hypothesis in introduction

Writing an Introduction for a Scientific Paper

Dr. michelle harris, dr. janet batzli, biocore.

This section provides guidelines on how to construct a solid introduction to a scientific paper including background information, study question , biological rationale, hypothesis , and general approach . If the Introduction is done well, there should be no question in the reader’s mind why and on what basis you have posed a specific hypothesis.

Broad Question : based on an initial observation (e.g., “I see a lot of guppies close to the shore. Do guppies like living in shallow water?”). This observation of the natural world may inspire you to investigate background literature or your observation could be based on previous research by others or your own pilot study. Broad questions are not always included in your written text, but are essential for establishing the direction of your research.

Background Information : key issues, concepts, terminology, and definitions needed to understand the biological rationale for the experiment. It often includes a summary of findings from previous, relevant studies. Remember to cite references, be concise, and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. Concisely summarized background information leads to the identification of specific scientific knowledge gaps that still exist. (e.g., “No studies to date have examined whether guppies do indeed spend more time in shallow water.”)

Testable Question : these questions are much more focused than the initial broad question, are specific to the knowledge gap identified, and can be addressed with data. (e.g., “Do guppies spend different amounts of time in water <1 meter deep as compared to their time in water that is >1 meter deep?”)

Biological Rationale : describes the purpose of your experiment distilling what is known and what is not known that defines the knowledge gap that you are addressing. The “BR” provides the logic for your hypothesis and experimental approach, describing the biological mechanism and assumptions that explain why your hypothesis should be true.

The biological rationale is based on your interpretation of the scientific literature, your personal observations, and the underlying assumptions you are making about how you think the system works. If you have written your biological rationale, your reader should see your hypothesis in your introduction section and say to themselves, “Of course, this hypothesis seems very logical based on the rationale presented.”

• A thorough rationale defines your assumptions about the system that have not been revealed in scientific literature or from previous systematic observation. These assumptions drive the direction of your specific hypothesis or general predictions.
• Defining the rationale is probably the most critical task for a writer, as it tells your reader why your research is biologically meaningful. It may help to think about the rationale as an answer to the questions— how is this investigation related to what we know, what assumptions am I making about what we don’t yet know, AND how will this experiment add to our knowledge? *There may or may not be broader implications for your study; be careful not to overstate these (see note on social justifications below).
• Expect to spend time and mental effort on this. You may have to do considerable digging into the scientific literature to define how your experiment fits into what is already known and why it is relevant to pursue.
• Be open to the possibility that as you work with and think about your data, you may develop a deeper, more accurate understanding of the experimental system. You may find the original rationale needs to be revised to reflect your new, more sophisticated understanding.
• As you progress through Biocore and upper level biology courses, your rationale should become more focused and matched with the level of study e ., cellular, biochemical, or physiological mechanisms that underlie the rationale. Achieving this type of understanding takes effort, but it will lead to better communication of your science.

***Special note on avoiding social justifications: You should not overemphasize the relevance of your experiment and the possible connections to large-scale processes. Be realistic and logical —do not overgeneralize or state grand implications that are not sensible given the structure of your experimental system. Not all science is easily applied to improving the human condition. Performing an investigation just for the sake of adding to our scientific knowledge (“pure or basic science”) is just as important as applied science. In fact, basic science often provides the foundation for applied studies.

Hypothesis / Predictions : specific prediction(s) that you will test during your experiment. For manipulative experiments, the hypothesis should include the independent variable (what you manipulate), the dependent variable(s) (what you measure), the organism or system , the direction of your results, and comparison to be made.

If you are doing a systematic observation , your hypothesis presents a variable or set of variables that you predict are important for helping you characterize the system as a whole, or predict differences between components/areas of the system that help you explain how the system functions or changes over time.

Experimental Approach : Briefly gives the reader a general sense of the experiment, the type of data it will yield, and the kind of conclusions you expect to obtain from the data. Do not confuse the experimental approach with the experimental protocol . The experimental protocol consists of the detailed step-by-step procedures and techniques used during the experiment that are to be reported in the Methods and Materials section.

Some Final Tips on Writing an Introduction

• As you progress through the Biocore sequence, for instance, from organismal level of Biocore 301/302 to the cellular level in Biocore 303/304, we expect the contents of your “Introduction” paragraphs to reflect the level of your coursework and previous writing experience. For example, in Biocore 304 (Cell Biology Lab) biological rationale should draw upon assumptions we are making about cellular and biochemical processes.
• Be Concise yet Specific: Remember to be concise and only include relevant information given your audience and your experimental design. As you write, keep asking, “Is this necessary information or is this irrelevant detail?” For example, if you are writing a paper claiming that a certain compound is a competitive inhibitor to the enzyme alkaline phosphatase and acts by binding to the active site, you need to explain (briefly) Michaelis-Menton kinetics and the meaning and significance of Km and Vmax. This explanation is not necessary if you are reporting the dependence of enzyme activity on pH because you do not need to measure Km and Vmax to get an estimate of enzyme activity.
• Another example: if you are writing a paper reporting an increase in Daphnia magna heart rate upon exposure to caffeine you need not describe the reproductive cycle of magna unless it is germane to your results and discussion. Be specific and concrete, especially when making introductory or summary statements.

Where Do You Discuss Pilot Studies? Many times it is important to do pilot studies to help you get familiar with your experimental system or to improve your experimental design. If your pilot study influences your biological rationale or hypothesis, you need to describe it in your Introduction. If your pilot study simply informs the logistics or techniques, but does not influence your rationale, then the description of your pilot study belongs in the Materials and Methods section.  

How will introductions be evaluated? The following is part of the rubric we will be using to evaluate your papers.

• Resources Home 🏠
• Try SciSpace Copilot
• Search research papers
• Add Copilot Extension
• Try AI Detector
• Try Paraphraser
• Try Citation Generator
• April Papers
• June Papers
• July Papers

The Craft of Writing a Strong Hypothesis

Table of Contents

Writing a hypothesis is one of the essential elements of a scientific research paper. It needs to be to the point, clearly communicating what your research is trying to accomplish. A blurry, drawn-out, or complexly-structured hypothesis can confuse your readers. Or worse, the editor and peer reviewers.

A captivating hypothesis is not too intricate. This blog will take you through the process so that, by the end of it, you have a better idea of how to convey your research paper's intent in just one sentence.

What is a Hypothesis?

The first step in your scientific endeavor, a hypothesis, is a strong, concise statement that forms the basis of your research. It is not the same as a thesis statement , which is a brief summary of your research paper .

The sole purpose of a hypothesis is to predict your paper's findings, data, and conclusion. It comes from a place of curiosity and intuition . When you write a hypothesis, you're essentially making an educated guess based on scientific prejudices and evidence, which is further proven or disproven through the scientific method.

The reason for undertaking research is to observe a specific phenomenon. A hypothesis, therefore, lays out what the said phenomenon is. And it does so through two variables, an independent and dependent variable.

The independent variable is the cause behind the observation, while the dependent variable is the effect of the cause. A good example of this is “mixing red and blue forms purple.” In this hypothesis, mixing red and blue is the independent variable as you're combining the two colors at your own will. The formation of purple is the dependent variable as, in this case, it is conditional to the independent variable.

Different Types of Hypotheses‌

Types of hypotheses

Some would stand by the notion that there are only two types of hypotheses: a Null hypothesis and an Alternative hypothesis. While that may have some truth to it, it would be better to fully distinguish the most common forms as these terms come up so often, which might leave you out of context.

Apart from Null and Alternative, there are Complex, Simple, Directional, Non-Directional, Statistical, and Associative and casual hypotheses. They don't necessarily have to be exclusive, as one hypothesis can tick many boxes, but knowing the distinctions between them will make it easier for you to construct your own.

1. Null hypothesis

A null hypothesis proposes no relationship between two variables. Denoted by H 0 , it is a negative statement like “Attending physiotherapy sessions does not affect athletes' on-field performance.” Here, the author claims physiotherapy sessions have no effect on on-field performances. Even if there is, it's only a coincidence.

2. Alternative hypothesis

Considered to be the opposite of a null hypothesis, an alternative hypothesis is donated as H1 or Ha. It explicitly states that the dependent variable affects the independent variable. A good  alternative hypothesis example is “Attending physiotherapy sessions improves athletes' on-field performance.” or “Water evaporates at 100 °C. ” The alternative hypothesis further branches into directional and non-directional.

• Directional hypothesis: A hypothesis that states the result would be either positive or negative is called directional hypothesis. It accompanies H1 with either the ‘<' or ‘>' sign.
• Non-directional hypothesis: A non-directional hypothesis only claims an effect on the dependent variable. It does not clarify whether the result would be positive or negative. The sign for a non-directional hypothesis is ‘≠.'

3. Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, “Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking.

4. Complex hypothesis

In contrast to a simple hypothesis, a complex hypothesis implies the relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. For instance, “Individuals who eat more fruits tend to have higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.” The independent variable is eating more fruits, while the dependent variables are higher immunity, lesser cholesterol, and high metabolism.

5. Associative and casual hypothesis

Associative and casual hypotheses don't exhibit how many variables there will be. They define the relationship between the variables. In an associative hypothesis, changing any one variable, dependent or independent, affects others. In a casual hypothesis, the independent variable directly affects the dependent.

6. Empirical hypothesis

Also referred to as the working hypothesis, an empirical hypothesis claims a theory's validation via experiments and observation. This way, the statement appears justifiable and different from a wild guess.

Say, the hypothesis is “Women who take iron tablets face a lesser risk of anemia than those who take vitamin B12.” This is an example of an empirical hypothesis where the researcher  the statement after assessing a group of women who take iron tablets and charting the findings.

7. Statistical hypothesis

The point of a statistical hypothesis is to test an already existing hypothesis by studying a population sample. Hypothesis like “44% of the Indian population belong in the age group of 22-27.” leverage evidence to prove or disprove a particular statement.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Writing a hypothesis is essential as it can make or break your research for you. That includes your chances of getting published in a journal. So when you're designing one, keep an eye out for these pointers:

• A research hypothesis has to be simple yet clear to look justifiable enough.
• It has to be testable — your research would be rendered pointless if too far-fetched into reality or limited by technology.
• It has to be precise about the results —what you are trying to do and achieve through it should come out in your hypothesis.
• A research hypothesis should be self-explanatory, leaving no doubt in the reader's mind.
• If you are developing a relational hypothesis, you need to include the variables and establish an appropriate relationship among them.
• A hypothesis must keep and reflect the scope for further investigations and experiments.

Separating a Hypothesis from a Prediction

Outside of academia, hypothesis and prediction are often used interchangeably. In research writing, this is not only confusing but also incorrect. And although a hypothesis and prediction are guesses at their core, there are many differences between them.

A hypothesis is an educated guess or even a testable prediction validated through research. It aims to analyze the gathered evidence and facts to define a relationship between variables and put forth a logical explanation behind the nature of events.

Predictions are assumptions or expected outcomes made without any backing evidence. They are more fictionally inclined regardless of where they originate from.

For this reason, a hypothesis holds much more weight than a prediction. It sticks to the scientific method rather than pure guesswork. "Planets revolve around the Sun." is an example of a hypothesis as it is previous knowledge and observed trends. Additionally, we can test it through the scientific method.

Whereas "COVID-19 will be eradicated by 2030." is a prediction. Even though it results from past trends, we can't prove or disprove it. So, the only way this gets validated is to wait and watch if COVID-19 cases end by 2030.

Finally, How to Write a Hypothesis

Quick tips on writing a hypothesis

1.  Be clear about your research question

A hypothesis should instantly address the research question or the problem statement. To do so, you need to ask a question. Understand the constraints of your undertaken research topic and then formulate a simple and topic-centric problem. Only after that can you develop a hypothesis and further test for evidence.

2. Carry out a recce

Once you have your research's foundation laid out, it would be best to conduct preliminary research. Go through previous theories, academic papers, data, and experiments before you start curating your research hypothesis. It will give you an idea of your hypothesis's viability or originality.

Making use of references from relevant research papers helps draft a good research hypothesis. SciSpace Discover offers a repository of over 270 million research papers to browse through and gain a deeper understanding of related studies on a particular topic. Additionally, you can use SciSpace Copilot , your AI research assistant, for reading any lengthy research paper and getting a more summarized context of it. A hypothesis can be formed after evaluating many such summarized research papers. Copilot also offers explanations for theories and equations, explains paper in simplified version, allows you to highlight any text in the paper or clip math equations and tables and provides a deeper, clear understanding of what is being said. This can improve the hypothesis by helping you identify potential research gaps.

3. Create a 3-dimensional hypothesis

Variables are an essential part of any reasonable hypothesis. So, identify your independent and dependent variable(s) and form a correlation between them. The ideal way to do this is to write the hypothetical assumption in the ‘if-then' form. If you use this form, make sure that you state the predefined relationship between the variables.

In another way, you can choose to present your hypothesis as a comparison between two variables. Here, you must specify the difference you expect to observe in the results.

4. Write the first draft

Now that everything is in place, it's time to write your hypothesis. For starters, create the first draft. In this version, write what you expect to find from your research.

Clearly separate your independent and dependent variables and the link between them. Don't fixate on syntax at this stage. The goal is to ensure your hypothesis addresses the issue.

5. Proof your hypothesis

After preparing the first draft of your hypothesis, you need to inspect it thoroughly. It should tick all the boxes, like being concise, straightforward, relevant, and accurate. Your final hypothesis has to be well-structured as well.

Research projects are an exciting and crucial part of being a scholar. And once you have your research question, you need a great hypothesis to begin conducting research. Thus, knowing how to write a hypothesis is very important.

Now that you have a firmer grasp on what a good hypothesis constitutes, the different kinds there are, and what process to follow, you will find it much easier to write your hypothesis, which ultimately helps your research.

Now it's easier than ever to streamline your research workflow with SciSpace Discover . Its integrated, comprehensive end-to-end platform for research allows scholars to easily discover, write and publish their research and fosters collaboration.

It includes everything you need, including a repository of over 270 million research papers across disciplines, SEO-optimized summaries and public profiles to show your expertise and experience.

If you found these tips on writing a research hypothesis useful, head over to our blog on Statistical Hypothesis Testing to learn about the top researchers, papers, and institutions in this domain.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. what is the definition of hypothesis.

According to the Oxford dictionary, a hypothesis is defined as “An idea or explanation of something that is based on a few known facts, but that has not yet been proved to be true or correct”.

2. What is an example of hypothesis?

The hypothesis is a statement that proposes a relationship between two or more variables. An example: "If we increase the number of new users who join our platform by 25%, then we will see an increase in revenue."

3. What is an example of null hypothesis?

A null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between two variables. The null hypothesis is written as H0. The null hypothesis states that there is no effect. For example, if you're studying whether or not a particular type of exercise increases strength, your null hypothesis will be "there is no difference in strength between people who exercise and people who don't."

4. What are the types of research?

• Fundamental research

• Applied research

• Qualitative research

• Quantitative research

• Mixed research

• Exploratory research

• Longitudinal research

• Cross-sectional research

• Field research

• Laboratory research

• Fixed research

• Flexible research

• Action research

• Policy research

• Classification research

• Comparative research

• Causal research

• Inductive research

• Deductive research

5. How to write a hypothesis?

• Your hypothesis should be able to predict the relationship and outcome.

• Avoid wordiness by keeping it simple and brief.

• Your hypothesis should contain observable and testable outcomes.

• Your hypothesis should be relevant to the research question.

6. What are the 2 types of hypothesis?

• Null hypotheses are used to test the claim that "there is no difference between two groups of data".

• Alternative hypotheses test the claim that "there is a difference between two data groups".

7. Difference between research question and research hypothesis?

A research question is a broad, open-ended question you will try to answer through your research. A hypothesis is a statement based on prior research or theory that you expect to be true due to your study. Example - Research question: What are the factors that influence the adoption of the new technology? Research hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between age, education and income level with the adoption of the new technology.

8. What is plural for hypothesis?

The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses. Here's an example of how it would be used in a statement, "Numerous well-considered hypotheses are presented in this part, and they are supported by tables and figures that are well-illustrated."

9. What is the red queen hypothesis?

The red queen hypothesis in evolutionary biology states that species must constantly evolve to avoid extinction because if they don't, they will be outcompeted by other species that are evolving. Leigh Van Valen first proposed it in 1973; since then, it has been tested and substantiated many times.

10. Who is known as the father of null hypothesis?

The father of the null hypothesis is Sir Ronald Fisher. He published a paper in 1925 that introduced the concept of null hypothesis testing, and he was also the first to use the term itself.

11. When to reject null hypothesis?

You need to find a significant difference between your two populations to reject the null hypothesis. You can determine that by running statistical tests such as an independent sample t-test or a dependent sample t-test. You should reject the null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05.

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

HOW TO: Use Articles for Research: Introduction: Hypothesis/Thesis

• What's a Scholarly Journal?
• Reading the Citation
• Authors' Credentials
• Introduction: Hypothesis/Thesis
• Literature Review
• Research Method
• Results/Data
• Discussion/Conclusions

Hypothesis or Thesis

The first few paragraphs of a journal article serve to introduce the topic, to provide the author's hypothesis or thesis, and to indicate why the research was done.  A thesis or hypothesis is not always clearly labled; you may need to read through the introductory paragraphs to determine what the authors are proposing.

• << Previous: Abstract
• Next: Literature Review >>
• Last Updated: Jan 29, 2024 3:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.cayuga-cc.edu/1ST-PRIORITY/articles

• 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."

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Define the variables

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

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

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

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

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

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

2. Complex Hypothesis

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

3. Directional Hypothesis

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

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

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

6. Null Hypothesis

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

7. Alternative Hypothesis

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

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

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

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

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

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

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

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

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

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

Nicely explained

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

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

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

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

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

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

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

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

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

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

• Industry News

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

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

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

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

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

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

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

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

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

What would be most effective in reducing research misconduct?

