Psychology is among the fields that have benefited immensely from research. For example, research studies have been conducted on such issues as the impact of particular interventions on specific mental illnesses. Thanks to these studies, practitioners in the field have gained deeper insights into the association among a wide range of factors. While it is important for practitioners to familiarize themselves with research in general, they should give special focus to the different types of research. Experimental and correlational are among the major divisions of research carried out in the field. These types are widely different and these differences should guide psychology practitioners in ensuring that the research that they conduct is in line with the questions they wish to answer.
One of the primary differences between correlational and experimental research lies in the objectives that they pursue. On the one hand, correlational research is concerned with establishing the connection among different factors (Sousa, Driessnack & Mendes, 2007). For example, suppose that a psychologist wishes to determine how substance abuse and academic performance are related. Correlational research would be appropriate for the study because it would enable the psychologist to determine whether substance abuse depresses or improves academic performance. It should be noted that the main focus of correlational research is not to establish cause-effect relationships. Instead, it simply seeks to explain how two factors are related. It focuses on the why and how of relationships among factors. On the other hand, experimental research mostly aims to establish that there is a causal relationship between two factors (Sousa, Driessnack & Mendes, 2007). This research design is also employed when practitioners wish to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. For example, a psychologist may wish to determine if cognitive behavioral therapy causes an improvement in the condition of patients grappling with depression. To conduct the study, the psychologist should employ the experimental design since it will allow them to determine if there is a causal link between the cognitive behavioral therapy and improved patient outcomes. This difference between correlational and experimental design is vital as it makes it possible for psychology practitioners to match the studies they conduct to the problem that they wish to address.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second significant difference that distinguishes correlational and experimental research can be seen in the specific measures and steps that researchers take. One of these steps concerns controlling extraneous variables. As noted above, correlational research is merely concerned with determining the nature of the relationship among various factors. It does not seek to establish causal connections. Therefore, the researchers who adopt this design usually take no steps to control extraneous variables (Price, Jhangiani & I-Chant, n.d). Since they do not aim to determine that one factor causes another, the researcher see no need to control the variables. On the other hand, the researchers adopting the experimental design usually account for extraneous variables (Price, Jhangiani & I-Chant, n.d). Without taking steps to control these variables, the researchers could obtain inaccurate results. For example, suppose that the researcher aims to determine whether exposure to sexual violence results in mental illnesses. To ensure that the research process is not tainted by extraneous variables, the researcher must ensure that such other factors as substance abuse are not responsible for the mental illness observed among participants.
Above, it has been observed that one of the differences between correlational and experimental research lies in controlling for extraneous variables. This difference yields another significant difference. Correlational and experimental research designs have varying levels of validity (Price, Jhangiani & I-Chant, n.d). Essentially, validity is concerned with the extent to which a study actually measures the phenomenon for which it is designed. Usually, correlational research studies have higher external validity. This can be attributed to the fact that researchers who use this approach add little to no controls as they have no need to account for extraneous variables (Price, Jhangiani & I-Chant, n.d). On the other hand, the external validity for experimental research tends to be lower. This lower validity score is the result of the fact that the experimental design involves the introduction of controls. As a researcher introduces more controls, the relationship between the study and the real-world phenomenon being studied is diminished (Price, Jhangiani & I-Chant, n.d). Essentially, compared to experimental designs, correlational research offers a more reliable depiction of the relationship between variables and better captures real-world situations.
That correlational research forms the basis of experimental studies is yet another issue that sets the two designs apart (Sousa, Driessnack & Mendes, 2007). For example, after conducting a correlational study, a researcher determines that there is a positive relationship between sexual abuse and mental illness. While this finding is vital, its practical meaning is rather limited. The finding does not establish if sexual abuse causes mental illness. This is where experimental research would be needed. In essence, the findings of correlational studies serve as the basis for the hypotheses that guide experimental research (Sousa, Driessnack & Mendes, 2007). For instance, a psychologist may conduct an experimental study with the goal of determining if there is a causal relationship between sexual abuse and mental illness.
In conclusion, the field of psychology continues to make advances thanks in part to research. Practitioners in this field are constantly conducting research with the goal of obtaining insights that enable them to better attend to the needs of their patients. Experimental and correlational research designs are the main types that define the studies that the psychologists perform. The primary difference between the two research types lies in the aims that they wish to accomplish. As they mull over the research design to adopt, psychologists should be guided by the purpose of the studies.
References
Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R., & I-Chant, A. (n.d). Correlational research. In Research methods in psychology. Retrieved April 29, 2019 from https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/correlational-research/
Sousa, V. D., Driessnack, M., & Mendes, I. A. C. (2007). An overview of research designs relevant to nursing: Part 1: Quantitative research designs. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-11692007000300022
