correlational experimental design example

• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Statistics By Jim

Making statistics intuitive

Correlational Study Overview & Examples

By Jim Frost 2 Comments

What is a Correlational Study?

A correlational study is an experimental design that evaluates only the correlation between variables. The researchers record measurements but do not control or manipulate the variables. Correlational research is a form of observational study .

A correlation indicates that as the value of one variable increases, the other tends to change in a specific direction:

• Positive correlation : Two variables increase or decrease together (as height increases, weight tends to increase).
• Negative correlation : As one variable increases, the other tends to decrease (as school absences increase, grades tend to fall).
• No correlation : No relationship exists between the two variables. As one increases, the other does not change in a specific direction (as absences increase, height doesn’t tend to increase or decrease).

For example, researchers conducting correlational research explored the relationship between social media usage and levels of anxiety in young adults. Participants reported their demographic information and daily time on various social media platforms and completed a standardized anxiety assessment tool.

The correlational study looked for relationships between social media usage and anxiety. Is increased social media usage associated with higher anxiety? Is it worse for particular demographics?

Learn more about Interpreting Correlation .

Using Correlational Research

Correlational research design is crucial in various disciplines, notably psychology and medicine. This type of design is generally cheaper, easier, and quicker to conduct than an experiment because the researchers don’t control any variables or conditions. Consequently, these studies often serve as an initial assessment, especially when random assignment and controlling variables for a true experiment are not feasible or unethical.

However, an unfortunate aspect of a correlational study is its limitation in establishing causation. While these studies can reveal connections between variables, they cannot prove that altering one variable will cause changes in another. Hence, correlational research can determine whether relationships exist but cannot confirm causality.

Remember, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation !

Correlational Study vs Experiment

The difference between the two designs is simple.

In a correlational study, the researchers don’t systematically control any variables. They’re simply observing events and do not want to influence outcomes.

In an experiment, researchers manipulate variables and explicitly hope to affect the outcomes. For example, they might control the treatment condition by giving a medication or placebo to each subject. They also randomly assign subjects to the control and treatment groups, which helps establish causality.

Learn more about Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) , which statisticians consider to be true experiments.

Types of Correlation Studies and Examples

Researchers divide these studies into three broad types.

Secondary Data Sources

One approach to correlational research is to utilize pre-existing data, which may include official records, public polls, or data from earlier studies. This method can be cost-effective and time-efficient because other researchers have already gathered the data. These existing data sources can provide large sample sizes and longitudinal data , thereby showing relationship trends.

However, it also comes with potential drawbacks. The data may be incomplete or irrelevant to the new research question. Additionally, as a researcher, you won’t have control over the original data collection methods, potentially impacting the data’s reliability and validity .

Using existing data makes this approach a retrospective study .

Surveys in Correlation Research

Surveys are a great way to collect data for correlational studies while using a consistent instrument across all respondents. You can use various formats, such as in-person, online, and by phone. And you can ask the questions necessary to obtain the particular variables you need for your project. In short, it’s easy to customize surveys to match your study’s requirements.

However, you’ll need to carefully word all the questions to be clear and not introduce bias in the results. This process can take multiple iterations and pilot studies to produce the finished survey.

For example, you can use a survey to find correlations between various demographic variables and political opinions.

Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is a method of collecting field data for a correlational study. Researchers observe and measure variables in a natural environment. The process can include counting events, categorizing behavior, and describing outcomes without interfering with the activities.

For example, researchers might observe and record children’s behavior after watching television. Does a relationship exist between the type of television program and behaviors?

Naturalistic observations occur in a prospective study .

Analyzing Data from a Correlational Study

Statistical analysis of correlational research frequently involves correlation and regression analysis .

A correlation coefficient describes the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables with a single number.

Regression analysis can evaluate how multiple variables relate to a single outcome. For example, in the social media correlational study example, how do the demographic variables and daily social media usage collectively correlate with anxiety?

Curtis EA, Comiskey C, Dempsey O.  Importance and use of correlational research .  Nurse Researcher . 2016;23(6):20-25. doi:10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Share this:

Reader Interactions

January 14, 2024 at 4:34 pm

Hi Jim. Have you written a blog note dedicated to clinical trials? If not, besides the note on hypothesis testing, are there other blogs ypo have written that touch on clinical trials?

January 14, 2024 at 5:49 pm

Hi Stan, I haven’t written a blog post specifically about clinical trials, but I have the following related posts:

Randomized Controlled Trials Clinical Trial about a COVID vaccine Clinical Trials about flu vaccines

Comments and Questions Cancel reply

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on 5 December 2022.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between two (or more) variables. The direction of a correlation can be either positive or negative.

Table of contents

Correlational vs experimental research, when to use correlational research, how to collect correlational data, how to analyse correlational data, correlation and causation, frequently asked questions about correlational research.

Correlational and experimental research both use quantitative methods to investigate relationships between variables. But there are important differences in how data is collected and the types of conclusions you can draw.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Correlational research is ideal for gathering data quickly from natural settings. That helps you generalise your findings to real-life situations in an externally valid way.

There are a few situations where correlational research is an appropriate choice.

To investigate non-causal relationships

You want to find out if there is an association between two variables, but you don’t expect to find a causal relationship between them.

Correlational research can provide insights into complex real-world relationships, helping researchers develop theories and make predictions.

To explore causal relationships between variables

You think there is a causal relationship between two variables, but it is impractical, unethical, or too costly to conduct experimental research that manipulates one of the variables.

Correlational research can provide initial indications or additional support for theories about causal relationships.

To test new measurement tools

You have developed a new instrument for measuring your variable, and you need to test its reliability or validity .

Correlational research can be used to assess whether a tool consistently or accurately captures the concept it aims to measure.

There are many different methods you can use in correlational research. In the social and behavioural sciences, the most common data collection methods for this type of research include surveys, observations, and secondary data.

It’s important to carefully choose and plan your methods to ensure the reliability and validity of your results. You should carefully select a representative sample so that your data reflects the population you’re interested in without bias .

In survey research , you can use questionnaires to measure your variables of interest. You can conduct surveys online, by post, by phone, or in person.

Surveys are a quick, flexible way to collect standardised data from many participants, but it’s important to ensure that your questions are worded in an unbiased way and capture relevant insights.

Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is a type of field research where you gather data about a behaviour or phenomenon in its natural environment.

This method often involves recording, counting, describing, and categorising actions and events. Naturalistic observation can include both qualitative and quantitative elements, but to assess correlation, you collect data that can be analysed quantitatively (e.g., frequencies, durations, scales, and amounts).

Naturalistic observation lets you easily generalise your results to real-world contexts, and you can study experiences that aren’t replicable in lab settings. But data analysis can be time-consuming and unpredictable, and researcher bias may skew the interpretations.

Secondary data

Instead of collecting original data, you can also use data that has already been collected for a different purpose, such as official records, polls, or previous studies.

Using secondary data is inexpensive and fast, because data collection is complete. However, the data may be unreliable, incomplete, or not entirely relevant, and you have no control over the reliability or validity of the data collection procedures.

After collecting data, you can statistically analyse the relationship between variables using correlation or regression analyses, or both. You can also visualise the relationships between variables with a scatterplot.

Different types of correlation coefficients and regression analyses are appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions .

Correlation analysis

Using a correlation analysis, you can summarise the relationship between variables into a correlation coefficient : a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. With this number, you’ll quantify the degree of the relationship between variables.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, also known as Pearson’s r , is commonly used for assessing a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

Correlation coefficients are usually found for two variables at a time, but you can use a multiple correlation coefficient for three or more variables.

Regression analysis

With a regression analysis , you can predict how much a change in one variable will be associated with a change in the other variable. The result is a regression equation that describes the line on a graph of your variables.

You can use this equation to predict the value of one variable based on the given value(s) of the other variable(s). It’s best to perform a regression analysis after testing for a correlation between your variables.

It’s important to remember that correlation does not imply causation . Just because you find a correlation between two things doesn’t mean you can conclude one of them causes the other, for a few reasons.

Directionality problem

If two variables are correlated, it could be because one of them is a cause and the other is an effect. But the correlational research design doesn’t allow you to infer which is which. To err on the side of caution, researchers don’t conclude causality from correlational studies.

Third variable problem

A confounding variable is a third variable that influences other variables to make them seem causally related even though they are not. Instead, there are separate causal links between the confounder and each variable.

In correlational research, there’s limited or no researcher control over extraneous variables . Even if you statistically control for some potential confounders, there may still be other hidden variables that disguise the relationship between your study variables.

Although a correlational study can’t demonstrate causation on its own, it can help you develop a causal hypothesis that’s tested in controlled experiments.

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

A correlational research design investigates relationships between two variables (or more) without the researcher controlling or manipulating any of them. It’s a non-experimental type of quantitative research .

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

A correlation is usually tested for two variables at a time, but you can test correlations between three or more variables.

A correlation coefficient is a single number that describes the strength and direction of the relationship between your variables.

Different types of correlation coefficients might be appropriate for your data based on their levels of measurement and distributions . The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r ) is commonly used to assess a linear relationship between two quantitative variables.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2022, December 05). Correlational Research | Guide, Design & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 9 September 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/correlational-research-design/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, quasi-experimental design | definition, types & examples, qualitative vs quantitative research | examples & methods.

• Correlational Research Designs: Types, Examples & Methods

The human mind is a powerful tool that allows you to sift through seemingly unrelated variables and establish a connection about a specific subject at hand. This skill is what comes into play when we talk about correlational research.

Did you know that Correlational research is something that you do every day; think about how you establish a connection between the doorbell ringing at a particular time and your Amazon package’s arrival. This is why you need to understand and know the different types of correlational research that are available and more importantly, how to go about it.

What is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of research method that involves observing two variables in order to establish a statistically corresponding relationship between them. The aim of correlational research is to identify variables that have some sort of relationship to the extent that a change in one creates some change in the other. 

This type of research is descriptive, unlike experimental research which relies entirely on scientific methodology and hypothesis. For example, correlational research may reveal the statistical relationship between high-income earners and relocation; that is, the more people earn, the more likely they are to relocate or not. 

Correlational research is a way of studying two things to see if they’re related. For example, you might do a correlational study to see if there’s a relationship between how much time people spend on social media and how lonely they feel. Correlational research can’t prove that one thing causes the other, but it can show that there’s a link between them.

This type of research is descriptive, unlike  experimental research  which relies entirely on scientific methodology and hypothesis. For example, correlational research may reveal the statistical relationship between high-income earners and relocation; that is, the more people earn, the more likely they are to relocate or not.

What are the Types of Correlational Research?

Essentially, there are 3 types of correlational research which are positive correlational research, negative correlational research, and no correlational research. Each of these types is defined by peculiar characteristics. 

• Positive Correlational Research

Positive correlational research is a research method involving 2 variables that are statistically corresponding where an increase or decrease in 1 variable creates a like change in the other. An example is when an increase in workers’ remuneration results in an increase in the prices of goods and services and vice versa.

• Negative Correlational Research

Negative correlational research is a research method involving 2 variables that are statistically opposite where an increase in one of the variables creates an alternate effect or decrease in the other variable. An example of a negative correlation is if the rise in goods and services causes a decrease in demand and vice versa.

• Zero Correlational Research

Zero correlational research is a type of correlational research that involves 2 variables that are not necessarily statistically connected. In this case, a change in one of the variables may not trigger a corresponding or alternate change in the other variable.

Zero correlational research caters for variables with vague statistical relationships. For example, wealth and patience can be variables under zero correlational research because they are statistically independent. 

Sporadic change patterns that occur in variables with zero correlational are usually by chance and not as a result of corresponding or alternate mutual inclusiveness. 

Correlational research can also be classified based on data collection methods. Based on these, there are 3 types of correlational research: Naturalistic observation research, survey research and archival research. 

What are the Data Collection Methods in Correlational research? 

Data collection methods in correlational research are the research methodologies adopted by persons carrying out correlational research in order to determine the linear statistical relationship between 2 variables. These data collection methods are used to gather information in correlational research. 

The 3 methods of data collection in correlational research are naturalistic observation method, archival data method, and the survey method. All of these would be clearly explained in the subsequent paragraphs. 

• Naturalistic Observation

Naturalistic observation is a correlational research methodology that involves observing people’s behaviors as shown in the natural environment where they exist, over a period of time. It is a type of research-field method that involves the researcher paying closing attention to natural behavior patterns of the subjects under consideration.

This method is extremely demanding as the researcher must take extra care to ensure that the subjects do not suspect that they are being observed else they deviate from their natural behavior patterns. It is best for all subjects under observation to remain anonymous in order to avoid a breach of privacy. 

The major advantages of the naturalistic observation method are that it allows the researcher to fully observe the subjects (variables) in their natural state. However, it is a very expensive and time-consuming process plus the subjects can become aware of this act at any time and may act contrary. 

• Archival Data

Archival data is a type of correlational research method that involves making use of already gathered information about the variables in correlational research. Since this method involves using data that is already gathered and analyzed, it is usually straight to the point.

For this method of correlational research, the research makes use of earlier studies conducted by other researchers or the historical records of the variables being analyzed. This method helps a researcher to track already determined statistical patterns of the variables or subjects. 

This method is less expensive, saves time and provides the researcher with more disposable data to work with. However, it has the problem of data accuracy as important information may be missing from previous research since the researcher has no control over the data collection process. 

• Survey Method

The survey method is the most common method of correlational research; especially in fields like psychology. It involves random sampling of the variables or the subjects in the research in which the participants fill a questionnaire centered on the subjects of interest.

This method is very flexible as researchers can gather large amounts of data in very little time. However, it is subject to survey response bias and can also be affected by biased survey questions or under-representation of survey respondents or participants. 

These would be properly explained under data collection methods in correlational research. 

Examples of Correlational Research

There are a lot of examples of correlational research, and they all show how a correlational study can be used to figure out the statistical behavioural trend of the variables being studied. Here are 3 examples:

• You want to know if wealthy people are less likely to be patient. From your experience, you believe that wealthy people are impatient. However, you want to establish a statistical pattern that proves or disproves your belief. In this case, you can carry out correlational research to identify a trend that links both variables.
• You want to know if there’s a correlation between how much people earn and the number of children that they have. You do not believe that people with more spending power have more children than people with less spending power.

You think that how much people earn hardly determines the number of children that they have. Yet, carrying out correlational research on both variables could reveal any correlational relationship that exists between them. 

• You believe that domestic violence causes a brain hemorrhage. You cannot carry out an experiment as it would be unethical to deliberately subject people to domestic violence.

However, you can carry out correlational research to find out if victims of domestic violence suffer brain hemorrhage more than non-victims. 

What are the Characteristics of Correlational Research? 

• Correlational Research is non-experimental

Correlational research is non-experimental as it does not involve manipulating variables using a scientific methodology in order to agree or disagree with a hypothesis. In correlational research, the researcher simply observes and measures the natural relationship between 2 variables; without subjecting either of the variables to external conditioning.

• Correlational Research is Backward-looking

Correlational research doesn’t take the future into consideration as it only observes and measures the recent historical relationship that exists between 2 variables. In this sense, the statistical pattern resulting from correlational research is backward-looking and can seize to exist at any point, going forward.

Correlational research observes and measures historical patterns between 2 variables such as the relationship between high-income earners and tax payment. Correlational research may reveal a positive relationship between the aforementioned variables but this may change at any point in the future. 

• Correlational Research is Dynamic

Statistical patterns between 2 variables that result from correlational research are ever-changing. The correlation between 2 variables changes on a daily basis and such, it cannot be used as a fixed data for further research.

For example, the 2 variables can have a negative correlational relationship for a period of time, maybe 5 years. After this time, the correlational relationship between them can become positive; as observed in the relationship between bonds and stocks. 

• Data resulting from correlational research are not constant and cannot be used as a standard variable for further research.

What is the Correlation Coefficient? 

A correlation coefficient is an important value in correlational research that indicates whether the inter-relationship between 2 variables is positive, negative or non-existent. It is usually represented with the sign [r] and is part of a range of possible correlation coefficients from -1.0 to +1.0. 

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic called Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson’s r) . A positive correlation is indicated by a value of 1.0, a perfect negative correlation is indicated by a value of -1.0 while zero correlation is indicated by a value of 0.0. 

It is important to note that a correlation coefficient only reflects the linear relationship between 2 variables; it does not capture non-linear relationships and cannot separate dependent and independent variables. The correlation coefficient helps you to determine the degree of statistical relationship that exists between variables. 

What are the Advantages of Correlational Research?

• In cases where carrying out experimental research is unethical, correlational research  can be used to determine the relationship between 2 variables. For example, when studying humans, carrying out an experiment can be seen as unsafe or unethical; hence, choosing correlational research would be the best option.
• Through correlational research, you can easily determine the statistical relationship between 2 variables.
• Carrying out correlational research is less time-consuming and less expensive than experimental research. This becomes a strong advantage when working with a minimum of researchers and funding or when keeping the number of variables in a study very low.
• Correlational research allows the researcher to carry out shallow data gathering using different methods such as a short survey. A short survey does not require the researcher to personally administer it so this allows the researcher to work with a few people.

What are the Disadvantages of Correlational Research? 

• Correlational research is limiting in nature as it can only be used to determine the statistical relationship between 2 variables. It cannot be used to establish a relationship between more than 2 variables.
• It does not account for cause and effect between 2 variables as it doesn’t highlight which of the 2 variables is responsible for the statistical pattern that is observed. For example, finding that education correlates positively with vegetarianism doesn’t explain whether being educated leads to becoming a vegetarian or whether vegetarianism leads to more education.
• Reasons for either can be assumed, but until more research is done, causation can’t be determined. Also, a third, unknown variable might be causing both. For instance, living in the state of Detroit can lead to both education and vegetarianism.
• Correlational research depends on past statistical patterns to determine the relationship between variables. As such, its data cannot be fully depended on for further research.
• In correlational research, the researcher has no control over the variables. Unlike experimental research, correlational research only allows the researcher to observe the variables for connecting statistical patterns without introducing a catalyst.
• The information received from correlational research is limited. Correlational research only shows the relationship between variables and does not equate to causation.

What are the Differences between Correlational and Experimental Research?  

• Methodology

The major difference between correlational research and experimental research is methodology. In correlational research, the researcher looks for a statistical pattern linking 2 naturally-occurring variables while in experimental research, the researcher introduces a catalyst and monitors its effects on the variables.

• Observation

In correlational research, the researcher passively observes the phenomena and measures whatever relationship that occurs between them. However, in experimental research, the researcher actively observes phenomena after triggering a change in the behavior of the variables.

In experimental research, the researcher introduces a catalyst and monitors its effects on the variables, that is, cause and effect. In correlational research, the researcher is not interested in cause and effect as it applies; rather, he or she identifies recurring statistical patterns connecting the variables in research.

• Number of Variables

research caters to an unlimited number of variables. Correlational research, on the other hand, caters to only 2 variables.

• Experimental research is causative while correlational research is relational.
• Correlational research is preliminary and almost always precedes experimental research.
• Unlike correlational research, experimental research allows the researcher to control the variables.

How to Use Online Forms for Correlational Research

One of the most popular methods of conducting correlational research is by carrying out a survey which can be made easier with the use of an online form. Surveys for correlational research involve generating different questions that revolve around the variables under observation and, allowing respondents to provide answers to these questions. 

Using an online form for your correlational research survey would help the researcher to gather more data in minimum time. In addition, the researcher would be able to reach out to more survey respondents than is plausible with printed correlational research survey forms . 

In addition, the researcher would be able to swiftly process and analyze all responses in order to objectively establish the statistical pattern that links the variables in the research. Using an online form for correlational research also helps the researcher to minimize the cost incurred during the research period. 

To use an online form for a correlational research survey, you would need to sign up on a data-gathering platform like Formplus . Formplus allows you to create custom forms for correlational research surveys using the Formplus builder. 

You can customize your correlational research survey form by adding background images, new color themes or your company logo to make it appear even more professional. In addition, Formplus also has a survey form template that you can edit for a correlational research study. 

You can create different types of survey questions including open-ended questions , rating questions, close-ended questions and multiple answers questions in your survey in the Formplus builder. After creating your correlational research survey, you can share the personalized link with respondents via email or social media.

Formplus also enables you to collect offline responses in your form.

Conclusion 

Correlational research enables researchers to establish the statistical pattern between 2 seemingly interconnected variables; as such, it is the starting point of any type of research. It allows you to link 2 variables by observing their behaviors in the most natural state. 

Unlike experimental research, correlational research does not emphasize the causative factor affecting 2 variables and this makes the data that results from correlational research subject to constant change. However, it is quicker, easier, less expensive and more convenient than experimental research. 

It is important to always keep the aim of your research at the back of your mind when choosing the best type of research to adopt. If you simply need to observe how the variables react to change then, experimental research is the best type to subscribe for. 

It is best to conduct correlational research using an online correlational research survey form as this makes the data-gathering process, more convenient. Formplus is a great online data-gathering platform that you can use to create custom survey forms for correlational research. 

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• characteristics of correlational research
• types of correlational research
• what is correlational research
• busayo.longe

You may also like:

What is Network Sampling In Surveys?

Introduction Network sampling is a valuable technique in survey research that involves leveraging existing networks to select and...

Projective Techniques In Surveys: Definition, Types & Pros & Cons

Introduction When you’re conducting a survey, you need to find out what people think about things. But how do you get an accurate and...

Netnography in Research: What it is, Important, Pros & Cons

Currently, social media and digital communication are the top channels for communication. So, you need to adapt their marketing...

Subgroup Analysis: What It Is + How to Conduct It

Introduction Clinical trials are an integral part of the drug development process. They aim to assess the safety and efficacy of a new...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

What is Correlational Research? (+ Design, Examples)

Appinio Research · 04.03.2024 · 30min read

Ever wondered how researchers explore connections between different factors without manipulating them? Correlational research offers a window into understanding the relationships between variables in the world around us. From examining the link between exercise habits and mental well-being to exploring patterns in consumer behavior, correlational studies help us uncover insights that shape our understanding of human behavior, inform decision-making, and drive innovation. In this guide, we'll dive into the fundamentals of correlational research, exploring its definition, importance, ethical considerations, and practical applications across various fields. Whether you're a student delving into research methods or a seasoned researcher seeking to expand your methodological toolkit, this guide will equip you with the knowledge and skills to conduct and interpret correlational studies effectively.

What is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a methodological approach used in scientific inquiry to examine the relationship between two or more variables. Unlike experimental research , which seeks to establish cause-and-effect relationships through manipulation and control of variables, correlational research focuses on identifying and quantifying the degree to which variables are related to one another. This method allows researchers to investigate associations, patterns, and trends in naturalistic settings without imposing experimental manipulations.

Importance of Correlational Research

Correlational research plays a crucial role in advancing scientific knowledge across various disciplines. Its importance stems from several key factors:

• Exploratory Analysis :  Correlational studies provide a starting point for exploring potential relationships between variables. By identifying correlations, researchers can generate hypotheses and guide further investigation into causal mechanisms and underlying processes.
• Predictive Modeling :  Correlation coefficients can be used to predict the behavior or outcomes of one variable based on the values of another variable. This predictive ability has practical applications in fields such as economics, psychology, and epidemiology, where forecasting future trends or outcomes is essential.
• Diagnostic Purposes:  Correlational analyses can help identify patterns or associations that may indicate the presence of underlying conditions or risk factors. For example, correlations between certain biomarkers and disease outcomes can inform diagnostic criteria and screening protocols in healthcare.
• Theory Development:  Correlational research contributes to theory development by providing empirical evidence for proposed relationships between variables. Researchers can refine and validate theoretical models in their respective fields by systematically examining correlations across different contexts and populations.
• Ethical Considerations:  In situations where experimental manipulation is not feasible or ethical, correlational research offers an alternative approach to studying naturally occurring phenomena. This allows researchers to address research questions that may otherwise be inaccessible or impractical to investigate.

Correlational vs. Causation in Research

It's important to distinguish between correlation and causation in research. While correlational studies can identify relationships between variables, they cannot establish causal relationships on their own. Several factors contribute to this distinction:

• Directionality:  Correlation does not imply the direction of causation. A correlation between two variables does not indicate which variable is causing the other; it merely suggests that they are related in some way. Additional evidence, such as experimental manipulation or longitudinal studies , is needed to establish causality.
• Third Variables:  Correlations may be influenced by third variables, also known as confounding variables, that are not directly measured or controlled in the study. These third variables can create spurious correlations or obscure true causal relationships between the variables of interest.
• Temporal Sequence:  Causation requires a temporal sequence, with the cause preceding the effect in time. Correlational studies alone cannot establish the temporal order of events, making it difficult to determine whether one variable causes changes in another or vice versa.

Understanding the distinction between correlation and causation is critical for interpreting research findings accurately and drawing valid conclusions about the relationships between variables. While correlational research provides valuable insights into associations and patterns, establishing causation typically requires additional evidence from experimental studies or other research designs.

