hypothesis definition research methods

• 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)

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis 101

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

What is a hypothesis?

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

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

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

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

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

But that’s not good enough…

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

What is a research hypothesis?

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

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

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

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

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

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

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

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

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

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

Defining A Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

What about the null hypothesis?

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

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

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

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell. 

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

Psst... there’s more!

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

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

could you please elaborate it more

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

This is very helpful

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

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

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

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

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

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

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

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

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

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

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

• 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
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

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

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

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

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

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

At a Glance

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

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

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

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

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

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

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

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

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

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

The Importance of Operational Definitions

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

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

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

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

Replicability

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

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

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

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

Hypothesis Checklist

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

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

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

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

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

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

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

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

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

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

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

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

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

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

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

Descriptive Research Methods

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

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

Experimental Research Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Research Hypothesis In Psychology: Types, & Examples

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

Some key points about hypotheses:

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

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

Types of Research Hypotheses

Alternative hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Null Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Nondirectional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Directional Hypothesis

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

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

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

Falsifiability

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

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

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

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

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

Can a Hypothesis be Proven?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Write a Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

More Examples

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

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples

Published on 6 May 2022 by Shona McCombes .

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.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, 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 variables . An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls. A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

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 .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

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 identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalise 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.

Step 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

Step 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.

Step 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 .

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.

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).

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

McCombes, S. (2022, May 06). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 22 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/hypothesis-writing/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, operationalisation | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

What is the simple definition of a hypothesis?

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

What is the hypothesis for in research?

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

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

What is an example of a hypothesis?

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

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

What makes a good hypothesis?

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

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

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

Null hypothesis

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

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

Alternative hypothesis

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

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

Simple hypothesis

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

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

Complex hypothesis

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

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

Directional hypothesis

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

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

Statistical hypothesis

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

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

Empirical hypothesis

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

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

Causal hypothesis

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

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

Associative hypothesis

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

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

Relational hypothesis

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

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

Logical hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature review

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

Research methods

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

Preliminary research

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

Data analysis

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

Turn data into evidence for insights with ATLAS.ti

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

Principles of Research Methodology pp 31–53 Cite as

The Research Hypothesis: Role and Construction

• Phyllis G. Supino EdD 3  
• First Online: 01 January 2012

5974 Accesses

A hypothesis is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator’s thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. There are three primary modes of inference by which hypotheses are developed: deduction (reasoning from a general propositions to specific instances), induction (reasoning from specific instances to a general proposition), and abduction (formulation/acceptance on probation of a hypothesis to explain a surprising observation).

A research hypothesis should reflect an inference about variables; be stated as a grammatically complete, declarative sentence; be expressed simply and unambiguously; provide an adequate answer to the research problem; and be testable. Hypotheses can be classified as conceptual versus operational, single versus bi- or multivariable, causal or not causal, mechanistic versus nonmechanistic, and null or alternative. Hypotheses most commonly entail statements about “variables” which, in turn, can be classified according to their level of measurement (scaling characteristics) or according to their role in the hypothesis (independent, dependent, moderator, control, or intervening).

A hypothesis is rendered operational when its broadly (conceptually) stated variables are replaced by operational definitions of those variables. Hypotheses stated in this manner are called operational hypotheses, specific hypotheses, or predictions and facilitate testing.

Wrong hypotheses, rightly worked from, have produced more results than unguided observation

—Augustus De Morgan, 1872[ 1 ]—

Download chapter PDF

Once a problem has been defined, the investigator can formulate a hypothesis (or set of hypotheses, if there are multiple subproblems) about the outcome of the study designed to resolve the problem. A hypothesis (from the Greek, foundation ) is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator’s thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. Unlike facts and assumptions (presumed true and, therefore, not tested in the study) or theory (a relatively well-supported unifying system explicating a broad spectrum of observations and inferences, including previously tested hypotheses), the research hypothesis is a reasoned but tentative proposition typically expressing a relation between variables. For it to be useful and, more importantly, assessable, it must generate predictions that can be tested by subsequent acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data (i.e., through formal observation or experimentation). When the results of the study are as ­predicted, the hypothesis is ­supported. As noted below, such support does not necessarily indicate verification of the hypothesis. Consistent replication of predictions in subsequent studies may be needed if the hypothesis is to be accepted as a theory or a component of a theory. If results are not as predicted, the hypothesis is rejected (or, at minimum, revised or removed from active consideration until future developments in science and/or technology provide new tools for retesting). As Leedy has stated, a “hypothesis is to a researcher what a point of triangulation is to a surveyor: it provides a position from which he may orient his exploration into the unknown and a checkpoint against which to test his findings” [ 2 ]. The paramount role of the hypothesis for guiding biomedical investigations was first highlighted by the eminent physiologist Claude Bernard (1813–1878) [ 3 ]. In the current era, hypotheses are considered fundamental to rigorous research, and biomedical studies without hypotheses have been largely abandoned in favor of those designed to generate or test them [ 4 ].

Hypotheses Versus Assumptions

It is important to recognize the difference between a hypothesis and an assumption. These terms share the same etymological root and are often confused. An assumption is accepted as fact in designing or justifying a study (though it is likely to have been the subject of previous research). Thus, the investigator does not set out to test it. Examples of assumptions include:

Radionuclide cineangiography measures ventricular performance.

Chest x-rays measure the extent of lung infiltrates.

The SF-36 measures general health-related quality of life.

Medical education improves knowledge of clinical medicine.

An apple a day keeps the doctor away (the most famous [albeit untested] assumption of them all).

In contrast, the hypothesis is an expectation that an investigator will attempt to confirm through observation or experiment. Examples in clinical medicine include:

Among patients with chronic nonischemic mitral regurgitation (insufficiency), survival will be better among those whose valves have been repaired or replaced than among those who have been maintained on medical therapy.

Among patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, posthospital course will be better among those with a low-risk profile than among those with a high-risk profile before hospitalization.

Life expectancy will be greater among individuals consuming low-calorie diets than among those consuming high-calorie diets.

Health-related quality of life is better among those whose mitral valves have been repaired than among those whose mitral valves have been replaced.

Hypothesis Generation: Modes of Inference

There is a paucity of empirical data regarding the way (or ways) in which hypotheses are formulated by scientists and even less information about whether these methods vary across disciplines. Nonetheless, philosophers and research methodologists have suggested three fundamentally different modes of inference: deduction, induction, and abduction [ 5 ]. These differ ­primarily according to (1) whether the origin of the hypothesis is a body of knowledge or ­theory (the “rationalist” perspective), an empirical event (the “inductivist” perspective), or some combination of the two (the “abductivist” perspective); (2) the logical structure of the argument; and (3) the probability of a correct conclusion.

