Descriptive & Correlational Designs

These designs allow us to fulfill the first goal of science, and to isolate possible causes for experiments to then assess. Remember only experiments can assess cause and effect. No matter how convincing data from descriptive and correlational studies may sound, because they have less control over the variables and the environments that they study, non-experimental designs cannot rule out extraneous variables as the cause of what is being observed. There are many types of non-experimental methods. We will focus on three approaches: Case Study Naturalistic Observation Survey Correlational Studies

CASE STUDIES involve in-depth examination of a single person or a few people. This
approach is frequently employed in clinical psychology. Typically the individual or small group of individuals being examined possess some skill, or have some problem that is unusual. STRENGTH: Such cases can expand our knowledge about the variations in human behavior. While most researchers are interested in what is the "general" trend in behavior, those using a case study approach highlight individuality. Considerable information is gathered. Thus, the conclusions drawn are based on a more complete set of information about the subjects. WEAKNESS: Despite their strengths, case studies have some very big drawbacks. First, like all non-experimental approaches, they are merely describing what is occurring, but cannot tell us "why" it is occurring. Second, there is considerable room in case studies for "researcher bias" to creep in. While no approach, including the experiment, is immune from researcher bias when in the hands of an incompetent or poorly trained researcher, some approaches are at greater risk for this problem even when conducted by capable people. Why is the case study more at risk? The case study method involves considerably more interaction between the researcher and the subjects than most other research methods. In addition, it is from the researcher's journals of his or her subjects that the data comes from. While this might also be supplemented by test scores and more objective measures, it is the researcher that brings all this together in the form of a descriptive "case study" of the individual(s) in question. A final problem with case studies is that the small number of cases examined make it unlikely that they represent those who may have similar problems or abilities as those studied. This problem means we might not be able to generalize (apply) the study's

findings to other people with similar problems. Thus, a case study of a single person with schizophrenia is unlikely to be representative of all people who suffer from this disorder.

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION studies as their name implies observe organisms in

their natural settings. A researcher who wants to examine aggressive behavior in male and female youngsters may watch children in the school playground, and record the number of aggressive acts boys and girls display. STRENGTH: The behavior of the subjects is likely to reflect their true behavior as it takes place in a natural setting, where they do not realize that they are being observed. WEAKNESS: The researcher has no control over the setting. For example, in our playground study, more than a child's gender may be affecting the child's aggressive behavior. In addition, subjects may not have an opportunity to display the behavior the researcher is trying to observe because of factors beyond the researcher's control. For example, some of the children who are usually the most aggressive may not be at school that day or in detention because of previous misconduct, thus they are not in the sample of children on the playground. Finally, the topics of study are limited to only people's overt behavior. A researcher cannot study topics like attitudes or thoughts using a naturalistic observation study.

SURVEY studies ask large numbers of people questions about their behaviors, attitudes,
and opinions. Some surveys merely describe what people say they think and do. Other survey studies attempt to find relationships between the characteristics of the respondents and their reported behaviors and opinions. For example, is there a relationship between gender and people's attitudes about some social issue? When surveys have this second purpose we refer to them as CORRELATIONAL STUDIES. STRENGTH: Surveys allow us to gather information from large groups of people. Surveys also allow us to assess a wider variety of behaviors than can be studied in a naturalistic observation study. WEAKNESS: Surveys require that the subjects understand the language. Thus, some members of the population may be excluded from survey research. Surveys also rely heavily on subjects' memory and honesty.

CORRELATIONAL STUDIES
Correlational studies look for relationships between variables. Do people who experience divorce have more psychological problems? Do children who come from economically advantaged families perform better academically? In each case we are asking is there a relationship between variable X and variable Y? Correlational studies only tell us that there is a relationship between the two variables. They do not tell us which variable "caused" the other.

For example, a researcher measures people's marital status and their psychological adjustment and finds that there is a correlation between the two variables. More people who are no longer married report experiencing psychological problems. It might be tempting to conclude that the stress of experiencing a divorce causes depression and anxiety. However, it is also likely that people who suffer from psychological problems are harder for partners to live with, and thus more likely to have their marriage end in divorce. The researcher would need to determine which variable came first, the marital breakup or the psychological problems.

Establishing Causality
In order to establish causality we need three things. That there is a correlation between the two variables Time order. That the presumed cause came before the presumed effect Rule out alternative explanations Correlational studies give us the first thing. Certain studies if they follow subjects over a period of time may provide us with the second. But correlational studies have less control over the subjects' environment and thus have difficulty ruling out alternative explanations.