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Hypothesis: How to Write it, Types, and Examples

Any research begins with a research question and a research hypothesis . A research question alone may not suffice to design the experiment(s) needed to answer it. A hypothesis is central to the scientific method. But what is a hypothesis ? A hypothesis is a testable statement that proposes a possible explanation to a phenomenon, and it may include a prediction. Next, you may ask what is a research hypothesis ? Simply put, a research hypothesis is a prediction or educated guess about the relationship between the variables that you want to investigate.  

It is important to be thorough when developing your research hypothesis. Shortcomings in the framing of a hypothesis can affect the study design and the results. A better understanding of the research hypothesis definition and characteristics of a good hypothesis will make it easier for you to develop your own hypothesis for your research. Let’s dive in to know more about the types of research hypothesis , how to write a research hypothesis , and some research hypothesis examples .  

Table of Contents

What is a hypothesis ?  

A hypothesis is based on the existing body of knowledge in a study area. Framed before the data are collected, a hypothesis states the tentative relationship between independent and dependent variables, along with a prediction of the outcome.  

What is a research hypothesis ?  

Young researchers starting out their journey are usually brimming with questions like “ What is a hypothesis ?” “ What is a research hypothesis ?” “How can I write a good research hypothesis ?”   

A research hypothesis is a statement that proposes a possible explanation for an observable phenomenon or pattern. It guides the direction of a study and predicts the outcome of the investigation. A research hypothesis is testable, i.e., it can be supported or disproven through experimentation or observation.     

Characteristics of a good hypothesis  

Here are the characteristics of a good hypothesis :  

• Clearly formulated and free of language errors and ambiguity  
• Concise and not unnecessarily verbose  
• Has clearly defined variables  
• Testable and stated in a way that allows for it to be disproven  
• Can be tested using a research design that is feasible, ethical, and practical   
• Specific and relevant to the research problem  
• Rooted in a thorough literature search  
• Can generate new knowledge or understanding.  

How to create an effective research hypothesis  

A study begins with the formulation of a research question. A researcher then performs background research. This background information forms the basis for building a good research hypothesis . The researcher then performs experiments, collects, and analyzes the data, interprets the findings, and ultimately, determines if the findings support or negate the original hypothesis.  

Let’s look at each step for creating an effective, testable, and good research hypothesis :  

• Identify a research problem or question: Start by identifying a specific research problem.   
• Review the literature: Conduct an in-depth review of the existing literature related to the research problem to grasp the current knowledge and gaps in the field.   
• Formulate a clear and testable hypothesis : Based on the research question, use existing knowledge to form a clear and testable hypothesis . The hypothesis should state a predicted relationship between two or more variables that can be measured and manipulated. Improve the original draft till it is clear and meaningful.  
• State the null hypothesis: The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no relationship between the variables you are studying.   
• Define the population and sample: Clearly define the population you are studying and the sample you will be using for your research.  
• Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis: Select appropriate research methods, such as experiments, surveys, or observational studies, which will allow you to test your research hypothesis .  

Remember that creating a research hypothesis is an iterative process, i.e., you might have to revise it based on the data you collect. You may need to test and reject several hypotheses before answering the research problem.  

How to write a research hypothesis  

When you start writing a research hypothesis , you use an “if–then” statement format, which states the predicted relationship between two or more variables. Clearly identify the independent variables (the variables being changed) and the dependent variables (the variables being measured), as well as the population you are studying. Review and revise your hypothesis as needed.  

An example of a research hypothesis in this format is as follows:  

“ If [athletes] follow [cold water showers daily], then their [endurance] increases.”  

Population: athletes  

Independent variable: daily cold water showers  

Dependent variable: endurance  

You may have understood the characteristics of a good hypothesis . But note that a research hypothesis is not always confirmed; a researcher should be prepared to accept or reject the hypothesis based on the study findings.  

Research hypothesis checklist  

Following from above, here is a 10-point checklist for a good research hypothesis :  

• Testable: A research hypothesis should be able to be tested via experimentation or observation.  
• Specific: A research hypothesis should clearly state the relationship between the variables being studied.  
• Based on prior research: A research hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and previous research in the field.  
• Falsifiable: A research hypothesis should be able to be disproven through testing.  
• Clear and concise: A research hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner.  
• Logical: A research hypothesis should be logical and consistent with current understanding of the subject.  
• Relevant: A research hypothesis should be relevant to the research question and objectives.  
• Feasible: A research hypothesis should be feasible to test within the scope of the study.  
• Reflects the population: A research hypothesis should consider the population or sample being studied.  
• Uncomplicated: A good research hypothesis is written in a way that is easy for the target audience to understand.  

By following this research hypothesis checklist , you will be able to create a research hypothesis that is strong, well-constructed, and more likely to yield meaningful results.  

Types of research hypothesis  

Different types of research hypothesis are used in scientific research:  

1. Null hypothesis:

A null hypothesis states that there is no change in the dependent variable due to changes to the independent variable. This means that the results are due to chance and are not significant. A null hypothesis is denoted as H0 and is stated as the opposite of what the alternative hypothesis states.   

Example: “ The newly identified virus is not zoonotic .”  

2. Alternative hypothesis:

This states that there is a significant difference or relationship between the variables being studied. It is denoted as H1 or Ha and is usually accepted or rejected in favor of the null hypothesis.  

Example: “ The newly identified virus is zoonotic .”  

3. Directional hypothesis :

This specifies the direction of the relationship or difference between variables; therefore, it tends to use terms like increase, decrease, positive, negative, more, or less.   

Example: “ The inclusion of intervention X decreases infant mortality compared to the original treatment .”   

4. Non-directional hypothesis:

While it does not predict the exact direction or nature of the relationship between the two variables, a non-directional hypothesis states the existence of a relationship or difference between variables but not the direction, nature, or magnitude of the relationship. A non-directional hypothesis may be used when there is no underlying theory or when findings contradict previous research.  

Example, “ Cats and dogs differ in the amount of affection they express .”  

5. Simple hypothesis :

A simple hypothesis only predicts the relationship between one independent and another independent variable.  

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging .”  

6 . Complex hypothesis :

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

Example: “ Applying sunscreen every day slows skin aging, reduces sun burn, and reduces the chances of skin cancer .” (Here, the three dependent variables are slowing skin aging, reducing sun burn, and reducing the chances of skin cancer.)  

7. Associative hypothesis:  

An associative hypothesis states that a change in one variable results in the change of the other variable. The associative hypothesis defines interdependency between variables.  

Example: “ There is a positive association between physical activity levels and overall health .”  

8 . Causal hypothesis:

A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect interaction between variables.  

Example: “ Long-term alcohol use causes liver damage .”  

Note that some of the types of research hypothesis mentioned above might overlap. The types of hypothesis chosen will depend on the research question and the objective of the study.  

Research hypothesis examples  

Here are some good research hypothesis examples :  

“The use of a specific type of therapy will lead to a reduction in symptoms of depression in individuals with a history of major depressive disorder.”  

“Providing educational interventions on healthy eating habits will result in weight loss in overweight individuals.”  

“Plants that are exposed to certain types of music will grow taller than those that are not exposed to music.”  

“The use of the plant growth regulator X will lead to an increase in the number of flowers produced by plants.”  

Characteristics that make a research hypothesis weak are unclear variables, unoriginality, being too general or too vague, and being untestable. A weak hypothesis leads to weak research and improper methods.   

Some bad research hypothesis examples (and the reasons why they are “bad”) are as follows:  

“This study will show that treatment X is better than any other treatment . ” (This statement is not testable, too broad, and does not consider other treatments that may be effective.)  

“This study will prove that this type of therapy is effective for all mental disorders . ” (This statement is too broad and not testable as mental disorders are complex and different disorders may respond differently to different types of therapy.)  

“Plants can communicate with each other through telepathy . ” (This statement is not testable and lacks a scientific basis.)  

Importance of testable hypothesis  

If a research hypothesis is not testable, the results will not prove or disprove anything meaningful. The conclusions will be vague at best. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher focus on the study outcome and understand the implication of the question and the different variables involved. A testable hypothesis helps a researcher make precise predictions based on prior research.  

To be considered testable, there must be a way to prove that the hypothesis is true or false; further, the results of the hypothesis must be reproducible.  

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on research hypothesis  

1. What is the difference between research question and research hypothesis ?  

A research question defines the problem and helps outline the study objective(s). It is an open-ended statement that is exploratory or probing in nature. Therefore, it does not make predictions or assumptions. It helps a researcher identify what information to collect. A research hypothesis , however, is a specific, testable prediction about the relationship between variables. Accordingly, it guides the study design and data analysis approach.

2. When to reject null hypothesis ?

A null hypothesis should be rejected when the evidence from a statistical test shows that it is unlikely to be true. This happens when the test statistic (e.g., p -value) is less than the defined significance level (e.g., 0.05). Rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the alternative hypothesis is true; it simply means that the evidence found is not compatible with the null hypothesis.  

3. How can I be sure my hypothesis is testable?  

A testable hypothesis should be specific and measurable, and it should state a clear relationship between variables that can be tested with data. To ensure that your hypothesis is testable, consider the following:  

• Clearly define the key variables in your hypothesis. You should be able to measure and manipulate these variables in a way that allows you to test the hypothesis.  
• The hypothesis should predict a specific outcome or relationship between variables that can be measured or quantified.   
• You should be able to collect the necessary data within the constraints of your study.  
• It should be possible for other researchers to replicate your study, using the same methods and variables.   
• Your hypothesis should be testable by using appropriate statistical analysis techniques, so you can draw conclusions, and make inferences about the population from the sample data.  
• The hypothesis should be able to be disproven or rejected through the collection of data.  

4. How do I revise my research hypothesis if my data does not support it?  

If your data does not support your research hypothesis , you will need to revise it or develop a new one. You should examine your data carefully and identify any patterns or anomalies, re-examine your research question, and/or revisit your theory to look for any alternative explanations for your results. Based on your review of the data, literature, and theories, modify your research hypothesis to better align it with the results you obtained. Use your revised hypothesis to guide your research design and data collection. It is important to remain objective throughout the process.  

5. I am performing exploratory research. Do I need to formulate a research hypothesis?  

As opposed to “confirmatory” research, where a researcher has some idea about the relationship between the variables under investigation, exploratory research (or hypothesis-generating research) looks into a completely new topic about which limited information is available. Therefore, the researcher will not have any prior hypotheses. In such cases, a researcher will need to develop a post-hoc hypothesis. A post-hoc research hypothesis is generated after these results are known.  

6. How is a research hypothesis different from a research question?

A research question is an inquiry about a specific topic or phenomenon, typically expressed as a question. It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis.

7. Can a research hypothesis change during the research process?

Yes, research hypotheses can change during the research process. As researchers collect and analyze data, new insights and information may emerge that require modification or refinement of the initial hypotheses. This can be due to unexpected findings, limitations in the original hypotheses, or the need to explore additional dimensions of the research topic. Flexibility is crucial in research, allowing for adaptation and adjustment of hypotheses to align with the evolving understanding of the subject matter.

8. How many hypotheses should be included in a research study?

The number of research hypotheses in a research study varies depending on the nature and scope of the research. It is not necessary to have multiple hypotheses in every study. Some studies may have only one primary hypothesis, while others may have several related hypotheses. The number of hypotheses should be determined based on the research objectives, research questions, and the complexity of the research topic. It is important to ensure that the hypotheses are focused, testable, and directly related to the research aims.

9. Can research hypotheses be used in qualitative research?

Yes, research hypotheses can be used in qualitative research, although they are more commonly associated with quantitative research. In qualitative research, hypotheses may be formulated as tentative or exploratory statements that guide the investigation. Instead of testing hypotheses through statistical analysis, qualitative researchers may use the hypotheses to guide data collection and analysis, seeking to uncover patterns, themes, or relationships within the qualitative data. The emphasis in qualitative research is often on generating insights and understanding rather than confirming or rejecting specific research hypotheses through statistical testing.

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

How to Make a Graphical Abstract for Your Research Paper (with Examples)

Leveraging AI in Research: Kick-Start Your Academic Year with Editage All Access

• Research Process
• Manuscript Preparation
• Manuscript Review
• Publication Process
• Publication Recognition
• Language Editing Services
• Translation Services

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

• 4 minute read
• 335.7K views

Table of Contents

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

What is a Hypothesis in Research?

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

Research Question vs Hypothesis

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

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

How to Write Hypothesis in Research

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

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis Example

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

Here are a few generic examples to get you started.

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

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

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

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

Language Editing Plus

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

Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?

What is a Problem Statement? [with examples]

You may also like.

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

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

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

Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?

A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing

6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript

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

The Clear Path to An Impactful Paper: ②

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation

How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction

Published on 9 September 2022 by Tegan George and Shona McCombes.

The introduction is the first section of your thesis or dissertation , appearing right after the table of contents . Your introduction draws your reader in, setting the stage for your research with a clear focus, purpose, and direction.

Your introduction should include:

• Your topic, in context: what does your reader need to know to understand your thesis dissertation?
• Your focus and scope: what specific aspect of the topic will you address?
• The relevance of your research: how does your work fit into existing studies on your topic?
• Your questions and objectives: what does your research aim to find out, and how?
• An overview of your structure: what does each section contribute to the overall aim?

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to start your introduction, topic and context, focus and scope, relevance and importance, questions and objectives, overview of the structure, thesis introduction example, introduction checklist, frequently asked questions about introductions.

Although your introduction kicks off your dissertation, it doesn’t have to be the first thing you write – in fact, it’s often one of the very last parts to be completed (just before your abstract ).

It’s a good idea to write a rough draft of your introduction as you begin your research, to help guide you. If you wrote a research proposal , consider using this as a template, as it contains many of the same elements. However, be sure to revise your introduction throughout the writing process, making sure it matches the content of your ensuing sections.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Begin by introducing your research topic and giving any necessary background information. It’s important to contextualise your research and generate interest. Aim to show why your topic is timely or important. You may want to mention a relevant news item, academic debate, or practical problem.

After a brief introduction to your general area of interest, narrow your focus and define the scope of your research.

You can narrow this down in many ways, such as by:

• Geographical area
• Time period
• Demographics or communities
• Themes or aspects of the topic

It’s essential to share your motivation for doing this research, as well as how it relates to existing work on your topic. Further, you should also mention what new insights you expect it will contribute.

Start by giving a brief overview of the current state of research. You should definitely cite the most relevant literature, but remember that you will conduct a more in-depth survey of relevant sources in the literature review section, so there’s no need to go too in-depth in the introduction.

Depending on your field, the importance of your research might focus on its practical application (e.g., in policy or management) or on advancing scholarly understanding of the topic (e.g., by developing theories or adding new empirical data). In many cases, it will do both.

Ultimately, your introduction should explain how your thesis or dissertation:

• Helps solve a practical or theoretical problem
• Addresses a gap in the literature
• Builds on existing research
• Proposes a new understanding of your topic

Perhaps the most important part of your introduction is your questions and objectives, as it sets up the expectations for the rest of your thesis or dissertation. How you formulate your research questions and research objectives will depend on your discipline, topic, and focus, but you should always clearly state the central aim of your research.

If your research aims to test hypotheses , you can formulate them here. Your introduction is also a good place for a conceptual framework that suggests relationships between variables .

• Conduct surveys to collect data on students’ levels of knowledge, understanding, and positive/negative perceptions of government policy.
• Determine whether attitudes to climate policy are associated with variables such as age, gender, region, and social class.
• Conduct interviews to gain qualitative insights into students’ perspectives and actions in relation to climate policy.

To help guide your reader, end your introduction with an outline  of the structure of the thesis or dissertation to follow. Share a brief summary of each chapter, clearly showing how each contributes to your central aims. However, be careful to keep this overview concise: 1-2 sentences should be enough.

I. Introduction

Human language consists of a set of vowels and consonants which are combined to form words. During the speech production process, thoughts are converted into spoken utterances to convey a message. The appropriate words and their meanings are selected in the mental lexicon (Dell & Burger, 1997). This pre-verbal message is then grammatically coded, during which a syntactic representation of the utterance is built.

Speech, language, and voice disorders affect the vocal cords, nerves, muscles, and brain structures, which result in a distorted language reception or speech production (Sataloff & Hawkshaw, 2014). The symptoms vary from adding superfluous words and taking pauses to hoarseness of the voice, depending on the type of disorder (Dodd, 2005). However, distortions of the speech may also occur as a result of a disease that seems unrelated to speech, such as multiple sclerosis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

This study aims to determine which acoustic parameters are suitable for the automatic detection of exacerbations in patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by investigating which aspects of speech differ between COPD patients and healthy speakers and which aspects differ between COPD patients in exacerbation and stable COPD patients.

Checklist: Introduction

I have introduced my research topic in an engaging way.

I have provided necessary context to help the reader understand my topic.

I have clearly specified the focus of my research.

I have shown the relevance and importance of the dissertation topic .

I have clearly stated the problem or question that my research addresses.

I have outlined the specific objectives of the research .

I have provided an overview of the dissertation’s structure .

You've written a strong introduction for your thesis or dissertation. Use the other checklists to continue improving your dissertation.

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

• A hook to catch the reader’s interest
• Relevant background on the topic
• Details of your research problem
• A thesis statement or research question
• Sometimes an outline of the paper

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarise the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. & McCombes, S. (2022, September 09). How to Write a Thesis or Dissertation Introduction. Scribbr. Retrieved 10 July 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/introduction/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, what is a dissertation | 5 essential questions to get started, how to write an abstract | steps & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk J Urol
• v.39(Suppl 1); 2013 Sep

How to write an introduction section of a scientific article?

An article primarily includes the following sections: introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Before writing the introduction, the main steps, the heading and the familiarity level of the readers should be considered. Writing should begin when the experimental system and the equipment are available. The introduction section comprises the first portion of the manuscript, and it should be written using the simple present tense. Additionally, abbreviations and explanations are included in this section. The main goal of the introduction is to convey basic information to the readers without obligating them to investigate previous publications and to provide clues as to the results of the present study. To do this, the subject of the article should be thoroughly reviewed, and the aim of the study should be clearly stated immediately after discussing the basic references. In this review, we aim to convey the principles of writing the introduction section of a manuscript to residents and young investigators who have just begun to write a manuscript.

