research hypotheses must be testable

• Science, Tech, Math ›
• Chemistry ›
• Scientific Method ›

What Is a Testable Hypothesis?

• 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 a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a  hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .

Requirements for a Testable Hypothesis

In order to be considered testable, two criteria must be met:

• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• It must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.

Examples of a Testable Hypothesis

All the following hypotheses are testable. It's important, however, to note that while it's possible to say that the hypothesis is correct, much more research would be required to answer the question " why is this hypothesis correct?" 

• Students who attend class have higher grades than students who skip class.  This is testable because it is possible to compare the grades of students who do and do not skip class and then analyze the resulting data. Another person could conduct the same research and come up with the same results.
• People exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light have a higher incidence of cancer than the norm.  This is testable because it is possible to find a group of people who have been exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light and compare their cancer rates to the average.
• If you put people in a dark room, then they will be unable to tell when an infrared light turns on.  This hypothesis is testable because it is possible to put a group of people into a dark room, turn on an infrared light, and ask the people in the room whether or not an infrared light has been turned on.

Examples of a Hypothesis Not Written in a Testable Form

• It doesn't matter whether or not you skip class.  This hypothesis can't be tested because it doesn't make any actual claim regarding the outcome of skipping class. "It doesn't matter" doesn't have any specific meaning, so it can't be tested.
• Ultraviolet light could cause cancer.  The word "could" makes a hypothesis extremely difficult to test because it is very vague. There "could," for example, be UFOs watching us at every moment, even though it's impossible to prove that they are there!
• Goldfish make better pets than guinea pigs.  This is not a hypothesis; it's a matter of opinion. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a "better" pet is, so while it is possible to argue the point, there is no way to prove it.

How to Propose a Testable Hypothesis

Now that you know what a testable hypothesis is, here are tips for proposing one.

• Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement. If you take an action, then a certain outcome is expected.
• Identify the independent and dependent variable in the hypothesis. The independent variable is what you are controlling or changing. You measure the effect this has on the dependent variable.
• Write the hypothesis in such a way that you can prove or disprove it. For example, a person has skin cancer, you can't prove they got it from being out in the sun. However, you can demonstrate a relationship between exposure to ultraviolet light and increased risk of skin cancer.
• Make sure you are proposing a hypothesis you can test with reproducible results. If your face breaks out, you can't prove the breakout was caused by the french fries you had for dinner last night. However, you can measure whether or not eating french fries is associated with breaking out. It's a matter of gathering enough data to be able to reproduce results and draw a conclusion.
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Scientific Variable
• What Is an Experimental Constant?
• What Is a Controlled Experiment?
• What Is the Difference Between a Control Variable and Control Group?
• DRY MIX Experiment Variables Acronym
• Random Error vs. Systematic Error
• The Role of a Controlled Variable in an Experiment

🚀 Work With Us

Private Coaching

Language Editing

Qualitative Coding

✨ Free Resources

Templates & Tools

Short Courses

Articles & Videos

What Is A Research Hypothesis?

A Plain-Language Explainer + Practical Examples

Research Hypothesis 101

• What is a hypothesis ?
• What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
• Requirements for a research hypothesis
• Definition of a research hypothesis
• The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

⚡ THE #1 DISSERTATION WRITING CHECKLIST ⚡

Give your markers EXACTLY what they want with our FREE checklist.

Download For Free 📄

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference.

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Become A Methodology Wiz ✨

How To Choose A Tutor For Your Dissertation

Hiring the right tutor for your dissertation or thesis can make the difference between passing and failing. Here’s what you need to consider.

5 Signs You Need A Dissertation Helper

Discover the 5 signs that suggest you need a dissertation helper to get unstuck, finish your degree and get your life back.

Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer

Triangulation is one of the best ways to enhance the credibility of your research. Learn about the different options here.

Research Limitations 101: What You Need To Know

Learn everything you need to know about research limitations (AKA limitations of the study). Includes practical examples from real studies.

In Vivo Coding 101: Full Explainer With Examples

Learn about in vivo coding, a popular qualitative coding technique ideal for studies where the nuances of language are central to the aims.