Key Concepts in Correlation

Understanding key concepts in correlation is essential for conducting meaningful research and interpreting results accurately.

Correlation Coefficient

The correlation coefficient is a statistical measure that quantifies the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. It's denoted by the symbol  r  and ranges from -1 to +1.

• A correlation coefficient of  -1  indicates a perfect negative correlation, meaning that as one variable increases, the other decreases in a perfectly predictable manner.
• A coefficient of  +1  signifies a perfect positive correlation, where both variables increase or decrease together in perfect sync.
• A coefficient of  0  implies no correlation, indicating no systematic relationship between the variables.

Strength and Direction of Correlation

The strength of correlation refers to how closely the data points cluster around a straight line on the scatterplot. A correlation coefficient close to -1 or +1 indicates a strong relationship between the variables, while a coefficient close to 0 suggests a weak relationship.

• Strong correlation:  When the correlation coefficient approaches -1 or +1, it indicates a strong relationship between the variables. For example, a correlation coefficient of -0.9 suggests a strong negative relationship, while a coefficient of +0.8 indicates a strong positive relationship.
• Weak correlation:  A correlation coefficient close to 0 indicates a weak or negligible relationship between the variables. For instance, a coefficient of -0.1 or +0.1 suggests a weak correlation where the variables are minimally related.

The direction of correlation determines how the variables change relative to each other.

• Positive correlation:  When one variable increases, the other variable also tends to increase. Conversely, when one variable decreases, the other variable tends to decrease. This is represented by a positive correlation coefficient.
• Negative correlation:  In a negative correlation, as one variable increases, the other variable tends to decrease. Similarly, when one variable decreases, the other variable tends to increase. This relationship is indicated by a negative correlation coefficient.

Scatterplots

A scatterplot is a graphical representation of the relationship between two variables. Each data point on the plot represents the values of both variables for a single observation. By plotting the data points on a Cartesian plane, you can visualize patterns and trends in the relationship between the variables.

• Interpretation:  When examining a scatterplot, observe the pattern of data points. If the points cluster around a straight line, it indicates a strong correlation. However, if the points are scattered randomly, it suggests a weak or no correlation.
• Outliers:  Identify any outliers or data points that deviate significantly from the overall pattern. Outliers can influence the correlation coefficient and may warrant further investigation to determine their impact on the relationship between variables.
• Line of Best Fit:  In some cases, you may draw a line of best fit through the data points to visually represent the overall trend in the relationship. This line can help illustrate the direction and strength of the correlation between the variables.

Understanding these key concepts will enable you to interpret correlation coefficients accurately and draw meaningful conclusions from your data.

How to Design a Correlational Study?

When embarking on a correlational study, careful planning and consideration are crucial to ensure the validity and reliability of your research findings.

Research Question Formulation

Formulating clear and focused research questions is the cornerstone of any successful correlational study. Your research questions should articulate the variables you intend to investigate and the nature of the relationship you seek to explore. When formulating your research questions:

• Be Specific:  Clearly define the variables you are interested in studying and the population to which your findings will apply.
• Be Testable:  Ensure that your research questions are empirically testable using correlational methods. Avoid vague or overly broad questions that are difficult to operationalize.
• Consider Prior Research:  Review existing literature to identify gaps or unanswered questions in your area of interest. Your research questions should build upon prior knowledge and contribute to advancing the field.

For example, if you're interested in examining the relationship between sleep duration and academic performance among college students, your research question might be: "Is there a significant correlation between the number of hours of sleep per night and GPA among undergraduate students?"

Participant Selection

Selecting an appropriate sample of participants is critical to ensuring the generalizability and validity of your findings. Consider the following factors when selecting participants for your correlational study:

• Population Characteristics:  Identify the population of interest for your study and ensure that your sample reflects the demographics and characteristics of this population.
• Sampling Method:  Choose a sampling method that is appropriate for your research question and accessible, given your resources and constraints. Standard sampling methods include random sampling, stratified sampling, and convenience sampling.
• Sample Size:   Determine the appropriate sample size based on factors such as the effect size you expect to detect, the desired level of statistical power, and practical considerations such as time and budget constraints.

For example, suppose you're studying the relationship between exercise habits and mental health outcomes in adults aged 18-65. In that case, you might use stratified random sampling to ensure representation from different age groups within the population.

Variables Identification

Identifying and operationalizing the variables of interest is essential for conducting a rigorous correlational study. When identifying variables for your research:

• Independent and Dependent Variables:  Clearly distinguish between independent variables (factors that are hypothesized to influence the outcome) and dependent variables (the outcomes or behaviors of interest).
• Control Variables:  Identify any potential confounding variables or extraneous factors that may influence the relationship between your independent and dependent variables. These variables should be controlled for in your analysis.
• Measurement Scales:  Determine the appropriate measurement scales for your variables (e.g., nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio) and select valid and reliable measures for assessing each construct.

For instance, if you're investigating the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic achievement, SES would be your independent variable, while academic achievement would be your dependent variable. You might measure SES using a composite index based on factors such as income, education level, and occupation.

Data Collection Methods

Selecting appropriate data collection methods is essential for obtaining reliable and valid data for your correlational study. When choosing data collection methods:

• Quantitative vs. Qualitative :  Determine whether quantitative or qualitative methods are best suited to your research question and objectives. Correlational studies typically involve quantitative data collection methods like surveys, questionnaires, or archival data analysis.
• Instrument Selection:  Choose measurement instruments that are valid, reliable, and appropriate for your variables of interest. Pilot test your instruments to ensure clarity and comprehension among your target population.
• Data Collection Procedures :  Develop clear and standardized procedures for data collection to minimize bias and ensure consistency across participants and time points.

For example, if you're examining the relationship between smartphone use and sleep quality among adolescents, you might administer a self-report questionnaire assessing smartphone usage patterns and sleep quality indicators such as sleep duration and sleep disturbances.

Crafting a well-designed correlational study is essential for yielding meaningful insights into the relationships between variables. By meticulously formulating research questions , selecting appropriate participants, identifying relevant variables, and employing effective data collection methods, researchers can ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

With Appinio , conducting correlational research becomes even more seamless and efficient. Our intuitive platform empowers researchers to gather real-time consumer insights in minutes, enabling them to make informed decisions with confidence.

Experience the power of Appinio and unlock valuable insights for your research endeavors. Schedule a demo today and revolutionize the way you conduct correlational studies!

Book a Demo

How to Analyze Correlational Data?

Once you have collected your data in a correlational study, the next crucial step is to analyze it effectively to draw meaningful conclusions about the relationship between variables.

How to Calculate Correlation Coefficients?

The correlation coefficient is a numerical measure that quantifies the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. There are different types of correlation coefficients, including Pearson's correlation coefficient (for linear relationships), Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (for ordinal data ), and Kendall's tau (for non-parametric data). Here, we'll focus on calculating Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), which is commonly used for interval or ratio-level data.

To calculate Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), you can use statistical software such as SPSS, R, or Excel. However, if you prefer to calculate it manually, you can use the following formula:

r = Σ((X - X̄)(Y - Ȳ)) / ((n - 1) * (s_X * s_Y))

• X  and  Y  are the scores of the two variables,
• X̄  and  Ȳ  are the means of X and Y, respectively,
• n  is the number of data points,
• s_X  and  s_Y  are the standard deviations of X and Y, respectively.

Interpreting Correlation Results

Once you have calculated the correlation coefficient (r), it's essential to interpret the results correctly. When interpreting correlation results:

• Magnitude:  The absolute value of the correlation coefficient (r) indicates the strength of the relationship between the variables. A coefficient close to 1 or -1 suggests a strong correlation, while a coefficient close to 0 indicates a weak or no correlation.
• Direction:  The sign of the correlation coefficient (positive or negative) indicates the direction of the relationship between the variables. A positive correlation coefficient indicates a positive relationship (as one variable increases, the other tends to increase), while a negative correlation coefficient indicates a negative relationship (as one variable increases, the other tends to decrease).
• Statistical Significance :  Assess the statistical significance of the correlation coefficient to determine whether the observed relationship is likely to be due to chance. This is typically done using hypothesis testing, where you compare the calculated correlation coefficient to a critical value based on the sample size and desired level of significance (e.g.,  α =0.05).

Statistical Significance

Determining the statistical significance of the correlation coefficient involves conducting hypothesis testing to assess whether the observed correlation is likely to occur by chance. The most common approach is to use a significance level (alpha,  α ) of 0.05, which corresponds to a 5% chance of obtaining the observed correlation coefficient if there is no true relationship between the variables.

To test the null hypothesis that the correlation coefficient is zero (i.e., no correlation), you can use inferential statistics such as the t-test or z-test. If the calculated p-value is less than the chosen significance level (e.g.,  p <0.05), you can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the correlation coefficient is statistically significant.

Remember that statistical significance does not necessarily imply practical significance or the strength of the relationship. Even a statistically significant correlation with a small effect size may not be meaningful in practical terms.

By understanding how to calculate correlation coefficients, interpret correlation results, and assess statistical significance, you can effectively analyze correlational data and draw accurate conclusions about the relationships between variables in your study.

Correlational Research Limitations

As with any research methodology, correlational studies have inherent considerations and limitations that researchers must acknowledge and address to ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

Third Variables

One of the primary considerations in correlational research is the presence of third variables, also known as confounding variables. These are extraneous factors that may influence or confound the observed relationship between the variables under study. Failing to account for third variables can lead to spurious correlations or erroneous conclusions about causality.

For example, consider a correlational study examining the relationship between ice cream consumption and drowning incidents. While these variables may exhibit a positive correlation during the summer months, the true causal factor is likely to be a third variable—such as hot weather—that influences both ice cream consumption and swimming activities, thereby increasing the risk of drowning.

To address the influence of third variables, researchers can employ various strategies, such as statistical control techniques, experimental designs (when feasible), and careful operationalization of variables.

Causal Inferences

Correlation does not imply causation—a fundamental principle in correlational research. While correlational studies can identify relationships between variables, they cannot determine causality. This is because correlation merely describes the degree to which two variables co-vary; it does not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between them.

For example, consider a correlational study that finds a positive relationship between the frequency of exercise and self-reported happiness. While it may be tempting to conclude that exercise causes happiness, it's equally plausible that happier individuals are more likely to exercise regularly. Without experimental manipulation and control over potential confounding variables, causal inferences cannot be made.

To strengthen causal inferences in correlational research, researchers can employ longitudinal designs, experimental methods (when ethical and feasible), and theoretical frameworks to guide their interpretations.

Sample Size and Representativeness

The size and representativeness of the sample are critical considerations in correlational research. A small or non-representative sample may limit the generalizability of findings and increase the risk of sampling bias .

For example, if a correlational study examines the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and educational attainment using a sample composed primarily of high-income individuals, the findings may not accurately reflect the broader population's experiences. Similarly, an undersized sample may lack the statistical power to detect meaningful correlations or relationships.

To mitigate these issues, researchers should aim for adequate sample sizes based on power analyses, employ random or stratified sampling techniques to enhance representativeness and consider the demographic characteristics of the target population when interpreting findings.

Ensure your survey delivers accurate insights by using our Sample Size Calculator . With customizable options for margin of error, confidence level, and standard deviation, you can determine the optimal sample size to ensure representative results. Make confident decisions backed by robust data.

Reliability and Validity

Ensuring the reliability and validity of measures is paramount in correlational research. Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of measurement over time, whereas validity pertains to the accuracy and appropriateness of measurement in capturing the intended constructs.

For example, suppose a correlational study utilizes self-report measures of depression and anxiety. In that case, it's essential to assess the measures' reliability (e.g., internal consistency, test-retest reliability) and validity (e.g., content validity, criterion validity) to ensure that they accurately reflect participants' mental health status.

To enhance reliability and validity in correlational research, researchers can employ established measurement scales, pilot-test instruments, use multiple measures of the same construct, and assess convergent and discriminant validity.

By addressing these considerations and limitations, researchers can enhance the robustness and credibility of their correlational studies and make more informed interpretations of their findings.

Correlational Research Examples and Applications

Correlational research is widely used across various disciplines to explore relationships between variables and gain insights into complex phenomena. We'll examine examples and applications of correlational studies, highlighting their practical significance and impact on understanding human behavior and societal trends across various industries and use cases.

Psychological Correlational Studies

In psychology, correlational studies play a crucial role in understanding various aspects of human behavior, cognition, and mental health. Researchers use correlational methods to investigate relationships between psychological variables and identify factors that may contribute to or predict specific outcomes.

For example, a psychological correlational study might examine the relationship between self-esteem and depression symptoms among adolescents. By administering self-report measures of self-esteem and depression to a sample of teenagers and calculating the correlation coefficient between the two variables, researchers can assess whether lower self-esteem is associated with higher levels of depression symptoms.

Other examples of psychological correlational studies include investigating the relationship between:

• Parenting styles and academic achievement in children
• Personality traits and job performance in the workplace
• Stress levels and coping strategies among college students

These studies provide valuable insights into the factors influencing human behavior and mental well-being, informing interventions and treatment approaches in clinical and counseling settings.

Business Correlational Studies

Correlational research is also widely utilized in the business and management fields to explore relationships between organizational variables and outcomes. By examining correlations between different factors within an organization, researchers can identify patterns and trends that may impact performance, productivity, and profitability.

For example, a business correlational study might investigate the relationship between employee satisfaction and customer loyalty in a retail setting. By surveying employees to assess their job satisfaction levels and analyzing customer feedback and purchase behavior, researchers can determine whether higher employee satisfaction is correlated with increased customer loyalty and retention.

Other examples of business correlational studies include examining the relationship between:

• Leadership styles and employee motivation
• Organizational culture and innovation
• Marketing strategies and brand perception

These studies provide valuable insights for organizations seeking to optimize their operations, improve employee engagement, and enhance customer satisfaction.

Marketing Correlational Studies

In marketing, correlational studies are instrumental in understanding consumer behavior, identifying market trends, and optimizing marketing strategies. By examining correlations between various marketing variables, researchers can uncover insights that drive effective advertising campaigns, product development, and brand management.

For example, a marketing correlational study might explore the relationship between social media engagement and brand loyalty among millennials. By collecting data on millennials' social media usage, brand interactions, and purchase behaviors, researchers can analyze whether higher levels of social media engagement correlate with increased brand loyalty and advocacy.

Another example of a marketing correlational study could focus on investigating the relationship between pricing strategies and customer satisfaction in the retail sector. By analyzing data on pricing fluctuations, customer feedback , and sales performance, researchers can assess whether pricing strategies such as discounts or promotions impact customer satisfaction and repeat purchase behavior.

Other potential areas of inquiry in marketing correlational studies include examining the relationship between:

• Product features and consumer preferences
• Advertising expenditures and brand awareness
• Online reviews and purchase intent

These studies provide valuable insights for marketers seeking to optimize their strategies, allocate resources effectively, and build strong relationships with consumers in an increasingly competitive marketplace. By leveraging correlational methods, marketers can make data-driven decisions that drive business growth and enhance customer satisfaction.

Correlational Research Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations are paramount in all stages of the research process, including correlational studies. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines to ensure the rights, well-being, and privacy of participants are protected. Key ethical considerations to keep in mind include:

• Informed Consent:  Obtain informed consent from participants before collecting any data. Clearly explain the purpose of the study, the procedures involved, and any potential risks or benefits. Participants should have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence.
• Confidentiality:  Safeguard the confidentiality of participants' data. Ensure that any personal or sensitive information collected during the study is kept confidential and is only accessible to authorized individuals. Use anonymization techniques when reporting findings to protect participants' privacy.
• Voluntary Participation:  Ensure that participation in the study is voluntary and not coerced. Participants should not feel pressured to take part in the study or feel that they will suffer negative consequences for declining to participate.
• Avoiding Harm:  Take measures to minimize any potential physical, psychological, or emotional harm to participants. This includes avoiding deceptive practices, providing appropriate debriefing procedures (if necessary), and offering access to support services if participants experience distress.
• Deception:  If deception is necessary for the study, it must be justified and minimized. Deception should be disclosed to participants as soon as possible after data collection, and any potential risks associated with the deception should be mitigated.
• Researcher Integrity:  Maintain integrity and honesty throughout the research process. Avoid falsifying data, manipulating results, or engaging in any other unethical practices that could compromise the integrity of the study.
• Respect for Diversity:  Respect participants' cultural, social, and individual differences. Ensure that research protocols are culturally sensitive and inclusive, and that participants from diverse backgrounds are represented and treated with respect.
• Institutional Review:  Obtain ethical approval from institutional review boards or ethics committees before commencing the study. Adhere to the guidelines and regulations set forth by the relevant governing bodies and professional organizations.

Adhering to these ethical considerations ensures that correlational research is conducted responsibly and ethically, promoting trust and integrity in the scientific community.

Correlational Research Best Practices and Tips

Conducting a successful correlational study requires careful planning, attention to detail, and adherence to best practices in research methodology. Here are some tips and best practices to help you conduct your correlational research effectively:

• Clearly Define Variables:  Clearly define the variables you are studying and operationalize them into measurable constructs. Ensure that your variables are accurately and consistently measured to avoid ambiguity and ensure reliability.
• Use Valid and Reliable Measures:  Select measurement instruments that are valid and reliable for assessing your variables of interest. Pilot test your measures to ensure clarity, comprehension, and appropriateness for your target population.
• Consider Potential Confounding Variables:  Identify and control for potential confounding variables that could influence the relationship between your variables of interest. Consider including control variables in your analysis to isolate the effects of interest.
• Ensure Adequate Sample Size:  Determine the appropriate sample size based on power analyses and considerations of statistical power. Larger sample sizes increase the reliability and generalizability of your findings.
• Random Sampling:  Whenever possible, use random sampling techniques to ensure that your sample is representative of the population you are studying. If random sampling is not feasible, carefully consider the characteristics of your sample and the extent to which findings can be generalized.
• Statistical Analysis :  Choose appropriate statistical techniques for analyzing your data, taking into account the nature of your variables and research questions. Consult with a statistician if necessary to ensure the validity and accuracy of your analyses.
• Transparent Reporting:  Transparently report your methods, procedures, and findings in accordance with best practices in research reporting. Clearly articulate your research questions, methods, results, and interpretations to facilitate reproducibility and transparency.
• Peer Review:  Seek feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peer reviewers throughout the research process. Peer review helps identify potential flaws or biases in your study design, analysis, and interpretation, improving your research's overall quality and credibility.

By following these best practices and tips, you can conduct your correlational research with rigor, integrity, and confidence, leading to valuable insights and contributions to your field.

Conclusion for Correlational Research

Correlational research serves as a powerful tool for uncovering connections between variables in the world around us. By examining the relationships between different factors, researchers can gain valuable insights into human behavior, health outcomes, market trends, and more. While correlational studies cannot establish causation on their own, they provide a crucial foundation for generating hypotheses, predicting outcomes, and informing decision-making in various fields. Understanding the principles and practices of correlational research empowers researchers to explore complex phenomena, advance scientific knowledge, and address real-world challenges. Moreover, embracing ethical considerations and best practices in correlational research ensures the integrity, validity, and reliability of study findings. By prioritizing informed consent, confidentiality, and participant well-being, researchers can conduct studies that uphold ethical standards and contribute meaningfully to the body of knowledge. Incorporating transparent reporting, peer review, and continuous learning further enhances the quality and credibility of correlational research. Ultimately, by leveraging correlational methods responsibly and ethically, researchers can unlock new insights, drive innovation, and make a positive impact on society.

How to Collect Data for Correlational Research in Minutes?

Discover the revolutionary power of Appinio , the real-time market research platform. With Appinio, conducting your own correlational research has never been easier or more exciting. Gain access to real-time consumer insights, empowering you to make data-driven decisions in minutes. Here's why Appinio stands out:

• From questions to insights in minutes:  Say goodbye to lengthy research processes. With Appinio, you can gather valuable insights swiftly, allowing you to act on them immediately.
• Intuitive platform for everyone:  No need for a PhD in research. Appinio's user-friendly interface makes it accessible to anyone, empowering you to conduct professional-grade research effortlessly.
• Extensive reach, global impact:  Define your target group from over 1200 characteristics and survey consumers in over 90 countries. With Appinio, the world is your research playground.

Get free access to the platform!

Join the loop 💌

Be the first to hear about new updates, product news, and data insights. We'll send it all straight to your inbox.

Get the latest market research news straight to your inbox! 💌

Wait, there's more

03.09.2024 | 3min read

Get your brand Holiday Ready: 4 Essential Steps to Smash your Q4

03.09.2024 | 8min read

Beyond Demographics: Psychographics power in target group identification

29.08.2024 | 32min read

What is Convenience Sampling? Definition, Method, Examples

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case AskWhy Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Correlational Research: What it is with Examples

Our minds can do some brilliant things. For example, it can memorize the jingle of a pizza truck. The louder the jingle, the closer the pizza truck is to us. Who taught us that? Nobody! We relied on our understanding and came to a conclusion. We don’t stop there, do we? If there are multiple pizza trucks in the area and each one has a different jingle, we would memorize it all and relate the jingle to its pizza truck.

This is what correlational research precisely is, establishing a relationship between two variables, “jingle” and “distance of the truck” in this particular example. The correlational study looks for variables that seem to interact with each other. When you see one variable changing, you have a fair idea of how the other variable will change.

What is Correlational research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research method in which a researcher measures two variables and understands and assesses the statistical relationship between them with no influence from any extraneous variable. In statistical analysis, distinguishing between categorical data and numerical data is essential, as categorical data involves distinct categories or labels, while numerical data consists of measurable quantities.

Correlational Research Example

The correlation coefficient shows the correlation between two variables (A correlation coefficient is a statistical measure that calculates the strength of the relationship between two variables), a value measured between -1 and +1. When the correlation coefficient is close to +1, there is a positive correlation between the two variables. If the value is relative to -1, there is a negative correlation between the two variables. When the value is close to zero, then there is no relationship between the two variables.

Let us take an example to understand correlational research.

Consider hypothetically, a researcher is studying a correlation between cancer and marriage. In this study, there are two variables: disease and marriage. Let us say marriage has a negative association with cancer. This means that married people are less likely to develop cancer.

However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage directly avoids cancer. In correlational research, it is not possible to establish the fact, what causes what. It is a misconception that a correlational study involves two quantitative variables. However, the reality is two variables are measured, but neither is changed. This is true independent of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical.

Types of correlational research

Mainly three types of correlational research have been identified:

1. Positive correlation: A positive relationship between two variables is when an increase in one variable leads to a rise in the other variable. A decrease in one variable will see a reduction in the other variable. For example, the amount of money a person has might positively correlate with the number of cars the person owns.

2. Negative correlation: A negative correlation is quite literally the opposite of a positive relationship. If there is an increase in one variable, the second variable will show a decrease, and vice versa.

For example, being educated might negatively correlate with the crime rate when an increase in one variable leads to a decrease in another and vice versa. If a country’s education level is improved, it can lower crime rates. Please note that this doesn’t mean that lack of education leads to crimes. It only means that a lack of education and crime is believed to have a common reason – poverty.

3. No correlation: There is no correlation between the two variables in this third type . A change in one variable may not necessarily see a difference in the other variable. For example, being a millionaire and happiness are not correlated. An increase in money doesn’t lead to happiness.

Characteristics of correlational research

Correlational research has three main characteristics. They are: 

• Non-experimental : The correlational study is non-experimental. It means that researchers need not manipulate variables with a scientific methodology to either agree or disagree with a hypothesis. The researcher only measures and observes the relationship between the variables without altering them or subjecting them to external conditioning.
• Backward-looking : Correlational research only looks back at historical data and observes events in the past. Researchers use it to measure and spot historical patterns between two variables. A correlational study may show a positive relationship between two variables, but this can change in the future.
• Dynamic : The patterns between two variables from correlational research are never constant and are always changing. Two variables having negative correlation research in the past can have a positive correlation relationship in the future due to various factors.

Data collection

The distinctive feature of correlational research is that the researcher can’t manipulate either of the variables involved. It doesn’t matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could observe participants in a closed environment or a public setting.

Researchers use two data collection methods to collect information in correlational research.

01. Naturalistic observation

Naturalistic observation is a way of data collection in which people’s behavioral targeting is observed in their natural environment, in which they typically exist. This method is a type of field research. It could mean a researcher might be observing people in a grocery store, at the cinema, playground, or in similar places.

Researchers who are usually involved in this type of data collection make observations as unobtrusively as possible so that the participants involved in the study are not aware that they are being observed else they might deviate from being their natural self.

Ethically this method is acceptable if the participants remain anonymous, and if the study is conducted in a public setting, a place where people would not normally expect complete privacy. As mentioned previously, taking an example of the grocery store where people can be observed while collecting an item from the aisle and putting in the shopping bags. This is ethically acceptable, which is why most researchers choose public settings for recording their observations. This data collection method could be both qualitative and quantitative . If you need to know more about qualitative data, you can explore our newly published blog, “ Examples of Qualitative Data in Education .”