Introduction

When entering a gate of a magnificent city we can make a prediction about the splendor, pomposity, history, and civilization we will encounter in the city. Occasionally, gates do not give even a glimpse of the city, and it can mislead the visitors about inner sections of the city. Introduction sections of the articles are like gates of a city. It is a presentation aiming at introducing itself to the readers, and attracting their attention. Attractiveness, clarity, piquancy, and analytical capacity of the presentation will urge the reader to read the subsequent sections of the article. On the other hand as is understood from the motto of antique Greek poet Euripides “a bad beginning makes a bad ending”, ‘Introduction’ section of a scientific article is important in that it can reveal the conclusion of the article. [ 1 ]

It is useful to analyze the issues to be considered in the ‘Introduction’ section under 3 headings. Firstly, information should be provided about the general topic of the article in the light of the current literature which paves the way for the disclosure of the objective of the manuscript. Then the specific subject matter, and the issue to be focused on should be dealt with, the problem should be brought forth, and fundamental references related to the topic should be discussed. Finally, our recommendations for solution should be described, in other words our aim should be communicated. When these steps are followed in that order, the reader can track the problem, and its solution from his/her own perspective under the light of current literature. Otherwise, even a perfect study presented in a non-systematized, confused design will lose the chance of reading. Indeed inadequate information, inability to clarify the problem, and sometimes concealing the solution will keep the reader who has a desire to attain new information away from reading the manuscript. [ 1 – 3 ]

First of all, explanation of the topic in the light of the current literature should be made in clear, and precise terms as if the reader is completely ignorant of the subject. In this section, establishment of a warm rapport between the reader, and the manuscript is aimed. Since frantic plunging into the problem or the solution will push the reader into the dilemma of either screening the literature about the subject matter or refraining from reading the article. Updated, and robust information should be presented in the ‘Introduction’ section.

Then main topic of our manuscript, and the encountered problem should be analyzed in the light of the current literature following a short instance of brain exercise. At this point the problems should be reduced to one issue as far as possible. Of course, there might be more than one problem, however this new issue, and its solution should be the subject matter of another article. Problems should be expressed clearly. If targets are more numerous, and complex, solutions will be more than one, and confusing.

Finally, the last paragraphs of the ‘Introduction’ section should include the solution in which we will describe the information we generated, and related data. Our sentences which arouse curiosity in the readers should not be left unanswered. The reader who thinks to obtain the most effective information in no time while reading a scientific article should not be smothered with mysterious sentences, and word plays, and the readers should not be left alone to arrive at a conclusion by themselves. If we have contrary expectations, then we might write an article which won’t have any reader. A clearly expressed or recommended solutions to an explicitly revealed problem is also very important for the integrity of the ‘Introduction’ section. [ 1 – 5 ]

We can summarize our arguments with the following example ( Figure 1 ). The introduction section of the exemplary article is written in simple present tense which includes abbreviations, acronyms, and their explanations. Based on our statements above we can divide the introduction section into 3 parts. In the first paragraph, miniaturization, and evolvement of pediatric endourological instruments, and competitions among PNL, ESWL, and URS in the treatment of urinary system stone disease are described, in other words the background is prepared. In the second paragraph, a newly defined system which facilitates intrarenal access in PNL procedure has been described. Besides basic references related to the subject matter have been given, and their outcomes have been indicated. In other words, fundamental references concerning main subject have been discussed. In the last paragraph the aim of the researchers to investigate the outcomes, and safety of the application of this new method in the light of current information has been indicated.

An exemplary introduction section of an article

Apart from the abovementioned information about the introduction section of a scientific article we will summarize a few major issues in brief headings

Important points which one should take heed of:

• Abbreviations should be given following their explanations in the ‘Introduction’ section (their explanations in the summary does not count)
• Simple present tense should be used.
• References should be selected from updated publication with a higher impact factor, and prestigous source books.
• Avoid mysterious, and confounding expressions, construct clear sentences aiming at problematic issues, and their solutions.
• The sentences should be attractive, tempting, and comjprehensible.
• Firstly general, then subject-specific information should be given. Finally our aim should be clearly explained.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Research Hypothesis: Good & Bad Examples

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis is an attempt at explaining a phenomenon or the relationships between phenomena/variables in the real world. Hypotheses are sometimes called “educated guesses”, but they are in fact (or let’s say they should be) based on previous observations, existing theories, scientific evidence, and logic. A research hypothesis is also not a prediction—rather, predictions are ( should be) based on clearly formulated hypotheses. For example, “We tested the hypothesis that KLF2 knockout mice would show deficiencies in heart development” is an assumption or prediction, not a hypothesis. 

The research hypothesis at the basis of this prediction is “the product of the KLF2 gene is involved in the development of the cardiovascular system in mice”—and this hypothesis is probably (hopefully) based on a clear observation, such as that mice with low levels of Kruppel-like factor 2 (which KLF2 codes for) seem to have heart problems. From this hypothesis, you can derive the idea that a mouse in which this particular gene does not function cannot develop a normal cardiovascular system, and then make the prediction that we started with. 

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a prediction?

You might think that these are very subtle differences, and you will certainly come across many publications that do not contain an actual hypothesis or do not make these distinctions correctly. But considering that the formulation and testing of hypotheses is an integral part of the scientific method, it is good to be aware of the concepts underlying this approach. The two hallmarks of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability (an evaluation standard that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in 1934) and testability —if you cannot use experiments or data to decide whether an idea is true or false, then it is not a hypothesis (or at least a very bad one).

So, in a nutshell, you (1) look at existing evidence/theories, (2) come up with a hypothesis, (3) make a prediction that allows you to (4) design an experiment or data analysis to test it, and (5) come to a conclusion. Of course, not all studies have hypotheses (there is also exploratory or hypothesis-generating research), and you do not necessarily have to state your hypothesis as such in your paper. 

But for the sake of understanding the principles of the scientific method, let’s first take a closer look at the different types of hypotheses that research articles refer to and then give you a step-by-step guide for how to formulate a strong hypothesis for your own paper.

Types of Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses can be simple , which means they describe the relationship between one single independent variable (the one you observe variations in or plan to manipulate) and one single dependent variable (the one you expect to be affected by the variations/manipulation). If there are more variables on either side, you are dealing with a complex hypothesis. You can also distinguish hypotheses according to the kind of relationship between the variables you are interested in (e.g., causal or associative ). But apart from these variations, we are usually interested in what is called the “alternative hypothesis” and, in contrast to that, the “null hypothesis”. If you think these two should be listed the other way round, then you are right, logically speaking—the alternative should surely come second. However, since this is the hypothesis we (as researchers) are usually interested in, let’s start from there.

Alternative Hypothesis

If you predict a relationship between two variables in your study, then the research hypothesis that you formulate to describe that relationship is your alternative hypothesis (usually H1 in statistical terms). The goal of your hypothesis testing is thus to demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence that supports the alternative hypothesis, rather than evidence for the possibility that there is no such relationship. The alternative hypothesis is usually the research hypothesis of a study and is based on the literature, previous observations, and widely known theories. 

Null Hypothesis

The hypothesis that describes the other possible outcome, that is, that your variables are not related, is the null hypothesis ( H0 ). Based on your findings, you choose between the two hypotheses—usually that means that if your prediction was correct, you reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative. Make sure, however, that you are not getting lost at this step of the thinking process: If your prediction is that there will be no difference or change, then you are trying to find support for the null hypothesis and reject H1. 

Directional Hypothesis

While the null hypothesis is obviously “static”, the alternative hypothesis can specify a direction for the observed relationship between variables—for example, that mice with higher expression levels of a certain protein are more active than those with lower levels. This is then called a one-tailed hypothesis. 

Another example for a directional one-tailed alternative hypothesis would be that 

H1: Attending private classes before important exams has a positive effect on performance. 

Your null hypothesis would then be that

H0: Attending private classes before important exams has no/a negative effect on performance.

Nondirectional Hypothesis

A nondirectional hypothesis does not specify the direction of the potentially observed effect, only that there is a relationship between the studied variables—this is called a two-tailed hypothesis. For instance, if you are studying a new drug that has shown some effects on pathways involved in a certain condition (e.g., anxiety) in vitro in the lab, but you can’t say for sure whether it will have the same effects in an animal model or maybe induce other/side effects that you can’t predict and potentially increase anxiety levels instead, you could state the two hypotheses like this:

H1: The only lab-tested drug (somehow) affects anxiety levels in an anxiety mouse model.

You then test this nondirectional alternative hypothesis against the null hypothesis:

H0: The only lab-tested drug has no effect on anxiety levels in an anxiety mouse model.

How to Write a Hypothesis for a Research Paper

Now that we understand the important distinctions between different kinds of research hypotheses, let’s look at a simple process of how to write a hypothesis.

Writing a Hypothesis Step:1

Ask a question, based on earlier research. Research always starts with a question, but one that takes into account what is already known about a topic or phenomenon. For example, if you are interested in whether people who have pets are happier than those who don’t, do a literature search and find out what has already been demonstrated. You will probably realize that yes, there is quite a bit of research that shows a relationship between happiness and owning a pet—and even studies that show that owning a dog is more beneficial than owning a cat ! Let’s say you are so intrigued by this finding that you wonder: 

What is it that makes dog owners even happier than cat owners? 

Let’s move on to Step 2 and find an answer to that question.

Writing a Hypothesis Step 2:

Formulate a strong hypothesis by answering your own question. Again, you don’t want to make things up, take unicorns into account, or repeat/ignore what has already been done. Looking at the dog-vs-cat papers your literature search returned, you see that most studies are based on self-report questionnaires on personality traits, mental health, and life satisfaction. What you don’t find is any data on actual (mental or physical) health measures, and no experiments. You therefore decide to make a bold claim come up with the carefully thought-through hypothesis that it’s maybe the lifestyle of the dog owners, which includes walking their dog several times per day, engaging in fun and healthy activities such as agility competitions, and taking them on trips, that gives them that extra boost in happiness. You could therefore answer your question in the following way:

Dog owners are happier than cat owners because of the dog-related activities they engage in.

Now you have to verify that your hypothesis fulfills the two requirements we introduced at the beginning of this resource article: falsifiability and testability . If it can’t be wrong and can’t be tested, it’s not a hypothesis. We are lucky, however, because yes, we can test whether owning a dog but not engaging in any of those activities leads to lower levels of happiness or well-being than owning a dog and playing and running around with them or taking them on trips.  

Writing a Hypothesis Step 3:

Make your predictions and define your variables. We have verified that we can test our hypothesis, but now we have to define all the relevant variables, design our experiment or data analysis, and make precise predictions. You could, for example, decide to study dog owners (not surprising at this point), let them fill in questionnaires about their lifestyle as well as their life satisfaction (as other studies did), and then compare two groups of active and inactive dog owners. Alternatively, if you want to go beyond the data that earlier studies produced and analyzed and directly manipulate the activity level of your dog owners to study the effect of that manipulation, you could invite them to your lab, select groups of participants with similar lifestyles, make them change their lifestyle (e.g., couch potato dog owners start agility classes, very active ones have to refrain from any fun activities for a certain period of time) and assess their happiness levels before and after the intervention. In both cases, your independent variable would be “ level of engagement in fun activities with dog” and your dependent variable would be happiness or well-being . 

Examples of a Good and Bad Hypothesis

Let’s look at a few examples of good and bad hypotheses to get you started.

Good Hypothesis Examples

Bad Hypothesis Examples

Tips for Writing a Research Hypothesis

If you understood the distinction between a hypothesis and a prediction we made at the beginning of this article, then you will have no problem formulating your hypotheses and predictions correctly. To refresh your memory: We have to (1) look at existing evidence, (2) come up with a hypothesis, (3) make a prediction, and (4) design an experiment. For example, you could summarize your dog/happiness study like this:

(1) While research suggests that dog owners are happier than cat owners, there are no reports on what factors drive this difference. (2) We hypothesized that it is the fun activities that many dog owners (but very few cat owners) engage in with their pets that increases their happiness levels. (3) We thus predicted that preventing very active dog owners from engaging in such activities for some time and making very inactive dog owners take up such activities would lead to an increase and decrease in their overall self-ratings of happiness, respectively. (4) To test this, we invited dog owners into our lab, assessed their mental and emotional well-being through questionnaires, and then assigned them to an “active” and an “inactive” group, depending on… 

Note that you use “we hypothesize” only for your hypothesis, not for your experimental prediction, and “would” or “if – then” only for your prediction, not your hypothesis. A hypothesis that states that something “would” affect something else sounds as if you don’t have enough confidence to make a clear statement—in which case you can’t expect your readers to believe in your research either. Write in the present tense, don’t use modal verbs that express varying degrees of certainty (such as may, might, or could ), and remember that you are not drawing a conclusion while trying not to exaggerate but making a clear statement that you then, in a way, try to disprove . And if that happens, that is not something to fear but an important part of the scientific process.

Similarly, don’t use “we hypothesize” when you explain the implications of your research or make predictions in the conclusion section of your manuscript, since these are clearly not hypotheses in the true sense of the word. As we said earlier, you will find that many authors of academic articles do not seem to care too much about these rather subtle distinctions, but thinking very clearly about your own research will not only help you write better but also ensure that even that infamous Reviewer 2 will find fewer reasons to nitpick about your manuscript. 

Perfect Your Manuscript With Professional Editing

Now that you know how to write a strong research hypothesis for your research paper, you might be interested in our free AI Proofreader , Wordvice AI, which finds and fixes errors in grammar, punctuation, and word choice in academic texts. Or if you are interested in human proofreading , check out our English editing services , including research paper editing and manuscript editing .

On the Wordvice academic resources website , you can also find many more articles and other resources that can help you with writing the other parts of your research paper , with making a research paper outline before you put everything together, or with writing an effective cover letter once you are ready to submit.

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By:  Derek Jansen (MBA)  | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing. 

Research Hypothesis 101

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

What is a hypothesis?

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

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

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

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

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

But that’s not good enough…

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

What is a research hypothesis?

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

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

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

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

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

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

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

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

Defining A Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

What about the null hypothesis?

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

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

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

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

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

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could you please elaborate it more

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

This is very helpful

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

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

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

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

How to Write a Hypothesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction

An overview of the research hypothesis, different types of hypotheses, variables in a hypothesis, how to formulate an effective research hypothesis, designing a study around your hypothesis.

The scientific method can derive and test predictions as hypotheses. Empirical research can then provide support (or lack thereof) for the hypotheses. Even failure to find support for a hypothesis still represents a valuable contribution to scientific knowledge. Let's look more closely at the idea of the hypothesis and the role it plays in research.

As much as the term exists in everyday language, there is a detailed development that informs the word "hypothesis" when applied to research. A good research hypothesis is informed by prior research and guides research design and data analysis , so it is important to understand how a hypothesis is defined and understood by researchers.

What is the simple definition of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about an outcome between two or more variables . It functions as a navigational tool in the research process, directing what you aim to predict and how.

What is the hypothesis for in research?

In research, a hypothesis serves as the cornerstone for your empirical study. It not only lays out what you aim to investigate but also provides a structured approach for your data collection and analysis.

Essentially, it bridges the gap between the theoretical and the empirical, guiding your investigation throughout its course.

What is an example of a hypothesis?

If you are studying the relationship between physical exercise and mental health, a suitable hypothesis could be: "Regular physical exercise leads to improved mental well-being among adults."

This statement constitutes a specific and testable hypothesis that directly relates to the variables you are investigating.

What makes a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis possesses several key characteristics. Firstly, it must be testable, allowing you to analyze data through empirical means, such as observation or experimentation, to assess if there is significant support for the hypothesis. Secondly, a hypothesis should be specific and unambiguous, giving a clear understanding of the expected relationship between variables. Lastly, it should be grounded in existing research or theoretical frameworks , ensuring its relevance and applicability.

Understanding the types of hypotheses can greatly enhance how you construct and work with hypotheses. While all hypotheses serve the essential function of guiding your study, there are varying purposes among the types of hypotheses. In addition, all hypotheses stand in contrast to the null hypothesis, or the assumption that there is no significant relationship between the variables .

Here, we explore various kinds of hypotheses to provide you with the tools needed to craft effective hypotheses for your specific research needs. Bear in mind that many of these hypothesis types may overlap with one another, and the specific type that is typically used will likely depend on the area of research and methodology you are following.

Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no effect or relationship between the variables being studied. In statistical terms, it serves as the default assumption that any observed differences are due to random chance.

For example, if you're studying the effect of a drug on blood pressure, the null hypothesis might state that the drug has no effect.

Alternative hypothesis

Contrary to the null hypothesis, the alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a significant relationship or effect between variables.

Using the drug example, the alternative hypothesis would posit that the drug does indeed affect blood pressure. This is what researchers aim to prove.

Simple hypothesis

A simple hypothesis makes a prediction about the relationship between two variables, and only two variables.

For example, "Increased study time results in better exam scores." Here, "study time" and "exam scores" are the only variables involved.

Complex hypothesis

A complex hypothesis, as the name suggests, involves more than two variables. For instance, "Increased study time and access to resources result in better exam scores." Here, "study time," "access to resources," and "exam scores" are all variables.

This hypothesis refers to multiple potential mediating variables. Other hypotheses could also include predictions about variables that moderate the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable .

Directional hypothesis

A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. For example, "Eating more fruits and vegetables leads to a decrease in heart disease."

Here, the direction of heart disease is explicitly predicted to decrease, due to effects from eating more fruits and vegetables. All hypotheses typically specify the expected direction of the relationship between the independent and dependent variable, such that researchers can test if this prediction holds in their data analysis .

Statistical hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is one that is testable through statistical methods, providing a numerical value that can be analyzed. This is commonly seen in quantitative research .

For example, "There is a statistically significant difference in test scores between students who study for one hour and those who study for two."

