Correlation/Causality Confusion

As the social media space slowly matures, we’re starting to see more and more reports released by companies offering insight into the ebbs and flows of peoples’ behaviour online. Not surprisingly, these reports are pretty popular – they possess two desirable attributes:

  • They offer easy-to-digest, soundbite-sized nuggets of information – perfect for short-form media such as Twitter
  • They offer the potential for increased understanding of the latest trends

However, these reports can sometimes unintentionally misrepresent the data, through a simple statistical error:

Correlation does not dictate causality.

What does this mean?

It means that just because there is a link between two things, it does not mean that one causes the other. So, if there is a correlation between A and B:

  • A could cause B
  • B could cause A
  • C (and/or D, E, F etc) could affect both A and B

As Bob Hoffman explains it over at The Ad Contrarian:

If you were to study people who are hard-of-hearing you would probably also find that they have a much higher likelihood of being bald. Does this mean that bad hearing causes baldness? Of course not. It occurs because old age causes both hearing and hair loss. So there is a correlation between deafness and baldness, but there is nocausality. One does not cause the other.

One more time: correlation does not mean causality. Just a quick thought, but an important one. Remember this next time you read a snippet about a new study, and make sure you always read closer before believing the headlines.

(Image: Shutterstock)

4 comments
Richard Becker
Richard Becker

Dave,

Love it. Every time I read a post like this, though, I keep imagining a team of marketers with a wall full of clippings, string, and thumb tacks linking all sorts of unrelated content.

Best,
Rich

Dave Fleet
Dave Fleet

Haha yes, perhaps with a slightly manic air to it too :)

Richard Becker
Richard Becker

Dave, Love it. Every time I read a post like this, though, I keep imagining a team of marketers with a wall full of clippings, string, and thumb tacks linking all sorts of unrelated content. Best, Rich

Dave Fleet
Dave Fleet

Haha yes, perhaps with a slightly manic air to it too :)

Trackbacks

  1. Twitter Comment


    Thank you for writing this >> RT @davefleet Correlation/Causality Confusion [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  2. Twitter Comment


    RT @davefleet Correlation/Causality Confusion [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  3. Twitter Comment


    @davefleet wants to tell u that correlation does not mean causality. He really wnts to tell u this. Really. He means it [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  4. Twitter Comment


    Correlation/causality confusion [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  5. FriendFeed Comment


    HeatherVale: RT @michelfortin: Correlation/Causality Confusion [link to post] http://ping.fm/SUlCq http://friendfeed.com/e/3efdbb51-4157-4ce3-a66f-e8496b6a1250

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  6. Twitter Comment


    RT @michelfortin: Correlation/Causality Confusion [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  7. Twitter Comment


    Correlation/Causality Confusion [link to post]

    Posted using Chat Catcher

  8. [...] placements should DO something for your bottom line or they’re worthless. Yes, establshing a causal linkage between X and Y is impossible in this case but you may see a correlation between media placements and traffic through your store, [...]

  9. [...] placements should DO something for your bottom line or they’re worthless. Yes, establishing a causal linkage between X and Y is impossible in this case but you may see a correlation between media placements and traffic [...]

  10. [...] matters (even if it is imperfect). If you’re seeing enough examples of no beneficial correlations between your PR/social media [...]