what are characteristics of good hypothesis

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, how long should i let wd-40 sit.

by Thomas Harrison
November 1, 2023

LS Engine Sizes: Exploring the Smallest Chevy Powerhouses in 2023

November 3, 2023

How Does Deb Find Out About Dexter?

October 7, 2023

Can You Change Siri to Jarvis?

by Travis Heath

What is a 65 Grade: Exploring Passing and Failing in College

by Mr. Gilbert Preston
October 31, 2023

Can a Human Fight a Komodo Dragon?

October 28, 2023

The Best PhD and Masters Consulting Company

Characteristics Of A Good Hypothesis

What exactly is a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a conclusion reached after considering the evidence. This is the first step in any investigation, where the research questions are translated into a prediction. Variables, population, and the relationship between the variables are all included. A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is tested to see if two or more variables have a relationship. Now let’s have a look at the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Characteristics of

A good hypothesis has the following characteristics.

Ability To Predict

Closest to things that can be seen, testability, relevant to the issue, techniques that are applicable, new discoveries have been made as a result of this ., harmony & consistency.

The similarity between the two phenomena.
Observations from previous studies, current experiences, and feedback from rivals.
Theories based on science.
People’s thinking processes are influenced by general patterns.
A straightforward hypothesis
Complex Hypothesis
Hypothesis with a certain direction
Non-direction Hypothesis
Null Hypothesis
Hypothesis of association and chance

2.4 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 imporant to distinguish betwee 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. 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 observation 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) [1] . 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). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure 2.2 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.

Figure 4.4 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated 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) [2] . 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) [3] 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 really it 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.

Key Takeaways

A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
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. ↵

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?

Hero Images/Getty Images

Scientific Method
Chemical Laws
Periodic Table
Projects & Experiments
Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry
Medical Chemistry
Chemistry In Everyday Life
Famous Chemists
Activities for Kids
Abbreviations & Acronyms
Weather & Climate
Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction of what will happen. In science, a hypothesis proposes a relationship between factors called variables. A good hypothesis relates an independent variable and a dependent variable. The effect on the dependent variable depends on or is determined by what happens when you change the independent variable . While you could consider any prediction of an outcome to be a type of hypothesis, a good hypothesis is one you can test using the scientific method. In other words, you want to propose a hypothesis to use as the basis for an experiment.

Cause and Effect or 'If, Then' Relationships

A good experimental hypothesis can be written as an if, then statement to establish cause and effect on the variables. If you make a change to the independent variable, then the dependent variable will respond. Here's an example of a hypothesis:

If you increase the duration of light, (then) corn plants will grow more each day.

The hypothesis establishes two variables, length of light exposure, and the rate of plant growth. An experiment could be designed to test whether the rate of growth depends on the duration of light. The duration of light is the independent variable, which you can control in an experiment . The rate of plant growth is the dependent variable, which you can measure and record as data in an experiment.

Key Points of Hypothesis

When you have an idea for a hypothesis, it may help to write it out in several different ways. Review your choices and select a hypothesis that accurately describes what you are testing.

Does the hypothesis relate an independent and dependent variable? Can you identify the variables?
Can you test the hypothesis? In other words, could you design an experiment that would allow you to establish or disprove a relationship between the variables?
Would your experiment be safe and ethical?
Is there a simpler or more precise way to state the hypothesis? If so, rewrite it.

What If the Hypothesis Is Incorrect?

It's not wrong or bad if the hypothesis is not supported or is incorrect. Actually, this outcome may tell you more about a relationship between the variables than if the hypothesis is supported. You may intentionally write your hypothesis as a null hypothesis or no-difference hypothesis to establish a relationship between the variables.

For example, the hypothesis:

The rate of corn plant growth does not depend on the duration of light.

This can be tested by exposing corn plants to different length "days" and measuring the rate of plant growth. A statistical test can be applied to measure how well the data support the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is not supported, then you have evidence of a relationship between the variables. It's easier to establish cause and effect by testing whether "no effect" is found. Alternatively, if the null hypothesis is supported, then you have shown the variables are not related. Either way, your experiment is a success.

Need more examples of how to write a hypothesis ? Here you go:

If you turn out all the lights, you will fall asleep faster. (Think: How would you test it?)
If you drop different objects, they will fall at the same rate.
If you eat only fast food, then you will gain weight.
If you use cruise control, then your car will get better gas mileage.
If you apply a top coat, then your manicure will last longer.
If you turn the lights on and off rapidly, then the bulb will burn out faster.
Null Hypothesis Examples
Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables
Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables
Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
Six Steps of the Scientific Method
What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
The Role of a Controlled Variable in an Experiment
How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
Independent Variable Definition and Examples
Dependent Variable Definition and Examples
Scientific Method Flow Chart
Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
Definition of a Hypothesis
Scientific Variable

Manuscript Preparation

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

4 minute read
321.2K views

Table of Contents

One of the most important aspects of conducting research is constructing a strong hypothesis. But what makes a hypothesis in research effective? In this article, we’ll look at the difference between a hypothesis and a research question, as well as the elements of a good hypothesis in research. We’ll also include some examples of effective hypotheses, and what pitfalls to avoid.

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Simply put, a hypothesis is a research question that also includes the predicted or expected result of the research. Without a hypothesis, there can be no basis for a scientific or research experiment. As such, it is critical that you carefully construct your hypothesis by being deliberate and thorough, even before you set pen to paper. Unless your hypothesis is clearly and carefully constructed, any flaw can have an adverse, and even grave, effect on the quality of your experiment and its subsequent results.

Research Question vs Hypothesis

It’s easy to confuse research questions with hypotheses, and vice versa. While they’re both critical to the Scientific Method, they have very specific differences. Primarily, a research question, just like a hypothesis, is focused and concise. But a hypothesis includes a prediction based on the proposed research, and is designed to forecast the relationship of and between two (or more) variables. Research questions are open-ended, and invite debate and discussion, while hypotheses are closed, e.g. “The relationship between A and B will be C.”

A hypothesis is generally used if your research topic is fairly well established, and you are relatively certain about the relationship between the variables that will be presented in your research. Since a hypothesis is ideally suited for experimental studies, it will, by its very existence, affect the design of your experiment. The research question is typically used for new topics that have not yet been researched extensively. Here, the relationship between different variables is less known. There is no prediction made, but there may be variables explored. The research question can be casual in nature, simply trying to understand if a relationship even exists, descriptive or comparative.

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Writing an effective hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like any task, preparation is key, so you start first by conducting research yourself, and reading all you can about the topic that you plan to research. From there, you’ll gain the knowledge you need to understand where your focus within the topic will lie.

Remember that a hypothesis is a prediction of the relationship that exists between two or more variables. Your job is to write a hypothesis, and design the research, to “prove” whether or not your prediction is correct. A common pitfall is to use judgments that are subjective and inappropriate for the construction of a hypothesis. It’s important to keep the focus and language of your hypothesis objective.

An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions.

Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis:

Predicts the relationship and outcome
Simple and concise – avoid wordiness
Clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
Observable and testable results
Relevant and specific to the research question or problem

Research Hypothesis Example

Perhaps the best way to evaluate whether or not your hypothesis is effective is to compare it to those of your colleagues in the field. There is no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to writing a powerful research hypothesis. As you’re reading and preparing your hypothesis, you’ll also read other hypotheses. These can help guide you on what works, and what doesn’t, when it comes to writing a strong research hypothesis.

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

Eating an apple each day, after the age of 60, will result in a reduction of frequency of physician visits.

Budget airlines are more likely to receive more customer complaints. A budget airline is defined as an airline that offers lower fares and fewer amenities than a traditional full-service airline. (Note that the term “budget airline” is included in the hypothesis.

Workplaces that offer flexible working hours report higher levels of employee job satisfaction than workplaces with fixed hours.

Each of the above examples are specific, observable and measurable, and the statement of prediction can be verified or shown to be false by utilizing standard experimental practices. It should be noted, however, that often your hypothesis will change as your research progresses.

Language Editing Plus

Elsevier’s Language Editing Plus service can help ensure that your research hypothesis is well-designed, and articulates your research and conclusions. Our most comprehensive editing package, you can count on a thorough language review by native-English speakers who are PhDs or PhD candidates. We’ll check for effective logic and flow of your manuscript, as well as document formatting for your chosen journal, reference checks, and much more.

Research Process

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear Civil Engineering Papers

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

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

Developing a Hypothesis

Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton

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.

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.

what are characteristics of good hypothesis

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

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.

Developing a Hypothesis Copyright © by Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

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

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.

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

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

The story of a research study begins by asking a question. Researchers all around the globe are asking curious questions and formulating research hypothesis. However, whether the research study provides an effective conclusion depends on how well one develops a good research hypothesis. Research hypothesis examples could help researchers get an idea as to how to write a good research hypothesis.

This blog will help you understand what is a research hypothesis, its characteristics and, how to formulate a research hypothesis

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is an assumption or an idea proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested. It is a precise, testable statement of what the researchers predict will be outcome of the study. Hypothesis usually involves proposing a relationship between two variables: the independent variable (what the researchers change) and the dependent variable (what the research measures).

What is a Research Hypothesis?

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It is an integral part of the scientific method that forms the basis of scientific experiments. Therefore, you need to be careful and thorough when building your research hypothesis. A minor flaw in the construction of your hypothesis could have an adverse effect on your experiment. In research, there is a convention that the hypothesis is written in two forms, the null hypothesis, and the alternative hypothesis (called the experimental hypothesis when the method of investigation is an experiment).

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

As the hypothesis is specific, there is a testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. You may consider drawing hypothesis from previously published research based on the theory.

A good research hypothesis involves more effort than just a guess. In particular, your hypothesis may begin with a question that could be further explored through background research.

To help you formulate a promising research hypothesis, you should ask yourself the following questions:

Is the language clear and focused?
What is the relationship between your hypothesis and your research topic?
Is your hypothesis testable? If yes, then how?
What are the possible explanations that you might want to explore?
Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
Can you manipulate your variables without hampering the ethical standards?
Does your research predict the relationship and outcome?
Is your research simple and concise (avoids wordiness)?
Is it clear with no ambiguity or assumptions about the readers’ knowledge
Is your research observable and testable results?
Is it relevant and specific to the research question or problem?

The questions listed above can be used as a checklist to make sure your hypothesis is based on a solid foundation. Furthermore, it can help you identify weaknesses in your hypothesis and revise it if necessary.

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

A testable hypothesis is not a simple statement. It is rather an intricate statement that needs to offer a clear introduction to a scientific experiment, its intentions, and the possible outcomes. However, there are some important things to consider when building a compelling hypothesis.

1. State the problem that you are trying to solve.

Make sure that the hypothesis clearly defines the topic and the focus of the experiment.

2. Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement.

Follow this template: If a specific action is taken, then a certain outcome is expected.

3. Define the variables

Independent variables are the ones that are manipulated, controlled, or changed. Independent variables are isolated from other factors of the study.

Dependent variables , as the name suggests are dependent on other factors of the study. They are influenced by the change in independent variable.

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

Evaluate assumptions, predictions, and evidence rigorously to refine your understanding.

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable.

2. Complex Hypothesis

It predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables.

3. Directional Hypothesis

It specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables and is derived from theory. Furthermore, it implies the researcher’s intellectual commitment to a particular outcome.

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

It does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. The non-directional hypothesis is used when there is no theory involved or when findings contradict previous research.

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables. A change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. On the other hand, the causal hypothesis proposes an effect on the dependent due to manipulation of the independent variable.

6. Null Hypothesis

Null hypothesis states a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. There will be no changes in the dependent variable due the manipulation of the independent variable. Furthermore, it states results are due to chance and are not significant in terms of supporting the idea being investigated.

7. Alternative Hypothesis

It states that there is a relationship between the two variables of the study and that the results are significant to the research topic. An experimental hypothesis predicts what changes will take place in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated. Also, it states that the results are not due to chance and that they are significant in terms of supporting the theory being investigated.

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

Research Hypothesis Example 1 The greater number of coal plants in a region (independent variable) increases water pollution (dependent variable). If you change the independent variable (building more coal factories), it will change the dependent variable (amount of water pollution).

Research Hypothesis Example 2 What is the effect of diet or regular soda (independent variable) on blood sugar levels (dependent variable)? If you change the independent variable (the type of soda you consume), it will change the dependent variable (blood sugar levels)

You should not ignore the importance of the above steps. The validity of your experiment and its results rely on a robust testable hypothesis. Developing a strong testable hypothesis has few advantages, it compels us to think intensely and specifically about the outcomes of a study. Consequently, it enables us to understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved in the study. Furthermore, it helps us to make precise predictions based on prior research. Hence, forming a hypothesis would be of great value to the research. Here are some good examples of testable hypotheses.

More importantly, you need to build a robust testable research hypothesis for your scientific experiments. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of experimentation.

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

To devise and perform an experiment using scientific method, you need to make sure that your hypothesis is testable. To be considered testable, some essential criteria must be met:

There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is true.
There must be a possibility to prove that the hypothesis is false.
The results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.

Without these criteria, the hypothesis and the results will be vague. As a result, the experiment will not prove or disprove anything significant.

What are your experiences with building hypotheses for scientific experiments? What challenges did you face? How did you overcome these challenges? Please share your thoughts with us in the comments section.

Frequently Asked Questions

The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a ‘if-then’ structure. 3. Defining the variables: Define the variables as Dependent or Independent based on their dependency to other factors. 4. Scrutinizing the hypothesis: Identify the type of your hypothesis

Hypothesis testing is a statistical tool which is used to make inferences about a population data to draw conclusions for a particular hypothesis.

Hypothesis in statistics is a formal statement about the nature of a population within a structured framework of a statistical model. It is used to test an existing hypothesis by studying a population.

Research hypothesis is a statement that introduces a research question and proposes an expected result. It forms the basis of scientific experiments.