📄 FREE TEMPLATES

Research Topic Ideation

Proposal Writing

Literature Review

Methodology & Analysis

Academic Writing

Referencing & Citing

Apps, Tools & Tricks

The Grad Coach Podcast

18 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

Angelo Loye Very fantastic information. From here I am going straightaway to present the research hypothesis One question, do we apply hypothesis in qualitative research? What nul hypothesi Otherwise I appreciate your research methodo

this is very important note help me much more

Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog” 

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

• What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

In research, a hypothesis is a clear, testable statement predicting the relationship between variables or the outcome of a study. Hypotheses form the foundation of scientific inquiry, providing a direction for investigation and guiding the data collection and analysis process. Hypotheses are typically used in quantitative research but can also inform some qualitative studies by offering a preliminary assumption about the subject being explored.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction or statement that suggests an expected relationship between variables in a study. It acts as a starting point, guiding researchers to examine whether their predictions hold true based on collected data. For a hypothesis to be useful, it must be clear, concise, and based on prior knowledge or theoretical frameworks.

Key Characteristics of a Hypothesis :

• Testable : Must be possible to evaluate or observe the outcome through experimentation or analysis.
• Specific : Clearly defines variables and the expected relationship or outcome.
• Predictive : States an anticipated effect or association that can be confirmed or refuted.

Example : “Increasing the amount of daily physical exercise will lead to a reduction in stress levels among college students.”

Types of Hypotheses

Hypotheses can be categorized into several types, depending on their structure, purpose, and the type of relationship they suggest. The most common types include null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis , directional hypothesis , and non-directional hypothesis .

1. Null Hypothesis (H₀)

Definition : The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the variables being studied or that any observed effect is due to chance. It serves as the default position, which researchers aim to test against to determine if a significant effect or association exists.

Purpose : To provide a baseline that can be statistically tested to verify if a relationship or difference exists.

Example : “There is no difference in academic performance between students who receive additional tutoring and those who do not.”

2. Alternative Hypothesis (H₁ or Hₐ)

Definition : The alternative hypothesis proposes that there is a relationship or effect between variables. This hypothesis contradicts the null hypothesis and suggests that any observed result is not due to chance.

Purpose : To present an expected outcome that researchers aim to support with data.

Example : “Students who receive additional tutoring will perform better academically than those who do not.”

3. Directional Hypothesis

Definition : A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables, predicting either an increase, decrease, positive, or negative effect.

Purpose : To provide a more precise prediction by indicating the expected direction of the relationship.

Example : “Increasing the duration of daily exercise will lead to a decrease in stress levels among adults.”

4. Non-Directional Hypothesis

Definition : A non-directional hypothesis states that there is a relationship between variables but does not specify the direction of the effect.

Purpose : To allow for exploration of the relationship without committing to a particular direction.

Example : “There is a difference in stress levels between adults who exercise regularly and those who do not.”

Examples of Hypotheses in Different Fields

• Null Hypothesis : “There is no difference in anxiety levels between individuals who practice mindfulness and those who do not.”
• Alternative Hypothesis : “Individuals who practice mindfulness will report lower anxiety levels than those who do not.”
• Directional Hypothesis : “Providing feedback will improve students’ motivation to learn.”
• Non-Directional Hypothesis : “There is a difference in motivation levels between students who receive feedback and those who do not.”
• Null Hypothesis : “There is no association between diet and energy levels among teenagers.”
• Alternative Hypothesis : “A balanced diet is associated with higher energy levels among teenagers.”
• Directional Hypothesis : “An increase in employee engagement activities will lead to improved job satisfaction.”
• Non-Directional Hypothesis : “There is a relationship between employee engagement activities and job satisfaction.”
• Null Hypothesis : “The introduction of green spaces does not affect urban air quality.”
• Alternative Hypothesis : “Green spaces improve urban air quality.”

Writing Guide for Hypotheses

Writing a clear, testable hypothesis involves several steps, starting with understanding the research question and selecting variables. Here’s a step-by-step guide to writing an effective hypothesis.

Step 1: Identify the Research Question

Start by defining the primary research question you aim to investigate. This question should be focused, researchable, and specific enough to allow for hypothesis formation.