Hypothesis by Deduction

Deduction (from the Latin de [“out of”] and dūcerė [“to draw or lead”]) is one of the oldest forms of logical argument. It was introduced by the ancient Greeks who believed that acquisition of scientific knowledge (insight into the principles and character of “natural substances” and their causes) could be achieved largely by the same logical processes used to prove the validity of mathematical propositions [ 6 ]. Today, deduction remains the predominant mode of formal inference in research in mathematics and in the “fundamental” sciences, but it also plays an important role in the empirical sciences. A deductively derived hypothesis arises directly from logical analysis of a theoretical framework, previously developed to provide an explanation of events or phenomena. It is considered to be nonampliative because, while it helps to provide proof of principle, it adds nothing new beyond the theory. The validity of a theory can never be directly examined. Therefore, scientists wishing to evaluate it, or to test its utility within a given (perhaps new) context, will formulate a conjecture (hypothesis) that can be subjected to empirical appraisal. In forming a hypothesis by deduction, the investigator typically moves from a general proposition to a more specific case that is thought to be subsumed by the generalization (i.e., from theory to a “conceptual” hypothesis or from a “conceptual” hypothesis to a precise prediction based on the hypothesis). Deductive arguments can be conditional or syllogistic (e.g., categorical [ all , some , or none ], disjunctive [ or ], or linear [ including a quantitative or qualitative comparison ]) and contain at least two premises (statements of ­“evidence”) and a conclusion. A well-known categorical syllogism and example are given below:

All As are B (e.g., All men are mortal)

C is an A (e.g., Socrates is a man)

∴ C is a B (e.g., Socrates is mortal)

If the premises of a deductive argument are true and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion is valid (i.e., the form of the argument is correct), it will necessarily follow that the conclusion is sound (i.e., the premises, if true, guarantee the conclusion). If the form of the deductive argument is invalid (i.e., the premises are such that they do not lead to the conclusion: e.g., Socrates is mortal, all cats are mortal, ∴ Socrates is a cat) and/or the premises are untrue (e.g., all mortals are men [or cats]), the conclusion will be unsound. It should be noted that deductive reasoning is the only form of logical argument to which the term “validity” is appropriate.

The theory from which the hypothesis is derived can be specific to the discipline or it can be “borrowed” from another discipline. Polit and Beck [ 7 ] provide two examples of deductively formulated hypotheses, germane to nursing, derived from general reinforcement theory which posits that behaviors that are rewarded tend to be learned or repeated:

Nursing home residents who are praised (reinforced) by nursing personnel for self-feeding require less assistance in feeding than those who are not praised.

Pediatric patients who are given a reward (e.g., a balloon or permission to watch television when they cooperate during nursing procedures) tend to be more cooperative during those procedures than unrewarded peers.

Deduction also is used to translate broad hypotheses such as these to more specific operational hypotheses (i.e., working hypotheses or predictions) that can be directly tested by observation or experiment. When empirical support is obtained for a hypothesis, this, in turn, strengthens the theory or body of knowledge from which the hypothesis was deduced.

Hypothesis by Induction

Not all hypotheses are derived from theory. Frequently, in the empirical sciences, patterns, trends, and associations are observed serendipitously in clinical settings or in preclinical laboratories or, purposively, through exploratory data analysis or other hypothesis-generating research. Sometimes, they may result from specific findings gleaned from the research literature. These observations may be generalized to produce inductively derived hypotheses that may serve as the basis for predicting future events, phenomena, or patterns. Induction (from the Latin in [meaning “into”] and dūcerė [“to draw or to lead”]) is defined by Jenicek and Hitchcock as “any method of logical analysis that proceeds from the particular to the general” [ 8 ] and represents the logical opposite of deduction which, as noted above, typically proceeds from the general to the specific. Induction can be used not only to formulate hypotheses but to confirm or refute them, which may be its most appropriate use, as noted below (see Abduction). Inductive reasoning, which is based heavily on the senses rather than on intellectual reflection, was popularized by the English philosopher and scientist, Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) [ 9 ], who proposed it as the logic of scientific discovery, a position that, subsequently, has been vigorously disputed by the Austrian logician, Sir Karl Popper (1902–1994) [ 10 ] and other philosophers of science. There are various forms of inductive inference. One of the most common is enumerative induction (or inductive generalization). Jenicek and Hitchcock [ 8 ] describe it as a mode by which “one concludes that all cases of a specified kind have a specified property on the basis of observation that all examined cases of that kind have the property” [ 8 ]. It is called “enumerative” because it itemizes cases in which some pattern is found and, solely for this reason (i.e., without the benefit of a theoretical framework), forecasts its recurrence. Other forms of induction include argument from analogy (forming inferences based on a shared property or properties of individual cases) or prediction (drawing conclusions about the future cases from a current sample), causal inference (concluding that association implies causality), and Bayesian inference (given new evidence [data], using probability theory [Bayes’ theorem] to alter belief in a hypothesis).

All inductive arguments contain multiple premises that provide grounds for a conclusion but do not necessitate it (in contrast to a deductive argument where the premises, if true, entail the conclusion). In other words, a conclusion drawn from an inductive argument is probable (at best), even if its premises are correct. For this reason, all inductive arguments, while ampliative, are considered to be logically invalid and are judged, instead, according to their “strength” (i.e., whether they are “inductively strong” or “inductively weak”). The strength of an inductive generalization is determined by the number of observations supporting it and the extent to which the observations reflect all observations that could be made. The more (consistent) observations that exist, the more likely the conclusion is correct (inconsistent observations, of course, reduce the argument’s inductive strength). The typical form of an inductive generalization is given below:

(All As I have observed are Bs)

∴ All As are Bs

Like deductive arguments, inductive generalizations can be categorical, that is, represent conclusions about “all” (as above), “no,” or “some” members of a class, or they may involve quantitative arguments, for example, “50% of all coins I have sampled are quarters; therefore, 50% of all coins coming from the same lot that I have sampled probably are quarters” (or, as a clinical example, “30% of the patients I have examined are obese; therefore, 30% of patients sampled from the same population as those who I have examined probably are obese”).

Not all inductive hypotheses used by scientists have been formulated by scientists; some, in fact, owe their origin to folklore. For example, by the late eighteenth century, it was common knowledge among English farm workers that when humans were exposed to cows infected with cowpox (vaccinia), they became immune to its more severe human analogue, smallpox. The English surgeon, Edward Jenner (1749–1823), used this “hypothesis” as the basis of a series of scientific experiments, using exudates from an infected milkmaid, to develop and formally test a vaccine against this disease [ 11 ]. He became famous for using vaccination as a method for preventing infection, though there is growing recognition that the first successful inoculations against smallpox actually were performed by a farmer, Benjamin Jesty, some 20 years earlier, who vaccinated his family using cowpox taken directly from a local cow [ 12 ]. It also has been claimed that Charles Darwin used inductive reasoning when generalizing about the shapes of the beaks from finches from the various Galapagos Islands [ 13 ] and when forming conjectures from observations based on the breeding of dogs, pigeons, and farm animals at home (inferences that formed underpinnings of his theory of evolution) and that Gregor Mendel used the same form of reasoning to conceptualize his “law of hybridization” [ 14 ]. Even if these claims are true (and there is far from universal agreement on this matter), inductive generalizations typically are regarded as inferior to hypothesis-generating methods that involve more theoretical reasoning, that consider variations in circumstances (i.e., possible confounding factors) that may account for spurious patterns, and that provide possible causal explanation for observed phenomena. Moreover, recent research in cognition and the relatively new field of neural modeling suggest that simple induction “across a limited set of observations” may have a far smaller role in scientific reasoning than previously realized [ 15 ].