The different types of hypothesis in research are: • Null hypothesis: Null hypothesis is a negative statement to support the researcher’s findings that there is no relationship between two variables. • Alternate hypothesis: Alternate hypothesis predicts the relationship between the two variables of the study. • Directional hypothesis: Directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction to be followed to determine the relationship between variables. • Non-directional hypothesis: Non-directional hypothesis does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables. • Simple hypothesis: Simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. • Complex hypothesis: Complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Associative and casual hypothesis: Associative and casual hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. • Empirical hypothesis: Empirical hypothesis can be tested via experiments and observation. • Statistical hypothesis: A statistical hypothesis utilizes statistical models to draw conclusions about broader populations.

Wow! You really simplified your explanation that even dummies would find it easy to comprehend. Thank you so much.

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

I enjoy reading the post. Hypotheses are actually an intrinsic part in a study. It bridges the research question and the methodology of the study.

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

It very interesting to read the topic, can you guide me any specific example of hypothesis process establish throw the Demand and supply of the specific product in market

Nicely explained

It is really a useful for me Kindly give some examples of hypothesis

It was a well explained content ,can you please give me an example with the null and alternative hypothesis illustrated

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

Explained well and in simple terms. Quick read! Thank you

It awesome. It has really positioned me in my research project

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

Content Analysis vs Thematic Analysis: What's the difference?

Reporting Research

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for data interpretation

In research, choosing the right approach to understand data is crucial for deriving meaningful insights.…

Cross-sectional and Longitudinal Study Design

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right approach

The process of choosing the right research design can put ourselves at the crossroads of…

Industry News

COPE Forum Discussion Highlights Challenges and Urges Clarity in Institutional Authorship Standards

The COPE forum discussion held in December 2023 initiated with a fundamental question — is…

Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

Embarking on your first academic conference experience? Fear not, we got you covered! Academic conferences…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Research recommendations play a crucial role in guiding scholars and researchers toward fruitful avenues of…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Comparing Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Studies: 5 steps for choosing the right…

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

2000+ blog articles
50+ Webinars
10+ Expert podcasts
50+ Infographics
10+ Checklists
Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

As a researcher, what do you consider most when choosing an image manipulation detector?

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.

3.5: Developing A Hypothesis

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 75017

University of Missouri–St. Louis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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). He pro- posed 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.

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 atheoretical and only after a set of observations has been made is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and 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 relation- ship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster and through 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 feel- ings—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). 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 them- selves 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 some- times 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 the phenomena 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 pre- diction 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 \(\PageIndex{1}\) 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). 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 cock- roach) 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 cock- roaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans [Zajonc & Sales, 1966] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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 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, how- ever, 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.

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

A research hypothesis, in its plural form “hypotheses,” is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method .

Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding

Some key points about hypotheses:

A hypothesis expresses an expected pattern or relationship. It connects the variables under investigation.
It is stated in clear, precise terms before any data collection or analysis occurs. This makes the hypothesis testable.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable. It should be possible, even if unlikely in practice, to collect data that disconfirms rather than supports the hypothesis.
Hypotheses guide research. Scientists design studies to explicitly evaluate hypotheses about how nature works.
For a hypothesis to be valid, it must be testable against empirical evidence. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.
Hypotheses are informed by background knowledge and observation, but go beyond what is already known to propose an explanation of how or why something occurs.

Predictions typically arise from a thorough knowledge of the research literature, curiosity about real-world problems or implications, and integrating this to advance theory. They build on existing literature while providing new insight.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

The research hypothesis is often called the alternative or experimental hypothesis in experimental research.

It typically suggests a potential relationship between two key variables: the independent variable, which the researcher manipulates, and the dependent variable, which is measured based on those changes.

The alternative hypothesis states a relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable affects the other).

A hypothesis is a testable statement or prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a key component of the scientific method. Some key points about hypotheses:

Important hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested empirically. The evidence can then confirm or disprove the testable predictions.

In summary, a hypothesis is a precise, testable statement of what researchers expect to happen in a study and why. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.

An experimental hypothesis predicts what change(s) will occur in the dependent variable when the independent variable is manipulated.

It states that the results are not due to chance and are significant in supporting the theory being investigated.

The alternative hypothesis can be directional, indicating a specific direction of the effect, or non-directional, suggesting a difference without specifying its nature. It’s what researchers aim to support or demonstrate through their study.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states no relationship exists between the two variables being studied (one variable does not affect the other). There will be no changes in the dependent variable due to manipulating the independent variable.

It states results are due to chance and are not significant in supporting the idea being investigated.

The null hypothesis, positing no effect or relationship, is a foundational contrast to the research hypothesis in scientific inquiry. It establishes a baseline for statistical testing, promoting objectivity by initiating research from a neutral stance.

Many statistical methods are tailored to test the null hypothesis, determining the likelihood of observed results if no true effect exists.

This dual-hypothesis approach provides clarity, ensuring that research intentions are explicit, and fosters consistency across scientific studies, enhancing the standardization and interpretability of research outcomes.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis, also known as a two-tailed hypothesis, predicts that there is a difference or relationship between two variables but does not specify the direction of this relationship.

It merely indicates that a change or effect will occur without predicting which group will have higher or lower values.

For example, “There is a difference in performance between Group A and Group B” is a non-directional hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the nature of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. It predicts in which direction the change will take place. (i.e., greater, smaller, less, more)

It specifies whether one variable is greater, lesser, or different from another, rather than just indicating that there’s a difference without specifying its nature.

For example, “Exercise increases weight loss” is a directional hypothesis.

Falsifiability

The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper , is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory or hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be testable and irrefutable.

Falsifiability emphasizes that scientific claims shouldn’t just be confirmable but should also have the potential to be proven wrong.

It means that there should exist some potential evidence or experiment that could prove the proposition false.

However many confirming instances exist for a theory, it only takes one counter observation to falsify it. For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white,” can be falsified by observing a black swan.

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually provide evidence to support a research hypothesis.

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

Hypotheses make probabilistic predictions. They state the expected outcome if a particular relationship exists. However, a study result supporting a hypothesis does not definitively prove it is true.

All studies have limitations. There may be unknown confounding factors or issues that limit the certainty of conclusions. Additional studies may yield different results.

In science, hypotheses can realistically only be supported with some degree of confidence, not proven. The process of science is to incrementally accumulate evidence for and against hypothesized relationships in an ongoing pursuit of better models and explanations that best fit the empirical data. But hypotheses remain open to revision and rejection if that is where the evidence leads.

Disproving a hypothesis is definitive. Solid disconfirmatory evidence will falsify a hypothesis and require altering or discarding it based on the evidence.
However, confirming evidence is always open to revision. Other explanations may account for the same results, and additional or contradictory evidence may emerge over time.

We can never 100% prove the alternative hypothesis. Instead, we see if we can disprove, or reject the null hypothesis.

If we reject the null hypothesis, this doesn’t mean that our alternative hypothesis is correct but does support the alternative/experimental hypothesis.

Upon analysis of the results, an alternative hypothesis can be rejected or supported, but it can never be proven to be correct. We must avoid any reference to results proving a theory as this implies 100% certainty, and there is always a chance that evidence may exist which could refute a theory.

How to Write a Hypothesis

Identify variables . The researcher manipulates the independent variable and the dependent variable is the measured outcome.
Operationalized the variables being investigated . Operationalization of a hypothesis refers to the process of making the variables physically measurable or testable, e.g. if you are about to study aggression, you might count the number of punches given by participants.
Decide on a direction for your prediction . If there is evidence in the literature to support a specific effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis. If there are limited or ambiguous findings in the literature regarding the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, write a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis.
Make it Testable : Ensure your hypothesis can be tested through experimentation or observation. It should be possible to prove it false (principle of falsifiability).
Clear & concise language . A strong hypothesis is concise (typically one to two sentences long), and formulated using clear and straightforward language, ensuring it’s easily understood and testable.

Consider a hypothesis many teachers might subscribe to: students work better on Monday morning than on Friday afternoon (IV=Day, DV= Standard of work).

Now, if we decide to study this by giving the same group of students a lesson on a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon and then measuring their immediate recall of the material covered in each session, we would end up with the following:

The alternative hypothesis states that students will recall significantly more information on a Monday morning than on a Friday afternoon.
The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant difference in the amount recalled on a Monday morning compared to a Friday afternoon. Any difference will be due to chance or confounding factors.

More Examples

Memory : Participants exposed to classical music during study sessions will recall more items from a list than those who studied in silence.
Social Psychology : Individuals who frequently engage in social media use will report higher levels of perceived social isolation compared to those who use it infrequently.
Developmental Psychology : Children who engage in regular imaginative play have better problem-solving skills than those who don’t.
Clinical Psychology : Cognitive-behavioral therapy will be more effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety over a 6-month period compared to traditional talk therapy.
Cognitive Psychology : Individuals who multitask between various electronic devices will have shorter attention spans on focused tasks than those who single-task.
Health Psychology : Patients who practice mindfulness meditation will experience lower levels of chronic pain compared to those who don’t meditate.
Organizational Psychology : Employees in open-plan offices will report higher levels of stress than those in private offices.
Behavioral Psychology : Rats rewarded with food after pressing a lever will press it more frequently than rats who receive no reward.

Research Methodology

Qualitative Data Coding

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Korean Med Sci
v.34(45); 2019 Nov 25

Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications

Armen yuri gasparyan.

1 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.

Lilit Ayvazyan

2 Department of Medical Chemistry, Yerevan State Medical University, Yerevan, Armenia.

Ulzhan Mukanova

3 Department of Surgical Disciplines, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

George D. Kitas

5 Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in rapidly developing academic disciplines. Proposing new ideas and hypotheses require thorough analyses of evidence-based data and predictions of the implications. One of the main concerns relates to the ethical implications of the generated hypotheses. The authors may need to outline potential benefits and limitations of their suggestions and target widely visible publication outlets to ignite discussion by experts and start testing the hypotheses. Not many publication outlets are currently welcoming hypotheses and unconventional ideas that may open gates to criticism and conservative remarks. A few scholarly journals guide the authors on how to structure hypotheses. Reflecting on general and specific issues around the subject matter is often recommended for drafting a well-structured hypothesis article. An analysis of influential hypotheses, presented in this article, particularly Strachan's hygiene hypothesis with global implications in the field of immunology and allergy, points to the need for properly interpreting and testing new suggestions. Envisaging the ethical implications of the hypotheses should be considered both by authors and journal editors during the writing and publishing process.

INTRODUCTION

We live in times of digitization that radically changes scientific research, reporting, and publishing strategies. Researchers all over the world are overwhelmed with processing large volumes of information and searching through numerous online platforms, all of which make the whole process of scholarly analysis and synthesis complex and sophisticated.

Current research activities are diversifying to combine scientific observations with analysis of facts recorded by scholars from various professional backgrounds. 1 Citation analyses and networking on social media are also becoming essential for shaping research and publishing strategies globally. 2 Learning specifics of increasingly interdisciplinary research studies and acquiring information facilitation skills aid researchers in formulating innovative ideas and predicting developments in interrelated scientific fields.

Arguably, researchers are currently offered more opportunities than in the past for generating new ideas by performing their routine laboratory activities, observing individual cases and unusual developments, and critically analyzing published scientific facts. What they need at the start of their research is to formulate a scientific hypothesis that revisits conventional theories, real-world processes, and related evidence to propose new studies and test ideas in an ethical way. 3 Such a hypothesis can be of most benefit if published in an ethical journal with wide visibility and exposure to relevant online databases and promotion platforms.

Although hypotheses are crucially important for the scientific progress, only few highly skilled researchers formulate and eventually publish their innovative ideas per se . Understandably, in an increasingly competitive research environment, most authors would prefer to prioritize their ideas by discussing and conducting tests in their own laboratories or clinical departments, and publishing research reports afterwards. However, there are instances when simple observations and research studies in a single center are not capable of explaining and testing new groundbreaking ideas. Formulating hypothesis articles first and calling for multicenter and interdisciplinary research can be a solution in such instances, potentially launching influential scientific directions, if not academic disciplines.

The aim of this article is to overview the importance and implications of infrequently published scientific hypotheses that may open new avenues of thinking and research.

Despite the seemingly established views on innovative ideas and hypotheses as essential research tools, no structured definition exists to tag the term and systematically track related articles. In 1973, the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) of the U.S. National Library of Medicine introduced “Research Design” as a structured keyword that referred to the importance of collecting data and properly testing hypotheses, and indirectly linked the term to ethics, methods and standards, among many other subheadings.

One of the experts in the field defines “hypothesis” as a well-argued analysis of available evidence to provide a realistic (scientific) explanation of existing facts, fill gaps in public understanding of sophisticated processes, and propose a new theory or a test. 4 A hypothesis can be proven wrong partially or entirely. However, even such an erroneous hypothesis may influence progress in science by initiating professional debates that help generate more realistic ideas. The main ethical requirement for hypothesis authors is to be honest about the limitations of their suggestions. 5

EXAMPLES OF INFLUENTIAL SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Daily routine in a research laboratory may lead to groundbreaking discoveries provided the daily accounts are comprehensively analyzed and reproduced by peers. The discovery of penicillin by Sir Alexander Fleming (1928) can be viewed as a prime example of such discoveries that introduced therapies to treat staphylococcal and streptococcal infections and modulate blood coagulation. 6 , 7 Penicillin got worldwide recognition due to the inventor's seminal works published by highly prestigious and widely visible British journals, effective ‘real-world’ antibiotic therapy of pneumonia and wounds during World War II, and euphoric media coverage. 8 In 1945, Fleming, Florey and Chain got a much deserved Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery that led to the mass production of the wonder drug in the U.S. and ‘real-world practice’ that tested the use of penicillin. What remained globally unnoticed is that Zinaida Yermolyeva, the outstanding Soviet microbiologist, created the Soviet penicillin, which turned out to be more effective than the Anglo-American penicillin and entered mass production in 1943; that year marked the turning of the tide of the Great Patriotic War. 9 One of the reasons of the widely unnoticed discovery of Zinaida Yermolyeva is that her works were published exclusively by local Russian (Soviet) journals.

