hypothesis types psychology

• 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)

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

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

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

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

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

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

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

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

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Step 1. Ask a question

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

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

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

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

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

4. Refine your hypothesis

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

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

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

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

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

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

6. Write a null hypothesis

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

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

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

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

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

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 13, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is your plagiarism score.

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

Developing a Hypothesis

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

Learning Objectives

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Testing

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

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

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

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

3 Chapter 3: From Theory to Hypothesis

From theory to hypothesis, 3.1  phenomena and theories.

A phenomenon (plural, phenomena) is a general result that has been observed reliably in systematic empirical research. In essence, it is an established answer to a research question. Some phenomena we have encountered in this book are that expressive writing improves health, women do not talk more than men, and cell phone usage impairs driving ability. Some others are that dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder) increased greatly in prevalence during the late 20th century, people perform better on easy tasks when they are being watched by others (and worse on difficult tasks), and people recall items presented at the beginning and end of a list better than items presented in the middle.

Some Famous Psychological Phenomena

Phenomena are often given names by their discoverers or other researchers, and these names can catch on and become widely known. The following list is a small sample of famous phenomena in psychology.

·         Blindsight. People with damage to their visual cortex are often able to respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.

·         Bystander effect. The more people who are present at an emergency situation, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.

·         Fundamental attribution error. People tend to explain others’ behavior in terms of their personal characteristics as opposed to the situation they are in.

·         McGurk effect. When audio of a basic speech sound is combined with video of a person making mouth movements for a different speech sound, people often perceive a sound that is intermediate between the two.

·         Own-race effect. People recognize faces of people of their own race more accurately than faces of people of other races.

·         Placebo effect. Placebos (fake psychological or medical treatments) often lead to improvements in people’s symptoms and functioning.

·         Mere exposure effect. The more often people have been exposed to a stimulus, the more they like it—even when the stimulus is presented subliminally.

·         Serial position effect. Stimuli presented near the beginning and end of a list are remembered better than stimuli presented in the middle.

·         Spontaneous recovery. A conditioned response that has been extinguished often returns with no further training after the passage of time.

Although an empirical result might be referred to as a phenomenon after being observed only once, this term is more likely to be used for results that have been replicated. Replication means conducting a study again—either exactly as it was originally conducted or with modifications—to be sure that it produces the same results. Individual researchers usually replicate their own studies before publishing them. Many empirical research reports include an initial study and then one or more follow-up studies that replicate the initial study with minor modifications. Particularly interesting results come to the attention of other researchers who conduct their own replications. The positive effect of expressive writing on health and the negative effect of cell phone usage on driving ability are examples of phenomena that have been replicated many times by many different researchers.

Sometimes a replication of a study produces results that differ from the results of the initial study. This could mean that the results of the initial study or the results of the replication were a fluke—they occurred by chance and do not reflect something that is generally true. In either case, additional replications would be likely to resolve this. A failure to produce the same results could also mean that the replication differed in some important way from the initial study. For example, early studies showed that people performed a variety of tasks better and faster when they were watched by others than when they were alone. Some later replications, however, showed that people performed worse when they were watched by others. Eventually researcher Robert Zajonc identified a key difference between the two types of studies. People seemed to perform better when being watched on highly practiced tasks but worse when being watched on relatively unpracticed tasks (Zajonc, 1965). These two phenomena have now come to be called social facilitation and social inhibition.

What Is a Theory?

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

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

In addition to theory, researchers in psychology use several related terms to refer to their explanations and interpretations of phenomena. A perspective is a broad approach—more general than a theory—to explaining and interpreting phenomena. For example, researchers who take a biological perspective tend to explain phenomena in terms of genetics or nervous and endocrine system structures and processes, while researchers who take a behavioral perspective tend to explain phenomena in terms of reinforcement, punishment, and other external events. A model is a precise explanation or interpretation of a specific phenomenon—often expressed in terms of equations, computer programs, or biological structures and processes. A hypothesis can be an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts—although this term more commonly refers to a prediction about a new phenomenon based on a theory. Adding to the confusion is the fact that researchers often use these terms interchangeably. It would not be considered wrong to refer to the drive theory as the drive model or even the drive hypothesis. And the biopsychosocial model of health psychology—the general idea that health is determined by an interaction of biological, psychological, and social factors—is really more like a perspective as defined here. Keep in mind, however, that the most important distinction remains that between observations and interpretations.

What Are Theories For?

Of course, scientific theories are meant to provide accurate explanations or interpretations of phenomena. But there must be more to it than this. Consider that a theory can be accurate without being very useful. To say that expressive writing helps people “deal with their emotions” might be accurate as far as it goes, but it seems too vague to be of much use. Consider also that a theory can be useful without being entirely accurate.

3.2  Additional Purposes of Theories

Here we look at three additional purposes of theories: the organization of known phenomena, the prediction of outcomes in new situations, and the generation of new research.

Organization

One important purpose of scientific theories is to organize phenomena in ways that help people think about them clearly and efficiently. The drive theory of social facilitation and social inhibition, for example, helps to organize and make sense of a large number of seemingly contradictory results. The multistore model of human memory efficiently summarizes many important phenomena: the limited capacity and short retention time of information that is attended to but not rehearsed, the importance of rehearsing information for long-term retention, the serial-position effect, and so on.

Thus theories are good or useful to the extent that they organize more phenomena with greater clarity and efficiency. Scientists generally follow the principle of parsimony, which holds that a theory should include only as many concepts as are necessary to explain or interpret the phenomena of interest. Simpler, more parsimonious theories organize phenomena more efficiently than more complex, less parsimonious theories.

A second purpose of theories is to allow researchers and others to make predictions about what will happen in new situations. For example, a gymnastics coach might wonder whether a student’s performance is likely to be better or worse during a competition than when practicing alone. Even if this particular question has never been studied empirically, Zajonc’s drive theory suggests an answer. If the student generally performs with no mistakes, she is likely to perform better during competition. If she generally performs with many mistakes, she is likely to perform worse.

In clinical psychology, treatment decisions are often guided by theories. Consider, for example, dissociative identity disorder (formerly called multiple personality disorder). The prevailing scientific theory of dissociative identity disorder is that people develop multiple personalities (also called alters) because they are familiar with this idea from popular portrayals (e.g., the movie Sybil) and because they are unintentionally encouraged to do so by their clinicians (e.g., by asking to “meet” an alter). This theory implies that rather than encouraging patients to act out multiple personalities, treatment should involve discouraging them from doing this (Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003).

Generation of New Research

A third purpose of theories is to generate new research by raising new questions. Consider, for example, the theory that people engage in self-injurious behavior such as cutting because it reduces negative emotions such as sadness, anxiety, and anger. This theory immediately suggests several new and interesting questions. Is there, in fact, a statistical relationship between cutting and the amount of negative emotions experienced? Is it causal? If so, what is it about cutting that has this effect? Is it the pain, the sight of the injury, or something else? Does cutting affect all negative emotions equally?

Notice that a theory does not have to be accurate to serve this purpose. Even an inaccurate theory can generate new and interesting research questions. Of course, if the theory is inaccurate, the answers to the new questions will tend to be inconsistent with the theory. This will lead researchers to reevaluate the theory and either revise it or abandon it for a new one. And this is how scientific theories become more detailed and accurate over time.

Multiple Theories

At any point in time, researchers are usually considering multiple theories for any set of phenomena. One reason is that because human behavior is extremely complex, it is always possible to look at it from different perspectives. For example, a biological theory of sexual orientation might focus on the role of sex hormones during critical periods of brain development, while a sociocultural theory might focus on cultural factors that influence how underlying biological tendencies are expressed. A second reason is that—even from the same perspective—there are usually different ways to “go beyond” the phenomena of interest. For example, in addition to the drive theory of social facilitation and social inhibition, there is another theory that explains them in terms of a construct called “evaluation apprehension”—anxiety about being evaluated by the audience. Both theories go beyond the phenomena to be interpreted, but they do so by proposing somewhat different underlying processes.

Different theories of the same set of phenomena can be complementary—with each one supplying one piece of a larger puzzle. A biological theory of sexual orientation and a sociocultural theory of sexual orientation might accurately describe different aspects of the same complex phenomenon. Similarly, social facilitation could be the result of both general physiological arousal and evaluation apprehension. But different theories of the same phenomena can also be competing in the sense that if one is accurate, the other is probably not. For example, an alternative theory of dissociative identity disorder—the posttraumatic theory—holds that alters are created unconsciously by the patient as a means of coping with sexual abuse or some other traumatic experience. Because the sociocognitive theory and the posttraumatic theories attribute dissociative identity disorder to fundamentally different processes, it seems unlikely that both can be accurate.

The fact that there are multiple theories for any set of phenomena does not mean that any theory is as good as any other or that it is impossible to know whether a theory provides an accurate explanation or interpretation. On the contrary, scientists are continually comparing theories in terms of their ability to organize phenomena, predict outcomes in new situations, and generate research. Those that fare poorly are assumed to be less accurate and are abandoned, while those that fare well are assumed to be more accurate and are retained and compared with newer—and hopefully better—theories. Although scientists generally do not believe that their theories ever provide perfectly accurate descriptions of the world, they do assume that this process produces theories that come closer and closer to that ideal.

Key Takeaways

·         Scientists distinguish between phenomena, which are their systematic observations, and theories, which are their explanations or interpretations of phenomena.

·         In addition to providing accurate explanations or interpretations, scientific theories have three basic purposes. They organize phenomena, allow people to predict what will happen in new situations, and help generate new research.

·         Researchers generally consider multiple theories for any set of phenomena. Different theories of the same set of phenomena can be complementary or competing.

3.3  Using Theories in Psychological Research

We have now seen what theories are, what they are for, and the variety of forms that they take in psychological research. In this section we look more closely at how researchers actually use them. We begin with a general description of how researchers test and revise their theories, and we end with some practical advice for beginning researchers who want to incorporate theory into their research.