02. Archival data

Another approach to correlational data is the use of archival data. Archival information is the data that has been previously collected by doing similar kinds of research . Archival data is usually made available through primary research .

In contrast to naturalistic observation, the information collected through archived data can be pretty straightforward. For example, counting the number of people named Richard in the various states of America based on social security records is relatively short.

Use the correlational research method to conduct a correlational study and measure the statistical relationship between two variables. Uncover the insights that matter the most. Use QuestionPro’s research platform to uncover complex insights that can propel your business to the forefront of your industry.

Research to make better decisions. Start a free trial today. No credit card required.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

Participant Engagement: Strategies + Improving Interaction

Sep 12, 2024

Employee Recognition Programs: A Complete Guide

Sep 11, 2024

A guide to conducting agile qualitative research for rapid insights with Digsite 

Cultural Insights: What it is, Importance + How to Collect?

Sep 10, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Non-Experimental Research

29 Correlational Research

Learning objectives.

• Define correlational research and give several examples.
• Explain why a researcher might choose to conduct correlational research rather than experimental research or another type of non-experimental research.
• Interpret the strength and direction of different correlation coefficients.
• Explain why correlation does not imply causation.

What Is Correlational Research?

Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables (binary or continuous) and assesses the statistical relationship (i.e., the correlation) between them with little or no effort to control extraneous variables. There are many reasons that researchers interested in statistical relationships between variables would choose to conduct a correlational study rather than an experiment. The first is that they do not believe that the statistical relationship is a causal one or are not interested in causal relationships. Recall two goals of science are to describe and to predict and the correlational research strategy allows researchers to achieve both of these goals. Specifically, this strategy can be used to describe the strength and direction of the relationship between two variables and if there is a relationship between the variables then the researchers can use scores on one variable to predict scores on the other (using a statistical technique called regression, which is discussed further in the section on Complex Correlation in this chapter).

Another reason that researchers would choose to use a correlational study rather than an experiment is that the statistical relationship of interest is thought to be causal, but the researcher  cannot manipulate the independent variable because it is impossible, impractical, or unethical. For example, while a researcher might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory abilities they cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, they must rely on the correlational research strategy; they must simply measure the frequency that people use cannabis and measure their memory abilities using a standardized test of memory and then determine whether the frequency people use cannabis is statistically related to memory test performance. 

Correlation is also used to establish the reliability and validity of measurements. For example, a researcher might evaluate the validity of a brief extraversion test by administering it to a large group of participants along with a longer extraversion test that has already been shown to be valid. This researcher might then check to see whether participants’ scores on the brief test are strongly correlated with their scores on the longer one. Neither test score is thought to cause the other, so there is no independent variable to manipulate. In fact, the terms  independent variable  and dependent variabl e  do not apply to this kind of research.

Another strength of correlational research is that it is often higher in external validity than experimental research. Recall there is typically a trade-off between internal validity and external validity. As greater controls are added to experiments, internal validity is increased but often at the expense of external validity as artificial conditions are introduced that do not exist in reality. In contrast, correlational studies typically have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or controlled but they often have high external validity. Since nothing is manipulated or controlled by the experimenter the results are more likely to reflect relationships that exist in the real world.

Finally, extending upon this trade-off between internal and external validity, correlational research can help to provide converging evidence for a theory. If a theory is supported by a true experiment that is high in internal validity as well as by a correlational study that is high in external validity then the researchers can have more confidence in the validity of their theory. As a concrete example, correlational studies establishing that there is a relationship between watching violent television and aggressive behavior have been complemented by experimental studies confirming that the relationship is a causal one (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001) [1] .

Does Correlational Research Always Involve Quantitative Variables?

A common misconception among beginning researchers is that correlational research must involve two quantitative variables, such as scores on two extraversion tests or the number of daily hassles and number of symptoms people have experienced. However, the defining feature of correlational research is that the two variables are measured—neither one is manipulated—and this is true regardless of whether the variables are quantitative or categorical. Imagine, for example, that a researcher administers the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale to 50 American college students and 50 Japanese college students. Although this “feels” like a between-subjects experiment, it is a correlational study because the researcher did not manipulate the students’ nationalities. The same is true of the study by Cacioppo and Petty comparing college faculty and factory workers in terms of their need for cognition. It is a correlational study because the researchers did not manipulate the participants’ occupations.

Figure 6.2 shows data from a hypothetical study on the relationship between whether people make a daily list of things to do (a “to-do list”) and stress. Notice that it is unclear whether this is an experiment or a correlational study because it is unclear whether the independent variable was manipulated. If the researcher randomly assigned some participants to make daily to-do lists and others not to, then it is an experiment. If the researcher simply asked participants whether they made daily to-do lists, then it is a correlational study. The distinction is important because if the study was an experiment, then it could be concluded that making the daily to-do lists reduced participants’ stress. But if it was a correlational study, it could only be concluded that these variables are statistically related. Perhaps being stressed has a negative effect on people’s ability to plan ahead (the directionality problem). Or perhaps people who are more conscientious are more likely to make to-do lists and less likely to be stressed (the third-variable problem). The crucial point is that what defines a study as experimental or correlational is not the variables being studied, nor whether the variables are quantitative or categorical, nor the type of graph or statistics used to analyze the data. What defines a study is how the study is conducted.

Data Collection in Correlational Research

Again, the defining feature of correlational research is that neither variable is manipulated. It does not matter how or where the variables are measured. A researcher could have participants come to a laboratory to complete a computerized backward digit span task and a computerized risky decision-making task and then assess the relationship between participants’ scores on the two tasks. Or a researcher could go to a shopping mall to ask people about their attitudes toward the environment and their shopping habits and then assess the relationship between these two variables. Both of these studies would be correlational because no independent variable is manipulated. 

Correlations Between Quantitative Variables

Correlations between quantitative variables are often presented using scatterplots . Figure 6.3 shows some hypothetical data on the relationship between the amount of stress people are under and the number of physical symptoms they have. Each point in the scatterplot represents one person’s score on both variables. For example, the circled point in Figure 6.3 represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Taking all the points into account, one can see that people under more stress tend to have more physical symptoms. This is a good example of a positive relationship , in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other. In other words, they move in the same direction, either both up or both down. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. In other words, they move in opposite directions. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example, because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning.

The strength of a correlation between quantitative variables is typically measured using a statistic called  Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (or Pearson's  r ) . As Figure 6.4 shows, Pearson’s r ranges from −1.00 (the strongest possible negative relationship) to +1.00 (the strongest possible positive relationship). A value of 0 means there is no relationship between the two variables. When Pearson’s  r  is 0, the points on a scatterplot form a shapeless “cloud.” As its value moves toward −1.00 or +1.00, the points come closer and closer to falling on a single straight line. Correlation coefficients near ±.10 are considered small, values near ± .30 are considered medium, and values near ±.50 are considered large. Notice that the sign of Pearson’s  r  is unrelated to its strength. Pearson’s  r  values of +.30 and −.30, for example, are equally strong; it is just that one represents a moderate positive relationship and the other a moderate negative relationship. With the exception of reliability coefficients, most correlations that we find in Psychology are small or moderate in size. The website http://rpsychologist.com/d3/correlation/ , created by Kristoffer Magnusson, provides an excellent interactive visualization of correlations that permits you to adjust the strength and direction of a correlation while witnessing the corresponding changes to the scatterplot.

There are two common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading. Pearson’s  r  is a good measure only for linear relationships, in which the points are best approximated by a straight line. It is not a good measure for nonlinear relationships, in which the points are better approximated by a curved line. Figure 6.5, for example, shows a hypothetical relationship between the amount of sleep people get per night and their level of depression. In this example, the line that best approximates the points is a curve—a kind of upside-down “U”—because people who get about eight hours of sleep tend to be the least depressed. Those who get too little sleep and those who get too much sleep tend to be more depressed. Even though Figure 6.5 shows a fairly strong relationship between depression and sleep, Pearson’s  r  would be close to zero because the points in the scatterplot are not well fit by a single straight line. This means that it is important to make a scatterplot and confirm that a relationship is approximately linear before using Pearson’s  r . Nonlinear relationships are fairly common in psychology, but measuring their strength is beyond the scope of this book.

The other common situations in which the value of Pearson’s  r  can be misleading is when one or both of the variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population. This problem is referred to as  restriction of range . Assume, for example, that there is a strong negative correlation between people’s age and their enjoyment of hip hop music as shown by the scatterplot in Figure 6.6. Pearson’s  r  here is −.77. However, if we were to collect data only from 18- to 24-year-olds—represented by the shaded area of Figure 6.6—then the relationship would seem to be quite weak. In fact, Pearson’s  r  for this restricted range of ages is 0. It is a good idea, therefore, to design studies to avoid restriction of range. For example, if age is one of your primary variables, then you can plan to collect data from people of a wide range of ages. Because restriction of range is not always anticipated or easily avoidable, however, it is good practice to examine your data for possible restriction of range and to interpret Pearson’s  r  in light of it. (There are also statistical methods to correct Pearson’s  r  for restriction of range, but they are beyond the scope of this book).

Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

You have probably heard repeatedly that “Correlation does not imply causation.” An amusing example of this comes from a 2012 study that showed a positive correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.79) between the per capita chocolate consumption of a nation and the number of Nobel prizes awarded to citizens of that nation [2] . It seems clear, however, that this does not mean that eating chocolate causes people to win Nobel prizes, and it would not make sense to try to increase the number of Nobel prizes won by recommending that parents feed their children more chocolate.

There are two reasons that correlation does not imply causation. The first is called the  directionality problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related because X  causes  Y  or because  Y  causes  X . Consider, for example, a study showing that whether or not people exercise is statistically related to how happy they are—such that people who exercise are happier on average than people who do not. This statistical relationship is consistent with the idea that exercising causes happiness, but it is also consistent with the idea that happiness causes exercise. Perhaps being happy gives people more energy or leads them to seek opportunities to socialize with others by going to the gym. The second reason that correlation does not imply causation is called the  third-variable problem . Two variables,  X  and  Y , can be statistically related not because  X  causes  Y , or because  Y  causes  X , but because some third variable,  Z , causes both  X  and  Y . For example, the fact that nations that have won more Nobel prizes tend to have higher chocolate consumption probably reflects geography in that European countries tend to have higher rates of per capita chocolate consumption and invest more in education and technology (once again, per capita) than many other countries in the world. Similarly, the statistical relationship between exercise and happiness could mean that some third variable, such as physical health, causes both of the others. Being physically healthy could cause people to exercise and cause them to be happier. Correlations that are a result of a third-variable are often referred to as  spurious correlations .

Some excellent and amusing examples of spurious correlations can be found at http://www.tylervigen.com  (Figure 6.7  provides one such example).

“Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence”

Although researchers in psychology know that correlation does not imply causation, many journalists do not. One website about correlation and causation, http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/100/correlation_or_causation.htm , links to dozens of media reports about real biomedical and psychological research. Many of the headlines suggest that a causal relationship has been demonstrated when a careful reading of the articles shows that it has not because of the directionality and third-variable problems.

One such article is about a study showing that children who ate candy every day were more likely than other children to be arrested for a violent offense later in life. But could candy really “lead to” violence, as the headline suggests? What alternative explanations can you think of for this statistical relationship? How could the headline be rewritten so that it is not misleading?

As you have learned by reading this book, there are various ways that researchers address the directionality and third-variable problems. The most effective is to conduct an experiment. For example, instead of simply measuring how much people exercise, a researcher could bring people into a laboratory and randomly assign half of them to run on a treadmill for 15 minutes and the rest to sit on a couch for 15 minutes. Although this seems like a minor change to the research design, it is extremely important. Now if the exercisers end up in more positive moods than those who did not exercise, it cannot be because their moods affected how much they exercised (because it was the researcher who used random assignment to determine how much they exercised). Likewise, it cannot be because some third variable (e.g., physical health) affected both how much they exercised and what mood they were in. Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships.

Media Attributions

• Nicholas Cage and Pool Drownings  © Tyler Viegen is licensed under a  CC BY (Attribution)  license
• Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ↵
• Messerli, F. H. (2012). Chocolate consumption, cognitive function, and Nobel laureates. New England Journal of Medicine, 367 , 1562-1564. ↵

A graph that presents correlations between two quantitative variables, one on the x-axis and one on the y-axis. Scores are plotted at the intersection of the values on each axis.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with higher scores on the other.

A relationship in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other.

A statistic that measures the strength of a correlation between quantitative variables.

When one or both variables have a limited range in the sample relative to the population, making the value of the correlation coefficient misleading.

The problem where two variables, X  and  Y , are statistically related either because X  causes  Y, or because  Y  causes  X , and thus the causal direction of the effect cannot be known.

Two variables, X and Y, can be statistically related not because X causes Y, or because Y causes X, but because some third variable, Z, causes both X and Y.

Correlations that are a result not of the two variables being measured, but rather because of a third, unmeasured, variable that affects both of the measured variables.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Privacy Policy

Home » Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Correlational Research Vs Experimental Research

Table of Contents

Correlational research and experimental research are two different research approaches used in social sciences and other fields of research.

Correlational Research

Correlational Research is a research approach that examines the relationship between two or more variables. It involves measuring the degree of association or correlation between the variables without manipulating them. The goal of correlational research is to identify whether there is a relationship between the variables and the strength of that relationship. Correlational research is typically conducted through surveys, observational studies, or secondary data analysis.

Experimental Research

Experimental Research , on the other hand, is a research approach that involves the manipulation of one or more variables to observe the effect on another variable. The goal of experimental research is to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the variables. Experimental research is typically conducted in a controlled environment and involves random assignment of participants to different groups to ensure that the groups are equivalent. The data is collected through measurements and observations, and statistical analysis is used to test the hypotheses.

Difference Between Correlational Research and Experimental Research

Here’s a comparison table that highlights the differences between correlational research and experimental research:

Also see Research Methods

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Research Question Vs Hypothesis

Qualitative Vs Quantitative Research

Inductive Vs Deductive Research

Reliability Vs Validity

Primary Vs Secondary Research

Clinical Research Vs Lab Research

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Correlation Studies in Psychology Research

Determining the relationship between two or more variables.

Verywell / Brianna Gilmartin

• Characteristics

Potential Pitfalls

Frequently asked questions.

A correlational study is a type of research design that looks at the relationships between two or more variables. Correlational studies are non-experimental, which means that the experimenter does not manipulate or control any of the variables.

A correlation refers to a relationship between two variables. Correlations can be strong or weak and positive or negative. Sometimes, there is no correlation.

There are three possible outcomes of a correlation study: a positive correlation, a negative correlation, or no correlation. Researchers can present the results using a numerical value called the correlation coefficient, a measure of the correlation strength. It can range from –1.00 (negative) to +1.00 (positive). A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

• Positive correlations : Both variables increase or decrease at the same time. A correlation coefficient close to +1.00 indicates a strong positive correlation.
• Negative correlations : As the amount of one variable increases, the other decreases (and vice versa). A correlation coefficient close to -1.00 indicates a strong negative correlation.
• No correlation : There is no relationship between the two variables. A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

Characteristics of a Correlational Study

Correlational studies are often used in psychology, as well as other fields like medicine. Correlational research is a preliminary way to gather information about a topic. The method is also useful if researchers are unable to perform an experiment.

Researchers use correlations to see if a relationship between two or more variables exists, but the variables themselves are not under the control of the researchers.

While correlational research can demonstrate a relationship between variables, it cannot prove that changing one variable will change another. In other words, correlational studies cannot prove cause-and-effect relationships.

When you encounter research that refers to a "link" or an "association" between two things, they are most likely talking about a correlational study.

Types of Correlational Research

There are three types of correlational research: naturalistic observation, the survey method, and archival research. Each type has its own purpose, as well as its pros and cons.

Naturalistic Observation

The naturalistic observation method involves observing and recording variables of interest in a natural setting without interference or manipulation.  

Can inspire ideas for further research

Option if lab experiment not available

Variables are viewed in natural setting

Can be time-consuming and expensive

Extraneous variables can't be controlled

No scientific control of variables

Subjects might behave differently if aware of being observed

This method is well-suited to studies where researchers want to see how variables behave in their natural setting or state.   Inspiration can then be drawn from the observations to inform future avenues of research.

In some cases, it might be the only method available to researchers; for example, if lab experimentation would be precluded by access, resources, or ethics. It might be preferable to not being able to conduct research at all, but the method can be costly and usually takes a lot of time.  

Naturalistic observation presents several challenges for researchers. For one, it does not allow them to control or influence the variables in any way nor can they change any possible external variables.

However, this does not mean that researchers will get reliable data from watching the variables, or that the information they gather will be free from bias.

For example, study subjects might act differently if they know that they are being watched. The researchers might not be aware that the behavior that they are observing is not necessarily the subject's natural state (i.e., how they would act if they did not know they were being watched).

Researchers also need to be aware of their biases, which can affect the observation and interpretation of a subject's behavior.  

Surveys and questionnaires are some of the most common methods used for psychological research. The survey method involves having a  random sample  of participants complete a survey, test, or questionnaire related to the variables of interest.   Random sampling is vital to the generalizability of a survey's results.

Cheap, easy, and fast

Can collect large amounts of data in a short amount of time

Results can be affected by poor survey questions

Results can be affected by unrepresentative sample

Outcomes can be affected by participants

If researchers need to gather a large amount of data in a short period of time, a survey is likely to be the fastest, easiest, and cheapest option.  

It's also a flexible method because it lets researchers create data-gathering tools that will help ensure they get the information they need (survey responses) from all the sources they want to use (a random sample of participants taking the survey).

Survey data might be cost-efficient and easy to get, but it has its downsides. For one, the data is not always reliable—particularly if the survey questions are poorly written or the overall design or delivery is weak.   Data is also affected by specific faults, such as unrepresented or underrepresented samples .

The use of surveys relies on participants to provide useful data. Researchers need to be aware of the specific factors related to the people taking the survey that will affect its outcome.

For example, some people might struggle to understand the questions. A person might answer a particular way to try to please the researchers or to try to control how the researchers perceive them (such as trying to make themselves "look better").

Sometimes, respondents might not even realize that their answers are incorrect or misleading because of mistaken memories .

Archival Research

Many areas of psychological research benefit from analyzing studies that were conducted long ago by other researchers, as well as reviewing historical records and case studies.

For example, in an experiment known as  "The Irritable Heart ," researchers used digitalized records containing information on American Civil War veterans to learn more about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Large amount of data

Can be less expensive

Researchers cannot change participant behavior

Can be unreliable

Information might be missing

No control over data collection methods

Using records, databases, and libraries that are publicly accessible or accessible through their institution can help researchers who might not have a lot of money to support their research efforts.

Free and low-cost resources are available to researchers at all levels through academic institutions, museums, and data repositories around the world.

Another potential benefit is that these sources often provide an enormous amount of data that was collected over a very long period of time, which can give researchers a way to view trends, relationships, and outcomes related to their research.

While the inability to change variables can be a disadvantage of some methods, it can be a benefit of archival research. That said, using historical records or information that was collected a long time ago also presents challenges. For one, important information might be missing or incomplete and some aspects of older studies might not be useful to researchers in a modern context.

A primary issue with archival research is reliability. When reviewing old research, little information might be available about who conducted the research, how a study was designed, who participated in the research, as well as how data was collected and interpreted.

Researchers can also be presented with ethical quandaries—for example, should modern researchers use data from studies that were conducted unethically or with questionable ethics?

You've probably heard the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." This means that while correlational research can suggest that there is a relationship between two variables, it cannot prove that one variable will change another.

For example, researchers might perform a correlational study that suggests there is a relationship between academic success and a person's self-esteem. However, the study cannot show that academic success changes a person's self-esteem.

To determine why the relationship exists, researchers would need to consider and experiment with other variables, such as the subject's social relationships, cognitive abilities, personality, and socioeconomic status.

The difference between a correlational study and an experimental study involves the manipulation of variables. Researchers do not manipulate variables in a correlational study, but they do control and systematically vary the independent variables in an experimental study. Correlational studies allow researchers to detect the presence and strength of a relationship between variables, while experimental studies allow researchers to look for cause and effect relationships.

If the study involves the systematic manipulation of the levels of a variable, it is an experimental study. If researchers are measuring what is already present without actually changing the variables, then is a correlational study.

The variables in a correlational study are what the researcher measures. Once measured, researchers can then use statistical analysis to determine the existence, strength, and direction of the relationship. However, while correlational studies can say that variable X and variable Y have a relationship, it does not mean that X causes Y.

The goal of correlational research is often to look for relationships, describe these relationships, and then make predictions. Such research can also often serve as a jumping off point for future experimental research. 

Heath W. Psychology Research Methods . Cambridge University Press; 2018:134-156.

Schneider FW. Applied Social Psychology . 2nd ed. SAGE; 2012:50-53.

Curtis EA, Comiskey C, Dempsey O. Importance and use of correlational research .  Nurse Researcher . 2016;23(6):20-25. doi:10.7748/nr.2016.e1382

Carpenter S. Visualizing Psychology . 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2012:14-30.

Pizarro J, Silver RC, Prause J. Physical and mental health costs of traumatic war experiences among civil war veterans .  Arch Gen Psychiatry . 2006;63(2):193. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.63.2.193

Post SG. The echo of Nuremberg: Nazi data and ethics .  J Med Ethics . 1991;17(1):42-44. doi:10.1136/jme.17.1.42

Lau F. Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies . In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, eds. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach . University of Victoria.

Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients .  Turk J Emerg Med . 2018;18(3):91-93. doi:10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

Price PC. Research Methods in Psychology . California State University.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.

Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet].

Chapter 12 methods for correlational studies.

Francis Lau .

12.1. Introduction

Correlational studies aim to find out if there are differences in the characteristics of a population depending on whether or not its subjects have been exposed to an event of interest in the naturalistic setting. In eHealth, correlational studies are often used to determine whether the use of an eHealth system is associated with a particular set of user characteristics and/or quality of care patterns ( Friedman & Wyatt, 2006 ). An example is a computerized provider order entry ( cpoe ) study to differentiate the background, usage and performance between clinical users and non-users of the cpoe system after its implementation in a hospital.

Correlational studies are different from comparative studies in that the evaluator does not control the allocation of subjects into comparison groups or assignment of the intervention to specific groups. Instead, the evaluator defines a set of variables including an outcome of interest then tests for hypothesized relations among these variables. The outcome is known as the dependent variable and the variables being tested for association are the independent variables. Correlational studies are similar to comparative studies in that they take on an objectivist view where the variables can be defined, measured and analyzed for the presence of hypothesized relations. As such, correlational studies face the same challenges as comparative studies in terms of their internal and external validity. Of particular importance are the issues of design choices, selection bias, confounders, and reporting consistency.

In this chapter we describe the basic types of correlational studies seen in the eHealth literature and their methodological considerations. Also included are three case examples to show how these studies are done.

12.2. Types of Correlational Studies

Correlational studies, better known as observational studies in epidemiology, are used to examine event exposure, disease prevalence and risk factors in a population ( Elwood, 2007 ). In eHealth, the exposure typically refers to the use of an eHealth system by a population of subjects in a given setting. These subjects may be patients, providers or organizations identified through a set of variables that are thought to differ in their measured values depending on whether or not the subjects were “exposed” to the eHealth system.

There are three basic types of correlational studies that are used in eHealth evaluation: cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies ( Vandenbroucke et al., 2014 ). These are described below.

• Cohort studies – A sample of subjects is observed over time where those exposed and not exposed to the eHealth system are compared for differences in one or more predefined outcomes, such as adverse event rates. Cohort studies may be prospective in nature where subjects are followed for a time period into the future or retrospective for a period into the past. The comparisons are typically made at the beginning of the study as baseline measures, then repeated over time at predefined intervals for differences and trends. Some cohort studies involve only a single group of subjects. Their focus is to describe the characteristics of subjects based on a set of variables, such as the pattern of ehr use by providers and their quality of care in an organization over a given time period.
• Cross-sectional studies – These are considered a type of cohort study where only one comparison is made between exposed and unexposed subjects. They provide a snapshot of the outcome and the associated characteristics of the cohort at a specific point in time.
• Case-control studies – Subjects in a sample that are exposed to the eHealth system are matched with those not exposed but otherwise similar in composition, then compared for differences in some predefined outcomes. Case-control studies are retrospective in nature where subjects already exposed to the event are selected then matched with unexposed subjects, using historical cases to ensure they have similar characteristics.

A cross-sectional survey is a type of cross-sectional study where the data source is drawn from postal questionnaires and interviews. This topic will be covered in the chapter on methods for survey studies.