Empirical hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is derived from observations and is tested through empirical methods, often through experimentation or survey data . Empirical hypotheses may also be assessed with statistical analyses.

For example, "Regular exercise is correlated with a lower incidence of depression," could be tested through surveys that measure exercise frequency and depression levels.

Causal hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes that one variable causes a change in another. This type of hypothesis is often tested through controlled experiments.

For example, "Smoking causes lung cancer," assumes a direct causal relationship.

Associative hypothesis

Unlike causal hypotheses, associative hypotheses suggest a relationship between variables but do not imply causation.

For instance, "People who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer," notes an association but doesn't claim that smoking causes lung cancer directly.

Relational hypothesis

A relational hypothesis explores the relationship between two or more variables but doesn't specify the nature of the relationship.

For example, "There is a relationship between diet and heart health," leaves the nature of the relationship (causal, associative, etc.) open to interpretation.

Logical hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is based on sound reasoning and logical principles. It's often used in theoretical research to explore abstract concepts, rather than being based on empirical data.

For example, "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal," employs logical reasoning to make its point.

Let ATLAS.ti take you from research question to key insights

Get started with a free trial and see how ATLAS.ti can make the most of your data.

In any research hypothesis, variables play a critical role. These are the elements or factors that the researcher manipulates, controls, or measures. Understanding variables is essential for crafting a clear, testable hypothesis and for the stages of research that follow, such as data collection and analysis.

In the realm of hypotheses, there are generally two types of variables to consider: independent and dependent. Independent variables are what you, as the researcher, manipulate or change in your study. It's considered the cause in the relationship you're investigating. For instance, in a study examining the impact of sleep duration on academic performance, the independent variable would be the amount of sleep participants get.

Conversely, the dependent variable is the outcome you measure to gauge the effect of your manipulation. It's the effect in the cause-and-effect relationship. The dependent variable thus refers to the main outcome of interest in your study. In the same sleep study example, the academic performance, perhaps measured by exam scores or GPA, would be the dependent variable.

Beyond these two primary types, you might also encounter control variables. These are variables that could potentially influence the outcome and are therefore kept constant to isolate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables . For example, in the sleep and academic performance study, control variables could include age, diet, or even the subject of study.

By clearly identifying and understanding the roles of these variables in your hypothesis, you set the stage for a methodologically sound research project. It helps you develop focused research questions, design appropriate experiments or observations, and carry out meaningful data analysis . It's a step that lays the groundwork for the success of your entire study.

Crafting a strong, testable hypothesis is crucial for the success of any research project. It sets the stage for everything from your study design to data collection and analysis . Below are some key considerations to keep in mind when formulating your hypothesis:

• Be specific : A vague hypothesis can lead to ambiguous results and interpretations . Clearly define your variables and the expected relationship between them.
• Ensure testability : A good hypothesis should be testable through empirical means, whether by observation , experimentation, or other forms of data analysis.
• Ground in literature : Before creating your hypothesis, consult existing research and theories. This not only helps you identify gaps in current knowledge but also gives you valuable context and credibility for crafting your hypothesis.
• Use simple language : While your hypothesis should be conceptually sound, it doesn't have to be complicated. Aim for clarity and simplicity in your wording.
• State direction, if applicable : If your hypothesis involves a directional outcome (e.g., "increase" or "decrease"), make sure to specify this. You also need to think about how you will measure whether or not the outcome moved in the direction you predicted.
• Keep it focused : One of the common pitfalls in hypothesis formulation is trying to answer too many questions at once. Keep your hypothesis focused on a specific issue or relationship.
• Account for control variables : Identify any variables that could potentially impact the outcome and consider how you will control for them in your study.
• Be ethical : Make sure your hypothesis and the methods for testing it comply with ethical standards , particularly if your research involves human or animal subjects.

Designing your study involves multiple key phases that help ensure the rigor and validity of your research. Here we discuss these crucial components in more detail.

Literature review

Starting with a comprehensive literature review is essential. This step allows you to understand the existing body of knowledge related to your hypothesis and helps you identify gaps that your research could fill. Your research should aim to contribute some novel understanding to existing literature, and your hypotheses can reflect this. A literature review also provides valuable insights into how similar research projects were executed, thereby helping you fine-tune your own approach.

Research methods

Choosing the right research methods is critical. Whether it's a survey, an experiment, or observational study, the methodology should be the most appropriate for testing your hypothesis. Your choice of methods will also depend on whether your research is quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods. Make sure the chosen methods align well with the variables you are studying and the type of data you need.

Preliminary research

Before diving into a full-scale study, it’s often beneficial to conduct preliminary research or a pilot study . This allows you to test your research methods on a smaller scale, refine your tools, and identify any potential issues. For instance, a pilot survey can help you determine if your questions are clear and if the survey effectively captures the data you need. This step can save you both time and resources in the long run.

Data analysis

Finally, planning your data analysis in advance is crucial for a successful study. Decide which statistical or analytical tools are most suited for your data type and research questions . For quantitative research, you might opt for t-tests, ANOVA, or regression analyses. For qualitative research , thematic analysis or grounded theory may be more appropriate. This phase is integral for interpreting your results and drawing meaningful conclusions in relation to your research question.

Turn data into evidence for insights with ATLAS.ti

Powerful analysis for your research paper or presentation is at your fingertips starting with a free trial.

Choose Your Test

• Search Blogs By Category
• College Admissions
• AP and IB Exams
• GPA and Coursework

What Is a Hypothesis and How Do I Write One?

General Education

Think about something strange and unexplainable in your life. Maybe you get a headache right before it rains, or maybe you think your favorite sports team wins when you wear a certain color. If you wanted to see whether these are just coincidences or scientific fact, you would form a hypothesis, then create an experiment to see whether that hypothesis is true or not.

But what is a hypothesis, anyway? If you’re not sure about what a hypothesis is--or how to test for one!--you’re in the right place. This article will teach you everything you need to know about hypotheses, including: 

• Defining the term “hypothesis” 
• Providing hypothesis examples 
• Giving you tips for how to write your own hypothesis

So let’s get started!

What Is a Hypothesis?

Merriam Webster defines a hypothesis as “an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.” In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess . Scientists make a reasonable assumption--or a hypothesis--then design an experiment to test whether it’s true or not. Keep in mind that in science, a hypothesis should be testable. You have to be able to design an experiment that tests your hypothesis in order for it to be valid. 

As you could assume from that statement, it’s easy to make a bad hypothesis. But when you’re holding an experiment, it’s even more important that your guesses be good...after all, you’re spending time (and maybe money!) to figure out more about your observation. That’s why we refer to a hypothesis as an educated guess--good hypotheses are based on existing data and research to make them as sound as possible.

Hypotheses are one part of what’s called the scientific method .  Every (good) experiment or study is based in the scientific method. The scientific method gives order and structure to experiments and ensures that interference from scientists or outside influences does not skew the results. It’s important that you understand the concepts of the scientific method before holding your own experiment. Though it may vary among scientists, the scientific method is generally made up of six steps (in order):

• Observation
• Asking questions
• Forming a hypothesis
• Analyze the data
• Communicate your results

You’ll notice that the hypothesis comes pretty early on when conducting an experiment. That’s because experiments work best when they’re trying to answer one specific question. And you can’t conduct an experiment until you know what you’re trying to prove!

Independent and Dependent Variables 

After doing your research, you’re ready for another important step in forming your hypothesis: identifying variables. Variables are basically any factor that could influence the outcome of your experiment . Variables have to be measurable and related to the topic being studied.

There are two types of variables:  independent variables and dependent variables. I ndependent variables remain constant . For example, age is an independent variable; it will stay the same, and researchers can look at different ages to see if it has an effect on the dependent variable. 

Speaking of dependent variables... dependent variables are subject to the influence of the independent variable , meaning that they are not constant. Let’s say you want to test whether a person’s age affects how much sleep they need. In that case, the independent variable is age (like we mentioned above), and the dependent variable is how much sleep a person gets. 

Variables will be crucial in writing your hypothesis. You need to be able to identify which variable is which, as both the independent and dependent variables will be written into your hypothesis. For instance, in a study about exercise, the independent variable might be the speed at which the respondents walk for thirty minutes, and the dependent variable would be their heart rate. In your study and in your hypothesis, you’re trying to understand the relationship between the two variables.

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

The best hypotheses start by asking the right questions . For instance, if you’ve observed that the grass is greener when it rains twice a week, you could ask what kind of grass it is, what elevation it’s at, and if the grass across the street responds to rain in the same way. Any of these questions could become the backbone of experiments to test why the grass gets greener when it rains fairly frequently.

As you’re asking more questions about your first observation, make sure you’re also making more observations . If it doesn’t rain for two weeks and the grass still looks green, that’s an important observation that could influence your hypothesis. You'll continue observing all throughout your experiment, but until the hypothesis is finalized, every observation should be noted.

Finally, you should consult secondary research before writing your hypothesis . Secondary research is comprised of results found and published by other people. You can usually find this information online or at your library. Additionally, m ake sure the research you find is credible and related to your topic. If you’re studying the correlation between rain and grass growth, it would help you to research rain patterns over the past twenty years for your county, published by a local agricultural association. You should also research the types of grass common in your area, the type of grass in your lawn, and whether anyone else has conducted experiments about your hypothesis. Also be sure you’re checking the quality of your research . Research done by a middle school student about what minerals can be found in rainwater would be less useful than an article published by a local university.

Writing Your Hypothesis

Once you’ve considered all of the factors above, you’re ready to start writing your hypothesis. Hypotheses usually take a certain form when they’re written out in a research report.

When you boil down your hypothesis statement, you are writing down your best guess and not the question at hand . This means that your statement should be written as if it is fact already, even though you are simply testing it.

The reason for this is that, after you have completed your study, you'll either accept or reject your if-then or your null hypothesis. All hypothesis testing examples should be measurable and able to be confirmed or denied. You cannot confirm a question, only a statement! 

In fact, you come up with hypothesis examples all the time! For instance, when you guess on the outcome of a basketball game, you don’t say, “Will the Miami Heat beat the Boston Celtics?” but instead, “I think the Miami Heat will beat the Boston Celtics.” You state it as if it is already true, even if it turns out you’re wrong. You do the same thing when writing your hypothesis.

Additionally, keep in mind that hypotheses can range from very specific to very broad.  These hypotheses can be specific, but if your hypothesis testing examples involve a broad range of causes and effects, your hypothesis can also be broad.  

The Two Types of Hypotheses

Now that you understand what goes into a hypothesis, it’s time to look more closely at the two most common types of hypothesis: the if-then hypothesis and the null hypothesis.

#1: If-Then Hypotheses

First of all, if-then hypotheses typically follow this formula:

If ____ happens, then ____ will happen.

The goal of this type of hypothesis is to test the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variable. It’s fairly simple, and each hypothesis can vary in how detailed it can be. We create if-then hypotheses all the time with our daily predictions. Here are some examples of hypotheses that use an if-then structure from daily life: 

• If I get enough sleep, I’ll be able to get more work done tomorrow.
• If the bus is on time, I can make it to my friend’s birthday party. 
• If I study every night this week, I’ll get a better grade on my exam. 

In each of these situations, you’re making a guess on how an independent variable (sleep, time, or studying) will affect a dependent variable (the amount of work you can do, making it to a party on time, or getting better grades). 

You may still be asking, “What is an example of a hypothesis used in scientific research?” Take one of the hypothesis examples from a real-world study on whether using technology before bed affects children’s sleep patterns. The hypothesis read s:

“We hypothesized that increased hours of tablet- and phone-based screen time at bedtime would be inversely correlated with sleep quality and child attention.”

It might not look like it, but this is an if-then statement. The researchers basically said, “If children have more screen usage at bedtime, then their quality of sleep and attention will be worse.” The sleep quality and attention are the dependent variables and the screen usage is the independent variable. (Usually, the independent variable comes after the “if” and the dependent variable comes after the “then,” as it is the independent variable that affects the dependent variable.) This is an excellent example of how flexible hypothesis statements can be, as long as the general idea of “if-then” and the independent and dependent variables are present.

#2: Null Hypotheses

Your if-then hypothesis is not the only one needed to complete a successful experiment, however. You also need a null hypothesis to test it against. In its most basic form, the null hypothesis is the opposite of your if-then hypothesis . When you write your null hypothesis, you are writing a hypothesis that suggests that your guess is not true, and that the independent and dependent variables have no relationship .

One null hypothesis for the cell phone and sleep study from the last section might say: 

“If children have more screen usage at bedtime, their quality of sleep and attention will not be worse.” 

In this case, this is a null hypothesis because it’s asking the opposite of the original thesis! 

Conversely, if your if-then hypothesis suggests that your two variables have no relationship, then your null hypothesis would suggest that there is one. So, pretend that there is a study that is asking the question, “Does the amount of followers on Instagram influence how long people spend on the app?” The independent variable is the amount of followers, and the dependent variable is the time spent. But if you, as the researcher, don’t think there is a relationship between the number of followers and time spent, you might write an if-then hypothesis that reads:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will not spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

In this case, the if-then suggests there isn’t a relationship between the variables. In that case, one of the null hypothesis examples might say:

“If people have many followers on Instagram, they will spend more time on the app than people who have less.”

You then test both the if-then and the null hypothesis to gauge if there is a relationship between the variables, and if so, how much of a relationship. 

4 Tips to Write the Best Hypothesis

If you’re going to take the time to hold an experiment, whether in school or by yourself, you’re also going to want to take the time to make sure your hypothesis is a good one. The best hypotheses have four major elements in common: plausibility, defined concepts, observability, and general explanation.

#1: Plausibility

At first glance, this quality of a hypothesis might seem obvious. When your hypothesis is plausible, that means it’s possible given what we know about science and general common sense. However, improbable hypotheses are more common than you might think. 

Imagine you’re studying weight gain and television watching habits. If you hypothesize that people who watch more than  twenty hours of television a week will gain two hundred pounds or more over the course of a year, this might be improbable (though it’s potentially possible). Consequently, c ommon sense can tell us the results of the study before the study even begins.

Improbable hypotheses generally go against  science, as well. Take this hypothesis example: 

“If a person smokes one cigarette a day, then they will have lungs just as healthy as the average person’s.” 

This hypothesis is obviously untrue, as studies have shown again and again that cigarettes negatively affect lung health. You must be careful that your hypotheses do not reflect your own personal opinion more than they do scientifically-supported findings. This plausibility points to the necessity of research before the hypothesis is written to make sure that your hypothesis has not already been disproven.

#2: Defined Concepts

The more advanced you are in your studies, the more likely that the terms you’re using in your hypothesis are specific to a limited set of knowledge. One of the hypothesis testing examples might include the readability of printed text in newspapers, where you might use words like “kerning” and “x-height.” Unless your readers have a background in graphic design, it’s likely that they won’t know what you mean by these terms. Thus, it’s important to either write what they mean in the hypothesis itself or in the report before the hypothesis.

Here’s what we mean. Which of the following sentences makes more sense to the common person?

If the kerning is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

If the space between letters is greater than average, more words will be read per minute.

For people reading your report that are not experts in typography, simply adding a few more words will be helpful in clarifying exactly what the experiment is all about. It’s always a good idea to make your research and findings as accessible as possible. 

Good hypotheses ensure that you can observe the results. 

#3: Observability

In order to measure the truth or falsity of your hypothesis, you must be able to see your variables and the way they interact. For instance, if your hypothesis is that the flight patterns of satellites affect the strength of certain television signals, yet you don’t have a telescope to view the satellites or a television to monitor the signal strength, you cannot properly observe your hypothesis and thus cannot continue your study.

Some variables may seem easy to observe, but if you do not have a system of measurement in place, you cannot observe your hypothesis properly. Here’s an example: if you’re experimenting on the effect of healthy food on overall happiness, but you don’t have a way to monitor and measure what “overall happiness” means, your results will not reflect the truth. Monitoring how often someone smiles for a whole day is not reasonably observable, but having the participants state how happy they feel on a scale of one to ten is more observable. 

In writing your hypothesis, always keep in mind how you'll execute the experiment.

#4: Generalizability 

Perhaps you’d like to study what color your best friend wears the most often by observing and documenting the colors she wears each day of the week. This might be fun information for her and you to know, but beyond you two, there aren’t many people who could benefit from this experiment. When you start an experiment, you should note how generalizable your findings may be if they are confirmed. Generalizability is basically how common a particular phenomenon is to other people’s everyday life.

Let’s say you’re asking a question about the health benefits of eating an apple for one day only, you need to realize that the experiment may be too specific to be helpful. It does not help to explain a phenomenon that many people experience. If you find yourself with too specific of a hypothesis, go back to asking the big question: what is it that you want to know, and what do you think will happen between your two variables?

Hypothesis Testing Examples

We know it can be hard to write a good hypothesis unless you’ve seen some good hypothesis examples. We’ve included four hypothesis examples based on some made-up experiments. Use these as templates or launch pads for coming up with your own hypotheses.

Experiment #1: Students Studying Outside (Writing a Hypothesis)

You are a student at PrepScholar University. When you walk around campus, you notice that, when the temperature is above 60 degrees, more students study in the quad. You want to know when your fellow students are more likely to study outside. With this information, how do you make the best hypothesis possible?

You must remember to make additional observations and do secondary research before writing your hypothesis. In doing so, you notice that no one studies outside when it’s 75 degrees and raining, so this should be included in your experiment. Also, studies done on the topic beforehand suggested that students are more likely to study in temperatures less than 85 degrees. With this in mind, you feel confident that you can identify your variables and write your hypotheses:

If-then: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, significantly fewer students will study outside.”

Null: “If the temperature in Fahrenheit is less than 60 degrees, the same number of students will study outside as when it is more than 60 degrees.”

These hypotheses are plausible, as the temperatures are reasonably within the bounds of what is possible. The number of people in the quad is also easily observable. It is also not a phenomenon specific to only one person or at one time, but instead can explain a phenomenon for a broader group of people.