Example : “Does regular physical exercise improve mental well-being in college students?”

Step 2: Conduct Background Research

Review relevant literature to gain insight into existing theories, studies, and gaps in knowledge. This helps you understand prior findings and guides you in forming a logical hypothesis based on evidence.

Example : Research shows a positive correlation between exercise and mental well-being, which supports forming a hypothesis in this area.

Step 3: Define the Variables

Identify the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the factor you manipulate or consider as the cause, while the dependent variable is the outcome or effect you are measuring.

• Independent Variable : Amount of physical exercise
• Dependent Variable : Mental well-being (measured through self-reported stress levels)

Step 4: Choose the Hypothesis Type

Select the hypothesis type based on the research question. If you predict a specific outcome or direction, use a directional hypothesis. If not, a non-directional hypothesis may be suitable.

Example : “Increasing the frequency of physical exercise will reduce stress levels among college students” (directional hypothesis).

Step 5: Write the Hypothesis

Formulate the hypothesis as a clear, concise statement. Ensure it is specific, testable, and focuses on the relationship between the variables.

Example : “College students who exercise at least three times per week will report lower stress levels than those who do not exercise regularly.”

Step 6: Test and Refine (Optional)

In some cases, it may be necessary to refine the hypothesis after conducting a preliminary test or pilot study. This ensures that your hypothesis is realistic and feasible within the study parameters.

Tips for Writing an Effective Hypothesis

• Use Clear Language : Avoid jargon or ambiguous terms to ensure your hypothesis is easily understandable.
• Be Specific : Specify the expected relationship between the variables, and, if possible, include the direction of the effect.
• Ensure Testability : Frame the hypothesis in a way that allows for empirical testing or observation.
• Focus on One Relationship : Avoid complexity by focusing on a single, clear relationship between variables.
• Make It Measurable : Choose variables that can be quantified or observed to simplify data collection and analysis.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Vague Statements : Avoid vague hypotheses that don’t specify a clear relationship or outcome.
• Unmeasurable Variables : Ensure that the variables in your hypothesis can be observed, measured, or quantified.
• Overly Complex Hypotheses : Keep the hypothesis simple and focused, especially for beginner researchers.
• Using Personal Opinions : Avoid subjective or biased language that could impact the neutrality of the hypothesis.

Examples of Well-Written Hypotheses

• Psychology : “Adolescents who spend more than two hours on social media per day will report higher levels of anxiety than those who spend less than one hour.”
• Business : “Increasing customer service training will improve customer satisfaction ratings among retail employees.”
• Health : “Consuming a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is associated with lower cholesterol levels in adults.”
• Education : “Students who participate in active learning techniques will have higher retention rates compared to those in traditional lecture-based classrooms.”
• Environmental Science : “Urban areas with more green spaces will report lower average temperatures than those with minimal green coverage.”

A well-formulated hypothesis is essential to the research process, providing a clear and testable prediction about the relationship between variables. Understanding the different types of hypotheses, following a structured writing approach, and avoiding common pitfalls help researchers create hypotheses that effectively guide data collection, analysis, and conclusions. Whether working in psychology, education, health sciences, or any other field, an effective hypothesis sharpens the focus of a study and enhances the rigor of research.

• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). The Research Methods Knowledge Base (3rd ed.). Atomic Dog Publishing.
• McLeod, S. A. (2019). What is a Hypothesis? Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-a-hypotheses.html
• Walliman, N. (2017). Research Methods: The Basics (2nd ed.). Routledge.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Contribution – Thesis Guide

APA Table of Contents – Format and Example

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Informed Consent in Research – Types, Templates...

Identifying Testable Hypotheses: A Guide To Verifiable Scientific Claims

• by Carlos Manuel Alcocer
• September 24, 2024 June 18, 2024

A testable hypothesis is a specific, empirically testable statement that predicts the relationship between two or more variables. It includes an independent variable (manipulated by the researcher), a dependent variable (measured or observed), and a clear prediction about the expected outcome. Hypotheses are essential for guiding research, as they provide a framework for designing experiments, collecting data, and drawing conclusions. They should be specific, falsifiable, and based on prior research or theoretical knowledge.

