Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
• Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
• Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

• The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
• The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

• Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
• Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
• Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
• Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
• Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
• Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
• Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
• Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

Correlation Hypothesis

Understanding the relationships between variables is pivotal in research. Correlation hypotheses delve into the degree of association between two or more variables. In this guide, delve into an array of correlation hypothesis examples that explore connections, followed by a step-by-step tutorial on crafting these thesis statement hypothesis effectively. Enhance your research prowess with valuable tips tailored to unravel the intricate world of correlations.

What is Correlation Hypothesis?

A correlation hypothesis is a statement that predicts a specific relationship between two or more variables based on the assumption that changes in one variable are associated with changes in another variable. It suggests that there is a correlation or statistical relationship between the variables, meaning that when one variable changes, the other variable is likely to change in a consistent manner.

What is an example of a Correlation Hypothesis Statement?

Example: “If the amount of exercise increases, then the level of physical fitness will also increase.”

In this example, the correlation hypothesis suggests that there is a positive correlation between the amount of exercise a person engages in and their level of physical fitness. As exercise increases, the hypothesis predicts that physical fitness will increase as well. This hypothesis can be tested by collecting data on exercise levels and physical fitness levels and analyzing the relationship between the two variables using statistical methods.

100 Correlation Hypothesis Statement Examples

Size: 277 KB

Discover the intriguing world of correlation through a collection of examples that illustrate how variables can be linked in research. Explore diverse scenarios where changes in one variable may correspond to changes in another, forming the basis of correlation hypotheses. These real-world instances shed light on the essence of correlation analysis and its role in uncovering connections between different aspects of data.