The past decades have been marked by an unprecedented growth of multicenter and global research studies involving hundreds and thousands of human subjects. This trend is shaped by an increasing number of reports on clinical trials and large cohort studies that create a strong evidence base for practice recommendations. Mega-studies may help generate and test large-scale hypotheses aiming to solve health issues globally. Properly designed epidemiological studies, for example, may introduce clarity to the hygiene hypothesis that was originally proposed by David Strachan in 1989. 10 David Strachan studied the epidemiology of hay fever in a cohort of 17,414 British children and concluded that declining family size and improved personal hygiene had reduced the chances of cross infections in families, resulting in epidemics of atopic disease in post-industrial Britain. Over the past four decades, several related hypotheses have been proposed to expand the potential role of symbiotic microorganisms and parasites in the development of human physiological immune responses early in life and protection from allergic and autoimmune diseases later on. 11 , 12 Given the popularity and the scientific importance of the hygiene hypothesis, it was introduced as a MeSH term in 2012. 13

Hypotheses can be proposed based on an analysis of recorded historic events that resulted in mass migrations and spreading of certain genetic diseases. As a prime example, familial Mediterranean fever (FMF), the prototype periodic fever syndrome, is believed to spread from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean region and all over Europe due to migrations and religious prosecutions millennia ago. 14 Genetic mutations spearing mild clinical forms of FMF are hypothesized to emerge and persist in the Mediterranean region as protective factors against more serious infectious diseases, particularly tuberculosis, historically common in that part of the world. 15 The speculations over the advantages of carrying the MEditerranean FeVer (MEFV) gene are further strengthened by recorded low mortality rates from tuberculosis among FMF patients of different nationalities living in Tunisia in the first half of the 20th century. 16

Diagnostic hypotheses shedding light on peculiarities of diseases throughout the history of mankind can be formulated using artefacts, particularly historic paintings. 17 Such paintings may reveal joint deformities and disfigurements due to rheumatic diseases in individual subjects. A series of paintings with similar signs of pathological conditions interpreted in a historic context may uncover mysteries of epidemics of certain diseases, which is the case with Ruben's paintings depicting signs of rheumatic hands and making some doctors to believe that rheumatoid arthritis was common in Europe in the 16th and 17th century. 18

WRITING SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

There are author instructions of a few journals that specifically guide how to structure, format, and make submissions categorized as hypotheses attractive. One of the examples is presented by Med Hypotheses , the flagship journal in its field with more than four decades of publishing and influencing hypothesis authors globally. However, such guidance is not based on widely discussed, implemented, and approved reporting standards, which are becoming mandatory for all scholarly journals.

Generating new ideas and scientific hypotheses is a sophisticated task since not all researchers and authors are skilled to plan, conduct, and interpret various research studies. Some experience with formulating focused research questions and strong working hypotheses of original research studies is definitely helpful for advancing critical appraisal skills. However, aspiring authors of scientific hypotheses may need something different, which is more related to discerning scientific facts, pooling homogenous data from primary research works, and synthesizing new information in a systematic way by analyzing similar sets of articles. To some extent, this activity is reminiscent of writing narrative and systematic reviews. As in the case of reviews, scientific hypotheses need to be formulated on the basis of comprehensive search strategies to retrieve all available studies on the topics of interest and then synthesize new information selectively referring to the most relevant items. One of the main differences between scientific hypothesis and review articles relates to the volume of supportive literature sources ( Table 1 ). In fact, hypothesis is usually formulated by referring to a few scientific facts or compelling evidence derived from a handful of literature sources. 19 By contrast, reviews require analyses of a large number of published documents retrieved from several well-organized and evidence-based databases in accordance with predefined search strategies. 20 , 21 , 22

The format of hypotheses, especially the implications part, may vary widely across disciplines. Clinicians may limit their suggestions to the clinical manifestations of diseases, outcomes, and management strategies. Basic and laboratory scientists analysing genetic, molecular, and biochemical mechanisms may need to view beyond the frames of their narrow fields and predict social and population-based implications of the proposed ideas. 23

Advanced writing skills are essential for presenting an interesting theoretical article which appeals to the global readership. Merely listing opposing facts and ideas, without proper interpretation and analysis, may distract the experienced readers. The essence of a great hypothesis is a story behind the scientific facts and evidence-based data.

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors of hypotheses substantiate their arguments by referring to and discerning rational points from published articles that might be overlooked by others. Their arguments may contradict the established theories and practices, and pose global ethical issues, particularly when more or less efficient medical technologies and public health interventions are devalued. The ethical issues may arise primarily because of the careless references to articles with low priorities, inadequate and apparently unethical methodologies, and concealed reporting of negative results. 24 , 25

Misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the published ideas and scientific hypotheses may complicate the issue further. For example, Alexander Fleming, whose innovative ideas of penicillin use to kill susceptible bacteria saved millions of lives, warned of the consequences of uncontrolled prescription of the drug. The issue of antibiotic resistance had emerged within the first ten years of penicillin use on a global scale due to the overprescription that affected the efficacy of antibiotic therapies, with undesirable consequences for millions. 26

The misunderstanding of the hygiene hypothesis that primarily aimed to shed light on the role of the microbiome in allergic and autoimmune diseases resulted in decline of public confidence in hygiene with dire societal implications, forcing some experts to abandon the original idea. 27 , 28 Although that hypothesis is unrelated to the issue of vaccinations, the public misunderstanding has resulted in decline of vaccinations at a time of upsurge of old and new infections.

A number of ethical issues are posed by the denial of the viral (human immunodeficiency viruses; HIV) hypothesis of acquired Immune deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) by Peter Duesberg, who overviewed the links between illicit recreational drugs and antiretroviral therapies with AIDS and refuted the etiological role of HIV. 29 That controversial hypothesis was rejected by several journals, but was eventually published without external peer review at Med Hypotheses in 2010. The publication itself raised concerns of the unconventional editorial policy of the journal, causing major perturbations and more scrutinized publishing policies by journals processing hypotheses.

WHERE TO PUBLISH HYPOTHESES

Although scientific authors are currently well informed and equipped with search tools to draft evidence-based hypotheses, there are still limited quality publication outlets calling for related articles. The journal editors may be hesitant to publish articles that do not adhere to any research reporting guidelines and open gates for harsh criticism of unconventional and untested ideas. Occasionally, the editors opting for open-access publishing and upgrading their ethics regulations launch a section to selectively publish scientific hypotheses attractive to the experienced readers. 30 However, the absence of approved standards for this article type, particularly no mandate for outlining potential ethical implications, may lead to publication of potentially harmful ideas in an attractive format.

A suggestion of simultaneously publishing multiple or alternative hypotheses to balance the reader views and feedback is a potential solution for the mainstream scholarly journals. 31 However, that option alone is hardly applicable to emerging journals with unconventional quality checks and peer review, accumulating papers with multiple rejections by established journals.

A large group of experts view hypotheses with improbable and controversial ideas publishable after formal editorial (in-house) checks to preserve the authors' genuine ideas and avoid conservative amendments imposed by external peer reviewers. 32 That approach may be acceptable for established publishers with large teams of experienced editors. However, the same approach can lead to dire consequences if employed by nonselective start-up, open-access journals processing all types of articles and primarily accepting those with charged publication fees. 33 In fact, pseudoscientific ideas arguing Newton's and Einstein's seminal works or those denying climate change that are hardly testable have already found their niche in substandard electronic journals with soft or nonexistent peer review. 34

CITATIONS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ATTENTION

The available preliminary evidence points to the attractiveness of hypothesis articles for readers, particularly those from research-intensive countries who actively download related documents. 35 However, citations of such articles are disproportionately low. Only a small proportion of top-downloaded hypotheses (13%) in the highly prestigious Med Hypotheses receive on average 5 citations per article within a two-year window. 36

With the exception of a few historic papers, the vast majority of hypotheses attract relatively small number of citations in a long term. 36 Plausible explanations are that these articles often contain a single or only a few citable points and that suggested research studies to test hypotheses are rarely conducted and reported, limiting chances of citing and crediting authors of genuine research ideas.

A snapshot analysis of citation activity of hypothesis articles may reveal interest of the global scientific community towards their implications across various disciplines and countries. As a prime example, Strachan's hygiene hypothesis, published in 1989, 10 is still attracting numerous citations on Scopus, the largest bibliographic database. As of August 28, 2019, the number of the linked citations in the database is 3,201. Of the citing articles, 160 are cited at least 160 times ( h -index of this research topic = 160). The first three citations are recorded in 1992 and followed by a rapid annual increase in citation activity and a peak of 212 in 2015 ( Fig. 1 ). The top 5 sources of the citations are Clin Exp Allergy (n = 136), J Allergy Clin Immunol (n = 119), Allergy (n = 81), Pediatr Allergy Immunol (n = 69), and PLOS One (n = 44). The top 5 citing authors are leading experts in pediatrics and allergology Erika von Mutius (Munich, Germany, number of publications with the index citation = 30), Erika Isolauri (Turku, Finland, n = 27), Patrick G Holt (Subiaco, Australia, n = 25), David P. Strachan (London, UK, n = 23), and Bengt Björksten (Stockholm, Sweden, n = 22). The U.S. is the leading country in terms of citation activity with 809 related documents, followed by the UK (n = 494), Germany (n = 314), Australia (n = 211), and the Netherlands (n = 177). The largest proportion of citing documents are articles (n = 1,726, 54%), followed by reviews (n = 950, 29.7%), and book chapters (n = 213, 6.7%). The main subject areas of the citing items are medicine (n = 2,581, 51.7%), immunology and microbiology (n = 1,179, 23.6%), and biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (n = 415, 8.3%).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is jkms-34-e300-g001.jpg

Interestingly, a recent analysis of 111 publications related to Strachan's hygiene hypothesis, stating that the lack of exposure to infections in early life increases the risk of rhinitis, revealed a selection bias of 5,551 citations on Web of Science. 37 The articles supportive of the hypothesis were cited more than nonsupportive ones (odds ratio adjusted for study design, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.6–3.1). A similar conclusion pointing to a citation bias distorting bibliometrics of hypotheses was reached by an earlier analysis of a citation network linked to the idea that β-amyloid, which is involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer disease, is produced by skeletal muscle of patients with inclusion body myositis. 38 The results of both studies are in line with the notion that ‘positive’ citations are more frequent in the field of biomedicine than ‘negative’ ones, and that citations to articles with proven hypotheses are too common. 39

Social media channels are playing an increasingly active role in the generation and evaluation of scientific hypotheses. In fact, publicly discussing research questions on platforms of news outlets, such as Reddit, may shape hypotheses on health-related issues of global importance, such as obesity. 40 Analyzing Twitter comments, researchers may reveal both potentially valuable ideas and unfounded claims that surround groundbreaking research ideas. 41 Social media activities, however, are unevenly distributed across different research topics, journals and countries, and these are not always objective professional reflections of the breakthroughs in science. 2 , 42

Scientific hypotheses are essential for progress in science and advances in healthcare. Innovative ideas should be based on a critical overview of related scientific facts and evidence-based data, often overlooked by others. To generate realistic hypothetical theories, the authors should comprehensively analyze the literature and suggest relevant and ethically sound design for future studies. They should also consider their hypotheses in the context of research and publication ethics norms acceptable for their target journals. The journal editors aiming to diversify their portfolio by maintaining and introducing hypotheses section are in a position to upgrade guidelines for related articles by pointing to general and specific analyses of the subject, preferred study designs to test hypotheses, and ethical implications. The latter is closely related to specifics of hypotheses. For example, editorial recommendations to outline benefits and risks of a new laboratory test or therapy may result in a more balanced article and minimize associated risks afterwards.

Not all scientific hypotheses have immediate positive effects. Some, if not most, are never tested in properly designed research studies and never cited in credible and indexed publication outlets. Hypotheses in specialized scientific fields, particularly those hardly understandable for nonexperts, lose their attractiveness for increasingly interdisciplinary audience. The authors' honest analysis of the benefits and limitations of their hypotheses and concerted efforts of all stakeholders in science communication to initiate public discussion on widely visible platforms and social media may reveal rational points and caveats of the new ideas.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

Conceptualization: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD.
Methodology: Gasparyan AY, Mukanova U, Ayvazyan L.
Writing - original draft: Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Yessirkepov M.
Writing - review & editing: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Mukanova U, Kitas GD.

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk, "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

Forming a question
Performing background research
Creating a hypothesis
Designing an experiment
Collecting data
Analyzing the results
Drawing conclusions
Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you expect to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment do not support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
Can your hypothesis be tested?
Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method , falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that if something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
Can you manipulate the variables?
Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the dependent variable if you change the independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

"Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
"Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."
"Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
"Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

"People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
"Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

"There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
"There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
"There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

"People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
"Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
"Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not."

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as case studies , naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a correlational study can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually cause another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses . R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:]. Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ? PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies . Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

What is Hypothesis? Definition, Meaning, Characteristics, Sources

Post last modified: 10 January 2022
Reading time: 18 mins read
Post category: Research Methodology

What is Hypothesis?

Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.

As an example, if we want to explore whether using a specific teaching method at school will result in better school marks (research question), the hypothesis could be that the mean school marks of students being taught with that specific teaching method will be higher than of those being taught using other methods.

In this example, we stated a hypothesis about the expected differences between groups. Other hypotheses may refer to correlations between variables.

Table of Content

1 What is Hypothesis?
2 Hypothesis Definition
3 Meaning of Hypothesis
4.1 Conceptual Clarity
4.2 Need of empirical referents
4.3 Hypothesis should be specific
4.4 Hypothesis should be within the ambit of the available research techniques
4.5 Hypothesis should be consistent with the theory
4.6 Hypothesis should be concerned with observable facts and empirical events
4.7 Hypothesis should be simple
5.1 Observation
5.2 Analogies
5.4 State of Knowledge
5.5 Culture
5.6 Continuity of Research
6.1 Null Hypothesis
6.2 Alternative Hypothesis

Thus, to formulate a hypothesis, we need to refer to the descriptive statistics (such as the mean final marks), and specify a set of conditions about these statistics (such as a difference between the means, or in a different example, a positive or negative correlation). The hypothesis we formulate applies to the population of interest.

The null hypothesis makes a statement that no difference exists (see Pyrczak, 1995, pp. 75-84).