Table of Contents

The Anatomy of a Hypothesis: Delving into Variables and Testability

Hypothesis: The Guiding Light of Research

A hypothesis is a tentative explanation or prediction that serves as the foundation of scientific inquiry. It’s a roadmap that guides researchers toward their destination: answering research questions. Variables , like characters in a play, are the entities being studied and analyzed within a hypothesis.

The independent variable is the one that the researcher manipulates or changes, like the amount of fertilizer applied to a plant. The dependent variable is the one that responds to the changes in the independent variable, like the height of the plant.

Testability: The Proof in the Pudding

For a hypothesis to be testable , it must meet certain criteria. It should be specific enough to allow for empirical observation or experimentation, like growing plants with different amounts of fertilizer. The hypothesis should also be falsifiable, meaning it can be disproven if the results don’t support it.

Independent vs. Dependent: A Dynamic Duet

The relationship between the independent and dependent variables is crucial. By manipulating the independent variable, researchers can observe how it affects the dependent variable. This allows them to draw conclusions about cause and effect, for instance, seeing how changes in fertilizer amount impact plant growth.

Control Variables: The Unsung Heroes

Often, there are other control variables that need to be accounted for to eliminate their potential影響 on the dependent variable. For instance, in our plant growth experiment, researchers might control for light intensity to ensure that it doesn’t skew the results.

Testable Hypothesis: Unveiling the Essential Components

In the realm of scientific inquiry, formulating a testable hypothesis is pivotal to unraveling the mysteries of the world. A testable hypothesis is not merely a guess or an assumption; it’s a meticulously crafted statement that can be put to the test using empirical observation or experimentation .

At the heart of a testable hypothesis lies the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis proposes that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables being investigated. In contrast, the alternative hypothesis asserts that there is a significant difference or relationship. These two hypotheses form the foundation for testing the validity of the initial assumption.

To construct a testable hypothesis, researchers also formulate a prediction . This prediction outlines the expected outcome if the alternative hypothesis is supported by evidence. By making a prediction, researchers can design experiments or observations that will either validate or refute their hypothesis.

The importance of empirical observation or experimentation cannot be overstated in testing hypotheses. Through these methods, researchers gather objective data that can be analyzed to determine whether the evidence supports the alternative hypothesis or the null hypothesis. Empirical observation involves directly witnessing and recording events in a controlled setting, while experimentation involves manipulating variables and studying their effects.

By formulating testable hypotheses and conducting rigorous empirical observations or experiments, researchers can confidently draw conclusions about the world around them. These conclusions can advance our knowledge, inspire new discoveries, and ultimately shape our understanding of the universe we inhabit.

Research Questions: The Guiding Light in Your Scientific Journey

Hypothesis Testing: A Keystone in Research

Before delving into the intriguing world of hypothesis testing, it’s essential to establish a firm foundation. A hypothesis, simply put, is a tentative explanation for a phenomenon. To be scientifically testable, this hypothesis must contain an independent variable , a dependent variable , and a clear prediction.

Testable Hypotheses: A Path to Verification or Rejection

A testable hypothesis is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry. It consists of a null hypothesis (H0), which assumes no significant difference or effect, and an alternative hypothesis (H1), which proposes the opposite. This framework allows us to empirically test our hypotheses, relying on observation or experimentation. The results of these tests will either support the alternative hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Research Questions: The Gateway to Specific Inquiries

Research questions are the driving force behind scientific investigations. They articulate specific inquiries that guide the research process and provide direction for formulating hypotheses. These questions are closely intertwined with hypotheses, variables, and data, forming an interconnected web of scientific exploration.

Hypothesis, Variables, Data: An Inseparable Trinity

The hypothesis identifies the variables , which are the measurable factors under investigation. The independent variable is the one manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is observed or measured in response.

The interconnectedness of hypothesis, variables, and data is pivotal. The research question shapes the hypothesis, which in turn dictates the selection of appropriate variables. The hypothesis and variables guide the collection of data , which is the raw material for analysis and the ultimate foundation for drawing conclusions.

In summary, research questions serve as the compass for scientific investigations, guiding the development of testable hypotheses and the collection of relevant data. Without clear and well-defined research questions, scientific inquiry would lack direction and purpose.