12.3. Methodological Considerations

While correlational studies are considered less rigorous than rct s, they are the preferred designs when it is neither feasible nor ethical to conduct experimental trials. Key methodological issues arise in terms of: (a) design options, (b) biases and confounders, (c) controlling for confounding effects, (d) adherence to good practices, and (e) reporting consistency. These issues are discussed below.

12.3.1. Design Options

There are growing populations with multiple chronic conditions and healthcare interventions. They have made it difficult to design rct s with sufficient sample size and long-term follow-up to account for all the variability this phenomenon entails. Also rct s are intended to test the efficacy of an intervention in a restricted sample of subjects under ideal settings. They have limited generalizability to the population at large in routine settings ( Fleurence, Naci, & Jansen, 2010 ). As such, correlational studies, especially those involving the use of routinely collected ehr data from the general population, have become viable alternatives to rct s. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the three design options presented above. They are listed below.

• Cohort studies – These studies typically follow the cohorts over time, which allow one to examine causal relationships between exposure and one or more outcomes. They also allow one to measure change in exposure and outcomes over time. However, these studies can be costly and time-consuming to conduct if the outcomes are rare or occur in the future. With prospective cohorts they can be prone to dropout. With retrospective cohorts accurate historical records are required which may not be available or complete ( Levin, 2003a ).
• Case-control studies – These studies are suited to examine infrequent or rare outcomes since they are selected at the outset to ensure sufficient cases. Yet the selection of exposed and matching cases can be problematic, as not all relevant characteristics are known. Moreover, the cases may not be representative of the population of interest. The focus on exposed cases that occur infrequently may overestimate their risks ( Levin, 2003b ).
• Cross-sectional studies – These studies are easier and quicker to conduct than others as they involve a one-time effort over a short period using a sample from the population of interest. They can be used to generate hypotheses and examine multiple outcomes and characteristics at the same time with no loss to follow-up. On the other hand, these studies only give a snapshot of the situation at one time point, making it difficult for causal inference of the exposure and outcomes. The results might be different had another time period been chosen ( Levin, 2006 ).

12.3.2. Biases and Confounders

Shamliyan, Kane, and Dickinson (2010) conducted a systematic review on tools used to assess the quality of observational studies. Despite the large number of quality scales and checklists found in the literature, they concluded that the universal concerns are in the areas of selection bias, confounding, and misclassification. These concerns, also mentioned by Vandenbroucke and colleagues (2014) in their reporting guidelines for observational studies, are summarized below.

• Selection bias – When subjects are selected through their exposure to the event rather than by random or concealed allocation, there is a risk that the subjects are not comparable due to the presence of systematic differences in their baseline characteristics. For example, a correlational study that examines the association between ehr use and quality of care may have younger providers with more computer savvy in the exposed group because they use ehr more and with more facility than those in the unexposed group. It is also possible to have sicker patients in the exposed group since they require more frequent ehr use than unexposed patients who may be healthier and have less need for the ehr . This is sometimes referred to as response bias, where the characteristics of subjects agreed to be in the study are different from those who declined to take part.
• Confounding – Extraneous factors that influence the outcome but are also associated with the exposure are said to have a confounding effect. One such type is confounding by indication where sicker patients are both more likely to receive treatments and also more likely to have adverse outcomes. For example, a study of cds alerts and adverse drug events may find a positive but spurious association due to the inclusion of sicker patients with multiple conditions and medications, which increases their chance of adverse events regardless of cds alerts.
• Misclassification – When there are systematic differences in the completeness or accuracy of the data recorded on the subjects, there is a risk of misclassification in their exposures or outcomes. This is also known as information or detection bias. An example is where sicker patients may have more complete ehr data because they received more tests, treatments and outcome tracking than those who are healthier and require less attention. As such, the exposure and outcomes of sicker patients may be overestimated.

It is important to note that bias and confounding are not synonymous. Bias is caused by finding the wrong association from flawed information or subject selection. Confounding is factually correct with respect to the relationship found, but is incorrect in its interpretation due to an extraneous factor that is associated with both the exposure and outcome.

12.3.3. Controlling for Confounding Effects

There are three common methods to control for confounding effects. These are by matching, stratification, and modelling. They are described below ( Higgins & Green, 2011 ).

• Matching – The selection of subjects with similar characteristics so that they are comparable; the matching can be done at the individual subject level where each exposed subject is matched with one or more unexposed subjects as controls. It can also be done at the group level with equal numbers of exposed and unexposed subjects. Another way to match subjects is by propensity score, that is, a measure derived from a set of characteristics in the subjects. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Zhou, Leith, Li, and Tom (2015) to examine the association between caregiver phr use and healthcare utilization by pediatric patients. In that study, a propensity score-matching algorithm was used to match phr -registered children to non-registered children. The matching model used registration as the outcome variable and all child and caregiver characteristics as the independent variables.
• Stratification – Subjects are categorized into subgroups based on a set of characteristics such as age and sex then analyzed for the effect within each subgroup. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Staes et al. (2008) , examining the impact of computerized alerts on the quality of outpatient lab monitoring for transplant patients. In that study, the before/after comparison of the timeliness of reporting and clinician responses was stratified by the type of test (creatinine, cyclosporine A, and tacrolimus) and report source (hospital laboratory or other labs).
• Modelling – The use of statistical models to compute adjusted effects while accounting for relevant characteristics such as age and sex differences among subjects. An example is the retrospective cohort study by Beck and colleagues (2012) to compare documentation consistency and care plan improvement before and after the implementation of an electronic asthma-specific history and physical template. In that study, before/after group characteristics were compared for differences using t -tests for continuous variables and χ 2 statistics for categorical variables. Logistic regression was used to adjust for group differences in age, gender, insurance, albuterol use at admission, and previous hospitalization.

12.3.4. Adherence to Good Practices in Prospective Observational Studies

The ispor Good Research Practices Task Force published a set of recommendations in designing, conducting and reporting prospective observational studies for comparative effectiveness research ( Berger et al., 2012 ) that are relevant to eHealth evaluation. Their key recommendations are listed below.

• Key policy questions should be defined to allow inferences to be drawn.
• Hypothesis testing protocol design to include the hypothesis/questions, treatment groups and outcomes, measured and unmeasured confounders, primary analyses, and required sample size.
• Rationale for prospective observational study design over others (e.g., rct ) is based on question, feasibility, intervention characteristics and ability to answer the question versus cost and timeliness.
• Study design choice is able to address potential biases and confounders through the use of inception cohorts, multiple comparator groups, matching designs and unaffected outcomes.
• Explanation of study design and analytic choices is transparent.
• Study execution is carried out in ways that ensure relevance and reasonable follow-up is not different from the usual practice.
• Study registration takes place on publicly available sites prior to its initiation.

12.3.5. The Need for Reporting Consistency

Vandenbroucke et al. (2014) published an expanded version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( strobe ) statement to improve the reporting of observational studies that can be applied in eHealth evaluation. It is made up of 22 items, of which 18 are common to cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, with four being specific to each of the three designs. The 22 reporting items are listed below (for details refer to the cited reference).

• Title and abstract – one item that covers the type of design used, and a summary of what was done and found.
• Introduction – two items on study background/rationale, objectives and/or hypotheses.
• Methods – nine items on design, setting, participants, variables, data sources/measurement, bias, study size, quantitative variables and statistical methods used.
• Results – five items on participants, descriptive, outcome data, main results and other analyses.
• Discussion – four items on key results, limitations, interpretation and generalizability.
• Other information – one item on funding source.

The four items specific to study design relate to the reporting of participants, statistical methods, descriptive results and outcome data. They are briefly described below for the three types of designs.

• Cohort studies – Participant eligibility criteria and sources, methods of selection, follow-up and handling dropouts, description of follow-up time and duration, and number of outcome events or summary measures over time. For matched studies include matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed subjects.
• Cross-sectional studies – Participant eligibility criteria, sources and methods of selection, analytical methods accounting for sampling strategy as needed, and number of outcome events or summary measures.
• Case-control studies – Participant eligibility criteria, sources and methods of case/control selection with rationale for choices, methods of matching cases/controls, and number of exposures by category or summary measures of exposures. For matched studies include matching criteria and number of controls per case.

12.4. Case Examples

12.4.1. cohort study of automated immunosuppressive care.

Park and colleagues (2010) conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the association between the use of a cds (clinical decision support) system in post-liver transplant immunosuppressive care and the rates of rejection episode and drug toxicity. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – A liver transplant program in the United States that had implemented an automated cds system to manage immunosuppressive therapy for its post-liver transplant recipients after discharge. The system consolidated all clinical information to expedite immunosuppressive review, ordering, and follow-up with recipients. Prior to automation, a paper charting system was used that involved manually tracking lab tests, transcribing results into a paper spreadsheet, finding physicians to review results and orders, and contacting recipients to notify them of changes.
• Subjects – The study population included recipients of liver transplants between 2004 and 2008 who received outpatient immunosuppressive therapy that included tacrolimus medications.
• Design – A retrospective cohort study with a before/after design to compare recipients managed by the paper charting system against those managed by the cds system for up to one year after discharge.
• Measures – The outcome variables were the percentages of recipients with at least one rejection and/or tacrolimus toxicity episode during the one-year follow-up period. The independent variables included recipient, intraoperative, donor and postoperative characteristics, and use of paper charting or cds . Examples of recipient variables were age, gender, body mass index, presence of diabetes and hypertension, and pre-transplant lab results. Examples of intraoperative data were blood type match, type of transplant and volume of blood transfused. Examples of donor data included percentage of fat in the liver. Examples of post-transplantation data included the type of immunosuppressive induction therapy and the management method.
• Analysis – Mean, standard deviation and t -tests were computed for continuous variables after checking for normal distribution. Percentages and Fisher’s exact test were computed for categorical variables. Autoregressive integrated moving average analysis was done to determine change in outcomes over time. Logistic regression with variables thought to be clinically relevant was used to identify significant univariable and multivariable factors associated with the outcomes. P values of less than 0.05 were considered significant.
• Findings – Overall, the cds system was associated with significantly fewer episodes of rejection and tacrolimus toxicity. The integrated moving average analysis showed a significant decrease in outcome rates after the cds system was implemented compared with paper charting. Multivariable analysis showed the cds system had lower odds of a rejection episode than paper charting ( or 0.20; p < 0.01) and lower odds of tacrolimus toxicity ( or 0.5; p < 0.01). Other significant non-system related factors included the use of specific drugs, the percentage of fat in the donor liver and the volume of packed red cells transfused.

12.4.2. Cross-sectional Analysis of EHR Documentation and Care Quality

Linder, Schnipper, and Middleton (2012) conducted a cross-sectional study to examine the association between the type of ehr documentation used by physicians and the quality of care provided. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – An integrated primary care practice-based research network affiliated with an academic centre in the United States. The network uses an in-house ehr system with decision support for preventive services, chronic care management, and medication monitoring and alerts. The ehr data include problem and medication lists, coded allergies and lab tests.
• Subjects – Physicians and patients from 10 primary care practices that were part of an rct to examine the use of a decision support tool to manage patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes ( cad/DM ). Eligible patients were those with cad/DM in their ehr problem list prior to the rct start date.
• Design – A nine-month retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ehr data collected from the rct . Three physician documentation styles were defined based on 188,554 visit notes in the ehr : (a) dictation, (b) structured documentation, and (c) free text note. Physicians were divided into three groups based on their predominant style defined as more than 25% of their notes composed by a given method.
• Measures – The outcome variables were 15 ehr -based cad/DM quality measures assessed 30 days after primary care visits. They covered quality of documentation, medication use, lab testing, physiologic measures, and vaccinations. Measures collected prior to the day of visit were eligible and considered fulfilled with the presence of coded ehr data on vital signs, medications, allergies, problem lists, lab tests, and vaccinations. Independent variables on physicians and patients were included as covariates. For physicians, they included age, gender, training level, proportion of cad/DM patients in their panel, total patient visits, and self-reported experience with the ehr . For patients, they included socio-demographic factors, the number of clinic visits and hospitalizations, the number of problems and medications in the ehr , and whether their physician was in the intervention group.
• Analysis – Baseline characteristics of physicians and patients were compared using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were compared using anova . For categorical variables, Fisher’s exact test was used for physician variables and χ 2 test for patient variables. Multivariate logistic regression models were used for each quality measure to adjust for patient and physician clustering and potential confounders. Bonferroni procedure was used to account for multiple comparisons for the 15 quality measures.
• Findings – During the study period, 234 physicians documented 18,569 visits from 7,000 cad/DM patients. Of these physicians, 146 (62%) typed free-text notes, 68 (25%) used structured documentation, and 20 (9%) dictated notes. After adjusting for cluster effect, physicians who dictated their notes had the worst quality of care in all 15 measures. In particular, physicians who dictated notes were significantly worse in three of 15 measures (antiplatelet medication, tobacco use, diabetic eye exam); physicians who used structured documentation were better in three measures (blood pressure, body mass, diabetic foot exam); and those who used free-text were better in one measure (influenza vaccination). In summary, physicians who dictated notes had worse quality of care than those with structured documentation.

12.4.3. Case-control Comparison of Internet Portal Use

Nielsen, Halamka, and Kinkel (2012) conducted a case-control study to evaluate whether there was an association between active Internet patient portal use by Multiple Sclerosis ( ms ) patients and medical resource utilization. Patient predictors and barriers to portal use were also identified. The study is summarized below.

• Setting – An academic ms centre in the United States with an in-house Internet patient portal site that was accessed by ms patients to schedule clinic appointments, request prescription refills and referrals, view test results, upload personal health information, and communicate with providers via secure e-mails.
• Subjects – 240 adult ms patients actively followed during 2008 and 2009 were randomly selected from the ehr ; 120 of these patients had submitted at least one message during that period and were defined as portal users. Another 120 patients who did not enrol in the portal or send any message were selected as non-users for comparison.
• Design – A retrospective case-control study facilitated through a chart review comparing portal users against non-users from the same period. Patient demographic and clinical information was extracted from the ehr , while portal usage, including feature access type and frequency and e-mail message content, were provided by it staff.
• Measures – Patient variables included age, gender, race, insurance type, employment status, number of medical problems, disease duration, psychiatric history, number of medications, and physical disability scores. Provider variables included prescription type and frequency. Portal usage variables included feature access type and frequency for test results, appointments, prescription requests and logins, and categorized messaging contents.
• Analysis – Comparison of patient demographic, clinical and medical resource utilization data from users and non-users were made using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher’s exact test and χ 2 test. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient predictors and barriers to portal use. Provider prescribing habits against patient’s psychiatric history and portal use were examined by two-way analysis of variance. All statistical tests used p value of 0.05 with no adjustment made for multiple comparisons. A logistic multivariate regression model was created to predict portal use based on patient demographics, clinical condition, socio-economic status, and physical disability metrics.
• Findings – Portal users were mostly young professionals with little physical disability. The most frequently used feature was secure patient-provider messaging, often for medication requests or refills, and self-reported side effects. Predictors and barriers of portal use were the number of medications prescribed ( or 1.69, p < 0.0001), Caucasian ethnicity ( or 5.04, p = 0.007), arm and hand disability ( or 0.23, p = 0.01), and impaired vision ( or 0.31, p = 0.01). For medical resource utilization, portal users had more frequent clinic visits, medication use and prescriptions from centre staff providers. Patients with a history of psychiatric disease were prescribed more ms medications than those without any history ( p < 0.0001). In summary, ms patients used the Internet more than the general population, but physical disability limited their access and need to be addressed.

12.4.4. Limitations

A general limitation of a correlational study is that it can determine association between exposure and outcomes but cannot predict causation. The more specific limitations of the three case examples cited by the authors are listed below.

• Automated immunosuppressive care – Baseline differences existed between groups with unknown effects; possible other unmeasured confounders; possible Hawthorne effects from focus on immunosuppressive care.
• ehr documentation and care quality – Small sample size; only three documentation styles were considered (e.g., scribe and voice recognition software were excluded) and unsure if they were stable during study period; quality measures specific to cad/DM conditions only; complex methods of adjusting for clustering and confounding that did not account for unmeasured confounders; the level of physician training (e.g., attending versus residents) not adjusted.
• Internet portal use – Small sample size not representative of the study population; referral centre site could over-represent complex patients requiring advanced care; all patients had health insurance.

12.5. Summary

In this chapter we described cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies as three types of correlational studies used in eHealth evaluation. The methodological issues addressed include bias and confounding, controlling for confounders, adherence to good practices and consistency in reporting. Three case examples were included to show how eHealth correlational studies are done.

1 ISPOR – International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

• Beck A. F., Sauers H. S., Kahn R. S., Yau C., Weiser J., Simmons J.M. Improved documentation and care planning with an asthma-specific history and physical. Hospital Pediatrics. 2012; 2 (4):194–201. [ PubMed : 24313025 ]
• Berger M. L., Dreyer N., Anderson F., Towse A., Sedrakyan A., Normand S.L. Prospective observational studies to address comparative effectiveness: The ispor good research practices task force report. Value in Health. 2012; 15 (2):217–230. Retrieved from http://www ​.sciencedirect ​.com/science/article ​/pii/S1098301512000071 . [ PubMed : 22433752 ]
• Elwood M. Critical appraisal of epidemiological studies and clinical studies. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
• Fleurence R. L., Naci H., Jansen J.P. The critical role of observational evidence in comparative effectiveness research. Health Affairs. 2010; 29 (10):1826–1833. [ PubMed : 20921482 ]
• Friedman C. P., Wyatt J.C. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics. 2nd ed. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, Inc; 2006.
• Higgins J. P. T., Green S., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. (Version 5.1.0, updated March 2011) Retrieved from http://handbook ​.cochrane.org/
• Levin K. A. Study design iv : Cohort studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2003a; 7 :51–52. [ PubMed : 16858385 ]
• Levin K. A. Study design v : Case-control studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2003b; 7 :83–84. [ PubMed : 17003803 ]
• Levin K. A. Study design iii : Cross-sectional studies. Evidence-based Dentistry. 2006; 7 :24–25. [ PubMed : 16557257 ]
• Linder J. A., Schnipper J. L., Middleton B. Method of electronic health record documentation and quality of primary care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012; 19 (6):1019–1024. [ PMC free article : PMC3534457 ] [ PubMed : 22610494 ]
• Nielsen A. S., Halamka J. D., Kinkel R.P. Internet portal use in an academic multiple sclerosis center. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2012; 19 (1):128–133. [ PMC free article : PMC3240754 ] [ PubMed : 21571744 ]
• Park E. S., Peccoud M. R., Wicks K. A., Halldorson J. B., Carithers R. L. Jr., Reyes J. D., Perkins J.D. Use of an automated clinical management system improves outpatient immunosuppressive care following liver transplantation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2010; 17 (4):396–402. [ PMC free article : PMC2995663 ] [ PubMed : 20595306 ]
• Shamliyan T., Kane R. L., Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010; 63 (10):1061–1070. [ PubMed : 20728045 ]
• Staes C. J., Evans R. S., Rocha B. H. S. C., Sorensen J. B., Huff S. M., Arata J., Narus S.P. Computerized alerts improve outpatient laboratory monitoring of transplant patients. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2008; 15 (3):324–332. [ PMC free article : PMC2410008 ] [ PubMed : 18308982 ]
• Vandenbroucke J. P., von Elm E., Altman D. G., Gotzsche P. C., Mulrow C. D., Pocock S. J., Egger M. for the strobe Initiative. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology ( strobe ): explanation and elaboration. International Journal of Surgery. 2014; 12 (12):1500–1524. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ s174391911400212x . [ PubMed : 25046751 ]
• Zhou Y. Y., Leith W. M., Li H., Tom J.O. Personal health record use for children and health care utilization: propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2015; 22 (4):748–754. [ PubMed : 25656517 ]

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0): see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

• Cite this Page Lau F. Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies. In: Lau F, Kuziemsky C, editors. Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach [Internet]. Victoria (BC): University of Victoria; 2017 Feb 27.
• PDF version of this title (4.5M)

In this Page

• Introduction
• Types of Correlational Studies
• Methodological Considerations
• Case Examples

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: A... Chapter 12 Methods for Correlational Studies - Handbook of eHealth Evaluation: An Evidence-based Approach

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.2 Psychologists Use Descriptive, Correlational, and Experimental Research Designs to Understand Behavior

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate the goals of descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each.
• Explain the goals of descriptive research and the statistical techniques used to interpret it.
• Summarize the uses of correlational research and describe why correlational research cannot be used to infer causality.
• Review the procedures of experimental research and explain how it can be used to draw causal inferences.

Psychologists agree that if their ideas and theories about human behavior are to be taken seriously, they must be backed up by data. However, the research of different psychologists is designed with different goals in mind, and the different goals require different approaches. These varying approaches, summarized in Table 2.2 “Characteristics of the Three Research Designs” , are known as research designs . A research design is the specific method a researcher uses to collect, analyze, and interpret data . Psychologists use three major types of research designs in their research, and each provides an essential avenue for scientific investigation. Descriptive research is research designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs . Correlational research is research designed to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge . Experimental research is research in which initial equivalence among research participants in more than one group is created, followed by a manipulation of a given experience for these groups and a measurement of the influence of the manipulation . Each of the three research designs varies according to its strengths and limitations, and it is important to understand how each differs.

Table 2.2 Characteristics of the Three Research Designs

Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cengage.

Descriptive Research: Assessing the Current State of Affairs

Descriptive research is designed to create a snapshot of the current thoughts, feelings, or behavior of individuals. This section reviews three types of descriptive research: case studies , surveys , and naturalistic observation .

Sometimes the data in a descriptive research project are based on only a small set of individuals, often only one person or a single small group. These research designs are known as case studies — descriptive records of one or more individual’s experiences and behavior . Sometimes case studies involve ordinary individuals, as when developmental psychologist Jean Piaget used his observation of his own children to develop his stage theory of cognitive development. More frequently, case studies are conducted on individuals who have unusual or abnormal experiences or characteristics or who find themselves in particularly difficult or stressful situations. The assumption is that by carefully studying individuals who are socially marginal, who are experiencing unusual situations, or who are going through a difficult phase in their lives, we can learn something about human nature.

Sigmund Freud was a master of using the psychological difficulties of individuals to draw conclusions about basic psychological processes. Freud wrote case studies of some of his most interesting patients and used these careful examinations to develop his important theories of personality. One classic example is Freud’s description of “Little Hans,” a child whose fear of horses the psychoanalyst interpreted in terms of repressed sexual impulses and the Oedipus complex (Freud (1909/1964).

Political polls reported in newspapers and on the Internet are descriptive research designs that provide snapshots of the likely voting behavior of a population.

Another well-known case study is Phineas Gage, a man whose thoughts and emotions were extensively studied by cognitive psychologists after a railroad spike was blasted through his skull in an accident. Although there is question about the interpretation of this case study (Kotowicz, 2007), it did provide early evidence that the brain’s frontal lobe is involved in emotion and morality (Damasio et al., 2005). An interesting example of a case study in clinical psychology is described by Rokeach (1964), who investigated in detail the beliefs and interactions among three patients with schizophrenia, all of whom were convinced they were Jesus Christ.

In other cases the data from descriptive research projects come in the form of a survey — a measure administered through either an interview or a written questionnaire to get a picture of the beliefs or behaviors of a sample of people of interest . The people chosen to participate in the research (known as the sample ) are selected to be representative of all the people that the researcher wishes to know about (the population ). In election polls, for instance, a sample is taken from the population of all “likely voters” in the upcoming elections.

The results of surveys may sometimes be rather mundane, such as “Nine out of ten doctors prefer Tymenocin,” or “The median income in Montgomery County is $36,712.” Yet other times (particularly in discussions of social behavior), the results can be shocking: “More than 40,000 people are killed by gunfire in the United States every year,” or “More than 60% of women between the ages of 50 and 60 suffer from depression.” Descriptive research is frequently used by psychologists to get an estimate of the prevalence (or incidence ) of psychological disorders.

A final type of descriptive research—known as naturalistic observation —is research based on the observation of everyday events . For instance, a developmental psychologist who watches children on a playground and describes what they say to each other while they play is conducting descriptive research, as is a biopsychologist who observes animals in their natural habitats. One example of observational research involves a systematic procedure known as the strange situation , used to get a picture of how adults and young children interact. The data that are collected in the strange situation are systematically coded in a coding sheet such as that shown in Table 2.3 “Sample Coding Form Used to Assess Child’s and Mother’s Behavior in the Strange Situation” .

Table 2.3 Sample Coding Form Used to Assess Child’s and Mother’s Behavior in the Strange Situation

The results of descriptive research projects are analyzed using descriptive statistics — numbers that summarize the distribution of scores on a measured variable . Most variables have distributions similar to that shown in Figure 2.5 “Height Distribution” , where most of the scores are located near the center of the distribution, and the distribution is symmetrical and bell-shaped. A data distribution that is shaped like a bell is known as a normal distribution .