• Study Hours and Exam Scores : If students study more hours per week, then their exam scores will show a positive correlation, indicating that increased study time might lead to better performance.
• Income and Education : If the level of education increases, then income levels will also rise, demonstrating a positive correlation between education attainment and earning potential.
• Social Media Usage and Well-being : If individuals spend more time on social media platforms, then their self-reported well-being might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that excessive use could impact mental health.
• Temperature and Ice Cream Sales : If temperatures rise, then the sales of ice cream might increase, displaying a positive correlation due to the weather’s influence on consumer behavior.
• Physical Activity and Heart Rate : If the intensity of physical activity rises, then heart rate might increase, signifying a positive correlation between exercise intensity and heart rate.
• Age and Reaction Time : If age increases, then reaction time might show a positive correlation, indicating that as people age, their reaction times might slow down.
• Smoking and Lung Capacity : If the number of cigarettes smoked daily increases, then lung capacity might decrease, suggesting a negative correlation between smoking and respiratory health.
• Stress and Sleep Quality : If stress levels elevate, then sleep quality might decline, reflecting a negative correlation between psychological stress and restorative sleep.
• Rainfall and Crop Yield : If the amount of rainfall decreases, then crop yield might also decrease, illustrating a negative correlation between precipitation and agricultural productivity.
• Screen Time and Academic Performance : If screen time usage increases among students, then academic performance might show a negative correlation, suggesting that excessive screen time could be detrimental to studies.
• Exercise and Body Weight : If individuals engage in regular exercise, then their body weight might exhibit a negative correlation, implying that physical activity can contribute to weight management.
• Income and Crime Rates : If income levels decrease in a neighborhood, then crime rates might show a positive correlation, indicating a potential link between socio-economic factors and crime.
• Social Support and Mental Health : If the level of social support increases, then individuals’ mental health scores may exhibit a positive correlation, highlighting the potential positive impact of strong social networks on psychological well-being.
• Study Time and GPA : If students spend more time studying, then their Grade Point Average (GPA) might display a positive correlation, suggesting that increased study efforts may lead to higher academic achievement.
• Parental Involvement and Academic Success : If parents are more involved in their child’s education, then the child’s academic success may show a positive correlation, emphasizing the role of parental support in shaping student outcomes.
• Alcohol Consumption and Reaction Time : If alcohol consumption increases, then reaction time might slow down, indicating a negative correlation between alcohol intake and cognitive performance.
• Social Media Engagement and Loneliness : If time spent on social media platforms increases, then feelings of loneliness might show a positive correlation, suggesting a potential connection between excessive online interaction and emotional well-being.
• Temperature and Insect Activity : If temperatures rise, then the activity of certain insects might increase, demonstrating a potential positive correlation between temperature and insect behavior.
• Education Level and Voting Participation : If education levels rise, then voter participation rates may also increase, showcasing a positive correlation between education and civic engagement.
• Work Commute Time and Job Satisfaction : If work commute time decreases, then job satisfaction might show a positive correlation, indicating that shorter commutes could contribute to higher job satisfaction.
• Sleep Duration and Cognitive Performance : If sleep duration increases, then cognitive performance scores might also rise, suggesting a potential positive correlation between adequate sleep and cognitive functioning.
• Healthcare Access and Mortality Rate : If access to healthcare services improves, then the mortality rate might decrease, highlighting a potential negative correlation between healthcare accessibility and mortality.
• Exercise and Blood Pressure : If individuals engage in regular exercise, then their blood pressure levels might exhibit a negative correlation, indicating that physical activity can contribute to maintaining healthy blood pressure.
• Social Media Use and Academic Distraction : If students spend more time on social media during study sessions, then their academic focus might show a negative correlation, suggesting that excessive online engagement can hinder concentration.
• Age and Technological Adaptation : If age increases, then the speed of adapting to new technologies might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that younger individuals tend to adapt more quickly.
• Temperature and Plant Growth : If temperatures rise, then the rate of plant growth might increase, indicating a potential positive correlation between temperature and biological processes.
• Music Exposure and Mood : If individuals listen to upbeat music, then their reported mood might show a positive correlation, suggesting that music can influence emotional states.
• Income and Healthcare Utilization : If income levels increase, then the frequency of healthcare utilization might decrease, suggesting a potential negative correlation between income and healthcare needs.
• Distance and Communication Frequency : If physical distance between individuals increases, then their communication frequency might show a negative correlation, indicating that proximity tends to facilitate communication.
• Study Group Attendance and Exam Scores : If students regularly attend study groups, then their exam scores might exhibit a positive correlation, suggesting that collaborative study efforts could enhance performance.
• Temperature and Disease Transmission : If temperatures rise, then the transmission of certain diseases might increase, pointing to a potential positive correlation between temperature and disease spread.
• Interest Rates and Consumer Spending : If interest rates decrease, then consumer spending might show a positive correlation, suggesting that lower interest rates encourage increased economic activity.
• Digital Device Use and Eye Strain : If individuals spend more time on digital devices, then the occurrence of eye strain might show a positive correlation, suggesting that prolonged screen time can impact eye health.