Hypothesis by Abduction

Of the three primary methods of reasoning, the one that has been most implicated in the creation of novel ideas, including scientific discoveries, is the logical process of abduction (from the Latin ab [meaning “away from”] and dūcerė [“to draw or to lead”]). It also is the most common mode of reasoning employed by clinicians when making diagnostic inferences. Abduction was introduced into modern logic by American philosopher and mathematician, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) [ 16 ], and remains an important, albeit controversial, topic of research among philosophers of science and students of artificial intelligence. It refers to the process of formulation and acceptance on probation of a hypothesis to explain a surprising observation. Thus, hypotheses formed by abduction (unlike those formed by induction) are always explanatory. (The reader should note that other synonyms for, and definitions of, abduction exist, e.g., “retroduction,” “reduction,” “inference to the best explanation,” etc., the latter reflecting the evaluative and selective functions that also have been associated with this term.) Abductive reasoning entails moving from a ­ consequent (the observation or current “fact”) to its antecedent (presumed cause or precondition) through a general rule. It is considered “backward” because the inference about the antecedent is drawn from the consequent .

Peirce devoted his earliest work (before 1900), as did Aristotle long before him, to furthering the development of syllogistic theory to express logical relations. During this early period, abduction (then termed by him as hypothesis ) was taken to mean the use of a known “rule” to explain an observation (“result”); accordingly, his initial efforts were devoted to demonstrating how the hypothesis relates to the premises of the argument and how it differs from the logical structure of other forms of reasoning (i.e., deduction or induction). In his essay, Deduction, Induction, Hypothesis , Peirce presents an abductive syllogism:

Rule: “All the beans from this bag are white.”

Result: “These beans are white.”

Case: “These beans are from this bag.” [ 16 ]

In this argument, the “rule” and “result” represent the premises (background knowledge and observation, respectively [the order is arbitrary]) and the “case” represents the conclusion (here, the hypothesis). Had this argument been expressed deductively, the “case” would have been the second premise, and the “result,” the conclusion (i.e., “all the beans from this bag are white, these beans are from this bag; therefore, these beans are white”). It should be obvious to the reader that the abductive argument is logically less secure than a deductive argument (or even an inductive argument). It represents a possible conclusion only (after all, the beans might come from some other bag—or from no bag at all). Therefore, like an inductive argument, it is ampliative though logically invalid. Its strength is based on how well the argument accounts for all available ­evidence, including that which is seemingly contradictory.

As Peirce’s work evolved, he shifted his efforts to developing a theory of inferential reasoning in which abduction was taken to mean the generation of new rules to explain new observations. In so doing, he focused on, what some have termed, the “creative character of abduction” [ 17 ]. Peirce argued that abduction had a major role in the process of scientific inquiry and, indeed, was the only inferential process by which new knowledge was created—a view that was, and continues to be, hotly debated by the philosophical community. In his later work, Peirce described the logical structure of abduction as follows:

The surprising fact, C, is observed.

But if A were true, C would be a matter of course.

Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. [ 18 ]

The “surprise” (the stimulus to the abductive inference) arises because the observation is viewed, at that moment in time, as an anomaly, given the observer’s preexisting corpus of knowledge (theory base) which cannot account for it. The lack of compatibility between the observation and expectation introduces a type of cognitive dissonance that seeks resolution through the adoption of a coherent explanation. In Peirce’s opinion, the explanation might be nothing more than a guess (Peirce believed that humans were “hardwired” with the ability for guessing correctly) that, unlike an inductive generalization, enters the mind “like a flash” [ 18 ] or, what is commonly termed, as a “eureka moment” or an “ah ha!” experience. Because a guess (insightful or not), by its very nature, is speculative (and, as noted above, is a relatively insecure form of reasoning), Peirce recognized that an abductive hypothesis must be rigorously tested before it could be admitted into scientific theory. This, he reasoned, is accomplished by using deduction to explicate the consequences of the hypothesis (i.e., the predictions) and induction to form a conclusion about the likelihood of their truthfulness, based on experimental verification. According to Peirce, these are the primary roles of deduction and induction in the scientific process. Figure 3.1 illustrates the Peircian view of the relation between abduction, deduction, and induction as interpreted by Flach and Kakas [ 19 ].

The three stages of scientific inquiry ( From Abduction and Induction. Essays on their Relation and Integration, Flach PA and Kakas AC. Abductive and Inductive Reasoning: Background and Issues, Chap. 1 , pp. 1–27, Copyright 2000, with permission from Klewer Academic Publishers )

Countless abductively derived hypotheses, principles, theories, and laws have been put forward in science. Many, if not most, owe to the serendipitous consequences of an unexpected observation made while looking for something else [ 20 ]. Well-known examples of such “happy accidents” include:

Archimedes’ principles of density and buoyancy

Hans Christian Oersted’s theory of electromagnetism

Luigi Galvani’s principle of bioelectricity

Claude Bernard’s neuroregulatory principle of circulation

Paul Gross’ protease-antiprotease hypothesis of pulmonary emphysema

Although, as Peirce points out, all three modes of inference (abduction, deduction, and induction) are used in the process of scientific inquiry, each requires different skills. As scholars have noted, deduction requires the capacity to reason logically and inductive reasoning requires understanding of the statistical implications of drawing conclusions from samples to populations. In contrast, as Danmark et al. have noted, abduction requires the “discernment of new relations and connections not immediately obvious” [ 21 ]—in other words, to “think outside the box.” For this reason, the best abductive hypotheses in science have been made by those who not only are observant, wise, and well grounded in their disciplines but who also are imaginative and receptive to new ideas. This view was, perhaps, best expressed by Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) when he argued, “In the fields of observation, chance favors only prepared minds” [ 22 ]. Accordingly, developing the “prepared mind,” in general, and enhancing the capacity to reason abductively, deductively, and inductively, in particular, should be among the most important goals of those seeking to effectively engage in the process of scientific discovery.

Characteristics of the Research Hypothesis

Irrespective of how it is formulated (or the problem or discipline for which it is formulated), a research hypothesis should fulfill the following five requirements:

It should reflect an inference about variables.

The purpose of any hypothesis is to make an inference about one or more variables. The inference can be as simple as predicting a single characteristic in a population (e.g., mean height, prevalence of lung cancer, incidence of acute myocardial infarction, or other population parameter) or, more commonly, it represents a supposition about an association between two or more variables (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, diet and hypertension, age and exercise tolerance, etc.). It is, therefore, important for the investigator to understand what is meant by a variable and how it functions in the setting of a hypothesis.

