In psychology, experimental and correlational data are both necessary in order to develop a robust scientific theory. Correlational data establishes the two variables are related and the experimental data can determine causation, the fact the outcome is due to a particular variable. When using research to support psychological phenomena it is critical that the research is relevant, valuable and accurate. Fundamentally, the hypothesis for the theory must be determined prior to the start of the experiment.
Self-control is going against your automatic action or reaction with the intention of achieving something by not doing it (internally or externally determined) or to postpone the thrill of it. Self-control is limited, when you have a lot of self-control you are either more motivated to continue to conserve it or are more likely to use it because you have it compared to someone with less self-control. If one has low levels of self-control, they will be more motivated to save it and attempt to stock up as they predict they will need to exert self-control in the future.
Correlational research is testing to see how strong the association is between two variables in which the researcher does not control other additional factors or manipulate the variables. This can be useful in many ways. It can collect a lot more data than experimental research by natural observation – monitoring peoples actions as they would out with a formal lab setting, survey research – asking people’s opinions on a topic, or archival research – when data that was collected for one purpose is used for another – https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/correlational-research/. A disadvantage of correlation research is that it does not give a conclusive reason. Despite this other scholars can take your data to an experiment if a correlation is established, in order to determine causation. In some cases correlational research can often be the only option to get around ethics.
By using a laboratory research approach, Hare et al conducted a correlational study in a on the effects of self-control on decision-making. The objective was to determine if there is a “common value signal encoded in ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC)” and secondly if when demonstrating self-control the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) exerts a signal determining the value of reward that would come with exercising self-control. The experiment involved dieters making decisions about what foods they prefer, rating 50 foods then later choosing a food against a baseline food (one neutral in health value and taste). Primarily, it was established that there was a correlation between goal-values and activity in vmPFC no matter how much self-control the participant possessed. In those that had self-control, the taste and nutritional value were both factors in their decision-making in comparison to those that do not have self-control to whom taste was the only factor that their decision was based upon. It was concluded that when participants exercised self-control there was a rise in DLPFC activity and this corresponded with the activity of the vmPFC. This correlation is relevant to the self-control topic as by measuring brain activity it is considering what is happening in the brain when exercising self-control. This is further beneficial research as taking the information directly from the brain it is not at the discretion of the participant who may have pre-construed an idea, in other words a control participant choosing the healthy food purely because they wanted to perceive themselves as healthy when in actual fact they would have preferred to take the unhealthy, tasty food. This was considered in the study design, as there was a five-point decision scale on also incorporated in order to determine the strength of their opinion. From my understanding of the experiment, I find this reduces the subjective element that the question posed. Despite there still be a subjective element, I find this does not prevent an optimal investigation being carried out, as it would not have a significantly large impact on the results due to the decision scale (“strong no, no, neutral, yes, and strong yes”). There is an attempt to limit bias in the experiment by using an almost equal ratio of male to female participants, as it was an adequately large sample of 103, this means the ratio was sufficient in portraying the effect of gender on the compulsive buying amongst the general population.
Experimental research is an experiment in which you can isolate variables to determine that one is caused by the other. In carrying out experimental research the signal to noise ratio is improved, meaning the experiment is of higher quality as the response is manipulated to directly relate to the person carrying out the experiment and is not impacted upon by extraneous factors. Experimental research uses a high level of control therefore results are accurate, however, errors and bias must still be considered. To maintain the quality of the theory, it must be falsifiable, i.e. you must be able to prove it wrong. Experimental studies are versatile therefore can be adapted to suit multiple different purposes. This is beneficial as from a single study there can be a large amount of relationships established and conclusively the data can be skewed to fit the necessary outcome. An experiment conducted by Hague et al in 2016 investigated whether particular consumer products were more susceptible to the effects of impulse control problems (i.e. lack of self-control) motivated by arousal or gender. The participants were segregated using a ‘Compulsive Buying Scale’ and were selected at random to undertake an arousal induction where their impulse control was tested on a go/no-go test which involves text flashing up on a screen saying ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ and the participant needs to respond correctly (https://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/go-no-go.html
) The results were that those that were classed as compulsive buyers prior to the experiment performed with high levels of impulsivity compared to the control group, but it was found there was no causation between arousal and gender on impulse buying. Since the experiment was falsified this experiment increased the belief in the relationship between impulse control and compulsive buying, this information is applicable to self-control as without being able to demonstrate self-control and being able to discipline an individual’s personal level of impulsivity this can lead to many things including compulsive buying which can cause an array of problems. A benefit to this research being experimental is that it is a standardised procedure therefore can be repeated to ensure validity. Both of these articles were published within the last ten years and this is valuable in supporting a full-bodied theory, as it will have used advanced research conducted by others in its foundations
The more ways in which you can measure something the more you can understand therefore it is beneficial to use a combination of correlational and experimental research as they complement each other. The weaknesses of one method being supported by the strengths of the other results in a sound scientific theory. To conclude, experimental and correlational data are both necessary in order to develop a robust scientific theory as it allows for a broader understanding of the topic, in this case self-control.