Improving the teaching of “correlation does not equal causation” in Introductory Psychology

<i>"Correlation does not equal causation"</i> is perhaps the most familiar phrase to any student or instructor in an Introductory Psychology class. While short and pithy, we argue that this phrase and its variants can lead to confusion among students, who may incorrectly interpret it to mean that <i>"correlation cannot mean causation."</i> Unfortunately, this misinterpretation trades one type of reasoning error (incorrectly drawing a causal conclusion from a correlational study) for a separate type of reasoning error (incorrectly concluding there <i>cannot</i> be a causal relationship reflected in a correlational study). Drawing on patterns of student responses on an exam question targeting this issue, we demonstrate that this latter reasoning error is observed in over 30% of Introductory Psychology students. We end by proposing a set of possible sources of this confusion and call on instructors of Introductory Psychology to develop and assess methods to better teach this scientific reasoning skill.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2025-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1645518
Primary Topic
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Improving the teaching of “correlation does not equal causation” in Introductory Psychology

Jason Isbell, Melissa R. Witkow, Courtney Stevens
Frontiers in Psychology
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
article

Improving the teaching of “correlation does not equal causation” in Introductory Psychology

Jason Isbell, Melissa R. Witkow, Courtney Stevens
article en

Abstract

<i>"Correlation does not equal causation"</i> is perhaps the most familiar phrase to any student or instructor in an Introductory Psychology class. While short and pithy, we argue that this phrase and its variants can lead to confusion among students, who may incorrectly interpret it to mean that <i>"correlation cannot mean causation."</i> Unfortunately, this misinterpretation trades one type of reasoning error (incorrectly drawing a causal conclusion from a correlational study) for a separate type of reasoning error (incorrectly concluding there <i>cannot</i> be a causal relationship reflected in a correlational study). Drawing on patterns of student responses on an exam question targeting this issue, we demonstrate that this latter reasoning error is observed in over 30% of Introductory Psychology students. We end by proposing a set of possible sources of this confusion and call on instructors of Introductory Psychology to develop and assess methods to better teach this scientific reasoning skill.

Frontiers in PsychologyVol. 16
Willamette University (US), University of California, Merced (US)
National Science Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.