Theory Testing and Revision

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on.  Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

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

Constructing or Choosing a Theory

Along with generating research questions, constructing theories is one of the more creative parts of scientific research. But as with all creative activities, success requires preparation and hard work more than anything else. To construct a good theory, a researcher must know in detail about the phenomena of interest and about any existing theories based on a thorough review of the literature. The new theory must provide a coherent explanation or interpretation of the phenomena of interest and have some advantage over existing theories. It could be more formal and therefore more precise, broader in scope, more parsimonious, or it could take a new perspective or theoretical approach. If there is no existing theory, then almost any theory can be a step in the right direction.

As we have seen, formality, scope, and theoretical approach are determined in part by the nature of the phenomena to be interpreted. But the researcher’s interests and abilities play a role too. For example, constructing a theory that specifies the neural structures and processes underlying a set of phenomena requires specialized knowledge and experience in neuroscience (which most professional researchers would acquire in college and then graduate school). But again, many theories in psychology are relatively informal, narrow in scope, and expressed in terms that even a beginning researcher can understand and even use to construct his or her own new theory.

It is probably more common, however, for a researcher to start with a theory that was originally constructed by someone else—giving due credit to the originator of the theory. This is another example of how researchers work collectively to advance scientific knowledge. Once they have identified an existing theory, they might derive a hypothesis from the theory and test it or modify the theory to account for some new phenomenon and then test the modified theory.

Deriving Hypotheses

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

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in Chapter 2 and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this is an interesting question on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

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

Evaluating and Revising Theories

If a hypothesis is confirmed in a systematic empirical study, then the theory has been strengthened. Not only did the theory make an accurate prediction, but there is now a new phenomenon that the theory accounts for. If a hypothesis is disconfirmed in a systematic empirical study, then the theory has been weakened. It made an inaccurate prediction, and there is now a new phenomenon that it does not account for.

Although this seems straightforward, there are some complications. First, confirming a hypothesis can strengthen a theory but it can never prove a theory. In fact, scientists tend to avoid the word “prove” when talking and writing about theories. One reason for this is that there may be other plausible theories that imply the same hypothesis, which means that confirming the hypothesis strengthens all those theories equally. A second reason is that it is always possible that another test of the hypothesis or a test of a new hypothesis derived from the theory will be disconfirmed. This is a version of the famous philosophical “problem of induction.” One cannot definitively prove a general principle (e.g., “All swans are white.”) just by observing confirming cases (e.g., white swans)—no matter how many. It is always possible that a disconfirming case (e.g., a black swan) will eventually come along. For these reasons, scientists tend to think of theories—even highly successful ones—as subject to revision based on new and unexpected observations.

A second complication has to do with what it means when a hypothesis is disconfirmed. According to the strictest version of the hypothetico-deductive method, disconfirming a hypothesis disproves the theory it was derived from. In formal logic, the premises “if A then B” and “not B” necessarily lead to the conclusion “not A.” If A is the theory and B is the hypothesis (“if A then B”), then disconfirming the hypothesis (“not B”) must mean that the theory is incorrect (“not A”). In practice, however, scientists do not give up on their theories so easily. One reason is that one disconfirmed hypothesis could be a fluke or it could be the result of a faulty research design. Perhaps the researcher did not successfully manipulate the independent variable or measure the dependent variable. A disconfirmed hypothesis could also mean that some unstated but relatively minor assumption of the theory was not met. For example, if Zajonc had failed to find social facilitation in cockroaches, he could have concluded that drive theory is still correct but it applies only to animals with sufficiently complex nervous systems.

This does not mean that researchers are free to ignore disconfirmations of their theories. If they cannot improve their research designs or modify their theories to account for repeated disconfirmations, then they eventually abandon their theories and replace them with ones that are more successful.

Incorporating Theory Into Your Research

It should be clear from this chapter that theories are not just “icing on the cake” of scientific research; they are a basic ingredient. If you can understand and use them, you will be much more successful at reading and understanding the research literature, generating interesting research questions, and writing and conversing about research. Of course, your ability to understand and use theories will improve with practice. But there are several things that you can do to incorporate theory into your research right from the start.

The first thing is to distinguish the phenomena you are interested in from any theories of those phenomena. Beware especially of the tendency to “fuse” a phenomenon to a commonsense theory of it. For example, it might be tempting to describe the negative effect of cell phone usage on driving ability by saying, “Cell phone usage distracts people from driving.” Or it might be tempting to describe the positive effect of expressive writing on health by saying, “Dealing with your emotions through writing makes you healthier.” In both of these examples, however, a vague commonsense explanation (distraction, “dealing with” emotions) has been fused to the phenomenon itself. The problem is that this gives the impression that the phenomenon has already been adequately explained and closes off further inquiry into precisely why or how it happens.

As another example, researcher Jerry Burger and his colleagues were interested in the phenomenon that people are more willing to comply with a simple request from someone with whom they are familiar (Burger, Soroka, Gonzago, Murphy, & Somervell, 1999). A beginning researcher who is asked to explain why this is the case might be at a complete loss or say something like, “Well, because they are familiar with them.” But digging just a bit deeper, Burger and his colleagues realized that there are several possible explanations. Among them are that complying with people we know creates positive feelings, that we anticipate needing something from them in the future, and that we like them more and follow an automatic rule that says to help people we like.

The next thing to do is turn to the research literature to identify existing theories of the phenomena you are interested in. Remember that there will usually be more than one plausible theory. Existing theories may be complementary or competing, but it is essential to know what they are. If there are no existing theories, you should come up with two or three of your own—even if they are informal and limited in scope. Then get in the habit of describing the phenomena you are interested in, followed by the two or three best theories of it. Do this whether you are speaking or writing about your research. When asked what their research was about, for example, Burger and his colleagues could have said something like the following:

It’s about the fact that we’re more likely to comply with requests from people we know [the phenomenon]. This is interesting because it could be because it makes us feel good [Theory 1], because we think we might get something in return [Theory 2], or because we like them more and have an automatic tendency to comply with people we like [Theory 3].

At this point, you may be able to derive a hypothesis from one of the theories. At the very least, for each research question you generate, you should ask what each plausible theory implies about the answer to that question. If one of them implies a particular answer, then you may have an interesting hypothesis to test. Burger and colleagues, for example, asked what would happen if a request came from a stranger whom participants had sat next to only briefly, did not interact with, and had no expectation of interacting with in the future. They reasoned that if familiarity created liking, and liking increased people’s tendency to comply (Theory 3), then this situation should still result in increased rates of compliance (which it did). If the question is interesting but no theory implies an answer to it, this might suggest that a new theory needs to be constructed or that existing theories need to be modified in some way. These would make excellent points of discussion in the introduction or discussion of an American Psychological Association (APA) style research report or research presentation.

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

·         Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.

·         Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.

·         There are several things that even beginning researchers can do to incorporate theory into their research. These include clearly distinguishing phenomena from theories, knowing about existing theories, constructing one’s own simple theories, using theories to make predictions about the answers to research questions, and incorporating theories into one’s writing and speaking.

3.4  Understanding Null Hypothesis Testing

The Purpose of Null Hypothesis Testing

As we have seen, psychological research typically involves measuring one or more variables for a sample and computing descriptive statistics for that sample. In general, however, the researcher’s goal is not to draw conclusions about that sample but to draw conclusions about the population that the sample was selected from. Thus researchers must use sample statistics to draw conclusions about the corresponding values in the population. These corresponding values in the population are called parameters. Imagine, for example, that a researcher measures the number of depressive symptoms exhibited by each of 50 clinically depressed adults and computes the mean number of symptoms. The researcher probably wants to use this sample statistic (the mean number of symptoms for the sample) to draw conclusions about the corresponding population parameter (the mean number of symptoms for clinically depressed adults).

Unfortunately, sample statistics are not perfect estimates of their corresponding population parameters. This is because there is a certain amount of random variability in any statistic from sample to sample. This random variability in a statistic from sample to sample is called sampling error.

One implication of this is that when there is a statistical relationship in a sample, it is not always clear that there is a statistical relationship in the population. A small difference between two group means in a sample might indicate that there is a small difference between the two group means in the population. But it could also be that there is no difference between the means in the population and that the difference in the sample is just a matter of sampling error. Similarly, a Pearson’s r value of −.29 in a sample might mean that there is a negative relationship in the population. But it could also be that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample is just a matter of sampling error.

In fact, any statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in two ways:

• There is a relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects this.
• There is no relationship in the population, and the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error.

The purpose of null hypothesis testing is simply to help researchers decide between these two interpretations.

The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing

Null hypothesis testing is a formal approach to deciding between two interpretations of a statistical relationship in a sample. One interpretation is called the null hypothesis (often symbolized H0 and read as “H-naught”). This is the idea that there is no relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects only sampling error. Informally, the null hypothesis is that the sample relationship “occurred by chance.” The other interpretation is called the alternative hypothesis (often symbolized as H1). This is the idea that there is a relationship in the population and that the relationship in the sample reflects this relationship in the population.

Again, every statistical relationship in a sample can be interpreted in either of these two ways: It might have occurred by chance, or it might reflect a relationship in the population. So researchers need a way to decide between them. Although there are many specific null hypothesis testing techniques, they are all based on the same general logic. The steps are as follows:

• Assume for the moment that the null hypothesis is true. There is no relationship between the variables in the population.
• Determine how likely the sample relationship would be if the null hypothesis were true.
• If the sample relationship would be extremely unlikely, then reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be extremely unlikely, then retain the null hypothesis.

Following this logic, we can begin to understand why Mehl and his colleagues concluded that there is no difference in talkativeness between women and men in the population. In essence, they asked the following question: “If there were no difference in the population, how likely is it that we would find a small difference of d = 0.06 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly likely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they retained the null hypothesis—concluding that there is no evidence of a sex difference in the population. We can also see why Kanner and his colleagues concluded that there is a correlation between hassles and symptoms in the population. They asked, “If the null hypothesis were true, how likely is it that we would find a strong correlation of +.60 in our sample?” Their answer to this question was that this sample relationship would be fairly unlikely if the null hypothesis were true. Therefore, they rejected the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis—concluding that there is a positive correlation between these variables in the population.

