Here are some hypothetical grades on an exam and the amount of time each student spent on the exam. One way to find out if there is a positive or negative relationship is to examine the list and see if the highest grades are associated with the shortest or longest time spent on the exam.
But it is difficult to easily see if there is a relationship between the variables this way. A better method is to create a bivariate scatter plot bivariate meaning two variables. If we plot the scores from the table above with the time on the x-axis and the grades on the y-axis, we would get something that looks like this:. Each point represents one student with a certain score for time on the exam, x, and grade, y. The scatter plot reveals that, in general, longer times on the exam tend to be associated with higher grades.
Notice that there is a kind of stream of points moving from the bottom left hand corner of the graph to the upper right hand corner.
That indicates a positive association or correlation between the two variables. About r As always, we have a letter that stands for out statistic. In the case of correlation, it is r.
The Pearson r can be positive or negative, ranging from A correlation of 1. If the correlation is 1. An r value of Most often r is somewhere in between Take a minute to look at some examples of scatter plots with different correlations, by clicking here. In these graphs, the r values are in parentheses. Notice that for the perfect correlation, there is a perfect line of points. They do not deviate from that line. For moderate values of r, the points have some scatter, but there still tends to be an association between the x and the y variables.
When there is no association between the variables, the scattering is so great that there is no discernable pattern. Correlations can be said to vary in magnitude and direction. Magnitude refers to the strength of association--higher r values represent stronger relationship between the two variables. Direction refers to whether the relationship is positive or negative, and hence the value of r is positive or negative.
Multiple regression is a statistical technique, based on correlation coefficients among variables, that allows predicting a single outcome variable from more than one predictor variable. For instance, Figure 3. An important limitation of correlational research designs is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the measured variables. Consider, for instance, a researcher who has hypothesized that viewing violent behaviour will cause increased aggressive play in children.
He has collected, from a sample of Grade 4 children, a measure of how many violent television shows each child views during the week, as well as a measure of how aggressively each child plays on the school playground. From his collected data, the researcher discovers a positive correlation between the two measured variables. Although the researcher is tempted to assume that viewing violent television causes aggressive play, there are other possibilities.
One alternative possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite from what has been hypothesized. Perhaps children who have behaved aggressively at school develop residual excitement that leads them to want to watch violent television shows at home Figure 3.
Although this possibility may seem less likely, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of this observed correlation. It is also possible that both causal directions are operating and that the two variables cause each other Figure 3.
Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of a common-causal variable also known as a third variable. A common-causal variable is a variable that is not part of the research hypothesis but that causes both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produces the observed correlation between them.
Parents who use a harsh and punitive discipline style may produce children who like to watch violent television and who also behave aggressively in comparison to children whose parents use less harsh discipline Figure 3. In this case, television viewing and aggressive play would be positively correlated as indicated by the curved arrow between them , even though neither one caused the other but they were both caused by the discipline style of the parents the straight arrows.
When the predictor and outcome variables are both caused by a common-causal variable, the observed relationship between them is said to be spurious. If effects of the common-causal variable were taken away, or controlled for, the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables would disappear. Common-causal variables in correlational research designs can be thought of as mystery variables because, as they have not been measured, their presence and identity are usually unknown to the researcher.
Since it is not possible to measure every variable that could cause both the predictor and outcome variables, the existence of an unknown common-causal variable is always a possibility. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: correlation does not demonstrate causation.
It is important that when you read about correlational research projects, you keep in mind the possibility of spurious relationships, and be sure to interpret the findings appropriately. Although correlational research is sometimes reported as demonstrating causality without any mention being made of the possibility of reverse causation or common-causal variables, informed consumers of research, like you, are aware of these interpretational problems.
In sum, correlational research designs have both strengths and limitations. One strength is that they can be used when experimental research is not possible because the predictor variables cannot be manipulated.
Correlational designs also have the advantage of allowing the researcher to study behaviour as it occurs in everyday life. And we can also use correlational designs to make predictions — for instance, to predict from the scores on their battery of tests the success of job trainees during a training session.
But we cannot use such correlational information to determine whether the training caused better job performance. For that, researchers rely on experiments. The goal of experimental research design is to provide more definitive conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables in the research hypothesis than is available from correlational designs.
