a strong hypothesis should be testable empirically mcq

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: A Guide for Researchers

• by Brian Thomas
• October 10, 2023

Are you a curious soul, always seeking answers to the whys and hows of the world? As a researcher, formulating a hypothesis is a crucial first step towards unraveling the mysteries of your study. A well-crafted hypothesis not only guides your research but also lays the foundation for drawing valid conclusions. But what exactly makes a hypothesis a good one? In this blog post, we will explore the five key characteristics of a good hypothesis that every researcher should know.

Here, we will delve into the world of hypotheses, covering everything from their types in research to understanding if they can be proven true. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this blog post will provide valuable insights on how to craft a sound hypothesis for your study. So let’s dive in and uncover the secrets to formulating a hypothesis that stands strong amidst the scientific rigor!

(Keywords: characteristics of a good hypothesis, important characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, types of hypothesis in research, can a hypothesis be proven true, 6 parts of hypothesis, how to start a hypothesis sentence, examples of hypothesis, five key elements of a good hypothesis, hypothesis in research papers, is a hypothesis always a question, three things needed for a good hypothesis, components of a good hypothesis, formulate a hypothesis, characteristics of a hypothesis mcq, criteria for a scientific hypothesis, steps of theory development in scientific methods, what makes a good hypothesis, characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, five-step p-value approach to hypothesis testing , stages of hypothesis, good hypothesis characteristics, writing a good hypothesis example, difference between hypothesis and hypotheses, good hypothesis statement, not a characteristic of a good hypothesis)

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Clear and specific.

A good hypothesis is like a GPS that guides you to the right destination. It needs to be clear and specific so that you know exactly what you’re testing. Avoid vague statements or general ideas. Instead, focus on crafting a hypothesis that clearly states the relationship between variables and the expected outcome. Clarity is key, my friend!

Testable and Falsifiable

A hypothesis might sound great in theory, but if you can’t test it or prove it wrong, then it’s like chasing unicorns. A good hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable – meaning there should be a way to gather evidence to support or refute it. Don’t be afraid to challenge your hypothesis and put it to the test. Only when it can be proven false can it truly be considered a good hypothesis.

Based on Existing Knowledge

Imagine trying to build a Lego tower without any Lego bricks. That’s what it’s like to come up with a hypothesis that has no basis in existing knowledge. A good hypothesis is grounded in previous research, theories, or observations. It shows that you’ve done your homework and understand the current state of knowledge in your field. So, put on your research hat and gather those building blocks for a solid hypothesis!

Specific Predictions

No, we’re not talking about crystal ball predictions or psychic abilities here. A good hypothesis includes specific predictions about what you expect to happen. It’s like making an educated guess based on your understanding of the variables involved. These predictions help guide your research and give you something concrete to look for. So, put on those prediction goggles, my friend, and let’s get specific!

Relevant to the Research Question

A hypothesis is a road sign that points you in the right direction. But if it’s not relevant to your research question, then you might end up in a never-ending detour. A good hypothesis aligns with your research question and addresses the specific problem or phenomenon you’re investigating. Keep your focus on the main topic and avoid getting sidetracked by shiny distractions. Stay relevant, my friend, and you’ll find the answers you seek!

And there you have it: the five characteristics of a good hypothesis. Remember, a good hypothesis is clear, testable, based on existing knowledge, makes specific predictions, and is relevant to your research question. So go forth, my friend, and hypothesize your way to scientific discovery!

FAQs: Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

In the realm of scientific research, a hypothesis plays a crucial role in formulating and testing ideas. A good hypothesis serves as the foundation for an experiment or study, guiding the researcher towards meaningful results. In this FAQ-style subsection, we’ll explore the characteristics of a good hypothesis, their types, formulation, and more. So let’s dive in and unravel the mysteries of hypothesis-making!

What Are Two Important Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis possesses two important characteristics:

Testability : A hypothesis must be testable to determine its validity. It should be formulated in a way that allows researchers to design and conduct experiments or gather data for analysis. For example, if we hypothesize that “drinking herbal tea reduces stress,” we can easily test it by conducting a study with a control group and a group drinking herbal tea.

Falsifiability : Falsifiability refers to the potential for a hypothesis to be proven wrong. A good hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be refuted or supported by evidence. This characteristic ensures that hypotheses are based on empirical observations rather than personal opinions. For instance, the hypothesis “all swans are white” can be falsified by discovering a single black swan.

What Are the Types of Hypothesis in Research

In research, there are three main types of hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis (H0) : The null hypothesis is a statement of no effect or relationship. It assumes that there is no significant difference between variables or no effect of a treatment. Researchers aim to reject the null hypothesis in favor of an alternative hypothesis.

Alternative Hypothesis (HA or H1) : The alternative hypothesis is the opposite of the null hypothesis. It asserts that there is a significant difference between variables or an effect of a treatment. Researchers seek evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis : A directional hypothesis predicts the specific direction of the relationship or difference between variables. For example, “increasing exercise duration will lead to greater weight loss.”

Can a Hypothesis Be Proven True

In scientific research, hypotheses are not proven true; they are supported or rejected based on empirical evidence . Even if a hypothesis is supported by multiple studies, new evidence could arise that contradicts it. Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement. Therefore, the goal is to gather enough evidence to either support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it absolutely true.