In its broadest sense, a variable is any feature, attribute, or characteristic that can assume different values (levels) within the same individual at different points in time or can differ from one member of the study population to another. Typical variables of interest to biomedical researchers include subject profile characteristics (e.g., age, weight, gender, ­etiology, stage of disease), nature, place, duration of naturally occurring exposures (e.g., risk factors, environmental influences) or purposively applied interventions, and subject outcomes or responses (e.g., morbidity, mortality, symptom relief, physiological, behavioral, or attitudinal changes) among others.

It is important to recognize that a characteristic that functions as a variable in one study does not necessarily serve as a variable in another. For example, if an investigator wished to determine the relation of gender to prevalence of diabetes, it would be necessary to study this problem in a group comprising males and females, some with and some without this disease. Because intersubject differences exist for both characteristics, gender and diabetes would be considered study variables, and a hypothesis could be constructed about their association. However, if all patients in a study group were women with diabetes, no hypothesis could be developed about the relation between gender and diabetes since these attributes would be invariable. (Fuller discussion of nature and role of variables, and their relation to the hypothesis, is presented later in this chapter.)

It should be stated as a grammatically complete, declarative sentence.

A hypothesis should contain, at minimum, a subject and predicate (the verb or verb phrase and other parts of the predicate modifying the verb). The statements “relaxation (subject) decreases (verb) blood pressure (object, or predicate noun),” “depression (subject) increases (verb) the rate of suicide (predicate),” and “consumption of diet cola (subject) is related to (verb phrase) body weight (object, or predicate noun)” are illustrative of hypotheses that meet this requirement. In these examples, the subject and predicate modifiers reflect the variables to be related, and the verb (or verb phrase) defines the nature of the expected association.

It should be expressed simply and unam­biguously.

For a hypothesis to be of value in a study, it must be clear in meaning, contain only one answer to any one question, and reflect only the essential elements of solution. The reason is that the hypothesis guides all subsequent research activities, including selection of the population and measurement instruments, collection and analysis of data, and interpretation of results. For example, the hypothesis “right ventricular performance is the best predictor of survival among patients with valvular heart disease, but is less important in others” would be difficult to validate. First, what is meant by right ventricular performance? Does this refer to ejection fraction at rest, at exercise, or the change from rest to exercise, or to some other parameter? Second, what is the meaning of “best”? Does it signify ease of measurement or does is it relate to the strength of statistical association? Third, to what is right ventricular performance compared? Is the contrast between right ventricular performance and clinical descriptors, anatomic descriptors, other functional descriptors, or between all of these? Fourth, what type of “valvular heart disease” is being studied? Is it regurgitant, stenotic, or both? Does it involve the mitral, aortic, or some other heart valve? Finally, what is meant by “less important”? Who (or what) are the “others”? As is true for the research problem, the clearer and less complex the statement of the hypothesis, the more straightforward the study and the more useful the findings.

It should provide an adequate answer to the research problem.

For a hypothesis to be adequate, it must address, in a satisfactory manner, both the content and scope of the central question; that is, whether the problem is narrow or broad, simple or complex, evaluation of the hypothesis(es) should result in the full resolution of the research problem. For this reason, it is recommended that the investigator formulate at least one hypothesis for every subproblem articulated in the study. Equally important, a hypothesis must be plausible; for this condition to be satisfied, the hypothesis should be based on prior relevant observation and experience, buttressed by consideration of existing theory, and should reflect sound reasoning and knowledge of the problem at hand. In contrast, speculations which have either no empirical support or legitimate theoretical basis, even if interesting, constitute poor hypotheses and typically yield weak or uninterpretable study outcomes. Finally, if the hypothesis is explanatory in nature (rather than an inductive generalization), all else being equal, it should represent the simplest of all possible competing explanations for the phenomenon or data at hand [ 23 ], a principle known as Occam’s razor or entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Latin for “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”).

It should be testable.

A hypothesis must be stated in such a way as to allow for its examination which, in the biomedical and other empirical sciences, is achieved through the acts of observation or experimentation, analysis, and judicious interpretation. If one or more of the elements comprising the hypothesis is not present in the population or sample, or if a phenomenon or characteristic contained within the hypothesis is highly subjective or otherwise difficult to measure, the hypothesis cannot be properly evaluated. For example, the statement “female patients cope better with stress than male patients” would be a poor hypothesis if the investigator did not have access to both male and female patients or was unable to generate acceptable definitions and measures to evaluate “coping” and “stress.” An even more egregious example is the hypothesis “prognosis following diagnosis of ovarian cancer is related to the patient’s survival instinct,” as it would be extremely difficult to develop empirical data in support of a “survival instinct”—assuming it did exist.

For many years, philosophers of science have argued about what constitutes evidence in science or support for a scientific hypothesis. By the mid-twentieth century, the tenets of logical positivism (or logical empiricism) dominated the philosophy of science in the United States as well as throughout the English-speaking world [ 24 ], replacing the Cartesian emphasis on rationalism as a primary epistemological tool. Strongly eschewing metaphysical and theological explanations of reality, the logical positivists argued that a proposition held meaning only if it could be “verified” (i.e., if its truth could be determined conclusively by observable facts). Early critics of logical positivism, most notable among them Karl Popper, believed that “verifiability” was too stringent a criterion for scientific discovery. This, he argued, was due to the logical limitations inherent in inductive reasoning, namely, the deductive invalidity of forming a generalization based on the observation of particulars, and the attendant uncertainty of such an inference. Thus, while both positive existential claims (e.g., “there is at least one white swan”) and negative universal claims (e.g., “not all swans are white”) could be confirmed by finding, respectively, at last one white swan or one black swan, it would be impossible to verify a positive universal claim (e.g., all swans are white). To accomplish that, one would have to observe every swan in existence, at all times and in all places, or risk being wrong.

According to Popper, the hallmark of a testable claim is its capacity to be falsified [ 25 ]. In his view, falsification ( not verification) is the criterion for demarcation between those hypotheses, theories, and other propositions that are scientific versus those that are not scientific. This, of course, did not mean that a scientific hypothesis or theory must be false; rather, if it were false, it could be shown to be so. Returning to our earlier example, all that would be required to disprove the claim “all swans were white” is to find a swan that is not white. Indeed, this inductive inference, based on the observation of millions of white swans in Europe, was shown to be false when black swans were discovered in Western Australia in the eighteenth century [ 26 ]—an event that was not unnoticed by Popper. It provided clear support for his assertion that no matter how many observations are made that appear to confirm a proposition, there is always the possibility that an event not yet seen could refute it. Similarly, any scientific hypothesis, theory, or law could be falsified by finding a single counterexample.

Popper’s greatest contribution to science was his characterization of scientific inquiry, based on a cyclical system of conjectures and refutations (a form of critical rationalism) widely known as the “hypothetico-deductive method” [ 27 ]. A schematic of Popper’s view of this method is shown in Fig. 3.2 . Consistent with Popper’s writing on the subject, the terms hypothesis and theory are used interchangeably as both are viewed as tentative, though most workers in the field currently reserve the latter term for hypotheses (or related systems of hypotheses) that have received consistent and long-standing empirical support.