To complete this experiment, you pick the month of October to observe the quad. Every day (except on the days where it’s raining)from 3 to 4 PM, when most classes have released for the day, you observe how many people are on the quad. You measure how many people come  and how many leave. You also write down the temperature on the hour. 

After writing down all of your observations and putting them on a graph, you find that the most students study on the quad when it is 70 degrees outside, and that the number of students drops a lot once the temperature reaches 60 degrees or below. In this case, your research report would state that you accept or “failed to reject” your first hypothesis with your findings.

Experiment #2: The Cupcake Store (Forming a Simple Experiment)

Let’s say that you work at a bakery. You specialize in cupcakes, and you make only two colors of frosting: yellow and purple. You want to know what kind of customers are more likely to buy what kind of cupcake, so you set up an experiment. Your independent variable is the customer’s gender, and the dependent variable is the color of the frosting. What is an example of a hypothesis that might answer the question of this study?

Here’s what your hypotheses might look like: 

If-then: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will buy more yellow cupcakes than purple cupcakes.”

Null: “If customers’ gender is female, then they will be just as likely to buy purple cupcakes as yellow cupcakes.”

This is a pretty simple experiment! It passes the test of plausibility (there could easily be a difference), defined concepts (there’s nothing complicated about cupcakes!), observability (both color and gender can be easily observed), and general explanation ( this would potentially help you make better business decisions ).

Experiment #3: Backyard Bird Feeders (Integrating Multiple Variables and Rejecting the If-Then Hypothesis)

While watching your backyard bird feeder, you realized that different birds come on the days when you change the types of seeds. You decide that you want to see more cardinals in your backyard, so you decide to see what type of food they like the best and set up an experiment. 

However, one morning, you notice that, while some cardinals are present, blue jays are eating out of your backyard feeder filled with millet. You decide that, of all of the other birds, you would like to see the blue jays the least. This means you'll have more than one variable in your hypothesis. Your new hypotheses might look like this: 

If-then: “If sunflower seeds are placed in the bird feeders, then more cardinals will come than blue jays. If millet is placed in the bird feeders, then more blue jays will come than cardinals.”

Null: “If either sunflower seeds or millet are placed in the bird, equal numbers of cardinals and blue jays will come.”

Through simple observation, you actually find that cardinals come as often as blue jays when sunflower seeds or millet is in the bird feeder. In this case, you would reject your “if-then” hypothesis and “fail to reject” your null hypothesis . You cannot accept your first hypothesis, because it’s clearly not true. Instead you found that there was actually no relation between your different variables. Consequently, you would need to run more experiments with different variables to see if the new variables impact the results.

Experiment #4: In-Class Survey (Including an Alternative Hypothesis)

You’re about to give a speech in one of your classes about the importance of paying attention. You want to take this opportunity to test a hypothesis you’ve had for a while: 

If-then: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will listen better than students who do not.

Null: If students sit in the first two rows of the classroom, then they will not listen better or worse than students who do not.

You give your speech and then ask your teacher if you can hand out a short survey to the class. On the survey, you’ve included questions about some of the topics you talked about. When you get back the results, you’re surprised to see that not only do the students in the first two rows not pay better attention, but they also scored worse than students in other parts of the classroom! Here, both your if-then and your null hypotheses are not representative of your findings. What do you do?

This is when you reject both your if-then and null hypotheses and instead create an alternative hypothesis . This type of hypothesis is used in the rare circumstance that neither of your hypotheses is able to capture your findings . Now you can use what you’ve learned to draft new hypotheses and test again! 

Key Takeaways: Hypothesis Writing

The more comfortable you become with writing hypotheses, the better they will become. The structure of hypotheses is flexible and may need to be changed depending on what topic you are studying. The most important thing to remember is the purpose of your hypothesis and the difference between the if-then and the null . From there, in forming your hypothesis, you should constantly be asking questions, making observations, doing secondary research, and considering your variables. After you have written your hypothesis, be sure to edit it so that it is plausible, clearly defined, observable, and helpful in explaining a general phenomenon.

Writing a hypothesis is something that everyone, from elementary school children competing in a science fair to professional scientists in a lab, needs to know how to do. Hypotheses are vital in experiments and in properly executing the scientific method . When done correctly, hypotheses will set up your studies for success and help you to understand the world a little better, one experiment at a time.

What’s Next?

If you’re studying for the science portion of the ACT, there’s definitely a lot you need to know. We’ve got the tools to help, though! Start by checking out our ultimate study guide for the ACT Science subject test. Once you read through that, be sure to download our recommended ACT Science practice tests , since they’re one of the most foolproof ways to improve your score. (And don’t forget to check out our expert guide book , too.)

If you love science and want to major in a scientific field, you should start preparing in high school . Here are the science classes you should take to set yourself up for success.

If you’re trying to think of science experiments you can do for class (or for a science fair!), here’s a list of 37 awesome science experiments you can do at home

Trending Now

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

ACT vs. SAT: Which Test Should You Take?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Get Your Free

Find Your Target SAT Score

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect SAT Score, by an Expert Full Scorer

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading and Writing

How to Improve Your Low SAT Score

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading and Writing

Find Your Target ACT Score

Complete Official Free ACT Practice Tests

How to Get a Perfect ACT Score, by a 36 Full Scorer

Get a 36 on ACT English

Get a 36 on ACT Math

Get a 36 on ACT Reading

Get a 36 on ACT Science

How to Improve Your Low ACT Score

Get a 24 on ACT English

Get a 24 on ACT Math

Get a 24 on ACT Reading

Get a 24 on ACT Science

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Ashley Sufflé Robinson has a Ph.D. in 19th Century English Literature. As a content writer for PrepScholar, Ashley is passionate about giving college-bound students the in-depth information they need to get into the school of their dreams.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Hypothesis: An Introduction

You must have heard about hypotheses that led to several achievements in scientific inventions. A hypothesis is a milestone in any research; it is the point of the research where we propose an analysis. The hypothesis of any research corresponds to the assumptions we conclude from the evidence gathered. The hypothesis consists of the points or the concepts that are proven successful. Now, let us learn about what exactly a hypothesis means and the type of hypothesis along with examples.

What is Hypothesis?

An assumption that is made based on some limited evidence collected is known as a hypothesis. It is the beginning point of study that translates research questions into predictions that might or might not be true. It depends on the variables and population used, also the relation between the variables. The hypothesis used to test the relationship between two or multiple variables is known as the research hypothesis.

Hypothesis Properties

The properties of the hypothesis are as follows:

It should be empirically tested irrespective of being right or wrong.

It should establish the relationship between the variables that are considered.

It must be specific, clear, and precise.

It should possess the scope for future studies and be capable of conducting more tests.

It should be capable of testing it in a reasonable time and it must be reliable.

Types of Hypothesis

Hypothesis can be classified as follows:

Null Hypothesis

Simple hypothesis

Directional hypothesis

Complex hypothesis

Non-directional hypothesis

Causal and associative hypothesis

It states that one variable doesn't affect the other variables being studied. A null hypothesis asserts that two factors or groups are independent of each other and that some traits of a population or process are identical. To contradict or invalidate the null hypothesis, we must assess the likelihood of the alternative hypothesis in addition to the null hypothesis.

Simple Hypothesis

There are two types of variables i.e, dependent and independent variables. A simple hypothesis shows the relationship between the dependent and independent variables. For example, if you pump petrol into your bike, you can go for long rides. Here bike is the dependent variable and petrol is the independent one.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a researcher's prediction of a positive or negative change, relationship, or difference between two variables in a population. This statement is often supported by prior research, a widely established theory, considerable experience, or relevant literature.

For example, students who do proper revision and assignments could score more marks than the students who skipped. Here, we already know the process and its impact on the outcome. This is what we call a directional hypothesis.

Complex Hypothesis

The complex hypothesis shows the relationship that comes between two or more dependent and independent variables. For example, if you pump petrol in your bike, you can go for long rides, also you become an expert in riding a bike, you explore more places and come across new things.

Non-directional Hypothesis

There is no theory for this kind. Unlike the directional hypothesis, there are no predictions. We can say there is a relation between the variables but prediction and nature are unknown.

Causal and Associative Hypothesis

If there is a change in one variable and as a result, it affects the other variable, then we say it is associative. Meanwhile, the causal hypothesis comes into play when the cause and effect interaction occurs between two or more variables.

Sources of Hypothesis

The major sources of hypothesis are:

Scientific theories

Personal experience and conclusion arrived

Studies that underwent in the past

The resemblances between the phenomena, that is the pattern observed in common

Common thoughts and thinking

Functions of Hypothesis

The functions of hypothesis are as follows:

It tells us the specific aspects of studies we investigate. It provides study with focus.

The cnstruction of the hypothesis led to objectivity in the investigation

It helps to formulate the theory for the research work and sort out what is wrong and right.

It filters out the data that have to be collected for the work.

Hypothesis Examples

Some examples of hypotheses are as follows

Consumption of tobacco led to cancer, which is an example of a simple hypothesis.

If a person does work out daily, his/her skin, body, and mind remain healthy and fresh, which is an example of a directional hypothesis.

If you consume tobacco it not only causes cancer, but also affects your brain, turns your lips black, etc.

Role of Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

Experimental designing

Predicting results

Background research

Question formation

Data collection

Verification of results

Concluding the experiment

Being a future reference for the further studies

Role of hypothesis in the scientific method

In conclusion, it can be understood that a hypothesis is an assumption that researchers make on the basis of the limited evidence collected. It is the starting point of study that translates research questions into predictions. The various types of hypotheses include Null Hypothesis, Simple hypothesis, Directional hypothesis, Complex hypothesis, Non-directional hypothesis, and Causal and associative hypothesis. We proceed with our research or experiments according to the hypothesis we design.

FAQs on Hypothesis

1. Why is a hypothesis important?

Hypothesis plays an important role in any research project; it's a stepping stone to proving a theory. Hypothesis serves in establishing a connection to the underlying theory and particular research subject. It helps in data processing and evaluates the reliability and validity of the study. It offers a foundation or supporting evidence to demonstrate the accuracy of the study. A hypothesis allows researchers not only to get a relationship between variables, but also to predict a relationship based on theoretical guidelines and/or empirical proof.

2. How do I write a hypothesis?

Writing a good hypothesis starts before you even begin to type. Like several tasks, preparation is vital, thus you begin first by conducting analysis yourself, and reading all you can regarding the subject that you decide to do research on. From there, you’ll gain the information you need to know , where your focus within the subject will lie. Keep in mind that a hypothesis may be a prediction of the relationship that exists between 2 or more variables. The hypothesis should be straightforward and concise , the result should be predictable , clear and with no assumptions about the reader's knowledge.

3. What are a few examples of hypotheses?

Consumption of drugs leads to depression is an example of a simple hypothesis. If a person has a proper diet plan, his/her skin, body, and mind remain healthy and fresh. This is an example of a directional hypothesis. If you consume drugs it not only causes depression, but also affects your brain, leads to addiction, etc. If you pump petrol in your bike, you can go for long rides, also you become an expert in riding a bike, you explore more places and come across new things.

Hypothesis in Canvas

Are you interested in increasing student engagement, expanding reading comprehension, and building critical-thinking and community in classes? Collaborative annotation makes reading active, visible, and social, enabling students to engage with their texts, teachers, ideas, and each other in deeper, more meaningful ways.

You already have Hypothesis in Canvas at your school

Your school is already set up, you can start using Hypothesis in minutes: Look for Hypothesis under “external tools” in new Canvas assignments or module content. See the following guides for more details. If you don’t see Hypothesis in Canvas yet, let us know using the form below and we’ll help you get started.

• Using Hypothesis with Modules in Canvas
• Using Hypothesis with Assignments in Canvas
• Grading Student Annotations in Canvas

General annotation resources to share with students

• Introduction to the Hypothesis LMS App for Students
• Annotation Etiquette for Students
• An Illustrated Guide to Annotation Types
• Using images, links, and videos in annotations

Have questions or need help?

Let us know who you are and we’ll get in touch.

Frequently asked questions

Should i use a research question, hypothesis, or thesis statement.

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

Frequently asked questions: Writing a research paper

A research project is an academic, scientific, or professional undertaking to answer a research question . Research projects can take many forms, such as qualitative or quantitative , descriptive , longitudinal , experimental , or correlational . What kind of research approach you choose will depend on your topic.

The best way to remember the difference between a research plan and a research proposal is that they have fundamentally different audiences. A research plan helps you, the researcher, organize your thoughts. On the other hand, a dissertation proposal or research proposal aims to convince others (e.g., a supervisor, a funding body, or a dissertation committee) that your research topic is relevant and worthy of being conducted.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them.

In general, they should be:

• Focused and researchable
• Answerable using credible sources
• Complex and arguable
• Feasible and specific
• Relevant and original

All research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement .

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

Your research objectives indicate how you’ll try to address your research problem and should be specific:

Research objectives describe what you intend your research project to accomplish.

They summarize the approach and purpose of the project and help to focus your research.

Your objectives should appear in the introduction of your research paper , at the end of your problem statement .

The main guidelines for formatting a paper in Chicago style are to:

• Use a standard font like 12 pt Times New Roman
• Use 1 inch margins or larger
• Apply double line spacing
• Indent every new paragraph ½ inch
• Include a title page
• Place page numbers in the top right or bottom center
• Cite your sources with author-date citations or Chicago footnotes
• Include a bibliography or reference list

To automatically generate accurate Chicago references, you can use Scribbr’s free Chicago reference generator .

The main guidelines for formatting a paper in MLA style are as follows:

• Use an easily readable font like 12 pt Times New Roman
• Set 1 inch page margins
• Include a four-line MLA heading on the first page
• Center the paper’s title
• Use title case capitalization for headings
• Cite your sources with MLA in-text citations
• List all sources cited on a Works Cited page at the end

To format a paper in APA Style , follow these guidelines:

• Use a standard font like 12 pt Times New Roman or 11 pt Arial
• If submitting for publication, insert a running head on every page
• Apply APA heading styles
• Cite your sources with APA in-text citations
• List all sources cited on a reference page at the end

No, it’s not appropriate to present new arguments or evidence in the conclusion . While you might be tempted to save a striking argument for last, research papers follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the results and discussion sections if you are following a scientific structure). The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

The conclusion of a research paper has several key elements you should make sure to include:

• A restatement of the research problem
• A summary of your key arguments and/or findings
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

Don’t feel that you have to write the introduction first. The introduction is often one of the last parts of the research paper you’ll write, along with the conclusion.

This is because it can be easier to introduce your paper once you’ve already written the body ; you may not have the clearest idea of your arguments until you’ve written them, and things can change during the writing process .

The introduction of a research paper includes several key elements:

• A hook to catch the reader’s interest
• Relevant background on the topic
• Details of your research problem

and your problem statement

• A thesis statement or research question
• Sometimes an overview of the paper

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem.  We  are always here for you.

• Email [email protected]
• Start live chat
• Call +1 (510) 822-8066
• WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Our team helps students graduate by offering:

• A world-class citation generator
• Plagiarism Checker software powered by Turnitin
• Innovative Citation Checker software
• Professional proofreading services
• Over 300 helpful articles about academic writing, citing sources, plagiarism, and more

Scribbr specializes in editing study-related documents . We proofread:

• PhD dissertations
• Research proposals
• Personal statements
• Admission essays
• Motivation letters
• Reflection papers
• Journal articles
• Capstone projects

Scribbr’s Plagiarism Checker is powered by elements of Turnitin’s Similarity Checker , namely the plagiarism detection software and the Internet Archive and Premium Scholarly Publications content databases .

The add-on AI detector is powered by Scribbr’s proprietary software.

The Scribbr Citation Generator is developed using the open-source Citation Style Language (CSL) project and Frank Bennett’s citeproc-js . It’s the same technology used by dozens of other popular citation tools, including Mendeley and Zotero.

You can find all the citation styles and locales used in the Scribbr Citation Generator in our publicly accessible repository on Github .

A Hypothesis on the Pillars of Hercules and Their True Location

• Read Later  

In this article, aimed at identifying the real location of the mythical Pillars of Hercules, it is first verified that in the works of Plutarch and Plato there are correct references to a continent beyond the Atlantic Ocean. Plutarch mentions a “great continent” surrounding the Atlantic Ocean and the islands that lie on that route, and then focuses on an ancient settlement of Europeans, called "continental Greeks", in the Canadian region of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, of which he indicates the latitude with astonishing precision. But already a few centuries earlier Plato, in addition to declaring himself certain of the existence of a continent beyond the Atlantic, had mentioned the islands along the route to reach it, also specifying that the haven from which the ancient navigators set sail was characterized by a “narrow entrance” and the Pillars of Hercules . Cross-referencing these data with the results of a recent study on European megalithism , which argues for the transfer of the megalithic concept over sea routes emanating from northwest France and for advanced maritime technology and seafaring in the M egalithic Age, it follows that this haven is identifiable with the Gulf of Morbihan, considered by scholars a focal point of the European Neolithic during the mid-5th millennium BC. This is exactly where , near its "narrow entrance", the remains are still found of an extraordinary alignment of nineteen gigantic menhirs: here are the Pillars of Hercules! On the other hand, the memory of ancient European settlements on the American side of the North Atlantic (perhaps also linked to the extraction of copper from the ancient mines of Isle Royale, the largest island in Lake Superior) seems to emerge from various clues, such as the persistence of myths and legends comparable to those of the Old World , as well as the Caucasian traits of some Native Americans, which seem to corroborate the idea of ancient contacts between the two opposite sides of the Atlantic.  