• Parental Education and Children’s Educational Attainment : If parents have higher levels of education, then their children’s educational attainment might display a positive correlation, highlighting the intergenerational impact of education.
• Social Interaction and Happiness : If individuals engage in frequent social interactions, then their reported happiness levels might show a positive correlation, indicating that social connections contribute to well-being.
• Temperature and Energy Consumption : If temperatures decrease, then energy consumption for heating might increase, suggesting a potential positive correlation between temperature and energy usage.
• Physical Activity and Stress Reduction : If individuals engage in regular physical activity, then their reported stress levels might display a negative correlation, indicating that exercise can help alleviate stress.
• Diet Quality and Chronic Diseases : If diet quality improves, then the prevalence of chronic diseases might decrease, suggesting a potential negative correlation between healthy eating habits and disease risk.
• Social Media Use and Body Image Dissatisfaction : If time spent on social media increases, then feelings of body image dissatisfaction might show a positive correlation, suggesting that online platforms can influence self-perception.
• Income and Access to Quality Education : If household income increases, then access to quality education for children might improve, suggesting a potential positive correlation between financial resources and educational opportunities.
• Workplace Diversity and Innovation : If workplace diversity increases, then the rate of innovation might show a positive correlation, indicating that diverse teams often generate more creative solutions.
• Physical Activity and Bone Density : If individuals engage in weight-bearing exercises, then their bone density might exhibit a positive correlation, suggesting that exercise contributes to bone health.
• Screen Time and Attention Span : If screen time increases, then attention span might show a negative correlation, indicating that excessive screen exposure can impact sustained focus.
• Social Support and Resilience : If individuals have strong social support networks, then their resilience levels might display a positive correlation, suggesting that social connections contribute to coping abilities.
• Weather Conditions and Mood : If sunny weather persists, then individuals’ reported mood might exhibit a positive correlation, reflecting the potential impact of weather on emotional states.
• Nutrition Education and Healthy Eating : If individuals receive nutrition education, then their consumption of fruits and vegetables might show a positive correlation, suggesting that knowledge influences dietary choices.
• Physical Activity and Cognitive Aging : If adults engage in regular physical activity, then their cognitive decline with aging might show a slower rate, indicating a potential negative correlation between exercise and cognitive aging.
• Air Quality and Respiratory Illnesses : If air quality deteriorates, then the incidence of respiratory illnesses might increase, suggesting a potential positive correlation between air pollutants and health impacts.
• Reading Habits and Vocabulary Growth : If individuals read regularly, then their vocabulary size might exhibit a positive correlation, suggesting that reading contributes to language development.
• Sleep Quality and Stress Levels : If sleep quality improves, then reported stress levels might display a negative correlation, indicating that sleep can impact psychological well-being.
• Social Media Engagement and Academic Performance : If students spend more time on social media, then their academic performance might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that excessive online engagement can impact studies.
• Exercise and Blood Sugar Levels : If individuals engage in regular exercise, then their blood sugar levels might display a negative correlation, indicating that physical activity can influence glucose regulation.
• Screen Time and Sleep Duration : If screen time before bedtime increases, then sleep duration might show a negative correlation, suggesting that screen exposure can affect sleep patterns.
• Environmental Pollution and Health Outcomes : If exposure to environmental pollutants increases, then the occurrence of health issues might show a positive correlation, suggesting that pollution can impact well-being.
• Time Management and Academic Achievement : If students improve time management skills, then their academic achievement might exhibit a positive correlation, indicating that effective planning contributes to success.
• Physical Fitness and Heart Health : If individuals improve their physical fitness, then their heart health indicators might display a positive correlation, indicating that exercise benefits cardiovascular well-being.
• Weather Conditions and Outdoor Activities : If weather is sunny, then outdoor activities might show a positive correlation, suggesting that favorable weather encourages outdoor engagement.
• Media Exposure and Body Image Perception : If exposure to media images increases, then body image dissatisfaction might show a positive correlation, indicating media’s potential influence on self-perception.
• Community Engagement and Civic Participation : If individuals engage in community activities, then their civic participation might exhibit a positive correlation, indicating an active citizenry.
• Social Media Use and Productivity : If individuals spend more time on social media, then their productivity levels might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that online distractions can affect work efficiency.
• Income and Stress Levels : If income levels increase, then reported stress levels might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that financial stability can impact psychological well-being.
• Social Media Use and Interpersonal Skills : If individuals spend more time on social media, then their interpersonal skills might show a negative correlation, indicating potential effects on face-to-face interactions.
• Parental Involvement and Academic Motivation : If parents are more involved in their child’s education, then the child’s academic motivation may exhibit a positive correlation, highlighting the role of parental support.
• Technology Use and Sleep Quality : If screen time increases before bedtime, then sleep quality might show a negative correlation, suggesting that technology use can impact sleep.
• Outdoor Activity and Mood Enhancement : If individuals engage in outdoor activities, then their reported mood might display a positive correlation, suggesting the potential emotional benefits of nature exposure.