Hypothesis Definition

A hypothesis is ‘a guess or supposition as to the existence of some fact or law which will serve to explain a connection of facts already known to exist.’ – J. E. Creighton & H. R. Smart

Hypothesis is ‘a proposition not known to be definitely true or false, examined for the sake of determining the consequences which would follow from its truth.’ – Max Black

Hypothesis is ‘a proposition which can be put to a test to determine validity and is useful for further research.’ – W. J. Goode and P. K. Hatt

A hypothesis is a proposition, condition or principle which is assumed, perhaps without belief, in order to draw out its logical consequences and by this method to test its accord with facts which are known or may be determined. – Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language (1956)

Meaning of Hypothesis

From the above mentioned definitions of hypothesis, its meaning can be explained in the following ways.

At the primary level, a hypothesis is the possible and probable explanation of the sequence of happenings or data.
Sometimes, hypothesis may emerge from an imagination, common sense or a sudden event.
Hypothesis can be a probable answer to the research problem undertaken for study. 4. Hypothesis may not always be true. It can get disproven. In other words, hypothesis need not always be a true proposition.
Hypothesis, in a sense, is an attempt to present the interrelations that exist in the available data or information.
Hypothesis is not an individual opinion or community thought. Instead, it is a philosophical means which is to be used for research purpose. Hypothesis is not to be considered as the ultimate objective; rather it is to be taken as the means of explaining scientifically the prevailing situation.

The concept of hypothesis can further be explained with the help of some examples. Lord Keynes, in his theory of national income determination, made a hypothesis about the consumption function. He stated that the consumption expenditure of an individual or an economy as a whole is dependent on the level of income and changes in a certain proportion.

Later, this proposition was proved in the statistical research carried out by Prof. Simon Kuznets. Matthus, while studying the population, formulated a hypothesis that population increases faster than the supply of food grains. Population studies of several countries revealed that this hypothesis is true.

Validation of the Malthus’ hypothesis turned it into a theory and when it was tested in many other countries it became the famous Malthus’ Law of Population. It thus emerges that when a hypothesis is tested and proven, it becomes a theory. The theory, when found true in different times and at different places, becomes the law. Having understood the concept of hypothesis, few hypotheses can be formulated in the areas of commerce and economics.

Population growth moderates with the rise in per capita income.
Sales growth is positively linked with the availability of credit.
Commerce education increases the employability of the graduate students.
High rates of direct taxes prompt people to evade taxes.
Good working conditions improve the productivity of employees.
Advertising is the most effecting way of promoting sales than any other scheme.
Higher Debt-Equity Ratio increases the probability of insolvency.
Economic reforms in India have made the public sector banks more efficient and competent.
Foreign direct investment in India has moved in those sectors which offer higher rate of profit.
There is no significant association between credit rating and investment of fund.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Not all the hypotheses are good and useful from the point of view of research. It is only a few hypotheses satisfying certain criteria that are good, useful and directive in the research work undertaken. The characteristics of such a useful hypothesis can be listed as below:

Conceptual Clarity

Need of empirical referents, hypothesis should be specific, hypothesis should be within the ambit of the available research techniques, hypothesis should be consistent with the theory, hypothesis should be concerned with observable facts and empirical events, hypothesis should be simple.

The concepts used while framing hypothesis should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Such concepts must be clearly defined so that they become lucid and acceptable to everyone. How are the newly developed concepts interrelated and how are they linked with the old one is to be very clear so that the hypothesis framed on their basis also carries the same clarity.

A hypothesis embodying unclear and ambiguous concepts can to a great extent undermine the successful completion of the research work.

A hypothesis can be useful in the research work undertaken only when it has links with some empirical referents. Hypothesis based on moral values and ideals are useless as they cannot be tested. Similarly, hypothesis containing opinions as good and bad or expectation with respect to something are not testable and therefore useless.

For example, ‘current account deficit can be lowered if people change their attitude towards gold’ is a hypothesis encompassing expectation. In case of such a hypothesis, the attitude towards gold is something which cannot clearly be described and therefore a hypothesis which embodies such an unclean thing cannot be tested and proved or disproved. In short, the hypothesis should be linked with some testable referents.

For the successful conduction of research, it is necessary that the hypothesis is specific and presented in a precise manner. Hypothesis which is general, too ambitious and grandiose in scope is not to be made as such hypothesis cannot be easily put to test. A hypothesis is to be based on such concepts which are precise and empirical in nature. A hypothesis should give a clear idea about the indicators which are to be used.

For example, a hypothesis that economic power is increasingly getting concentrated in a few hands in India should enable us to define the concept of economic power. It should be explicated in terms of measurable indicator like income, wealth, etc. Such specificity in the formulation of a hypothesis ensures that the research is practicable and significant.

While framing the hypothesis, the researcher should be aware of the available research techniques and should see that the hypothesis framed is testable on the basis of them. In other words, a hypothesis should be researchable and for this it is important that a due thought has been given to the methods and techniques which can be used to measure the concepts and variables embodied in the hypothesis.

It does not however mean that hypotheses which are not testable with the available techniques of research are not to be made. If the problem is too significant and therefore the hypothesis framed becomes too ambitious and complex, it’s testing becomes possible with the development of new research techniques or the hypothesis itself leads to the development of new research techniques.

A hypothesis must be related to the existing theory or should have a theoretical orientation. The growth of knowledge takes place in the sequence of facts, hypothesis, theory and law or principles. It means the hypothesis should have a correspondence with the existing facts and theory.

If the hypothesis is related to some theory, the research work will enable us to support, modify or refute the existing theory. Theoretical orientation of the hypothesis ensures that it becomes scientifically useful. According to Prof. Goode and Prof. Hatt, research work can contribute to the existing knowledge only when the hypothesis is related with some theory.

This enables us to explain the observed facts and situations and also verify the framed hypothesis. In the words of Prof. Cohen and Prof. Nagel, “hypothesis must be formulated in such a manner that deduction can be made from it and that consequently a decision can be reached as to whether it does or does not explain the facts considered.”

If the research work based on a hypothesis is to be successful, it is necessary that the later is as simple and easy as possible. An ambition of finding out something new may lead the researcher to frame an unrealistic and unclear hypothesis. Such a temptation is to be avoided. Framing a simple, easy and testable hypothesis requires that the researcher is well acquainted with the related concepts.

Sources of Hypothesis

Hypotheses can be derived from various sources. Some of the sources is given below:

Observation

State of knowledge, continuity of research.

Hypotheses can be derived from observation from the observation of price behavior in a market. For example the relationship between the price and demand for an article is hypothesized.

Analogies are another source of useful hypotheses. Julian Huxley has pointed out that casual observations in nature or in the framework of another science may be a fertile source of hypotheses. For example, the hypotheses that similar human types or activities may be found in similar geophysical regions come from plant ecology.

This is one of the main sources of hypotheses. It gives direction to research by stating what is known logical deduction from theory lead to new hypotheses. For example, profit / wealth maximization is considered as the goal of private enterprises. From this assumption various hypotheses are derived’.

An important source of hypotheses is the state of knowledge in any particular science where formal theories exist hypotheses can be deduced. If the hypotheses are rejected theories are scarce hypotheses are generated from conception frameworks.

Another source of hypotheses is the culture on which the researcher was nurtured. Western culture has induced the emergence of sociology as an academic discipline over the past decade, a large part of the hypotheses on American society examined by researchers were connected with violence. This interest is related to the considerable increase in the level of violence in America.

The continuity of research in a field itself constitutes an important source of hypotheses. The rejection of some hypotheses leads to the formulation of new ones capable of explaining dependent variables in subsequent research on the same subject.

Null and Alternative Hypothesis

Null hypothesis.

The hypothesis that are proposed with the intent of receiving a rejection for them are called Null Hypothesis . This requires that we hypothesize the opposite of what is desired to be proved. For example, if we want to show that sales and advertisement expenditure are related, we formulate the null hypothesis that they are not related.

Similarly, if we want to conclude that the new sales training programme is effective, we formulate the null hypothesis that the new training programme is not effective, and if we want to prove that the average wages of skilled workers in town 1 is greater than that of town 2, we formulate the null hypotheses that there is no difference in the average wages of the skilled workers in both the towns.

Since we hypothesize that sales and advertisement are not related, new training programme is not effective and the average wages of skilled workers in both the towns are equal, we call such hypotheses null hypotheses and denote them as H 0 .

Alternative Hypothesis

Rejection of null hypotheses leads to the acceptance of alternative hypothesis . The rejection of null hypothesis indicates that the relationship between variables (e.g., sales and advertisement expenditure) or the difference between means (e.g., wages of skilled workers in town 1 and town 2) or the difference between proportions have statistical significance and the acceptance of the null hypotheses indicates that these differences are due to chance.

As already mentioned, the alternative hypotheses specify that values/relation which the researcher believes hold true. The alternative hypotheses can cover a whole range of values rather than a single point. The alternative hypotheses are denoted by H 1 .

Business Ethics

( Click on Topic to Read )

What is Ethics?
What is Business Ethics?
Values, Norms, Beliefs and Standards in Business Ethics
Indian Ethos in Management
Ethical Issues in Marketing
Ethical Issues in HRM
Ethical Issues in IT
Ethical Issues in Production and Operations Management
Ethical Issues in Finance and Accounting
What is Corporate Governance?
What is Ownership Concentration?
What is Ownership Composition?
Types of Companies in India
Internal Corporate Governance
External Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance in India
What is Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)?
What is Assessment of Risk?
What is Risk Register?
Risk Management Committee

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Theories of CSR
Arguments Against CSR
Business Case for CSR
Importance of CSR in India
Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
Developing a CSR Strategy
Implement CSR Commitments
CSR Marketplace
CSR at Workplace
Environmental CSR
CSR with Communities and in Supply Chain
Community Interventions
CSR Monitoring
CSR Reporting
Voluntary Codes in CSR
What is Corporate Ethics?

Lean Six Sigma

What is Six Sigma?
What is Lean Six Sigma?
Value and Waste in Lean Six Sigma
Six Sigma Team
MAIC Six Sigma
Six Sigma in Supply Chains
What is Binomial, Poisson, Normal Distribution?
What is Sigma Level?
What is DMAIC in Six Sigma?
What is DMADV in Six Sigma?
Six Sigma Project Charter
Project Decomposition in Six Sigma
Critical to Quality (CTQ) Six Sigma
Process Mapping Six Sigma
Flowchart and SIPOC
Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility
Statistical Diagram
Lean Techniques for Optimisation Flow
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
What is Process Audits?
Six Sigma Implementation at Ford
IBM Uses Six Sigma to Drive Behaviour Change
Research Methodology
What is Research?

Sampling Method

Research Methods

Data Collection in Research

Methods of Collecting Data
Application of Business Research

Levels of Measurement

What is Sampling?
Hypothesis Testing
Research Report
What is Management?
Planning in Management
Decision Making in Management
What is Controlling?
What is Coordination?
What is Staffing?
Organization Structure
What is Departmentation?
Span of Control
What is Authority?
Centralization vs Decentralization
Organizing in Management
Schools of Management Thought
Classical Management Approach
Is Management an Art or Science?
Who is a Manager?

Operations Research

What is Operations Research?
Operation Research Models
Linear Programming
Linear Programming Graphic Solution
Linear Programming Simplex Method
Linear Programming Artificial Variable Technique
Duality in Linear Programming
Transportation Problem Initial Basic Feasible Solution
Transportation Problem Finding Optimal Solution
Project Network Analysis with Critical Path Method
Project Network Analysis Methods
Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
Simulation in Operation Research
Replacement Models in Operation Research

Operation Management

What is Strategy?
What is Operations Strategy?
Operations Competitive Dimensions
Operations Strategy Formulation Process
What is Strategic Fit?
Strategic Design Process
Focused Operations Strategy
Corporate Level Strategy
Expansion Strategies
Stability Strategies
Retrenchment Strategies
Competitive Advantage
Strategic Choice and Strategic Alternatives
What is Production Process?
What is Process Technology?
What is Process Improvement?
Strategic Capacity Management
Production and Logistics Strategy
Taxonomy of Supply Chain Strategies
Factors Considered in Supply Chain Planning
Operational and Strategic Issues in Global Logistics
Logistics Outsourcing Strategy
What is Supply Chain Mapping?
Supply Chain Process Restructuring
Points of Differentiation
Re-engineering Improvement in SCM
What is Supply Chain Drivers?
Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model
Customer Service and Cost Trade Off
Internal and External Performance Measures
Linking Supply Chain and Business Performance
Netflix’s Niche Focused Strategy
Disney and Pixar Merger
Process Planning at Mcdonald’s

Service Operations Management

What is Service?
What is Service Operations Management?
What is Service Design?
Service Design Process
Service Delivery
What is Service Quality?
Gap Model of Service Quality
Juran Trilogy
Service Performance Measurement
Service Decoupling
IT Service Operation
Service Operations Management in Different Sector

Procurement Management

What is Procurement Management?
Procurement Negotiation
Types of Requisition
RFX in Procurement
What is Purchasing Cycle?
Vendor Managed Inventory
Internal Conflict During Purchasing Operation
Spend Analysis in Procurement
Sourcing in Procurement
Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Procurement
Blacklisting of Suppliers in Procurement
Total Cost of Ownership in Procurement
Incoterms in Procurement
Documents Used in International Procurement
Transportation and Logistics Strategy
What is Capital Equipment?
Procurement Process of Capital Equipment
Acquisition of Technology in Procurement
What is E-Procurement?
E-marketplace and Online Catalogues
Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement Contracts
Contract Cancellation in Procurement
Ethics in Procurement
Legal Aspects of Procurement
Global Sourcing in Procurement
Intermediaries and Countertrade in Procurement

Strategic Management

What is Strategic Management?
What is Value Chain Analysis?
Mission Statement
Business Level Strategy
What is SWOT Analysis?
What is Competitive Advantage?
What is Vision?
What is Ansoff Matrix?
Prahalad and Gary Hammel
Strategic Management In Global Environment
Competitor Analysis Framework
Competitive Rivalry Analysis
Competitive Dynamics
What is Competitive Rivalry?
Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
What is PESTLE Analysis?
Fragmentation and Consolidation Of Industries
What is Technology Life Cycle?
What is Diversification Strategy?
What is Corporate Restructuring Strategy?
Resources and Capabilities of Organization
Role of Leaders In Functional-Level Strategic Management
Functional Structure In Functional Level Strategy Formulation
Information And Control System
What is Strategy Gap Analysis?
Issues In Strategy Implementation
Matrix Organizational Structure
What is Strategic Management Process?