Beyond The Pillars Of Hercules: Megalithic People Of Kronos Reaching America  

The ancient city of Lacedaemon – is it the legendary Atlantis? Part Two  

Introduction  

In one of his dialogues, “De Facie quae in Orbe Lunae Apparet ”, the Greek writer Plutarch (ca. 45-125 AD) surprisingly states that in the Atlantic Ocean “an island, Ogygia, lies far away in the sea, five days' sail from Britain, in the direction of sunset. Further on , there are three other islands as distant from it as they are from each other ”, and after “there is the great continent that surrounds the great sea” [ 1]. Shortly after, Plutarch also says that in those places the sun disappears during the summer for less than an hour per night, leaving “a light, twilight darkness” [ 2]. It is striking that these assertions correspond to the geographical reality of the Atlantic, where the American continent surrounds the ocean from the extreme north almost to the extreme south, and those four islands lie along the route to North America that the Vikings followed during the Medieval Warm Period [ 3]. Ogygia is identifiable with Nólsoy [ 4], an island in the Faroe archipelago, and the other three correspond to Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland. They are at a high latitude, which tallies with the shortness of the summer nights.  

But even more surprising is what Plutarch states immediately afterwards: " On the coast of the continent Greeks dwell around a gulf which is not smaller than the Maeotis  and the mouth of which lies on the same parallel as the mouth of the Caspian S ea. These people consider and call themselves Continentals " [ 5]. This indication allows us to immediately identify the gulf where those "continental Greeks" lived: indeed, the mouth of the Caspian Sea is the Volga Delta, which is at the latitude of 47°, the same as the Cabot Strait, where the Gulf of St. Lawrence opens i nto the Atlantic Ocean. Here too Plutarch shows surprising geographical knowledge, which confirms the reliability of his statements [ 6].  

Still in that chapter of “De Facie ”, Plutarch also mentions the "Sea of Cronus" (the name the ancient Greeks gave to the North Atlantic) and the "peoples of Cronus". Since according to Greek mythology, the god Cronus had been the lord of the happy Golden Age before being dethroned by Zeus , it can reasonably be assumed that the "peoples of Cronus" are the last memory of the megalithic civilization, which flourished during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (HCO), also called “Atlantic Climatic Optimum” [ 7] which ensured an exceptionally mild climate [ 8] in many parts of the world. When it ended, the far north was enveloped in a grip of frost and ice, which gradually made the northern route between the two opposite sides of the Atlantic more and more difficult. Indeed, the megalithic civilization—which was born in Europe in 5th millennium BC, as we will see shortly, during the climatic optimum —is much older than the Egyptian one. This corresponds to a news reported by Diodorus Siculus, according to which Osiris, the Egyptian god whom he defines as the “eldest son of Cronus ”, travelled throughout the world, until he reached “those who incline towards the Pole” [ 9]. This seems to echo very ancient memories, perhaps dating back to a very remote period of predynastic Egypt, when the Holocene Climatic Optimum made even regions located at very high latitudes habitable.  

Read more …

By Felice Vinci 

Felice Vinci, born in Rome in 1946, performed classical studies – Latin and Greek – in the high school, then he graduated in Nuclear Engineering in the University of Rome in 1971. He began working as an independent researcher on... Read More

Related Articles on Ancient-Origins

Let’s Talk about AI: Talking about AI is Positively Associated with AI Crafting

• Published: 11 July 2024

Cite this article

• Xiaowei Dong 1 ,
• Luyuan Jiang 2 ,
• Wanlu Li 3 ,
• Chen Chen 1 ,
• Yuqing Gan 1 ,
• Jingtian Xia 4 &
• Xin Qin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8365-0217 1  

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly common in organizations, and more and more employees are talking about AI with their coworkers (i.e., AI talk). However, we have limited knowledge of what effects AI talk has on employees’ psychological states and subsequent behaviors. Drawing on self-efficacy theory, we propose that talking about AI is positively associated with AI self-efficacy (i.e., the degree to which individuals think they can successfully complete AI-related tasks), which in turn increases proactive coping behavior to adapt to AI (i.e., AI crafting). Furthermore, we suggest that leader AI-focused attention moderates these positive indirect effects such that these relationships are strengthened when leaders focus more attention on AI (i.e., leader AI-focused attention is high). To test our theoretical model, we conducted an experiment and a multi-wave field study in organizations using AI. This research reveals the effects of AI talk on AI crafting via AI self-efficacy, which expands the existing AI literature and job crafting literature and provides a more comprehensive understanding of AI in the workplace.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Data Availability

Data and detailed analyses are available from the authors upon request.

This is the reference price provided by the platform according to the number of questions.

We did the following to ensure the validity of the manipulation. First, in the requirements of the questionnaire, we clearly emphasized that the participants should have used AI in real work contexts. Second, before the experiment, we also asked the participants whether they used AI in real work contexts. If not, the participants would stop answering directly. These two steps ensured that the participants who filled out our questionnaire were all using AI at work. Third, after the questionnaire was collected, we manually reviewed the questionnaires answered by each participant (i.e., whether involve AI/AI robot/robot).

We recruited 207 full-time employees who use AI in their work from Credamo ( https://www.credamo.com ) and paid each participant 2 RMB (approximately 0.28 USD) to complete our survey. Among these participants, 53.14% were female. Their average age was 29.54 years ( SD = 8.10), their average education was 16.09 years ( SD = 1.62), and their average organizational tenure was 4.61 years ( SD = 5.30). Participants were from different industries, including service (25.60%), information and communications technology (17.87%), manufacturing (11.11%), and others (45.42%). They worked in a variety of jobs, including technology related (36.23%), marketing related (21.74%), administration related (17.39%), and others (24.64%). For the type of AI participants used, 43.00% participants used AI robot, while 57.00% participants used generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT and ERNIE Bot).

Though the value of RMSEA is over the cutoff (i.e., .080), consider “for models with small df , the RMSEA can exceed cutoffs very often, even when the model is correctly specified” (Kenny et al., 2015 , p. 16), we pay more attention to other indexes. Specifically, the value of CFI = .970 > .950, TLI = .939 > .900, SRMR = .027 < .050, these indexes all showed a good fit (Dash & Paul, 2021 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ).

Abdullah, R., & Fakieh, B. (2020). Health care employees’ perceptions of the use of artificial intelligence applications: survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 (5), e17620. https://doi.org/10.2196/17620

Article   Google Scholar  

Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2017). What to expect from artificial intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58 (3), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11645.003.0008

Ahmad, S. F., Han, H., Alam, M. M., Rehmat, M., Irshad, M., Arraño-Muñoz, M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2023). Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01842-4

Baer, M. D., Rodell, J. B., Dhensa-Kahlon, R. K., Colquitt, J. A., Zipay, K. P., Burgess, R., & Outlaw, R. (2018). Pacification or aggravation? The effects of talking about supervisor unfairness. Academy of Management Journal, 61 (5), 1764–1788. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0630

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 , 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4 (3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359

Bandura, A. (1988). Reflection on nonability determinants of competence. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered: Perceptions of competence and incompetence across the lifespan (pp. 315–362). Yale University Press.

Google Scholar  

Barton, D., Woetzel, J., Seong, J., Tian, Q. (2017). Artificial intelligence: Implications for China. McKinsey Global Institute. https://dln.jaipuria.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1888/1/MGI-Artificial-intelligence-implications-for-China.pdf . Accessed 13 Dec 2023

Beehr, T. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Social support and occupational stress: Talking to supervisors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36 (1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90015-T

Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology , 389–444.

Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24 (2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55

Brynjolfsson, E., Mitchell, T., Rock, D. (2018). What can machines learn and what does it mean for occupations and the economy?. In AEA papers and proceedings (Vol. 108, pp. 43–47). 2014 Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203: American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20181019

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2015). Will humans go the way of horses. Foreign Affairs, 94 (4), 8–14.

Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13 (1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306775

Chan, A. (2023). GPT-3 and InstructGPT: technological dystopianism, utopianism, and “Contextual” perspectives in AI ethics and industry. AI and Ethics, 3 (1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00148-6

Chen, C. Y., Yen, C. H., & Tsai, F. C. (2014). Job crafting and job engagement: The mediating role of person-job fit. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37 , 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.10.006

Chen, C., Qin, X., Johnson, R. E., Huang, M., Yang, M., & Liu, S. (2021). Entering an upward spiral: Investigating how and when supervisors’ talking about abuse leads to subsequent abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42 (3), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2501

Chi, O. H., Jia, S., Li, Y., & Gursoy, D. (2021). Developing a formative scale to measure consumers’ trust toward interaction with artificially intelligent (AI) social robots in service delivery. Computers in Human Behavior, 118 , 106700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106700

Colquitt, J. A., Baer, M. D., Long, D. M., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2014). Scale indicators of social exchange relationships: A comparison of relative content validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036374

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600304

Dash, G., & Paul, J. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173 , 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092

Decker, P. J. (1980). Effects of symbolic coding and rehearsal in behavior-modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65 (6), 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.6.627

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41 (4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

Gardner, T. M. (2005). Interfirm competition for human resources: Evidence from the software industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48 (2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.16928398

Gilbert, S. J., & Horenstein, D. (1975). The communication of self-disclosure: Level versus valence. Human Communication Research, 1 (4), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00280.x

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17 (2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1992.4279530

Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14 (2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057

Gong, S., Lu, J. G., Schaubroeck, J. M., Li, Q., Zhou, Q., & Qian, X. (2020). Polluted psyche: Is the effect of air pollution on unethical behavior more physiological or psychological? Psychological Science, 31 (8), 1040–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620943835

Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315 (5812), 619–619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475

Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23 (2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387

Gupta, A., Li, H., & Sharda, R. (2013). Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and perceived workload. Decision Support Systems, 55 (1), 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.035

Hagerty, A., Rubinov, I. (2019). Global AI ethics: a review of the social impacts and ethical implications of artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07892 . https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07892

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1 (1), 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

Hong, J. W. (2022). I Was Born to Love AI: The influence of social status on AI self-efficacy and intentions to use AI. International Journal of Communication, 16 , 172–191. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17728 . Accessed 29 Jun 2022

Horowitz, M. C., Kahn, L., Macdonald, J., Schneider, J. (2023). Adopting AI: How familiarity breeds both trust and contempt. AI & Society, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Huang, M. H., & Rust, R. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21 (2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459

Jackson, J. C., Yam, K. C., Tang, P. M., Sibley, C. G., & Waytz, A. (2023). Exposure to automation explains religious declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (34), e2304748120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2304748120

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69 (1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85

Jia, N., Luo, X., Fang, Z., & Liao, C. (2024). When and how artificial intelligence augments employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 67 (1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2022.0426

Jiang, J., Dong, Y., Hu, H., Liu, Q., & Guan, Y. (2022). Leaders’ response to employee overqualification: An explanation of the curvilinear moderated relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 95 (2), 459–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12383

Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2020). Rulers of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of artificial intelligence. Business Horizons, 63 (1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.09.003

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44 (3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236

Keyton, J., Caputo, J. M., Ford, E. A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., Polasik, S. S., Ghosh, P., & Wu, C. (2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. The Journal of Business Communication, 50 (2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612474990

Kim, K., & Park, Y. (2017). A development and application of the teaching and learning model of artificial intelligence education for elementary students. Journal of The Korean Association of Information Education, 21 (1), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.14352/jkaie.2017.21.1.139

Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14 (2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4282072

Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2005). The role of job security in understanding the relationship between employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and employees’ performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.389

Leana, C., Appelbaum, E., & Shevchuk, I. (2009). Work process and quality of care in early childhood education: The role of job crafting. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (6), 1169–1192. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.47084651

Lee Endres, M., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K., & Alam, I. (2007). Tacit knowledge sharing, self-efficacy theory, and application to the open source community. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11 (3), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270710752135

Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40 , 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4

Li, W., Qin, X., Yam, K. C., Deng, H., Chen, C., Dong, X., Jiang, L., & Tang, W. (2024). Embracing artificial intelligence (AI) with job crafting: Exploring trickle-down effect and employees’ outcomes. Tourism Management, 104 , 104935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2024.104935

Lu, C. Q., Wang, H. J., Lu, J. J., Du, D. Y., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Does work engagement increase person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84 (2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004

Malik, N., Tripathi, S. N., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, S. (2021). Impact of artificial intelligence on employees working in industry 40 led organizations. International Journal of Manpower, 43 (2), 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-03-2021-0173

Maynard, D. C., & Hakel, M. D. (1997). Effects of objective and subjective task complexity on performance. Human Performance, 10 (4), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1004_1

McKinsey. (2021). The state of AI in 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/global-survey-the-state-of-ai-in-2021 . Accessed 20 Feb 2023

Meier, S., McCarthy, P. R., & Schmeck, R. R. (1984). Validity of self-efficacy as a predictor of writing performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8 (2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173038

Montag, C., Kraus, J., Baumann, M., & Rozgonjuk, D. (2023). The propensity to trust in (automated) technology mediates the links between technology self-efficacy and fear and acceptance of artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 11 , 100315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2023.100315

Mou, Y., & Xu, K. (2017). The media inequality: Comparing the initial human-human and human-AI social interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 72 , 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.067

Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Capatina, A., Chakraborty, A. ,..., Wong, L. W. (2023). The potential of generative artificial intelligence across disciplines: Perspectives and future directions. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2023.2261010

Parker, S. K., & Grote, G. (2022). Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology, 71 (4), 1171–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (3), 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636

Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 827–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310363732

Pereira, V., Hadjielias, E., Christofi, M., & Vrontis, D. (2021). A systematic literature review on the impact of artificial intelligence on workplace outcomes: A multi-process perspective. Human Resource Management Review , 100857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100857

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

Qin, X., Huang, M., Johnson, R. E., Hu, Q., & Ju, D. (2018). The short-lived benefits of abusive supervisory behavior for actors: An investigation of recovery and work engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 61 (5), 1951–1975. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1325

Qin, X., Yam, K. C., Chen, C., Li, W., & Dong, X. (2021). Talking about COVID-19 is positively associated with team cultural tightness: Implications for team deviance and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (4), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000918

Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46 (1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., et al. (2021). The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society, 36 , 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2

Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal, 56 (5), 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0611

Rodriguez-Lluesma, C., García-Ruiz, P., & Pinto-Garay, J. (2021). The digital transformation of work: A relational view. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 30 (1), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12323

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 , 224–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563

Shalvi, S., Dana, J., Handgraaf, M. J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2011). Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115 (2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.02.001

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995) Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38 5, 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.2307/256865

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Implications for motivation theory and practice. Motivation and Work Behavior, 126–140

Tal-Or, N., Boninger, D. S., & Gleicher, F. (2004). On becoming what we might have been: Counterfactual thinking and self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 3 (1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576500342000013a

Tang, P. M., Koopman, J., McClean, S. T., Zhang, J. H., Li, C. H., De Cremer, D. ,..., Ng, C. T. S. (2022). When conscientious employees meet intelligent machines: An integrative approach inspired by complementarity theory and role theory. Academy of Management Journal, 65 (3), 1019–1054. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2020.1516

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management journal, 45 (6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the job crafting scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2013). The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18 (2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032141

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92 (2), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007

Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly , 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

Von Krogh, G. (2018). Artificial intelligence in organizations: New opportunities for phenomenon-based theorizing. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4 (4), 404–409. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0084

Wang, S., Sun, Z., & Chen, Y. (2023). Effects of higher education institutes’ artificial intelligence capability on students’ self-efficacy, creativity and learning performance. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (5), 4919–4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11338-4

Wang, D., Churchill, E., Maes, P., Fan, X., Shneiderman, B., Shi, Y., & Wang, Q. (2020). From human-human collaboration to Human-AI collaboration: Designing AI systems that can work together with people . In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–6). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381069

Williams, B. (1974). The truth in relativism. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Aristotelian Society, (Vol. 75, Issue 1, pp. 215–228). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/75.1.215

Wisskirchen, G., Biacabe, B. T., Bormann, U., Muntz, A., Niehaus, G., Soler, G. J., & von Brauchitsch, B. (2017). Artificial intelligence and robotics and their impact on the workplace. IBA Global Employment Institute, 11 (5), 49-67. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohamed-Mourad-Lafifi/post/Social_Robots_or_robots_with_social_functions/attachment/6001ed617e98b40001bc005a/AS%3A980324746031116%401610739041600/download/AI-and-Robotics-IBA-GEI-April-2017.pdf . Accessed 8 Dec 2023

Woody, S. R. (1996). Effects of focus of attention on anxiety levels and social performance of individuals with social phobia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105 (1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.105.1.61

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011

Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J. E., & Berg, J. M. (2013). Job crafting and cultivating positive meaning and identity in work. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology (pp. 281–302). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2046-410X(2013)0000001015

Yam, K. C., Christian, M. S., Wei, W., Liao, Z., & Nai, J. (2018). The mixed blessing of leader sense of humor: Examining costs and benefits. Academy of Management Journal, 31 (4), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1088

Yam, K., Tan, T., Jackson, J., Shariff, A., & Gray, K. (2023). Cultural Differences in People’s Reactions and Applications of Robots, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence. Management and Organization Review, 19 (5), 859–875. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2023.21

Yun, M., Roach, K. N., Do, N., & Beehr, T. A. (2020). It’s not how you say it, but what you say: communication valence in the workplace and employees’ reactions. Occupational Health Science, 4 (3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-020-00070-5

Zeng, J., Chan, C. H., & Schäfer, M. S. (2022). Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on WeChat and People’s Daily Online. Information, Communication & Society, 25 (3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1776372

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of organizational behavior, 40 (2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

Zohuri, B., & Rahmani, F. M. (2023). Is the Genie of Artificial Intelligence Technology Out of the Bottle and Control? (A Short Review). Journal of Energy and Power Engineering, 17 , 51–56. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-8975/2023.02.003

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Xiaowei Dong, Chen Chen, Yuqing Gan & Xin Qin

School of Economics and Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China

Luyuan Jiang

School of Business Administration, Guangdong University of Finance and Economics, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Business School, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

Jingtian Xia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Qin .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Scale Items Used in All Studies

I talk to my coworkers about the AI robot.

I share stories with my coworkers about the AI robot.

I chat with my coworkers when I get some information about the AI robot.

I communicate with my coworkers about the AI robot.

I give my coworkers examples of the development of the AI robot.

• Leader AI-focused attention

My leader always pays attention to the appearance of the AI robot.

My leader always pays attention to external physical conditions related to the AI robot (such as obstacles in movement paths).

My leader always pays attention to the activity status of the AI robot (such as electricity).

