"Correlation doesn’t imply causation"—you’ve probably heard this before, but why (and when) does it matter?

In data analysis, mistaking correlation for causation can lead to faulty conclusions and bad decisions. At Statsig, we deal with these challenges daily while helping teams run controlled experiments.

In this article, we’ll break down the key differences between correlation and causation, highlight common pitfalls, and share practical ways to ensure your insights are backed by solid evidence.

Related: Introducing experimental meta-analysis and the knowledge base.

Understanding correlation and causation

Let's start with the basics. Correlation measures the relationship between two variables—basically, how they move together. But here's the catch: just because two things are correlated doesn't mean one causes the other. Causation, on the other hand, means that one variable directly influences the other.

Distinguishing between correlation and causation is super important in data analysis. If we mix them up, we might end up with faulty conclusions and take actions that don't actually solve the problem. We're naturally inclined to see patterns and assume that one thing causes another—even when it doesn't.

Observational data can show us correlations, but it can't confirm causation. For example, there might be a correlation between exercise and skin cancer—but that doesn't mean exercising causes cancer. To really nail down causation, we need well-designed research like controlled experiments.

That's why critical thinking and solid methodology are key when interpreting data correlations. By being skeptical and analyzing carefully, we can avoid spreading misleading conclusions. Understanding the limits of correlational data helps us make better, more informed decisions.

Common pitfalls: mistaking correlation for causation

It's easy to misinterpret correlations and jump to the wrong conclusions. For instance, you might think that studying abroad causes improved career prospects because you see a correlation between the two. This error often gets amplified by misleading media headlines that confuse correlation with causation.

Another common pitfall is selection bias, which creeps in when the sample isn't representative of the general population. Maybe students who choose to study abroad are already more academically prepared, so they're more likely to succeed regardless of where they study.

Then there are lurking variables—hidden factors that influence both variables in a correlation, giving a false impression of causation. An observed correlation between exercise and skin cancer might actually be due to a third factor: sunlight exposure. People who exercise outdoors get more sun, which increases the risk of skin cancer.

So, to truly establish causation, we need well-designed empirical research, like controlled experiments and randomization. Without experimental evidence, assuming causation from correlation can be really misleading.

Establishing causation through proper methods

So how do we prove causation?

Enter the randomized controlled trial (RCT). By randomly assigning participants to treatment and control groups, RCTs minimize bias and isolate the causal effect of an intervention. They're pretty much the gold standard for establishing causal relationships.

Techniques like randomization, control groups, and double-blinding help make sure our causal inferences are valid. These methods let researchers control for confounding variables and keep external factors from messing with the results. Observational data alone just isn't enough for establishing causality, because it can't rule out other explanations for the correlations we see.

To show causation, experiments need to be carefully designed to isolate the effect of one variable on another. That means controlling for potential confounding factors and ensuring that the only difference between groups is the intervention we're testing. Without proper experimental design, even strong correlations can't be taken as evidence of causality.

While observational studies can give us valuable insights and help generate hypotheses, they have built-in limitations when it comes to establishing causality. Issues like selection bias, confounding variables, and reverse causation make it tough to pin down the true cause-and-effect relationship. That's why controlled experiments are still the most reliable way to confirm causal links and validate our hypotheses.

At Statsig, we understand the importance of running proper experiments to establish causation. Our platform helps teams design and analyze controlled experiments, so you can confidently determine what works and what doesn't.

Tips to avoid being duped by misleading correlations

So, how can you avoid being fooled by dodgy correlations? First off, trace back to the original research sources. Don't rely solely on third-party summaries or media reports—they can sometimes misinterpret the findings.

When you're evaluating research, check out the sample size and randomness. Studies with a robust number of participants (usually around a thousand) and random sampling methods are generally more reliable. Non-random samples can lead to biased conclusions.

Also, watch out for p-hacking. That's when researchers test multiple outcomes but only report the significant ones. This practice can skew the data and lead to misleading correlations.

Think about the motivation behind the research. Are there potential biases or conflicts of interest that might influence the conclusions? Studies funded by interested parties, or those that align a bit too perfectly with expected outcomes, deserve extra scrutiny.

Lastly, don't be intimidated by complex statistical jargon or flashy presentations. Sometimes, the more complicated the stats, the less clear the relationship—and a lack of statistical detail can be a red flag. By keeping these tips in mind, you can better navigate the world of correlations and avoid being duped by questionable research.

At Statsig, we're all about making data-driven decisions without getting tripped up by misleading correlations. Our tools help you conduct robust experiments and interpret results confidently.

Closing thoughts

Grasping the difference between correlation and causation is key to making sound, data-backed decisions. By recognizing common pitfalls and knowing how to establish causation properly, we can avoid being misled by spurious relationships.

If you're eager to learn more, there are plenty of resources out there on experimental design and statistical analysis. And if you want to see how Statsig can help you run better experiments, feel free to check out our platform.

Request a demo

Statsig's experts are on standby to answer any questions about experimentation at your organization.

Grab a Demo