Supply Chain

What is Supply Chain Management?
Supply Chain Planning and Measuring Strategy Performance
What is Warehousing?
What is Packaging?
What is Inventory Management?
What is Material Handling?
What is Order Picking?
Receiving and Dispatch, Processes
What is Warehouse Design?
What is Warehousing Costs?

What is research methodology, what is scaling techniques types, classifications, techniques, what is sampling need, advantages, limitations, measures of relationship, what is hypothesis testing procedure, research process | types, what is measure of dispersion, what is measure of central tendency, ethics in research, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal growth.

Development

Scientific Methods

What is Hypothesis?

We have heard of many hypotheses which have led to great inventions in science. Assumptions that are made on the basis of some evidence are known as hypotheses. In this article, let us learn in detail about the hypothesis and the type of hypothesis with examples.

A hypothesis is an assumption that is made based on some evidence. This is the initial point of any investigation that translates the research questions into predictions. It includes components like variables, population and the relation between the variables. A research hypothesis is a hypothesis that is used to test the relationship between two or more variables.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis:

The hypothesis should be clear and precise to consider it to be reliable.
If the hypothesis is a relational hypothesis, then it should be stating the relationship between variables.
The hypothesis must be specific and should have scope for conducting more tests.
The way of explanation of the hypothesis must be very simple and it should also be understood that the simplicity of the hypothesis is not related to its significance.

Sources of Hypothesis

Following are the sources of hypothesis:

The resemblance between the phenomenon.
Observations from past studies, present-day experiences and from the competitors.
Scientific theories.
General patterns that influence the thinking process of people.

Types of Hypothesis

There are six forms of hypothesis and they are:

Simple hypothesis
Complex hypothesis
Directional hypothesis
Non-directional hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Associative and casual hypothesis

Simple Hypothesis

It shows a relationship between one dependent variable and a single independent variable. For example – If you eat more vegetables, you will lose weight faster. Here, eating more vegetables is an independent variable, while losing weight is the dependent variable.

Complex Hypothesis

It shows the relationship between two or more dependent variables and two or more independent variables. Eating more vegetables and fruits leads to weight loss, glowing skin, and reduces the risk of many diseases such as heart disease.

Directional Hypothesis

It shows how a researcher is intellectual and committed to a particular outcome. The relationship between the variables can also predict its nature. For example- children aged four years eating proper food over a five-year period are having higher IQ levels than children not having a proper meal. This shows the effect and direction of the effect.

Non-directional Hypothesis

It is used when there is no theory involved. It is a statement that a relationship exists between two variables, without predicting the exact nature (direction) of the relationship.

Null Hypothesis

It provides a statement which is contrary to the hypothesis. It’s a negative statement, and there is no relationship between independent and dependent variables. The symbol is denoted by “H O ”.

Associative and Causal Hypothesis

Associative hypothesis occurs when there is a change in one variable resulting in a change in the other variable. Whereas, the causal hypothesis proposes a cause and effect interaction between two or more variables.

Examples of Hypothesis

Following are the examples of hypotheses based on their types:

Consumption of sugary drinks every day leads to obesity is an example of a simple hypothesis.
All lilies have the same number of petals is an example of a null hypothesis.
If a person gets 7 hours of sleep, then he will feel less fatigue than if he sleeps less. It is an example of a directional hypothesis.

Functions of Hypothesis

Following are the functions performed by the hypothesis:

Hypothesis helps in making an observation and experiments possible.
It becomes the start point for the investigation.
Hypothesis helps in verifying the observations.
It helps in directing the inquiries in the right direction.

How will Hypothesis help in the Scientific Method?

Researchers use hypotheses to put down their thoughts directing how the experiment would take place. Following are the steps that are involved in the scientific method:

Formation of question
Doing background research
Creation of hypothesis
Designing an experiment
Collection of data
Result analysis
Summarizing the experiment
Communicating the results

Frequently Asked Questions – FAQs

What is hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an assumption made based on some evidence.

Give an example of simple hypothesis?

What are the types of hypothesis.

Types of hypothesis are:

Associative and Casual hypothesis

State true or false: Hypothesis is the initial point of any investigation that translates the research questions into a prediction.

Define complex hypothesis..

A complex hypothesis shows the relationship between two or more dependent variables and two or more independent variables.

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Physics related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Characteristics & Qualities of a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis possesses the following certain attributes.

Power of Prediction

One of the valuable attribute of a good hypothesis is to predict for future. It not only clears the present problematic situation but also predict for the future that what would be happened in the coming time. So, hypothesis is a best guide of research activity due to power of prediction.

Closest to observable things

A hypothesis must have close contact with observable things. It does not believe on air castles but it is based on observation. Those things and objects which we cannot observe, for that hypothesis cannot be formulated. The verification of a hypothesis is based on observable things.

A hypothesis should be so dabble to every layman, P.V young says, “A hypothesis wo0uld be simple, if a researcher has more in sight towards the problem”. W-ocean stated that, “A hypothesis should be as sharp as razor’s blade”. So, a good hypothesis must be simple and have no complexity.

A hypothesis must be conceptually clear. It should be clear from ambiguous information’s. The terminology used in it must be clear and acceptable to everyone.

Testability

A good hypothesis should be tested empirically. It should be stated and formulated after verification and deep observation. Thus testability is the primary feature of a good hypothesis.

Relevant to Problem

If a hypothesis is relevant to a particular problem, it would be considered as good one. A hypothesis is guidance for the identification and solution of the problem, so it must be accordance to the problem.

It should be formulated for a particular and specific problem. It should not include generalization. If generalization exists, then a hypothesis cannot reach to the correct conclusions.

Relevant to available Techniques

Hypothesis must be relevant to the techniques which is available for testing. A researcher must know about the workable techniques before formulating a hypothesis.

Fruitful for new Discoveries

It should be able to provide new suggestions and ways of knowledge. It must create new discoveries of knowledge J.S. Mill, one of the eminent researcher says that “Hypothesis is the best source of new knowledge it creates new ways of discoveries”.

Consistency & Harmony

Internal harmony and consistency is a major characteristic of good hypothesis. It should be out of contradictions and conflicts. There must be a close relationship between variables which one is dependent on other.

Map showing the distribution of 26 habitat patches (upper, generated by ArcGIS, version 10.7, https://www.esri.com/en-us/home ) and landscape of Huaxi University Town, Guizhou, China (lower; source: Huahua Zhao).

Effects of landscape and habitat characteristics on bird richness

We recorded a total of 70 breeding bird species, including songbirds, scansores, terrestrial birds, wading birds, and natatores (excluding birds recorded only once and fly-overs such as raptors, swallows and swifts; see Table S1 for more details), through 14 surveys. The number of species per patch varied from 14 to 56 (Table S2 ), with an average of 26 ± 10 (SD) species per patch. Among the five landscape and habitat characteristics measured, including patch area, isolation, PAR, habitat richness, and woody plant richness (for variations of these covariates across the patches, see Table S2 ), correlations were lower between patch area, isolation, and habitat richness (Fig. S1 ). Using linear regressions, we examined the relationships between bird richness and the three covariates with lower correlations. Among five models based on the island biogeography theory and the habitat diversity hypothesis, as well as the null model that included the intercept only, the best and well-fitted model suggested that patch area and habitat richness were important factors explaining the variation of bird richness (Table S3 ). We also employed linear regressions to examine the relationships between habitat richness with patch area and isolation (two models with combinations of the two covariates, as well as the null model), and between woody plant richness with patch area, isolation and habitat richness (five models with combinations of the three covariates, as well as the null model). The best and well-fitted model(s) suggested that patch area and isolation were important factors explaining the variation of habitat richness, while patch area, isolation, and habitat richness were important factors explaining the variation of woody plant richness (Table S3 ).

We further used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine causal relationships by decomposing direct from indirect effects, including the covariates in the best model(s), as well as those with high correlations with them but excluded in linear models. The best supported and well-fitted model derived from SEM included patch area, isolation, and habitat richness, while PAR and woody plant richness were not included in the model (Fig. 2 ). The model showed that patch area had a significant direct effect on bird richness, despite an indirect effect via habitat richness (Fig. 2 ), while isolation have no significant direct or indirect effects on bird richness.

Summary of the best supported structural equation modeling (SEM) testing the direct and indirect effects of landscape and habitat characteristics on bird richness. Blue arrows represent significant positive paths, while gray arrows represent non-significant paths. Standardized path coefficient estimates are given next to each path. The proportion of explained variance ( R 2 ) for each endogenous variable, attributed to the effects of the other variables, is provided. Patch area was log-transformed, and all variables were centralized and standardized. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated using chi-square test with statistics including chi-square ( χ 2 ), degrees of freedom ( df ), and P value ( P ), and four additional metrics, including comparative fit index ( CFI ), Tucker–Lewis index ( TLF ), root mean square error of approximation ( RMSEA ), and standard root mean square residual ( SRMR ).

Effects of landscape and habitat characteristics on bird assemblage composition

We applied r-mode linked to q-mode (RLQ) analysis to examine covariation between the landscape and habitat characteristics, bird species functional traits (including body size, HWI, habitat specificity, clutch size, trophic level, territoriality and flocking tendency; for variations of these traits across species, see Table S4 ) by measuring abundance of bird species (i.e., bird assemblage composition). The first two RLQ axes accounted for 82.29% and 15.80% of total co-variation between the landscape and habitat characteristics of the patches and bird species functional traits mediated by bird assemblage composition. This corresponded to 33.82% with the correlation produced by the species abundance matrix correspondence analysis (L), and 97.73% and 52.73% with the potential inertia expressed for the first axis in principal component analysis of the landscape and habitat characteristics of the patches (R) and bird species functional traits (Q), respectively (Table 1 ). While the landscape and habitat characteristics and species functional traits correlated along the first two RLQ axes (Fig. 3 a), fourth-corner analysis revealed no significant correlation between them (Fig. 3 b).

Results of r-mode linked to q-mode (RLQ) and fourth-corner analyses. ( a ) Correlation between landscape and habitat characteristics (green arrows) and bird species functional traits (orange arrows) along the first two RLQ axes, with the percentage of total co-inertia provided in parentheses. The correlation was mediated by abundance of bird species (i.e., bird assemblage composition). ( b ) Correlation table from the fourth-corner test displaying bivariate associations between landscape and habitat characteristics and bird species functional traits. Patch area and PAR were log-transformed. Cells shaded in gray indicate no significant association (for statistics, see Table S5 ).

Furthermore, we performed Procrustes analysis to assess how the differences in bird assemblages across patches can be explained or linked to the compositional differences in habitat types and woody plant species. The results revealed a significant correlation between bird assemblage composition and habitat type composition per patch (Fig. 4 a), and also between bird assemblage composition and woody plant species composition per patch (Fig. 4 b).

Results of Procrustes analysis based on a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. ( a ) Correlation between abundance of bird species (i.e., bird assemblage composition; green dots) and the presence/absence of habitat types (i.e., habitat type composition; orange dots); and ( b ) correlation between abundance of bird species (green dots) and the presence/absence of woody plant species (i.e., woody plant species composition; orange dots). The length of arrows connecting dots illustrates the difference in distance between the samples in the NMDS ordination space. A smaller sum of squares ( M 2 ) and a higher correlation coefficient ( r ) indicate a stronger correlation.

Consistent with many studies on fragmented habitats 7 , 32 , our results showed a significant positive correlation between bird richness and patch area. Two competing theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain the relationship. The island biogeography theory 3 interprets that populations of species in smaller patches are more vulnerable to random events, environmental fluctuations, or catastrophic events, which could lead to local extinctions. In contrast, the habitat diversity hypothesis 4 argues that patch area exerts minimal effects, with habitat diversity (measured as habitat richness and plant richness in our study) playing a crucial role in determining species richness. Our SEM results revealed that, as reported in several other habitat fragmentation systems 30 , 33 , patch area had direct and indirect (particularly through habitat richness) effects on bird richness. This suggests a complementary relationship between these two theoretical frameworks in explaining changes in bird richness in our study system.

While the island biogeography theory predicts that species richness decreases as isolation increases 3 , results from different studies are mixed 34 . Due to the highly developed flight capabilities of birds, short-distance isolation has limited effects on their dispersal or dispersion, potentially resulting in negligible isolation effects 9 , 10 . In our study area, there was relatively low isolation between different patches, with some patches being separated only by a single road. The fragmented patches were usually interspersed with artificial green spaces (e.g., flowerbeds and lawns) or areas cultivated with roadside trees, which may result in an influx of generalists or urban adapters that that gradually habituate to human disturbance 18 , 19 , 35 , such as the Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus , white-browed laughingthrush Garrulax sannio , and brown-breasted bulbul Pycnonotus xanthorrhous , thereby mitigating the level of isolation 9 , 20 .

We also found no significant correlation between bird richness and PAR, suggesting weak edge effects. Environmental conditions at the patch edges differ from those in the interior 13 . In habitats fragmented by urbanization, anthropogenic influences at the edge of habitat patches, such as traffic disturbance, noise pollution, and human interference, tend to be higher than in the patch interior 10 , 19 . Thus, patches with larger PAR (i.e., higher proportion of edge habitat) may be less suitable for species that are less tolerant of human disturbance 11 , 14 . However, there may be positive edge effects for some species 15 , 16 , 17 . For instance, some urban adapters that gradually habituate to human disturbance 18 , 19 , 35 , such as the Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus , white-browed laughingthrush Garrulax sannio , and brown-breasted bulbul Pycnonotus xanthorrhous, may benefit from patch edge ecotones, such as receiving supplemental food spillover from human activities at these edges 20 , leading to weak edge effects. In addition, the lack of significant edge effects may be due to extinction debt 36 , 37 , given that the urban landscape was established a relatively short period of 11‒14 years ago. The manifestation of effects related to the establishment of habitat edges necessitates a temporal progression 2 . Besides, the methods of data collection, which primarily involved transects running through the center of the patches and under-surveyed edge habitats, may have contributed to the absence of detected edge effects.

