Question

Discuss the similarities and differences between causation and correlation. Provide examples of each and discuss ways in which correlation may be mistaken for causation in psychological research

Answer 1

• Causation is an action or occurrence that can cause another. The result of an action is always predictable, providing a clear relation between them which can be established with certainty.
• Causation involves correlation which means that if an action causes another then they are correlated. The causation of these two correlated events or actions can be hard to establish but it is certain.
• Correlation is an action or occurrence that can be linked to another. The action does not always result to another action or occurrence but you can see that there is a relationship between them. Although the action does not make the other thing happen, the possibility of having something happen is great.
• Correlation can be easily established through statistical tools. The correlated events or actions can be because of a common cause. Establishing correlation can be made certain if there are no explanations that will prove causality.
• When you say that exposing kids to too much violence on television and films causes them to become violent adults can be untrue. Although violence on television and films can influence behavior, adults who are violent might have acquired the habit due to other factors such as poverty, mental illness, physical, mental, and emotional abuse as children.
• It is therefore wrong to assume that violent behavior is due to television and films because there are several different aspects to consider. It is safer to say that there is a correlation between watching violent television shows and films and violent behavior than to say that violence in television and films causes violent behavior.
• While causation and correlation can exist at the same time, correlation doesn't mean causation.
• Theoretically, the difference between the two types of relationships are easy to identify — an action or occurrence can cause another (e.g. smoking causes an increase in the risk of developing lung cancer), or it can correlate with another (e.g. smoking is correlated with alcoholism, but it does not cause alcoholism). In practice, however, it remains difficult to clearly establish cause and effect, compared with establishing correlation.
• The best way to look at the misuse of correlation and causation is by looking at an example:
• A survey, as reported in a British newspaper, involved questioning a group of teenagers about their behavior, and establishing whether their parents smoked. The newspaper reported, as fact, that children whose parents smoked were more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior.
• The results seemed to show a correlation between the two variables, so the paper printed the headline; "Parental smoking causes children to misbehave." The Professor leading the investigation stated that cigarette packets should carry warnings about social issues alongside the prominent health warnings.
• However, there are a number of problems with this assumption. The first is that correlations can often work in reverse. For example, it is perfectly possible that the parents smoked because of the stress of looking after delinquent children.
• Another cause may be that social class causes the correlation; the lower classes are usually more likely to smoke and are more likely to have delinquent children. Therefore, parental smoking and delinquency are both symptoms of the problem of poverty and may well have no direct link between them.

​