In my field of study (wildlife ecology), a correlation coefficient of r = 0.6 is a commonly-used threshold for identifying collinearity among pairs of predictor variables. In other words, predictors with a correlation above r = 0.6 are generally not included in the same model.

I recently wrote in the draft of a manuscript: "There was no strong collinearity detected among the predictor variables (all r < 0.6)..." We only had 3 predictors. A colleague reviewed the draft and posited: "r < 0.6 seems like a high threshold, can you briefly justify that?"

I don't have a good reference supporting the r < 0.6 threshold, but there are several posts on this site where r < 0.6 is mentioned in passing when members have discussed possible collinearity in their data or lack thereof (here, here, and here). In other places (in a former stats class, as well as here), I've heard that VIF = 10 is an appropriate threshold, which corresponds approximately with r = 0.95 (i.e., for only two variables $VIF = 1/(1-0.95^2$).

All things considered, I think r = 0.6 may be a relatively conservative (low) threshold, rather than a high threshold as my colleague suggested. I plan on responding by saying that r = 0.6 is a conservative threshold for collinearity that gives us relatively good confidence that collinearity among predictors is not affecting our inference.

My question is:

  1. Does anyone know where this "rule of thumb" of r < 0.6 could have emerged (a reference)?
  2. If the cutoff is more or less arbitrary, do you think it is too low (conservative) or high (liberal)? Compared to when VIF = 10 (r = 0.95), it appears conservative.
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ how long is a piece of string? see e.g. Graham 2003 Ecology $\endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    Oct 7, 2015 at 21:15
  • $\begingroup$ Knowing that you have 3 predictors, which formula are you using to calculate the correlation coefficient? $\endgroup$
    – aloha
    Oct 8, 2015 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ I calculated Pearson's r for each pair of predictors. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2015 at 15:02

1 Answer 1


There is recent work showing that collinearity becomes a more serious problem (inflating the variance of estimated regression coefficients, and therefore not necessarily finding the 'significant' ones correctly) at r>0.7;

Dormann, C. F., J. Elith, S. Bacher, et al. 2013. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36:27–46.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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