My leader always pays attention to the impact of the AI robot on others, such as customers.

My leader always pays attention to what the AI robot is saying and doing.

• AI self-efficacy

I am confident about my ability to do my job related to the AI robot/working with the AI robot.

I am self-assured about my capabilities to perform my work activities related to the AI robot.

I have mastered the skills necessary for my job related to the AI robot.

• AI crafting

When working with AI robots, I introduce new approaches on my own to improve my work.

When working with AI robots, I change minor work procedures which I think are not productive on my own.

When working with AI robots, I change the way I do my job on my own to make it easier for myself.

When working with AI robots, I rearrange work tasks or procedures of the work to collaborate with AI robots more effectively on my own.

When working with AI robots, I learn new knowledge and skills about AI robots on my own.

When working with AI robots, I try to find the ways to improve the interactions with AI robots on my own.

Manipulation check of AI talk

In the conversation I just recalled, I communicated with my coworkers about issues related to the AI robot.

In the conversation I just recalled, I talked to my coworkers about some information about the AI robot.

In the conversation I just recalled, I shared stories about the AI robot with my coworkers.

In the conversation I just recalled, my coworkers and I had a conversation about the AI robot.

AI talk valence

Left: Replaces my job. vs. Right: Makes my job better.

Left: Makes my job more boring. vs. Right: Makes my job more interesting.

Left: Makes me feel insecure about my job. vs. Right: Keeps me motivated to job.

Left: AI is having a negative impact on our work. vs. Right: AI is having a positive impact on our work.

Left: We don’t like the AI we use. vs. Right: We like the AI we use.

Left: We aren’t willing to use AI in our work. vs. Right: We are willing to use AI in our work.

Left: We think it’s hard to use AI. vs. Right: We think it’s easy to use AI.

AI familarity

I know a lot about AI.

I am familiar with AI.

I have much knowledge about AI.

I am more familiar than the average person regarding AI.

Perceived AI-related task complexity

I found the task of working with AI to be a complex task.

This task of working with AI was mentally demanding.

This task of working with AI required a lot of thought and problem-solving.

I found the task of working with AI to be a challenging task.

Social influence

People who are important to me think that I should use AI.

People who influence my behavior think that I should use AI.

People whose opinions that I value prefer that I use AI.

I spent most of the time working with artificial intelligence.

I used artificial intelligence to carry out most of my job functions.

I worked with artificial intelligence in making major work decisions.

AI Talk Scale Adaptation and Validation

We adapted AI talk scale following Hinkin’s ( 1998 ) procedures. In phase 1, we adapted items for AI talk and tested the content validity of this scale. In phase 2, we collected data for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In phase 3, we conducted the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and assessed criterion-related validity.

Phase 1: Item Adaptation and Content Validity Assessment

We adapted five items to represent AI talk from Baer et al.’s ( 2018 ) unfairness talk scale, which is a well-established scale and has been adapted to measure different kinds of talk across contexts (e.g., Chen et al., 2021 ; Qin et al., 2021 ). Next, we invited 18 subject-matter experts (7 professors and 11 PhD candidates in organizational behavior) to rate the extent to which these items matched the definition of AI talk using a 5-point scale (1 = “Item is an extremely bad match,” 5 = “Item is an extremely good match”). The average score was 4.88, which is comparable to expert scores in previous studies (e.g., Chen et al., 2021 ; Colquitt et al., 2014 ; Gardner, 2005 ; Qin et al., 2018 ; Qin et al., 2021 ; Rodell, 2013 ). Interrater agreement ( r wg ; James et al., 1984 ) among experts was .96. These results revealed that our five-item AI talk scale is well adapted and has a good content validity in accessing AI talk.

Phase 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Second, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by recruiting 157 full-time employees through Credamo.com. We paid each participant 1 RMB (approximately 0.14 USD) as compensation. Among these participants, 60.5% were female. Their average age was 31.02 years ( SD = 7.57), average education was 16.51 years ( SD = 1.75), and average organizational tenure was 5.25 years ( SD = 4.61). These participants represented different industries, including manufacturing (22.93%), information and communications technology (18.47%), service (14.65%), and others (43.95%). They were from different departments, including technology (37.58%), administration (24.20%), marketing (15.29%), and others (22.93%).

Consistent with our conceptualization, the results of the EFA indicated that all five items loaded on one factor and the factor loadings are larger than .70 (i.e., ranging from .71 to .81). Table S 1  shows the items and factor loadings for the AI talk scale. The Cronbach’s α for AI talk scale was .82. The average variance extracted (AVE) of the AI talk scale was .59, and the composite reliability (CR) was .88, which suggests that this scale has a good reliability (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988 ).

Phase 3: Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Criterion-Related Validity

Next, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the factor structure of our AI talk scale using another sample. We recruited separate 157 full-time employees through Credamo.com. We paid each participant 3 RMB (approximately 0.41 USD) as compensation. Among these participants, 61.8% were female. Their average age was 32.37 years ( SD = 8.92), average education was 16.22 years ( SD = 1.89), and average organizational tenure was 5.97 years ( SD = 5.09). These participants worked in different industries, including manufacturing (24.20%), service (21.02%), information and communications technology (17.20%), and others (37.58%). They came from different departments, including technology (45.86%), administration (21.66%), marketing (19.75%), and others (12.73%). The results showed that the single-factor model fit the data well ( χ 2 [5] = 15.82, p = .007; CFI = .970, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .117, SRMR = .027) Footnote 4 .

Furthermore, we assessed the criterion-related validity of AI talk with the same sample by four correlated variables. Specifically, we adapted Chi et al.’s ( 2021 ) four-item robot familiarity scale to measure AI familiarity, and a sample item is “I am familiar with AI” ( α = .81). We measured social influence by adapting the three-item scale from Venkatesh et al. ( 2012 ), and a sample item is “People who are important to me think that I should use AI” ( α = .76). We measured perceived AI-related task complexity by adapting the four-item perceived task complexity scale (Gupta et al., 2013 ; Maynard & Hakel, 1997 ), and a sample item is “I found the task of working with AI to be a complex task” ( α = .84). We measured AI usage using the scale from Tang et al. ( 2022 ), a sample item is “I spent most of the time working with artificial intelligence” ( α = .73).

We expect that AI talk will positively relate to AI familiarity, social influence and AI usage, and negatively relate to perceived AI-related task complexity. Specifically, in line with talk literature, individuals can get information through talking with others (Keyton et al., 2013 ). Thus, we expeceted that AI talk will positively relate to AI familiarity as employees would have more information and knowledge about AI and AI-related tasks after AI talk. Second, drawn upon social information processing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978 ), AI talk may make employees aware of the importance of using AI in the team, which may give employees a sense that important others (e.g., leaders) want them to use AI (i.e., AI social influence). Third, based on the information and knowledge about AI and AI-related tasks, employees are more clear about the requirements of AI-related tasks, more aware of their roles in these tasks, and more aware of how to complete these tasks. Thus AI talk will negatively relate to perceived AI-related task complexity. Furthermore, since AI talk has positive relationships with AI familiarity, social influence and AI self-efficacy, and has negative relationship with AI-related task complexity, these give employees motivation and confidence to use AI. Thus, we suggest that AI talk is positively associated with AI usage.

Consistent with our predictions, AI talk was positively associated with AI familiarity ( r = .720, p < .001), social influence ( r = .694, p < .001), and AI usage ( r = .763, p < .001), but was negatively associated with perceived AI-related task complexity ( r = -.176, p = .027). Taken together, these results from the three phases provided encouraging evidence of the AI talk scale’s reliability and validity.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Dong, X., Jiang, L., Li, W. et al. Let’s Talk about AI: Talking about AI is Positively Associated with AI Crafting. Asia Pac J Manag (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-024-09975-z

Download citation

Accepted : 10 June 2024

Published : 11 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-024-09975-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Published: 05 July 2024

The LDL cumulative exposure hypothesis: evidence and practical applications

• Brian A. Ference 1 ,
• Eugene Braunwald 2 &
• Alberico L. Catapano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7593-2094 3 , 4  

Nature Reviews Cardiology ( 2024 ) Cite this article

819 Accesses

179 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Atherosclerosis
• Dyslipidaemias

The trapping of LDL and other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins within the artery wall causes atherosclerosis. As more LDL becomes trapped within the artery wall over time, the atherosclerotic plaque burden gradually increases, raising the risk of an acute cardiovascular event. Therefore, the biological effect of LDL on the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) depends on both the magnitude and duration of exposure. Maintaining low levels of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) over time decreases the number of LDL particles trapped within the artery wall, slows the progression of atherosclerosis and, by delaying the age at which mature atherosclerotic plaques develop, substantially reduces the lifetime risk of ASCVD events. Summing LDL-C measurements over time to calculate cumulative exposure to LDL generates a unique biomarker that captures both the magnitude and duration of exposure, which facilitates the estimation of the absolute risk of having an acute cardiovascular event at any point in time. Titrating LDL-C lowering to keep cumulative exposure to LDL below the threshold at which acute cardiovascular events occur can effectively prevent ASCVD. In this Review, we provide the first comprehensive overview of how the LDL cumulative exposure hypothesis can guide the prevention of ASCVD. We also discuss the benefits of maintaining lower LDL-C levels over time and how this knowledge can be used to inform clinical practice guidelines as well as to design novel primary prevention trials and ASCVD prevention programmes.

Atherosclerosis is caused by the trapping of LDL and other apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins within the artery wall over time, resulting in the progressive build-up of atherosclerotic plaque.

Summing the LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of an individual measured over time allows for an estimation of their cumulative exposure to LDL.

Cumulative exposure to LDL can be used as a biomarker to estimate the size of the accumulated plaque burden, track the rate of plaque progression and estimate the corresponding absolute risk of having an acute atherosclerotic cardiovascular event at any point in time.

Reducing the cumulative exposure to LDL reduces the number of atherogenic lipoproteins that become trapped within the artery wall, thus slowing the progression of atherosclerosis and substantially reducing the lifetime risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events.

The threshold for cumulative exposure to LDL and the corresponding accumulated plaque burden above which atherosclerotic cardiovascular events begin to occur depends on inherited predisposition and exposure to other causes of arterial wall injury, thus introducing the concept of a ‘personal plaque threshold’.

Cumulative exposure to LDL can be used as a therapeutic target to personalize prevention by titrating the reduction in LDL-C levels needed by each individual to slow the progression of atherosclerosis enough to keep their accumulated plaque burden below their personal plaque threshold.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

195,33 € per year

only 16,28 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Novel and future lipid-modulating therapies for the prevention of cardiovascular disease

Chasing LDL cholesterol to the bottom — PCSK9 in perspective

Remnant cholesterol and risk of incident hypertension: a population-based prospective cohort study

Khan, M. A. et al. Global epidemiology of ischemic heart disease: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cureus 12 , e9349 (2020).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marchand, F. Ueber atherosclerosis. Verhandlungen der Kongresse fuer Innere Medizin. 21 Kongresse (1904).

Ignatowski, A. I. Ueber die Wirkung der tierschen Einweisse auf der Aorta. Virchows Arch. Pathol. Anat. 198 , 248 (1909).

Article   Google Scholar  

Windaus, A. Ueber der Gehalt normaler und atheromatoser Aorten an Cholesterol und Cholesterinester. Z. Physiol. Chem. 67 , 174 (1910).

Anitschkow, N. & Chalatow, S. Ueber experimentelle Cholester-insteatose und ihre Bedeutung fuer die Entstehung einiger pathologischer Prozesse. Zentrbl Allg. Pathol. Pathol. Anat. 24 , 1–9 (1913).

Google Scholar  

Brown, M. S. & Goldstein, J. L. A receptor-mediated pathway for cholesterol homeostasis. Science 232 , 34–47 (1986).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Goldstein, J. L. & Brown, M. S. A century of cholesterol and coronaries: from plaques to genes to statins. Cell 161 , 161–172 (2015).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Williams, K. J. & Tabas, I. The response-to-retention hypothesis of early atherogenesis. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 15 , 551–561 (1995).

Boren, J. et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: pathophysiological, genetic, and therapeutic insights: a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur. Heart J. 41 , 2313–2330 (2020).

Ference, B. A. et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Eur. Heart J. 38 , 2459–2472 (2017).

Ference, B. A., Graham, I., Tokgozoglu, L. & Catapano, A. L. Impact of lipids on cardiovascular health: JACC Health Promotion Series. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72 , 1141–1156 (2018).

Baigent, C. et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 366 , 1267–1278 (2005).

Baigent, C. et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 376 , 1670–1681 (2010).

Collins, R. et al. Interpretation of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of statin therapy. Lancet 388 , 2532–2561 (2016).

Silverman, M. G. et al. Association between lowering LDL-C and cardiovascular risk reduction among different therapeutic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 316 , 1289–1297 (2016).

Nicholls, S. J. et al. Effect of two intensive statin regimens on progression of coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 365 , 2078–2087 (2011).

Cohen, J. C., Boerwinkle, E., Mosley, T. H. Jr & Hobbs, H. H. Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 354 , 1264–1272 (2006).

Ference, B. A. et al. Effect of long-term exposure to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol beginning early in life on the risk of coronary heart disease: a Mendelian randomization analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60 , 2631–2639 (2012).

Braunwald, E. How to live to 100 before developing clinical coronary artery disease: a suggestion. Eur. Heart J. 43 , 249–250 (2021).

Ference, B. A., Ference, T. B., Catapano, A. L., Nicholls, S. J. & Ray, K. K. A naturally randomized trial evaluating a vaccine-like strategy to lower LDL by inhibiting PCSK9 on the lifetime risk of major cardiovascular events (NATURE-PCSK9). Preprint at Medrxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.30.24309740 (2024).

Friedewald, W. T., Levy, R. I. & Fredrickson, D. S. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin. Chem. 18 , 499–502 (1972).

Sniderman, A. D. et al. Apolipoprotein B particles and cardiovascular disease: a narrative review. JAMA Cardiol. 4 , 1287–1295 (2019).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ference, B. A., Kastelein, J. J. P. & Catapano, A. L. Lipids and lipoproteins in 2020. JAMA 324 , 595–596 (2020).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Stender, S. & Zilversmit, D. B. Transfer of plasma lipoprotein components and of plasma proteins into aortas of cholesterol-fed rabbits. Molecular size as a determinant of plasma lipoprotein influx. Arteriosclerosis 1 , 38–49 (1981).

Zanoni, P., Velagapudi, S., Yalcinkaya, M., Rohrer, L. & von Eckardstein, A. Endocytosis of lipoproteins. Atherosclerosis 275 , 273–295 (2018).

Camejo, G., Lalaguna, F., Lopez, F. & Starosta, R. Characterization and properties of a lipoprotein-complexing proteoglycan from human aorta. Atherosclerosis 35 , 307–320 (1980).

Camejo, G., Hurt-Camejo, E., Wiklund, O. & Bondjers, G. Association of apo B lipoproteins with arterial proteoglycans: pathological significance and molecular basis. Atherosclerosis 139 , 205–222 (1998).

Boren, J. et al. Identification of the principal proteoglycan-binding site in LDL. A single-point mutation in apo-B100 severely affects proteoglycan interaction without affecting LDL receptor binding. J. Clin. Invest. 101 , 2658–2664 (1998).

Skalen, K. et al. Subendothelial retention of atherogenic lipoproteins in early atherosclerosis. Nature 417 , 750–754 (2002).

Tabas, I., Williams, K. J. & Boren, J. Subendothelial lipoprotein retention as the initiating process in atherosclerosis: update and therapeutic implications. Circulation 116 , 1832–1844 (2007).

Tabas, I. Consequences of cellular cholesterol accumulation: basic concepts and physiological implications. J. Clin. Invest. 110 , 905–911 (2002).

Moore, K. J. & Tabas, I. Macrophages in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Cell 145 , 341–355 (2011).

Libby, P. Inflammation in atherosclerosis. Nature 420 , 868–874 (2002).

Ambrose, J. A. et al. Angiographic progression of coronary artery disease and the development of myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 12 , 56–62 (1988).

Herrick, J. B. Thrombosis of the coronary arteries. JAMA 72 , 387–390 (1919).

Falk, E., Shah, P. K. & Fuster, V. Coronary plaque disruption. Circulation 92 , 657–671 (1995).

Stone, G. W. et al. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 364 , 226–235 (2011).

Alderman, E. L. et al. Five-year angiographic follow-up of factors associated with progression of coronary artery disease in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS). CASS Participating Investigators and Staff. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 22 , 1141–1154 (1993).

Emond, M. et al. Long-term survival of medically treated patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) Registry. Circulation 90 , 2645–2657 (1994).

Williams, M. C. et al. Low-attenuation noncalcified plaque on coronary computed tomography angiography predicts myocardial infarction: results from the multicenter SCOT-HEART trial (Scottish Computed Tomography of the HEART). Circulation 141 , 1452–1462 (2020).

Newman, W. P. III et al. Relation of serum lipoprotein levels and systolic blood pressure to early atherosclerosis. the Bogalusa Heart Study. N. Engl. J. Med. 314 , 138–144 (1986).

Berenson, G. S. et al. Association between multiple cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis in children and young adults. The Bogalusa Heart Study. N. Engl. J. Med. 338 , 1650–1656 (1998).

Strong, J. P. et al. Prevalence and extent of atherosclerosis in adolescents and young adults: implications for prevention from the Pathobiological Determinants of Atherosclerosis in Youth Study. JAMA 281 , 727–735 (1999).

Fernandez-Friera, L. et al. Prevalence, vascular distribution, and multiterritorial extent of subclinical atherosclerosis in a middle-aged cohort: the PESA (Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis) study. Circulation 131 , 2104–2113 (2015).

Tuzcu, E. M. et al. High prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis in asymptomatic teenagers and young adults: evidence from intravascular ultrasound. Circulation 103 , 2705–2710 (2001).

Pletcher, M. J. et al. Nonoptimal lipids commonly present in young adults and coronary calcium later in life: the CARDIA (Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults) study. Ann. Intern. Med. 153 , 137–146 (2010).