A crucial step in null hypothesis testing is finding the likelihood of the sample result if the null hypothesis were true. This probability is called the p value. A low p value means that the sample result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis. A high p value means that the sample result would be likely if the null hypothesis were true and leads to the retention of the null hypothesis. But how low must the p value be before the sample result is considered unlikely enough to reject the null hypothesis? In null hypothesis testing, this criterion is called α (alpha) and is almost always set to .05. If there is less than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result if the null hypothesis were true, then the null hypothesis is rejected. When this happens, the result is said to be statistically significant. If there is greater than a 5% chance of a result as extreme as the sample result when the null hypothesis is true, then the null hypothesis is retained. This does not necessarily mean that the researcher accepts the null hypothesis as true—only that there is not currently enough evidence to conclude that it is true. Researchers often use the expression “fail to reject the null hypothesis” rather than “retain the null hypothesis,” but they never use the expression “accept the null hypothesis.”

The Misunderstood p Value

The p value is one of the most misunderstood quantities in psychological research (Cohen, 1994). Even professional researchers misinterpret it, and it is not unusual for such misinterpretations to appear in statistics textbooks!

The most common misinterpretation is that the p value is the probability that the null hypothesis is true—that the sample result occurred by chance. For example, a misguided researcher might say that because the p value is .02, there is only a 2% chance that the result is due to chance and a 98% chance that it reflects a real relationship in the population. But this is incorrect. The p value is really the probability of a result at least as extreme as the sample result if the null hypothesis were true. So a p value of .02 means that if the null hypothesis were true, a sample result this extreme would occur only 2% of the time.

You can avoid this misunderstanding by remembering that the p value is not the probability that any particular hypothesis is true or false. Instead, it is the probability of obtaining the sample result if the null hypothesis were true.

Role of Sample Size and Relationship Strength

Recall that null hypothesis testing involves answering the question, “If the null hypothesis were true, what is the probability of a sample result as extreme as this one?” In other words, “What is the p value?” It can be helpful to see that the answer to this question depends on just two considerations: the strength of the relationship and the size of the sample. Specifically, the stronger the sample relationship and the larger the sample, the less likely the result would be if the null hypothesis were true. That is, the lower the p value. This should make sense. Imagine a study in which a sample of 500 women is compared with a sample of 500 men in terms of some psychological characteristic, and Cohen’s d is a strong 0.50. If there were really no sex difference in the population, then a result this strong based on such a large sample should seem highly unlikely. Now imagine a similar study in which a sample of three women is compared with a sample of three men, and Cohen’s d is a weak 0.10. If there were no sex difference in the population, then a relationship this weak based on such a small sample should seem likely. And this is precisely why the null hypothesis would be rejected in the first example and retained in the second.

Of course, sometimes the result can be weak and the sample large, or the result can be strong and the sample small. In these cases, the two considerations trade off against each other so that a weak result can be statistically significant if the sample is large enough and a strong relationship can be statistically significant even if the sample is small.  Weak relationships based on medium or small samples are never statistically significant and that strong relationships based on medium or larger samples are always statistically significant. If you keep this in mind, you will often know whether a result is statistically significant based on the descriptive statistics alone. It is extremely useful to be able to develop this kind of intuitive judgment. One reason is that it allows you to develop expectations about how your formal null hypothesis tests are going to come out, which in turn allows you to detect problems in your analyses. For example, if your sample relationship is strong and your sample is medium, then you would expect to reject the null hypothesis. If for some reason your formal null hypothesis test indicates otherwise, then you need to double-check your computations and interpretations. A second reason is that the ability to make this kind of intuitive judgment is an indication that you understand the basic logic of this approach in addition to being able to do the computations.

Statistical Significance Versus Practical Significance

A statistically significant result is not necessarily a strong one. Even a very weak result can be statistically significant if it is based on a large enough sample. This is closely related to Janet Shibley Hyde’s argument about sex differences (Hyde, 2007). The differences between women and men in mathematical problem solving and leadership ability are statistically significant. But the word significant can cause people to interpret these differences as strong and important—perhaps even important enough to influence the college courses they take or even who they vote for. As we have seen, however, these statistically significant differences are actually quite weak—perhaps even “trivial.”

This is why it is important to distinguish between the statistical significance of a result and the practical significance of that result. Practical significance refers to the importance or usefulness of the result in some real-world context. Many sex differences are statistically significant—and may even be interesting for purely scientific reasons—but they are not practically significant. In clinical practice, this same concept is often referred to as “clinical significance.” For example, a study on a new treatment for social phobia might show that it produces a statistically significant positive effect. Yet this effect still might not be strong enough to justify the time, effort, and other costs of putting it into practice—especially if easier and cheaper treatments that work almost as well already exist. Although statistically significant, this result would be said to lack practical or clinical significance.

·         Null hypothesis testing is a formal approach to deciding whether a statistical relationship in a sample reflects a real relationship in the population or is just due to chance.

·         The logic of null hypothesis testing involves assuming that the null hypothesis is true, finding how likely the sample result would be if this assumption were correct, and then making a decision. If the sample result would be unlikely if the null hypothesis were true, then it is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis. If it would not be unlikely, then the null hypothesis is retained.

·         The probability of obtaining the sample result if the null hypothesis were true (the p value) is based on two considerations: relationship strength and sample size. Reasonable judgments about whether a sample relationship is statistically significant can often be made by quickly considering these two factors.

·         Statistical significance is not the same as relationship strength or importance. Even weak relationships can be statistically significant if the sample size is large enough. It is important to consider relationship strength and the practical significance of a result in addition to its statistical significance.

References from Chapter 3

Burger, J. M., Soroka, S., Gonzago, K., Murphy, E., Somervell, E. (1999). The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1578–1586.

Cohen, J. (1994). The world is round: p .05. American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.

Hyde, J. S. (2007). New directions in the study of gender similarities and differences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 259–263.

Izawa, C. (Ed.) (1999). On human memory: Evolution, progress, and reflections on the 30th anniversary of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J. (2003). Dissociative identity disorder: Multiplepersonalities, multiple controversies. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 109–142). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci,…Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.

Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 83–92.

Research Methods in Psychology & Neuroscience Copyright © by Dalhousie University Introduction to Psychology and Neuroscience Team. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

Aims And Hypotheses, Directional And Non-Directional

March 7, 2021 - paper 2 psychology in context | research methods.

In Psychology, hypotheses are predictions made by the researcher about the outcome of a study. The research can chose to make a specific prediction about what they feel will happen in their research (a directional hypothesis) or they can make a ‘general,’ ‘less specific’ prediction about the outcome of their research (a non-directional hypothesis). The type of prediction that a researcher makes is usually dependent on whether or not any previous research has also investigated their research aim.

Variables Recap:

The  independent variable  (IV)  is the variable that psychologists  manipulate/change  to see if changing this variable has an effect on the  depen dent variable  (DV).

It is important that the only variable that is changed in research is the  independent variable (IV),   all other variables have to be kept constant across the control condition and the experimental conditions. Only then will researchers be able to observe the true effects of  just  the independent variable (IV) on the dependent variable (DV).

Research/Experimental Aim(S):

An aim is a clear and precise statement of the purpose of the study. It is a statement of why a research study is taking place. This should include what is being studied and what the study is trying to achieve. (e.g. “This study aims to investigate the effects of alcohol on reaction times”.

Hypotheses:

This is a testable statement that predicts what the researcher expects to happen in their research. The research study itself is therefore a means of testing whether or not the hypothesis is supported by the findings. If the findings do support the hypothesis then the hypothesis can be retained (i.e., accepted), but if not, then it must be rejected.

(1)  Directional Hypothesis:  states that the IV will have an effect on the DV and what that effect will be (the direction of results). For example, eating smarties will significantly  improve  an individual’s dancing ability. When writing a directional hypothesis, it is important that you state exactly  how  the IV will influence the DV.

(2)  Non-Directional Hypothesis:  hypothesis simply states that the IV will have an effect on the DV but  does not predict how  it will affect the results. For examp le, ‘eating smarties will have a significant affect on an individual’s dancing ability.’

Exam Tip:  One of the questions that you may get asked in the exam is ‘when would a psychologist decide to use a  directional hypothesis?’  In general, psychologists use a directional hypothesis when there has been previous research on the topic that they aim to investigate (the psychologist has a good idea of what the outcome of the research is going to be). For example, if a researcher was going to carry research out of the effects of alcohol on reaction times, they would predict a directional hypothesis due to the fact that there has already been lots of research looking at this area.

• 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

What Are Psychological Theories?

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 / Colleen Tighe 

5 Major Psychological Theories

• Types of Theories

Psychological theories are fact-based ideas that describe a phenomenon of human behavior. These theories are based on a hypothesis , which is backed by evidence. Thus, the two key components of a psychological theory are:

• It must describe a behavior.
• It must make predictions about future behaviors.

The term "theory" is used with surprising frequency in everyday language. It is often used to mean a guess, hunch, or supposition. You may even hear people dismiss certain information because it is "only a theory."

But in the realm of science, a theory is not merely a guess. A theory presents a concept or idea that is testable. Scientists can test a theory through empirical research and gather evidence that supports or refutes it.

As new evidence surfaces and more research is done, a theory may be refined, modified, or even rejected if it does not fit with the latest scientific findings. The overall strength of a scientific theory hinges on its ability to explain diverse phenomena.

Some of the best-known psychological theories stem from the perspectives of various branches within psychology . There are five major types of psychological theories.

Behavioral Theories

Behavioral psychology, also known as behaviorism, is a theory of learning based on the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning.

Advocated by famous psychologists such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner , behavioral theories dominated psychology during the early half of the twentieth century. Today, behavioral techniques are still widely used by therapists to help clients learn new skills and behaviors.

Cognitive Theories

Cognitive theories of psychology are focused on internal states, such as motivation, problem-solving, decision-making , thinking, and attention. Such theories strive to explain different mental processes including how the mind processes information and how our thoughts lead to certain emotions and behaviors.

Humanistic Theories

Humanistic psychology theories began to grow in popularity during the 1950s. Some of the major humanist theorists included Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow .

While earlier theories often focused on abnormal behavior and psychological problems, humanist theories about behavior instead emphasized the basic goodness of human beings.

Psychodynamic Theories

Psychodynamic theories examine the unconscious concepts that shape our emotions, attitudes, and personalities. Psychodynamic approaches seek to understand the root causes of unconscious behavior.

These theories are strongly linked with Sigmund Freud and his followers. The psychodynamic approach is seen in many Freudian claims—for instance, that our adult behaviors have their roots in our childhood experiences and that the personality is made up of three parts: the ID, the ego, and the superego.

Biological Theories

Biological theories in psychology attribute human emotion and behavior to biological causes. For instance, in the nature versus nurture debate on human behavior, the biological perspective would side with nature.

Biological theories are rooted in the ideas of Charles Darwin, who is famous for theorizing about the roles that evolution and genetics play in psychology.

Someone examining a psychological issue from a biological lens might investigate whether there are bodily injuries causing a specific type of behavior or whether the behavior was inherited.

Different Types of Psychological Theories

There are many psychology theories, but most can be categorized as one of four key types.

Developmental Theories

Theories of development provide a framework for thinking about human growth, development, and learning. If you have ever wondered about what motivates human thought and behavior, understanding these theories can provide useful insight into individuals and society.

Developmental theories provide a set of guiding principles and concepts that describe and explain human development. Some developmental theories focus on the formation of a particular quality, such as Kohlberg's theory of moral development. Other developmental theories focus on growth that happens throughout the lifespan, such as  Erikson's theory of psychosocial development .

Grand Theories

Grand theories are those comprehensive ideas often proposed by major thinkers such as Sigmund Freud,  Erik Erikson , and  Jean Piaget . Grand theories of development include psychoanalytic theory,  learning theory , and  cognitive theory .

These theories seek to explain much of human behavior, but are often considered outdated and incomplete in the face of modern research. Psychologists and researchers often use grand theories as a basis for exploration, but consider smaller theories and recent research as well.

Mini-Theories

Mini-theories describe a small, very particular aspect of development. A mini-theory might explain relatively narrow behaviors, such as how self-esteem is formed or early childhood socialization. These theories are often rooted in the ideas established by grand theories, but they do not seek to describe and explain the whole of human behavior and growth.

Emergent Theories

Emergent theories are those that have been created relatively recently. They are often formed by systematically combining various mini-theories. These theories draw on research and ideas from different disciplines but are not yet as broad or far-reaching as grand theories. The  sociocultural theory  proposed by Lev Vygotsky  is a good example of an emergent theory of development.

The Purpose of Psychological Theories

You may find yourself questioning how necessary it is to learn about different psychology theories, especially those that are considered inaccurate or outdated.

However, theories provide valuable information about the history of psychology and the progression of thought on a particular topic. They also allow a deeper understanding of current theories. Each one helps contribute to our knowledge of the human mind and behavior.

By understanding how thinking has progressed, you can get a better idea not only of where psychology has been, but where it might be going in the future.

Studying scientific theories can improve your understanding of how scientific explanations for behavior and other phenomena in the natural world are formed, investigated, and accepted by the scientific community.

While debates continues to rage over hot topics, it is worthwhile to study science and the psychological theories that have emerged from such research, even when what is often revealed might come as a harsh or inconvenient truth.

As Carl Sagan once wrote, "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

Examples of Psychological Theories

These are a few examples of psychological theories that have maintained relevance, even today.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory is commonly represented by a pyramid, with five different types of human needs listed. From bottom to top, these needs are:

• Physiological : Food, water, shelter
• Safety needs : Security, resources
• Belongingness and love : Intimate relationships
• Esteem needs : Feeling accomplished
• Self-actualization : Living your full potential creatively and spiritually

According to Maslow, these needs represent what humans require to feel fulfilled and lead productive lives. However, one must satisfy these needs from the bottom up, according to Maslow.

For instance, the most basic and most immediate needs are physiological. Once those are met, you can focus on subsequent needs like relationships and self-esteem.

Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

Piaget's theory of cognitive development focuses on how children learn and evolve in their understanding of the world around them. According to his theory, there are four stages children go through during cognitive development:

• Sensorimotor stage : This stage lasts from birth to age two. Infants and toddlers learn about the world around them through reflexes, their five senses, and motor responses.
• Preoperational stage : This stage occurs from two to seven years old. Kids start to learn how to think symbolically, but they struggle to understand the perspectives of others.
• Concrete operational stage : This stage lasts from seven to 11 years old. Kids begin to think logically and are capable of reasoning from specific information to form a general principle.
• Formal operational stage : This stage starts at age 12 and continues from there. This is when we begin to think in abstract terms, such as contemplating moral, philosophical, and political issues.

Freud's Psychoanalytic Theory

Still widely discussed today is Freud's famous psychoanalytic theory . In his theory, Freud proposed that a human personality is made up of the id, the ego, and the superego.

The id, according to Freud, is a primal component of personality. It is unconscious and desires pleasure and immediate gratification. For instance, an infant crying because they're hungry is an example of the id at work. In order to get their needs met, they respond to hunger by crying.

The ego is responsible for managing the impulses of the id so they conform to the norms of the outside world. As you age, your ego develops.

For instance, as an adult, you know that crying doesn't get you the same type of attention and care that it did as an infant. So the ego manages the id's primal impulses, while making sure your responses are appropriate for the time and place.

The superego is made up of what we internalize to be right and wrong based on what we've been taught (our conscience is part of the superego). The superego works to make our behavior acceptable and it urges the ego to make decisions based on what's idealistic (not realistic).

A Word From Verywell

Much of what we know about human thought and behavior has emerged thanks to various psychology theories. For example, behavioral theories demonstrated how conditioning can be used to promote learning. By learning more about these theories, you can gain a deeper and richer understanding of psychology's past, present, and future.

Borghi AM, Fini C. Theories and explanations in psychology . Front Psychol. 2019;10:958. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00958

Schwarzer R, Frensch P, eds. Personality, Human Development, and Culture: International Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 2 . Psychology Press.

American Psychological Association. Cognitive theories .

Brady-Amoon P, Keefe-Cooperman K. Psychology, counseling psychology, and professional counseling: Shared roots, challenges, and opportunities . Eur J Couns Psychol. 2017;6(1). doi:10.5964/ejcop.v6i1.105

American Psychological Association. Psychodynamic approach .

Giacolini T, Sabatello U. Psychoanalysis and affective neuroscience. The motivational/emotional system of aggression in human relations . Front Psychol . 2019;9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02475

D’Hooge R, Balschun D. Biological psychology . In: Runehov ALC, Oviedo L, eds. Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions . 2013:231-239. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_240

Walrath R. Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development In: Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, eds. Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development . Springer.

Gilleard C, Higgs P. Connecting life span development with the sociology of the life course: A new direction . Sociology . 2016;50(2):301-315. doi:10.1177/0038038515577906

Cvencek D, Greenwald A, Meltzoff A. Implicit measures for preschool children confirm self-esteem’s role in maintaining a balanced identity . J Exp Psychol . 2016(62):50-57. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.015

Benson J, Haith M, eds. Social and Emotional Development in Infancy and Early Childhood . Elsevier.

Sagan C. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark . Random House.

Taormina RJ, Gao JH. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs . American J Psychol. 2013;126(2):155-177. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Rabindran, Madanagopal D. Piaget’s theory and stages of cognitive development- An overview . SJAMS. 2020;8(9):2152-2157. doi:10.36347/sjams.2020.v08i09.034

Boag S.  Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects.   Front Psychol.  2014;5:666. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00666

McComas WF. The Language of Science Education . Springer Science & Business Media.

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

13 Different Types of Hypothesis

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

There are 13 different types of hypothesis. These include simple, complex, null, alternative, composite, directional, non-directional, logical, empirical, statistical, associative, exact, and inexact.

A hypothesis can be categorized into one or more of these types. However, some are mutually exclusive and opposites. Simple and complex hypotheses are mutually exclusive, as are direction and non-direction, and null and alternative hypotheses.

Below I explain each hypothesis in simple terms for absolute beginners. These definitions may be too simple for some, but they’re designed to be clear introductions to the terms to help people wrap their heads around the concepts early on in their education about research methods .

Types of Hypothesis

Before you Proceed: Dependent vs Independent Variables

A research study and its hypotheses generally examine the relationships between independent and dependent variables – so you need to know these two concepts:

• The independent variable is the variable that is causing a change.
• The dependent variable is the variable the is affected by the change. This is the variable being tested.

Read my full article on dependent vs independent variables for more examples.

Example: Eating carrots (independent variable) improves eyesight (dependent variable).

1. Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a hypothesis that predicts a correlation between two test variables: an independent and a dependent variable.

This is the easiest and most straightforward type of hypothesis. You simply need to state an expected correlation between the dependant variable and the independent variable.

You do not need to predict causation (see: directional hypothesis). All you would need to do is prove that the two variables are linked.

Simple Hypothesis Examples

2. Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a hypothesis that contains multiple variables, making the hypothesis more specific but also harder to prove.

You can have multiple independent and dependant variables in this hypothesis.

Complex Hypothesis Example

In the above example, we have multiple independent and dependent variables:

• Independent variables: Age and weight.
• Dependent variables: diabetes and heart disease.

Because there are multiple variables, this study is a lot more complex than a simple hypothesis. It quickly gets much more difficult to prove these hypotheses. This is why undergraduate and first-time researchers are usually encouraged to use simple hypotheses.

3. Null Hypothesis

A null hypothesis will predict that there will be no significant relationship between the two test variables.

For example, you can say that “The study will show that there is no correlation between marriage and happiness.”

A good way to think about a null hypothesis is to think of it in the same way as “innocent until proven guilty”[1]. Unless you can come up with evidence otherwise, your null hypothesis will stand.

A null hypothesis may also highlight that a correlation will be inconclusive . This means that you can predict that the study will not be able to confirm your results one way or the other. For example, you can say “It is predicted that the study will be unable to confirm a correlation between the two variables due to foreseeable interference by a third variable .”