Variables: The Players in Hypothesis Testing

In the world of scientific research, variables play a crucial role in unraveling the mysteries around us. Think of them as the actors and actresses in the grand play of hypothesis testing, each with their unique role to fulfill.

At the heart of every hypothesis lies the independent variable , the one we manipulate or change to see its effect on something else. Picture a scientist studying the impact of caffeine on sleep patterns. The independent variable here is the amount of caffeine consumed.

On the receiving end of this manipulation is the dependent variable , the one we observe to measure the impact of the independent variable. In our caffeine study, the dependent variable would be the duration and quality of sleep.

But wait, there’s more! To ensure the accuracy of our findings, we need to control for other factors that could influence the dependent variable. Enter the control variables . These are variables we keep constant or minimize their impact to isolate the effect of the independent variable. Age, gender, and sleep environment are common control variables in our caffeine experiment.

Controlling variables is like a magician’s trick. By eliminating other potential influences, we can focus on the true relationship between the independent and dependent variables. This allows us to draw more accurate conclusions about the impact of our manipulation.

Data: The Heart of Hypothesis Testing

Understanding the data you collect is crucial in hypothesis testing. Data provides the empirical evidence to support or refute your claims. There are two primary types of data: quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative Data: Numbers and statistics tell a story. Quantitative data is measurable, numerical information that can be analyzed statistically. Examples include test scores, blood pressure readings, and time measurements.

Qualitative Data: Not all data can be measured in numbers. Qualitative data provides rich insights into experiences, emotions, and opinions. Interviews, observations, and written accounts are examples of qualitative data.

Primary vs. Secondary Data: The source of your data also matters. Primary data is collected firsthand by the researcher, while secondary data has been previously collected by others. Primary data is more relevant to your research question, but it can be time-consuming to collect. Secondary data is readily available, but it may not be as specific to your research needs.

Carlos Manuel Alcocer is a seasoned science writer with a passion for unraveling the mysteries of the universe. With a keen eye for detail and a knack for making complex concepts accessible, Carlos has established himself as a trusted voice in the scientific community. His expertise spans various disciplines, from physics to biology, and his insightful articles captivate readers with their depth and clarity. Whether delving into the cosmos or exploring the intricacies of the microscopic world, Carlos’s work inspires curiosity and fosters a deeper understanding of the natural world.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

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.

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis (H 1 ) is the statement created by researchers when they speculate upon the outcome of a research or experiment.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Null Hypothesis
• Defining a Research Problem
• Selecting Method
• Test Hypothesis

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Scientific Method
• 2.1.1 Null Hypothesis
• 2.1.2 Research Hypothesis
• 2.2 Prediction
• 2.3 Conceptual Variable
• 3.1 Operationalization
• 3.2 Selecting Method
• 3.3 Measurements
• 3.4 Scientific Observation
• 4.1 Empirical Evidence
• 5.1 Generalization
• 5.2 Errors in Conclusion

Every true experimental design must have this statement at the core of its structure, as the ultimate aim of any experiment.

The hypothesis is generated via a number of means, but is usually the result of a process of inductive reasoning where observations lead to the formation of a theory. Scientists then use a large battery of deductive methods to arrive at a hypothesis that is testable , falsifiable and realistic.

The precursor to a hypothesis is a research problem , usually framed as a question . It might ask what, or why, something is happening.

For example, we might wonder why the stocks of cod in the North Atlantic are declining. The problem question might be ‘Why are the numbers of Cod in the North Atlantic declining?’

This is too broad as a statement and is not testable by any reasonable scientific means. It is merely a tentative question arising from literature reviews and intuition. Many people would think that instinct and intuition are unscientific, but many of the greatest scientific leaps were a result of ‘hunches’.

The research hypothesis is a paring down of the problem into something testable and falsifiable. In the above example, a researcher might speculate that the decline in the fish stocks is due to prolonged over fishing. Scientists must generate a realistic and testable hypothesis around which they can build the experiment.

This might be a question, a statement or an ‘If/Or’ statement. Some examples could be:

Over-fishing affects the stocks of cod.

If over-fishing is causing a decline in the numbers of Cod, reducing the amount of trawlers will increase cod stocks.