What Are the Six Parts of a Hypothesis

A hypothesis typically consists of six essential parts:

Research Question : A clear and concise question that the hypothesis seeks to answer.

Variables : Identification of the independent (manipulated) and dependent (measured) variables involved in the hypothesis.

Population : The specific group or individuals the hypothesis is concerned with.

Relationship or Comparison : The expected relationship or difference between variables, often indicated by directional terms like “more,” “less,” “higher,” or “lower.”

Predictability : A statement of the predicted outcome or result based on the relationship between variables.

Testability : The ability to design an experiment or gather data to support or reject the hypothesis.

How Do You Start a Hypothesis Sentence

When starting a hypothesis sentence, it is essential to use clear and concise language to express your ideas. A common approach is to use the phrase “If…then…” to establish the conditional relationship between variables. For example:

• If [independent variable], then [dependent variable] because [explanation of expected relationship].

This structure allows for a straightforward and logical formulation of the hypothesis.

What Are Examples of Hypotheses

Here are a few examples of well-formulated hypotheses:

If exposure to sunlight increases, then plants will grow taller because sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis.

If students receive praise for good grades, then their motivation to excel will increase because they seek recognition and approval.

If the dose of a painkiller is increased, then the relief from pain will last longer because a higher dosage has a prolonged effect.

What Are the Five Key Elements to a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis should include the following five key elements:

Clarity : The hypothesis should be clear and specific, leaving no room for interpretation.

Testability : It should be possible to test the hypothesis through experimentation or data collection.

Relevance : The hypothesis should be directly tied to the research question or problem being investigated.

Specificity : It must clearly state the relationship or difference between variables being studied.

Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make predictions that can be refuted or supported by empirical evidence.

What Makes a Good Hypothesis in a Research Paper

In a research paper, a good hypothesis should have the following characteristics:

Relevance : It must directly relate to the research topic and address the objectives of the study.

Clarity : The hypothesis should be concise and precisely worded to avoid confusion.

Unambiguous : It must leave no room for multiple interpretations or ambiguity.

Logic : The hypothesis should be based on rational and logical reasoning, considering existing theories and observations.

Empirical Support : Ideally, the hypothesis should be supported by prior empirical evidence or strong theoretical justifications.

Is a Hypothesis Always a Question

No, a hypothesis is not always in the form of a question. While some hypotheses can take the form of a question, others may be statements asserting a relationship or difference between variables. The form of a hypothesis depends on the research question being addressed and the researcher’s preferred style of expression.

What Are the Three Things Needed for a Good Hypothesis

For a hypothesis to be considered good, it must fulfill the following three criteria:

Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that allows for empirical testing through experimentation or data collection.

Falsifiability : It must make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.

Relevance : The hypothesis should directly address the research question or problem being investigated.

What Are the Four Components to a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis typically consists of four components:

Independent Variable : The variable being manipulated or controlled by the researcher.

Dependent Variable : The variable being measured or observed to determine the effect of the independent variable.

Directionality : The predicted relationship or difference between the independent and dependent variables.

Population : The specific group or individuals to which the hypothesis applies.

How Do You Formulate a Hypothesis

To formulate a hypothesis, follow these steps:

Identify the Research Topic : Clearly define the area or phenomenon you want to study.

Conduct Background Research : Review existing literature and research to gain knowledge about the topic.

Formulate a Research Question : Ask a clear and focused question that you want to answer through your hypothesis.

State the Null and Alternative Hypotheses : Develop a null hypothesis to assume no effect or relationship, and an alternative hypothesis to propose a significant effect or relationship.

Decide on Variables and Relationships : Determine the independent and dependent variables and the predicted relationship between them.

Refine and Test : Refine your hypothesis, ensuring it is clear, testable, and falsifiable. Then, design experiments or gather data to support or reject it.

What Is a Characteristic of a Hypothesis MCQ

Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) regarding the characteristics of a hypothesis often assess knowledge on the testability and falsifiability of hypotheses. They may ask about the criteria that distinguish a good hypothesis from a poor one or the importance of making specific predictions. Remember to choose answers that emphasize the empirical and testable nature of hypotheses.

What Five Criteria Must Be Satisfied for a Hypothesis to Be Scientific

For a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must satisfy the following five criteria:

Testability : The hypothesis must be formulated in a way that allows it to be tested through experimentation or data collection.

Falsifiability : It should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by empirical evidence.

Empirical Basis : The hypothesis should be based on empirical observations or existing theories and knowledge.

Relevance : It must directly address the research question or problem being investigated.

Objective : A scientific hypothesis should be free from personal biases or subjective opinions, focusing on objective observations and analysis.

What Are the Steps of Theory Development in Scientific Methods

In scientific methods, theory development typically involves the following steps:

Observation : Identifying a phenomenon or pattern worthy of investigation through observation or empirical data.

Formulation of a Hypothesis : Constructing a hypothesis that explains the observed phenomena or predicts a relationship between variables.

Data Collection : Gathering relevant data through experiments, surveys, observations, or other research methods.

Analysis : Analyzing the collected data to evaluate the hypothesis’s predictions and determine their validity.

Revision and Refinement : Based on the analysis, refining the hypothesis, modifying the theory, or formulating new hypotheses for further investigation.

Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis is characterized by:

Testability : The ability to form experiments or gather data to support or refute the hypothesis.

Falsifiability : The potential for the hypothesis’s predictions to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence.