The hypothetico-deductive model: Popper’s view of the role of falsification in scientific reasoning

The reader will note that the hypothetico-deductive method begins with an early postulation of a hypothesis. The investigator then uses deductive logic to form predictions from the hypothesis that should be true if the hypothesis is, in fact, correct. The nature of the predictions can vary from study to study, but they share the common attribute of being unknown before data collection. The predictions are then evaluated by formal experimentation or observation. Assuming a properly designed study, those predictions that are discordant with data falsify the hypothesis, which is then discarded or revised, leading to additional study. Although a hypothesis can never be shown to be true via collection of compatible information (as Popper noted, a subsequent demonstration of counterfactual data can overturn any hypothesis), the extent to which it survives repeated attempts at falsification provides support (corroboration) for its validity. As a result, testing of a hypothesis serves to advance the existing theory base and body of knowledge. Popper argued that the hypothetico-deductive method was the only sound approach to scientific reasoning; moreover, in his opinion, it was the only method by which science made any progress.

Although Popper did not originate the hypothetico-deductive method, he was the first to explicate the central role of falsification versus confirmation of a hypothesis in the developing science. While his arguments have been criticized by other philosophers of science who assert that scientists do not necessarily reason that way [ 28 ], his views remain prominent in modern philosophy and continue to appeal to many modern scientists [ 29 ]. Today, the Popperian view of the hypothetico-deductive method, with its emphasis on testing to falsify a proposed hypothesis, generally is taken to represent an ideal (if not universal) approach to curbing excessive inductive speculation and ensuring scientific objectivity, and is considered to be the primary methodology by which biological knowledge is acquired and disseminated [ 30 ].

Types of Hypotheses

Hypotheses can be classified in several ways, as shown below.

Conceptual Versus Operational Hypotheses

Hypotheses can vary according to their degree of specificity or precision and theoretical relatedness. Hypotheses can be written as broad or general statements, in which case they are termed conceptual hypotheses . For example, an investigator may hypothesize that “a high-fat diet is related to severity of coronary artery disease” or another may conjecture that “depression is associated with a relatively high incidence of morbid events.” Although these may be important hypotheses, these statements cannot be directly tested as they are fundamentally abstract. What do the investigators mean by “high fat,” “depression,” “severity of coronary artery disease,” “relatively high,” or “morbid events”? How will these terms be evaluated?

To render conceptual hypotheses testable, they must be recast as more specific statements with elements (variables) that are precisely defined according to explicit observable or measurable criteria. Hypotheses of this type are referred to as operational hypotheses or, alternatively, specific hypotheses or predictions and represent the specific (observable) manifestation of the conceptual hypothesis that the study is designed to test. Once the study is designed, data will be collected and analyzed to determine whether they are concordant or discordant with the operational hypothesis which, ultimately, will be reinterpreted in terms of its broader meaning as a conceptual hypothesis. Figure 3.3 below illustrates a simplified version of the hypothetico-deductive method , as conceptualized by Kleinbaum, Kupper, and Morgenstern [ 31 ] depicting the relation of conceptual and operational hypotheses to the design and interpretation of the study.

Interrelation of conceptual hypotheses, operational hypotheses, and the hypothetico-deductive method (Reprinted with permission Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods, Fig. 2.2 : An Idealized Conceptualization of the Scientific Method (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold 1982), p. 35)

Construction of operational hypotheses represents an important preliminary step in the development of the research design, data collection strategy, and statistical analysis plan and is described in greater detail in subsequent sections of this chapter.

Single Variable Versus Multiple Variable Hypotheses

Some investigations are undertaken to determine whether a mean, proportion, or other parameter from a sample varies from a specified value. For example, a group of obstetricians may have read a report that concludes that, throughout the nation, the average length of stay following uncomplicated caesarian section is 5 days. They may have reason to believe that the length of stay for similar patients at their institution differs from the national average and would like to know if their belief is correct. To study the question, they must first recast their question as a hypothesis including the stipulated variable, select a representative sample of patients from their institution, and compare data from their sample with the national average (stipulated value) using an appropriate one-sample statistical test. (The reader should note that the only variable being tested within this hypothesis is length of stay. In this case, caesarian section is only a descriptor of the target population because all data to be examined are from patients undergoing this procedure.)

However, the objective of most hypotheses is not to draw inferences about population parameters but to facilitate evaluation of a proposition that two or more variables are systematically related in some manner [ 32 ]. Indeed, some methodologists recognize only the latter form of argument as a legitimate hypothesis [ 7 , 33 – 35 ]. The simplest hypotheses about intervariable association contain two variables ( bivariable hypotheses ), for example:

Caffeine consumption is more frequent among smokers than nonsmokers.

Women have a higher fat-to-muscle ratio than men.

Heart attacks are more common in winter than in other seasons.

If the objective of the study is to compare the relative association of several characteristics, it usually will be necessary to construct a single hypothesis which relates three or more variables ( multivariable hypotheses ), for example:

Ischemia severity is a stronger predictor of cardiac events than symptom status and risk factor score.

Response to physical training is affected more by age than gender.

Improvement in health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery is influenced more by preoperative symptoms than by ventricular performance or geometry.

The number and type of variables contained within the hypothesis (as well as the nature of the proposed association) will dictate the study design, measurement procedures, and statistical analysis of the results. These concepts are addressed in Chaps. 5 and 11 .

Hypotheses of Causality Versus Association or Difference

The relation posited between variables may be cast as one of cause-and-effect , in which case the researcher hypothesizes that one variable affects or influences the other(s) in some manner. For example:

Estrogen produces an increase in coronary flow.

Smoking promotes lung cancer.

Patient education improves compliance.

Coronary artery bypass grafting causes a reduction in the number of subsequent cardiac events.

However, hypotheses often are not written this way because support for a cause-and-effect relation requires not only biological plausibility and a strong statistical result but also an appropriate (and usually rigorous) study design. If the investigator believes that the variables are related, but prefers not to speculate on the influence of one variable on another, the hypothesis may be cast to propose an association only, without explicit reference to causality. For example:

Surgical benefit is related to preoperative ischemia severity.

Exercise tolerance is correlated with chronological age.

Consumption of low-calorie beverages is associated with body weight.

Finally, hypotheses also can be written to a assert that there will be a difference between levels of a variable among two or more groups of individuals or within a single group of individuals at different points in time, as shown by the following examples:

Patients enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) will have a different number of hospitalizations than those enrolled in “preferred provider organizations (PPOs)” or traditional “fee-for-­service” insurance plans.

Among patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement, left ventricular performance will be dissimilar at 1 versus 3 years after operation.

The hypothesis also can be framed so that the nature of the association (e.g., linear, curvilinear, positive, inverse, etc.) or difference (“larger” or “smaller,” “better” or “poorer,” etc.) will be specified (see below, Alternative hypotheses [directional]).

