Final answer:
Experimental research methods can imply causation because they involve manipulation of an independent variable and controlled observation of its effects, whereas non-experimental methods do not manipulate variables and thus can suggest correlations but not causation.
Step-by-step explanation:
One of the key differences that illustrates the distinction between experimental and non-experimental research methods is the ability to imply causation. When researchers conduct experiments, by manipulating one variable (independent variable) and observing the outcome on another (dependent variable), they can identify cause-and-effect relationships. This is because the controlled nature of experiments, with the random assignment of participants to either the experimental or the control group and the control of external variables, allows researchers to conclude that any observed effects are due to the manipulation of the independent variable. In contrast, non-experimental methods, such as observational studies or surveys, do not manipulate variables but rather observe them as they are. While these methods can reveal correlations, they cannot with certainty imply causation because of the potential for confounding variables that have not been controlled for.