In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variable or variables and the dependent variable. The independent variable in an experiment is the causing variable that is created manipulated by the experimenter. The dependent variable in an experiment is a measured variable that is expected to be influenced by the experimental manipulation.
The research hypothesis suggests that the manipulated independent variable or variables will cause changes in the measured dependent variables. We can diagram the research hypothesis by using an arrow that points in one direction. This demonstrates the expected direction of causality Figure 3. Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill The study was designed to test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would increase aggressive behaviour.
In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play with either a violent video game Wolfenstein 3D or a nonviolent video game Myst. During the experimental session, the participants played their assigned video games for 15 minutes.
Then, after the play, each participant played a competitive game with an opponent in which the participant could deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of the opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable aggressive behaviour was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent.
The design of the experiment is shown in Figure 3. Two advantages of the experimental research design are a the assurance that the independent variable also known as the experimental manipulation occurs prior to the measured dependent variable, and b the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment in this case by using random assignment to conditions.
Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to the measurement of the dependent variable.
This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating initial equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs. The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions, a procedure in which the condition that each participant is assigned to is determined through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a random number table.
Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about participants to each of their two groups Group A and Group B. Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that, before the experimental manipulation occurred, the students in Group A were, on average, equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable, including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as parental discipline style, peer relationships, hormone levels, diet — and in fact everything else.
Just because two variables have a relationship does not mean that changes in one variable cause changes in the other. Correlations tell us that there is a relationship between variables, but this does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other to change. An oft-cited example is the correlation between ice cream consumption and homicide rates.
Studies have found a correlation between increased ice cream sales and spikes in homicides. However, eating ice cream does not cause you to commit murder.
Instead, there is a third variable: heat. Both variables increase during summertime. An illusory correlation is the perception of a relationship between two variables when only a minor relationship—or none at all—actually exists.
An illusory correlation does not always mean inferring causation; it can also mean inferring a relationship between two variables when one does not exist. For example, people sometimes assume that because two events occurred together at one point in the past, that one event must be the cause of the other. These illusory correlations can occur both in scientific investigations and in real-world situations.
Stereotypes are a good example of illusory correlations. Research has shown that people tend to assume that certain groups and traits occur together and frequently overestimate the strength of the association between the two variables. For example, let's suppose that a man holds a mistaken belief that all people from small towns are extremely kind. When the individual meets a very kind person, his immediate assumption might be that the person is from a small town, despite the fact that kindness is not related to city population.
Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Statistics at square one. Correlation and regression.
The BMJ. While correlational research is invaluable in identifying relationships among variables, a major limitation is the inability to establish causality.
Psychologists want to make statements about cause and effect, but the only way to do that is to conduct an experiment to answer a research question. The next section describes how scientific experiments incorporate methods that eliminate, or control for, alternative explanations, which allow researchers to explore how changes in one variable cause changes in another variable.
Watch this clip from Freakonomics for an example of how correlation does not indicate causation. Figure 2. Does eating cereal really cause someone to be a healthy weight? The temptation to make erroneous cause-and-effect statements based on correlational research is not the only way we tend to misinterpret data. We also tend to make the mistake of illusory correlations, especially with unsystematic observations. Illusory correlations , or false correlations, occur when people believe that relationships exist between two things when no such relationship exists.
Many people passionately assert that human behavior is affected by the phase of the moon, and specifically, that people act strangely when the moon is full Figure 3. Figure 3. Many people believe that a full moon makes people behave oddly. There is no denying that the moon exerts a powerful influence on our planet. Many people believe, therefore, that it is logical that we are affected by the moon as well. After all, our bodies are largely made up of water.
While we may pay more attention to odd behavior during the full phase of the moon, the rates of odd behavior remain constant throughout the lunar cycle. Why are we so apt to believe in illusory correlations like this? Often we read or hear about them and simply accept the information as valid. Or, we have a hunch about how something works and then look for evidence to support that hunch, ignoring evidence that would tell us our hunch is false; this is known as confirmation bias.
Other times, we find illusory correlations based on the information that comes most easily to mind, even if that information is severely limited.
0コメント