Clarity : A clear and concise statement or question that leaves no room for ambiguity.

Relevancy : Directly addressing the research question or problem at hand.

Remember, it is important to select the option that encompasses all these characteristics.

What Are the Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis possesses several characteristics, such as:

Testability : It should allow for empirical testing through experiments or data collection.

Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.

Clarity : It must be clearly and precisely formulated, leaving no room for ambiguity or multiple interpretations.

Relevance : The hypothesis should directly relate to the research question or problem being investigated.

What Is the Five-Step p-value Approach to Hypothesis Testing

The five-step p-value approach is a commonly used framework for hypothesis testing:

Step 1: Formulating the Hypotheses : The null hypothesis (H0) assumes no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (HA) proposes a significant effect or relationship.

Step 2: Setting the Significance Level : Decide on the level of significance (α), which represents the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The commonly used level is 0.05 (5%).

Step 3: Collecting Data and Performing the Test : Acquire and analyze the data, calculating the test statistic and the corresponding p-value.

Step 4: Comparing the p-value with the Significance Level : If the p-value is less than the significance level (α), reject the null hypothesis. Otherwise, fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 5: Drawing Conclusions : Based on the comparison in Step 4, interpret the results and draw conclusions about the hypothesis.

What Are the Stages of Hypothesis

The stages of hypothesis generally include:

Observation : Identifying a pattern, phenomenon, or research question that warrants investigation.

Formulation : Developing a hypothesis that explains or predicts the relationship or difference between variables.

Testing : Collecting data, designing experiments, or conducting studies to gather evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis.

Analysis : Assessing the collected data to determine whether the results support or reject the hypothesis.

Conclusion : Drawing conclusions based on the analysis and making further iterations, refinements, or new hypotheses for future research.

What Is a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

A characteristic of a good hypothesis is its ability to make specific predictions about the relationship or difference between variables. Good hypotheses avoid vague statements and clearly articulate the expected outcomes. By doing so, researchers can design experiments or gather data that directly test the predictions, leading to meaningful results.

How Do You Write a Good Hypothesis Example

To write a good hypothesis example, follow these guidelines:

If possible, use the “If…then…” format to express a conditional relationship between variables.

Be clear and concise in stating the variables involved, the predicted relationship, and the expected outcome.

Ensure the hypothesis is testable, meaning it can be evaluated through experiments or data collection.

For instance, consider the following example:

If students study for longer periods of time, then their test scores will improve because increased study time allows for better retention of information and increased proficiency.

What Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Hypotheses

The main difference between a hypothesis and hypotheses lies in their grammatical number. A hypothesis refers to a single statement or proposition that is formulated to explain or predict the relationship between variables. On the other hand, hypotheses is the plural form of the term hypothesis, commonly used when multiple statements or propositions are proposed and tested simultaneously.

What Is a Good Hypothesis Statement

A good hypothesis statement exhibits the following qualities:

Clarity : It is written in clear and concise language, leaving no room for confusion or ambiguity.

Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that enables testing through experiments or data collection.

Specificity : It must clearly state the predicted relationship or difference between variables.

By adhering to these criteria, a good hypothesis statement guides research efforts effectively.

What Is Not a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

A characteristic that does not align with a good hypothesis is subjectivity . A hypothesis should be objective, based on empirical observations or existing theories, and free from personal bias. While personal interpretations and opinions can inspire the formulation of a hypothesis, it must ultimately rely on objective observations and be open to empirical testing.

By now, you’ve gained insights into the characteristics of a good hypothesis, including testability, falsifiability, clarity,

• characteristics
• falsifiable
• good hypothesis
• hypothesis testing
• null hypothesis
• observations
• scientific rigor

Brian Thomas

Is july really a 31-day month unraveling the puzzling calendar quirk, how long does it take to become l5 at amazon, you may also like, can a spider bite through clothes.

• by Thomas Harrison
• November 2, 2023

Is Bedrock Breakable in Real Life?

• October 27, 2023

How Many Hearts Does a Mosquito Have?

• by Travis Heath
• October 21, 2023

Why I Want to Work at SAS: Unveiling the Secrets Behind a Reputable Company’s Success

• by Mr. Gilbert Preston
• October 9, 2023

When Should I Take Moringa: Morning or Night?

• by Donna Gonzalez
• November 1, 2023

Are Worms Nocturnal? Unveiling the Secret Lives of Earthworms

• October 26, 2023

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Step 1: ask a question.

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2: Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise more complex constructs.

Step 3: Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

Step 4: Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

Step 5: Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if … then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

Step 6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

A hypothesis is not just a guess. It should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations, and statistical analysis of data).

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (‘ x affects y because …’).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses. In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.1: Introduction to Hypothesis Testing

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 10211

• Kyle Siegrist
• University of Alabama in Huntsville via Random Services

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Basic Theory

Preliminaries.

As usual, our starting point is a random experiment with an underlying sample space and a probability measure \(\P\). In the basic statistical model, we have an observable random variable \(\bs{X}\) taking values in a set \(S\). In general, \(\bs{X}\) can have quite a complicated structure. For example, if the experiment is to sample \(n\) objects from a population and record various measurements of interest, then \[ \bs{X} = (X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n) \] where \(X_i\) is the vector of measurements for the \(i\)th object. The most important special case occurs when \((X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n)\) are independent and identically distributed. In this case, we have a random sample of size \(n\) from the common distribution.

