Hello, everybody. Why do we often tend to assume (mistakenly) that investigations that formulate cause-and-effect relationships are correlational? I ask this, because many times in my country (Peru) I have reviewed many theses in which I have been able to see research questions, such as: How does marketing influence organizational results, or how does marketing contribute to organizational results?, or what is the effect of marketing on organizational results? In the majority of cases I have appreciated that they use the Pearson or Spearman correlation as statistical test, when many of us know it is incorrect. Thank you for your kind attention!
It is good to have quick perceptions by using correlation but need to validate based on theoretical assumptions
Correlation test is almost pre-step for starting the main analysis e.g. regression...