How is causality established in experimental research, and how does this differ when using nonexperimental research designs? Why do both experimental and nonexperimental designs exist in social sciences?

What will be an ideal response?

Association--variation in one variable is related to variation in another variable; in experimental research, researchers can determine whether an association exists between the independent and dependent variables because there are two or more groups that differ in terms of their value on the independent variable; time order--the variation in the dependent variable occurred after the variation in the independent variable; in a true experiment, the time order is determined by the researcher; nonspuriousness--when a relationship between two variables is not due to a variation in a third variable; a true experiment would use randomization to reduce the risk of spuriousness; mechanism--a discernible process that creates a causal connection between two variables; context--a particular outcome is understood as part of a larger set of interrelated circumstances; in a true experiment, it is easier to identify the causal mechanism by manipulating the independent variable; control over conditions is more feasible in many experimental designs than it is in nonexperimental designs. Both experimental and nonexperimental designs exist due to the context of the question being asked. For example, if a researcher wants to examine reactions to violent imagery, the researcher can set up an experimental design to test it. Other questions such as how children react to bullying are better suited for nonexperimental designs since it is unethical to subject a small child to a bully for research.