The purpose of this section is to define and discuss the basic concepts of statistical hypothesis testing . Collectively, these concepts are sometimes referred to as the Neyman-Pearson framework, in honor of Jerzy Neyman and Egon Pearson, who first formalized them.

A statistical hypothesis is a statement about the distribution of \(\bs{X}\). Equivalently, a statistical hypothesis specifies a set of possible distributions of \(\bs{X}\): the set of distributions for which the statement is true. A hypothesis that specifies a single distribution for \(\bs{X}\) is called simple ; a hypothesis that specifies more than one distribution for \(\bs{X}\) is called composite .

In hypothesis testing , the goal is to see if there is sufficient statistical evidence to reject a presumed null hypothesis in favor of a conjectured alternative hypothesis . The null hypothesis is usually denoted \(H_0\) while the alternative hypothesis is usually denoted \(H_1\).

An hypothesis test is a statistical decision ; the conclusion will either be to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative, or to fail to reject the null hypothesis. The decision that we make must, of course, be based on the observed value \(\bs{x}\) of the data vector \(\bs{X}\). Thus, we will find an appropriate subset \(R\) of the sample space \(S\) and reject \(H_0\) if and only if \(\bs{x} \in R\). The set \(R\) is known as the rejection region or the critical region . Note the asymmetry between the null and alternative hypotheses. This asymmetry is due to the fact that we assume the null hypothesis, in a sense, and then see if there is sufficient evidence in \(\bs{x}\) to overturn this assumption in favor of the alternative.

An hypothesis test is a statistical analogy to proof by contradiction, in a sense. Suppose for a moment that \(H_1\) is a statement in a mathematical theory and that \(H_0\) is its negation. One way that we can prove \(H_1\) is to assume \(H_0\) and work our way logically to a contradiction. In an hypothesis test, we don't prove anything of course, but there are similarities. We assume \(H_0\) and then see if the data \(\bs{x}\) are sufficiently at odds with that assumption that we feel justified in rejecting \(H_0\) in favor of \(H_1\).

Often, the critical region is defined in terms of a statistic \(w(\bs{X})\), known as a test statistic , where \(w\) is a function from \(S\) into another set \(T\). We find an appropriate rejection region \(R_T \subseteq T\) and reject \(H_0\) when the observed value \(w(\bs{x}) \in R_T\). Thus, the rejection region in \(S\) is then \(R = w^{-1}(R_T) = \left\{\bs{x} \in S: w(\bs{x}) \in R_T\right\}\). As usual, the use of a statistic often allows significant data reduction when the dimension of the test statistic is much smaller than the dimension of the data vector.

The ultimate decision may be correct or may be in error. There are two types of errors, depending on which of the hypotheses is actually true.

Types of errors:

• A type 1 error is rejecting the null hypothesis \(H_0\) when \(H_0\) is true.
• A type 2 error is failing to reject the null hypothesis \(H_0\) when the alternative hypothesis \(H_1\) is true.

Similarly, there are two ways to make a correct decision: we could reject \(H_0\) when \(H_1\) is true or we could fail to reject \(H_0\) when \(H_0\) is true. The possibilities are summarized in the following table:

Of course, when we observe \(\bs{X} = \bs{x}\) and make our decision, either we will have made the correct decision or we will have committed an error, and usually we will never know which of these events has occurred. Prior to gathering the data, however, we can consider the probabilities of the various errors.

If \(H_0\) is true (that is, the distribution of \(\bs{X}\) is specified by \(H_0\)), then \(\P(\bs{X} \in R)\) is the probability of a type 1 error for this distribution. If \(H_0\) is composite, then \(H_0\) specifies a variety of different distributions for \(\bs{X}\) and thus there is a set of type 1 error probabilities.

The maximum probability of a type 1 error, over the set of distributions specified by \( H_0 \), is the significance level of the test or the size of the critical region.

The significance level is often denoted by \(\alpha\). Usually, the rejection region is constructed so that the significance level is a prescribed, small value (typically 0.1, 0.05, 0.01).

If \(H_1\) is true (that is, the distribution of \(\bs{X}\) is specified by \(H_1\)), then \(\P(\bs{X} \notin R)\) is the probability of a type 2 error for this distribution. Again, if \(H_1\) is composite then \(H_1\) specifies a variety of different distributions for \(\bs{X}\), and thus there will be a set of type 2 error probabilities. Generally, there is a tradeoff between the type 1 and type 2 error probabilities. If we reduce the probability of a type 1 error, by making the rejection region \(R\) smaller, we necessarily increase the probability of a type 2 error because the complementary region \(S \setminus R\) is larger.

The extreme cases can give us some insight. First consider the decision rule in which we never reject \(H_0\), regardless of the evidence \(\bs{x}\). This corresponds to the rejection region \(R = \emptyset\). A type 1 error is impossible, so the significance level is 0. On the other hand, the probability of a type 2 error is 1 for any distribution defined by \(H_1\). At the other extreme, consider the decision rule in which we always rejects \(H_0\) regardless of the evidence \(\bs{x}\). This corresponds to the rejection region \(R = S\). A type 2 error is impossible, but now the probability of a type 1 error is 1 for any distribution defined by \(H_0\). In between these two worthless tests are meaningful tests that take the evidence \(\bs{x}\) into account.

