Correlation vs. Causation

Correlation vs. Causation

Updated Mar 26, 2026

Ice cream sales and drowning deaths are strongly correlated. As ice cream sales go up, drowning deaths go up. Does ice cream cause drowning? Obviously not. Both increase during summer because of hot weather - a third variable that drives both. This is the most important lesson in all of statistics, and it appears on the MCAT more than almost any other statistical concept: correlation does not equal causation.

The Correlation Coefficient (r)

Multiple scatter plots showing different correlation coefficient (r) values: r = +1 (perfect positive), r = +0.7 (strong positive), r = 0 (no correlation), r = -0.7 (strong negative), and r = -1 (perfect negative), demonstrating how the tightness and direction of point clusters correspond to r values
Scatter plots at various correlation strengths. As |r| approaches 1, points cluster more tightly around a line. Positive r means an upward trend; negative r means a downward trend. At r = 0, there is no linear relationship. Remember: strong correlation does not imply causation. Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0

The correlation coefficient r quantifies the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables. It ranges from -1 to +1.

  • r = +1: Perfect positive correlation. As x increases, y increases in a perfectly linear pattern.
  • r = -1: Perfect negative correlation. As x increases, y decreases in a perfectly linear pattern.
  • r = 0: No linear relationship. Knowing x tells you nothing about y.

Values between these extremes indicate the strength of the correlation:

r valueStrength
0.00 to 0.29Weak
0.30 to 0.69Moderate
0.70 to 1.00Strong

The same ranges apply to negative correlations (just add a minus sign).

What r Does NOT Tell You

1. Causation

A strong correlation (even r = 0.95) does not mean x causes y. It only means they move together. They might both be caused by a third variable.

2. Nonlinear Relationships

r measures only linear relationships. Two variables could have a perfect curved relationship (like a parabola) and still have r = 0. If a scatter plot shows a clear U-shape, the correlation coefficient will underestimate the true relationship.

3. Appropriateness for Outliers

A single extreme outlier can sharply inflate or deflate r. Always look at the scatter plot, not just the number.

Correlation vs. Causation: The Three Criteria

For a researcher to claim that A causes B, three conditions must be met:

  1. Correlation exists. A and B must be associated (necessary but not sufficient).
  2. Temporal precedence. A must come before B in time. The cause must precede the effect.
  3. Elimination of alternative explanations. Other variables (confounders) that could explain the relationship must be ruled out. This is why randomized controlled trials are the gold standard - randomization distributes confounders equally between groups.

Confounding Variables (Third Variables)

A confounding variable is a hidden factor that is related to both the independent and dependent variables, creating the illusion of a direct relationship between them.

Classic examples:

  • Ice cream sales and drowning: Confound = summer heat (causes both).
  • Shoe size and reading ability in children: Confound = age (older children have bigger feet AND read better).
  • Number of firefighters at a fire and property damage: Confound = size of fire (bigger fires bring more firefighters AND cause more damage).

Study Types and Causal Claims

Study TypeCan Establish Correlation?Can Establish Causation?
Case reportNo (single observation)No
Cross-sectional surveyYesNo (no time order)
Cohort studyYesSuggestive but not definitive
Randomized controlled trialYesYes (strongest evidence)
A study finds a strong positive correlation (r = 0.85) between hours of TV watched and BMI. Can the researchers conclude that watching TV causes weight gain?
Click to reveal answer
No, correlation does not establish causation. Several confounders could explain the relationship: people who watch more TV may also snack more, exercise less, or have lower income (which correlates with both TV time and higher BMI). Without random assignment to "TV watching" and "no TV" groups (which would control for confounders), the study can only establish that the two variables are associated, not that one causes the other.
Two variables show r = 0 on a scatter plot, but the scatter plot reveals a clear U-shaped pattern. Is there a relationship between the variables?
Click to reveal answer
Yes, there is a relationship - but it is nonlinear. The correlation coefficient r only measures linear (straight-line) relationships. A U-shaped (quadratic) relationship will produce r near 0 because the positive and negative slopes cancel out. This is why you should always look at the scatter plot, not just the r value. The variables are clearly related, just not in a linear fashion.