Mechanistic Versus Nonmechanistic Hypotheses

Hypotheses can be written so as to provide a mechanism (i.e., an explanation) for an asserted relationship or prediction, or they can be written without defining an underlying mechanism. Mechanistic hypotheses are common in preclinical research which typically attempts to define biochemical and physiological causes of disease or dysfunction and pathways amenable to therapeutic intervention.

Shown below are two examples of mechanistic hypotheses that were evaluated in two different preclinical investigations: (Note the use of the phrase “as a result of” in the first hypothesis evaluating the impact of endothelial nitric oxide synthase [eNOS] and “due to” in the second hypothesis evaluating antagonism of endothelin [ET]-induced inotropy. Italics have been added for emphasis.)

“Gender-specific protection against myocardial infarction occurs in adult female as compared to male rabbits as a result of eNOS upregulation” [ 36 ].

“ET-induced direct positive inotropy is antagonized in vivo by an indirect cardiodepressant effect due to a mainly ETA-mediated and ET-induced coronary constriction with consequent myocardial ischemia” [ 37 ].

In clinical research, hypotheses more commonly are nonmechanistic (i.e., framed without including an explicit explanation). Shown below are two published literature examples:

“Patients with medically unexplained symptoms attending the clinic of a general adult neurologist will have delayed earliest and continuous memories compared with patients whose symptoms were explained by neurological disease” [ 38 ].

“Patients with acute mental changes will be scanned more frequently than other elder patients” [ 39 ].

The reader will note that these hypotheses do not include the mechanism for memory variations in these patient populations (first example) or the reasons why elderly patients with acute mental changes should be scanned more frequently than comparable patients without such changes (second example). In situations like this, it is critical that the justification be clear from the introductory section of the research paper or protocol.

Alternative Versus Null Hypotheses

The requirement that a hypothesis should be capable of corroboration or unsupportability (“falsification”) reflects the fact that two ­outcomes always can arise out of a study of any single research problem. Thus, prior to collecting and evaluating empirical evidence to resolve a problem, the investigator will posit two opposing assertions. The first assertion will indicate the supposition for which support actually is sought (e.g., that there is a difference between a population parameter and an expected value or, more commonly, that there is some form of relation between variables within a particular population); the other will indicate that there is no support for this supposition. This first type of assertion is termed the alternative hypothesis and is generally denoted H A or H 1 . The alternative hypothesis can be differentiated further according to its quantitative attributes. As an example, in a study evaluating the impact of beta-adrenergic antagonist treatment (β-blockade) on the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarctions (MIs), an investigator could frame three contrasting alternative hypotheses:

The proportion of recurrent MIs among comparable patients treated with versus without β-blockade is different.

The proportion of recurrent MIs among patients treated with β-blockade is less than that among comparable patients treated without β-blockade.

The proportion of recurrent MIs among patients treated with β-blockade is greater than that among comparable patients treated without β-blockade.

The first of these statements is termed a nondirectional hypothesis because the nature of the expected relation (i.e., the direction of the intergroup difference in the proportion of recurrent infarctions) is not specified. The second and third statements are termed directional hypotheses since, in addition to positing a difference between groups, the nature of the expected difference (positive or negative) is predefined. Generally, the decision to state an alternative hypothesis in a directional versus nondirectional manner is based on theoretical considerations and/or the availability of prior empirical information. (In statistics, a nondirectional hypothesis is usually referred to as a two-tailed or two-sided hypothesis; a directional hypothesis is referred to as a one-tailed or one-sided hypothesis.)

As noted, the hypothesis reflects a tentative conjecture which, to gain validity, ultimately must be substantiated by experience (empirical evidence). However, even objectively measured experience varies from time to time, place to place, observer to observer, and subject to subject. Thus, it is difficult to know whether an observed difference or association was produced by random variation or actually reflects a true underlying difference or association in the population of interest. To deal with the problem of uncertainty, the investigator must implicitly formulate and test what, in essence, is the logical opposite of his or her alternative hypothesis (i.e., that the population parameter is the same as the expected value or that the variables of interest are not related as posited). Thus, the investigator must attempt to set up a straw man to be knocked down. This construct (which need not be not stated in the research report), is termed a null (or no difference) hypothesis and is designated H 0 . A null hypothesis asserts that any observable differences or associations found within a population are due to chance and is assumed true until contradicted by empirical evidence. In the single variable (one-sample) hypothesis, the assertion is that the parameter of interest is not different from some expected population value, whereas in a bivariable or multivariable hypothesis, the assertion is that the variables of interest are un related to some factor or to each other.

A null hypothesis is framed by inserting a negative modifier into the statement of the alternative hypothesis. In the examples given above, the following null statements could be developed:

The proportion of recurrent MIs among comparable patients treated with versus without β-blockade is not different.

The proportion of recurrent MIs among patients treated with β-blockade is not less than that among comparable patients treated without β-blockade.

The proportion of recurrent MIs among patients treated with β-blockade is not greater than that among comparable patients treated without β-blockade.

Only after both the null and alternative hypotheses have been specified, and the data collected, can an appropriate test of statistical significance be performed. If the results of statistical analysis reveal that chance is an unlikely explanation of the findings, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Under these circumstances, the investigator can conclude that there is a statistically significant relation between the variables under study (or a statistically significant difference between a parameter and an expected value). On the other hand, if chance cannot be excluded as a probable explanation for the findings, the null, rather than the alternative, hypothesis must be accepted. It is important to note that acceptance of the null hypothesis does not mean that the investigator has demonstrated a true lack of association between variables (or equation between a population parameter and an expected value) any more than a verdict of “not guilty” constitutes proof of a defendant’s innocence in a legal proceeding. Indeed, in criminal law, such a verdict means only that the prosecution, upon whom the burden of proof rests, has failed to provide sufficient evidence that a crime was committed. Similarly, in research, failure to overturn a null hypothesis (particularly when the alternative hypothesis has been argued) generally is taken to mean that the investigator, upon whom the burden of “proof” (or, more appropriately, corroboration) also rests, has failed to demonstrate the expected difference or association. Null results may reflect reality, but they may also be due to measurement error and inadequate sample size. For this reason, negative studies , a term for research that yields null findings, are far less likely to gain publication than studies that demonstrate a statistically significant association [ 40 , 41 ]. (See Chap. 9 for a more detailed discussion of “publication bias.”)

Constructing the Hypothesis: Differentiating Among Variables

As indicated earlier, hypotheses most commonly entail statements about variables. Variables, in turn, can be differentiated according to their level of measurement (or scaling characteristics) or the role that they play in the hypothesis.

Level of Measurement

Variables can be classified according to how well they can be measured (i.e., the amount of information that can be obtained in a given measurement of an attribute). One factor that determines the informational characteristics of a variable is the nature of its associated measurement scale, that is, whether it is nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio—a classification system framed in 1946 by Stevens [ 42 ]. Understanding these distinctions is important because scaling characteristics influence the nature of the statistical methods that can be used for analyzing data associated with a variable.