If \(H_1\) is true, so that the distribution of \(\bs{X}\) is specified by \(H_1\), then \(\P(\bs{X} \in R)\), the probability of rejecting \(H_0\) is the power of the test for that distribution.

Thus the power of the test for a distribution specified by \( H_1 \) is the probability of making the correct decision.

Suppose that we have two tests, corresponding to rejection regions \(R_1\) and \(R_2\), respectively, each having significance level \(\alpha\). The test with region \(R_1\) is uniformly more powerful than the test with region \(R_2\) if \[ \P(\bs{X} \in R_1) \ge \P(\bs{X} \in R_2) \text{ for every distribution of } \bs{X} \text{ specified by } H_1 \]

Naturally, in this case, we would prefer the first test. Often, however, two tests will not be uniformly ordered; one test will be more powerful for some distributions specified by \(H_1\) while the other test will be more powerful for other distributions specified by \(H_1\).

If a test has significance level \(\alpha\) and is uniformly more powerful than any other test with significance level \(\alpha\), then the test is said to be a uniformly most powerful test at level \(\alpha\).

Clearly a uniformly most powerful test is the best we can do.

\(P\)-value

In most cases, we have a general procedure that allows us to construct a test (that is, a rejection region \(R_\alpha\)) for any given significance level \(\alpha \in (0, 1)\). Typically, \(R_\alpha\) decreases (in the subset sense) as \(\alpha\) decreases.

The \(P\)-value of the observed value \(\bs{x}\) of \(\bs{X}\), denoted \(P(\bs{x})\), is defined to be the smallest \(\alpha\) for which \(\bs{x} \in R_\alpha\); that is, the smallest significance level for which \(H_0\) is rejected, given \(\bs{X} = \bs{x}\).

Knowing \(P(\bs{x})\) allows us to test \(H_0\) at any significance level for the given data \(\bs{x}\): If \(P(\bs{x}) \le \alpha\) then we would reject \(H_0\) at significance level \(\alpha\); if \(P(\bs{x}) \gt \alpha\) then we fail to reject \(H_0\) at significance level \(\alpha\). Note that \(P(\bs{X})\) is a statistic . Informally, \(P(\bs{x})\) can often be thought of as the probability of an outcome as or more extreme than the observed value \(\bs{x}\), where extreme is interpreted relative to the null hypothesis \(H_0\).

Analogy with Justice Systems

There is a helpful analogy between statistical hypothesis testing and the criminal justice system in the US and various other countries. Consider a person charged with a crime. The presumed null hypothesis is that the person is innocent of the crime; the conjectured alternative hypothesis is that the person is guilty of the crime. The test of the hypotheses is a trial with evidence presented by both sides playing the role of the data. After considering the evidence, the jury delivers the decision as either not guilty or guilty . Note that innocent is not a possible verdict of the jury, because it is not the point of the trial to prove the person innocent. Rather, the point of the trial is to see whether there is sufficient evidence to overturn the null hypothesis that the person is innocent in favor of the alternative hypothesis of that the person is guilty. A type 1 error is convicting a person who is innocent; a type 2 error is acquitting a person who is guilty. Generally, a type 1 error is considered the more serious of the two possible errors, so in an attempt to hold the chance of a type 1 error to a very low level, the standard for conviction in serious criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt .

Tests of an Unknown Parameter

Hypothesis testing is a very general concept, but an important special class occurs when the distribution of the data variable \(\bs{X}\) depends on a parameter \(\theta\) taking values in a parameter space \(\Theta\). The parameter may be vector-valued, so that \(\bs{\theta} = (\theta_1, \theta_2, \ldots, \theta_n)\) and \(\Theta \subseteq \R^k\) for some \(k \in \N_+\). The hypotheses generally take the form \[ H_0: \theta \in \Theta_0 \text{ versus } H_1: \theta \notin \Theta_0 \] where \(\Theta_0\) is a prescribed subset of the parameter space \(\Theta\). In this setting, the probabilities of making an error or a correct decision depend on the true value of \(\theta\). If \(R\) is the rejection region, then the power function \( Q \) is given by \[ Q(\theta) = \P_\theta(\bs{X} \in R), \quad \theta \in \Theta \] The power function gives a lot of information about the test.

The power function satisfies the following properties:

• \(Q(\theta)\) is the probability of a type 1 error when \(\theta \in \Theta_0\).
• \(\max\left\{Q(\theta): \theta \in \Theta_0\right\}\) is the significance level of the test.
• \(1 - Q(\theta)\) is the probability of a type 2 error when \(\theta \notin \Theta_0\).
• \(Q(\theta)\) is the power of the test when \(\theta \notin \Theta_0\).

If we have two tests, we can compare them by means of their power functions.

Suppose that we have two tests, corresponding to rejection regions \(R_1\) and \(R_2\), respectively, each having significance level \(\alpha\). The test with rejection region \(R_1\) is uniformly more powerful than the test with rejection region \(R_2\) if \( Q_1(\theta) \ge Q_2(\theta)\) for all \( \theta \notin \Theta_0 \).

Most hypothesis tests of an unknown real parameter \(\theta\) fall into three special cases:

Suppose that \( \theta \) is a real parameter and \( \theta_0 \in \Theta \) a specified value. The tests below are respectively the two-sided test , the left-tailed test , and the right-tailed test .