Beware that an inconclusive null hypothesis may be questioned by your teacher. Why would you conduct a test that you predict will not provide a clear result? Perhaps you should take a closer look at your methodology and re-examine it. Nevertheless, inconclusive null hypotheses can sometimes have merit.

Null Hypothesis Examples

4. Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a hypothesis that is anything other than the null hypothesis. It will disprove the null hypothesis.

We use the symbol H A or H 1 to denote an alternative hypothesis.

The null and alternative hypotheses are usually used together. We will say the null hypothesis is the case where a relationship between two variables is non-existent. The alternative hypothesis is the case where there is a relationship between those two variables.

The following statement is always true: H 0 ≠ H A .

Let’s take the example of the hypothesis: “Does eating oatmeal before an exam impact test scores?”

We can have two hypotheses here:

• Null hypothesis (H 0 ): “Eating oatmeal before an exam does not impact test scores.”
• Alternative hypothesis (H A ): “Eating oatmeal before an exam does impact test scores.”

For the alternative hypothesis to be true, all we have to do is disprove the null hypothesis for the alternative hypothesis to be true. We do not need an exact prediction of how much oatmeal will impact the test scores or even if the impact is positive or negative. So long as the null hypothesis is proven to be false, then the alternative hypothesis is proven to be true.

5. Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a hypothesis that does not predict the exact parameters, distribution, or range of the dependent variable.

Often, we would predict an exact outcome. For example: “23 year old men are on average 189cm tall.” Here, we are giving an exact parameter. So, the hypothesis is not composite.

But, often, we cannot exactly hypothesize something. We assume that something will happen, but we’re not exactly sure what. In these cases, we might say: “23 year old men are not on average 189cm tall.”

We haven’t set a distribution range or exact parameters of the average height of 23 year old men. So, we’ve introduced a composite hypothesis as opposed to an exact hypothesis.

Generally, an alternative hypothesis (discussed above) is composite because it is defined as anything except the null hypothesis. This ‘anything except’ does not define parameters or distribution, and therefore it’s an example of a composite hypothesis.

6. Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis makes a prediction about the positivity or negativity of the effect of an intervention prior to the test being conducted.

Instead of being agnostic about whether the effect will be positive or negative, it nominates the effect’s directionality.

We often call this a one-tailed hypothesis (in contrast to a two-tailed or non-directional hypothesis) because, looking at a distribution graph, we’re hypothesizing that the results will lean toward one particular tail on the graph – either the positive or negative.

Directional Hypothesis Examples

7. Non-Directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis does not specify the predicted direction (e.g. positivity or negativity) of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.

These hypotheses predict an effect, but stop short of saying what that effect will be.

A non-directional hypothesis is similar to composite and alternative hypotheses. All three types of hypothesis tend to make predictions without defining a direction. In a composite hypothesis, a specific prediction is not made (although a general direction may be indicated, so the overlap is not complete). For an alternative hypothesis, you often predict that the even will be anything but the null hypothesis, which means it could be more or less than H 0 (or in other words, non-directional).

Let’s turn the above directional hypotheses into non-directional hypotheses.

Non-Directional Hypothesis Examples

8. Logical Hypothesis

A logical hypothesis is a hypothesis that cannot be tested, but has some logical basis underpinning our assumptions.

These are most commonly used in philosophy because philosophical questions are often untestable and therefore we must rely on our logic to formulate logical theories.

Usually, we would want to turn a logical hypothesis into an empirical one through testing if we got the chance. Unfortunately, we don’t always have this opportunity because the test is too complex, expensive, or simply unrealistic.

Here are some examples:

• Before the 1980s, it was hypothesized that the Titanic came to its resting place at 41° N and 49° W, based on the time the ship sank and the ship’s presumed path across the Atlantic Ocean. However, due to the depth of the ocean, it was impossible to test. Thus, the hypothesis was simply a logical hypothesis.
• Dinosaurs closely related to Aligators probably had green scales because Aligators have green scales. However, as they are all extinct, we can only rely on logic and not empirical data.

9. Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is the opposite of a logical hypothesis. It is a hypothesis that is currently being tested using scientific analysis. We can also call this a ‘working hypothesis’.

We can to separate research into two types: theoretical and empirical. Theoretical research relies on logic and thought experiments. Empirical research relies on tests that can be verified by observation and measurement.

So, an empirical hypothesis is a hypothesis that can and will be tested.

• Raising the wage of restaurant servers increases staff retention.
• Adding 1 lb of corn per day to cows’ diets decreases their lifespan.
• Mushrooms grow faster at 22 degrees Celsius than 27 degrees Celsius.

Each of the above hypotheses can be tested, making them empirical rather than just logical (aka theoretical).

10. Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis utilizes representative statistical models to draw conclusions about broader populations.

It requires the use of datasets or carefully selected representative samples so that statistical inference can be drawn across a larger dataset.

This type of research is necessary when it is impossible to assess every single possible case. Imagine, for example, if you wanted to determine if men are taller than women. You would be unable to measure the height of every man and woman on the planet. But, by conducting sufficient random samples, you would be able to predict with high probability that the results of your study would remain stable across the whole population.

You would be right in guessing that almost all quantitative research studies conducted in academic settings today involve statistical hypotheses.

Statistical Hypothesis Examples

• Human Sex Ratio. The most famous statistical hypothesis example is that of John Arbuthnot’s sex at birth case study in 1710. Arbuthnot used birth data to determine with high statistical probability that there are more male births than female births. He called this divine providence, and to this day, his findings remain true: more men are born than women.
• Lady Testing Tea. A 1935 study by Ronald Fisher involved testing a woman who believed she could tell whether milk was added before or after water to a cup of tea. Fisher gave her 4 cups in which one randomly had milk placed before the tea. He repeated the test 8 times. The lady was correct each time. Fisher found that she had a 1 in 70 chance of getting all 8 test correct, which is a statistically significant result.

11. Associative Hypothesis

An associative hypothesis predicts that two variables are linked but does not explore whether one variable directly impacts upon the other variable.

We commonly refer to this as “ correlation does not mean causation ”. Just because there are a lot of sick people in a hospital, it doesn’t mean that the hospital made the people sick. There is something going on there that’s causing the issue (sick people are flocking to the hospital).

So, in an associative hypothesis, you note correlation between an independent and dependent variable but do not make a prediction about how the two interact. You stop short of saying one thing causes another thing.

Associative Hypothesis Examples

• Sick people in hospital. You could conduct a study hypothesizing that hospitals have more sick people in them than other institutions in society. However, you don’t hypothesize that the hospitals caused the sickness.
• Lice make you healthy. In the Middle Ages, it was observed that sick people didn’t tend to have lice in their hair. The inaccurate conclusion was that lice was not only a sign of health, but that they made people healthy. In reality, there was an association here, but not causation. The fact was that lice were sensitive to body temperature and fled bodies that had fevers.

12. Causal Hypothesis

A causal hypothesis predicts that two variables are not only associated, but that changes in one variable will cause changes in another.

A causal hypothesis is harder to prove than an associative hypothesis because the cause needs to be definitively proven. This will often require repeating tests in controlled environments with the researchers making manipulations to the independent variable, or the use of control groups and placebo effects .

If we were to take the above example of lice in the hair of sick people, researchers would have to put lice in sick people’s hair and see if it made those people healthier. Researchers would likely observe that the lice would flee the hair, but the sickness would remain, leading to a finding of association but not causation.

Causal Hypothesis Examples

13. Exact vs. Inexact Hypothesis

For brevity’s sake, I have paired these two hypotheses into the one point. The reality is that we’ve already seen both of these types of hypotheses at play already.

An exact hypothesis (also known as a point hypothesis) specifies a specific prediction whereas an inexact hypothesis assumes a range of possible values without giving an exact outcome. As Helwig [2] argues:

“An “exact” hypothesis specifies the exact value(s) of the parameter(s) of interest, whereas an “inexact” hypothesis specifies a range of possible values for the parameter(s) of interest.”

Generally, a null hypothesis is an exact hypothesis whereas alternative, composite, directional, and non-directional hypotheses are all inexact.

See Next: 15 Hypothesis Examples

This is introductory information that is basic and indeed quite simplified for absolute beginners. It’s worth doing further independent research to get deeper knowledge of research methods and how to conduct an effective research study. And if you’re in education studies, don’t miss out on my list of the best education studies dissertation ideas .

[1] https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/91/6/571.abstract

[2] http://users.stat.umn.edu/~helwig/notes/SignificanceTesting.pdf

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

2 thoughts on “13 Different Types of Hypothesis”

Wow! This introductionary materials are very helpful. I teach the begginers in research for the first time in my career. The given tips and materials are very helpful. Chris, thank you so much! Excellent materials!

You’re more than welcome! If you want a pdf version of this article to provide for your students to use as a weekly reading on in-class discussion prompt for seminars, just drop me an email in the Contact form and I’ll get one sent out to you.

When I’ve taught this seminar, I’ve put my students into groups, cut these definitions into strips, and handed them out to the groups. Then I get them to try to come up with hypotheses that fit into each ‘type’. You can either just rotate hypothesis types so they get a chance at creating a hypothesis of each type, or get them to “teach” their hypothesis type and examples to the class at the end of the seminar.

Cheers, Chris

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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

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

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

• Education Resources Information Center - Understanding Hypotheses, Predictions, Laws, and Theories
• Simply Psychology - Research Hypothesis: Definition, Types, & Examples
• Cornell University - The Learning Strategies Center - Hypothesis
• Washington State University - Developing a Hypothesis
• Verywell Mind - Forming a Good Hypothesis for Scientific Research
• BCCampus Publishing - Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction - Hypotheses

hypothesis , something supposed or taken for granted, with the object of following out its consequences (Greek hypothesis , “a putting under,” the Latin equivalent being suppositio ).

In planning a course of action, one may consider various alternatives , working out each in detail. Although the word hypothesis is not typically used in this case, the procedure is virtually the same as that of an investigator of crime considering various suspects. Different methods may be used for deciding what the various alternatives may be, but what is fundamental is the consideration of a supposal as if it were true, without actually accepting it as true. One of the earliest uses of the word in this sense was in geometry . It is described by Plato in the Meno .