Although patch area had significant direct and indirect effects (mediated by habitat richness) on bird richness, these factors did not significantly sort bird species according to their specific functional traits. Some previous studies have suggested habitat fragmentation can indeed sort bird species with specific functional traits 18 , 21 , 22 . For example, Tai et al. 22 demonstrated strong effects of trait-mediated environmental filters that selected bird species with smaller body mass and lower habitat specificity in 37 urban parks. Croci et al. 18 , using passerine data from 13 woodlands along a short rural–urban gradient, revealed that birds that adapted well to urban constrains such as habitat fragmentation tended to be omnivorous. We argue that the lack of sorting by landscape characteristics based on species functional traits in our study system may be attributed to extinction debt, where species may persist in smaller patches and experience a time lag before ultimately disappearing 2 , 36 , 37 .

Instead, we found a significant correlation between bird assemblage composition and habitat type composition (i.e., woodlands, scrublands, grasslands, wetlands, exposed karst rocks, and croplands), and also between bird assemblage composition and woody plant species composition across the patches. Given the substantial compositional variations in habitat types and woody plant species observed between the patches 38 , we argue that habitat heterogeneity provides opportunities for different species to occupy microhabitats across the patches, leading to the absence of a clear sorting by landscape characteristics based on species functional traits. Although birds generally have strong dispersal abilities, which would normally reduce the impact of isolation on dispersal limitations, intense interspecific competition during breeding, such as defending territories and nesting sites, may cause them to stay within their home range instead of dispersing between different patches 9 . For instance, we observed that birds such as the black drongo Dicrurus macrocercus and Red-billed blue magpie Urocissa erythroryncha evicting other species to protect their territories. Consequently, intense interspecific competition could result in species occupying different microhabitats within heterogeneous habitats, thus facilitating meta-community persistence 9 , 39 .

Our results suggested that neither the island biogeography theory nor the habitat diversity hypothesis can work strongly in explaining the impacts of habitat fragmentation on bird richness in our study system. However, habitat type and plant compositions play a crucial role in driving the variation in bird assemblage composition across heterogeneous habitat patches. While further studies are needed to collect data, especially for woody plants, through the establishment of standard plots representative of the entire study patches, and to examine edge effects by comparing assemblages in sites with different distances to patch edges 16 , 40 , our findings already hold important implications for sustainable landscape planning and habitat restoration strategies. Given that habitat fragmentation due to urbanization is increasing in scale and rate, and that species richness will decrease with patch size reduction, we emphasize that conservation efforts in urban planning, construction and development should focus not only on preserving large areas but also on maintaining and promoting diverse habitats within those areas 22 . Habitats with more complex habitat types and greater plant species diversity not only help in preventing urban monocultures, as are common in many cities, especially in China 6 , 41 , but also favor meta-community persistence and contribute to the local pool of species 39 , potentially enhancing ecological resilience in urban environments.

Materials and methods

The study was conducted over 20 km 2 in the central zone of Huaxi University Town, Guizhou province, southwest China (Fig. 1 ). The study area is a karst limestone plateau region at approximately 1200 m elevation, characterized by a subtropical humid temperate climate. Urban construction in this area commenced in 2009 to provide infrastructure for five universities that opened in 2012. Prior to this new development, the region comprised natural woodlots surrounded by croplands. Subsequently, human activity, mainly the construction of roads and buildings, transformed this region into a matrix of many small habitat patches. These habitat patches primarily consisted of woodlands, complemented by scrublands, grasslands, wetlands, exposed karst rocks, and croplands. For this study, we selected 26 habitat patches to survey birds (Fig. 1 ). In a recent survey, Cao 38 described significant compositional variations in habitat types and woody plant species between these habitat patches.

Field survey and data collection

We used ArcGIS 10.7 ( www.esri.com ) to outline the boundaries of the 26 patches, based on a Google-sourced base map. For each patch, we calculated three landscape characteristics (Table S2 ): area (ranging in size from 0.3 to 290.4 ha), isolation (Euclidean distance between the patch edge and the nearest patch edge, ranging from 10.8 to 273.3 m), and PAR (ranging from 27.0 to 657.0).

We surveyed birds using line transects. The line transects approximately crossed the center of each patch, while also covering different habitat types to maximize species detection. The total transect length in each patch was proportional to patch area (ranging from 82.5 to 7073.7 m; three transects established in the largest patch, and one single through other patches), based on Schoereder et al. 42 . We conducted surveys during the breeding season (April to August, inclusive) from 2017 to 2022, with observations made between 7:00‒10:00 a.m. and 4:00‒6:00 p.m. on weather-permitting days, excluding in rainy or foggy days. Each transect involved two collaborating observers walking at approximately 1.5 km/h, recording birds seen or heard within 50 m along both sides of the transect (see Zheng et al. 9 for more details). Totally, we conducted 14 bird surveys in each patch, with three annually in 2017–2018, four in 2019, one in 2020, two in 2021, and one in 2022. We identified bird species based on MacKinnon et al. 43 and Viney et al. 44 . We selected seven key functional traits for birds, including body size, HWI, habitat specificity, clutch size, trophic level, territoriality, and flocking tendency (see Table S4 ). These data were obtained in part from Zhao 45 and published articles 31 , 46 , supplemented by our own direct observations (Table 2 ).

Using Google imagery and surveys with binoculars along the same line-transects, Cao 38 classified habitat types for each patch, including woodlands, scrublands, grasslands, wetlands, exposed karst rocks, or croplands. Furthermore, Cao 38 recoded woody plant species occurring within 1 m (3 m for trees) on both sides of each transect, identifying them based on Editorial Committee of the Flora of China of Chinese Academy of Science 47 and Editorial Committee of Higher Plants of China in Color 48 . We obtained the data on habitat types and woody plant species in each patch from Cao 38 . Habitat richness per patch ranged from one to five, and woody plant species richness ranged from 26 to 124 (see Table S2 ).

Data analyses

We aggregated 14 surveys to assess bird assemblages, but excluded birds recorded only once and high-flying birds, including raptors, swallows, and swifts. Although we established the length of the transects in each patch roughly proportional to the patch area, the survey efforts were not directly proportional to area. We thus assessed the completeness of our survey for the largest and proportionally least sampled patch by creating the species rarefaction curve based on the number of individuals surveyed across the 6 years. The curve almost levelled off (Fig. S2 ), suggesting the sampling effort was almost sufficient on this and the smaller patches to capture the full breeding bird communities.

We tested the Spearman correlations between landscape and habitat characteristics (Fig. S1 ). For the linear regressions that examined the relationships between bird richness within the patches with their landscape and habitat characteristics, we only included covariates with lower correlations (i.e., patch area, habitat richness, and isolation) to avoid collinearity issues. We constructed five models using the three covariates based on the island biogeography theory and the habitat diversity hypothesis, along with the null model that included the intercept only. We calculated the Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample size ( AIC c) for each model, and ranked the models based on their AICc values. The model with the lowest AIC c value was considered the best model, but these models with the difference in AIC c values ( ΔAIC c) between the best model and them was less than or equal two had equivalent effects in explaining the data 49 .

Furthermore, we used the same approaches as those used to examine bird richness to investigate the relationships between habitat richness and patch area and isolation (two models with combinations of the two covariates, as well as the null model), and between woody plant richness and patch area, isolation and habitat richness (five models with combinations of the three covariates, as well as the null model). By including covariates in the best model(s), as well as those with high correlations with them but excluded in the linear models, we further used SEM to examine causal relationships by decomposing direct from indirect effects of these factors.

We pre-specified nine competing models (Fig. S3 ). Model 1 included direct effects of patch area and habitat richness on bird richness, with an indirect effect of patch area and isolation via habitat richness. Model 2 included direct effects of patch area and woody plant richness on bird richness with an indirect effect of patch area, isolation and habitat richness via woody plant richness, and an indirect effect of patch area and isolation on woody plant richness via habitat richness. Model 3 included direct effects of PAR and habitat richness on bird richness, with an indirect effect of patch area via PAR and an indirect effect of PAR and isolation via habitat richness. Model 4 included direct effects of PAR and woody plant richness on bird richness with an indirect effect of patch area via PAR and an indirect effect of PAR, isolation and habitat richness via woody plant richness, and an indirect effect of PAR and isolation on woody plant richness via habitat richness. Model 5 incorporated the additive effects of models 1 and 2, while model 6 incorporated the additive effects of models 3 and 4. Alternatively, model 7 incorporated the additive effects of models 1 and 3, while model 8 incorporated the additive effects of models 2 and 4. Finally, Model 9 incorporated the additive effects of models 5, 6, 7, and 8. We ranked these competing models using AIC values, considering the model with the lowest AIC value as the best supported. We evaluated model goodness-of-fit using chi-square test, and four additional metrics, including comparative fit index ( CFI ), Tucker–Lewis index ( TLF ), root mean square error of approximation ( RMSEA ), and standard root mean square residual ( SRMR ). A well-fitted model was assumed to have a P value > 0.05 for the chi-square test, CFI > 0.95, TLF > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.06, and SRMR < 0.09 50 .

For the RLQ analysis 51 that examined covariation between the landscape and habitat characteristics and bird species functional traits, we produced three data matrices: landscape and habitat characteristics of each patch (R matrix), abundance of bird species per patch (L matrix), and functional traits per bird species (Q matrix). We carried out correspondence analysis for the L matrix, and principal component analysis for R and Q matrices. We calculated the ordination variance for each matrix separately. We summarized the joint structure of these RLQ analysis matrices over 49,999 permutations, to which we applied fourth-corner analysis 52 to test the significance of correlations of the landscape and habitat characteristics with species functional traits according to the RLQ ordination axes 53 . Given multiple permutations, we adjusted P values using the false discovery rate (FDR) method 54 . As the correlations were not significant, further disentanglement of direct and indirect relationships was not pursued.

For the Procrustes analysis 55 , 56 used to assess how the differences in bird assemblages across patches can be explained or linked to the compositional differences in habitat types and woody plant species, we included three data matrices: abundance of bird species (i.e., bird assemblage composition), presence/absence of habitat types (i.e., habitat type composition), and presence/absence of woody plant species (i.e., woody plant species composition) at each habitat patch. Firstly, we carried out a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis (Bray–Curtis distance) for each of the matrices, to extract the coordinates of the eigenvalue axis for comparison. Subsequently, we applied the Procrustes analysis to measure the degree of congruence between pairs in the matrices. We used the sum of squares ( M 2 ) and P values after 49,999 permutations to evaluate the significance of these associations.

All analyses were performed in R 4.3.1 57 using packages ade 4 58 , lavaan 59 and vegan 60 . Unless otherwise stated, we report means ± SD.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article (and its supplementary information files).

Haddad, N. M. et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci. Adv. 1 , e1500052. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052 (2015).

Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fletcher, R. J. et al. Is habitat fragmentation good for biodiversity?. Biol. Conserv. 226 , 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.022 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Macarthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. The Theory of Island Biogeography (Princeton University Press, 1967).

Google Scholar

Williams, C. B. Patterns in the Balance of Nature (Academic Press, 1964).

de Groot, M. et al. Green space area and type affect bird communities in a South-eastern European city. Urban For. Urban Green. 63 , 127212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127212 (2021).

Li, B. et al. Influence of breeding habitat characteristics and landscape heterogeneity on anuran species richness and abundance in urban parks of Shanghai, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 32 , 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.03.017 (2018).

Article ADS Google Scholar

Leveau, L. M., Ruggiero, A., Matthews, T. J. & Isabel Bellocq, M. A global consistent positive effect of urban green area size on bird richness. Avian Res. 10 , 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-019-0168-3 (2019).

Laurance, W. F. Theory meets reality: How habitat fragmentation research has transcended island biogeographic theory. Biol. Conserv. 141 , 1731–1744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.05.011 (2008).

Zheng, J. et al. Bird diversity and nestedness on fragmented woodlots in Huaxi University Town, Guizhou Province. Biodivers. Sci. 29 , 661–667 (2021).

Yang, X., Tan, X., Chen, C. & Wang, Y. The influence of urban park characteristics on bird diversity in Nanjing, China. Avian Res. 11 , 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-020-00234-5 (2020).

Laurance, W. F. & Yensen, E. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in fragmented habitats. Biol. Conserv. 55 , 77–92 (1991).

Fletcher, J. R. J., Ries, L., Battin, J. & Chalfoun, A. D. The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined?. Can. J. Zool. 85 , 1017–1030. https://doi.org/10.1139/z07-100 (2007).

Wu, J. & Liu, Z. Effect of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity: A review. Chin. J. Ecol. 33 , 1946–1952 (2014).

Ries, L., Fletcher, R. J., Battin, J. & Sisk, T. D. Ecological responses to habitat edges: Mechanisms, models, and variability explained. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35 , 491–522. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130148 (2004).

Pfeifer, M. et al. Creation of forest edges has a global impact on forest vertebrates. Nature 551 , 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24457 (2017).

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ren, P. et al. Forest edges increase pollinator network robustness to extinction with declining area. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01973-y (2023).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fahrig, L. Patch-scale edge effects do not indicate landscape-scale fragmentation effects. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12992 (2023).

Croci, S., Butet, A. & Clergeau, P. Does urbanization filter birds on the basis of their biological traits?. Condor 110 , 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1525/cond.2008.8409 (2008).

González-Oreja, J. A., De La Fuente-Díaz-Ordaz, A. A., Hernández-Santín, L., Bonache-Regidor, C. & Buzo-Franco, D. Can human disturbance promote nestedness? Songbirds and noise in urban parks as a case study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104 , 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.001 (2012).

Zhu, Y. et al. Small-island effect in bird assemblages on fragmented woodlots in Huaxi University areas, Guizhou, China. Chin. J. Zool. 57 , 205–212 (2022).

Keinath, D. A. et al. A global analysis of traits predicting species sensitivity to habitat fragmentation. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26 , 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12509 (2017).

Tai, D. et al. Ecological traits and landscape characteristics predicting bird sensitivity to urbanization in city parks. Basic Appl. Ecol. 58 , 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.12.004 (2022).