• \(H_0: \theta = \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0\)
• \(H_0: \theta \ge \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \lt \theta_0\)
• \(H_0: \theta \le \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \gt \theta_0\)

Thus the tests are named after the conjectured alternative. Of course, there may be other unknown parameters besides \(\theta\) (known as nuisance parameters ).

Equivalence Between Hypothesis Test and Confidence Sets

There is an equivalence between hypothesis tests and confidence sets for a parameter \(\theta\).

Suppose that \(C(\bs{x})\) is a \(1 - \alpha\) level confidence set for \(\theta\). The following test has significance level \(\alpha\) for the hypothesis \( H_0: \theta = \theta_0 \) versus \( H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0 \): Reject \(H_0\) if and only if \(\theta_0 \notin C(\bs{x})\)

By definition, \(\P[\theta \in C(\bs{X})] = 1 - \alpha\). Hence if \(H_0\) is true so that \(\theta = \theta_0\), then the probability of a type 1 error is \(P[\theta \notin C(\bs{X})] = \alpha\).

Equivalently, we fail to reject \(H_0\) at significance level \(\alpha\) if and only if \(\theta_0\) is in the corresponding \(1 - \alpha\) level confidence set. In particular, this equivalence applies to interval estimates of a real parameter \(\theta\) and the common tests for \(\theta\) given above .

In each case below, the confidence interval has confidence level \(1 - \alpha\) and the test has significance level \(\alpha\).

• Suppose that \(\left[L(\bs{X}, U(\bs{X})\right]\) is a two-sided confidence interval for \(\theta\). Reject \(H_0: \theta = \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \ne \theta_0\) if and only if \(\theta_0 \lt L(\bs{X})\) or \(\theta_0 \gt U(\bs{X})\).
• Suppose that \(L(\bs{X})\) is a confidence lower bound for \(\theta\). Reject \(H_0: \theta \le \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \gt \theta_0\) if and only if \(\theta_0 \lt L(\bs{X})\).
• Suppose that \(U(\bs{X})\) is a confidence upper bound for \(\theta\). Reject \(H_0: \theta \ge \theta_0\) versus \(H_1: \theta \lt \theta_0\) if and only if \(\theta_0 \gt U(\bs{X})\).

Pivot Variables and Test Statistics

Recall that confidence sets of an unknown parameter \(\theta\) are often constructed through a pivot variable , that is, a random variable \(W(\bs{X}, \theta)\) that depends on the data vector \(\bs{X}\) and the parameter \(\theta\), but whose distribution does not depend on \(\theta\) and is known. In this case, a natural test statistic for the basic tests given above is \(W(\bs{X}, \theta_0)\).

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Overview of the Scientific Method

10 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis, it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A  theory  is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition (1965) [1] . He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A  hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observations before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this  if-then  relationship. “ If   drive theory is correct,  then  cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter  and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this  question  is an interesting one  on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [2] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). Researchers begin with a set of phenomena and either construct a theory to explain or interpret them or choose an existing theory to work with. They then make a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researchers then conduct an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, they reevaluate the theory in light of the new results and revise it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researchers can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.3  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [3] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] [4] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use  deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use  inductive reasoning  which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that it really does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

• Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation.  Science, 149 , 269–274 ↵
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

A specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate.

A cyclical process of theory development, starting with an observed phenomenon, then developing or using a theory to make a specific prediction of what should happen if that theory is correct, testing that prediction, refining the theory in light of the findings, and using that refined theory to develop new hypotheses, and so on.

The ability to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and the possibility to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2019 by Rajiv S. Jhangiani, I-Chant A. Chiang, Carrie Cuttler, & Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Privacy Policy

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Propositions and Hypotheses

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 26213

• Anol Bhattacherjee
• University of South Florida via Global Text Project

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Figure 2.2 shows how theoretical constructs such as intelligence, effort, academic achievement, and earning potential are related to each other in a nomological network. Each of these relationships is called a proposition. In seeking explanations to a given phenomenon or behavior, it is not adequate just to identify key concepts and constructs underlying the target phenomenon or behavior. We must also identify and state patterns of relationships between these constructs. Such patterns of relationships are called propositions. A proposition is a tentative and conjectural relationship between constructs that is stated in a declarative form. An example of a proposition is: “An increase in student intelligence causes an increase in their academic achievement.” This declarative statement does not have to be true, but must be empirically testable using data, so that we can judge whether it is true or false. Propositions are generally derived based on logic (deduction) or empirical observations (induction).

Because propositions are associations between abstract constructs, they cannot be tested directly. Instead, they are tested indirectly by examining the relationship between corresponding measures (variables) of those constructs. The empirical formulation of propositions, stated as relationships between variables, is called hypotheses (see Figure 2.1). Since IQ scores and grade point average are operational measures of intelligence and academic achievement respectively, the above proposition can be specified in form of the hypothesis: “An increase in students’ IQ score causes an increase in their grade point average.” Propositions are specified in the theoretical plane, while hypotheses are specified in the empirical plane. Hence, hypotheses are empirically testable using observed data, and may be rejected if not supported by empirical observations. Of course, the goal of hypothesis testing is to infer whether the corresponding proposition is valid.