Table 2.4 Height and Family Income for 25 Students

Figure 2.5 Height Distribution

The distribution of the heights of the students in a class will form a normal distribution. In this sample the mean ( M ) = 67.12 and the standard deviation ( s ) = 2.74.

A distribution can be described in terms of its central tendency —that is, the point in the distribution around which the data are centered—and its dispersion , or spread. The arithmetic average, or arithmetic mean , is the most commonly used measure of central tendency . It is computed by calculating the sum of all the scores of the variable and dividing this sum by the number of participants in the distribution (denoted by the letter N ). In the data presented in Figure 2.5 “Height Distribution” , the mean height of the students is 67.12 inches. The sample mean is usually indicated by the letter M .

In some cases, however, the data distribution is not symmetrical. This occurs when there are one or more extreme scores (known as outliers ) at one end of the distribution. Consider, for instance, the variable of family income (see Figure 2.6 “Family Income Distribution” ), which includes an outlier (a value of $3,800,000). In this case the mean is not a good measure of central tendency. Although it appears from Figure 2.6 “Family Income Distribution” that the central tendency of the family income variable should be around $70,000, the mean family income is actually $223,960. The single very extreme income has a disproportionate impact on the mean, resulting in a value that does not well represent the central tendency.

The median is used as an alternative measure of central tendency when distributions are not symmetrical. The median is the score in the center of the distribution, meaning that 50% of the scores are greater than the median and 50% of the scores are less than the median . In our case, the median household income ($73,000) is a much better indication of central tendency than is the mean household income ($223,960).

Figure 2.6 Family Income Distribution

The distribution of family incomes is likely to be nonsymmetrical because some incomes can be very large in comparison to most incomes. In this case the median or the mode is a better indicator of central tendency than is the mean.

A final measure of central tendency, known as the mode , represents the value that occurs most frequently in the distribution . You can see from Figure 2.6 “Family Income Distribution” that the mode for the family income variable is $93,000 (it occurs four times).

In addition to summarizing the central tendency of a distribution, descriptive statistics convey information about how the scores of the variable are spread around the central tendency. Dispersion refers to the extent to which the scores are all tightly clustered around the central tendency, like this:

Or they may be more spread out away from it, like this:

One simple measure of dispersion is to find the largest (the maximum ) and the smallest (the minimum ) observed values of the variable and to compute the range of the variable as the maximum observed score minus the minimum observed score. You can check that the range of the height variable in Figure 2.5 “Height Distribution” is 72 – 62 = 10. The standard deviation , symbolized as s , is the most commonly used measure of dispersion . Distributions with a larger standard deviation have more spread. The standard deviation of the height variable is s = 2.74, and the standard deviation of the family income variable is s = $745,337.

An advantage of descriptive research is that it attempts to capture the complexity of everyday behavior. Case studies provide detailed information about a single person or a small group of people, surveys capture the thoughts or reported behaviors of a large population of people, and naturalistic observation objectively records the behavior of people or animals as it occurs naturally. Thus descriptive research is used to provide a relatively complete understanding of what is currently happening.

Despite these advantages, descriptive research has a distinct disadvantage in that, although it allows us to get an idea of what is currently happening, it is usually limited to static pictures. Although descriptions of particular experiences may be interesting, they are not always transferable to other individuals in other situations, nor do they tell us exactly why specific behaviors or events occurred. For instance, descriptions of individuals who have suffered a stressful event, such as a war or an earthquake, can be used to understand the individuals’ reactions to the event but cannot tell us anything about the long-term effects of the stress. And because there is no comparison group that did not experience the stressful situation, we cannot know what these individuals would be like if they hadn’t had the stressful experience.

Correlational Research: Seeking Relationships Among Variables

In contrast to descriptive research, which is designed primarily to provide static pictures, correlational research involves the measurement of two or more relevant variables and an assessment of the relationship between or among those variables. For instance, the variables of height and weight are systematically related (correlated) because taller people generally weigh more than shorter people. In the same way, study time and memory errors are also related, because the more time a person is given to study a list of words, the fewer errors he or she will make. When there are two variables in the research design, one of them is called the predictor variable and the other the outcome variable . The research design can be visualized like this, where the curved arrow represents the expected correlation between the two variables:

Figure 2.2.2

One way of organizing the data from a correlational study with two variables is to graph the values of each of the measured variables using a scatter plot . As you can see in Figure 2.10 “Examples of Scatter Plots” , a scatter plot is a visual image of the relationship between two variables . A point is plotted for each individual at the intersection of his or her scores for the two variables. When the association between the variables on the scatter plot can be easily approximated with a straight line, as in parts (a) and (b) of Figure 2.10 “Examples of Scatter Plots” , the variables are said to have a linear relationship .

When the straight line indicates that individuals who have above-average values for one variable also tend to have above-average values for the other variable, as in part (a), the relationship is said to be positive linear . Examples of positive linear relationships include those between height and weight, between education and income, and between age and mathematical abilities in children. In each case people who score higher on one of the variables also tend to score higher on the other variable. Negative linear relationships , in contrast, as shown in part (b), occur when above-average values for one variable tend to be associated with below-average values for the other variable. Examples of negative linear relationships include those between the age of a child and the number of diapers the child uses, and between practice on and errors made on a learning task. In these cases people who score higher on one of the variables tend to score lower on the other variable.

Relationships between variables that cannot be described with a straight line are known as nonlinear relationships . Part (c) of Figure 2.10 “Examples of Scatter Plots” shows a common pattern in which the distribution of the points is essentially random. In this case there is no relationship at all between the two variables, and they are said to be independent . Parts (d) and (e) of Figure 2.10 “Examples of Scatter Plots” show patterns of association in which, although there is an association, the points are not well described by a single straight line. For instance, part (d) shows the type of relationship that frequently occurs between anxiety and performance. Increases in anxiety from low to moderate levels are associated with performance increases, whereas increases in anxiety from moderate to high levels are associated with decreases in performance. Relationships that change in direction and thus are not described by a single straight line are called curvilinear relationships .

Figure 2.10 Examples of Scatter Plots

Some examples of relationships between two variables as shown in scatter plots. Note that the Pearson correlation coefficient ( r ) between variables that have curvilinear relationships will likely be close to zero.

Adapted from Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cengage.

The most common statistical measure of the strength of linear relationships among variables is the Pearson correlation coefficient , which is symbolized by the letter r . The value of the correlation coefficient ranges from r = –1.00 to r = +1.00. The direction of the linear relationship is indicated by the sign of the correlation coefficient. Positive values of r (such as r = .54 or r = .67) indicate that the relationship is positive linear (i.e., the pattern of the dots on the scatter plot runs from the lower left to the upper right), whereas negative values of r (such as r = –.30 or r = –.72) indicate negative linear relationships (i.e., the dots run from the upper left to the lower right). The strength of the linear relationship is indexed by the distance of the correlation coefficient from zero (its absolute value). For instance, r = –.54 is a stronger relationship than r = .30, and r = .72 is a stronger relationship than r = –.57. Because the Pearson correlation coefficient only measures linear relationships, variables that have curvilinear relationships are not well described by r , and the observed correlation will be close to zero.

It is also possible to study relationships among more than two measures at the same time. A research design in which more than one predictor variable is used to predict a single outcome variable is analyzed through multiple regression (Aiken & West, 1991). Multiple regression is a statistical technique, based on correlation coefficients among variables, that allows predicting a single outcome variable from more than one predictor variable . For instance, Figure 2.11 “Prediction of Job Performance From Three Predictor Variables” shows a multiple regression analysis in which three predictor variables are used to predict a single outcome. The use of multiple regression analysis shows an important advantage of correlational research designs—they can be used to make predictions about a person’s likely score on an outcome variable (e.g., job performance) based on knowledge of other variables.

Figure 2.11 Prediction of Job Performance From Three Predictor Variables

Multiple regression allows scientists to predict the scores on a single outcome variable using more than one predictor variable.

An important limitation of correlational research designs is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the measured variables. Consider, for instance, a researcher who has hypothesized that viewing violent behavior will cause increased aggressive play in children. He has collected, from a sample of fourth-grade children, a measure of how many violent television shows each child views during the week, as well as a measure of how aggressively each child plays on the school playground. From his collected data, the researcher discovers a positive correlation between the two measured variables.

Although this positive correlation appears to support the researcher’s hypothesis, it cannot be taken to indicate that viewing violent television causes aggressive behavior. Although the researcher is tempted to assume that viewing violent television causes aggressive play,

there are other possibilities. One alternate possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite from what has been hypothesized. Perhaps children who have behaved aggressively at school develop residual excitement that leads them to want to watch violent television shows at home:

Although this possibility may seem less likely, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of this observed correlation. It is also possible that both causal directions are operating and that the two variables cause each other:

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of a common-causal variable (also known as a third variable ). A common-causal variable is a variable that is not part of the research hypothesis but that causes both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produces the observed correlation between them . In our example a potential common-causal variable is the discipline style of the children’s parents. Parents who use a harsh and punitive discipline style may produce children who both like to watch violent television and who behave aggressively in comparison to children whose parents use less harsh discipline:

In this case, television viewing and aggressive play would be positively correlated (as indicated by the curved arrow between them), even though neither one caused the other but they were both caused by the discipline style of the parents (the straight arrows). When the predictor and outcome variables are both caused by a common-causal variable, the observed relationship between them is said to be spurious . A spurious relationship is a relationship between two variables in which a common-causal variable produces and “explains away” the relationship . If effects of the common-causal variable were taken away, or controlled for, the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables would disappear. In the example the relationship between aggression and television viewing might be spurious because by controlling for the effect of the parents’ disciplining style, the relationship between television viewing and aggressive behavior might go away.

Common-causal variables in correlational research designs can be thought of as “mystery” variables because, as they have not been measured, their presence and identity are usually unknown to the researcher. Since it is not possible to measure every variable that could cause both the predictor and outcome variables, the existence of an unknown common-causal variable is always a possibility. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: Correlation does not demonstrate causation. It is important that when you read about correlational research projects, you keep in mind the possibility of spurious relationships, and be sure to interpret the findings appropriately. Although correlational research is sometimes reported as demonstrating causality without any mention being made of the possibility of reverse causation or common-causal variables, informed consumers of research, like you, are aware of these interpretational problems.

In sum, correlational research designs have both strengths and limitations. One strength is that they can be used when experimental research is not possible because the predictor variables cannot be manipulated. Correlational designs also have the advantage of allowing the researcher to study behavior as it occurs in everyday life. And we can also use correlational designs to make predictions—for instance, to predict from the scores on their battery of tests the success of job trainees during a training session. But we cannot use such correlational information to determine whether the training caused better job performance. For that, researchers rely on experiments.

Experimental Research: Understanding the Causes of Behavior

The goal of experimental research design is to provide more definitive conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables in the research hypothesis than is available from correlational designs. In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variable (or variables ) and the dependent variable . The independent variable in an experiment is the causing variable that is created (manipulated) by the experimenter . The dependent variable in an experiment is a measured variable that is expected to be influenced by the experimental manipulation . The research hypothesis suggests that the manipulated independent variable or variables will cause changes in the measured dependent variables. We can diagram the research hypothesis by using an arrow that points in one direction. This demonstrates the expected direction of causality:

Figure 2.2.3

Research Focus: Video Games and Aggression

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000). The study was designed to test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would increase aggressive behavior. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play with either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played their assigned video games for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, each participant played a competitive game with an opponent in which the participant could deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of the opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behavior) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design of the experiment is shown in Figure 2.17 “An Experimental Research Design” .

Figure 2.17 An Experimental Research Design

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (1) the assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable, and (2) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to the measurement of the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating initial equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions , a procedure in which the condition that each participant is assigned to is determined through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a random number table . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups (Group A and Group B). Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that, before the experimental manipulation occurred, the students in Group A were, on average, equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable, including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as parental discipline style, peer relationships, hormone levels, diet—and in fact everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation—they had the participants in Group A play the violent game and the participants in Group B play the nonviolent game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups, finding that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game.

Anderson and Dill had from the outset created initial equivalence between the groups. This initial equivalence allowed them to observe differences in the white noise levels between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, leading to the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was the video game they had played.

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experiments do have limitations. One is that they are often conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. Second, and more important, is that some of the most interesting and key social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behavior, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join such cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs, because it is simply not possible to experimentally manipulate these variables.

Key Takeaways

• Descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs are used to collect and analyze data.
• Descriptive designs include case studies, surveys, and naturalistic observation. The goal of these designs is to get a picture of the current thoughts, feelings, or behaviors in a given group of people. Descriptive research is summarized using descriptive statistics.
• Correlational research designs measure two or more relevant variables and assess a relationship between or among them. The variables may be presented on a scatter plot to visually show the relationships. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient ( r ) is a measure of the strength of linear relationship between two variables.
• Common-causal variables may cause both the predictor and outcome variable in a correlational design, producing a spurious relationship. The possibility of common-causal variables makes it impossible to draw causal conclusions from correlational research designs.
• Experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable and the measurement of a dependent variable. Random assignment to conditions is normally used to create initial equivalence between the groups, allowing researchers to draw causal conclusions.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• There is a negative correlation between the row that a student sits in in a large class (when the rows are numbered from front to back) and his or her final grade in the class. Do you think this represents a causal relationship or a spurious relationship, and why?
• Think of two variables (other than those mentioned in this book) that are likely to be correlated, but in which the correlation is probably spurious. What is the likely common-causal variable that is producing the relationship?
• Imagine a researcher wants to test the hypothesis that participating in psychotherapy will cause a decrease in reported anxiety. Describe the type of research design the investigator might use to draw this conclusion. What would be the independent and dependent variables in the research?

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., Damasio, A. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (2005). The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. In Social neuroscience: Key readings. (pp. 21–28). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Freud, S. (1964). Analysis of phobia in a five-year-old boy. In E. A. Southwell & M. Merbaum (Eds.), Personality: Readings in theory and research (pp. 3–32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Original work published 1909)

Kotowicz, Z. (2007). The strange case of Phineas Gage. History of the Human Sciences, 20 (1), 115–131.

Rokeach, M. (1964). The three Christs of Ypsilanti: A psychological study . New York, NY: Knopf.

Introduction to Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

19+ Experimental Design Examples (Methods + Types)

Ever wondered how scientists discover new medicines, psychologists learn about behavior, or even how marketers figure out what kind of ads you like? Well, they all have something in common: they use a special plan or recipe called an "experimental design."

Imagine you're baking cookies. You can't just throw random amounts of flour, sugar, and chocolate chips into a bowl and hope for the best. You follow a recipe, right? Scientists and researchers do something similar. They follow a "recipe" called an experimental design to make sure their experiments are set up in a way that the answers they find are meaningful and reliable.

Experimental design is the roadmap researchers use to answer questions. It's a set of rules and steps that researchers follow to collect information, or "data," in a way that is fair, accurate, and makes sense.

Long ago, people didn't have detailed game plans for experiments. They often just tried things out and saw what happened. But over time, people got smarter about this. They started creating structured plans—what we now call experimental designs—to get clearer, more trustworthy answers to their questions.

In this article, we'll take you on a journey through the world of experimental designs. We'll talk about the different types, or "flavors," of experimental designs, where they're used, and even give you a peek into how they came to be.

What Is Experimental Design?

Alright, before we dive into the different types of experimental designs, let's get crystal clear on what experimental design actually is.

Imagine you're a detective trying to solve a mystery. You need clues, right? Well, in the world of research, experimental design is like the roadmap that helps you find those clues. It's like the game plan in sports or the blueprint when you're building a house. Just like you wouldn't start building without a good blueprint, researchers won't start their studies without a strong experimental design.

So, why do we need experimental design? Think about baking a cake. If you toss ingredients into a bowl without measuring, you'll end up with a mess instead of a tasty dessert.

Similarly, in research, if you don't have a solid plan, you might get confusing or incorrect results. A good experimental design helps you ask the right questions ( think critically ), decide what to measure ( come up with an idea ), and figure out how to measure it (test it). It also helps you consider things that might mess up your results, like outside influences you hadn't thought of.

For example, let's say you want to find out if listening to music helps people focus better. Your experimental design would help you decide things like: Who are you going to test? What kind of music will you use? How will you measure focus? And, importantly, how will you make sure that it's really the music affecting focus and not something else, like the time of day or whether someone had a good breakfast?

In short, experimental design is the master plan that guides researchers through the process of collecting data, so they can answer questions in the most reliable way possible. It's like the GPS for the journey of discovery!

History of Experimental Design

Around 350 BCE, people like Aristotle were trying to figure out how the world works, but they mostly just thought really hard about things. They didn't test their ideas much. So while they were super smart, their methods weren't always the best for finding out the truth.

Fast forward to the Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), a time of big changes and lots of curiosity. People like Galileo started to experiment by actually doing tests, like rolling balls down inclined planes to study motion. Galileo's work was cool because he combined thinking with doing. He'd have an idea, test it, look at the results, and then think some more. This approach was a lot more reliable than just sitting around and thinking.

Now, let's zoom ahead to the 18th and 19th centuries. This is when people like Francis Galton, an English polymath, started to get really systematic about experimentation. Galton was obsessed with measuring things. Seriously, he even tried to measure how good-looking people were ! His work helped create the foundations for a more organized approach to experiments.

Next stop: the early 20th century. Enter Ronald A. Fisher , a brilliant British statistician. Fisher was a game-changer. He came up with ideas that are like the bread and butter of modern experimental design.

Fisher invented the concept of the " control group "—that's a group of people or things that don't get the treatment you're testing, so you can compare them to those who do. He also stressed the importance of " randomization ," which means assigning people or things to different groups by chance, like drawing names out of a hat. This makes sure the experiment is fair and the results are trustworthy.

Around the same time, American psychologists like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner were developing " behaviorism ." They focused on studying things that they could directly observe and measure, like actions and reactions.

Skinner even built boxes—called Skinner Boxes —to test how animals like pigeons and rats learn. Their work helped shape how psychologists design experiments today. Watson performed a very controversial experiment called The Little Albert experiment that helped describe behaviour through conditioning—in other words, how people learn to behave the way they do.

In the later part of the 20th century and into our time, computers have totally shaken things up. Researchers now use super powerful software to help design their experiments and crunch the numbers.

With computers, they can simulate complex experiments before they even start, which helps them predict what might happen. This is especially helpful in fields like medicine, where getting things right can be a matter of life and death.

Also, did you know that experimental designs aren't just for scientists in labs? They're used by people in all sorts of jobs, like marketing, education, and even video game design! Yes, someone probably ran an experiment to figure out what makes a game super fun to play.

So there you have it—a quick tour through the history of experimental design, from Aristotle's deep thoughts to Fisher's groundbreaking ideas, and all the way to today's computer-powered research. These designs are the recipes that help people from all walks of life find answers to their big questions.

Key Terms in Experimental Design

Before we dig into the different types of experimental designs, let's get comfy with some key terms. Understanding these terms will make it easier for us to explore the various types of experimental designs that researchers use to answer their big questions.

Independent Variable : This is what you change or control in your experiment to see what effect it has. Think of it as the "cause" in a cause-and-effect relationship. For example, if you're studying whether different types of music help people focus, the kind of music is the independent variable.

Dependent Variable : This is what you're measuring to see the effect of your independent variable. In our music and focus experiment, how well people focus is the dependent variable—it's what "depends" on the kind of music played.

Control Group : This is a group of people who don't get the special treatment or change you're testing. They help you see what happens when the independent variable is not applied. If you're testing whether a new medicine works, the control group would take a fake pill, called a placebo , instead of the real medicine.

Experimental Group : This is the group that gets the special treatment or change you're interested in. Going back to our medicine example, this group would get the actual medicine to see if it has any effect.

Randomization : This is like shaking things up in a fair way. You randomly put people into the control or experimental group so that each group is a good mix of different kinds of people. This helps make the results more reliable.

Sample : This is the group of people you're studying. They're a "sample" of a larger group that you're interested in. For instance, if you want to know how teenagers feel about a new video game, you might study a sample of 100 teenagers.

Bias : This is anything that might tilt your experiment one way or another without you realizing it. Like if you're testing a new kind of dog food and you only test it on poodles, that could create a bias because maybe poodles just really like that food and other breeds don't.

Data : This is the information you collect during the experiment. It's like the treasure you find on your journey of discovery!

Replication : This means doing the experiment more than once to make sure your findings hold up. It's like double-checking your answers on a test.

Hypothesis : This is your educated guess about what will happen in the experiment. It's like predicting the end of a movie based on the first half.

Steps of Experimental Design

Alright, let's say you're all fired up and ready to run your own experiment. Cool! But where do you start? Well, designing an experiment is a bit like planning a road trip. There are some key steps you've got to take to make sure you reach your destination. Let's break it down:

• Ask a Question : Before you hit the road, you've got to know where you're going. Same with experiments. You start with a question you want to answer, like "Does eating breakfast really make you do better in school?"
• Do Some Homework : Before you pack your bags, you look up the best places to visit, right? In science, this means reading up on what other people have already discovered about your topic.
• Form a Hypothesis : This is your educated guess about what you think will happen. It's like saying, "I bet this route will get us there faster."
• Plan the Details : Now you decide what kind of car you're driving (your experimental design), who's coming with you (your sample), and what snacks to bring (your variables).
• Randomization : Remember, this is like shuffling a deck of cards. You want to mix up who goes into your control and experimental groups to make sure it's a fair test.
• Run the Experiment : Finally, the rubber hits the road! You carry out your plan, making sure to collect your data carefully.
• Analyze the Data : Once the trip's over, you look at your photos and decide which ones are keepers. In science, this means looking at your data to see what it tells you.
• Draw Conclusions : Based on your data, did you find an answer to your question? This is like saying, "Yep, that route was faster," or "Nope, we hit a ton of traffic."
• Share Your Findings : After a great trip, you want to tell everyone about it, right? Scientists do the same by publishing their results so others can learn from them.
• Do It Again? : Sometimes one road trip just isn't enough. In the same way, scientists often repeat their experiments to make sure their findings are solid.

So there you have it! Those are the basic steps you need to follow when you're designing an experiment. Each step helps make sure that you're setting up a fair and reliable way to find answers to your big questions.

Let's get into examples of experimental designs.

1) True Experimental Design

In the world of experiments, the True Experimental Design is like the superstar quarterback everyone talks about. Born out of the early 20th-century work of statisticians like Ronald A. Fisher, this design is all about control, precision, and reliability.

Researchers carefully pick an independent variable to manipulate (remember, that's the thing they're changing on purpose) and measure the dependent variable (the effect they're studying). Then comes the magic trick—randomization. By randomly putting participants into either the control or experimental group, scientists make sure their experiment is as fair as possible.

No sneaky biases here!

True Experimental Design Pros

The pros of True Experimental Design are like the perks of a VIP ticket at a concert: you get the best and most trustworthy results. Because everything is controlled and randomized, you can feel pretty confident that the results aren't just a fluke.

True Experimental Design Cons

However, there's a catch. Sometimes, it's really tough to set up these experiments in a real-world situation. Imagine trying to control every single detail of your day, from the food you eat to the air you breathe. Not so easy, right?

True Experimental Design Uses

The fields that get the most out of True Experimental Designs are those that need super reliable results, like medical research.

When scientists were developing COVID-19 vaccines, they used this design to run clinical trials. They had control groups that received a placebo (a harmless substance with no effect) and experimental groups that got the actual vaccine. Then they measured how many people in each group got sick. By comparing the two, they could say, "Yep, this vaccine works!"

So next time you read about a groundbreaking discovery in medicine or technology, chances are a True Experimental Design was the VIP behind the scenes, making sure everything was on point. It's been the go-to for rigorous scientific inquiry for nearly a century, and it's not stepping off the stage anytime soon.

2) Quasi-Experimental Design

So, let's talk about the Quasi-Experimental Design. Think of this one as the cool cousin of True Experimental Design. It wants to be just like its famous relative, but it's a bit more laid-back and flexible. You'll find quasi-experimental designs when it's tricky to set up a full-blown True Experimental Design with all the bells and whistles.

Quasi-experiments still play with an independent variable, just like their stricter cousins. The big difference? They don't use randomization. It's like wanting to divide a bag of jelly beans equally between your friends, but you can't quite do it perfectly.

In real life, it's often not possible or ethical to randomly assign people to different groups, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like education or social issues. And that's where quasi-experiments come in.

Quasi-Experimental Design Pros

Even though they lack full randomization, quasi-experimental designs are like the Swiss Army knives of research: versatile and practical. They're especially popular in fields like education, sociology, and public policy.

For instance, when researchers wanted to figure out if the Head Start program , aimed at giving young kids a "head start" in school, was effective, they used a quasi-experimental design. They couldn't randomly assign kids to go or not go to preschool, but they could compare kids who did with kids who didn't.

Quasi-Experimental Design Cons

Of course, quasi-experiments come with their own bag of pros and cons. On the plus side, they're easier to set up and often cheaper than true experiments. But the flip side is that they're not as rock-solid in their conclusions. Because the groups aren't randomly assigned, there's always that little voice saying, "Hey, are we missing something here?"