Fernandez-Friera, L. et al. Normal LDL-cholesterol levels are associated with subclinical atherosclerosis in the absence of risk factors. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70 , 2979–2991 (2017).

Glaser, R. et al. Clinical progression of incidental, asymptomatic lesions discovered during culprit vessel coronary intervention. Circulation 111 , 143–149 (2005).

Maddox, T. M. et al. Nonobstructive coronary artery disease and risk of myocardial infarction. JAMA 312 , 1754–1763 (2014).

Arbab-Zadeh, A. & Fuster, V. From detecting the vulnerable plaque to managing the vulnerable patient: JACC state-of-the-art review. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 74 , 1582–1593 (2019).

Burke, A. P. et al. Healed plaque ruptures and sudden coronary death: evidence that subclinical rupture has a role in plaque progression. Circulation 103 , 934–940 (2001).

Virmani, R., Burke, A. P., Farb, A. & Kolodgie, F. D. Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 47 , C13–C18 (2006).

Ference, B. A. & Mahajan, N. The role of early LDL lowering to prevent the onset of atherosclerotic disease. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 15 , 312 (2013).

Robinson, J. G. et al. Eradicating the burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by lowering apolipoprotein B lipoproteins earlier in life. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 7 , e009778 (2018).

Sniderman, A. D., Toth, P. P., Thanassoulis, G., Pencina, M. J. & Furberg, C. D. Taking a longer term view of cardiovascular risk: the causal exposure paradigm. BMJ 348 , g3047 (2014).

McNamara, J. J., Molot, M. A., Stremple, J. F. & Cutting, R. T. Coronary artery disease in combat casualties in Vietnam. JAMA 216 , 1185–1187 (1971).

McClelland, R. L., Chung, H., Detrano, R., Post, W. & Kronmal, R. A. Distribution of coronary artery calcium by race, gender, and age: results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Circulation 113 , 30–37 (2006).

Javaid, A. et al. Distribution of coronary artery calcium by age, sex, and race among patients 30-45 years old. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 79 , 1873–1886 (2022).

Hartiala, O. et al. Life-course risk factor levels and coronary artery calcification. The Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study. Int. J. Cardiol. 225 , 23–29 (2016).

Bergstrom, G. et al. Prevalence of subclinical coronary artery atherosclerosis in the general population. Circulation 144 , 916–929 (2021).

Gordon, T., Kannel, W. B., Hjortland, M. C. & McNamara, P. M. Menopause and coronary heart disease. The Framingham Study. Ann. Intern. Med. 89 , 157–161 (1978).

Müller, C. Xanthomata, hypercholesterolemia, angina pectoris. Acta Med. Scand. 95 , 75–84 (1938).

Wilkinson, C. F., Hand, E. A. & Fliegelman, M. T. Essential familial hypercholesterolemia. Ann. Intern. Med. 29 , 671–686 (1948).

Nordestgaard, B. G. et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the general population: guidance for clinicians to prevent coronary heart disease: consensus statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur. Heart J. 34 , 3478–3490 (2013).

Cuchel, M. et al. Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia: new insights and guidance for clinicians to improve detection and clinical management. A position paper from the Consensus Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolaemia of the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur. Heart J. 35 , 2146–2157 (2014).

Nissen, S. E. et al. Effect of very high-intensity statin therapy on regression of coronary atherosclerosis: the ASTEROID trial. JAMA 295 , 1556–1565 (2006).

Nicholls, S. J. et al. Effect of evolocumab on progression of coronary disease in statin-treated patients: the GLAGOV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316 , 2373–2384 (2016).

Nicholls, S. J. et al. Effect of evolocumab on coronary plaque composition. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72 , 2012–2021 (2018).

Ference, B. A. Mendelian randomization studies: using naturally randomized genetic data to fill evidence gaps. Curr. Opin. Lipidol. 26 , 566–571 (2015).

Hingorani, A. & Humphries, S. Nature’s randomised trials. Lancet 366 , 1906–1908 (2005).

Ference, B. A. et al. Variation in PCSK9 and HMGCR and risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 375 , 2144–2153 (2016).

Ference, B. A., Majeed, F., Penumetcha, R., Flack, J. M. & Brook, R. D. Effect of naturally random allocation to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on the risk of coronary heart disease mediated by polymorphisms in NPC1L1, HMGCR, or both: a 2 x 2 factorial Mendelian randomization study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65 , 1552–1561 (2015).

Ference, B. A. et al. Association of triglyceride-lowering LPL variants and LDL-C-lowering LDLR variants with risk of coronary heart disease. JAMA 321 , 364–373 (2019).

Whyte, H. M. & Yee, I. L. Serum cholesterol levels of Australians and natives of New Guinea from birth to adulthood. Australas. Ann. Med. 7 , 336–339 (1958).

Mendez, J., Tejada, C. & Flores, M. Serum lipid levels among rural Guatemalan Indians. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 10 , 403–409 (1962).

O’Keefe, J. H. Jr, Cordain, L., Harris, W. H., Moe, R. M. & Vogel, R. Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/dl: lower is better and physiologically normal. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 43 , 2142–2146 (2004).

Kaplan, H. et al. Coronary atherosclerosis in indigenous South American Tsimane: a cross-sectional cohort study. Lancet 389 , 1730–1739 (2017).

Luirink, I. K. et al. 20-year follow-up of statins in children with familial hypercholesterolemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 , 1547–1556 (2019).

Wiegman, A. et al. Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292 , 331–337 (2004).

Kusters, D. M. et al. Ten-year follow-up after initiation of statin therapy in children with familial hypercholesterolemia. JAMA 312 , 1055–1057 (2014).

Wiegman, A. et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia in children and adolescents: gaining decades of life by optimizing detection and treatment. Eur. Heart J. 36 , 2425–2437 (2015).

Sabatine, M. S. et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 376 , 1713–1722 (2017).

O’Donoghue, M. L. et al. Long-term evolocumab in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Circulation 146 , 1109–1119 (2022).

Schwartz, G. G. et al. Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 379 , 2097–2107 (2018).

Ference, B. A. et al. Reduction of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol and cardiovascular events with proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and statins: an analysis of FOURIER, SPIRE, and the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration. Eur. Heart J. 39 , 2540–2545 (2018).

Galimberti, F., Sniderman, A. D., Catapano, A. L. & Ference, B. A. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the association between magnitude and duration of apolipoprotein-B lowering and cardiovascular risk reduction among different lipid-lowering therapies. Atherosclerosis 379 (Suppl. 1), S41 (2023).

Schilling, F. J., Christakis, G. J., Bennett, N. J. & Coyle, J. F. Studies of serum cholesterol in 4,244 men and women: an epidemiological and pathogenetic interpretation. Am. J. Public Health Nations Health 54 , 461–476 (1964).

Hoeg, J. M., Feuerstein, I. M. & Tucker, E. E. Detection and quantitation of calcific atherosclerosis by ultrafast computed tomography in children and young adults with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Arterioscler. Thromb. 14 , 1066–1074 (1994).

Schmidt, H. H. et al. Relation of cholesterol-year score to severity of calcific atherosclerosis and tissue deposition in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Am. J. Cardiol. 77 , 575–580 (1996).

Horton, J. D., Cohen, J. C. & Hobbs, H. H. PCSK9: a convertase that coordinates LDL catabolism. J. Lipid Res. 50 , S172–S177 (2009).

Shapiro, M. D. & Bhatt, D. L. “Cholesterol-years” for ASCVD risk prediction and treatment. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76 , 1517–1520 (2020).

Packard, C. J., Weintraub, W. S. & Laufs, U. New metrics needed to visualize the long-term impact of early LDL-C lowering on the cardiovascular disease trajectory. Vasc. Pharmacol. 71 , 37–39 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davis, C. E., Rifkind, B. M., Brenner, H. & Gordon, D. J. A single cholesterol measurement underestimates the risk of coronary heart disease. An empirical example from the Lipid Research Clinics Mortality Follow-up Study. JAMA 264 , 3044–3046 (1990).

Klag, M. J. et al. Serum cholesterol in young men and subsequent cardiovascular disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 328 , 313–318 (1993).

Gozlan, O., Gross, D. & Gruener, N. Lipoprotein levels in newborns and adolescents. Clin. Biochem. 27 , 305–306 (1994).

Descamps, O. S., Bruniaux, M., Guilmot, P. F., Tonglet, R. & Heller, F. R. Lipoprotein concentrations in newborns are associated with allelic variations in their mothers. Atherosclerosis 172 , 287–298 (2004).

Kit, B. K. et al. Trends in serum lipids among US youths aged 6 to 19 years, 1988-2010. JAMA 308 , 591–600 (2012).

Skinner, A. C., Steiner, M. J., Chung, A. E. & Perrin, E. M. Cholesterol curves to identify population norms by age and sex in healthy weight children. Clin. Pediatr. 51 , 233–237 (2012).

Navar-Boggan, A. M. et al. Hyperlipidemia in early adulthood increases long-term risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation 131 , 451–458 (2015).

Pac-Kozuchowska, E., Rakus-Kwiatosz, A. & Krawiec, P. Cord blood lipid profile in healthy newborns: a prospective single-center study. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 27 , 343–349 (2018).

Pencina, K. M. et al. Trajectories of non-HDL cholesterol across midlife: implications for cardiovascular prevention. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 74 , 70–79 (2019).

Duncan, M. S., Vasan, R. S. & Xanthakis, V. Trajectories of blood lipid concentrations over the adult life course and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: observations from the Framingham study over 35 years. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 8 , e011433 (2019).

Rhee, E. J. et al. 2018 guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia in Korea. J. Lipid Atheroscler. 8 , 78–131 (2019).

Feng, L. et al. Age-related trends in lipid levels: a large-scale cross-sectional study of the general Chinese population. BMJ Open 10 , e034226 (2020).

Domanski, M. J. et al. Time course of LDL cholesterol exposure and cardiovascular disease event risk. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 76 , 1507–1516 (2020).

Zhang, Y. et al. Association between cumulative low-density lipoprotein cholesterol exposure during young adulthood and middle age and risk of cardiovascular events. JAMA Cardiol. 6 , 1406–1413 (2021).

Hughes, D., Crowley, J., O’Shea, P., McEvoy, J. W. & Griffin, D. G. Lipid reference values in an Irish population. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 190 , 117–127 (2021).

Zhernakova, D. V. et al. Age-dependent sex differences in cardiometabolic risk factors. Nat. Cardiovasc. Res. 1 , 844–854 (2022).

Sessa, W. C. Estrogen reduces LDL (low-density lipoprotein) transcytosis. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 38 , 2276–2277 (2018).

Ghaffari, S., Naderi Nabi, F., Sugiyama, M. G. & Lee, W. L. Estrogen inhibits LDL (low-density lipoprotein) transcytosis by human coronary artery endothelial cells via GPER (G-protein-coupled estrogen receptor) and SR-BI (scavenger receptor class B type 1). Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 38 , 2283–2294 (2018).

Steffensen, L. B. et al. Disturbed laminar blood flow vastly augments lipoprotein retention in the artery wall: a key mechanism distinguishing susceptible from resistant sites. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 35 , 1928–1935 (2015).

Taskinen, M. R. & Boren, J. New insights into the pathophysiology of dyslipidemia in type 2 diabetes. Atherosclerosis 239 , 483–495 (2015).

Krauss, R. M. Lipids and lipoproteins in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27 , 1496–1504 (2004).

Glagov, S., Weisenberg, E., Zarins, C. K., Stankunavicius, R. & Kolettis, G. J. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N. Engl. J. Med. 316 , 1371–1375 (1987).

Greenland, P., Blaha, M. J., Budoff, M. J., Erbel, R. & Watson, K. E. Coronary calcium score and cardiovascular risk. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 72 , 434–437 (2018).

Ference, B. A. et al. Association of genetic variants related to combined exposure to lower low-density lipoproteins and lower systolic blood pressure with lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. JAMA 322 , 1381–1391 (2019).

Chhatriwalla, A. K. et al. Low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure and progression of coronary atherosclerosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 53 , 1110–1115 (2009).

Vartiainen, E. et al. Thirty-five-year trends in cardiovascular risk factors in Finland. Int. J. Epidemiol. 39 , 504–518 (2010).

Salomaa, V., Pietila, A., Peltonen, M. & Kuulasmaa, K. Changes in CVD incidence and mortality rates, and life expectancy: North Karelia and National. Glob. Heart 11 , 201–205 (2016).

Ference, B. A. How to use Mendelian randomization to anticipate the results of randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 39 , 360–362 (2018).

Shapiro, M. D. & Fazio, S. Biologic bases of residual risk of cardiovascular events: a flawed concept. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 25 , 1831–1835 (2018).

Fire, A. et al. Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans . Nature 391 , 806–811 (1998).

Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171 , 737–738 (1953).

Abifadel, M. et al. Mutations in PCSK9 cause autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia. Nat. Genet. 34 , 154–156 (2003).

Bumcrot, D., Manoharan, M., Koteliansky, V. & Sah, D. W. RNAi therapeutics: a potential new class of pharmaceutical drugs. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2 , 711–719 (2006).

Warden, B. A. & Duell, P. B. Inclisiran: a novel agent for lowering apolipoprotein B-containing Lipoproteins. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 78 , e157–e174 (2021).

Ray, K. K. et al. Effect of 1 or 2 doses of inclisiran on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: one-year follow-up of the ORION-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 4 , 1067–1075 (2019).

Catapano, A. L., Pirillo, A. & Norata, G. D. Insights from ORION studies: focus on inclisiran safety. Cardiovasc. Res. 117 , 24–26 (2021).

Rose, G. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int. J. Epidemiol. 14 , 32–38 (1985).

JBS3 Board Joint British Societies’ consensus recommendations for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (JBS3). Heart 100 , ii1–ii67 (2014).

Anderson, T. J. et al. 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult. Can. J. Cardiol. 32 , 1263–1282 (2016).

Grundy, S. M. et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 139 , e1082–e1143 (2019).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mach, F. et al. 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur. Heart J. 41 , 111–188 (2020).

Ray, K. K. et al. World Heart Federation Cholesterol Roadmap 2022. Glob. Heart 17 , 75 (2022).

Ference, B. A., Holmes, M. V. & Smith, G. D. Using Mendelian randomization to improve the design of randomized trials. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 11 , a040980 (2021).

Ference, B. A. Using genetic variants in the targets of lipid lowering therapies to inform drug discovery and development: current and future treatment options. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 105 , 568–581 (2019).

Nicholls, S. J. et al. Effect of evolocumab on coronary plaque phenotype and burden in statin-treated patients following myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 15 , 1308–1321 (2022).

Johannesson, M. et al. Cost effectiveness of simvastatin treatment to lower cholesterol levels in patients with coronary heart disease. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 336 , 332–336 (1997).

Pandya, A., Sy, S., Cho, S., Weinstein, M. C. & Gaziano, T. A. Cost-effectiveness of 10-year risk thresholds for initiation of statin therapy for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. JAMA 314 , 142–150 (2015).

Kohli-Lynch, C. N. et al. Beyond 10-year risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Circulation 145 , 1312–1323 (2022).

Ademi, Z. et al. Health economic evaluation of screening and treating children with familial hypercholesterolemia early in life: many happy returns on investment? Atherosclerosis 304 , 1–8 (2020).

FitzGerald, C., Hameed, T., Rosenbach, F., Macdonald, J. R. & Dixon, R. Resilience in public service partnerships: evidence from the UK Life Chances Fund. Public Manag. Rev. 25 , 787–807 (2023).

Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. & Wooldridge, R. Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation . 3rd Update Report (2022).

Tan, S., Fraser, A., McHugh, N. & Warner, M. E. Widening perspectives on social impact bonds. J. Econ. Policy Reform. 24 , 1–10 (2021).

Sudlow, C. et al. UK biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 12 , e1001779 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

A.L.C. is supported in part by Ministero della Salute Ricerca Corrente.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DeepCausalAI Institute for Clinical Translation, Cambridge, UK

Brian A. Ference

TIMI Study Group, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Eugene Braunwald

Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milano, Milan, Italy

Alberico L. Catapano

Multimedica IRCCS, Milan, Italy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed substantially to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Brian A. Ference or Alberico L. Catapano .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

B.A.F. has received research grants and consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi. E.B. has received research support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck and Novartis, and consulting fees from Amgen, Cardurion, MyoKardia, Novo Nordisk and Verve. A.L.C. has received honoraria, lecture fees or research grants from Aegerion, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Kowa, Mediolanum, Medscape, Menarini, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Recordati, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sigma–Tau and The Corpus.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Cardiology thanks Frederick Raal; Raul Santos; Gerald Watts; and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ference, B.A., Braunwald, E. & Catapano, A.L. The LDL cumulative exposure hypothesis: evidence and practical applications. Nat Rev Cardiol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-024-01039-5

Download citation

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 05 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-024-01039-5

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Neurocognitive, clinical and reelin activity in rehabilitation using neurofeedback therapy in patients with schizophrenia.

Share and Cite

Markiewicz, R.; Markiewicz-Gospodarek, A.; Trubalski, M.; Łoza, B. Neurocognitive, Clinical and Reelin Activity in Rehabilitation Using Neurofeedback Therapy in Patients with Schizophrenia. J. Clin. Med. 2024 , 13 , 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144035

Markiewicz R, Markiewicz-Gospodarek A, Trubalski M, Łoza B. Neurocognitive, Clinical and Reelin Activity in Rehabilitation Using Neurofeedback Therapy in Patients with Schizophrenia. Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024; 13(14):4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144035

Markiewicz, Renata, Agnieszka Markiewicz-Gospodarek, Mateusz Trubalski, and Bartosz Łoza. 2024. "Neurocognitive, Clinical and Reelin Activity in Rehabilitation Using Neurofeedback Therapy in Patients with Schizophrenia" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 14: 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13144035

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

You must enable JavaScript in order to use this site.