• Income Inequality and Social Mobility : If income inequality increases, then social mobility might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting that higher inequality can hinder upward mobility.
• Vegetable Consumption and Heart Health : If individuals increase their vegetable consumption, then heart health indicators might show a positive correlation, indicating the potential benefits of a nutritious diet.
• Online Learning and Academic Achievement : If students engage in online learning, then their academic achievement might display a positive correlation, highlighting the effectiveness of digital education.
• Emotional Intelligence and Workplace Performance : If emotional intelligence improves, then workplace performance might exhibit a positive correlation, indicating the relevance of emotional skills.
• Community Engagement and Mental Well-being : If individuals engage in community activities, then their reported mental well-being might show a positive correlation, emphasizing social connections’ impact.
• Rainfall and Agriculture Productivity : If rainfall levels increase, then agricultural productivity might exhibit a positive correlation, indicating the importance of water for crops.
• Social Media Use and Body Posture : If screen time increases, then poor body posture might show a positive correlation, suggesting that screen use can influence physical habits.
• Marital Satisfaction and Relationship Length : If marital satisfaction decreases, then relationship length might show a negative correlation, indicating potential challenges over time.
• Exercise and Anxiety Levels : If individuals engage in regular exercise, then reported anxiety levels might exhibit a negative correlation, indicating the potential benefits of physical activity on mental health.
• Music Listening and Concentration : If individuals listen to instrumental music, then their concentration levels might display a positive correlation, suggesting music’s impact on focus.
• Internet Usage and Attention Deficits : If screen time increases, then attention deficits might show a positive correlation, implying that excessive internet use can affect concentration.
• Financial Literacy and Debt Levels : If financial literacy improves, then personal debt levels might exhibit a negative correlation, suggesting better financial decision-making.
• Time Spent Outdoors and Vitamin D Levels : If time spent outdoors increases, then vitamin D levels might show a positive correlation, indicating sun exposure’s role in vitamin synthesis.
• Family Meal Frequency and Nutrition : If families eat meals together frequently, then nutrition quality might display a positive correlation, emphasizing family dining’s impact on health.
• Temperature and Allergy Symptoms : If temperatures rise, then allergy symptoms might increase, suggesting a potential positive correlation between temperature and allergen exposure.
• Social Media Use and Academic Distraction : If students spend more time on social media, then their academic focus might exhibit a negative correlation, indicating that online engagement can hinder studies.
• Financial Stress and Health Outcomes : If financial stress increases, then the occurrence of health issues might show a positive correlation, suggesting potential health impacts of economic strain.
• Study Hours and Test Anxiety : If students study more hours, then test anxiety might show a negative correlation, suggesting that increased preparation can reduce anxiety.
• Music Tempo and Exercise Intensity : If music tempo increases, then exercise intensity might display a positive correlation, indicating music’s potential to influence workout vigor.
• Green Space Accessibility and Stress Reduction : If access to green spaces improves, then reported stress levels might exhibit a negative correlation, highlighting nature’s stress-reducing effects.
• Parenting Style and Child Behavior : If authoritative parenting increases, then positive child behaviors might display a positive correlation, suggesting parenting’s influence on behavior.
• Sleep Quality and Productivity : If sleep quality improves, then work productivity might show a positive correlation, emphasizing the connection between rest and efficiency.
• Media Consumption and Political Beliefs : If media consumption increases, then alignment with specific political beliefs might exhibit a positive correlation, suggesting media’s influence on ideology.
• Workplace Satisfaction and Employee Retention : If workplace satisfaction increases, then employee retention rates might show a positive correlation, indicating the link between job satisfaction and tenure.
• Digital Device Use and Eye Discomfort : If screen time increases, then reported eye discomfort might show a positive correlation, indicating potential impacts of screen exposure.
• Age and Adaptability to Technology : If age increases, then adaptability to new technologies might exhibit a negative correlation, indicating generational differences in tech adoption.
• Physical Activity and Mental Health : If individuals engage in regular physical activity, then reported mental health scores might exhibit a positive correlation, showcasing exercise’s impact.
• Video Gaming and Attention Span : If time spent on video games increases, then attention span might display a negative correlation, indicating potential effects on focus.
• Social Media Use and Empathy Levels : If social media use increases, then reported empathy levels might show a negative correlation, suggesting possible effects on emotional understanding.
• Reading Habits and Creativity : If individuals read diverse genres, then their creative thinking might exhibit a positive correlation, emphasizing reading’s cognitive benefits.
• Weather Conditions and Outdoor Exercise : If weather is pleasant, then outdoor exercise might show a positive correlation, suggesting weather’s influence on physical activity.
• Parental Involvement and Bullying Prevention : If parents are actively involved, then instances of bullying might exhibit a negative correlation, emphasizing parental impact on behavior.
• Digital Device Use and Sleep Disruption : If screen time before bedtime increases, then sleep disruption might show a positive correlation, indicating technology’s influence on sleep.
• Friendship Quality and Psychological Well-being : If friendship quality increases, then reported psychological well-being might show a positive correlation, highlighting social support’s impact.
• Income and Environmental Consciousness : If income levels increase, then environmental consciousness might also rise, indicating potential links between affluence and sustainability awareness.