The Nominal Variable

Nominal variables represent names or categories. Examples include blood type, gender, marital status, hair color, etiology, and presence versus absence of a risk factor or disease, and vital status. Nominal variables represent the weakest level of measurement as they have no intrinsic order or other mathematical properties and allow only for qualitative classification or grouping. Their lack of mathematical properties precludes calculation of measures of central tendency (such as means, medians, or modes) or dispersion. When all variables in a hypothesis are nominal, this limits the types of statistical operations that can be performed to tests involving cross-classification (e.g., tests of differences between proportions). Sometimes, variables that are on an ordinal, interval, or ratio scale are transformed into nominal categories using cutoff points (e.g., age in years can be recoded into old versus young; height in meters to tall versus short; left ventricular ejection fraction in percent to normal versus subnormal).

The Ordinal Variable

Ordinal variables are considered to be semiquantitative. They are similar to nominal variables in that they are comprised of categories, but their categories are arranged in a meaningful sequence (rank order), such that successive values indicate more or less of some quantity (i.e., relative magnitude). Typical examples of ordinal variables include socioeconomic status, tumor classification scores, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class for angina or heart failure, disease severity, birth order, perceived level of pain, and all opinion survey scores. However, distances between scale points are arbitrary. For example, a patient categorized as NYHA functional class IV may have more symptomatic debility than one categorized as functional class II, but he or she does not necessarily have twice as much debility; indeed, he or she may have considerably more than twice as much debility. Appropriate measures of central tendency for ordinal variables are the mode and median (rather than the mean or arithmetic average) or percentile. Similarly, hypothesis tests of subgroup differences based on ordinal outcome variables are limited to nonparametric approaches employing analysis of ranks or sums of ranks.

The Interval Variable

Interval variables, like ratio variables (below), are considered quantitative or metric variables because they answer the question “how much?” or “how many?” Both may take on positive or negative values. A common example of an interval variable is temperature on a Celsius or Fahrenheit scale. Both interval and ratio variables provide more precise information than ordinal variables because the distances between successive data values represent true, equal, and meaningful intervals. For example, the difference between 70 ° F and 80 ° F is equivalent to the difference between 80 ° F and 90 ° F. However, the zero point on an interval scale is arbitrary (note, freezing on a Celsius scale is 0 ° but is 32 ° on a Fahrenheit scale) and does not necessarily connote absence of a property (in this case, absence of kinetic energy). When analyzing interval data, one can add or subtract but not multiply or divide. Most statistical and operations are permissible, including calculation of measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, median, or mode), measures of dispersion (e.g., standard deviation, standard error of the mean, range), and performance of many statistical tests of hypotheses including correlation, regression, t-tests, and analysis of variance. However, due to the absence of a true zero point, ratios between values on an interval scale are not meaningful (though ratios of differences can be computed).

The Ratio Variable

Like interval variables, the distances between successive values on a ratio scale are equal. However, ratio variables reflect the highest level of measurement because they contain a true, nonarbitrary zero point that reflects complete absence of a property. Examples of ratio variables include temperature on a Kelvin scale (where zero reflects absence of kinetic energy), mass, length, volume, weight, and income. When ratio data are analyzed, all arithmetic operations are available (i.e., addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). The same statistical operations that can be performed with interval variables can be performed with ratio variables. However, ratio variables also permit meaningful calculation of absolute and relative (or ratio) changes in a variable and computation of geometric and harmonic means, coefficients of variation, and logarithms.

Quantitative variables (interval or ratio) can be either continuous or discrete. Continuous variables (e.g., weight, height, temperature) differ from discrete variables in that the former may take on any conceivable value within a given range, including fractional values or decimal values. For example, within the range 150–151 lbs, an individual theoretically can weigh 150 lbs, 150.5 lbs or 150.95 lbs, though the capacity to distinguish between these values clearly is limited by the precision of the measurement device. In contrast, discrete variables (e.g., number of dental caries, number of white cells per cubic centimeter of blood, number of readers of medical journals, or other count-based data) can take on only whole numbers. Nominal and ordinal variables are intrinsically discrete, though in some disciplines (e.g., behavioral sciences), ordinally scaled data often are treated as continuous variables. This practice is considered reasonable when ordinal data intuitively represent equivalent intervals (e.g., visual analogue scales), when they contain numerous (e.g., 10 or more) possible scale values or “orderings” [ 43 ], or when shorter individual measurement scales are combined to yield summary scores. The reader should note, however, that in other disciplines and settings, treating all data as continuous data is controversial and generally is not ­recommended [ 44 ].

Role in the Research Hypothesis

Another method of classifying variables is based on the specific role (function) that the variable plays in the hypothesis. Accordingly, a variable can represent (1) the putative cause (or be associated with a causal factor) that initiates a subsequent response or event, (2) the response or event itself, (3) a mediator between the causal factor and its effect, (4) a potential confounder whose influence must be neutralized, or (5) an explanation for the underlying association between the hypothesized cause and effect. Viewed this way, variables may be independent, dependent, or may serve as moderator, control, or intervening variables. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for constructing a research design, executing a statistical program, or communicating effectively with a statistician.

The Independent Variable

The independent variable is that attribute within an individual, object, or event which affects some outcome. The independent variable is conceptualized as an input in the study that may be manipulated by the investigator (such as a treatment in an experimental study) or reflect a naturally occurring risk factor. In either case, the independent variable is viewed as antecedent to some outcome and is presumed to be the cause, or a predictor of that outcome, or a marker of a causal agent or risk factor. We call this type of variable “ independent ” because the researcher is interested only on its impact on other variables in the study rather than the impact of other variables on it. Independent variables are sometimes termed factors and their variations are called levels .

If, for example, if an investigator were to conduct an observational study of the effects of diabetes mellitus on subsequent cardiac events, the independent variable (or factor) would be history of diabetes, and its variants (positive or negative history) would be levels of the factor. As a second example, in an intervention study examining the relative impact of inpatient versus outpatient counseling on patient morbidity after a first MI, the independent variable (factor) would be the counseling, and its variants (inpatient counseling vs. outpatient counseling) would correspond to the alternative levels of the factor. The reader should note that in both of these hypothetical examples, there was only one independent variable (or factor) and that each factor had two levels. It is possible and, in fact, common for studies to have several independent variables and for each to have multiple factor levels (indeed, the number of factor levels in dose–response studies is potentially infinite). Care needs to be exercised as researchers often confuse a factor with two levels for two factors. Levels are always components of the factor. Understanding this distinction is essential for conducting statistical tests such as analysis of variance (ANOVA).

The Dependent Variable

In contrast to the independent variable, the dependent variable is that attribute within an individual or its environment that represents an outcome of the study. The dependent variable is sometimes called a response variable because one can observe its presence, absence, or degree of change as a function of variation in the independent variable. Therefore, the dependent variable is always a measure of effect .