Quasi-Experimental Design Uses

Quasi-Experimental Design gained traction in the mid-20th century. Researchers were grappling with real-world problems that didn't fit neatly into a laboratory setting. Plus, as society became more aware of ethical considerations, the need for flexible designs increased. So, the quasi-experimental approach was like a breath of fresh air for scientists wanting to study complex issues without a laundry list of restrictions.

In short, if True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback, Quasi-Experimental Design is the versatile player who can adapt and still make significant contributions to the game.

3) Pre-Experimental Design

Now, let's talk about the Pre-Experimental Design. Imagine it as the beginner's skateboard you get before you try out for all the cool tricks. It has wheels, it rolls, but it's not built for the professional skatepark.

Similarly, pre-experimental designs give researchers a starting point. They let you dip your toes in the water of scientific research without diving in head-first.

So, what's the deal with pre-experimental designs?

Pre-Experimental Designs are the basic, no-frills versions of experiments. Researchers still mess around with an independent variable and measure a dependent variable, but they skip over the whole randomization thing and often don't even have a control group.

It's like baking a cake but forgetting the frosting and sprinkles; you'll get some results, but they might not be as complete or reliable as you'd like.

Pre-Experimental Design Pros

Why use such a simple setup? Because sometimes, you just need to get the ball rolling. Pre-experimental designs are great for quick-and-dirty research when you're short on time or resources. They give you a rough idea of what's happening, which you can use to plan more detailed studies later.

A good example of this is early studies on the effects of screen time on kids. Researchers couldn't control every aspect of a child's life, but they could easily ask parents to track how much time their kids spent in front of screens and then look for trends in behavior or school performance.

Pre-Experimental Design Cons

But here's the catch: pre-experimental designs are like that first draft of an essay. It helps you get your ideas down, but you wouldn't want to turn it in for a grade. Because these designs lack the rigorous structure of true or quasi-experimental setups, they can't give you rock-solid conclusions. They're more like clues or signposts pointing you in a certain direction.

Pre-Experimental Design Uses

This type of design became popular in the early stages of various scientific fields. Researchers used them to scratch the surface of a topic, generate some initial data, and then decide if it's worth exploring further. In other words, pre-experimental designs were the stepping stones that led to more complex, thorough investigations.

So, while Pre-Experimental Design may not be the star player on the team, it's like the practice squad that helps everyone get better. It's the starting point that can lead to bigger and better things.

4) Factorial Design

Now, buckle up, because we're moving into the world of Factorial Design, the multi-tasker of the experimental universe.

Imagine juggling not just one, but multiple balls in the air—that's what researchers do in a factorial design.

In Factorial Design, researchers are not satisfied with just studying one independent variable. Nope, they want to study two or more at the same time to see how they interact.

It's like cooking with several spices to see how they blend together to create unique flavors.

Factorial Design became the talk of the town with the rise of computers. Why? Because this design produces a lot of data, and computers are the number crunchers that help make sense of it all. So, thanks to our silicon friends, researchers can study complicated questions like, "How do diet AND exercise together affect weight loss?" instead of looking at just one of those factors.

Factorial Design Pros

This design's main selling point is its ability to explore interactions between variables. For instance, maybe a new study drug works really well for young people but not so great for older adults. A factorial design could reveal that age is a crucial factor, something you might miss if you only studied the drug's effectiveness in general. It's like being a detective who looks for clues not just in one room but throughout the entire house.

Factorial Design Cons

However, factorial designs have their own bag of challenges. First off, they can be pretty complicated to set up and run. Imagine coordinating a four-way intersection with lots of cars coming from all directions—you've got to make sure everything runs smoothly, or you'll end up with a traffic jam. Similarly, researchers need to carefully plan how they'll measure and analyze all the different variables.

Factorial Design Uses

Factorial designs are widely used in psychology to untangle the web of factors that influence human behavior. They're also popular in fields like marketing, where companies want to understand how different aspects like price, packaging, and advertising influence a product's success.

And speaking of success, the factorial design has been a hit since statisticians like Ronald A. Fisher (yep, him again!) expanded on it in the early-to-mid 20th century. It offered a more nuanced way of understanding the world, proving that sometimes, to get the full picture, you've got to juggle more than one ball at a time.

So, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Quasi-Experimental Design is the versatile player, Factorial Design is the strategist who sees the entire game board and makes moves accordingly.

5) Longitudinal Design

Alright, let's take a step into the world of Longitudinal Design. Picture it as the grand storyteller, the kind who doesn't just tell you about a single event but spins an epic tale that stretches over years or even decades. This design isn't about quick snapshots; it's about capturing the whole movie of someone's life or a long-running process.

You know how you might take a photo every year on your birthday to see how you've changed? Longitudinal Design is kind of like that, but for scientific research.

With Longitudinal Design, instead of measuring something just once, researchers come back again and again, sometimes over many years, to see how things are going. This helps them understand not just what's happening, but why it's happening and how it changes over time.

This design really started to shine in the latter half of the 20th century, when researchers began to realize that some questions can't be answered in a hurry. Think about studies that look at how kids grow up, or research on how a certain medicine affects you over a long period. These aren't things you can rush.

The famous Framingham Heart Study , started in 1948, is a prime example. It's been studying heart health in a small town in Massachusetts for decades, and the findings have shaped what we know about heart disease.

Longitudinal Design Pros

So, what's to love about Longitudinal Design? First off, it's the go-to for studying change over time, whether that's how people age or how a forest recovers from a fire.

Longitudinal Design Cons

But it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Longitudinal studies take a lot of patience and resources. Plus, keeping track of participants over many years can be like herding cats—difficult and full of surprises.

Longitudinal Design Uses

Despite these challenges, longitudinal studies have been key in fields like psychology, sociology, and medicine. They provide the kind of deep, long-term insights that other designs just can't match.

So, if the True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback, and the Quasi-Experimental Design is the flexible athlete, then the Factorial Design is the strategist, and the Longitudinal Design is the wise elder who has seen it all and has stories to tell.

6) Cross-Sectional Design

Now, let's flip the script and talk about Cross-Sectional Design, the polar opposite of the Longitudinal Design. If Longitudinal is the grand storyteller, think of Cross-Sectional as the snapshot photographer. It captures a single moment in time, like a selfie that you take to remember a fun day. Researchers using this design collect all their data at one point, providing a kind of "snapshot" of whatever they're studying.

In a Cross-Sectional Design, researchers look at multiple groups all at the same time to see how they're different or similar.

This design rose to popularity in the mid-20th century, mainly because it's so quick and efficient. Imagine wanting to know how people of different ages feel about a new video game. Instead of waiting for years to see how opinions change, you could just ask people of all ages what they think right now. That's Cross-Sectional Design for you—fast and straightforward.

You'll find this type of research everywhere from marketing studies to healthcare. For instance, you might have heard about surveys asking people what they think about a new product or political issue. Those are usually cross-sectional studies, aimed at getting a quick read on public opinion.

Cross-Sectional Design Pros

So, what's the big deal with Cross-Sectional Design? Well, it's the go-to when you need answers fast and don't have the time or resources for a more complicated setup.

Cross-Sectional Design Cons

Remember, speed comes with trade-offs. While you get your results quickly, those results are stuck in time. They can't tell you how things change or why they're changing, just what's happening right now.

Cross-Sectional Design Uses

Also, because they're so quick and simple, cross-sectional studies often serve as the first step in research. They give scientists an idea of what's going on so they can decide if it's worth digging deeper. In that way, they're a bit like a movie trailer, giving you a taste of the action to see if you're interested in seeing the whole film.

So, in our lineup of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, then Cross-Sectional Design is like the speedy running back—fast, agile, but not designed for long, drawn-out plays.

7) Correlational Design

Next on our roster is the Correlational Design, the keen observer of the experimental world. Imagine this design as the person at a party who loves people-watching. They don't interfere or get involved; they just observe and take mental notes about what's going on.

In a correlational study, researchers don't change or control anything; they simply observe and measure how two variables relate to each other.

The correlational design has roots in the early days of psychology and sociology. Pioneers like Sir Francis Galton used it to study how qualities like intelligence or height could be related within families.

This design is all about asking, "Hey, when this thing happens, does that other thing usually happen too?" For example, researchers might study whether students who have more study time get better grades or whether people who exercise more have lower stress levels.

One of the most famous correlational studies you might have heard of is the link between smoking and lung cancer. Back in the mid-20th century, researchers started noticing that people who smoked a lot also seemed to get lung cancer more often. They couldn't say smoking caused cancer—that would require a true experiment—but the strong correlation was a red flag that led to more research and eventually, health warnings.

Correlational Design Pros

This design is great at proving that two (or more) things can be related. Correlational designs can help prove that more detailed research is needed on a topic. They can help us see patterns or possible causes for things that we otherwise might not have realized.

Correlational Design Cons

But here's where you need to be careful: correlational designs can be tricky. Just because two things are related doesn't mean one causes the other. That's like saying, "Every time I wear my lucky socks, my team wins." Well, it's a fun thought, but those socks aren't really controlling the game.

Correlational Design Uses

Despite this limitation, correlational designs are popular in psychology, economics, and epidemiology, to name a few fields. They're often the first step in exploring a possible relationship between variables. Once a strong correlation is found, researchers may decide to conduct more rigorous experimental studies to examine cause and effect.

So, if the True Experimental Design is the superstar quarterback and the Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, the Factorial Design is the strategist, and the Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, then the Correlational Design is the clever scout, identifying interesting patterns but leaving the heavy lifting of proving cause and effect to the other types of designs.

8) Meta-Analysis

Last but not least, let's talk about Meta-Analysis, the librarian of experimental designs.

If other designs are all about creating new research, Meta-Analysis is about gathering up everyone else's research, sorting it, and figuring out what it all means when you put it together.

Imagine a jigsaw puzzle where each piece is a different study. Meta-Analysis is the process of fitting all those pieces together to see the big picture.

The concept of Meta-Analysis started to take shape in the late 20th century, when computers became powerful enough to handle massive amounts of data. It was like someone handed researchers a super-powered magnifying glass, letting them examine multiple studies at the same time to find common trends or results.

You might have heard of the Cochrane Reviews in healthcare . These are big collections of meta-analyses that help doctors and policymakers figure out what treatments work best based on all the research that's been done.

For example, if ten different studies show that a certain medicine helps lower blood pressure, a meta-analysis would pull all that information together to give a more accurate answer.

Meta-Analysis Pros

The beauty of Meta-Analysis is that it can provide really strong evidence. Instead of relying on one study, you're looking at the whole landscape of research on a topic.

Meta-Analysis Cons

However, it does have some downsides. For one, Meta-Analysis is only as good as the studies it includes. If those studies are flawed, the meta-analysis will be too. It's like baking a cake: if you use bad ingredients, it doesn't matter how good your recipe is—the cake won't turn out well.

Meta-Analysis Uses

Despite these challenges, meta-analyses are highly respected and widely used in many fields like medicine, psychology, and education. They help us make sense of a world that's bursting with information by showing us the big picture drawn from many smaller snapshots.

So, in our all-star lineup, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, the Factorial Design is the strategist, the Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, and the Correlational Design is the scout, then the Meta-Analysis is like the coach, using insights from everyone else's plays to come up with the best game plan.

9) Non-Experimental Design

Now, let's talk about a player who's a bit of an outsider on this team of experimental designs—the Non-Experimental Design. Think of this design as the commentator or the journalist who covers the game but doesn't actually play.

In a Non-Experimental Design, researchers are like reporters gathering facts, but they don't interfere or change anything. They're simply there to describe and analyze.

Non-Experimental Design Pros

So, what's the deal with Non-Experimental Design? Its strength is in description and exploration. It's really good for studying things as they are in the real world, without changing any conditions.

Non-Experimental Design Cons

Because a non-experimental design doesn't manipulate variables, it can't prove cause and effect. It's like a weather reporter: they can tell you it's raining, but they can't tell you why it's raining.

The downside? Since researchers aren't controlling variables, it's hard to rule out other explanations for what they observe. It's like hearing one side of a story—you get an idea of what happened, but it might not be the complete picture.

Non-Experimental Design Uses

Non-Experimental Design has always been a part of research, especially in fields like anthropology, sociology, and some areas of psychology.

For instance, if you've ever heard of studies that describe how people behave in different cultures or what teens like to do in their free time, that's often Non-Experimental Design at work. These studies aim to capture the essence of a situation, like painting a portrait instead of taking a snapshot.

One well-known example you might have heard about is the Kinsey Reports from the 1940s and 1950s, which described sexual behavior in men and women. Researchers interviewed thousands of people but didn't manipulate any variables like you would in a true experiment. They simply collected data to create a comprehensive picture of the subject matter.

So, in our metaphorical team of research designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, and Meta-Analysis is the coach, then Non-Experimental Design is the sports journalist—always present, capturing the game, but not part of the action itself.

10) Repeated Measures Design

Time to meet the Repeated Measures Design, the time traveler of our research team. If this design were a player in a sports game, it would be the one who keeps revisiting past plays to figure out how to improve the next one.

Repeated Measures Design is all about studying the same people or subjects multiple times to see how they change or react under different conditions.

The idea behind Repeated Measures Design isn't new; it's been around since the early days of psychology and medicine. You could say it's a cousin to the Longitudinal Design, but instead of looking at how things naturally change over time, it focuses on how the same group reacts to different things.

Imagine a study looking at how a new energy drink affects people's running speed. Instead of comparing one group that drank the energy drink to another group that didn't, a Repeated Measures Design would have the same group of people run multiple times—once with the energy drink, and once without. This way, you're really zeroing in on the effect of that energy drink, making the results more reliable.

Repeated Measures Design Pros

The strong point of Repeated Measures Design is that it's super focused. Because it uses the same subjects, you don't have to worry about differences between groups messing up your results.

Repeated Measures Design Cons

But the downside? Well, people can get tired or bored if they're tested too many times, which might affect how they respond.

Repeated Measures Design Uses

A famous example of this design is the "Little Albert" experiment, conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920. In this study, a young boy was exposed to a white rat and other stimuli several times to see how his emotional responses changed. Though the ethical standards of this experiment are often criticized today, it was groundbreaking in understanding conditioned emotional responses.

In our metaphorical lineup of research designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, and Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, then Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler—always looping back to fine-tune the game plan.

11) Crossover Design

Next up is Crossover Design, the switch-hitter of the research world. If you're familiar with baseball, you'll know a switch-hitter is someone who can bat both right-handed and left-handed.

In a similar way, Crossover Design allows subjects to experience multiple conditions, flipping them around so that everyone gets a turn in each role.

This design is like the utility player on our team—versatile, flexible, and really good at adapting.

The Crossover Design has its roots in medical research and has been popular since the mid-20th century. It's often used in clinical trials to test the effectiveness of different treatments.

Crossover Design Pros

The neat thing about this design is that it allows each participant to serve as their own control group. Imagine you're testing two new kinds of headache medicine. Instead of giving one type to one group and another type to a different group, you'd give both kinds to the same people but at different times.

Crossover Design Cons

What's the big deal with Crossover Design? Its major strength is in reducing the "noise" that comes from individual differences. Since each person experiences all conditions, it's easier to see real effects. However, there's a catch. This design assumes that there's no lasting effect from the first condition when you switch to the second one. That might not always be true. If the first treatment has a long-lasting effect, it could mess up the results when you switch to the second treatment.

Crossover Design Uses

A well-known example of Crossover Design is in studies that look at the effects of different types of diets—like low-carb vs. low-fat diets. Researchers might have participants follow a low-carb diet for a few weeks, then switch them to a low-fat diet. By doing this, they can more accurately measure how each diet affects the same group of people.

In our team of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback and Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, and Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, then Crossover Design is the versatile utility player—always ready to adapt and play multiple roles to get the most accurate results.

12) Cluster Randomized Design

Meet the Cluster Randomized Design, the team captain of group-focused research. In our imaginary lineup of experimental designs, if other designs focus on individual players, then Cluster Randomized Design is looking at how the entire team functions.

This approach is especially common in educational and community-based research, and it's been gaining traction since the late 20th century.

Here's how Cluster Randomized Design works: Instead of assigning individual people to different conditions, researchers assign entire groups, or "clusters." These could be schools, neighborhoods, or even entire towns. This helps you see how the new method works in a real-world setting.

Imagine you want to see if a new anti-bullying program really works. Instead of selecting individual students, you'd introduce the program to a whole school or maybe even several schools, and then compare the results to schools without the program.

Cluster Randomized Design Pros

Why use Cluster Randomized Design? Well, sometimes it's just not practical to assign conditions at the individual level. For example, you can't really have half a school following a new reading program while the other half sticks with the old one; that would be way too confusing! Cluster Randomization helps get around this problem by treating each "cluster" as its own mini-experiment.

Cluster Randomized Design Cons

There's a downside, too. Because entire groups are assigned to each condition, there's a risk that the groups might be different in some important way that the researchers didn't account for. That's like having one sports team that's full of veterans playing against a team of rookies; the match wouldn't be fair.

Cluster Randomized Design Uses

A famous example is the research conducted to test the effectiveness of different public health interventions, like vaccination programs. Researchers might roll out a vaccination program in one community but not in another, then compare the rates of disease in both.

In our metaphorical research team, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, and Crossover Design is the utility player, then Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain—always looking out for the group as a whole.

13) Mixed-Methods Design

Say hello to Mixed-Methods Design, the all-rounder or the "Renaissance player" of our research team.

Mixed-Methods Design uses a blend of both qualitative and quantitative methods to get a more complete picture, just like a Renaissance person who's good at lots of different things. It's like being good at both offense and defense in a sport; you've got all your bases covered!

Mixed-Methods Design is a fairly new kid on the block, becoming more popular in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as researchers began to see the value in using multiple approaches to tackle complex questions. It's the Swiss Army knife in our research toolkit, combining the best parts of other designs to be more versatile.

Here's how it could work: Imagine you're studying the effects of a new educational app on students' math skills. You might use quantitative methods like tests and grades to measure how much the students improve—that's the 'numbers part.'

But you also want to know how the students feel about math now, or why they think they got better or worse. For that, you could conduct interviews or have students fill out journals—that's the 'story part.'

Mixed-Methods Design Pros

So, what's the scoop on Mixed-Methods Design? The strength is its versatility and depth; you're not just getting numbers or stories, you're getting both, which gives a fuller picture.

Mixed-Methods Design Cons

But, it's also more challenging. Imagine trying to play two sports at the same time! You have to be skilled in different research methods and know how to combine them effectively.

Mixed-Methods Design Uses

A high-profile example of Mixed-Methods Design is research on climate change. Scientists use numbers and data to show temperature changes (quantitative), but they also interview people to understand how these changes are affecting communities (qualitative).

In our team of experimental designs, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, Crossover Design is the utility player, and Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain, then Mixed-Methods Design is the Renaissance player—skilled in multiple areas and able to bring them all together for a winning strategy.

14) Multivariate Design

Now, let's turn our attention to Multivariate Design, the multitasker of the research world.

If our lineup of research designs were like players on a basketball court, Multivariate Design would be the player dribbling, passing, and shooting all at once. This design doesn't just look at one or two things; it looks at several variables simultaneously to see how they interact and affect each other.

Multivariate Design is like baking a cake with many ingredients. Instead of just looking at how flour affects the cake, you also consider sugar, eggs, and milk all at once. This way, you understand how everything works together to make the cake taste good or bad.

Multivariate Design has been a go-to method in psychology, economics, and social sciences since the latter half of the 20th century. With the advent of computers and advanced statistical software, analyzing multiple variables at once became a lot easier, and Multivariate Design soared in popularity.

Multivariate Design Pros

So, what's the benefit of using Multivariate Design? Its power lies in its complexity. By studying multiple variables at the same time, you can get a really rich, detailed understanding of what's going on.

Multivariate Design Cons

But that complexity can also be a drawback. With so many variables, it can be tough to tell which ones are really making a difference and which ones are just along for the ride.

Multivariate Design Uses

Imagine you're a coach trying to figure out the best strategy to win games. You wouldn't just look at how many points your star player scores; you'd also consider assists, rebounds, turnovers, and maybe even how loud the crowd is. A Multivariate Design would help you understand how all these factors work together to determine whether you win or lose.

A well-known example of Multivariate Design is in market research. Companies often use this approach to figure out how different factors—like price, packaging, and advertising—affect sales. By studying multiple variables at once, they can find the best combination to boost profits.

In our metaphorical research team, if True Experimental Design is the quarterback, Longitudinal Design is the wise elder, Factorial Design is the strategist, Cross-Sectional Design is the speedster, Correlational Design is the scout, Meta-Analysis is the coach, Non-Experimental Design is the journalist, Repeated Measures Design is the time traveler, Crossover Design is the utility player, Cluster Randomized Design is the team captain, and Mixed-Methods Design is the Renaissance player, then Multivariate Design is the multitasker—juggling many variables at once to get a fuller picture of what's happening.

15) Pretest-Posttest Design

Let's introduce Pretest-Posttest Design, the "Before and After" superstar of our research team. You've probably seen those before-and-after pictures in ads for weight loss programs or home renovations, right?

Well, this design is like that, but for science! Pretest-Posttest Design checks out what things are like before the experiment starts and then compares that to what things are like after the experiment ends.

This design is one of the classics, a staple in research for decades across various fields like psychology, education, and healthcare. It's so simple and straightforward that it has stayed popular for a long time.

In Pretest-Posttest Design, you measure your subject's behavior or condition before you introduce any changes—that's your "before" or "pretest." Then you do your experiment, and after it's done, you measure the same thing again—that's your "after" or "posttest."

Pretest-Posttest Design Pros

What makes Pretest-Posttest Design special? It's pretty easy to understand and doesn't require fancy statistics.

Pretest-Posttest Design Cons

But there are some pitfalls. For example, what if the kids in our math example get better at multiplication just because they're older or because they've taken the test before? That would make it hard to tell if the program is really effective or not.

Pretest-Posttest Design Uses

Let's say you're a teacher and you want to know if a new math program helps kids get better at multiplication. First, you'd give all the kids a multiplication test—that's your pretest. Then you'd teach them using the new math program. At the end, you'd give them the same test again—that's your posttest. If the kids do better on the second test, you might conclude that the program works.

One famous use of Pretest-Posttest Design is in evaluating the effectiveness of driver's education courses. Researchers will measure people's driving skills before and after the course to see if they've improved.

16) Solomon Four-Group Design

Next up is the Solomon Four-Group Design, the "chess master" of our research team. This design is all about strategy and careful planning. Named after Richard L. Solomon who introduced it in the 1940s, this method tries to correct some of the weaknesses in simpler designs, like the Pretest-Posttest Design.

Here's how it rolls: The Solomon Four-Group Design uses four different groups to test a hypothesis. Two groups get a pretest, then one of them receives the treatment or intervention, and both get a posttest. The other two groups skip the pretest, and only one of them receives the treatment before they both get a posttest.

Sound complicated? It's like playing 4D chess; you're thinking several moves ahead!

Solomon Four-Group Design Pros

What's the pro and con of the Solomon Four-Group Design? On the plus side, it provides really robust results because it accounts for so many variables.

Solomon Four-Group Design Cons

The downside? It's a lot of work and requires a lot of participants, making it more time-consuming and costly.

Solomon Four-Group Design Uses

Let's say you want to figure out if a new way of teaching history helps students remember facts better. Two classes take a history quiz (pretest), then one class uses the new teaching method while the other sticks with the old way. Both classes take another quiz afterward (posttest).

Meanwhile, two more classes skip the initial quiz, and then one uses the new method before both take the final quiz. Comparing all four groups will give you a much clearer picture of whether the new teaching method works and whether the pretest itself affects the outcome.

The Solomon Four-Group Design is less commonly used than simpler designs but is highly respected for its ability to control for more variables. It's a favorite in educational and psychological research where you really want to dig deep and figure out what's actually causing changes.

17) Adaptive Designs

Now, let's talk about Adaptive Designs, the chameleons of the experimental world.

Imagine you're a detective, and halfway through solving a case, you find a clue that changes everything. You wouldn't just stick to your old plan; you'd adapt and change your approach, right? That's exactly what Adaptive Designs allow researchers to do.

In an Adaptive Design, researchers can make changes to the study as it's happening, based on early results. In a traditional study, once you set your plan, you stick to it from start to finish.

Adaptive Design Pros

This method is particularly useful in fast-paced or high-stakes situations, like developing a new vaccine in the middle of a pandemic. The ability to adapt can save both time and resources, and more importantly, it can save lives by getting effective treatments out faster.

Adaptive Design Cons

But Adaptive Designs aren't without their drawbacks. They can be very complex to plan and carry out, and there's always a risk that the changes made during the study could introduce bias or errors.

Adaptive Design Uses

Adaptive Designs are most often seen in clinical trials, particularly in the medical and pharmaceutical fields.