Hypotheses can be strong or weak. “Students’ IQ scores are related to their academic achievement” is an example of a weak hypothesis, since it indicates neither the directionality of the hypothesis (i.e., whether the relationship is positive or negative), nor its causality (i.e., whether intelligence causes academic achievement or academic achievement causes intelligence). A stronger hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores are positively related to their academic achievement”, which indicates the directionality but not the causality. A still better hypothesis is “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement”, which specifies both the directionality and the causality (i.e., intelligence causes academic achievement, and not the reverse). The signs in Figure 2.2 indicate the directionality of the respective hypotheses.

Also note that scientific hypotheses should clearly specify independent and dependent variables. In the hypothesis, “students’ IQ scores have positive effects on their academic achievement,” it is clear that intelligence is the independent variable (the “cause”) and academic achievement is the dependent variable (the “effect”). Further, it is also clear that this hypothesis can be evaluated as either true (if higher intelligence leads to higher academic achievement) or false (if higher intelligence has no effect on or leads to lower academic achievement). Later on in this book, we will examine how to empirically test such cause-effect relationships. Statements such as “students are generally intelligent” or “all students can achieve academic success” are not scientific hypotheses because they do not specify independent and dependent variables, nor do they specify a directional relationship that can be evaluated as true or false.

Search form

You are here.

• Generating Empirically Testable Research Questions

Once you have a research idea, you need to use it to generate one or more empirically testable research questions, that is, questions expressed in terms of a single variable or relationship between variables. One way to do this is to look closely at the discussion section in a recent research article on the topic. This is the last major section of the article, in which the researchers summarize their results, interpret them in the context of past research, and suggest directions for future research. These suggestions often take the form of specific research questions, which you can then try to answer with additional research. This can be a good strategy because it is likely that the suggested questions have already been identified as interesting and important by experienced researchers.

But you may also want to generate your own research questions. How can you do this? First, if you have a particular behavior or psychological characteristic in mind, you can simply conceptualize it as a variable and ask how frequent or intense it is. How many words on average do people speak per day? How accurate are children’s memories of being touched? What percentage of people have sought professional help for depression? If the question has never been studied scientifically—which is something that you will learn in your literature review—then it might be interesting and worth pursuing.

If scientific research has already answered the question of how frequent or intense the behavior or characteristic is, then you should consider turning it into a question about a statistical relationship between that behavior or characteristic and some other variable. One way to do this is to ask yourself the following series of more general questions and write down all the answers you can think of.

• What are some possible causes of the behavior or characteristic?
• What are some possible effects of the behavior or characteristic?
• What types of people might exhibit more or less of the behavior or characteristic?
• What types of situations might elicit more or less of the behavior or characteristic?

In general, each answer you write down can be conceptualized as a second variable, suggesting a question about a statistical relationship. If you were interested in talkativeness, for example, it might occur to you that a possible cause of this psychological characteristic is family size. Is there a statistical relationship between family size and talkativeness? Or it might occur to you that people seem to be more talkative in same-sex groups than mixed-sex groups. Is there a difference in the average level of talkativeness of people in same-sex groups and people in mixed-sex groups? This approach should allow you to generate many different empirically testable questions about almost any behavior or psychological characteristic.

If through this process you generate a question that has never been studied scientifically—which again is something that you will learn in your literature review—then it might be interesting and worth pursuing.

But what if you find that it ha s been studied scientifically? Although novice researchers often want to give up and move on to a new question at this point, this is not necessarily a good strategy. For one thing, the fact that the question has been studied scientifically and the research published suggests that it is of interest to the scientific community. For another, the question can almost certainly be refined so that its answer will still contribute something new to the research literature. Again, asking yourself a series of more general questions about the statistical relationship is a good strategy.

• Are there other ways to operationally define the variables?
• Are there types of people for whom the statistical relationship might be stronger or weaker?
• Are there situations in which the statistical relationship might be stronger or weaker—including situations with practical importance?

For example, research has shown that women and men speak about the same number of words per day— but this was when talkativeness was measured in terms of the number of words spoken per day among college students in the United States and Mexico. We can still ask whether other ways of measuring talkativeness—perhaps the number of different people spoken to each day—produce the same result. Or we can ask whether studying elderly people or people from other cultures produces the same result. Again, this approach should help you generate many different research questions about almost any statistical relationship.