Correlational Hypothesis Interpretation Statement Examples

Explore the art of interpreting correlation hypotheses with these illustrative examples. Understand the implications of positive, negative, and zero correlations, and learn how to deduce meaningful insights from data relationships.

• Relationship Between Exercise and Mood : A positive correlation between exercise frequency and mood scores suggests that increased physical activity might contribute to enhanced emotional well-being.
• Association Between Screen Time and Sleep Quality : A negative correlation between screen time before bedtime and sleep quality indicates that higher screen exposure could lead to poorer sleep outcomes.
• Connection Between Study Hours and Exam Performance : A positive correlation between study hours and exam scores implies that increased study time might correspond to better academic results.
• Link Between Stress Levels and Meditation Practice : A negative correlation between stress levels and meditation frequency suggests that engaging in meditation could be associated with lower perceived stress.
• Relationship Between Social Media Use and Loneliness : A positive correlation between social media engagement and feelings of loneliness implies that excessive online interaction might contribute to increased loneliness.
• Association Between Income and Happiness : A positive correlation between income and self-reported happiness indicates that higher income levels might be linked to greater subjective well-being.
• Connection Between Parental Involvement and Academic Performance : A positive correlation between parental involvement and students’ grades suggests that active parental engagement might contribute to better academic outcomes.
• Link Between Time Management and Stress Levels : A negative correlation between effective time management and reported stress levels implies that better time management skills could lead to lower stress.
• Relationship Between Outdoor Activities and Vitamin D Levels : A positive correlation between time spent outdoors and vitamin D levels suggests that increased outdoor engagement might be associated with higher vitamin D concentrations.
• Association Between Water Consumption and Skin Hydration : A positive correlation between water intake and skin hydration indicates that higher fluid consumption might lead to improved skin moisture levels.

Alternative Correlational Hypothesis Statement Examples

Explore alternative scenarios and potential correlations in these examples. Learn to articulate different hypotheses that could explain data relationships beyond the conventional assumptions.

• Alternative to Exercise and Mood : An alternative hypothesis could suggest a non-linear relationship between exercise and mood, indicating that moderate exercise might have the most positive impact on emotional well-being.
• Alternative to Screen Time and Sleep Quality : An alternative hypothesis might propose that screen time has a curvilinear relationship with sleep quality, suggesting that moderate screen exposure leads to optimal sleep outcomes.
• Alternative to Study Hours and Exam Performance : An alternative hypothesis could propose that there’s an interaction effect between study hours and study method, influencing the relationship between study time and exam scores.
• Alternative to Stress Levels and Meditation Practice : An alternative hypothesis might consider that the relationship between stress levels and meditation practice is moderated by personality traits, resulting in varying effects.
• Alternative to Social Media Use and Loneliness : An alternative hypothesis could posit that the relationship between social media use and loneliness depends on the quality of online interactions and content consumption.
• Alternative to Income and Happiness : An alternative hypothesis might propose that the relationship between income and happiness differs based on cultural factors, leading to varying happiness levels at different income ranges.
• Alternative to Parental Involvement and Academic Performance : An alternative hypothesis could suggest that the relationship between parental involvement and academic performance varies based on students’ learning styles and preferences.
• Alternative to Time Management and Stress Levels : An alternative hypothesis might explore the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between time management and stress levels, indicating that extreme time management efforts might elevate stress.
• Alternative to Outdoor Activities and Vitamin D Levels : An alternative hypothesis could consider that the relationship between outdoor activities and vitamin D levels is moderated by sunscreen usage, influencing vitamin synthesis.
• Alternative to Water Consumption and Skin Hydration : An alternative hypothesis might propose that the relationship between water consumption and skin hydration is mediated by dietary factors, influencing fluid retention and skin health.

Correlational Hypothesis Pearson Interpretation Statement Examples

Discover how the Pearson correlation coefficient enhances your understanding of data relationships with these examples. Learn to interpret correlation strength and direction using this valuable statistical measure.

