Q.Distinguish between the experimental method and correlational research as methods of psychological enquiry, giving one example of each.

The experimental method and correlational research both study relationships between variables, but only one of them can establish cause and effect.

The experimental method and correlational research both examine the relationship between two variables, but they differ fundamentally in method and in what conclusions they can support.

In the experimental method, the researcher deliberately manipulates the independent variable and observes its effect on the dependent variable, using an experimental group (exposed to the manipulation) and a control group (not exposed to it), with other relevant variables held constant. Because the researcher has actively controlled the situation, a well-designed experiment can support a genuine cause-effect conclusion. Example: a researcher randomly assigns students to study for either one hour or three hours before a test (manipulating study time as the independent variable) and then compares their test scores (the dependent variable), allowing the conclusion that additional study time caused higher scores.

In correlational research, the researcher does not manipulate anything; both variables are measured exactly as they naturally occur, and a correlation coefficient (from +1.0 to -1.0) captures how strongly, and in which direction, they are associated. Example: a researcher measures how many hours different students already choose to study each week and correlates this with their existing achievement scores, without controlling how much anyone actually studies.

The crucial difference is that the experiment, because of manipulation and control, can support a causal claim, while the correlational study can only show that the two variables are related, since some third factor (such as the students' underlying motivation) could be driving both study time and achievement independently.