As a psychology student, the immediate response to this seemingly simple question is a loud and resounding ‘no’. There is no way that a correlational study can determine causality. Correlational studies merely demonstrate whether there is some sort of relationship between two variables whether it be positive, negative or no relationship at all.
If there is a positive relationship, we cannot assume that one causes the other as there may be other factors or confounding variables affecting the results which have not been taken into account; for example, researcher bias, sampling error or design faults. Causality must be clearly demonstrated through strict experimental designs involving independent and dependent variables, manipulation of the independent variable, control groups and so on (http://www.experiment-resources.com/correlation-and-causation.html).
However, it could be argued that correlation cannot be completely dismissed as an indication of causality; as this example (http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample1.html) suggests. The results of a study, whether it be a correlational or an experimental study, would ultimately come to the same conclusion. In this example, the experimental design demonstrates that taking the new pill decreases the severity of participant’s headaches. Could this not also be shown using a correlational study to some extent? A correlational study would also demonstrate some sort of relationship between taking the new pill and the amount of headaches. “… if the t-test indicated that a statistically significant difference existed between the two sample means, then the correlation would be statistically significant as well” (http://www.statisticalmisconceptions.com/sample1.html).
Indeed, the correlational method cannot replace the experimental design when it comes to showing cause and effect. Obviously the experimental design takes into account confounding variables and have stricter rules. However, a correlational study can be a good indication of which way the results of an experiment is going to go.
cmroberts87 
I completely understand your points here, and as you mentioned about the pill example, a correlation study is likely to give the researcher an idea of which way a relationship goes, however as you said, it is important to remember that this is not sufficient evidence to give a causal explanation. This could be solver, however by following a correlational study with an experimental design, researchers are able to be sure of an effect’s direction.
Pingback: Homework for TA…week 5 (I think!) :) | Do you need statistics to understand your data?