For instance, if a new drug is showing really promising results, the study might be adjusted to give more participants the new treatment instead of a placebo. Or if one dose level is showing bad side effects, it might be dropped from the study.

The best part is, these changes are pre-planned. Researchers lay out in advance what changes might be made and under what conditions, which helps keep everything scientific and above board.

In terms of applications, besides their heavy usage in medical and pharmaceutical research, Adaptive Designs are also becoming increasingly popular in software testing and market research. In these fields, being able to quickly adjust to early results can give companies a significant advantage.

Adaptive Designs are like the agile startups of the research world—quick to pivot, keen to learn from ongoing results, and focused on rapid, efficient progress. However, they require a great deal of expertise and careful planning to ensure that the adaptability doesn't compromise the integrity of the research.

18) Bayesian Designs

Next, let's dive into Bayesian Designs, the data detectives of the research universe. Named after Thomas Bayes, an 18th-century statistician and minister, this design doesn't just look at what's happening now; it also takes into account what's happened before.

Imagine if you were a detective who not only looked at the evidence in front of you but also used your past cases to make better guesses about your current one. That's the essence of Bayesian Designs.

Bayesian Designs are like detective work in science. As you gather more clues (or data), you update your best guess on what's really happening. This way, your experiment gets smarter as it goes along.

In the world of research, Bayesian Designs are most notably used in areas where you have some prior knowledge that can inform your current study. For example, if earlier research shows that a certain type of medicine usually works well for a specific illness, a Bayesian Design would include that information when studying a new group of patients with the same illness.

Bayesian Design Pros

One of the major advantages of Bayesian Designs is their efficiency. Because they use existing data to inform the current experiment, often fewer resources are needed to reach a reliable conclusion.

Bayesian Design Cons

However, they can be quite complicated to set up and require a deep understanding of both statistics and the subject matter at hand.

Bayesian Design Uses

Bayesian Designs are highly valued in medical research, finance, environmental science, and even in Internet search algorithms. Their ability to continually update and refine hypotheses based on new evidence makes them particularly useful in fields where data is constantly evolving and where quick, informed decisions are crucial.

Here's a real-world example: In the development of personalized medicine, where treatments are tailored to individual patients, Bayesian Designs are invaluable. If a treatment has been effective for patients with similar genetics or symptoms in the past, a Bayesian approach can use that data to predict how well it might work for a new patient.

This type of design is also increasingly popular in machine learning and artificial intelligence. In these fields, Bayesian Designs help algorithms "learn" from past data to make better predictions or decisions in new situations. It's like teaching a computer to be a detective that gets better and better at solving puzzles the more puzzles it sees.

19) Covariate Adaptive Randomization

Now let's turn our attention to Covariate Adaptive Randomization, which you can think of as the "matchmaker" of experimental designs.

Picture a soccer coach trying to create the most balanced teams for a friendly match. They wouldn't just randomly assign players; they'd take into account each player's skills, experience, and other traits.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization is all about creating the most evenly matched groups possible for an experiment.

In traditional randomization, participants are allocated to different groups purely by chance. This is a pretty fair way to do things, but it can sometimes lead to unbalanced groups.

Imagine if all the professional-level players ended up on one soccer team and all the beginners on another; that wouldn't be a very informative match! Covariate Adaptive Randomization fixes this by using important traits or characteristics (called "covariates") to guide the randomization process.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Pros

The benefits of this design are pretty clear: it aims for balance and fairness, making the final results more trustworthy.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Cons

But it's not perfect. It can be complex to implement and requires a deep understanding of which characteristics are most important to balance.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization Uses

This design is particularly useful in medical trials. Let's say researchers are testing a new medication for high blood pressure. Participants might have different ages, weights, or pre-existing conditions that could affect the results.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization would make sure that each treatment group has a similar mix of these characteristics, making the results more reliable and easier to interpret.

In practical terms, this design is often seen in clinical trials for new drugs or therapies, but its principles are also applicable in fields like psychology, education, and social sciences.

For instance, in educational research, it might be used to ensure that classrooms being compared have similar distributions of students in terms of academic ability, socioeconomic status, and other factors.

Covariate Adaptive Randomization is like the wise elder of the group, ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to show their true capabilities, thereby making the collective results as reliable as possible.

20) Stepped Wedge Design

Let's now focus on the Stepped Wedge Design, a thoughtful and cautious member of the experimental design family.

Imagine you're trying out a new gardening technique, but you're not sure how well it will work. You decide to apply it to one section of your garden first, watch how it performs, and then gradually extend the technique to other sections. This way, you get to see its effects over time and across different conditions. That's basically how Stepped Wedge Design works.

In a Stepped Wedge Design, all participants or clusters start off in the control group, and then, at different times, they 'step' over to the intervention or treatment group. This creates a wedge-like pattern over time where more and more participants receive the treatment as the study progresses. It's like rolling out a new policy in phases, monitoring its impact at each stage before extending it to more people.

Stepped Wedge Design Pros

The Stepped Wedge Design offers several advantages. Firstly, it allows for the study of interventions that are expected to do more good than harm, which makes it ethically appealing.

Secondly, it's useful when resources are limited and it's not feasible to roll out a new treatment to everyone at once. Lastly, because everyone eventually receives the treatment, it can be easier to get buy-in from participants or organizations involved in the study.

Stepped Wedge Design Cons

However, this design can be complex to analyze because it has to account for both the time factor and the changing conditions in each 'step' of the wedge. And like any study where participants know they're receiving an intervention, there's the potential for the results to be influenced by the placebo effect or other biases.

Stepped Wedge Design Uses

This design is particularly useful in health and social care research. For instance, if a hospital wants to implement a new hygiene protocol, it might start in one department, assess its impact, and then roll it out to other departments over time. This allows the hospital to adjust and refine the new protocol based on real-world data before it's fully implemented.

In terms of applications, Stepped Wedge Designs are commonly used in public health initiatives, organizational changes in healthcare settings, and social policy trials. They are particularly useful in situations where an intervention is being rolled out gradually and it's important to understand its impacts at each stage.

21) Sequential Design

Next up is Sequential Design, the dynamic and flexible member of our experimental design family.

Imagine you're playing a video game where you can choose different paths. If you take one path and find a treasure chest, you might decide to continue in that direction. If you hit a dead end, you might backtrack and try a different route. Sequential Design operates in a similar fashion, allowing researchers to make decisions at different stages based on what they've learned so far.

In a Sequential Design, the experiment is broken down into smaller parts, or "sequences." After each sequence, researchers pause to look at the data they've collected. Based on those findings, they then decide whether to stop the experiment because they've got enough information, or to continue and perhaps even modify the next sequence.

Sequential Design Pros

This allows for a more efficient use of resources, as you're only continuing with the experiment if the data suggests it's worth doing so.

One of the great things about Sequential Design is its efficiency. Because you're making data-driven decisions along the way, you can often reach conclusions more quickly and with fewer resources.

Sequential Design Cons

However, it requires careful planning and expertise to ensure that these "stop or go" decisions are made correctly and without bias.

Sequential Design Uses

In terms of its applications, besides healthcare and medicine, Sequential Design is also popular in quality control in manufacturing, environmental monitoring, and financial modeling. In these areas, being able to make quick decisions based on incoming data can be a big advantage.

This design is often used in clinical trials involving new medications or treatments. For example, if early results show that a new drug has significant side effects, the trial can be stopped before more people are exposed to it.

On the flip side, if the drug is showing promising results, the trial might be expanded to include more participants or to extend the testing period.

Think of Sequential Design as the nimble athlete of experimental designs, capable of quick pivots and adjustments to reach the finish line in the most effective way possible. But just like an athlete needs a good coach, this design requires expert oversight to make sure it stays on the right track.

22) Field Experiments

Last but certainly not least, let's explore Field Experiments—the adventurers of the experimental design world.

Picture a scientist leaving the controlled environment of a lab to test a theory in the real world, like a biologist studying animals in their natural habitat or a social scientist observing people in a real community. These are Field Experiments, and they're all about getting out there and gathering data in real-world settings.

Field Experiments embrace the messiness of the real world, unlike laboratory experiments, where everything is controlled down to the smallest detail. This makes them both exciting and challenging.

Field Experiment Pros

On one hand, the results often give us a better understanding of how things work outside the lab.

While Field Experiments offer real-world relevance, they come with challenges like controlling for outside factors and the ethical considerations of intervening in people's lives without their knowledge.

Field Experiment Cons

On the other hand, the lack of control can make it harder to tell exactly what's causing what. Yet, despite these challenges, they remain a valuable tool for researchers who want to understand how theories play out in the real world.

Field Experiment Uses

Let's say a school wants to improve student performance. In a Field Experiment, they might change the school's daily schedule for one semester and keep track of how students perform compared to another school where the schedule remained the same.

Because the study is happening in a real school with real students, the results could be very useful for understanding how the change might work in other schools. But since it's the real world, lots of other factors—like changes in teachers or even the weather—could affect the results.

Field Experiments are widely used in economics, psychology, education, and public policy. For example, you might have heard of the famous "Broken Windows" experiment in the 1980s that looked at how small signs of disorder, like broken windows or graffiti, could encourage more serious crime in neighborhoods. This experiment had a big impact on how cities think about crime prevention.

From the foundational concepts of control groups and independent variables to the sophisticated layouts like Covariate Adaptive Randomization and Sequential Design, it's clear that the realm of experimental design is as varied as it is fascinating.

We've seen that each design has its own special talents, ideal for specific situations. Some designs, like the Classic Controlled Experiment, are like reliable old friends you can always count on.

Others, like Sequential Design, are flexible and adaptable, making quick changes based on what they learn. And let's not forget the adventurous Field Experiments, which take us out of the lab and into the real world to discover things we might not see otherwise.

Choosing the right experimental design is like picking the right tool for the job. The method you choose can make a big difference in how reliable your results are and how much people will trust what you've discovered. And as we've learned, there's a design to suit just about every question, every problem, and every curiosity.

So the next time you read about a new discovery in medicine, psychology, or any other field, you'll have a better understanding of the thought and planning that went into figuring things out. Experimental design is more than just a set of rules; it's a structured way to explore the unknown and answer questions that can change the world.

Related posts:

• Experimental Psychologist Career (Salary + Duties + Interviews)
• 40+ Famous Psychologists (Images + Biographies)
• 11+ Psychology Experiment Ideas (Goals + Methods)
• The Little Albert Experiment
• 41+ White Collar Job Examples (Salary + Path)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 3. Psychological Science

3.2 Psychologists Use Descriptive, Correlational, and Experimental Research Designs to Understand Behaviour

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate the goals of descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each.
• Explain the goals of descriptive research and the statistical techniques used to interpret it.
• Summarize the uses of correlational research and describe why correlational research cannot be used to infer causality.
• Review the procedures of experimental research and explain how it can be used to draw causal inferences.

Psychologists agree that if their ideas and theories about human behaviour are to be taken seriously, they must be backed up by data. However, the research of different psychologists is designed with different goals in mind, and the different goals require different approaches. These varying approaches, summarized in Table 3.2, are known as research designs . A research design  is the specific method a researcher uses to collect, analyze, and interpret data . Psychologists use three major types of research designs in their research, and each provides an essential avenue for scientific investigation. Descriptive research  is research designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs . Correlational research  is research designed to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge . Experimental research  is research in which initial equivalence among research participants in more than one group is created, followed by a manipulation of a given experience for these groups and a measurement of the influence of the manipulation . Each of the three research designs varies according to its strengths and limitations, and it is important to understand how each differs.

Descriptive Research: Assessing the Current State of Affairs

Descriptive research is designed to create a snapshot of the current thoughts, feelings, or behaviour of individuals. This section reviews three types of descriptive research : case studies , surveys , and naturalistic observation (Figure 3.4).

Sometimes the data in a descriptive research project are based on only a small set of individuals, often only one person or a single small group. These research designs are known as case studies — descriptive records of one or more individual’s experiences and behaviour . Sometimes case studies involve ordinary individuals, as when developmental psychologist Jean Piaget used his observation of his own children to develop his stage theory of cognitive development. More frequently, case studies are conducted on individuals who have unusual or abnormal experiences or characteristics or who find themselves in particularly difficult or stressful situations. The assumption is that by carefully studying individuals who are socially marginal, who are experiencing unusual situations, or who are going through a difficult phase in their lives, we can learn something about human nature.

Sigmund Freud was a master of using the psychological difficulties of individuals to draw conclusions about basic psychological processes. Freud wrote case studies of some of his most interesting patients and used these careful examinations to develop his important theories of personality. One classic example is Freud’s description of “Little Hans,” a child whose fear of horses the psychoanalyst interpreted in terms of repressed sexual impulses and the Oedipus complex (Freud, 1909/1964).

Another well-known case study is Phineas Gage, a man whose thoughts and emotions were extensively studied by cognitive psychologists after a railroad spike was blasted through his skull in an accident. Although there are questions about the interpretation of this case study (Kotowicz, 2007), it did provide early evidence that the brain’s frontal lobe is involved in emotion and morality (Damasio et al., 2005). An interesting example of a case study in clinical psychology is described by Rokeach (1964), who investigated in detail the beliefs of and interactions among three patients with schizophrenia, all of whom were convinced they were Jesus Christ.

In other cases the data from descriptive research projects come in the form of a survey — a measure administered through either an interview or a written questionnaire to get a picture of the beliefs or behaviours of a sample of people of interest . The people chosen to participate in the research (known as the sample) are selected to be representative of all the people that the researcher wishes to know about (the population). In election polls, for instance, a sample is taken from the population of all “likely voters” in the upcoming elections.

The results of surveys may sometimes be rather mundane, such as “Nine out of 10 doctors prefer Tymenocin” or “The median income in the city of Hamilton is $46,712.” Yet other times (particularly in discussions of social behaviour), the results can be shocking: “More than 40,000 people are killed by gunfire in the United States every year” or “More than 60% of women between the ages of 50 and 60 suffer from depression.” Descriptive research is frequently used by psychologists to get an estimate of the prevalence (or incidence ) of psychological disorders.

A final type of descriptive research — known as naturalistic observation — is research based on the observation of everyday events . For instance, a developmental psychologist who watches children on a playground and describes what they say to each other while they play is conducting descriptive research, as is a biopsychologist who observes animals in their natural habitats. One example of observational research involves a systematic procedure known as the strange situation , used to get a picture of how adults and young children interact. The data that are collected in the strange situation are systematically coded in a coding sheet such as that shown in Table 3.3.

The results of descriptive research projects are analyzed using descriptive statistics — numbers that summarize the distribution of scores on a measured variable . Most variables have distributions similar to that shown in Figure 3.5 where most of the scores are located near the centre of the distribution, and the distribution is symmetrical and bell-shaped. A data distribution that is shaped like a bell is known as a normal distribution .

A distribution can be described in terms of its central tendency — that is, the point in the distribution around which the data are centred — and its dispersion, or spread . The arithmetic average, or arithmetic mean , symbolized by the letter M , is the most commonly used measure of central tendency . It is computed by calculating the sum of all the scores of the variable and dividing this sum by the number of participants in the distribution (denoted by the letter N ). In the data presented in Figure 3.5 the mean height of the students is 67.12 inches (170.5 cm). The sample mean is usually indicated by the letter M .

In some cases, however, the data distribution is not symmetrical. This occurs when there are one or more extreme scores (known as outliers ) at one end of the distribution. Consider, for instance, the variable of family income (see Figure 3.6), which includes an outlier (a value of $3,800,000). In this case the mean is not a good measure of central tendency. Although it appears from Figure 3.6 that the central tendency of the family income variable should be around $70,000, the mean family income is actually $223,960. The single very extreme income has a disproportionate impact on the mean, resulting in a value that does not well represent the central tendency.

The median is used as an alternative measure of central tendency when distributions are not symmetrical. The median  is the score in the center of the distribution, meaning that 50% of the scores are greater than the median and 50% of the scores are less than the median . In our case, the median household income ($73,000) is a much better indication of central tendency than is the mean household income ($223,960).

A final measure of central tendency, known as the mode , represents the value that occurs most frequently in the distribution . You can see from Figure 3.6 that the mode for the family income variable is $93,000 (it occurs four times).

In addition to summarizing the central tendency of a distribution, descriptive statistics convey information about how the scores of the variable are spread around the central tendency. Dispersion refers to the extent to which the scores are all tightly clustered around the central tendency , as seen in Figure 3.7.

Or they may be more spread out away from it, as seen in Figure 3.8.

One simple measure of dispersion is to find the largest (the maximum ) and the smallest (the minimum ) observed values of the variable and to compute the range of the variable as the maximum observed score minus the minimum observed score. You can check that the range of the height variable in Figure 3.5 is 72 – 62 = 10. The standard deviation , symbolized as s , is the most commonly used measure of dispersion . Distributions with a larger standard deviation have more spread. The standard deviation of the height variable is s = 2.74, and the standard deviation of the family income variable is s = $745,337.

An advantage of descriptive research is that it attempts to capture the complexity of everyday behaviour. Case studies provide detailed information about a single person or a small group of people, surveys capture the thoughts or reported behaviours of a large population of people, and naturalistic observation objectively records the behaviour of people or animals as it occurs naturally. Thus descriptive research is used to provide a relatively complete understanding of what is currently happening.

Despite these advantages, descriptive research has a distinct disadvantage in that, although it allows us to get an idea of what is currently happening, it is usually limited to static pictures. Although descriptions of particular experiences may be interesting, they are not always transferable to other individuals in other situations, nor do they tell us exactly why specific behaviours or events occurred. For instance, descriptions of individuals who have suffered a stressful event, such as a war or an earthquake, can be used to understand the individuals’ reactions to the event but cannot tell us anything about the long-term effects of the stress. And because there is no comparison group that did not experience the stressful situation, we cannot know what these individuals would be like if they hadn’t had the stressful experience.

Correlational Research: Seeking Relationships among Variables

In contrast to descriptive research, which is designed primarily to provide static pictures, correlational research involves the measurement of two or more relevant variables and an assessment of the relationship between or among those variables. For instance, the variables of height and weight are systematically related (correlated) because taller people generally weigh more than shorter people. In the same way, study time and memory errors are also related, because the more time a person is given to study a list of words, the fewer errors he or she will make. When there are two variables in the research design, one of them is called the predictor variable and the other the outcome variable . The research design can be visualized as shown in Figure 3.9, where the curved arrow represents the expected correlation between these two variables.

One way of organizing the data from a correlational study with two variables is to graph the values of each of the measured variables using a scatter plot . As you can see in Figure 3.10 a scatter plot  is a visual image of the relationship between two variables . A point is plotted for each individual at the intersection of his or her scores for the two variables. When the association between the variables on the scatter plot can be easily approximated with a straight line , as in parts (a) and (b) of Figure 3.10 the variables are said to have a linear relationship .

When the straight line indicates that individuals who have above-average values for one variable also tend to have above-average values for the other variable , as in part (a), the relationship is said to be positive linear . Examples of positive linear relationships include those between height and weight, between education and income, and between age and mathematical abilities in children. In each case, people who score higher on one of the variables also tend to score higher on the other variable. Negative linear relationships , in contrast, as shown in part (b), occur when above-average values for one variable tend to be associated with below-average values for the other variable. Examples of negative linear relationships include those between the age of a child and the number of diapers the child uses, and between practice on and errors made on a learning task. In these cases, people who score higher on one of the variables tend to score lower on the other variable.

Relationships between variables that cannot be described with a straight line are known as nonlinear relationships . Part (c) of Figure 3.10 shows a common pattern in which the distribution of the points is essentially random. In this case there is no relationship at all between the two variables, and they are said to be independent . Parts (d) and (e) of Figure 3.10 show patterns of association in which, although there is an association, the points are not well described by a single straight line. For instance, part (d) shows the type of relationship that frequently occurs between anxiety and performance. Increases in anxiety from low to moderate levels are associated with performance increases, whereas increases in anxiety from moderate to high levels are associated with decreases in performance. Relationships that change in direction and thus are not described by a single straight line are called curvilinear relationships .

The most common statistical measure of the strength of linear relationships among variables is the Pearson correlation coefficient , which is symbolized by the letter r . The value of the correlation coefficient ranges from r = –1.00 to r = +1.00. The direction of the linear relationship is indicated by the sign of the correlation coefficient. Positive values of r (such as r = .54 or r = .67) indicate that the relationship is positive linear (i.e., the pattern of the dots on the scatter plot runs from the lower left to the upper right), whereas negative values of r (such as r = –.30 or r = –.72) indicate negative linear relationships (i.e., the dots run from the upper left to the lower right). The strength of the linear relationship is indexed by the distance of the correlation coefficient from zero (its absolute value). For instance, r = –.54 is a stronger relationship than r = .30, and r = .72 is a stronger relationship than r = –.57. Because the Pearson correlation coefficient only measures linear relationships, variables that have curvilinear relationships are not well described by r , and the observed correlation will be close to zero.

It is also possible to study relationships among more than two measures at the same time. A research design in which more than one predictor variable is used to predict a single outcome variable is analyzed through multiple regression (Aiken & West, 1991).  Multiple regression  is a statistical technique, based on correlation coefficients among variables, that allows predicting a single outcome variable from more than one predictor variable . For instance, Figure 3.11 shows a multiple regression analysis in which three predictor variables (Salary, job satisfaction, and years employed) are used to predict a single outcome (job performance). The use of multiple regression analysis shows an important advantage of correlational research designs — they can be used to make predictions about a person’s likely score on an outcome variable (e.g., job performance) based on knowledge of other variables.

An important limitation of correlational research designs is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the measured variables. Consider, for instance, a researcher who has hypothesized that viewing violent behaviour will cause increased aggressive play in children. He has collected, from a sample of Grade 4 children, a measure of how many violent television shows each child views during the week, as well as a measure of how aggressively each child plays on the school playground. From his collected data, the researcher discovers a positive correlation between the two measured variables.

Although this positive correlation appears to support the researcher’s hypothesis, it cannot be taken to indicate that viewing violent television causes aggressive behaviour. Although the researcher is tempted to assume that viewing violent television causes aggressive play, there are other possibilities. One alternative possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite from what has been hypothesized. Perhaps children who have behaved aggressively at school develop residual excitement that leads them to want to watch violent television shows at home (Figure 3.13):

Although this possibility may seem less likely, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causation on the basis of this observed correlation. It is also possible that both causal directions are operating and that the two variables cause each other (Figure 3.14).

Still another possible explanation for the observed correlation is that it has been produced by the presence of a common-causal variable (also known as a third variable ). A common-causal variable  is a variable that is not part of the research hypothesis but that causes both the predictor and the outcome variable and thus produces the observed correlation between them . In our example, a potential common-causal variable is the discipline style of the children’s parents. Parents who use a harsh and punitive discipline style may produce children who like to watch violent television and who also behave aggressively in comparison to children whose parents use less harsh discipline (Figure 3.15)

In this case, television viewing and aggressive play would be positively correlated (as indicated by the curved arrow between them), even though neither one caused the other but they were both caused by the discipline style of the parents (the straight arrows). When the predictor and outcome variables are both caused by a common-causal variable, the observed relationship between them is said to be spurious . A spurious relationship  is a relationship between two variables in which a common-causal variable produces and “explains away” the relationship . If effects of the common-causal variable were taken away, or controlled for, the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables would disappear. In the example, the relationship between aggression and television viewing might be spurious because by controlling for the effect of the parents’ disciplining style, the relationship between television viewing and aggressive behaviour might go away.

Common-causal variables in correlational research designs can be thought of as mystery variables because, as they have not been measured, their presence and identity are usually unknown to the researcher. Since it is not possible to measure every variable that could cause both the predictor and outcome variables, the existence of an unknown common-causal variable is always a possibility. For this reason, we are left with the basic limitation of correlational research: correlation does not demonstrate causation. It is important that when you read about correlational research projects, you keep in mind the possibility of spurious relationships, and be sure to interpret the findings appropriately. Although correlational research is sometimes reported as demonstrating causality without any mention being made of the possibility of reverse causation or common-causal variables, informed consumers of research, like you, are aware of these interpretational problems.

In sum, correlational research designs have both strengths and limitations. One strength is that they can be used when experimental research is not possible because the predictor variables cannot be manipulated. Correlational designs also have the advantage of allowing the researcher to study behaviour as it occurs in everyday life. And we can also use correlational designs to make predictions — for instance, to predict from the scores on their battery of tests the success of job trainees during a training session. But we cannot use such correlational information to determine whether the training caused better job performance. For that, researchers rely on experiments.

