Although many people believe that the only way to confidently make causal inferences in the world of psychology is through actual experiments, I believe that observation and other quasi-experiments can be just as effective for making cause and effect conclusions. One of the fundamental rules in psychology, of course, is that correlation is not the same as causation. While this is true, I firmly believe that when certain conditions are met, we can infer causality even with non-experimental data. I learned about many of these conditions in my textbook Advanced Research Methods and I completely agree with the author's opinion on this topic. Basically, causality has a probabilistic rather than deterministic meaning. When making causal inferences, we are not saying that a variable directly, immediately, or always results in a particular outcome, but rather that "this variable increases the probability of this outcome" such that there is more than just a causal relationship. correlation at play. (Keith Chapter 1). This concept applies to both quasi- and true experiments as long as certain assumptions are met. While the list of these hypotheses is detailed, some that I find most useful are: 1.) The experiment (almost or true) is based on previous literature, relevant results, sophisticated theories, and carefully chosen variables that researchers have reason to believe that the outcome of interest occurs (Keith Chapter 9).2.) Temporal/logical precedence – if we can establish that the “causal” variable occurs before the “effect” variable, this makes causal inferences easier; if we believe that A causes B, it should be much more difficult to think that B causes A.3.) Obviously, it is easier to imagine a third variable that influences the outcome of... half of the paper... ....of training and competence. Do people who pursue these careers do so because they enjoy excitement or because they have a high need for knowledge/interest in education? (Here, individual differences in some different personality traits could be the source of this correlation; we cannot be sure that it is just individual differences in sensation seeking.2.) An individual interested in things like extreme sports, skydiving, or gambling gives us no valid reason to believe that that individual, for some reason, would be interested in the fields of psychology, nursing, etc. The variables (sensation seeking and profession) might be related, but there is no rhyme or reason to believe that there must be a relationship between the two such that one causes the other; if two variables are not correlated then they are also causally uncorrelated (Keith Chapter 9).