Ewers, R. M. & Didham, R. K. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol. Rev. 81 , 117–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793105006949 (2006).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Fahrig, L. & Triantis, K. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: The habitat amount hypothesis. J. Biogeogr. 40 , 1649–1663. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.12130 (2013).

Ye, X., Skidmore, A. K. & Wang, T. Within-patch habitat quality determines the resilience of specialist species in fragmented landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 28 , 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9826-0 (2013).

Matthews, T. J., Cottee-Jones, H. E. & Whittaker, R. J. Habitat fragmentation and the species–area relationship: A focus on total species richness obscures the impact of habitat loss on habitat specialists. Divers. Distrib. 20 , 1136–1146. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12227 (2014).

Wang, Y., Ding, P., Chen, S. & Zheng, G. Nestedness of bird assemblages on urban woodlots: Implications for conservation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 111 , 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.008 (2013).

Matthews, T. J., Cottee-Jones, H. E. W. & Whittaker, R. J. Quantifying and interpreting nestedness in habitat islands: A synthetic analysis of multiple datasets. Divers. Distrib. 21 , 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12298 (2015).

Wu, S. et al. Butterfly diversity and nestedness on fragmented woodlots in the Huaxi University Town, Guizhou. Sichuan J. Zool. 42 , 579–585 (2023).

MacDonald, Z. G., Anderson, I. D., Acorn, J. H. & Nielsen, S. E. The theory of island biogeography, the sample-area effect, and the habitat diversity hypothesis: Complementarity in a naturally fragmented landscape of lake islands. J. Biogeogr. 45 , 2730–2743. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13460 (2018).

Sheard, C. et al. Ecological drivers of global gradients in avian dispersal inferred from wing morphology. Nat. Commun. 11 , 2463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16313-6 (2020).

Matthews, T. J. et al. A global analysis of avian island diversity-area relationships in the Anthropocene. Ecol. Lett. 26 , 965–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14203 (2023).

Chen, C., Yang, X., Tan, X. & Wang, Y. The role of habitat diversity in generating the small-island effect. Ecography 43 , 1241–1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05092 (2020).

Watling, J. I. & Donnelly, M. A. Fragments as islands: A synthesis of faunal responses to habitat patchiness. Conserv. Biol. 20 , 1016–1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00482.x (2006).

Xu, Y., Cao, Z. & Wang, B. Effect of urbanization intensity on nest-site selection by Eurasian magpies ( Pica pica ). Urban Ecosyst. 23 , 1099–1105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00996-2 (2020).

Hylander, K. & Ehrlen, J. The mechanisms causing extinction debts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 , 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2013.01.010 (2013).

Triantis, K. A. et al. Extinction debt on oceanic islands. Ecography 33 , 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06203.x (2010).

Cao, Z. Study on Diversity and Spatial Distribution Pattern of Woody Plants in Fragmented Woodlots in Huaxi University Town, Guizhou (Guizhou Normal University, 2021).

Fahrig, L. et al. Resolving the SLOSS dilemma for biodiversity conservation: A research agenda. Biol. Rev. 97 , 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12792 (2022).

Vanneste, T. et al. Trade-offs in biodiversity and ecosystem services between edges and interiors in European forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02335-6 (2024).

Qian, S. et al. Biotic homogenization of China’s urban greening: A meta-analysis on woody species. Urban For. Urban Green. 18 , 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.05.002 (2016).

Schoereder, J. H. et al. Should we use proportional sampling for species-area studies?. J. Biogeogr. 31 , 1219–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01113.x (2004).

MacKinnon, J. R., MacKinnon, J., Phillipps, K. & He, F. Q. A Field Guide to the Birds of China (Hunan Education Press, 2000).

Viney, C., Philipps, K. & Ying, L. C. A Field Guide to Birds of Hong Kong and Southern Mainland of China (Hunan Education Press, 2017).

Zhao, Z. A Handbook of the Birds of China (Jilin Science and Technology Press, 2001).

Tobias, J. A. et al. Territoriality, social bonds, and the evolution of communal signaling in birds. Front. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 74. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2016.00074 (2016).

Editorial Committee of the Flora of China of Chinese Academy of Science. Flora of China Vol. 7, 20–24, 29–31, and 34–73 (Science Press, 1978–2004).

Editorial Committee of Higher Plants of China in Color. Higher Plants of China in Color Vol. 1–9 (Science Press, 2016).

Grueber, C. E., Nakagawa, S., Laws, R. J. & Jamieson, I. G. Multimodel inference in ecology and evolution: Challenges and solutions. J. Evol. Biol. 24 , 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2010.02210.x (2011).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Shi, Y., Shi, S. & Huang, X. The application of structural equation modelling in ecology based on R. Chin. J. Ecol. 41 , 1015–1023 (2022).

Dolédec, S., Chessel, D., Ter Braak, C. J. & Champely, S. Matching species traits to environmental variables: A new three-table ordination method. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 3 , 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02427859 (1996).

Legendre, P., Galzin, R. & Harmelin-Vivien, M. L. Relating behavior to habitat: Solutions to the fourth-corner problem. Ecology 78 , 547–562 (1997).

Dray, S. et al. Combining the fourth-corner and the RLQ methods for assessing trait responses to environmental variation. Ecology 95 , 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0196.1 (2014).

Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57 , 289–300 (1995).

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Gower, J. C. Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40 , 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291478 (1975).

Saito, V. S., Fonseca-Gessner, A. A. & Siqueira, T. How should ecologists define sampling effort? The potential of procrustes analysis for studying variation in community composition. Biotropica 47 , 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12222 (2015).

The R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2023).

Dray, S. & Dufour, A.-B. The ade4 package: Implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J. Stat. Softw. 22 , 1–20 (2007).

Rosseel Y et al. lavaan: Latent Variable Analysis . Version 0.6–16. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lavaan/ . Accessed 5 December 2023.

Oksanen J et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package . Version 2.6–2. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/ . Accessed 26 June 2022.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 32270540), the Joint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Karst Science Research Center of Guizhou Province (grant No. U1812401), the Science and Technology Program of Guizhou Province (grant No. ZK[2021]098), and the Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Program in Guiyang City (grant No. GZZC-2021-018). We thank Shengyao Long, Xiaodong Ran, Jiao Tian, He Tai, Yunfang Ren, Xiaoqin Lei, Rong Tang, Shuang He, and Yuehong Chen for their participation in bird surveys, and Dr. Chuanwu Chen for his help in preparing graphs.

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, 32270540, Joint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Karst Science Research Center of Guizhou Province, U1812401, Science and Technology Program of Guizhou Province, ZK[2021]098, Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Program in Guiyang City, GZZC-2021-018.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Key Laboratory of National Forestry and Grassland Administration On Biodiversity Conservation in Karst Mountainous Areas of Southwestern China, School of Life Sciences, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, 550001, China

Yun Zhu, Yu Liu, Shang Sheng, Su Wu, Zhaoyang Cao, Kai Zhang & Yu Xu

School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, 100083, China

School of Life Sciences, Southwest University, Chongqing, 400715, China

Jinfeng Zheng

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.X. and K.Z. conceived the ideas and designed methodology; all authors collected the data; Y.Z., K.Z. and Y.X. analyzed the data; Y.Z. and Y.X. led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Xu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary information., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhu, Y., Liu, Y., Sheng, S. et al. Quantifying the effects of landscape and habitat characteristics on structuring bird assemblages in urban habitat patches. Sci Rep 14 , 12707 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63333-z

Download citation

Received : 07 February 2024

Accepted : 28 May 2024

Published : 03 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63333-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Community composition
Habitat fragmentation
Habitat heterogeneity
Species richness

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Natural Disaster, Tax Avoidance, and Corporate Pollution Emissions: Evidence from China

Original Paper
Published: 23 May 2024

Cite this article

Rui Xu 1 , 2 &
Liuyang Ren 1

217 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Our study explores how climate risk affects the tax behavior of governments and local firms, subsequently affecting corporate pollution emissions. Using data on Chinese non-state-owned industrial enterprises from 1998 to 2014, we empirically investigate the impact of natural disasters on corporate tax avoidance. The results indicate that companies in earthquake-damaged areas are less likely to avoid taxes than those in unaffected areas. Furthermore, companies that pay more taxes after a disaster can secure favorable government environmental policies, as indicated by a rise in pollution emissions. Moreover, this effect is more pronounced for less polluting firms and firms with higher financial constraints. Our study contributes to the literature on taxation and ESG from the perspective of favor-exchange in government–firm relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Do Natural Disasters Affect Corporate Tax Avoidance? The Case of Drought

The environmental cost of tax administration: evidence from a regression discontinuity design in China

Tax incentives and environmental protection: evidence from china’s taxpayer-level data, data availability.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

The risk appears to be manifesting itself along several physical dimensions: a) earthquake risk, which can cause extensive damages in a relatively short period; b) hurricane risk, which has increased in intensity and frequency in different parts of the world; c) drought risk, occur in some particular regions; d) flood risk, affecting predominantly some regions; e) heat risk, which refers to increase in average temperatures over time.

Tax-sharing system gives Chinese local governments tax autonomy to control local corporate taxes.

See the Chinese National Earthquake Response Plan on this page https://www.gov.cn/yjgl/2012-09/21/content_ 2,230,337.htm. (Notice this page is in Chinese; Google Translate can be used to view the content.).

See Earthquake Response Plan in Huangshan City on this page https://www.huangshan.gov.cn/zwgk/public /6615714/10703207.htm. (Notice this page is in Chinese; Google Translate can be used to view the content.).

Adrian, C., Garg, M., Pham, A. V., Phang, S. Y., & Truong, C. (2023). Do natural disasters affect corporate tax avoidance? The case of drought. Journal of Business Ethics, 186 , 105–135.

Article Google Scholar

Armstrong, C. S., Blouin, J. L., Jagolinzer, A. D., & Larcker, D. F. (2015). Corporate governance, incentives, and tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 60 (1), 1–17.

Armstrong, C. S., Blouin, J. L., & Larcker, D. F. (2012). The incentives for tax planning. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53 (1), 391–411.

Atwood, T. J., Drake, M. S., Myers, J. N., & Myers, L. A. (2012). Home country tax system characteristics and corporate tax avoidance: International evidence. The Accounting Review, 87 (6), 1831–1860.

Badertscher, B., Katz, S. P., & Rego, S. O. (2013). The separation of ownership and control and its impact on corporate tax avoidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56 (2–3), 228–250.

Bai, C., Li, D. D., Tao, Z., & Wang, Y. (2000). A multitask theory of state enterprise reform. Journal of Comparative Economics, 28 , 716–738.

Bloom, N., Mahajan, A., McKenzie, D., & Roberts, J. (2010). Why do firms in developing countries have low productivity? American Economic Review, 100 (2), 619–623.

Borensztein, E., Cavallo, E., & Valenzuela, P. (2009). Debt sustainability under catastrophic risk: The case for government budget insurance. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 12 , 273–294.

Bui, B., & De Villiers, C. (2017). Business strategies and management accounting in response to climate change risk exposure and regulatory uncertainty. The British Accounting Review, 49 (1), 4–24.

Cai, H., & Liu, Q. (2009). Competition and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from Chinese industrial firms. The Economic Journal, 119 (537), 764–795.

Calomiris, C. W., Fisman, R., & Wang, Y. (2010). Profiting from government stakes in a command economy: Evidence from Chinese asset sales. Journal of Financial Economics, 96 (3), 399–412.

Cavallo, E. (2011). Natural disasters and the economy-A survey. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5 , 63–102.

Cen, L., Maydew, E. L., Zhang, L., & Zuo, L. (2014). Customer-supplier relationships and corporate tax avoidance. Available Online at . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2442063

Chen, H., Tang, S., Wu, D., & Yang, D. (2021). The political dynamics of corporate tax avoidance: The Chinese experience. The Accounting Review, 96 (5), 157–180.

Chen, S., Chen, X., Cheng, Q., & Shevlin, T. (2010). Are family firms more tax aggressive than nonfamily firms? Journal of Financial Economics, 95 (1), 41–61.

Cheng, C. S. A., Huang, H. H., Li, Y., & Stanfield, J. (2012). The effect of hedge fund activism on corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 87 (5), 1493–1526.

Cherniwchan, J. (2017). Trade liberalization and the environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. manufacturing. Journal of International Economics, 105 , 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.01.005

Chyz, J., Leung, S. C., Li, O., & Rui, O. M. (2013). Labor unions and tax aggressiveness. Journal of Financial Economics, 108 (3), 675–698.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874–900.

Deng, Y. H., & Luo, T. (2011). Tax revenue manipulation by local taxation administrations in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18 (1), 61–75.

Desai, M. A., & Dharmapala, D. (2006). Corporate tax avoidance and high-powered incentives. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 79 , 145–179.

Google Scholar

Dessaint, O., & Matray, A. (2017). Do managers overreact to salient risks? Evidence from hurricane strikes. Journal of Financial Economics, 126 , 97–121.

Downar, B., Ernstberger, J., Reichelstein, S., Schwenen, S., & Zaklan, A. (2021). The impact of carbon disclosure mandates on emissions and financial operating performance. Review of Accounting Studies, 26 (3), 1137–1175.

Du, W., & Li, M. (2020). Assessing the impact of environmental regulation on pollution abatement and collaborative emissions reduction: Micro-evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 82 , 106382.

Dyreng, S. D., Hanlon, M., & Maydew, E. L. (2010). The effects of executives on corporate tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 85 (4), 1163–1189.

Earnhart, D., & Lizal, L. (2006). Effects of ownership and financial performance on corporate environmental performance. Journal of Comparative Economics, 34 (1), 111–129.

Elliott, R. J. R., Strobl, E., & Sun, P. (2015). The local impact of typhoons on economic activity in China: A view from outer space. Journal of Urban Economics, 88 , 50–66.

Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 (1), 335–362.

Faccio, M., Masulis, R. W., & McConnell, J. J. (2006). Political connections and corporate bailouts. Journal of Finance, 61 , 2597–2635.

Fan, J. P., Wong, T. J., & Zhang, T. (2007). Politically connected CEOs, corporate governance, and post-IPO performance of China’s newly partially privatized firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 84 , 330–357.

Felbermayr, G., & Gröschl, J. (2014). Naturally negative: The growth effects of natural disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 111 , 92–106.