The most important modern use of a hypothesis is in relation to scientific investigation . A scientist is not merely concerned to accumulate such facts as can be discovered by observation: linkages must be discovered to connect those facts. An initial puzzle or problem provides the impetus , but clues must be used to ascertain which facts will help yield a solution. The best guide is a tentative hypothesis, which fits within the existing body of doctrine. It is so framed that, with its help, deductions can be made that under certain factual conditions (“initial conditions”) certain other facts would be found if the hypothesis were correct.

The concepts involved in the hypothesis need not themselves refer to observable objects. However, the initial conditions should be able to be observed or to be produced experimentally, and the deduced facts should be able to be observed. William Harvey ’s research on circulation in animals demonstrates how greatly experimental observation can be helped by a fruitful hypothesis. While a hypothesis can be partially confirmed by showing that what is deduced from it with certain initial conditions is actually found under those conditions, it cannot be completely proved in this way. What would have to be shown is that no other hypothesis would serve. Hence, in assessing the soundness of a hypothesis, stress is laid on the range and variety of facts that can be brought under its scope. Again, it is important that it should be capable of being linked systematically with hypotheses which have been found fertile in other fields.

If the predictions derived from the hypothesis are not found to be true, the hypothesis may have to be given up or modified. The fault may lie, however, in some other principle forming part of the body of accepted doctrine which has been utilized in deducing consequences from the hypothesis. It may also lie in the fact that other conditions, hitherto unobserved, are present beside the initial conditions, affecting the result. Thus the hypothesis may be kept, pending further examination of facts or some remodeling of principles. A good illustration of this is to be found in the history of the corpuscular and the undulatory hypotheses about light .

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

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

Overview of the Scientific Method

10 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory Testing

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

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

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

A coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena.

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

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

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

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

Share This Book

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the variables in a study. The hypothesis should always contain the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV). A hypothesis can be directional (one-tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed).

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2019 (AQA)

Exam Support

Research Methods: MCQ Revision Test 1 for AQA A Level Psychology

Topic Videos

Example Answers for Research Methods: A Level Psychology, Paper 2, June 2018 (AQA)

Example answer for question 14 paper 2: as psychology, june 2017 (aqa), a level psychology topic quiz - research methods.

Quizzes & Activities

Our subjects

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.

Find Study Materials for

• Explanations
• Business Studies
• Combined Science
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• English literature
• Environmental Science
• Human Geography
• Macroeconomics
• Microeconomics
• Social Studies
• Browse all subjects
• Textbook Solutions
• Read our Magazine

Create Study Materials

• Flashcards Create and find the best flashcards.
• Notes Create notes faster than ever before.
• Study Sets Everything you need for your studies in one place.
• Study Plans Stop procrastinating with our smart planner features.
• Aims and Hypotheses

There is no research without a proper aim and hypotheses – aims and hypotheses in research are the supporting frameworks on a path to new scientific discoveries. To better understand their importance, let us first analyse the difference between aims and hypotheses in psychology , examine their purpose, and give some examples.

Create learning materials about Aims and Hypotheses with our free learning app!

• Instand access to millions of learning materials
• Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
• Everything you need to ace your exams
• Approaches in Psychology
• Basic Psychology
• Biological Bases of Behavior
• Biopsychology
• Careers in Psychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognition and Development
• Cognitive Psychology
• Data Handling and Analysis
• Developmental Psychology
• Eating Behaviour
• Emotion and Motivation
• Famous Psychologists
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• Individual Differences Psychology
• Issues and Debates in Psychology
• Personality in Psychology
• Psychological Treatment
• Relationships
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Causation in Psychology
• Coding Frame Psychology
• Correlational Studies
• Cross Cultural Research
• Cross Sectional Research
• Ethical Issues and Ways of Dealing with Them
• Experimental Designs
• Features of Science
• Field Experiment
• Independent Group Design
• Lab Experiment
• Longitudinal Research
• Matched Pairs Design
• Meta Analysis
• Natural Experiment
• Observational Design
• Online Research
• Paradigms and Falsifiability
• Peer Review and Economic Applications of Research
• Pilot Studies and the Aims of Piloting
• Quality Criteria
• Questionnaire Construction
• Repeated Measures Design
• Research Methods
• Sampling Frames
• Sampling Psychology
• Scientific Processes
• Scientific Report
• Scientific Research
• Self-Report Design
• Self-Report Techniques
• Semantic Differential Rating Scale
• Snowball Sampling
• Schizophrenia
• Scientific Foundations of Psychology
• Scientific Investigation
• Sensation and Perception
• Social Context of Behaviour
• Social Psychology

First, we will define the aims and hypotheses and learn the difference between aims and hypotheses in psychology .

Then, we will look at different types of hypotheses.

Next, we will look at the function of aims and hypotheses in research and psychology.

Later, we will look at specific aims and hypotheses in research examples.

Finally, we will discuss the need and how explicit research aims objectives and hypotheses are implemented.

Difference Between Aims and Hypotheses: Psychology

When you write a research report, you should state the aim first and then the hypothesis.

The aim is a summary of the goal or purpose of the research.

The aim is a broad starting point that gets narrowed down into the hypothesis.

• The hypothesis is a predictive, testable statement about what the researcher expects to find in the study.

Types of Hypotheses

Before we get into the types of hypotheses, let's quickly recap the hypotheses' components.

The independent variable (IV) is the factor that the researcher manipulates/ changes (this can be naturally occurring in some instances) and is theorised to be the cause of a phenomenon.

And the dependent variable (DV) is the factor that the researcher measures because they believe that the changes in the IV will affect the DV.

There are two types of hypotheses: null and alternative hypotheses.

A null hypothesis states that the independent variable does not influence the dependent variable. The null hypothesis states that changes/ manipulating the IV will not affect the DV.

Research scenario: Investigation of how test results affect sleep.

An example of a null hypothesis is there is no difference in recorded sleep time (dependent variable) between students who received good and poor grades (independent variable).

An alternative hypothesis states that the independent variable has an effect on the dependent variable. Often, it is the same (or very similar) to your research hypothesis.

Research scenario: Investigating how sleep deprivation affects performance on cognitive tests.

An alternative hypothesis may be that the less sleep students get (independent variable), the worse their performance will be on cognitive tests (dependent variable). Not sleep-deprived students will perform better on the Mini-Mental Status Examination test than sleep-deprived students.

The alternative hypothesis can be further sub-categorised into a one- or two-tailed hypothesis. A one-tailed hypothesis (also known as a directional hypothesis) suggests that the results can go one way, e.g. it may increase or decrease. And a two-tailed (also known as a non-directional hypothesis) is exactly the opposite; there are two ways the results could expectedly go.

An example of a two-tailed hypothesis is if you flip a coin, you could predict that it will land on either heads or tails.

Aims and Hypothesis in Research

In research, aims and hypotheses play major roles. They are the part of the research that sets you up for the rest of the study. Without strong research aims and hypotheses, your research will lack direction.

First, let's go over the function of research aims.

Research aims provide an overview of the research objective; this allows all researchers to be on the same page about the purpose of the research. Aims also describe why the research is needed and how it complements existing research in the field.

Duplicating research can sometimes be useful, but most times, researchers want to conduct their own new research.

Outside of the researchers, readers can then identify the research topic and whether it interests them.

The research aimed to examine the effects of sleep deprivation on test performance.

But what information do hypotheses provide?

Hypotheses identify the variables studied in an experiment. They describe expected results in terms of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. When readers see the hypothesis, they should know exactly what the researcher expected in the study's outcome (remember, sometimes the researcher can be wrong).

The hypothesis was that the less sleep a student gets (independent variable), the worse grades a student will achieve (dependent variable).

Typically, researchers use hypotheses for statistical tests such as hypothesis testing, which allows them to determine if the original predictions are correct. Hypotheses are helpful because the reader can quickly identify the variables , the expected results based on previous research, and how the experiment should measure these variables .

Hypotheses usually influence the research design and analysis used in conducting the research.

Psychological research must meet a standard for the psychological research community to accept it.

Components of Hypotheses

When writing research hypotheses, there are several essential things to consider, including:

The hypotheses must be clear and concise;

it must be easy to understand and not contain irrelevant details.

The researcher must predict what they expect to find based on reading previous research findings.

The researcher must explain how they arrived at their predictions, citing evidence from prior research.

The researcher must identify all variables they will study.

One study examined how sleep deprivation affects performance on cognitive tests. The hypothesis was to identify sleeping time as the independent variable and cognitive test scores as the dependent variable.

Additionally, the research must operationalise the hypotheses and describe how the variables will be measured.

When assessing cognitive abilities, the researcher should indicate how they will assess the cognitive skills. They could do so with a cognitive test, such as the Mini-Mental Status Examination scores.

Example Hypothesis

A hypothesis denotes a relationship between two variables, the independent and dependent variables. An example hypothesis is the more you sleep, the less tired you will feel.

Aims and Hypotheses: Psychology

Now that we understand the difference between aims and hypotheses, let's take a closer look at their function.

In psychology, aims and hypotheses function very similarly to other research fields. They set up the purpose of a study so that the researchers and readers understand its goals.

The aims establish the reasoning behind the study and why that specific topic is being researched. And the hypotheses share the researchers' expectations. It outlines what the researchers expect when the IV is manipulated.

Studies with well-defined aims and hypotheses allow the research to be more accessible. This means that a professional psychologist, a psychology student, or even someone who is simply curious about the topic can all read the research and understand its purpose.

Aims and Hypotheses in Research Example

As we have learned, aims and hypotheses are crucial in setting up successful research. They exist within every study and help outline the goals and outcomes the researchers expect. To further understand the aims and hypotheses in psychological research, let's look at a famous study – Asch's line experiment .

Solomon Asch conducted a study in 1951 about conformity . This study has become renowned for exposing the strong effects of conformity in a group setting. Asch put one participant in a room with seven strangers, people he said were other participants but were, in fact, confederates.

Confederates are hired actors who are told what to do in the experiment by the researcher.

