Suppose a colleague said to you, "Why even bother running non-experiments? We can't get
any useful information from them!" What seems to be the type of information this colleague
thinks is the only useful kind? How should you respond to this statement?
1. Causal research, which he/she considers to be the only useful kind of evidence, is often not testable or possible to
perform. While non-experiments cannot demonstrate causation, they still provide many benefits to society and can
show statistical relationships. Most of what we as a society base our knowledge on comes from associative
hypotheses, especially in the areas of medicine or physics.
2. This colleague believes that causal interpretability is the best thing that works. Tell him that there needs to be some
type of random assignment in either true or non experiments. To casually interpret things, you need to have random
assignment, and it needs to be a true experiment.
3. This colleague thinks that only causal relationships are worth researching. Non-experiments cannot demonstrate
causal relationships but they can provide knowledge about associative and attributive relationships. Non-experiments
are different from true experiments because either they do not involve random assignment of individuals by the
researcher before manipulation of the independent variable, they do not manipulate the independent variable, or they
do not involve manipulation of the independent variable before measurement.
4. This colleague thinks that the only kind of useful information is comes from causal studies, which require true
experiments. I would tell this person that this is not true. While causal studies do produce very useful information,
attributive and associative information is important as well. Attributive info details or describes a behavior, and
associative info shows how two things are related. Both of these kinds of information are useful and sometimes
necessary to science in addition to the information we can derive from causal interpretable information.
5. Non-experiments do not provide causal information because causally interpretable results come solely from true
experiments with random assignment of individuals. This colleague believes only causal information is worth their time
and money, and anything less would be uncivilized (or a waste at the very least). However, this colleague must have
come into this world quite recently because (contrary to their beliefs) most information we acquire or produce is
associative. Associative information is therefore extremely worthwhile, it helps us determine patterns and relationships
we can use to better understand the world around (and within) us. Therefore I would tell this so-called colleague of
mine they need to do more background research before making such bold claims. Associative information is
extremely worthwhile, and CAN be obtained from well-run non-experiments. And that, my dear Watson (er, Garbin), is
why we run non-experiments.
6. This colleague only believes that true experiments are worthwhile. Although as reasearchers true experiments give us
great knowledge they are difficult to perform. There are multiple problems that occur when trying to gain external
validity within a true experiment. True experiments are costly,sometimes impossible and often unethical. Nonexperiments allow us to gain some of the knowledge without dealing with the problems of random assignment or
costs. You can't say that someone is a different gender or have mental problems just because you need them to for a
study. Non-experiments give us equally good results as any other type of study.
7. Useful information comes out of non-experiments. Much information that is used today in science, medicine, politics,
and more is found from non-experiments. The type of information the colleague thinks is the only useful kind is
information from true experiments. Sometimes we can't always run true experiments because of ethics and resources,
and sometime you must run non-experiments. Also, you would not be able to aquire associative information from true
experiments alone.
8. This researcher is focusing on rational/inductive information only and completely disregarding the fact that associative
information gives us knowledge. Empirical science, which most people erringly believe produces truth, is in fact based
on associative information. And our everyday lives depend on associative information. Life doesn't come with an
instruction manual and an answer key. We learn from our experiences and learn to associate based on our own
perceptions of how the world works. And there is no one right answer to any question.
9. This colleague seems to think that we can only get useful information by running true-experiments. I would respond to
this statement by saying that this colleague has not been working in the field of psychology very long. Had he taken
Psyc 350 he would know that true-experiments are desireable, however, due to technology, ethics, and resources it
can be impossible for certain true-experiments to be run. True-experiments require random assignment of individuals
by the researcher before manipulation of the IV, the IV must be manipulated by the researcher, and there cannot be
any confounds. Just because it is impossible for a true experiment to be run doesn't mean the non-experiment isn't
worth running. We won't be able to causally interpret the results, but we can still learn from them.
10. This colleague thinks that causal information is the only useful kind of information. If we did not run non-experiments
then we would not have any associative kind of information. Probablistic associative information is the basis for our
everyday lives. If we did not have any of this information then we really wouldn't have any information because true
experiments can be really hard to run sometimes because of ethics, technology and other things.
11. The colleague seems to the only valuable source of information is experiments, or in other words, causal information.
What he does not seem to realize is that the vast majority of the information used by psychologists and indeed by
scientists of any discipline, is associative information. The only way to run a "real" true experiment would be to use an
entire population and to eliminate every single conceivable confound. This, clearly, is impossible. Thus, we as
psychologists are forced to use associative information. Although it's not purely causally interpretable, it does a good
job of guiding us in our decisions, both in our daily lives and as psychologists.
12. If a colleague were to ask me that question I would resound that almost all of our knowledge about science. politics
and religion cannot be found by running true experiments. He seems to think that only casual information in importnat
when in fact most of our knowledge is not.
13. This person thinks causal knowledge (and not associative RH based knowledge) is the only useful kind of information.
I disagree with this statement, because sometimes we cannot run true experiments due to reasons of technology,
resources, and ethics. Gender, family history, experience, personality, age, etc. are all important variables worth
learning about, even though they cannot be directly manipulated or be randomly assigned. Even if a true experiment
design is used, certain factors like a long time interval for the study and field settings can make ongoing equivalence
hard to maintain, which affects causal interpretability. Furthermore, much of the real world knowledge we use to
"understand" behavior and predict future outcomes is based on associative research hypotheses, and usually it
serves us relatively well.
14. The colleague seems to only be interested in proofs, and indisputable facts. Although these are prefered when doing
research, they are just not achievable in a field such as psychology. Non-experiments can be very useful for providing
data that, when used with other studies, can provide very strong evidence toward/against a hypothesis.
15. The type of research this person seems to think is the only useful type would be causal. Unfortunately if we only used
causal research most of our knowledge would not exist. Causal research is very difficult to perform especially when
dealing with humans and the ethics involved. Therefore, almost all of the knowledge we possess about this world was
obtained through associative research. Associative research is very useful because of this very reason.
16. The colleague is thinking that the only useful kind of information is based on causal knowledge. I would tell him that
associative knowledge is the basis of everything we do in daily life, as well as in science. Most of what we know is
based on associative knowledge
17. My colleague is thinking of causal information. I would respond by saying the most of what we know is based on
associative research hypothesis. Only a small amount of research is done well enough for there to be a very large
amount of causal research, if there were we would know a lot more.
18. My colleague seems to think that only true experiments are useful. Although we may only be able to causally interpret
using a true experiment many non-experiments are useful too. In response to my colleague I would answer, "We
bother running non-experiments because most of the information out there comes from associations anyway.
Although we may not be able to say for certain that 'A' causes 'B' we can run a non-experiment and be at least a little
closer to finding out why 'A' and 'B' are related."
19. If I had a colleague of mine say that to me, I would infer that the only type of information he they think it useful is
information from true experiments that are causally interpretable. In response to this, I would make him aware of the
fact that most of the new information that we discover and hear about from all different fields of study (social sciences,
physical sciences, polittics, etc.) is based on associative studies. I would tell him that, in the real world, it is very
difficult to prove things to be causally interpretable and, in light of that, running non-experiments and finding
associative relations between variables is very important.
20. Because Associative non-experiments can be very useful to predict outcomes. There are lots instances when you can
not have true experiments and your only option is to have a non-experiment. For instance, if you thought that the
amount of hair a newborn baby has on its head can predict the future IQ you can not have a true experiment.. ( you
can not randomly give newborns different numbers of hair)but you can have a very good non-experiment that may
give you information on predicting newborns future IQs.