Experimental Research: Understanding the Causes of Behaviour

The goal of experimental research design is to provide more definitive conclusions about the causal relationships among the variables in the research hypothesis than is available from correlational designs. In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variable (or variables ) and the dependent variable . The independent variable  in an experiment is the causing variable that is created (manipulated) by the experimenter . The dependent variable  in an experiment is a measured variable that is expected to be influenced by the experimental manipulation . The research hypothesis suggests that the manipulated independent variable or variables will cause changes in the measured dependent variables. We can diagram the research hypothesis by using an arrow that points in one direction. This demonstrates the expected direction of causality (Figure 3.16):

Research Focus: Video Games and Aggression

Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000). The study was designed to test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would increase aggressive behaviour. In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a chance to play with either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst). During the experimental session, the participants played their assigned video games for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, each participant played a competitive game with an opponent in which the participant could deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of the opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behaviour) was the level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design of the experiment is shown in Figure 3.17

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) the assurance that the independent variable (also known as the experimental manipulation ) occurs prior to the measured dependent variable, and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in this case by using random assignment to conditions).

Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent variable occurs prior to the measurement of the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of reverse causation. Second, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating initial equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the manipulation occurs.

The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through random assignment to conditions, a procedure in which the condition that each participant is assigned to is determined through a random process, such as drawing numbers out of an envelope or using a random number table . Anderson and Dill first randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups (Group A and Group B). Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that, before the experimental manipulation occurred, the students in Group A were, on average, equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable, including variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as parental discipline style, peer relationships, hormone levels, diet — and in fact everything else.

Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and Dill created the experimental manipulation — they had the participants in Group A play the violent game and the participants in Group B play the nonviolent game. Then they compared the dependent variable (the white noise blasts) between the two groups, finding that the students who had viewed the violent video game gave significantly longer noise blasts than did the students who had played the nonviolent game.

Anderson and Dill had from the outset created initial equivalence between the groups. This initial equivalence allowed them to observe differences in the white noise levels between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, leading to the conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused these differences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two groups was the video game they had played.

Despite the advantage of determining causation, experiments do have limitations. One is that they are often conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a laboratory setting will necessarily hold up in everyday life. Second, and more important, is that some of the most interesting and key social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to study the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behaviour, or to compare the personality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who do not join such cults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs, because it is simply not possible to experimentally manipulate these variables.

Key Takeaways

• Descriptive, correlational, and experimental research designs are used to collect and analyze data.
• Descriptive designs include case studies, surveys, and naturalistic observation. The goal of these designs is to get a picture of the current thoughts, feelings, or behaviours in a given group of people. Descriptive research is summarized using descriptive statistics.
• Correlational research designs measure two or more relevant variables and assess a relationship between or among them. The variables may be presented on a scatter plot to visually show the relationships. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient ( r ) is a measure of the strength of linear relationship between two variables.
• Common-causal variables may cause both the predictor and outcome variable in a correlational design, producing a spurious relationship. The possibility of common-causal variables makes it impossible to draw causal conclusions from correlational research designs.
• Experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable and the measurement of a dependent variable. Random assignment to conditions is normally used to create initial equivalence between the groups, allowing researchers to draw causal conclusions.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• There is a negative correlation between the row that a student sits in in a large class (when the rows are numbered from front to back) and his or her final grade in the class. Do you think this represents a causal relationship or a spurious relationship, and why?
• Think of two variables (other than those mentioned in this book) that are likely to be correlated, but in which the correlation is probably spurious. What is the likely common-causal variable that is producing the relationship?
• Imagine a researcher wants to test the hypothesis that participating in psychotherapy will cause a decrease in reported anxiety. Describe the type of research design the investigator might use to draw this conclusion. What would be the independent and dependent variables in the research?

Image Attributions

Figure 3.4: “ Reading newspaper ” by Alaskan Dude (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reading_newspaper.jpg) is licensed under CC BY 2.0

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991).  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).  Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772–790.

Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Frank, R., Galaburda, A. M., Damasio, A. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (2005). The return of Phineas Gage: Clues about the brain from the skull of a famous patient. In  Social neuroscience: Key readings.  (pp. 21–28). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Freud, S. (1909/1964). Analysis of phobia in a five-year-old boy. In E. A. Southwell & M. Merbaum (Eds.),  Personality: Readings in theory and research  (pp. 3–32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. (Original work published 1909).

Kotowicz, Z. (2007). The strange case of Phineas Gage.  History of the Human Sciences, 20 (1), 115–131.

Rokeach, M. (1964).  The three Christs of Ypsilanti: A psychological study . New York, NY: Knopf.

Stangor, C. (2011). Research methods for the behavioural sciences (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Cengage.

Long Descriptions

Figure 3.6 long description: There are 25 families. 24 families have an income between $44,000 and $111,000 and one family has an income of $3,800,000. The mean income is $223,960 while the median income is $73,000. [Return to Figure 3.6]

Figure 3.10 long description: Types of scatter plots.

• Positive linear, r=positive .82. The plots on the graph form a rough line that runs from lower left to upper right.
• Negative linear, r=negative .70. The plots on the graph form a rough line that runs from upper left to lower right.
• Independent, r=0.00. The plots on the graph are spread out around the centre.
• Curvilinear, r=0.00. The plots of the graph form a rough line that goes up and then down like a hill.
• Curvilinear, r=0.00. The plots on the graph for a rough line that goes down and then up like a ditch.

[Return to Figure 3.10]

Introduction to Psychology - 1st Canadian Edition Copyright © 2014 by Jennifer Walinga and Charles Stangor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Basics of Research Process
• Methodology

Correlational Study: Design, Methods and Examples

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Other Essays
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Essay Guides
• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

Correlational research is a type of research design used to examine the relationship between two or more variables. In correlational research, researchers measure the extent to which two or more variables are related, without manipulating or controlling any of the variables.

Whether you are a beginner or an experienced researcher, chances are you’ve heard something about correlational research. It’s time that you learn more about this type of study more in-depth, since you will be using it a lot.

• What is correlation?
• When to use it?
• How is it different from experimental studies?
• What data collection method will work?

Grab your pen and get ready to jot down some notes as our paper writing service is going to cover all questions you may have about this type of study. Let’s get down to business! 

What Is Correlational Research: Definition

A correlational research is a preliminary type of study used to explore the connection between two variables. In this type of research, you won’t interfere with the variables. Instead of manipulating or adjusting them, researchers focus more on observation.  Correlational study is a perfect option if you want to figure out if there is any link between variables. You will conduct it in 2 cases:

• When you want to test a theory about non-causal connection. For example, you may want to know whether drinking hot water boosts the immune system. In this case, you expect that vitamins, healthy lifestyle and regular exercise are those factors that have a real positive impact. However, this doesn’t mean that drinking hot water isn’t associated with the immune system. So measuring this relationship will be really useful.
• When you want to investigate a causal link. You want to study whether using aerosol products leads to ozone depletion. You don’t have enough expenses for conducting complex research. Besides, you can’t control how often people use aerosols. In this case, you will opt for a correlational study.

Correlational Study: Purpose

Correlational research is most useful for purposes of observation and prediction. Researcher's goal is to observe and measure variables to determine if any relationship exists. In case there is some association, researchers assess how strong it is. As an initial type of research, this method allows you to test and write the hypotheses. Correlational study doesn’t require much time and is rather cheap.

Correlational Research Design

Correlational research designs are often used in psychology, epidemiology , medicine and nursing. They show the strength of correlation that exists between the variables within a population. For this reason, these studies are also known as ecological studies.  Correlational research design methods are characterized by such traits:

• Non-experimental method. No manipulation or exposure to extra conditions takes place. Researchers only examine how variables act in their natural environment without any interference.
• Fluctuating patterns. Association is never the same and can change due to various factors.
• Quantitative research. These studies require quantitative research methods . Researchers mostly run a statistical analysis and work with numbers to get results.
• Association-oriented study. Correlational study is aimed at finding an association between 2 or more phenomena or events. This has nothing to do with causal relationships between dependent and independent variables .

Correlational Research Questions

Correlational research questions usually focus on how one variable related to another one. If there is some connection, you will observe how strong it is. Let’s look at several examples.

Correlational Research Types

Depending on the direction and strength of association, there are 3 types of correlational research:

• Positive correlation If one variable increases, the other one will grow accordingly. If there is any reduction, both variables will decrease.

• Negative correlation All changes happen in the reverse direction. If one variable increases, the other one should decrease and vice versa.

• Zero correlation No association between 2 factors or events can be found.

Correlational Research: Data Collection Methods

There are 3 main methods applied to collect data in correlational research:

• Surveys and polls
• Naturalistic observation
• Secondary or archival data.

It’s essential that you select the right study method. Otherwise, it won’t be possible to achieve accurate results and answer the research question correctly. Let’s have a closer look at each of these methods to make sure that you make the right choice.

Surveys in Correlational Study

Survey is an easy way to collect data about a population in a correlational study. Depending on the nature of the question, you can choose different survey variations. Questionnaires, polls and interviews are the three most popular formats used in a survey research study. To conduct an effective study, you should first identify the population and choose whether you want to run a survey online, via email or in person.

Naturalistic Observation: Correlational Research

Naturalistic observation is another data collection approach in correlational research methodology. This method allows us to observe behavioral patterns in a natural setting. Scientists often document, describe or categorize data to get a clear picture about a group of people. During naturalistic observations, you may work with both qualitative and quantitative research information. Nevertheless, to measure the strength of association, you should analyze numeric data. Members of a population shouldn’t know that they are being studied. Thus, you should blend in a target group as naturally as possible. Otherwise, participants may behave in a different way which may cause a statistical error. 

Correlational Study: Archival Data

Sometimes, you may access ready-made data that suits your study. Archival data is a quick correlational research method that allows to obtain necessary details from the similar studies that have already been conducted. You won’t deal with data collection techniques , since most of numbers will be served on a silver platter. All you will be left to do is analyze them and draw a conclusion. Unfortunately, not all records are accurate, so you should rely only on credible sources.

Pros and Cons of Correlational Research

Choosing what study to run can be difficult. But in this article, we are going to take an in-depth look at advantages and disadvantages of correlational research. This should help you decide whether this type of study is the best fit for you. Without any ado, let’s dive deep right in.

Advantages of Correlational Research

Obviously, one of the many advantages of correlational research is that it can be conducted when an experiment can’t be the case. Sometimes, it may be unethical to run an experimental study or you may have limited resources. This is exactly when ecological study can come in handy.  This type of study also has several benefits that have an irreplaceable value:

• Works well as a preliminary study
• Allows examining complex connection between multiple variables
• Helps you study natural behavior
• Can be generalized to other settings.

If you decide to run an archival study or conduct a survey, you will be able to save much time and expenses.

Disadvantages of Correlational Research

There are several limitations of correlational research you should keep in mind while deciding on the main methodology. Here are the advantages one should consider:

• No causal relationships can be identified
• No chance to manipulate extraneous variables
• Biased results caused by unnatural behavior
• Naturalistic studies require quite a lot of time.

As you can see, these types of studies aren’t end-all, be-all. They may indicate a direction for further research. Still, correlational studies don’t show a cause-and-effect relationship which is probably the biggest disadvantage. 

Difference Between Correlational and Experimental Research

Now that you’ve come this far, let’s discuss correlational vs experimental research design . Both studies involve quantitative data. But the main difference lies in the aim of research. Correlational studies are used to identify an association which is measured with a coefficient, while an experiment is aimed at determining a causal relationship.  Due to a different purpose, the studies also have different approaches to control over variables. In the first case, scientists can’t control or otherwise manipulate the variables in question. Meanwhile, experiments allow you to control variables without limit. There is a  causation vs correlation  blog on our website. Find out their differences as it will be useful for your research.

Example of Correlational Research

Above, we have offered several correlational research examples. Let’s have a closer look at how things work using a more detailed example.

Example You want to determine if there is any connection between the time employees work in one company and their performance. An experiment will be rather time-consuming. For this reason, you can offer a questionnaire to collect data and assess an association. After running a survey, you will be able to confirm or disprove your hypothesis.

Correlational Study: Final Thoughts

That’s pretty much everything you should know about correlational study. The key takeaway is that this type of study is used to measure the connection between 2 or more variables. It’s a good choice if you have no chance to run an experiment. However, in this case you won’t be able to control for extraneous variables . So you should consider your options carefully before conducting your own research. 

We’ve got your back! Entrust your assignment to our skilled paper writers and they will complete a custom research paper with top quality in mind!

Frequently Asked Questions About Correlational Study

1. what is a correlation.

Correlation is a connection that shows to which extent two or more variables are associated. It doesn’t show a causal link and only helps to identify a direction (positive, negative or zero) or the strength of association.

2. How many variables are in a correlation?

There can be many different variables in a correlation which makes this type of study very useful for exploring complex relationships. However, most scientists use this research to measure the association between only 2 variables.

3. What is a correlation coefficient?

Correlation coefficient (ρ) is a statistical measure that indicates the extent to which two variables are related. Association can be strong, moderate or weak. There are different types of p coefficients: positive, negative and zero.

4. What is a correlational study?

Correlational study is a type of statistical research that involves examining two variables in order to determine association between them. It’s a non-experimental type of study, meaning that researchers can’t change independent variables or control extraneous variables.

Joe Eckel is an expert on Dissertations writing. He makes sure that each student gets precious insights on composing A-grade academic writing.

You may also like

Excerpt taken from Grant MacEwan Community College weg page.

Correlational versus Experimental Studies

Psychological studies vary in design. In correlational studies a researcher looks for associations among naturally occurring variables, whereas in experimental studies the researcher introduces a change and then monitors its effects. It is important to be able to distinguish between correlational and experimental designs, because only well-controlled experimental designs allow conclusions about cause and effect.

Consider the following example: A psychologist is hired by government to see whether there is any association between children watching violent television and an increase in their aggressive behavior. (question suitable for a correlational design) Does watching violent television make children aggressive? (question suitable for an experiment) Let's look at examples of the two types of studies.

Click here if you want to go directly to the quiz.

Example of a Correlational Study

In a correlational study, the researcher would ask children (or their parents) to document the amount of violent television the child watches in a set time period (perhaps one week) and then the researcher would observe the children's behavior, recording instances of aggression. The researcher does no intervention. Suppose the researcher gets the following results, where each row in the table below corresponds to the scores of one child. Do you notice any pattern between the two columns of numbers? If you knew how much violent television a child watched, would you be able to predict the child's aggression score?

The table shows a strong positive correlation because an increase in the amount of violent television is usually associated with an increase in aggression score. We would predict that children who watch more violent television are likely to score higher on the aggression scale. But can we conclude that watching violent television causes the children to be more aggressive? Although this conclusion is certainly consistent with the results, it cannot be adopted because it is not the only plausible interpretation. It could be that children who are more aggressive choose to watch more violent television (aggression causes the television viewing habits rather than the other way around) or that television habits and aggression are not causally related, but appear to go together because both are associated with a third factor, such as amount of parent supervision. Perhaps children who are not supervised are more likely to watch more violent television, as well as score higher on an aggression scale. Correlational studies do not allow us to determine which of these interpretations is the correct one. To do that, we would have to do an experiment, as described in the next section.

Example of an Experiment

In an experiment the researcher exposes the children to various types of television and then monitors their behavior for aggression. In a simple experiment, a researcher would create two groups of children (an experimental and a control group) through randomization (each participant has an equal chance of getting in either group). Randomization is used as a control so that the two groups are roughly equivalent at the start of the experiment. (see the section on Identifying variables and confounds for more information) The experimental group is shown violent television, and under identical conditions, the control group is shown nonviolent television. Afterwards the researcher sees whether children in the experimental group score higher on the aggression scale than children in the control group. If they do, the experimenter can conclude that watching violent television makes children aggressive (provided the researcher has controlled for confounds and extraneous variables.

Quiz - Distinguishing Between Correlational Studies and Experiments

Answers to the quiz.

A newspaper headline reads, Heavy Drinkers Get Lower College Grades. What would you conclude from this headline? What type of study was this based on?

This study was most likely correlational because an experiment would not be ethical. (In order to do an experiment, the researcher would have to control the students' drinking, forcing some students to drink heavily and then observing the effects of the drinking on their grades.) All we can conclude from the headline is that heavy drinking is associated with lower grades. We cannot conclude that drinking caused the lower grades because other plausible interpretations have not been ruled out. (Perhaps students drink more because they make lower grades. Or perhaps drinking and grades appear related only because they are both related to the degree of student commitment to being in school.)

Back to the Questions

Your textbook states that people remember concrete words better than abstract ones. Could this finding have come from an experiment? Would it be reasonable to infer that concreteness facilitates memory?

Yes. An experiment could have been set up in two different ways. In one, called a between-subjects design, people are randomly assigned to groups. One group learns concrete words; the other learns abstract ones to see whether the group learning concrete words remembers more. In another experimental design, called a within-subjects design, all participants learn both the concrete and abstract words to see whether individuals learn concrete words better than abstract ones. (Of course, the order in which people learn the words would have to be controlled using a procedure called counterbalancing)

Are people who were abused as children more likely than others to become child abusers? What type of study would be used to research this question?

This question can only be addressed by correlational studies. (In order to do an experiment, the researcher would have to randomly assign some children to a group that gets abused; others to a group that does not get abused. Obviously, this cannot be done!) Thus, we must be cautious about assuming the cause of any association between experiencing abuse as a child and perpetrating it as an adult. Correlational studies do not support one interpretation over others.

A health magazine reports that depressed people who continue medication for at least six months are less likely to relapse than are people who take medication for less than six months. What would you need to know about the design of this study, in order to interpret the report?

Enough information to see whether it was a correlational study or an experiment. In a correlational study, the researcher would take advantage of the fact that some depressed people stay on medication longer than others. (The researcher does not control how long people are on medication). Suppose the researcher finds that people on medication more than six months are less likely to relapse. The researcher cannot conclude that the increased time on medication improved the relapse rate because other explanations have not been ruled out. (Perhaps people who stay on medication longer differ from the others in ways that would protect them from relapse. Maybe the people on medication longer are also more likely to receive psychotherapy.) In an experimental study, the researcher controls how long people stay on medication. Half of a sample of depressed people is randomly chosen to receive medication for less than six months; the others receive medication for more than six months. The only way the two groups differ is in the duration of the medication.

A private school advertises that a group of their students recently scored 10 points higher on a math test than a group of other students from a public school? What can you conclude from this advertisment? Is this an example of an experiment?

We cannot conclude anything about the cause of the difference in scores between the two groups. This is not an experiment because the researcher did not control group membership to ensure that the groups were roughly equivalent when they started school. (Imagine the reaction of parents if the researcher randomly assigned some children to attend private school and others to go to public school.). It is a quasi-experiment (resembles an experiment because it compares groups, but is not an experiment because the researcher did not control group membership) and should be interpreted like a correlational study. We cannot conclude that private school caused students to score higher on the math test. (Perhaps the students from private school are more likely to practice math on computer at home and it is this home activity, rather than experiences at school, that leads to the higher math scores.)

Back to Helpful Course Materials Page

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples

Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples

Published on July 12, 2021 by Pritha Bhandari . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Correlation means there is a statistical association between variables. Causation means that a change in one variable causes a change in another variable.

In research, you might have come across the phrase “correlation doesn’t imply causation.” Correlation and causation are two related ideas, but understanding their differences will help you critically evaluate sources and interpret scientific research.

Table of contents

What’s the difference, why doesn’t correlation mean causation, correlational research, third variable problem, regression to the mean, spurious correlations, directionality problem, causal research, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about correlation and causation.

Correlation describes an association between types of variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables. These variables change together: they covary. But this covariation isn’t necessarily due to a direct or indirect causal link.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other; there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. The two variables are correlated with each other and there is also a causal link between them.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

There are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation. These problems are important to identify for drawing sound scientific conclusions from research.

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not. For example, ice cream sales and violent crime rates are closely correlated, but they are not causally linked with each other. Instead, hot temperatures, a third variable, affects both variables separately. Failing to account for third variables can lead research biases to creep into your work.

The directionality problem occurs when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other. For example, vitamin D levels are correlated with depression, but it’s not clear whether low vitamin D causes depression, or whether depression causes reduced vitamin D intake.

You’ll need to use an appropriate research design to distinguish between correlational and causal relationships:

• Correlational research designs can only demonstrate correlational links between variables.
• Experimental designs can test causation.

In a correlational research design, you collect data on your variables without manipulating them.

Correlational research is usually high in external validity , so you can generalize your findings to real life settings. But these studies are low in internal validity , which makes it difficult to causally connect changes in one variable to changes in the other.

These research designs are commonly used when it’s unethical, too costly, or too difficult to perform controlled experiments. They are also used to study relationships that aren’t expected to be causal.

Without controlled experiments, it’s hard to say whether it was the variable you’re interested in that caused changes in another variable. Extraneous variables are any third variable or omitted variable other than your variables of interest that could affect your results.

Limited control in correlational research means that extraneous or confounding variables serve as alternative explanations for the results. Confounding variables can make it seem as though a correlational relationship is causal when it isn’t.

When two variables are correlated, all you can say is that changes in one variable occur alongside changes in the other.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Regression to the mean is observed when variables that are extremely higher or extremely lower than average on the first measurement move closer to the average on the second measurement. Particularly in research that intentionally focuses on the most extreme cases or events, RTM should always be considered as a possible cause of an observed change.

Players or teams featured on the cover of SI have earned their place by performing exceptionally well. But athletic success is a mix of skill and luck, and even the best players don’t always win.

Chances are that good luck will not continue indefinitely, and neither can exceptional success.

A spurious correlation is when two variables appear to be related through hidden third variables or simply by coincidence.

The Theory of the Stork draws a simple causal link between the variables to argue that storks physically deliver babies. This satirical study shows why you can’t conclude causation from correlational research alone.

When you analyze correlations in a large dataset with many variables, the chances of finding at least one statistically significant result are high. In this case, you’re more likely to make a type I error . This means erroneously concluding there is a true correlation between variables in the population based on skewed sample data.

To demonstrate causation, you need to show a directional relationship with no alternative explanations. This relationship can be unidirectional, with one variable impacting the other, or bidirectional, where both variables impact each other.

A correlational design won’t be able to distinguish between any of these possibilities, but an experimental design can test each possible direction, one at a time.

• Physical activity may affect self esteem
• Self esteem may affect physical activity
• Physical activity and self esteem may both affect each other

In correlational research, the directionality of a relationship is unclear because there is limited researcher control. You might risk concluding reverse causality, the wrong direction of the relationship.

Causal links between variables can only be truly demonstrated with controlled experiments . Experiments test formal predictions, called hypotheses , to establish causality in one direction at a time.

Experiments are high in internal validity , so cause-and-effect relationships can be demonstrated with reasonable confidence.

You can establish directionality in one direction because you manipulate an independent variable before measuring the change in a dependent variable.

In a controlled experiment, you can also eliminate the influence of third variables by using random assignment and control groups.

Random assignment helps distribute participant characteristics evenly between groups so that they’re similar and comparable. A control group lets you compare the experimental manipulation to a similar treatment or no treatment (or a placebo, to control for the placebo effect ).

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Chi square test of independence
• Statistical power
• Descriptive statistics
• Degrees of freedom
• Pearson correlation
• Null hypothesis
• Double-blind study
• Case-control study
• Research ethics
• Data collection
• Hypothesis testing
• Structured interviews

Research bias

• Hawthorne effect
• Unconscious bias
• Recall bias
• Halo effect
• Self-serving bias
• Information bias

A correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the association between two or more variables.

• A positive correlation means that both variables change in the same direction.
• A negative correlation means that the variables change in opposite directions.
• A zero correlation means there’s no relationship between the variables.

Correlation describes an association between variables : when one variable changes, so does the other. A correlation is a statistical indicator of the relationship between variables.

Causation means that changes in one variable brings about changes in the other (i.e., there is a cause-and-effect relationship between variables). The two variables are correlated with each other, and there’s also a causal link between them.

While causation and correlation can exist simultaneously, correlation does not imply causation. In other words, correlation is simply a relationship where A relates to B—but A doesn’t necessarily cause B to happen (or vice versa). Mistaking correlation for causation is a common error and can lead to false cause fallacy .

The third variable and directionality problems are two main reasons why correlation isn’t causation .

The third variable problem means that a confounding variable affects both variables to make them seem causally related when they are not.

The directionality problem is when two variables correlate and might actually have a causal relationship, but it’s impossible to conclude which variable causes changes in the other.

Controlled experiments establish causality, whereas correlational studies only show associations between variables.

• In an experimental design , you manipulate an independent variable and measure its effect on a dependent variable. Other variables are controlled so they can’t impact the results.
• In a correlational design , you measure variables without manipulating any of them. You can test whether your variables change together, but you can’t be sure that one variable caused a change in another.

In general, correlational research is high in external validity while experimental research is high in internal validity .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Bhandari, P. (2023, June 22). Correlation vs. Causation | Difference, Designs & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlation-vs-causation/

Is this article helpful?

Pritha Bhandari

Other students also liked, correlational research | when & how to use, guide to experimental design | overview, steps, & examples, confounding variables | definition, examples & controls, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts