The Importance Of Cusation In Psychology

1427 Words3 Pages

Although many people believe that the only way to confidently make causal inferences in the psychology world is through true experiments, I believe that observational and other quasi experiments can be just as effective for making cause and effect conclusions. One of the cardinal rules in psychology, of course, is that correlation does not equal causation. While this is true, I strongly believe that when certain conditions are met, we can infer causation even with nonexperimental data. I have learned about many of these conditions in my Advanced Research Methods textbook and completely agree with the author’s opinion on this topic. Basically, causality has a probabilistic meaning rather than a deterministic one. When making causality inferences, we are not saying that one variable directly, immediately, or always results in one particular outcome, but instead, that “this variable increases the probability of this outcome” such that there is more than just a correlational relationship at play (Keith Chapter 1). This concept applies to both quasi and true experiments so long as certain assumptions are met. Though the list of these assumptions is detailed, a few I find most helpful are:
1.) The experiment (quasi or true) is based on previous literature, relevant findings, sophisticated theory, and carefully chosen variables that researchers have reason to believe effect the outcome of interest (Keith Chapter 9).
2.) Time precedence / logic – if we can establish that the “causal” variable occurs before the “effect” variable, it makes causal inferences easier; if we believe that A causes B, it should be much more difficult to think of B causing A.
3.) Obviously, the easier it is to imagine a third variable influencing the outcome of ...

... middle of paper ...

... of education and expertise. Are people who take up these careers doing so because they love the excitement or because they have a high need for cognition / interest in education? (here, individual differences in a few different personality traits could be source of this correlation; we can not be sure it is only individual differences in sensation seeking.
2.) An individual being interested in things like extreme sports, sky diving, or gambling provides us with no worthy reason to believe that that individual would, for some reason, become interested in the fields of psychology, nursing, etc. The variables (sensation-seeking and profession) might be correlated, but there is no rhyme or reason to believe there must be a relation between the two such that one causes the other; if two variables are unrelated then they are also causally unrelated (Keith Chapter 9).

Open Document