• Strong Positive Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of +0.85 between study time and exam scores indicates a strong positive relationship, suggesting that increased study time is strongly associated with higher grades.
• Moderate Negative Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.45 between screen time and sleep quality reflects a moderate negative correlation, implying that higher screen exposure is moderately linked to poorer sleep outcomes.
• Weak Positive Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of +0.25 between social media use and loneliness suggests a weak positive correlation, indicating that increased online engagement is weakly related to higher loneliness.
• Strong Negative Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.75 between stress levels and meditation practice indicates a strong negative relationship, implying that engaging in meditation is strongly associated with lower stress.
• Moderate Positive Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of +0.60 between income and happiness signifies a moderate positive correlation, suggesting that higher income is moderately linked to greater happiness.
• Weak Negative Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.30 between parental involvement and academic performance represents a weak negative correlation, indicating that higher parental involvement is weakly associated with lower academic performance.
• Strong Positive Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of +0.80 between time management and stress levels reveals a strong positive relationship, suggesting that effective time management is strongly linked to lower stress.
• Weak Negative Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.20 between outdoor activities and vitamin D levels signifies a weak negative correlation, implying that higher outdoor engagement is weakly related to lower vitamin D levels.
• Moderate Positive Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of +0.50 between water consumption and skin hydration denotes a moderate positive correlation, suggesting that increased fluid intake is moderately linked to better skin hydration.
• Strong Negative Correlation : A Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.70 between screen time and attention span indicates a strong negative relationship, implying that higher screen exposure is strongly associated with shorter attention spans.

Correlational Hypothesis Statement Examples in Psychology

Explore how correlation hypotheses apply to psychological research with these examples. Understand how psychologists investigate relationships between variables to gain insights into human behavior.

• Sleep Patterns and Cognitive Performance : There is a positive correlation between consistent sleep patterns and cognitive performance, suggesting that individuals with regular sleep schedules exhibit better cognitive functioning.
• Anxiety Levels and Social Media Use : There is a positive correlation between anxiety levels and excessive social media use, indicating that individuals who spend more time on social media might experience higher anxiety.
• Self-Esteem and Body Image Satisfaction : There is a negative correlation between self-esteem and body image satisfaction, implying that individuals with higher self-esteem tend to be more satisfied with their physical appearance.
• Parenting Styles and Child Aggression : There is a negative correlation between authoritative parenting styles and child aggression, suggesting that children raised by authoritative parents might exhibit lower levels of aggression.
• Emotional Intelligence and Conflict Resolution : There is a positive correlation between emotional intelligence and effective conflict resolution, indicating that individuals with higher emotional intelligence tend to resolve conflicts more successfully.
• Personality Traits and Career Satisfaction : There is a positive correlation between certain personality traits (e.g., extraversion, openness) and career satisfaction, suggesting that individuals with specific traits experience higher job contentment.
• Stress Levels and Coping Mechanisms : There is a negative correlation between stress levels and adaptive coping mechanisms, indicating that individuals with lower stress levels are more likely to employ effective coping strategies.
• Attachment Styles and Romantic Relationship Quality : There is a positive correlation between secure attachment styles and higher romantic relationship quality, suggesting that individuals with secure attachments tend to have healthier relationships.
• Social Support and Mental Health : There is a negative correlation between perceived social support and mental health issues, indicating that individuals with strong social support networks tend to experience fewer mental health challenges.
• Motivation and Academic Achievement : There is a positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and academic achievement, implying that students who are internally motivated tend to perform better academically.

Does Correlational Research Have Hypothesis?

Correlational research involves examining the relationship between two or more variables to determine whether they are related and how they change together. While correlational studies do not establish causation, they still utilize hypotheses to formulate expectations about the relationships between variables. These good hypotheses predict the presence, direction, and strength of correlations. However, in correlational research, the focus is on measuring and analyzing the degree of association rather than establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

How Do You Write a Null-Hypothesis for a Correlational Study?