Forslid, R., Okubo, T., & Ulltveit-Moe, K. H. (2018). Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade, abatement and environmental emissions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 91 , 166–183.

Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., & So, J. (2013). Politically connected boards of directors and the allocation of procurement contracts. Review of Finance, 17 , 1617–1648.

Gu, Z., Tang, S., & Wu, D. (2016). The political economy of labor cost behavior: Evidence from China. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2786533 .

Gutiérrez, E., & Teshima, K. (2018). Abatement expenditures, technology choice, and environmental performance: Evidence from firm responses to import competition in Mexico. Journal of Development Economics, 133 , 264–274.

Hadlock, C. J., & Pierce, J. R. (2010). New evidence on measuring financial constraints: Moving beyond the KZ index. Review of Financial Studies, 23 (5), 1909–1940.

Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010a). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50 , 127–178.

Hanlon, M., & Heitzman, S. (2010b). A review of tax research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50 (2–3), 127–178.

Hoopes, J. L., Mescall, D., & Pittman, J. A. (2012). Do IRS audits deter corporate tax avoidance? The Accounting Review, 87 (5), 1603–1639.

Hsieh, C. T., & Klenow, P. J. (2009). Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124 (4), 1403–1448.

Imbruno, M., & Ketterer, T. D. (2018). Energy efficiency gains from importing intermediate inputs: Firm-level evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics, 135 , 117–141.

Keen, M., & Lockwood, B. (2010). The value added tax: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Development Economics, 92 (2), 138–151.

Kim, I., Wan, H., Wang, B., & Yang, T. (2019). Institutional investors and corporate environmental, social, and governance policies: Evidence from toxics release data. Management Science, 65 (10), 4901–4926.

Lei, G., Wang, W., Yu, J., & Chan, K. C. (2022). Cultural diversity and corporate tax avoidance: Evidence from Chinese private enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 176 , 1–23.

Leiter, A. M., Oberhofer, H., & Raschky, P. A. (2009). Creative disasters? Flooding effects on capital, labor, and productivity within European firms. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43 , 333–350.

Li, H., Meng, L., Wang, Q., & Zhou, L. A. (2008). Political connections, financing, and firm performance: Evidence from Chinese private firms. Journal of Development Economics, 87 (2), 283–299.

Li, P., Lin, Z., Du, H., Feng, T., & Zuo, J. (2021). Do environmental taxes reduce air pollution? Evidence from fossil-fuel power plants in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 295 , 113112.

Li, W., Pittman, J. A., & Wang, Z. T. (2019). The determinants and consequences of tax audits: Some evidence from China. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 41 (1), 91–122.

Liu, S., Weng, R., & Yang, D. (2017). Natural disaster, fiscal pressure and tax avoidance: A typhoon-based study. China Journal of Accounting Studies, 5 (4), 468–509.

Liu, Z., Shen, H., Welker, M., Zhang, N., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Gone with the wind: An externality of earnings pressure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 72 (1), 101403.

McGuire, S. T., Omer, T. C., & Wang, D. (2012). Tax avoidance: Does tax-specific industry expertise make a difference? The Accounting Review, 87 (3), 975–1003.

McGuire, S. T., Wang, D., & Wilson, R. J. (2014). Dual class ownership and tax avoidance. The Accounting Review, 89 (4), 1487–1516.

Minnick, K., & Noga, T. (2010). Do corporate governance characteristics influence tax management? Journal of Corporate Finance, 16 (5), 703–718.

Muller, A., & Whiteman, G. (2009). Exploring the geography of corporate philanthropic disaster response: A study of Fortune Global 500 firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 84 , 589–603.

Noy, I. (2009). The macroeconomic consequences of disasters. Journal of Development Economics, 88 , 221–231.

Noy, I., & Nualsri, A. (2011). Fiscal storms: Public spending and revenues in the aftermath of natural disasters. Environment and Development Economics, 16 , 113–128.

Pelling, M., Özerdem, A., & Barakat, S. (2002). The macro-economic impact of disasters. Progress in Development Studies, 2 , 283–305.

Peng, J., Xie, R., Ma, C., & Fu, Y. (2021). Market-based environmental regulation and total factor productivity: Evidence from Chinese enterprises. Economic Modelling, 95 , 394–407.

Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. (2000). Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro–macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 486–501.

Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics . Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Raddatz, C. (2007). Are external shocks responsible for the instability of output in low-income countries? Journal of Development Economics, 84 , 155–187.

Raschky, P. A. (2008). Institutions and the losses from natural disasters. Natural Hazards & Earth System Sciences, 8 , 627–634.

Rego, S. (2003). Tax avoidance activities of U.S. multinational corporations. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20 (4), 805–833.

Rego, S. O., & Wilson, R. (2012). Equity risk incentives and corporate tax aggressiveness. Journal of Accounting Research, 50 (3), 775–810.

Robinson, J. R., Sikes, S. A., & Weaver, C. D. (2010). Performance measurement of corporate tax departments. The Accounting Review, 85 (3), 1035–1064.

Shapiro, J. S., & Walker, R. (2018). Why is pollution from US manufacturing declining? The roles of environmental regulation, productivity, and trade. American Economic Review, 108 (12), 3814–3854.

Shen, C., Jin, J., & Zou, H.-F. (2012). Fiscal decentralization in China: History, impact, challenges and next steps. Annals of Economics and Finance, 13 (1), 1–51.

Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1994). Politicians and firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109 (4), 995–1025.

Song, Z., Storesletten, K., & Zilibotti, F. (2011). Growing like China. American Economic Review, 101 (1), 196–233.

Tang, T., Mo, P. L. L., & Chan, K. H. (2017). Tax collector or tax avoider? An investigation of intergovernmental agency conflicts. The Accounting Review, 92 (2), 247–270.

Toya, H., & Skidmore, M. (2007). Economic development and the impacts of natural disasters. Economics Letters, 94 , 20–25.

Vu, T. B., & Hammes, D. (2010). Dustbowls and high water, the economic impact of natural disasters in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Social Sciences, 1 , 122–132.

Xing, Y., Liu, Y., & Cooper, S. C. L. (2018). Local government as institutional entrepreneur: Public–private collaborative partnerships in fostering regional entrepreneurship. British Journal of Management, 29 (4), 670–690.

Xu, C. (2011). The fundamental institutions of China’s reforms and development. Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (4), 1076–1151.

Yang, Z., & Shi, D. (2022). The impacts of political hierarchy on corporate pollution emissions: Evidence from a spatial discontinuity in China. Journal of Environmental Management, 302 , 113988.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation Project of China (Grant No.72302061), the Guangdong Office of Philosophy and Social Science (Project GD23YGL21) and Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Guangzhou (Project 2023GZGJ58). The corresponding author is Liuyang Ren. All errors remain ours. All co-authors make equal contributions to the formation of this paper.

Guangdong Office of Philosophy and Social Science, GD23YGL21, Liuyang Ren, National Natural Science Foundation of China, 72302061, Liuyang Ren, Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Guangzhou, 2023GZGJ58, Rui Xu.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Accounting, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Xiaoguwei Road, Panyu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Rui Xu & Liuyang Ren

Research Center for Accounting and Economic Development of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liuyang Ren .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, informed consent.

Not applicable.

Research involving human participants and/or animals’ statement

Additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Variable definitions

Rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Xu, R., Ren, L. Natural Disaster, Tax Avoidance, and Corporate Pollution Emissions: Evidence from China. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05716-w

Download citation

Received : 24 August 2023

Accepted : 29 April 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05716-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Natural disasters
Tax avoidance
Corporate environmental policies
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

IMAGES

Characteristics of Good Hypothesis
🏷️ What are the main qualities of a good hypothesis. What are
7. Characteristics of a Good Scientific Hypothesis
😝 Characteristics of a good research hypothesis. The Characteristics of
15 Hypothesis Examples (2024)
What is Hypothesis? Functions- Characteristics-types-Criteria

VIDEO

4 characteristics of hypothesis. b.Ed/MA Edu
Hypothesis : Characteristics and Key Insights You Need to Know!"
What Is A Hypothesis?
details discussion on Hypothesis/types,& characteristics /#mostimportanttopic/#hypothesis/#research
Formulation of hypothesis |Biological method
Criteria or Characteristics of Good Hypothesis

COMMENTS

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: A Guide for Researchers
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.
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis
Developing a hypothesis (with example) 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. Example: Research question.
Characteristics Of A Good Hypothesis
Characteristics of Hypothesis. A good hypothesis has the following characteristics. Ability To Predict One of the most valuable qualities of a good hypothesis is the ability to anticipate the future. It not only clarifies the current problematic scenario, but also predicts what will happen in the future. As a result of the predictive capacity ...
What is a Research Hypothesis: How to Write it, Types, and Examples
Here are some good research hypothesis examples: "The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.". "Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.".
2.4 Developing a Hypothesis
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 ...
Research Hypothesis: Definition, Types, Examples and Quick Tips
7. Statistical hypothesis. The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like "44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27." leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement. Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
Scientific hypothesis
hypothesis. science. scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If…then" statement summarizing the idea and in the ...
What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
A hypothesis is an educated guess or prediction of what will happen. In science, a hypothesis proposes a relationship between factors called variables. A good hypothesis relates an independent variable and a dependent variable. The effect on the dependent variable depends on or is determined by what happens when you change the independent variable.
What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?
An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions. Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis: Predicts the relationship and outcome.
A Strong Hypothesis
A good hypothesis defines the variables in easy-to-measure terms, like who the participants are, what changes during the testing, and what the effect of the changes will be. ... Like Newton's hypothesis, the one offered by Einstein has all of the characteristics of a good hypothesis." "Like all scientific ideas and explanations," says Dave ...
Developing a Hypothesis
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 ...
2.4: Developing a Hypothesis
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 ...
Developing a Hypothesis
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 ...
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs
Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs. Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate ...
What is a Research Hypothesis and How to Write a Hypothesis
Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis. As the hypothesis is specific, there is a testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. You may consider drawing hypothesis from previously published research based on the theory. A good research hypothesis involves more effort than just a guess. In particular, your hypothesis may ...
3.5: Developing A Hypothesis
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 it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false.
Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples
A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications
A snapshot analysis of citation activity of hypothesis articles may reveal interest of the global scientific community towards their implications across various disciplines and countries. As a prime example, Strachan's hygiene hypothesis, published in 1989,10 is still attracting numerous citations on Scopus, the largest bibliographic database ...
Hypothesis: Definition, Examples, and Types
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
What Is Hypothesis? Definition, Meaning, Characteristics, Sources
Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.
What is Hypothesis
Following are the characteristics of the hypothesis: The hypothesis should be clear and precise to consider it to be reliable. If the hypothesis is a relational hypothesis, then it should be stating the relationship between variables. The hypothesis must be specific and should have scope for conducting more tests.
Characteristics & Qualities of a Good Hypothesis
Internal harmony and consistency is a major characteristic of good hypothesis. It should be out of contradictions and conflicts. There must be a close relationship between variables which one is dependent on other. A good hypothesis should be tested empirically. It should be stated and formulated after verification and deep observation.
Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis has the following characteristics: ... With a good hypothesis, it should be easily discernable if the evidence is or is not supporting it. In support of this trait, all terms, variables, and metrics used in the hypothetical statement should be clear and concise. Usage of unclear measures is a sign of a bad hypothesis.
Quantifying the effects of landscape and habitat characteristics on
However, the relative roles of landscape and habitat characteristics, as emphasized by two competing frameworks (the island biogeography theory and the habitat diversity hypothesis), in ...
Microorganisms
The control of the systemic and cellular acid-base balance is vital to maintain physiological homeostasis in humans. The narrow range of blood pH needs to be maintained between 7.35 and 7.45 (mean pH 7.4) [].The reduction of blood pH levels below 7.35 promotes metabolic acidosis, where in non-clinical conditions, both the central nervous system and immune responses activate different innate ...
Natural Disaster, Tax Avoidance, and Corporate Pollution ...
where y i is the non-SOE i's tax avoidance and pollution emissions; T is the indicator variable for the firm-year observations in year t, t + 1, or t + 2; X is the control variables matrix containing firm i's economy scale, complexity, profitability, and city's financial situation described in the previous section; f t, f j, and f ind denote year, city and industry fixed effects.

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: A Guide for Researchers

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Testable and Falsifiable

Based on Existing Knowledge

Specific Predictions

Relevant to the Research Question

FAQs: Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

What Are Two Important Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

What Are the Types of Hypothesis in Research

Can a Hypothesis Be Proven True

What Are the Six Parts of a Hypothesis

How Do You Start a Hypothesis Sentence

What Are Examples of Hypotheses

What Are the Five Key Elements to a Good Hypothesis

What Makes a Good Hypothesis in a Research Paper

Is a Hypothesis Always a Question

What Are the Three Things Needed for a Good Hypothesis

What Are the Four Components to a Good Hypothesis

How Do You Formulate a Hypothesis

What Is a Characteristic of a Hypothesis MCQ

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

What Are the Steps of Theory Development in Scientific Methods

Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis

What Are the Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

What Are the Stages of Hypothesis

What Is a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

How Do You Write a Good Hypothesis Example

What Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Hypotheses

What Is a Good Hypothesis Statement

What Is Not a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

Brian Thomas

LS Engine Sizes: Exploring the Smallest Chevy Powerhouses in 2023

How Does Deb Find Out About Dexter?

Can You Change Siri to Jarvis?

What is a 65 Grade: Exploring Passing and Failing in College

Can a Human Fight a Komodo Dragon?

Characteristics Of A Good Hypothesis​

Characteristics of

Ability To Predict

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Theories and Hypotheses

Theory Testing

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Key Takeaways

Share This Book

What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?

Cause and Effect or 'If, Then' Relationships

Key Points of Hypothesis

What If the Hypothesis Is Incorrect?

What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research?

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

Research Question vs Hypothesis

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

Research Hypothesis Example

Language Editing Plus

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!

A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing

Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Developing a Hypothesis

Learning Objectives

Theories and Hypotheses

Theory Testing

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Share This Book

10 Developing a Hypothesis

Theories and Hypotheses

Theory Testing

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Characteristics Of A Good Hypothesis