• What Is Science?
• Features of Science
• Science Versus Pseudoscience The Skeptic’s Dictionary KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• A Model of Scientific Research in Psychology
• Who Conducts Scientific Research in Psychology? Scientific Psychology Blogs
• The Broader Purposes of Scientific Research in Psychology KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Can We Rely on Common Sense? Some Great Myths
• How Could We Be So Wrong? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Science and Clinical Practice LEARNING OBJECTIVES Empirically Supported Treatments KEY TAKEAWAYS E X ER C IS ES
• Sampling and Measurement
• Differences Between Groups
• Correlations Between Quantitative Variables
• Correlation Does Not Imply Causation “Lots of Candy Could Lead to Violence” KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Finding Inspiration
• Interestingness
• Feasibility KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Professional Journals
• Scholarly Books
• Using PsycINFO and Other Databases
• Using Other Search Techniques
• What to Search For KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• A Framework for Thinking About Research Ethics
• Weighing Risks Against Benefits Was It Worth It?
• Acting Responsibly and With Integrity
• Seeking Justice “They Were Betrayed”
• Respecting People’s Rights and Dignity
• Unavoidable Ethical Conflict KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Historical Overview Ethics Codes
• Informed Consent
• Nonhuman Animal Subjects
• Scholarly Integrity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Know and Accept Your Ethical Responsibilities
• Identify and Minimize Risks
• Identify and Minimize Deception
• Weigh the Risks Against the Benefits
• Create Informed Consent and Debriefing Procedures
• Get Approval
• Follow Through KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Phenomena Some Famous Psychological Phenomena
• What Is a Theory?
• What Are Theories For?
• Organization
• Generation of New Research
• Multiple Theories Where Do Multiple Personalities Come From? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Formality Formal Theories in Psychology
• Theoretical Approach KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Constructing or Choosing a Theory
• Deriving Hypotheses
• Evaluating and Revising Theories
• Incorporating Theory Into Your Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• What Is Measurement?
• Psychological Constructs The Big Five
• Operational Definitions
• Levels of Measurement KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Test-Retest Reliability
• Internal Consistency
• Interrater Reliability
• Face Validity How Prejudiced Are You?
• Content Validity
• Criterion Validity
• Discriminant Validity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Conceptually Defining the Construct
• Using an Existing Measure
• Creating Your Own Measure
• Implementing the Measure
• Evaluating the Measure KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is an Experiment?
• Internal Validity
• External Validity
• Manipulation of the Independent Variable
• Extraneous Variables as “Noise”
• Extraneous Variables as Confounding Variables KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Random Assignment
• Treatment and Control Conditions The Powerful Placebo
• Carryover Effects and Counterbalancing When 9 Is “Larger” Than 221
• Simultaneous Within-Subjects Designs
• Between-Subjects or Within-Subjects? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Recruiting Participants The Volunteer Subject
• Standardizing the Procedure Experimenter’s Sex as an Extraneous Variable
• Record Keeping
• Pilot Testing KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Nonexperimental Research?
• When to Use Nonexperimental Research
• Types of Nonexperimental Research
• Internal Validity Revisited KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE 　
• What Is Correlational Research?
• Naturalistic Observation
• Archival Data KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Nonequivalent Groups Design
• Pretest-Posttest Design Does Psychotherapy Work?
• Interrupted Time Series Design
• Combination Designs KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Qualitative Research?
• The Purpose of Qualitative Research
• Data Analysis in Quantitative Research
• The Quantitative-Qualitative “Debate” KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Measures of Different Constructs
• Manipulation Checks
• Measures of the Same Construct KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Assigning Participants to Conditions
• Nonmanipulated Independent Variables
• Graphing the Results of Factorial Experiments
• Main Effects and Interactions KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Correlational Studies With Factorial Designs
• Assessing Relationships Among Multiple Variables
• Exploring Causal Relationships KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Survey Research?
• History and Uses of Survey Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• A Cognitive Model
• Context Effects on Questionnaire Responses
• Types of Items What Is a Likert Scale?
• Writing Effective Items
• Formatting the Questionnaire KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Sampling Sample Size and Population Size
• Sampling Bias
• Conducting the Survey Online Survey Creation KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Single-Subject Research? The Case of “Anna O.”
• Assumptions of Single-Subject Research
• Who Uses Single-Subject Research? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• General Features of Single-Subject Designs
• Reversal Designs
• Multiple-Baseline Designs
• Data Analysis in Single-Subject Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Data Analysis
• Single-Subject and Group Research as Complementary Methods KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is APA Style?
• The Levels of APA Style APA Style and the Values of Psychology Online APA Style Resources
• Journal Articles
• Book Chapters
• Reference Citations KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Title Page and Abstract It’s Soooo Cute!
• Introduction
• The Opening Breaking the Rules
• The Literature Review
• The Closing
• Appendixes, Tables, and Figures
• Sample APA-Style Research Report KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Review and Theoretical Articles
• Final Manuscripts
• Conference Presentations Professional Conferences
• Oral Presentations
• Posters KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Frequency Tables
• Distribution Shapes
• Central Tendency
• Measures of Variability N or N− 1
• Percentile Ranks and Scores Online Descriptive Statistics KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Correlations Between Quantitative Variables KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Presenting Descriptive Statistics in Writing
• Line Graphs
• Scatterplots
• Expressing Descriptive Statistics in Tables KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Prepare Your Data for Analysis
• Preliminary Analyses
• Answer Your Research Questions
• Understand Your Descriptive Statistics KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• The Purpose of Null Hypothesis Testing
• The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing The Misunderstood p Value
• Role of Sample Size and Relationship Strength
• Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• One-Sample Test
• Example One-Sample Test
• The Dependent-Samples Test
• Example Dependent-Samples t Test
• The Independent-Samples Test
• Example Independent-Samples t Test
• One-Way ANOVA
• Example One-Way ANOVA
• Post Hoc Comparisons
• Repeated-Measures ANOVA
• Factorial ANOVA
• Example Test of Pearson’s KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Errors in Null Hypothesis Testing
• Statistical Power Computing Power Online
• Criticisms of Null Hypothesis Testing
• What to Do? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
•  Back Matter

This action cannot be undo.

Choose a delete action Empty this page Remove this page and its subpages

Content is out of sync. You must reload the page to continue.

New page type Book Topic Interactive Learning Content

• Config Page
• Add Page Before
• Add Page After
• Delete Page