hypothesis vs hypotheses

• 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."

Hypothesis vs Hypotheses - What's the difference?

As nouns the difference between hypothesis and hypotheses, derived terms, related terms.

What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)

If...,Then...

Angela Lumsden/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 (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observation. The definition depends on the subject.

In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.

In the study of logic, a hypothesis is an if-then proposition, typically written in the form, "If X , then Y ."

In common usage, a hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation or prediction, which may or may not be tested.

Writing a Hypothesis

Most scientific hypotheses are proposed in the if-then format because it's easy to design an experiment to see whether or not a cause and effect relationship exists between the independent variable and the dependent variable . The hypothesis is written as a prediction of the outcome of the experiment.

Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis

Statistically, it's easier to show there is no relationship between two variables than to support their connection. So, scientists often propose the null hypothesis . The null hypothesis assumes changing the independent variable will have no effect on the dependent variable.

In contrast, the alternative hypothesis suggests changing the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable. Designing an experiment to test this hypothesis can be trickier because there are many ways to state an alternative hypothesis.

For example, consider a possible relationship between getting a good night's sleep and getting good grades. The null hypothesis might be stated: "The number of hours of sleep students get is unrelated to their grades" or "There is no correlation between hours of sleep and grades."

An experiment to test this hypothesis might involve collecting data, recording average hours of sleep for each student and grades. If a student who gets eight hours of sleep generally does better than students who get four hours of sleep or 10 hours of sleep, the hypothesis might be rejected.

But the alternative hypothesis is harder to propose and test. The most general statement would be: "The amount of sleep students get affects their grades." The hypothesis might also be stated as "If you get more sleep, your grades will improve" or "Students who get nine hours of sleep have better grades than those who get more or less sleep."

In an experiment, you can collect the same data, but the statistical analysis is less likely to give you a high confidence limit.

Usually, a scientist starts out with the null hypothesis. From there, it may be possible to propose and test an alternative hypothesis, to narrow down the relationship between the variables.

Example of a Hypothesis

Examples of a hypothesis include:

• If you drop a rock and a feather, (then) they will fall at the same rate.
• Plants need sunlight in order to live. (if sunlight, then life)
• Eating sugar gives you energy. (if sugar, then energy)
• White, Jay D.  Research in Public Administration . Conn., 1998.
• Schick, Theodore, and Lewis Vaughn.  How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age . McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002.
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables
• Difference Between Independent and Dependent Variables
• The Difference Between Control Group and Experimental Group
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Independent Variable Definition and Examples
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment

Plural of Hypothesis

What is the plural of hypothesis.

The Quick Answer

Are You Good at Plurals?

The standard rules for forming the plurals.

Why Is There Confusion over the Plural of Hypothesis?

This page was written by Craig Shrives .

You might also like...

Was something wrong with this page?

Use #gm to find us quicker .

Create a QR code for this, or any, page.

mailing list

grammar forum

teachers' zone

Confirmatory test.

expand to full page

show as slides

download as .doc

print as handout

send as homework

display QR code

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• When did science begin?
• Where was science invented?

scientific hypothesis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - On the scope of scientific hypotheses
• LiveScience - What is a scientific hypothesis?
• The Royal Society - On the scope of scientific hypotheses

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 ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper .

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method , the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition , or experience. Therefore, although scientific hypotheses commonly are described as educated guesses, they actually are more informed than a guess. In addition, scientists generally strive to develop simple hypotheses, since these are easier to test relative to hypotheses that involve many different variables and potential outcomes. Such complex hypotheses may be developed as scientific models ( see scientific modeling ).

Depending on the results of scientific evaluation, a hypothesis typically is either rejected as false or accepted as true. However, because a hypothesis inherently is falsifiable, even hypotheses supported by scientific evidence and accepted as true are susceptible to rejection later, when new evidence has become available. In some instances, rather than rejecting a hypothesis because it has been falsified by new evidence, scientists simply adapt the existing idea to accommodate the new information. In this sense a hypothesis is never incorrect but only incomplete.

The investigation of scientific hypotheses is an important component in the development of scientific theory . Hence, hypotheses differ fundamentally from theories; whereas the former is a specific tentative explanation and serves as the main tool by which scientists gather data, the latter is a broad general explanation that incorporates data from many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses.

Countless hypotheses have been developed and tested throughout the history of science . Several examples include the idea that living organisms develop from nonliving matter, which formed the basis of spontaneous generation , a hypothesis that ultimately was disproved (first in 1668, with the experiments of Italian physician Francesco Redi , and later in 1859, with the experiments of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur ); the concept proposed in the late 19th century that microorganisms cause certain diseases (now known as germ theory ); and the notion that oceanic crust forms along submarine mountain zones and spreads laterally away from them ( seafloor spreading hypothesis ).

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of hypothesis noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

• to formulate/confirm a hypothesis
• a hypothesis about the function of dreams
• There is little evidence to support these hypotheses.
• formulate/​advance a theory/​hypothesis
• build/​construct/​create/​develop a simple/​theoretical/​mathematical model
• develop/​establish/​provide/​use a theoretical/​conceptual framework
• advance/​argue/​develop the thesis that…
• explore an idea/​a concept/​a hypothesis
• make a prediction/​an inference
• base a prediction/​your calculations on something
• investigate/​evaluate/​accept/​challenge/​reject a theory/​hypothesis/​model
• design an experiment/​a questionnaire/​a study/​a test
• do research/​an experiment/​an analysis
• make observations/​measurements/​calculations
• carry out/​conduct/​perform an experiment/​a test/​a longitudinal study/​observations/​clinical trials
• run an experiment/​a simulation/​clinical trials
• repeat an experiment/​a test/​an analysis
• replicate a study/​the results/​the findings
• observe/​study/​examine/​investigate/​assess a pattern/​a process/​a behaviour
• fund/​support the research/​project/​study
• seek/​provide/​get/​secure funding for research
• collect/​gather/​extract data/​information
• yield data/​evidence/​similar findings/​the same results
• analyse/​examine the data/​soil samples/​a specimen
• consider/​compare/​interpret the results/​findings
• fit the data/​model
• confirm/​support/​verify a prediction/​a hypothesis/​the results/​the findings
• prove a conjecture/​hypothesis/​theorem
• draw/​make/​reach the same conclusions
• read/​review the records/​literature
• describe/​report an experiment/​a study
• present/​publish/​summarize the results/​findings
• present/​publish/​read/​review/​cite a paper in a scientific journal
• Her hypothesis concerns the role of electromagnetic radiation.
• Her study is based on the hypothesis that language simplification is possible.
• It is possible to make a hypothesis on the basis of this graph.
• None of the hypotheses can be rejected at this stage.
• Scientists have proposed a bold hypothesis.
• She used this data to test her hypothesis
• The hypothesis predicts that children will perform better on task A than on task B.
• The results confirmed his hypothesis on the use of modal verbs.
• These observations appear to support our working hypothesis.
• a speculative hypothesis concerning the nature of matter
• an interesting hypothesis about the development of language
• Advances in genetics seem to confirm these hypotheses.
• His hypothesis about what dreams mean provoked a lot of debate.
• Research supports the hypothesis that language skills are centred in the left side of the brain.
• The survey will be used to test the hypothesis that people who work outside the home are fitter and happier.
• This economic model is really a working hypothesis.
• speculative
• concern something
• be based on something
• predict something
• on a/​the hypothesis
• hypothesis about
• hypothesis concerning

Want to learn more?

