What are the advantages and the primary disadvantage of doing correlational research rather than experiments? Give an example of two variables that you think probably are negatively correlated with each other. Explain why you think so

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

An important advantage of doing correlational research rather than experiments is that
correlational research can study associations of naturally occurring variables that
cannot be manipulated or induced due to practical constraints, such as participants'
gender, age, race, height, etc. Correlational research can also examine phenomena that
would be difficult or unethical to create for research purposes, such as certain kinds of
violence, love, abuse of alcohol, etc. Correlational research also offers more flexibility
than experiments because a wide range of variables can be measured, including those
obtained in the field, using archives, through national surveys, etc. The primary
disadvantage of doing correlational research rather than experiments is that a
correlational study cannot demonstrate causation. That is, correlations cannot
demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships between variables. A well-designed
experiment, in contrast, can demonstrate that changes in one variable can cause a
change in another variable. Two variables are negatively correlated if as one variable
increases the other decreases (and vice versa). One pair of variables that should be
negatively correlated with each other is the amount of time spent studying and the
number of courses failed. As the amount of time one spends studying increases, the
number of courses one fails should decrease.