The null hypothesis in a correlational study states that there is no significant correlation between the variables being studied. It assumes that any observed correlation is due to chance and lacks meaningful association. When writing a null hypothesis for a correlational study, follow these steps:

• Identify the Variables: Clearly define the variables you are studying and their relationship (e.g., “There is no significant correlation between X and Y”).
• Specify the Population: Indicate the population from which the data is drawn (e.g., “In the population of [target population]…”).
• Include the Direction of Correlation: If relevant, specify the direction of correlation (positive, negative, or zero) that you are testing (e.g., “…there is no significant positive/negative correlation…”).
• State the Hypothesis: Write the null hypothesis as a clear statement that there is no significant correlation between the variables (e.g., “…there is no significant correlation between X and Y”).

What Is Correlation Hypothesis Formula?

The correlation hypothesis is often expressed in the form of a statement that predicts the presence and nature of a relationship between two variables. It typically follows the “If-Then” structure, indicating the expected change in one variable based on changes in another. The correlation hypothesis formula can be written as:

“If [Variable X] changes, then [Variable Y] will also change [in a specified direction] because [rationale for the expected correlation].”

For example, “If the amount of exercise increases, then mood scores will improve because physical activity has been linked to better emotional well-being.”

What Is a Correlational Hypothesis in Research Methodology?

A correlational hypothesis in research methodology is a testable hypothesis statement that predicts the presence and nature of a relationship between two or more variables. It forms the basis for conducting a correlational study, where the goal is to measure and analyze the degree of association between variables. Correlational hypotheses are essential in guiding the research process, collecting relevant data, and assessing whether the observed correlations are statistically significant.

How Do You Write a Hypothesis for Correlation? – A Step by Step Guide

Writing a hypothesis for correlation involves crafting a clear and testable statement about the expected relationship between variables. Here’s a step-by-step guide:

• Identify Variables : Clearly define the variables you are studying and their nature (e.g., “There is a relationship between X and Y…”).
• Specify Direction : Indicate the expected direction of correlation (positive, negative, or zero) based on your understanding of the variables and existing literature.
• Formulate the If-Then Statement : Write an “If-Then” statement that predicts the change in one variable based on changes in the other variable (e.g., “If [Variable X] changes, then [Variable Y] will also change [in a specified direction]…”).
• Provide Rationale : Explain why you expect the correlation to exist, referencing existing theories, research, or logical reasoning.
• Quantitative Prediction (Optional) : If applicable, provide a quantitative prediction about the strength of the correlation (e.g., “…for every one unit increase in [Variable X], [Variable Y] is predicted to increase by [numerical value].”).
• Specify Population : Indicate the population to which your hypothesis applies (e.g., “In a sample of [target population]…”).

Tips for Writing Correlational Hypothesis

• Base on Existing Knowledge : Ground your hypothesis in existing literature, theories, or empirical evidence to ensure it’s well-informed.
• Be Specific : Clearly define the variables and direction of correlation you’re predicting to avoid ambiguity.
• Avoid Causation Claims : Remember that correlational hypotheses do not imply causation. Focus on predicting relationships, not causes.
• Use Clear Language : Write in clear and concise language, avoiding jargon that may confuse readers.
• Consider Alternative Explanations : Acknowledge potential confounding variables or alternative explanations that could affect the observed correlation.
• Be Open to Results : Correlation results can be unexpected. Be prepared to interpret findings even if they don’t align with your initial hypothesis.
• Test Statistically : Once you collect data, use appropriate statistical tests to determine if the observed correlation is statistically significant.
• Revise as Needed : If your findings don’t support your hypothesis, revise it based on the data and insights gained.

Crafting a well-structured correlational hypothesis is crucial for guiding your research, conducting meaningful analysis, and contributing to the understanding of relationships between variables.

AI Generator

Text prompt

• Instructive
• Professional

10 Examples of Public speaking

20 Examples of Gas lighting

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples

Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples

Published on July 12, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Correlation means there is a statistical association between variables. Causation means that a change in one variable causes a change in another variable.

In research, you might have come across the phrase “correlation doesn’t imply causation.” Correlation and causation are two related ideas, but understanding their differences will help you critically evaluate sources and interpret scientific research.

Table of contents

What’s the difference, why doesn’t correlation mean causation, correlational research, third variable problem, regression to the mean, spurious correlations, directionality problem, causal research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about correlation and causation.

