Controls, conceptualization, and the interrelation between experimental and correlational research.

Abstract

Shimcr CollegeP SYCHOLOGISTS often make comparisons between naturally occurring groups, for example, ghetto versus middle-class children, monolingual? versus bilinguals, males versus females, 60 year olds versus 70 years olds, catatonics versus compulsives, and Norwegians versus Sudanese. Sometimes such comparisons are made between species, under the label of "comparative psychology"; but we will concentrate in the following pages on human populations. The questions to be addressed concern the nature of controls appropriate to these studies which are sometimes called "correlational" (Cronbach, 19S7) and, in general, the relation between correlational studies and another class of studies in which the experimenter has control over differences between groups he is comparing, which are sometimes called "experimental" studies. CONTROL PKOCEDUKKS IN Guoui'-Coivti'AiusoN STUDIESThe obvious research design problem which strikes one immediately in considering groupcomparison studies is the following: The groups to be compared are probably always unequal in a variety of respects which are not being studied, as well as in the differences signaled by their labels with which the student is concerned. For example, bilinguals are likely to differ from monolinguals in any community in terms of national origin, food preferences, height, attitudes, family size, etc., as well as in terms of "linguality." No sample, then, of the two populations, regardless of si/e, will ever be free of these "extraneous variables" nor of potential effects from them on obtained differences.

The Impact of Binding Interest Arbitration on Negotiation and Process Outcome

“…The major experimental procedural problem, according toFeldman and Hass (1970), was a group comparison. The groups compared may not be equal in many respects and the group differences may have an impact on results.at SIMON FRASER LIBRARY on June 5, 2015 jcr.sagepub.com Downloaded from…”

On science, mirrors, lamps, and professional practice.

“…They know that real-life behavior occurs in specific contexts and that its experimental study often is not feasible or ethical. They also know that even a strategy of using both experimental and correlational methods to study questions about real-life behavior does not solve all the problems of causal inference-problems that have been highlighted by Scarr (1985), Cook and Campbell (1979), Cronbach and Snow (1977), and Feldman and Hass (1970). The significance of these problems is even more appreciated when one takes into account, as Scarr (1985) did, that professional practice is a “correlated cloud of events” that are intrinsically confounded.…”

Constructing psychology: Making facts and fables for our times.

“…As Feldman and Hass (1970) indicated, experimental and correlational studies provide different kinds of direct inferences. There are causal statements about socially important issues, such as lead exposure and maternal-child behaviors, about which we can make only indirect inferences.…”

“…An excellent article on the problems of causal inference from field studies by Feldman and Hass (1970) highlighted the differences between experimental and correlational research. Each design has virtues and deficiencies in the direct and indirect inferences that can be made.…”