An article in a 2006 issue of Journal of Behavioral Decision Making reports on a study involving 47 undergraduate students in a class at Harvard. All of the participants were given $50, but some (chosen at random) were told that this was a "tuition rebate," while the others were told that this was "bonus income." After one week, the students were contacted again and asked how much of the $50 they had spent and how much they had saved. Those in the "rebate" group had spent an average of $22.04, while those in the "bonus" group had spent an average of $9.55. If the difference in average spending amounts between the two groups is determined to be statistically significant, would it be legitimate to draw a cause-and-effect conclusion between what the money was called and how much was spent

If the difference in average spending amounts between the two groups is determined to be statistically significant, it would be legitimate to draw such a conclusion.

Why?

Those who were told that it was a Tuition rebate, a reward of sorts, had spent on average, $22.04 whilst those who thought it was simply bonus income had spent significantly less at $9.55.

This means that indeed there is a CAUSE and EFFECT conclusion to be drawn between what the money was called and how much was spent because it is clear that when called a tuition rebate, more of it is spent as opposed to it being called a Bonus income.