Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I recently collected some survey data where people made a series of judgments about others' actions and their willingness to make some choice about that action.

Looking at the zero-order correlations, I see that some of the judgments are significantly correlated with the choices of the participant, whereas some others are not.

I am concerned that actual relationships may be hiding between the uncorrelated judgments and choices. Let me give a generalized example.

Imagine Predictor A and B are correlated with DV X, but Predictor C is not correlated with DV X. I was thinking that there could actually be a relationship between C and X, but that C may be negatively correlated with A or B resulting in a zero-order correlation between X and C coming out as a wash (and therefore not looking significant).

I imagine I should be able to test for this using regression, but I am not quite sure on the exact procedure. Would simply putting all A, B, and C predicting X in a regression showing that C remains insignificant be sufficient so show that it is not due to this inverse correlation?

Thank you very much for your suggestions.

share|improve this question
Have you ever heard of "mediation analysis"? – Macro Jun 17 '12 at 23:46

This is very close (or exact!) to partial correlation. It is a measure of the correlation between the independent and the dependent given all other variables are accounted for.

See the wikipedia page for details here.

share|improve this answer
This is actually just a shortcut. In multivariate linear regression, the coefficients are proportional to the partial-correlation. So computing the regression, as Michael Bishop suggests, will give you a start. But the underlying idea is known as partial-correlation. – Cam.Davidson.Pilon Dec 15 '12 at 6:24

I think you're idea of a regression predicting X with A, B, and C, is a good place to start. Make sure to distinguish between a statistically insignificant effect and a precisely estimated effect of zero (or close to zero).

Also, consider the possibility of non-linear relationships. Throw squared or even cubed terms into the regression equation.

share|improve this answer

If A is correlated with B or C, plugging them together into a linear regression will create colinearity and the results will be spurious (mean nothing).

There might be a more complex relationship between C and X than just a linear increasing one (for example, an inverse U shape relationship might look like zero correlation in the matrix).

One good way to test this (before regressions) is first to graph X vs A,B and C. Then you might see a relationship which is not trivial (such as a squared one etc.).

In addition, there might be interaction between A,B and C, that is, for example, people make a choice only when their judgment is of some kind. Suppose this is the relationship between B and C. To run this in a regression, multiply the values of B and C and add them as a new variable (call it D) to the regression.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.