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. Show
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. Gather research insights Correlational research ExampleThe 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 researchMainly 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 researchCorrelational research has three main characteristics. They are:
Gather research insights Data collectionThe distinctive feature of correlational research is that the researcher can’t manipulate either of the variable 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. 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 or quantitative. 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.
Learning Objectives
Correlational research is a type of non-experimental research in which the researcher measures two variables 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). 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 I might be interested in the relationship between the frequency people use cannabis and their memory abilities I cannot ethically manipulate the frequency that people use cannabis. As such, I must rely on the correlational research strategy; I 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 use 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 variable 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. In contrast, correlational studies typically have low internal validity because nothing is manipulated or control 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). These converging results provide strong evidence that there is a real relationship (indeed a causal relationship) between watching violent television and aggressive behavior. Data Collection in Correlational ResearchAgain, 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 VariablesCorrelations 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. A negative relationship is one in which higher scores on one variable tend to be associated with lower scores on the other. There is a negative relationship between stress and immune system functioning, for example, because higher stress is associated with lower immune system functioning. Figure 6.3 Scatterplot Showing a Hypothetical Positive Relationship Between Stress and Number of Physical Symptoms. The circled point represents a person whose stress score was 10 and who had three physical symptoms. Pearson’s r for these data is +.51. 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. Figure 6.4 Range of Pearson’s r, From −1.00 (Strongest Possible Negative Relationship), Through 0 (No Relationship), to +1.00 (Strongest Possible Positive Relationship) 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. Figure 6.5 Hypothetical Nonlinear Relationship Between Sleep and Depression 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). Figure 6.6 Hypothetical Data Showing How a Strong Overall Correlation Can Appear to Be Weak When One Variable Has a Restricted Range.The overall correlation here is −.77, but the correlation for the 18- to 24-year-olds (in the blue box) is 0. Correlation Does Not Imply CausationYou 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. 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 funny examples of spurious correlations can be found at http://www.tylervigen.com (Figure 6.7 provides one such example).
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 determined 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 (because, again, it was the researcher who determined how much they exercised). Thus experiments eliminate the directionality and third-variable problems and allow researchers to draw firm conclusions about causal relationships. Key Takeaways
|
What kind of quantitative research design determines the relationship between two variables?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