The participants were tasked with trying to match one line to three other lines. Initially, the confederates would answer correctly, but as the trials continued, they all answered incorrectly. Would the participant still give the correct answer, or would they be swayed by conformity and be wrong?

Asch found that 74% of participants conformed at least once, even though they were obviously giving the wrong answer.

In this experiment, the aim was to look at the effects of conformity. More specifically, Asch aimed to see how impactful groups' pressures are on an individual's conformity. Asch hypothesised that participants would conform to the group when the confederates answered incorrectly due to social pressure.

Since we know the study's outcome, we know that Asch stayed true to his aims and provided supporting evidence for his hypothesis.

Explicit Research Aims, Objectives, and Hypotheses

An explicit research necessity across all disciplines is the operalisation of variables. When talking about operationalising a variable or hypothesis, it means that the term is defined so clearly and succinctly that there is no confusion or any grey area concerning what it means.

When operationally defining variables, researchers need to not only define what the variable is but also how they will measure it. Operationally defined hypotheses not only include detailed descriptions of variables and the outcome but also the relationship between the variables.

Remember, when studies and their results are replicated, they increase in reliability. Researchers operationally defining variables and hypotheses help future researchers replicate their study without confusion. If you do not operationally define key terms of your research and no one can replicate it, is there even a purpose to doing the research at all?

While operationally defining variables and hypotheses might seem like a simple task, it is extremely important for a successful outcome.

Aims and Hypotheses - Key takeaways

• For the scientific psychological community to accept the aim, the objective must explain why the research is needed and how it will expand our current knowledge.
• The two types of hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis.
• For the scientific community of psychologists to accept a hypothesis, it must identify all variables, which researchers must operationalise.

Flashcards in Aims and Hypotheses 28

What is the definition of aims?

What is the definition of a hypothesis? 

The hypothesis is a predictive, testable statement of what the researcher expects to find in the study.

What is the purpose of research aims?

The purpose of research aims are: 

• provide a summary of what the research goal is 
• describe why the research is needed and how it adds to existing research in the field
• so that the readers can identify what the research topic is and of interest to them

How are hypotheses different from aims?

Hypotheses differ from aims because they are statements of the goals and purposes of the research. In contrast, hypotheses are predictive statements concerning expected results. 

What are the different types of hypotheses?

The types of hypotheses are:

• Null hypothesis.
• Alternative hypothesis.
• Directional alternative hypothesis (one-tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed).

What type of hypothesis is the following statement: ‘There will be a difference between Mini-Mental Status Examination scores in students who were and were not sleep-deprived?  

Learn with 28 Aims and Hypotheses flashcards in the free Vaia app

We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Aims and Hypotheses

How to write aims and hypotheses?

When writing aims, researchers should summarise the research goal and purpose in a straightforward statement. Moreover, researchers must ensure that it is a predictive and testable statement when writing a hypothesis. This process should summarise the expected results of the study. 

What comes first, hypothesis or aims?

Researchers should write the aims first and then the hypothesis when writing research. 

What are the three types of hypotheses?

The three types of hypotheses are:

What is an aim in psychology?

An aim in psychology is a summary statement of the research's goal or purpose.

How are hypotheses different from aims and objectives?

Hypotheses differ from aims and objectives because aims are a general statement of the research's goals and purposes. In contrast, hypotheses explain precisely the predicted findings in terms of the independent and dependent variables. 

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards

What type of hypothesis is the following statement: ‘There will be no difference in time recorded sleeping between students who received good and poor grades in their school report’?

What type of hypothesis is this statement ‘Students who were not sleep-deprived will have higher scores in the Mini-Mental Status Examination test than sleep-deprived students?

Join the Vaia App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free Vaia app

Vaia is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Vaia Editorial Team

Team Aims and Hypotheses Teachers

• 9 minutes reading time
• Checked by Vaia Editorial Team

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of Vaia.

Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our Vaia App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

• Flashcards & Quizzes
• AI Study Assistant
• Study Planner
• Smart Note-Taking

Privacy Overview

Hypothesis ( AQA A Level Psychology )

Revision note.

Psychology Content Creator

• A hypothesis is a testable statement written as a prediction of what the researcher expects to find as a result of their experiment
• A hypothesis should be no more than one sentence long
• The hypothesis needs to include the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV)
• For example - stating that you will measure ‘aggression’ is not enough ('aggression' has not been operationalised)
• by exposing some children to an aggressive adult model whilst other children are not exposed to an aggressive adult model (operationalisation of the IV) 
• number of imitative and non-imitative acts of aggression performed by the child (operationalisation of the DV)

The Experimental Hypothesis

• Children who are exposed to an aggressive adult model will perform more acts of imitative and non-imitative aggression than children who have not been exposed to an aggressive adult model
• The experimental hypothesis can be written as a  directional hypothesis or as a non-directional hypothesis

The Experimental Hypothesis: Directional 

• A directional experimental hypothesis (also known as one-tailed)  predicts the direction of the change/difference (it anticipates more specifically what might happen)
• A directional hypothesis is usually used when there is previous research which support a particular theory or outcome i.e. what a researcher might expect to happen
• Participants who drink 200ml of an energy drink 5 minutes before running 100m will be faster (in seconds) than participants who drink 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 100m
• Participants who learn a poem in a room in which loud music is playing will recall less of the poem's content than participants who learn the same poem in a silent room

 The Experimental Hypothesis: Non-Directional 

• A non-directional experimental hypothesis (also known as two -tailed) does not predict the direction of the change/difference (it is an 'open goal' i.e. anything could happen)
• A non-directional hypothesis is usually used when there is either no or little previous research which support a particular theory or outcome i.e. what the researcher cannot be confident as to what will happen
• There will be a difference in time taken (in seconds) to run 100m depending on whether participants have drunk 200ml of an energy drink or 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 
• There will be a difference in recall of a poem depending on whether participants learn the poem in a room in which loud music is playing or in a silent room

The Null Hypothesis

• All published psychology research must include the null hypothesis
• There will be no difference in children's acts of imitative and non-imitative aggression depending on whether they have observed an aggressive adult model or a non-aggressive adult model
• The null hypothesis has to begin with the idea that the IV will have no effect on the DV  because until the experiment is run and the results are analysed it is impossible to state anything else! 
• To put this in 'laymen's terms: if you bought a lottery ticket you could not predict that you are going to win the jackpot: you have to wait for the results to find out (spoiler alert: the chances of this happening are soooo low that you might as well save your cash!)
• There will be no difference in time taken (in seconds) to run 100m depending on whether participants have drunk 200ml of an energy drink or 200ml of water 5 minutes before running 
• There will be no difference in recall of a poem depending on whether participants learn the poem in a room in which loud music is playing or in a silent room
• (NB this is not quite so slick and easy with a directional hypothesis as this sort of hypothesis will never begin with 'There will be a difference')
• this is why the null hypothesis is so important - it tells the researcher whether or not their experiment has shown a difference in conditions (which is generally what they want to see, otherwise it's back to the drawing board...)

Worked example

Jim wants to test the theory that chocolate helps your ability to solve word-search puzzles

He believes that sugar helps memory as he has read some research on this in a text book

He puts up a poster in his sixth-form common room asking for people to take part after school one day and explains that they will be required to play two memory games, where eating chocolate will be involved

(a)  Should Jim use a directional hypothesis in this study? Explain your answer (2 marks)

(b)  Write a suitable hypothesis for this study. (4 marks)

a) Jim should use a directional hypothesis (1 mark)

    because previous research exists that states what might happen (2 nd mark)

b)  'Participants will remember more items from a shopping list in a memory game within the hour after eating 50g of chocolate, compared to when they have not consumed any chocolate'

• 1 st mark for directional
• 2 nd mark for IV- eating chocolate
• 3 rd mark for DV- number of items remembered
• 4 th mark for operationalising both IV & DV
• If you write a non-directional or null hypothesis the mark is 0
• If you do not get the direction correct the mark is zero
• Remember to operationalise the IV & DV

You've read 0 of your 0 free revision notes

Get unlimited access.

to absolutely everything:

• Downloadable PDFs
• Unlimited Revision Notes
• Topic Questions
• Past Papers
• Model Answers
• Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000 + Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

Did this page help you?

Author: Claire Neeson

Claire has been teaching for 34 years, in the UK and overseas. She has taught GCSE, A-level and IB Psychology which has been a lot of fun and extremely exhausting! Claire is now a freelance Psychology teacher and content creator, producing textbooks, revision notes and (hopefully) exciting and interactive teaching materials for use in the classroom and for exam prep. Her passion (apart from Psychology of course) is roller skating and when she is not working (or watching 'Coronation Street') she can be found busting some impressive moves on her local roller rink.

Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in Statistics

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

On This Page:

A statistically significant result cannot prove that a research hypothesis is correct (which implies 100% certainty). Because a p -value is based on probabilities, there is always a chance of making an incorrect conclusion regarding accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis ( H 0 ).

Anytime we make a decision using statistics, there are four possible outcomes, with two representing correct decisions and two representing errors.

The chances of committing these two types of errors are inversely proportional: that is, decreasing type I error rate increases type II error rate and vice versa.

As the significance level (α) increases, it becomes easier to reject the null hypothesis, decreasing the chance of missing a real effect (Type II error, β). If the significance level (α) goes down, it becomes harder to reject the null hypothesis , increasing the chance of missing an effect while reducing the risk of falsely finding one (Type I error).

Type I error 

A type 1 error is also known as a false positive and occurs when a researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis. Simply put, it’s a false alarm.

This means that you report that your findings are significant when they have occurred by chance.

The probability of making a type 1 error is represented by your alpha level (α), the p- value below which you reject the null hypothesis.

A p -value of 0.05 indicates that you are willing to accept a 5% chance of getting the observed data (or something more extreme) when the null hypothesis is true.

You can reduce your risk of committing a type 1 error by setting a lower alpha level (like α = 0.01). For example, a p-value of 0.01 would mean there is a 1% chance of committing a Type I error.

However, using a lower value for alpha means that you will be less likely to detect a true difference if one really exists (thus risking a type II error).