Find out which words work together and produce more natural-sounding English with the Oxford Collocations Dictionary app. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of hypothesis in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• abstraction
• accepted wisdom
• afterthought
• anthropocentrism
• determinist
• non-dogmatic
• non-empirical
• social Darwinism
• supersensible
• the domino theory

hypothesis | American Dictionary

Hypothesis | business english, examples of hypothesis, translations of hypothesis.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

a type of large tree that grows in northern areas of the world, or the wood of this tree

Fakes and forgeries (Things that are not what they seem to be)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• American    Noun
• Business    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add hypothesis to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add hypothesis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. 

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

• If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
• If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
• If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (​​BCcampus, 2015). 

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley . 

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." 

• Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
• Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
• Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm  

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf  

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/  

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf  

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Near-indestructible moss can survive gamma rays and liquid nitrogen

Earth from space: Green River winds through radioactive 'labyrinth of shadows'

The Milky Way will be visible without a telescope this summer. Here are the key nights to watch for.

Most Popular

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.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

• Epidemic vs. Pandemic
• Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
• Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', is it 'home in' or 'hone in', the difference between 'race' and 'ethnicity', homophones, homographs, and homonyms, on 'biweekly' and 'bimonthly', grammar & usage, more words you always have to look up, the difference between 'i.e.' and 'e.g.', more commonly misspelled words, plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, pilfer: how to play and win, 8 words with fascinating histories, great big list of beautiful and useless words, vol. 3, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden.

Hypothesis vs. Hypotheses — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Hypothesis and Hypotheses

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, formulation, scientific research, compare with definitions, common curiosities, what are hypotheses, how is a hypothesis tested, how do hypotheses contribute to scientific knowledge, what happens if a hypothesis is refuted, why are multiple hypotheses important in research, what is a hypothesis, can a hypothesis be proven, do all scientific studies test a hypothesis, can there be more than one hypothesis in a study, how are hypotheses formulated, how are hypotheses evaluated, what distinguishes a hypothesis from a theory, is it necessary to have a hypothesis before conducting an experiment, can a hypothesis be changed, what role do hypotheses play in the scientific method, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science , a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Comparison chart

Examples of Theory and Hypothesis

Theory: Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory because it has been tested and verified innumerable times, with results consistently verifying Einstein's conclusion. However, simply because Einstein's conclusion has become a theory does not mean testing of this theory has stopped; all science is ongoing. See also the Big Bang theory , germ theory , and climate change .

Hypothesis: One might think that a prisoner who learns a work skill while in prison will be less likely to commit a crime when released. This is a hypothesis, an "educated guess." The scientific method can be used to test this hypothesis, to either prove it is false or prove that it warrants further study. (Note: Simply because a hypothesis is not found to be false does not mean it is true all or even most of the time. If it is consistently true after considerable time and research, it may be on its way to becoming a theory.)

This video further explains the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

Common Misconception

People often tend to say "theory" when what they're actually talking about is a hypothesis. For instance, "Migraines are caused by drinking coffee after 2 p.m. — well, it's just a theory, not a rule."

This is actually a logically reasoned proposal based on an observation — say 2 instances of drinking coffee after 2 p.m. caused a migraine — but even if this were true, the migraine could have actually been caused by some other factors.

Because this observation is merely a reasoned possibility, it is testable and can be falsified — which makes it a hypothesis, not a theory.

• What is a Scientific Hypothesis? - LiveScience
• Wikipedia:Scientific theory

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Hypothesis vs Theory." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 11 Jun 2024. < >

Comments: Hypothesis vs Theory

Anonymous comments (2).

October 11, 2013, 1:11pm "In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses." But there's no such thing as "proven hypotheses". Hypotheses can be tested/falsified, they can't be "proven". That's just not how science works. Logical deductions based on axioms can be proven, but not scientific hypotheses. On top of that I find it somewhat strange to claim that a theory doesn't have to be testable, if it's built up from hypotheses, which DO have to be testable... — 80.✗.✗.139

May 6, 2014, 11:45pm "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." this statement is poorly formed because it implies that a thing is a theory until it gets proven and then it is somehow promoted to fact. this is just a misunderstanding of what the words mean, and of how science progresses generally. to say that a theory is inherently dubious because "it isn't a fact" is pretty much a meaningless statement. no expression which qualified as a mere fact could do a very good job of explaining the complicated process by which species have arisen on Earth over the last billion years. in fact, if you claimed that you could come up with such a single fact, now THAT would be dubious! everything we observe in nature supports the theory of evolution, and nothing we observe contradicts it. when you can say this about a theory, it's a pretty fair bet that the theory is correct. — 71.✗.✗.151

• Accuracy vs Precision
• Deductive vs Inductive
• Subjective vs Objective
• Subconscious vs Unconscious mind
• Qualitative vs Quantitative
• Creationism vs Evolution

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions & Examples

Null & Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions, Templates & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shaun Turney . Revised on June 22, 2023.

The null and alternative hypotheses are two competing claims that researchers weigh evidence for and against using a statistical test :

• Null hypothesis ( H 0 ): There’s no effect in the population .
• Alternative hypothesis ( H a or H 1 ) : There’s an effect in the population.

Table of contents

Answering your research question with hypotheses, what is a null hypothesis, what is an alternative hypothesis, similarities and differences between null and alternative hypotheses, how to write null and alternative hypotheses, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions.

The null and alternative hypotheses offer competing answers to your research question . When the research question asks “Does the independent variable affect the dependent variable?”:

• The null hypothesis ( H 0 ) answers “No, there’s no effect in the population.”
• The alternative hypothesis ( H a ) answers “Yes, there is an effect in the population.”

The null and alternative are always claims about the population. That’s because the goal of hypothesis testing is to make inferences about a population based on a sample . Often, we infer whether there’s an effect in the population by looking at differences between groups or relationships between variables in the sample. It’s critical for your research to write strong hypotheses .

You can use a statistical test to decide whether the evidence favors the null or alternative hypothesis. Each type of statistical test comes with a specific way of phrasing the null and alternative hypothesis. However, the hypotheses can also be phrased in a general way that applies to any test.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The null hypothesis is the claim that there’s no effect in the population.

If the sample provides enough evidence against the claim that there’s no effect in the population ( p ≤ α), then we can reject the null hypothesis . Otherwise, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Although “fail to reject” may sound awkward, it’s the only wording that statisticians accept . Be careful not to say you “prove” or “accept” the null hypothesis.

Null hypotheses often include phrases such as “no effect,” “no difference,” or “no relationship.” When written in mathematical terms, they always include an equality (usually =, but sometimes ≥ or ≤).

You can never know with complete certainty whether there is an effect in the population. Some percentage of the time, your inference about the population will be incorrect. When you incorrectly reject the null hypothesis, it’s called a type I error . When you incorrectly fail to reject it, it’s a type II error.

Examples of null hypotheses

The table below gives examples of research questions and null hypotheses. There’s always more than one way to answer a research question, but these null hypotheses can help you get started.

*Note that some researchers prefer to always write the null hypothesis in terms of “no effect” and “=”. It would be fine to say that daily meditation has no effect on the incidence of depression and p 1 = p 2 .

The alternative hypothesis ( H a ) is the other answer to your research question . It claims that there’s an effect in the population.

Often, your alternative hypothesis is the same as your research hypothesis. In other words, it’s the claim that you expect or hope will be true.

The alternative hypothesis is the complement to the null hypothesis. Null and alternative hypotheses are exhaustive, meaning that together they cover every possible outcome. They are also mutually exclusive, meaning that only one can be true at a time.

Alternative hypotheses often include phrases such as “an effect,” “a difference,” or “a relationship.” When alternative hypotheses are written in mathematical terms, they always include an inequality (usually ≠, but sometimes < or >). As with null hypotheses, there are many acceptable ways to phrase an alternative hypothesis.

Examples of alternative hypotheses

The table below gives examples of research questions and alternative hypotheses to help you get started with formulating your own.

Null and alternative hypotheses are similar in some ways:

• They’re both answers to the research question.
• They both make claims about the population.
• They’re both evaluated by statistical tests.

However, there are important differences between the two types of hypotheses, summarized in the following table.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

To help you write your hypotheses, you can use the template sentences below. If you know which statistical test you’re going to use, you can use the test-specific template sentences. Otherwise, you can use the general template sentences.

General template sentences

The only thing you need to know to use these general template sentences are your dependent and independent variables. To write your research question, null hypothesis, and alternative hypothesis, fill in the following sentences with your variables:

Does independent variable affect dependent variable ?

• Null hypothesis ( H 0 ): Independent variable does not affect dependent variable.
• Alternative hypothesis ( H a ): Independent variable affects dependent variable.

Test-specific template sentences

Once you know the statistical test you’ll be using, you can write your hypotheses in a more precise and mathematical way specific to the test you chose. The table below provides template sentences for common statistical tests.

Note: The template sentences above assume that you’re performing one-tailed tests . One-tailed tests are appropriate for most studies.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Descriptive statistics
• Measures of central tendency
• Correlation coefficient

Methodology

• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Types of interviews
• Cohort study
• Thematic analysis

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Survivorship bias
• Availability heuristic
• Nonresponse bias
• Regression to the mean

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

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

The null hypothesis is often abbreviated as H 0 . When the null hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an equality symbol (usually =, but sometimes ≥ or ≤).

The alternative hypothesis is often abbreviated as H a or H 1 . When the alternative hypothesis is written using mathematical symbols, it always includes an inequality symbol (usually ≠, but sometimes < or >).

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

Turney, S. (2023, June 22). Null & Alternative Hypotheses | Definitions, Templates & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/null-and-alternative-hypotheses/

Is this article helpful?

Shaun Turney

Other students also liked, inferential statistics | an easy introduction & examples, hypothesis testing | a step-by-step guide with easy examples, type i & type ii errors | differences, examples, visualizations, what is your plagiarism score.

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Exams & Tests
• Comparative Adjectives
• Superlative Adjectives
• Adverbs Of Time
• Comparative Adverbs
• Conjunctive Adverbs
• Indefinite Articles
• Determiners
• Collective Nouns
• Countable Nouns
• Plural Nouns
• Possessive Nouns
• Uncountable Nouns
• Prepositions Of Place
• Prepositions Of Time
• Personal Pronouns
• Relative Pronouns
• Subject Pronouns
• Quantifiers
• Conjunctions
• Indirect Speech
• Relative Clauses
• Conditional
• Future Tense
• Past perfect simple
• Past Simple
• Present Continuous
• Present perfect progressive
• Present perfect simple
• Present Simple
• Present Tense
• Auxiliary Verbs
• Irregular Verbs
• Modal Verbs
• Participles
• Phrasal verbs
• Stative Verbs
• Pronunciation
• Tips & Resources
• Abbreviations
• Body and Health
• Business & Work
• Confusing words
• Education & School
• Expression for communicating
• Expressions for communicating
• Food & Drink
• Greetings & Goodbyes
• Slang & Accents
• Time & Dates
• TV & Media

Hypotheses or hypothesis

Hi all! Need some help: Which should i use "hypotheses" or "hypothesis"? Thanks!

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Find out your English level.

Take this 5-min test to see how close you are to achieving your language learning goals.

feel free to drop a few sentences with this new info.

Regards, Vitor Rabbit

Hi Learners Feel free to sign up with tutors here at Preply and they will help you achieve your learning goals. Best Regards

Still need help?

Find an online tutor for 1-on-1 lessons and master the knowledge you need! Prices from just $5 per hour.

You might be interested in

When someone says they "feel horney", what does it mean? For whom can I say this words?

"In which", "of which", "at which", "to which", etc? I'm confused with these words. Please help me out here. W ...

I heard the phrase: "No pun intended" and can't understand the meaning? What does it mean and when I can use i ...

Hello! Could you help me with sentences: You made my day or You have made my day? Which one is correct?

Find the right tutor for you

• English tutors in Wilmington, NC
• English tutors in Columbia, MO
• English tutors in North Charleston, SC
• English tutors in Port Angeles, WA
• video tutors
• SAT Writing tutors

Feeling stuck?

Ask our expert tutors a question (it's free!)

English community experts

Click on a tutor to learn more about them

Learning Resources

• Key Differences

Know the Differences & Comparisons

Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

The term ‘hypothesis’ is often contrasted with the term theory which implies an idea, typically proven, which aims at explaining facts and events. Both hypothesis and theory are important components of developing an approach, but these are not same. There exist a fine line of difference between hypothesis and theory, discussed in this article, have a look.

Content: Hypothesis Vs Theory

Comparison chart.

Definition of Hypothesis

An unproven statement or a mere assumption to be proved or disproved, about a factor, on which the researcher is interested, is called a hypothesis. It is a tentative statement, which is concerned with the relationship between two or more phenomena, as specified by the theoretical framework. The hypothesis has to go through a test, to determine its validity.

In other words, the hypothesis is a predictive statement, which can be objectively verified and tested through scientific methods, and relates the independent factor to the dependent one. To a researcher, a hypothesis is more like a question which he intends to resolve. The salient features of hypothesis are:

• It must be clear and precise or else the reliability of the inferences drawn will be questioned.
• It can be put to the test.
• If the hypothesis is relational, it should state the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
• The hypothesis should be open and responsive to testing within the stipulated time.
• It should be limited in scope and must be clearly defined.

Definition of Theory

An idea or a broad range of ideas that are assumed to be true, which aims at explaining cause and effect relationship between multiple observed phenomena. It is based on hypothesis, which after a thorough analysis and continuous testing and confirmation through observation and experiments, becomes a theory. As it is backed by evidence, it is scientifically proven.

Just like hypothesis, theories can also be accepted or rejected. As more and more information is gathered on the subject, theories are modified accordingly, to increase the accuracy of prediction over time.

Key Differences Between Hypothesis and Theory

The points given below are vital, so far as the difference between hypothesis and theory is concerned:

• Hypothesis refers to a supposition, based on few pieces of evidence, as an inception of further research or investigation. A theory is a well-affirmed explanation of natural phenomena, which is frequently validated through experimentation and observation.
• While the hypothesis is based on a little amount of data, the theory is based on a wide set of data.
• The hypothesis is an unproven statement; that can be tested. On the other hand, the theory is a scientifically tested and proven explanation of fact or event.
• Hypothesis relies on suggestions, prediction, possibility or projects whereas a theory is supported by evidence and is verified.
• The hypothesis may or may not be proved true, so the result is uncertain. On the contrary, the theory is one, that is assumed to be true and so its result is certain.
• Hypothesis and theory are two levels of the scientific method, i.e. theory follows hypothesis and the basis for research is hypothesis whose outcome is a theory.

Both hypothesis and theory are testable and falsifiable. When a hypothesis is proved true, by passing all critical tests and analysis, it becomes a theory. So, the hypothesis is very different from theory, as the former is something unproven but the latter is a proven and tested statement.

You Might Also Like:

BELLENS MOTEBEJANE says

July 15, 2019 at 2:31 pm

AMAIZING !WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEORY AND LAW?

February 17, 2022 at 3:47 am

Thanks, I’m finally clear on this for the first time in my life of 65 years

Curtis Le Gendre says

September 14, 2022 at 8:02 am

Great Information

Kenneth says

November 19, 2022 at 2:10 am

I was looking for some takes on this topic, and I found your article quite informative. It has given me a fresh perspective on the topic tackled. Thanks!

Stefanie Banis says

February 9, 2024 at 6:35 pm

Very informative! Thank you! I understand the difference much better now!

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.

• Criminal Minds: Evolution
• Criminal Minds: Evolution News
• Criminal Minds: Evolution Reviews
• Criminal Minds: Evolution Episode Guide

Criminal Minds: Evolution Quotes

• Criminal Minds: Evolution Pictures

Follow Criminal Minds: Evolution

Criminal minds: evolution season 2 episode 5 review - conspiracy vs. theory.

What the hell was that?

If you were looking for a vague stroll under a cloudy sky with your Criminal Minds , you were in luck during "Conspiracy vs. Theory."

The episode meandered and accomplished almost nothing.

What it did accomplish came out of left field, but we'll discuss that in more detail below.

The best part of it all was Voit joining the BAU as a guest star. Who would have guessed I'd say that out loud after how I ridiculed him beginning with the Criminal Minds Evolution Season 2 premiere ?

Related: Procedural Overkill: TV’s Favorite Genre Has Overtaken Primetime. Is It Too Much of a Good Thing?

His involvement added much-needed humor and contributed to the action sequence.

Other than that, we got a whole lot of nothing.

Elias Voit Joins the BAU

Yes, they actually added Voit to the team in a bit of a guest-starring role. His excitement to be involved with the work he'd admired for so long was palpable.

The looks on everyone's faces as he was led, cuffed and shackled, to face his new coworkers were priceless.

The fact that he was allowed near a computer long enough to take command from Penelope and that he was ushered into the field and left long enough that he considered, if only for a brief moment, skedaddling said a lot about this season.

Voit's Sense of Humor Saved the Episode

Until now, Voit has been more of a smartass than downright funny. That changed during this episode with some of these nuggets.

Related: 31 Couples Who Inspired Each Other's Inner Comedian

"Holy shit. I read about that in Dave's book. That's real?" Who doesn't love it when he calls Rossi Dave as if they're besties?

"When I locked you in that shipping container, you must have been so, so scared." Zach Gilford delivered that line so beautifully that I wouldn't have been surprised to hear Joe Mantegna if slapped him during rehearsal.

"Are you listening to yourself? Because you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist." Yes, I really appreciated any nod to the fact that facts and conspiracies have been in very close contact in recent times.

"What's up with your two? 'Cause there is a vibe." Voit was speaking about whatever was happening or not between Penelope and Luke. And he's right. There is still a vibe even after their awkward date not too long ago.

Not all of the humor came directly from Voit, but it was still related to him. Voit smells like crap. Apparently, that's a literal interpretation of how he smells. So much so that Penelope said, "Not showering, I get. But not wiping? Ew."

There was a lot more where this came from, but these lines really stood out in an otherwise lame episode.

Jade and Damien are in Trouble, but So Is the BAU

Based on the discussion between Jade and Damien about their pasts, this is a revenge plot that ties in with the wayward kids reeducation camp they visited in Criminal Minds Evolution Season 2 Episode 3 .

"People are finally waking up to what happened to Kids like us," Damien said (and I'm paraphrasing).

Related: 19 TV Couples Who Could Kill Each Other

We knew the murders all tied back to that school, but I'm interested in discovering who else is involved and whether they're connected to it, as well.

The BAU is relying on a serial killer and aggregator of like minds to solve this case. That's a scary thought. It gets even worse when you hear Emily Prentiss give the OK to Rossi to kill Voit if he tries to escape.

"We can apply seven pounds of pressure on a six-pound trigger," the answer to their problem went.

Things are not OK at the BAU.

Shocker: Voit Hasn't Been Truthful

I don't want anyone to panic, but Elias has not been truthful with the BAU regarding his involvement with Jade and Damien.

Voit gave Damien the strike team on the network. He didn't reveal that because he wasn't asked. That's a good note for today's "journalists," who seem to believe that people will give up what they know without asking.

They've even got a catchphrase about "North Star," which suggests not only that Voit may have been a part of this whole plan in much greater detail but that he's somehow working on the inside out, too.

With the way things have been unfolding, surely there is more to this story.

Voit can't be what he seems right now, which is a moderately funny narcissistic lunatic with a keen understanding of similar criminal minds who is willing to give it all up for... some deal that I don't fully understand.

Related: 27 Characters Who Have a Secret and Can Keep It

How Did the BAU So Badly Miscalculate How the Jade and Damien Meet-n-Greet Would Go Down?

Well, that was a cluster you-know-what if I've ever seen one.

Despite Voit's repeated warnings that Jade and Damien would sense something wasn't right if they accompanied him to the meeting, they moved ahead.

But how they handled the arrival of a black van was shockingly abysmal.

The van was barrelling toward them; they opened fire. Inside was a poor bastard wired to the hilt.

Anyone could see this was a test. Would the old BAU have acted like this? Did they do it for fear of Voit running or to set him up to run so they could kill him outright?

Why did they emerge, guns blazing, before they fully assessed the situation? They could have let the van do a run-through. There was no need to blow their cover and out Voit as working with the feds.

What did that accomplish? What purpose will he serve now? Have they stolen the fun right out from under our noses?

Prentiss on Restricted Duty

While everyone else was off to Iowa (Penelope and Voit included), Prentiss enlisted Tyler to view her interrogation of Brian Garrity.

She resorted to rather infantile tactics, whining to Garrity that because of him, she lost everything. Truthfully, she recognizes her recent behavior and poor decisions are at fault.

What she did get from Garrity was a cryptic phrase: Teresa is in trouble. They told him it was Garrity's get-out-of-jail-free card. What does it mean?

Related: 29 TV Characters Who Look Good in Orange

Since she was arrested, Prentiss has sold back every value she had held dear. She's smoking. She's telling Rossi to kill Voit in the field. She can't tell the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory.

Well, it all caught up with her.

She's no longer in charge of the BAU. Rossi is her backup. Great. From one messed-up leader to another. Prentiss's world was rocked by a simple arrest. Can you imagine how shaken she'd be if she was locked in a container and left for dead?

Once again, I'm stymied as to where this is all going.

There are many loose threads and awkward storylines that don't quite fit together.

Oddly enough, I'm beginning to feel like a Criminal Minds conspiracy theorist, as I can't determine the direction this season is heading. Can you?

Something tells me that the wool is being pulled over my eyes as much as it is the BAU's, and where the story is leading will be a complete surprise.

Drop me a comment down below and share your thoughts. If I've got it wrong, I need you to steer me straight!

Carissa Pavlica is the managing editor and a staff writer and critic for TV Fanatic. She's a member of the Critic's Choice Association , enjoys mentoring writers, conversing with cats, and passionately discussing the nuances of television and film with anyone who will listen. Follow her on X and email her here at TV Fanatic .

The tragedy of life is not death but what we let die inside of us while we live. -- Norman Cousins Rossi Permalink: The tragedy of life is not death but what we let die inside of us while we live. -- Norman... Added: November 23, 2022

Agent Rossi has forgotten more about serial offenders than we will ever know. The Bureau is lucky to have him leading the BAU. Prentiss Permalink: Agent Rossi has forgotten more about serial offenders than we will ever know. The Bureau is... Added: November 23, 2022

Criminal Minds: Evolution Photos

• Criminal Minds: Evolution Review - Conspiracy vs. Theory
• February 2024
• January 2024
• 2023 Archives
• 2022 Archives
• 2021 Archives
• 2020 Archives
• 2019 Archives
• 2018 Archives
• 2017 Archives
• 2016 Archives
• 2015 Archives
• 2014 Archives

© 2024 TV Fanatic | About Us | Copyright Inquiry | Privacy Policy | Contact Us

© 2024 TV Fanatic

Screen Rant

Deadpool & spider-man theory makes a dream mcu movie a bigger deal than deadpool & wolverine.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

I've Been Waiting 5 Years For A Deadpool & Spider-Man Movie, Please Make It Happen Marvel

How michael keaton’s vulture moved to sony’s spider-man villain universe finally explained, it's not too late for sony's spider-man universe to flourish after venom 3.

• After Deadpool & Wolverine , Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool could team up with another powerful Marvel hero for a new adventure.
• Deadpool & Wolverine director Shawn Levy wants to bring Deadpool and Spider-Man together in the MCU.
• A new MCU theory suggests Deadpool and Spider-Man could embark on a multiversal journey into Sony's Spider-Man Universe.

Following the release of Marvel Studios' Deadpool & Wolverine , a new MCU theory teams up Deadpool and Spider-Man for an even bigger multiverse adventure. Fox's Deadpool and Deadpool 2 established Ryan Reynolds as one of the most popular fixtures of the X-Men franchise, but also cemented Deadpool as a lone wolf. Since he previously had little connection to the wider world of the X-Men, it's possible Deadpool may stay separate from the MCU's other heroes after his debut in 2024's upcoming Deadpool & Wolverine , but Shawn Levy might have other plans.

Deadpool & Wolverine will mark Reynolds' permanent move from Fox's X-Men franchise to the MCU proper. This creates the opportunity for Deadpool to cross paths with other notable heroes in his future Marvel Studios adventures , perhaps adapting some of his most exciting and explosive team-up storylines from Marvel Comics. This could include teaming up the Merc with a Mouth with everyone's favorite Friendly Neighborhood superhero, which a new MCU theory claims could branch out into another faltering Marvel franchise.

10 MCU Heroes We Can't Wait To See Meet Deadpool (& Why)

Deadpool & Wolverine will introduce Deadpool into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, meaning he will inevitably be meeting some of Marvel's other heroes.

Shawn Levy Wants To Direct A Deadpool & Spider-Man Team-Up Movie In The MCU

Deadpool & spider-man have fought together many times in marvel comics.

Even though Deadpool & Wolverine director Shawn Levy hasn't yet been confirmed to be returning to helm another Marvel Studios project, this is very likely , considering Deadpool & Wolverine is expected to be one of the MCU's most successful movies ever. If Levy does return, he already has an idea of which hero he'd want to introduce to Deadpool next, as he revealed to Total Film (via GamesRadar ) that he'd "love to see Deadpool and Spidey." Deadpool and Spider-Man embarked on many adventures together in Marvel Comics, so this grouping is a real possibility.

The thing about Deadpool is I think he makes everything more interesting because of his audacity. But, boy, I'd sure love to see Deadpool and Spidey. That's a movie I'd love to make. I feel like Tom Holland would run circles around everyone else.

Although they had met on several previous occasions, Marvel Comics' Spider-Man/Deadpool , which ran between 2016 and 2019, could form the basis of a Deadpool and Spider-Man MCU team-up story . This series saw Deadpool and Spider-Man fight Life Model Decoys, journey to Weirdworld, battle the Chameleon, and save the entire Marvel Universe in an epic finale that would fit perfectly in the MCU's Multiverse Saga. There is a huge amount of potential in bringing Deadpool and Spider-Man together in the MCU , and one theory may have worked out the best storyline for the unlikely pair.

Shawn Levy recently shared his interest in a Spider-Man/Deadpool crossover, and it's exactly what I'd love to see after 2024's Deadpool & Wolverine.

Deadpool & Spider-Man Can Continue Deadpool & Wolverine’s Multiverse Themes

Deadpool & wolverine bridges the gap between the mcu & fox's x-men universe.

Trailers for Deadpool & Wolverine have proven that the upcoming movie will be a cameo-filled exploration of Fox's now-defunct X-Men franchise, bringing iconic mutant characters into the MCU for one final adventure. Reynolds' Deadpool and Hugh Jackman's Wolverine will find themselves in the Void at the End of Time, first seen in Loki season 1 , and have been rumored to be embarking on an adventure throughout various MCU timelines. These themes could continue in a possible Deadpool and Spider-Man team-up project, according to a theory posed by Reddit user Ok-Ingenuity9833 .

Instead of focusing again on Fox's X-Men franchise, the Reddit theory posits that Deadpool and Spider-Man could instead explore Sony's Spider-Man Universe . Sony's Marvel franchise kicked off with Venom in 2018, and has introduced a variety of Spider-Man-related characters from Marvel Comics, without actually debuting its own version of the wall-crawler. The franchise has crossed over with the MCU already, thanks to Tom Hardy's appearance in Spider-Man: No Way Home , but a Deadpool and Spider-Man movie could take this one step further.

Tom Holland’s Spider-Man Can Finally Meet His SSU Villains In Deadpool & Spider-Man

Spider-man hasn't met any of his adversaries from sony's spider-man universe yet.

There is speculation that Holland's Spider-Man will battle Venom in his MCU future.

One of the biggest criticisms of Sony's Spider-Man Universe is that the titular web-slinger hasn't come to blows with any of the villains introduced in the franchise. Deadpool and Spider-Man traveling to the SSU in a future MCU movie would, thankfully, change this. Tom Holland's Spider-Man could finally face off against Eddie Brock's Venom and Morbius the Living Vampire, and could cross paths with Cassandra Webb and the other Spider-Women introduced in Madame Web . This would not only create an exciting adventure for Deadpool and Spider-Man, but also benefit the SSU itself.

There is speculation that Holland's Spider-Man will battle Venom in his MCU future , particularly since a piece of the symbiote was left in the MCU in Spider-Man: No Way Home . However, it seems this wouldn't be Tom Hardy's popular version of the villain-turned-antihero, but a multiversal Deadpool and Spider-Man movie could rectify this missed opportunity. Shawn Levy's dream MCU movie could even bring Spider-Man back into opposition with Michael Keaton's Vulture , who controversially found himself in the SSU in Morbius' post-credits scene.

We finally have a reason as to why Michael Keaton's Vulture bizarrely came to Sony's Spider-Man universe from the MCU (as seen in the Morbius movie).

Deadpool & Spider-Man Can Solve Major Problems With Sony’s Spider-Man Universe

Sony's spider-man universe has produced its fair share of disappointments.

A huge problem with Sony's Spider-Man Universe is that iconic Marvel villains have become antiheroes.

While the Venom franchise has been popular, Sony's other Marvel movies have been major box office disappointments. Of course, this could mean Marvel Studios would prefer to avoid tying the likes of Morbius and Madame Web into the MCU's Spider-Man timeline . However, connecting the faltering SSU more closely to the MCU could help to deliver stronger interpretations of its characters , and doing this in a Deadpool and Spider-Man team-up movie would give Reynolds' Merc with a Mouth the chance to make jokes about the state of the SSU directly.

A huge problem with Sony's Spider-Man Universe is that iconic Marvel villains have become antiheroes, most notably Venom and Kraven the Hunter. Introducing Spider-Man on a multiversal journey into the franchise would give these characters the chance to be much more menacing , and finally fill their duties as outright villains. Introducing Deadpool and Spider-Man into the SSU, albeit briefly, could also expand Spider-Man's knowledge of his own existence, as he'd be introduced to more spider-like heroes, including Madame Web's Julia Cornwall, Mattie Franklin, and Anya Corazon .

Venom: The Last Dance will be Tom Hardy's final solo movie as Eddie Brock; however, there is still hope for Sony's Spider-Man Universe.

If Deadpool and Spider-Man do join forces in the MCU, it's likely this will take place after the conclusion of the Multiverse Saga. This means the multiverse may no longer be a vehicle the pair could use for their story, though Deadpool's upcoming experiences with the Time Variance Authority could grant him special privileges. Sony Pictures may also have an issue with Deadpool poking fun at its divisive Marvel franchise , so it's unclear whether this story could actually unfold after Deadpool & Wolverine , no matter how entertaining it could be.​​​​​​​

Deadpool & Wolverine

A sequel to the highly successful Deadpool and Deadpool 2 starring Ryan Reynolds as the Merc with a Mouth. The third film will be the first film in the franchise to be developed under the Marvel Studios banner following Disney's acquisition of 20th Century Fox. Ryan Reynolds is returning to play the character, alongside Hugh Jackman, reprising his Wolverine role in the Marvel Cinematic Universe for the first time. 

Austrian GP conclusions: Verstappen vs Norris, Adrian Newey theory, valuable Russell lesson

Are the gloves now off between Lando Norris and Max Verstappen?

Mercedes driver George Russell claimed his first victory of the F1 2024 season in the Austrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring in Spielberg.

Russell took advantage of a collision between Max Verstappen and Lando Norris to collect Mercedes’ first victory since Brazil 2022 and was joined on the podium by Oscar Piastri of McLaren and Carlos Sainz of Ferrari. Here are our conclusions from Styria…

Conclusions from the 2024 Austrian Grand Prix

Lando norris vs max verstappen: lando too eager to make a statement.

For the genesis of the collision between Verstappen and Norris in the closing laps in Austria, look no further than the pivotal moment of the sprint race on Saturday morning.

Lando thought he had got Max with a bold, beautifully executed move late on the brakes into Turn 3 on the fifth lap, only to leave the door wide open into the very next braking zone for Verstappen to reclaim the lead in an instant.

And just like that, with a single, silly little misjudgement, the latest in a growing line of potential wins was blown. And Norris knew it.

“I messed up and left the door open like an amateur,” he said straight after alighting from the car.

It was still playing on his mind when he appeared before media including PlanetF1.com hours later in the post-qualifying press conference: “I know what I did wrong, it was obviously very clear.”

It’s a perception that has stalked Norris for quite some time now, the idea that cuddly little Lando jumps out of the way and rolls out the red carpet at the very first sighting of his old buddy Max in his mirrors.

Too much of a pushover. Not aggressive or assertive enough. And – whisper it – possibly even intimidated by Verstappen too.

Close your eyes and you can almost picture Lando angrily muttering those charges while eyeballing himself in the mirror first thing on a grand prix Sunday morning.

Reaction: Lando Norris and Max Verstappen collide in Austria

👉  Andrea Stella delivers scathing Max Verstappen criticism and points to Lewis Hamilton incident

👉  Lando Norris ‘would lose a lot of respect’ if ‘stupid’ Max Verstappen does not admit fault

The lost sprint win came after weeks of Max winning races with Lando’s name on them: resisting the McLaren to triumph by 0.725 seconds at Imola; pitting at the right time behind the Safety Car to wipe out the eight-second lead Norris had built in Canada; emerging ahead from the first corner after a sensational Norris pole in Barcelona.

That’s been irritating him lately too, as evidenced when said on Thursday how he knows he “gets a lot of crap for being in a good car and not winning a race.”

So when that rarest of things – a slow Red Bull pit stop – helped put him within DRS range of Verstappen with the finish in sight in Austria, did Lando decide this would finally be the day that he would bow no more?

That he would prove – to Max, to the doubters, maybe even to himself – that he can bare his teeth too?

It felt that way as he launched divebomb after divebomb, as Verstappen called them, into the braking zone of Turn 3, each a little more desperate than the last – yet all lacking conviction – as a penalty for excessive track limits breaches began to hover over him.

The bombardment of aggression came close to straying into recklessness before the inevitable collision as Norris went to try the outside instead, potentially catching Max by surprise as he moved to the left in anticipation of dodging Lando’s latest lunge.

There is a fascinating parallel to be made with the collision between the Mercedes team-mates at the same spot in 2016, another driver not exactly renowned for his skill, creativity and decisiveness in wheel-to-wheel combat (Nico Rosberg) making a stand by trying to take on a natural-born racer (Lewis Hamilton) at his own game.

That’s what happens when a typically non-aggressive driver of the nature of Rosberg and Norris – throw in Sergio Perez too – turns to all-out attack.

Often there’s a frantic, hopeful, lungey element to their attempts to overtake compared to the control and calculated risks of a Hamilton or Verstappen, who always seem to impose themselves and dominate the situation in the way an elite boxer might claim the centre of the ring.

He may have lost his front wing in the aftermath but Rosberg did not mind having the collision that day in 2016, viewing it, much like their clash in Barcelona earlier that year, as a marker in his rivalry with Hamilton.

And it may be that, with more battles ahead, this will come to be regarded as similar warning shot from Norris to Verstappen.

Yet, also coming off worse on this day in history, Norris ended up looking for all the world like a driver a little too eager to make a statement.

‘Operation: No More Mr Nice Guy’ backfired.

Max Verstappen to Mercedes? It’s never made more sense

It takes two to tango, of course, yet the fact remains that Norris simply would not have been in a position to pressurise Verstappen without the collector’s item of a slow Red Bull stop.

After their struggles over recent races, this weekend was much more like it for Red Bull, the RB20 not quite back to its old self but able to stretch its legs more at a circuit where half the lap is one big DRS zone.

Yet still he somehow found himself in the same position he’s been in for the last few races, once again hanging on with the finish line in sight, the time loss of his stop exacerbated by a lockup as his recent handling woes resurfaced out of nowhere.

And unlike the sprint, this time Verstappen just could not shake Norris out of his DRS range.

How the landscape has shifted since this race last year, when he even had the luxury of an extra stop for a set of softs for a late assault on the fastest-lap bonus point.

It was a weekend that hit home just how dramatically Red Bull’s world has altered in just 12 months, for just weeks after Helmut Marko claimed that “a truce” had been reached as the team made the conscious decision to prioritise defending their titles, internal tensions were reignited at their home race between Verstappen’s father Jos and Christian Horner.

The root of this latest flashpoint? Something about a historic F1 parade  over the race weekend.

That’s right: an actual sideshow. Oh, the irony…

That ongoing tension has seen Verstappen linked lately with a move to Mercedes, a switch that seemed incomprehensible at the start of this year in the afterglow of the most dominant season ever produced by a team and driver in total harmony with each other.

Verstappen was probed over his future in the Thursday press conference, yet his protestations that he will remain where he is for F1 2025 couldn’t have sounded less convincing had he been tied to his chair with a sack over his head.

Even before the team’s second victory of the ground-effect era in Austria, there was a sense that a move to Mercedes is gradually becoming ever more appealing – not necessarily as a result of what Toto Wolff may be able to offer, but of what is currently unfolding at Red Bull.

Can it just be a coincidence, after all, that Red Bull haven’t been the same since Adrian Newey announced he will leave the team next year and ceased immediately his involvement with the F1 operation?

Regardless of whether or not there’s something to that particular theory, there has been an inescapable feeling over recent weeks that Red Bull have lost an intangible something they won’t easily get back, the slow stop – coming after the RB20’s fundamental frailties over bumps and kerbs came to light – the latest on-track manifestation that all is not well.

It has been impossible to hear Verstappen’s remarks on current state of play – his comment in Spain, for instance, that his F1 2023 dominance is now “completely gone” – without placing them in the context of the uncertainty surrounding his future and wondering how Red Bull’s sudden shakiness could influence his thinking.

It is at times like this, too, that you remember Verstappen’s relationship with Red Bull has always been more transactional than that the team enjoyed with its favourite son Sebastian Vettel.

The only reason he became a Red Bull junior in the first place was because Marko and Co. could offer him something – an instant promotion to F1 with Toro Rosso – Mercedes could not.

Ferociously ambitious and results-driven as a matter of principle, it would be so typically Verstappen, so typically Max, if he and Jos sensed the waterfall coming – that Red Bull are weakening, their greatest days if not already over then likely coming to an end – and hopped from one stone to another to ensure the wins and World Championships keep flowing in the years to come.

Add to the loss of Newey the car’s patchy recent form, the nonsense behind the scenes he could so easily live without, as well as the widespread suspicion that Mercedes might just be the place to be for the F1 2026 regulation changes, and it really isn’t as outlandish as it once seemed.

Max to Mercedes? In fact, it’s never made as much sense.

A valuable lesson for George Russell

But whom would Verstappen replace if he does decide to join Mercedes over the next 12 months or so?

If the team are indeed set on Andrea Kimi Antonelli, the boy wonder described as Merc’s answer to Max, most assume it would be Russell, whose current contract is due to expire at the end of next season.

Russell may not have developed quite as hoped since becoming Hamilton’s team-mate two-and-a-half years ago, yet how much of that is related to the team’s competitive state since his arrival?

Even with two victories now to his name, it is telling that his best performance for Mercedes came when he was still a Williams driver, his stand-in appearance for an unwell Hamilton at the 2020 Sakhir Grand Prix the one and only time to date that he has had access to a car of title-winning quality.

His performance that night, one of the most impressive F1 feats of this century, is the one the team should be clinging to whenever they pause to consider his ultimate potential.

Having simply gone with the flow in his first season with the team in 2022, driving the car he was given to the limit of its abilities in a season defined by a remarkable consistency, a frustration has bubbled as his Mercedes career has progressed with no discernible improvement in results.

Might that be why he has been guilty of overreaching when rare opportunities to win have presented themselves recently?

Having paced himself poorly in pursuit of the victory at Singapore 2023, losing the life from his tyres before a crash on the final lap, Russell was distraught – convinced he had “let the team down a bit” – after a series of mistakes prevented him from converting pole position in Canada last month.

With a win on the line, he had tried too hard in changeable conditions and became his own worst enemy.

Inheriting the victory in Austria, then, on a day he had already made peace with third place, could prove an immensely valuable lesson for Russell, who spoke revealingly in the press conference of how he decided to concentrate purely on his driving in the closing laps as he sought to maintain a gap to the advancing Piastri.

It seemed a departure from Montreal where, in his utter determination to bring success to Mercedes after such an extended wait, he had three-pointed stars in his eyes.

Drivers can convince themselves something special is required to succeed in F1, that a little extra is needed with each incremental step from competing for points, then podiums, then victories and then finally titles.

Yet sometimes, every so often, a win will fall from the sky and land neatly in your lap.

Moral of the story? Don’t go chasing the result, trust the process instead.

Another podium, but Oscar Piastri’s race pace and tyre management remain a concern

The exact moment McLaren lost the chance to win the sprint race in Austria?

It wasn’t when Norris “left the door open like an amateur” for Verstappen, seconds after stealing the lead with a bold move late on the brakes, but when Piastri emerged from the next series of corners between them.

Bottle, meet cork.

McLaren suddenly found themselves in that undesirable situation of the faster driver being the one behind.

And since a poxy little sprint race is no place for a self-respecting F1 team to jeopardise internal peace with the spectre of team orders, that was how it remained.

Having been given hell until that point of the race, Max was off the hook, soon able to break free from DRS range and establish a lead of more than four seconds by the time the chequered flag fell.

It was a passage to once again bring into focus Piastri’s weakness of race pace, and specifically tyre management, which continues to plague him 18 months into his F1 career.

Indeed, when his final Q3 lap – which would have been good enough for third on the grid – was deleted a few hours later to leave him seventh, there was a school of thought that it wasn’t such a bad thing for McLaren, for the absence of his team-mate from the lead battle would simplify Norris’s task ahead of his rematch with Verstappen. That worked out well…

Piastri is not the first, and won’t be the last, young driver to struggle to master the Pirelli tyres – even a teenage Verstappen needed time to develop a complete understanding of the dos and don’ts – yet few have taken quite so long to get to grips with them.

It surely does not help that the goalposts keep shifting – Hamilton, now in his 18th season, remarked recently that the 2024 Pirellis are the most sensitive tyres he’s ever encountered in F1 – yet could McLaren potentially do more to help him?

This, after all, is a team notorious (just ask Daniel Ricciardo and others) for flooding their drivers’ heads with information without necessarily addressing the root of the problem.

Max? He became fluent in Pirelli during his second F1 pre-season in 2016, when Toro Rosso dedicated a large proportion of their running in Barcelona to bringing Verstappen and Carlos Sainz up to standard.

Two months later, Verstappen was back in Spain and managing his tyres to absolute perfection, holding off World Champions of the calibre of Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen to claim his maiden F1 victory in an unfamiliar Red Bull.

Proof, maybe, that there are ways and means to accelerate the Pirelli-learning process.

There remains a lot to like about Piastri, whose lap to outqualify Norris in Monaco – the scene of his only previous podium of 2024 at a circuit where tyre preservation is non-existent given the slow pace of the race – continued the promising trend of 2023 of beating his established team-mate over a single lap at traditional drivers’ circuits.

And the next series of races at Silverstone, Hungary and Spa – all circuits where he offered the first real glimpses of his vast talent last year – could prove highly productive.

Yet until he fully masters one of the most fundamental skills for a modern F1 driver, Piastri’s ultimate potential will continue to be frustratingly inaccessible.

Hallelujah! Finally a solution for track limits

Sorry, what’s that you say? Track limits?

Just stick a concrete wall at every corner and be done with it. That’ll learn ’em.

The motor-racing anorak has long taken a hardline stance on track limits, aghast that the same drivers who can thread a car so finely and brilliantly between the walls on the streets of Baku and Monaco allow themselves to become so sloppy at other circuits around the world.

Since it returned to the F1 calendar a decade ago, the Austrian Grand Prix has marked the beginning of track limits season – a confusing, disheartening time of year, which tends to run until at least the Hungarian GP, when the most boring subject in F1 becomes front and centre.

The situation slumped to a nadir at this race in 2023 when F1 went full VAR, resulting in eight drivers being handed post-race penalties after the FIA examined 1,200 instances of potential breaches.

Changing the result long after the fans have headed for home? A sure-fire way to damage a sport’s credibility.

It is why the solution this weekend – placing small strips of gravel on the outside of the two corners, the fast right-handers of Turn 9 and 10 right at the end of the lap, where every single one of those 2023 transgressions took place – was so widely welcomed.

The signs that this could be the way forward originated in China, where a bed of gravel sits on the exit of the last corner and – even better – caught out drivers who got it wrong as Carlos Sainz crashed out of qualifying and Fernando Alonso had to make the save of the century to avoid a similar fate.

Now it has proven to work here too – now we know for sure that truckloads of gravel are not required to keep drivers on the straight and narrow – why not take it everywhere, starting with the track-limits hotspots at Silverstone (Copse and Stowe) and the Hungaroring (Turns 4 and 11)?

Then to the penultimate turn at Austin, to the Sector 2 esses in Mexico, to Descida do Lago at Interlagos and to pretty much every corner of note in Qatar, where gravel can replace those tyre-wrecking kerbs.

Is it perfect? Not quite. Not when some of our pampered grand prix stars complained of what the rally drivers call “pollution”, stones of gravel kicked up by the cars and scattered over the racing line.

But if F1 is to stop short of whacking great big slabs of concrete all over the world’s racetracks, this is surely the next-best thing.

Read next:  Revealed: The one key asset Lando Norris lacked in feisty Max Verstappen battle

Share this Article

Related articles.

McLaren add more fuel to Max Verstappen fire with rare social media post

McLaren have shared a clip of Sky Sports pundit Anthony Davidson using onboard cameras to show Verstappen moved under braking in Austria.

Lewis Hamilton reveals what was ’falling apart’ as George Russell brings ‘huge’ Mercedes ‘boost’

Damage to his W15 resulted in a tough race for Lewis Hamilton in Austria, on top of his penalty...

Max Verstappen ‘will not’ apologise to Lando Norris for Austria, ‘at least not publicly’

"Inevitably friendships are put under pressure when you are competing hard..."

New theory emerges after Toto Wolff’s ‘screaming’ radio messages to George Russell

George Russell had Toto Wolff screaming "you can do it" in Austria...