These are acceptable statements and they all give the researcher a focus for constructing a research experiment. The last example formalizes things and uses an ‘If’ statement, measuring the effect that manipulating one variable has upon another. Though the other one is perfectly acceptable, an ideal research hypothesis should contain a prediction, which is why the more formal ones are favored.

A scientist who becomes fixated on proving a research hypothesis loses their impartiality and credibility. Statistical tests often uncover trends, but rarely give a clear-cut answer, with other factors often affecting the outcome and influencing the results .

Whilst gut instinct and logic tells us that fish stocks are affected by over fishing, it is not necessarily true and the researcher must consider that outcome. Perhaps environmental factors or pollution are causal effects influencing fish stocks.

A hypothesis must be testable , taking into account current knowledge and techniques, and be realistic. If the researcher does not have a multi-million dollar budget then there is no point in generating complicated hypotheses. A hypothesis must be verifiable by statistical and analytical means, to allow a verification or falsification .

In fact, a hypothesis is never proved, and it is better practice to use the terms ‘supported’ or ‘verified’. This means that the research showed that the evidence supported the hypothesis and further research is built upon that.

Your hypothesis should... Be written in clear, concise language Have both an independent and dependent variable Be falsifiable – is it possible to prove or disprove the statement? Make a prediction or speculate on an outcome Be practicable – can you measure the variables in question? Hypothesize about a proposed relationship between two variables, or an intervention into this relationship

A research hypothesis , which stands the test of time, eventually becomes a theory, such as Einstein’s General Relativity. Even then, as with Newton’s Laws, they can still be falsified or adapted.

The research hypothesis is often also callen H 1 and opposes the current view, called the null hypothesis (H 0 ).

Consider the following hypotheses. Are they likely to lead to sound research and conclusions, and if not, how could they be improved?

Adding mica to a plastic compound will decrease its viscosity.

Those who drink a cup of green tea daily experience enhanced wellness.

Prolonged staring into solar eclipses confers extrasensory powers.

A decline in family values is lowering the marriage rate.

Children with insecure attachment style are more likely to engage in political dissent as adults.

Sub-Saharan Africa experiences more deaths due to Tuberculosis because the HIV rate is higher there.

This is an ideal hypothesis statement. It is well-phrased, clear, falsifiable and merely by reading it, one gets an idea of the kind of research design it would inspire.

This hypothesis is less clear, and the problem is with the dependent variable. Cups of green tea can be easily quantified, but how will the researchers measure “wellness”? A better hypothesis might be: those who drink a cup of green tea daily display lower levels of inflammatory markers in the blood.

Though this hypothesis looks a little ridiculous, it is actually quite simple, falsifiable and easy to operationalize. The obvious problem is that scientific research seldom occupies itself with supernatural phenomenon and worse, putting this research into action will likely cause damage to its participants. When it comes to hypotheses, not all questions need to be answered!

Provided the researchers have a solid method for quantifying “family values” this hypothesis is not too bad. However, scientists should always be alert for their own possible biases creeping into research, and this can occur right from the start. Normative topics with moral elements are seldom neutral. A better hypothesis will remove any contentious, subjective elements. A better hypothesis: decrease in total discretionary income corresponds to lower marriage rate in people 20 – 30 years of age.

This hypothesis may yield very interesting and useful results, but practically, how will the researchers gather the data? Even if research is logically sound, it may not be feasible in the real world. A researcher might instead choose to make a more manageable hypothesis: high scores on an insecure attachment style questionnaire will correlate with high scores on a political dissention questionnaire.

Though complex, this is a good hypothesis. It is falsifiable, has clearly identified variables and can be supported or rejected using the right statistical methods.

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth , Lyndsay T Wilson (Mar 17, 2008). Research Hypothesis. Retrieved Dec 10, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/research-hypothesis

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Get all these articles in 1 guide.

Want the full version to study at home, take to school or just scribble on?

Whether you are an academic novice, or you simply want to brush up your skills, this book will take your academic writing skills to the next level.

Download electronic versions: - Epub for mobiles and tablets - For Kindle here - PDF version here

Save this course for later

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

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 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