Correlation describes an association between types of variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables. These variables change together: they covary. But this covariation isn’t necessarily due to a direct or indirect causal link.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other; there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. The two variables are correlated with each other and there is also a causal link between them.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

There are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation. These problems are important to identify for drawing sound scientific conclusions from research.

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not. For example, ice cream sales and violent crime rates are closely correlated, but they are not causally linked with each other. Instead, hot temperatures, a third variable, affects both variables separately. Failing to account for third variables can lead research biases to creep into your work.

The directionality problem occurs when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other. For example, vitamin D levels are correlated with depression, but it’s not clear whether low vitamin D causes depression, or whether depression causes reduced vitamin D intake.

You’ll need to use an appropriate research design to distinguish between correlational and causal relationships:

• Correlational research designs can only demonstrate correlational links between variables.
• Experimental designs can test causation.

In a correlational research design, you collect data on your variables without manipulating them.

Correlational research is usually high in external validity , so you can generalize your findings to real life settings. But these studies are low in internal validity , which makes it difficult to causally connect changes in one variable to changes in the other.

These research designs are commonly used when it’s unethical, too costly, or too difficult to perform controlled experiments. They are also used to study relationships that aren’t expected to be causal.

Without controlled experiments, it’s hard to say whether it was the variable you’re interested in that caused changes in another variable. Extraneous variables are any third variable or omitted variable other than your variables of interest that could affect your results.

Limited control in correlational research means that extraneous or confounding variables serve as alternative explanations for the results. Confounding variables can make it seem as though a correlational relationship is causal when it isn’t.

When two variables are correlated, all you can say is that changes in one variable occur alongside changes in the other.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Regression to the mean is observed when variables that are extremely higher or extremely lower than average on the first measurement move closer to the average on the second measurement. Particularly in research that intentionally focuses on the most extreme cases or events, RTM should always be considered as a possible cause of an observed change.

Players or teams featured on the cover of SI have earned their place by performing exceptionally well. But athletic success is a mix of skill and luck, and even the best players don’t always win.

Chances are that good luck will not continue indefinitely, and neither can exceptional success.

A spurious correlation is when two variables appear to be related through hidden third variables or simply by coincidence.

The Theory of the Stork draws a simple causal link between the variables to argue that storks physically deliver babies. This satirical study shows why you can’t conclude causation from correlational research alone.

When you analyze correlations in a large dataset with many variables, the chances of finding at least one statistically significant result are high. In this case, you’re more likely to make a type I error . This means erroneously concluding there is a true correlation between variables in the population based on skewed sample data.

To demonstrate causation, you need to show a directional relationship with no alternative explanations. This relationship can be unidirectional, with one variable impacting the other, or bidirectional, where both variables impact each other.

A correlational design won’t be able to distinguish between any of these possibilities, but an experimental design can test each possible direction, one at a time.

• Physical activity may affect self esteem
• Self esteem may affect physical activity
• Physical activity and self esteem may both affect each other

In correlational research, the directionality of a relationship is unclear because there is limited researcher control. You might risk concluding reverse causality, the wrong direction of the relationship.

Causal links between variables can only be truly demonstrated with controlled experiments . Experiments test formal predictions, called hypotheses , to establish causality in one direction at a time.

Experiments are high in internal validity , so cause-and-effect relationships can be demonstrated with reasonable confidence.

You can establish directionality in one direction because you manipulate an independent variable before measuring the change in a dependent variable.

In a controlled experiment, you can also eliminate the influence of third variables by using random assignment and control groups.

Random assignment helps distribute participant characteristics evenly between groups so that they’re similar and comparable. A control group lets you compare the experimental manipulation to a similar treatment or no treatment (or a placebo, to control for the placebo effect ).

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square test of independence
• Statistical power
• Descriptive statistics
• Degrees of freedom
• Pearson correlation
• Null hypothesis
• Double-blind study
• Case-control study
• Research ethics
• Data collection
• Hypothesis testing
• Structured interviews

Research bias

• Hawthorne effect
• Unconscious bias
• Recall bias
• Halo effect
• Self-serving bias
• Information bias

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, correlational research | when & how to use, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, confounding variables | definition, examples & controls, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”