Scenario: Drug Efficacy Study

Imagine a pharmaceutical company is testing a new drug, named “MediCure”, to determine if it’s more effective than a placebo at reducing fever. They experimented with two groups: one receives MediCure, and the other received a placebo.

• Null Hypothesis (H0) : MediCure is no more effective at reducing fever than the placebo.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : MediCure is more effective at reducing fever than the placebo.

After conducting the study and analyzing the results, the researchers found a p-value of 0.04.

If they use an alpha (α) level of 0.05, this p-value is considered statistically significant, leading them to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that MediCure is more effective than the placebo.

However, MediCure has no actual effect, and the observed difference was due to random variation or some other confounding factor. In this case, the researchers have incorrectly rejected a true null hypothesis.

Error : The researchers have made a Type 1 error by concluding that MediCure is more effective when it isn’t.

Implications

Resource Allocation : Making a Type I error can lead to wastage of resources. If a business believes a new strategy is effective when it’s not (based on a Type I error), they might allocate significant financial and human resources toward that ineffective strategy.

Unnecessary Interventions : In medical trials, a Type I error might lead to the belief that a new treatment is effective when it isn’t. As a result, patients might undergo unnecessary treatments, risking potential side effects without any benefit.

Reputation and Credibility : For researchers, making repeated Type I errors can harm their professional reputation. If they frequently claim groundbreaking results that are later refuted, their credibility in the scientific community might diminish.

Type II error

A type 2 error (or false negative) happens when you accept the null hypothesis when it should actually be rejected.

Here, a researcher concludes there is not a significant effect when actually there really is.

The probability of making a type II error is called Beta (β), which is related to the power of the statistical test (power = 1- β). You can decrease your risk of committing a type II error by ensuring your test has enough power.

You can do this by ensuring your sample size is large enough to detect a practical difference when one truly exists.

Scenario: Efficacy of a New Teaching Method

Educational psychologists are investigating the potential benefits of a new interactive teaching method, named “EduInteract”, which utilizes virtual reality (VR) technology to teach history to middle school students.

They hypothesize that this method will lead to better retention and understanding compared to the traditional textbook-based approach.

• Null Hypothesis (H0) : The EduInteract VR teaching method does not result in significantly better retention and understanding of history content than the traditional textbook method.
• Alternative Hypothesis (H1) : The EduInteract VR teaching method results in significantly better retention and understanding of history content than the traditional textbook method.

The researchers designed an experiment where one group of students learns a history module using the EduInteract VR method, while a control group learns the same module using a traditional textbook.

After a week, the student’s retention and understanding are tested using a standardized assessment.

Upon analyzing the results, the psychologists found a p-value of 0.06. Using an alpha (α) level of 0.05, this p-value isn’t statistically significant.

Therefore, they fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the EduInteract VR method isn’t more effective than the traditional textbook approach.

However, let’s assume that in the real world, the EduInteract VR truly enhances retention and understanding, but the study failed to detect this benefit due to reasons like small sample size, variability in students’ prior knowledge, or perhaps the assessment wasn’t sensitive enough to detect the nuances of VR-based learning.

Error : By concluding that the EduInteract VR method isn’t more effective than the traditional method when it is, the researchers have made a Type 2 error.

This could prevent schools from adopting a potentially superior teaching method that might benefit students’ learning experiences.

Missed Opportunities : A Type II error can lead to missed opportunities for improvement or innovation. For example, in education, if a more effective teaching method is overlooked because of a Type II error, students might miss out on a better learning experience.

Potential Risks : In healthcare, a Type II error might mean overlooking a harmful side effect of a medication because the research didn’t detect its harmful impacts. As a result, patients might continue using a harmful treatment.

Stagnation : In the business world, making a Type II error can result in continued investment in outdated or less efficient methods. This can lead to stagnation and the inability to compete effectively in the marketplace.

How do Type I and Type II errors relate to psychological research and experiments?

Type I errors are like false alarms, while Type II errors are like missed opportunities. Both errors can impact the validity and reliability of psychological findings, so researchers strive to minimize them to draw accurate conclusions from their studies.

How does sample size influence the likelihood of Type I and Type II errors in psychological research?

Sample size in psychological research influences the likelihood of Type I and Type II errors. A larger sample size reduces the chances of Type I errors, which means researchers are less likely to mistakenly find a significant effect when there isn’t one.

A larger sample size also increases the chances of detecting true effects, reducing the likelihood of Type II errors.

Are there any ethical implications associated with Type I and Type II errors in psychological research?

Yes, there are ethical implications associated with Type I and Type II errors in psychological research.

Type I errors may lead to false positive findings, resulting in misleading conclusions and potentially wasting resources on ineffective interventions. This can harm individuals who are falsely diagnosed or receive unnecessary treatments.

Type II errors, on the other hand, may result in missed opportunities to identify important effects or relationships, leading to a lack of appropriate interventions or support. This can also have negative consequences for individuals who genuinely require assistance.

Therefore, minimizing these errors is crucial for ethical research and ensuring the well-being of participants.

Further Information

• Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
• Statistics for Psychology Book Download

Related Articles

Exploratory Data Analysis

Research Methodology , Statistics

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

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Convergent Validity: Definition and Examples

Content Validity in Research: Definition & Examples

Construct Validity In Psychology Research

Hypotheses Versus Predictions

Hypotheses and predictions are not the same thing..

Posted January 12, 2018

Blogs are not typically places where professors post views about arcane matters. But blogs have the advantage of providing places to convey quick messages that may be of interest to selected parties. I've written this blog to point students and others to a spot where a useful distinction is made that, as far as I know, hasn't been made before. The distinction concerns two words that are used interchangeably though they shouldn't be. The words are hypothesis (or hypotheses) and prediction (or predictions).

It's not uncommon to see these words swapped for each other willy-nilly, as in, "We sought to test the hypothesis that the two groups in our study would remember the same number of words," or "We sought to test the prediction that the two groups in our study would remember the same number of words." Indifference to the contrast in meaning between "hypothesis" and "prediction" is unfortunate, in my view, because "hypothesis" and "prediction" (or "hypotheses" and "predictions") mean very different things. A student proposing an experiment, or an already-graduated researcher doing the same, will have more gravitas if s/he states a hypothesis from which a prediction follows than if s/he proclaims a prediction from thin air.

Consider the prediction that the time for two balls to drop from the Tower Pisa will be the same if the two balls have different mass. This is the famous prediction tested (or allegedly tested) by Galileo. This experiment — one of the first in the history of science — was designed to test two contrasting predictions. One was that the time for the two balls to drop would be the same. The other was that the time for the heavier ball to drop would be shorter. (The third possibility, that the lighter ball would drop more quickly, was logically possible but not taken seriously.) The importance of the predictions came from the hypotheses on which they were based. Those hypotheses couldn't have been more different. One stemmed from Aristotle and had an entire system of assumptions about the world's basic elements, including the idea that motion requires a driving force, with the force being greater for a heavier object than a lighter one, in which case the heavier object would land first. The other hypothesis came from an entirely different conception which made no such assumptions, as crystallized (later) by Newton. It led to the prediction of equivalent drop times. Dropping two balls and seeing which, if either, landed first was a more important experiment if it was motivated by different hypotheses than if it was motivated by two different off-the-cuff predictions. Predictions can be ticked off by a monkey at a typewriter, so to speak. Anyone can list possible outcomes. That's not good (interesting) science.

Let me say this, then, to students or colleagues reading this (some of whom might be people to whom I give the URL for this blog): Be cognizant of the distinction between "hypotheses" and "predictions." Hypotheses are claims or educated guesses about the world or the part of it you are studying. Predictions are derived from hypotheses and define opportunities for seeing whether expected consequences of hypotheses are observed. Critically, if a prediction is confirmed — if the data agree with the prediction — you can say that the data are consistent with the prediction and, from that point onward you can also say that the data are consistent with the hypothesis that spawned the prediction. You can't say that the data prove the hypothesis, however. The reason is that any of an infinite number of other hypotheses might have caused the outcome you obtained. If you say that a given data pattern proves that such-and-such hypothesis is correct, you will be shot down, and rightly so, for any given data pattern can be explained by an infinite number of possible hypotheses. It's fine to say that the data you have are consistent with a hypothesis, and it's fine for you to say that a hypothesis is (or appears to be) wrong because the data you got are inconsistent with it. The latter outcome is the culmination of the hypothetico-deductive method, where you can say that a hypothesis is, or seems to be, incorrect if you have data that violates it, but you can never say that a hypothesis is right because you have data consistent with it; some other hypothesis might actually correspond to the true explanation of what you found. By creating hypotheses that lead to different predictions, you can see which prediction is not supported, and insofar as you can make progress by rejecting hypotheses, you can depersonalize your science by developing hypotheses that are worth disproving. The worth of a hypothesis will be judged by how resistant it is to attempts at disconfirmation over many years by many investigators using many methods.

Some final comments.... First, hypotheses don't predict; people do. You can say that a prediction arose from a hypothesis, but you can't say, or shouldn't say, that a hypothesis predicts something.

Second, beware of the admonition that hypotheses are weak if they predict no differences. Newtonian mechanics predicts no difference in the landing times of heavy and light objects dropped from the same height at the same time. The fact that Newtonian mechanics predicts no difference hardly means that Newtonian mechanics is lightweight. Instead, the prediction of no difference in landing times demands creation of extremely sensitive experiments. Anyone can get no difference with sloppy experiments. By contrast, getting no difference when a sophisticated hypothesis predicts none and when one has gone to great lengths to detect even the tiniest possible difference ... now that's good science.

Third and finally, according to the hypothesis that a blog about hypotheses versus predictions will prove informative, the prediction that follows is that those who read and heed this blog will exhibit less confusion about which term to use when. More important, they will exhibit greater gravitas and deeper thoughtfulness as they generate their hypotheses and subsequent predictions. I hope this blog will prove useful. Its utility will be judged by how long it takes to disconfirm the prediction I have just advanced.

David A. Rosenbaum, Ph.D. , is a cognitive psychologist and a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside.

• Find Counselling
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United Kingdom
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience