In one line: A correlational study measures whether two things go together — without changing either one.
A correlational study is used when you can't or shouldn't manipulate a variable. You simply measure both and see if they move together.
This links to the concept of causality in a cautionary way: a correlation shows two things are related, but on its own it cannot show that one causes the other.
Memory hook: Together, not because. A correlation shows a link, not a cause.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it free for 7 days:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Key idea: Correlations can be positive or negative, but a relationship is not proof of cause.
Reading a correlation
Positive correlation
Both variables rise together — e.g. more study time, higher grades.
Negative correlation
As one rises, the other falls — e.g. more screen time, less sleep.
Not causation
A link could be caused by a third variable, or run the other way — correlation alone can't tell.
Positive · Negative · Not cause
Take ice-cream sales and drowning, which rise together (a positive correlation). Ice cream doesn't cause drowning — hot weather (a third variable) drives both. This is why a correlational study can't confirm the concept of causality on its own.
Go further — higher-level insight: A correlation is a starting point, not an endpoint. It flags a relationship worth investigating, which an experiment can then test for cause. The strongest research often uses a correlation to spot a pattern, then an experiment to test whether it's causal.
See how examiners mark answers
Access past paper questions with model answers. Learn exactly what earns marks and what doesn't.
Key idea: Correlational studies are useful and ethical for many questions but can't establish cause.
So correlational studies are valuable for questions where manipulation is impossible or unethical, and for spotting patterns, but a good evaluation stresses they can't show cause, are open to third-variable and reverse-causation explanations, and are easily over-interpreted.
Watch out: Correlation ≠ causation. Always ask: could a third variable explain it? Could the causal arrow run the other way? A link is not a cause.