As an example, suppose that an investigator wished to study the effects of adrenal ­corticosteroid therapy on systolic performance among patients with heart failure. In this study, systolic performance would be the dependent variable; the investigator would measure its degree of improvement or deterioration in response to introducing versus not introducing steroid treatment. Because it is a measure of effect, the dependent variable can be observed and measured but, unlike the independent variable, it can never be manipulated.

Independent and dependent variables are relatively simple to identify within the context of a specific investigation, for example, a prospective cohort or an experimental study or a well-designed retrospective study in which one variable clearly is an input, the second is a response or effect, and an adequately defined temporal interval exists between their appearance. However, when research is cross-­sectional, and variables merely are being correlated, it is sometimes difficult or impossible to infer which is independent and which is dependent. Under these circumstances, variables are often termed “covariates.”

The Moderator Variable

Often, an independent variable does not affect all individuals in the same way, and an investigator may have reason to believe that some other variable may be involved. If he or she wishes to systematically study the effect of this other variable, rather than merely neutralize it, it may be introduced into the study design as a moderator variable (also known as an “effect modifier”). The term moderator variable refers to a secondary variable that is measured or manipulated by the investigator to determine whether it alters the relationship between the independent variable of central interest and the dependent (response) variable. The moderator variable may be incorporated into a multivariate statistical model to examine its interactive effects with the independent variable or it may be used to provide a basis for stratifying the sample into two or more subgroups within which the effects of the independent variable may be examined separately.

For example, suppose a psychiatrist wishes to study the effects of a new amphetamine-type drug on task persistence in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who have not responded well to current medical therapy. She believes that the drug may have efficacy but suspects that its effect may be diminished by the comorbidity of chronic anxiety. Rather than give the new drug to patients with ADHD who do not also have anxiety and placebo to patients with ADHD plus anxiety, to avoid confounding, she enrolls both types of patients, randomly administers drug or placebo to members of each subgroup, and measures task persistence among all subjects at a fixed interval after onset of therapy. In this hypothetical study, the independent variable would be type of therapy (factor levels: new drug, placebo), the dependent variable would be task persistence, and chronic anxiety (presence, absence) would be the moderator. Figure 3.4 illustrates the importance of a moderator variable. If none had been used in the study, the data would have led the investigator to conclude that the new drug was ineffective as no overall treatment effect would have been observed for the ADHD group (left panel, diagonal patterned bar), with change in task persistence for the entire treated group similar to subjects on placebo (right panel). However, as noted, the new drug was not ineffective but instead was differentially effective, promoting greater task persistence among patients without associated anxiety but decreasing task persistence among those with anxiety, as hypothesized.

A hypothetical example of the effects of a moderator variable: influence of chronic anxiety on the impact of a new drug for patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

A cautionary note is in order. Although moderator variables can increase the yield or accuracy of information from a study, an investigator needs to be very selective in using them as each additional factor introduced into the study design increases the sample size needed to enable the impact of these secondary factors to be satisfactorily evaluated. During the study planning process, the investigator must determine the likelihood of a potential interaction, the theoretical or practical knowledge to be gained by discovery of an interaction, and decide whether sufficient resources exist for such evaluation.

The Control Variable

In this last example, the investigator chose to evaluate the interactive effects of a secondary variable on the relation of the independent and dependent variables. Others in similar situations might choose not to study a secondary independent variable, particularly if it is viewed as extraneous to the primary hypothesis or focus of the study. Additionally, it is impractical to examine the effects of every ancillary variable. However, extraneous variables cannot be ignored because they can confound study results and render the data uninterpretable. Variables such as these usually are treated as control variables.

A control variable is defined as any potentially confounding aspect of the study that is manipulated by the investigator to neutralize its effects on the dependent variable. Common control variables are age, gender, clinical history, comorbidity, test order, etc. In the hypothetical example given above, if the psychiatrist had wanted to control for associated anxiety and not evaluate its interactive effects, she could have chosen patients with similar anxiety levels or, had his or her study employed a parallel design (which it did not), she could have made certain that different treatment groups were counterbalanced for that variable.

The Intervening Variable

Just as the moderator variable defines when (under what conditions) the independent variable exerts its action on the dependent variable, the “intervening variable” may help explain how and why the independent and dependent variables are related. This can be especially important when the association between independent and dependent variables appears ambiguous. There is general consensus that the intervening variable underlies, and accounts for, the relation between the independent and dependent variable. However, historically, workers in the field have defined them in different (and often contradictory) ways [ 45 ]. For example, Tuckman describes the intervening variable as a hypothetical internal state (construct) within an individual (motivation, drive, goal orientation, intention, awareness, etc.) that “theoretically affects the observed phenomenon but cannot be seen, measured, or manipulated; its effect must be inferred from the effects of the independent and moderator variables on the observed phenomenon” [ 35 ]. In the previous hypothetical example which examined the interactive effects of drug treatment and anxiety on task persistence, the intervening variable was attention . In educational research, the intervening variable between an innovative pedagogical approach and the acquisition of new concepts or skills is the learning process impacted by the former. In clinical or epidemiological research, the intervening variable can represent a disease process or physiological parameter that links an exposure or purposively applied intervention to an outcome (e.g., secondhand smoking causes lung cancer by inducing lung damage ; valvular surgery increases LV ejection fraction by improving contractility .). Others such as Baron and Kenny [ 46 ] view an intervening variable as a factor that can be measured (directly or by operational definitions, described later in this chapter), fully derived (“abstractable”) from empirical findings (data), and statistically ­analyzed to demonstrate its capacity to mediate the relation between the independent and dependent variables. As an example, Williamson and Schulz [ 47 ] measured and evaluated the relation between pain, functional disability, and depression among patients with cancer. They determined that the observed relation of pain to depression was due to diminution of function, operationally defined as activities of daily living (the intervening or mediating variable), which, in turn, caused depression. Similarly, Song and Lee [ 48 ] found that depression mediated the relation of sensory deficits (the independent variable in their study) to functional capacity (their dependent variable) in the elderly. (For a comprehensive discussion of mediation and statistical approaches to test for mediation, the reader is referred to MacKinnon 2008 [ 49 ].) Whether viewed as a hypothetical construct or as a measurable mediator, an intervening variable is always intermediate in the causal pathway by which the independent variable affects the dependent variable and is useful in explaining the mechanism linking these variables and, potentially, for suggesting additional interventions.

Below are two hypotheses from cardiovascular medicine in which constituent variables have been analyzed and labeled according to their role in each hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1 : “Among patients with heart failure who have similar clinical histories, those receiving adrenal corticosteroid treatment will demonstrate a greater improvement in systolic performance than those not receiving steroid treatment.”

Independent variable : adrenal corticosteroid treatment

Factor levels: 2 (treatment, no treatment)

Dependent variable : systolic performance

Control variable : clinical history

Moderator variable : none

Intervening variable : change in magnitude of the inflammatory process

Hypothesis 2 : “Patients with angina who are treated with β-blockade will have a greater improvement in their capacity for physical activity than those of the same sex and age who are not treated with β-blockade; this improvement will vary as a function of severity of initial symptoms.”

Independent variable : β-blockade treatment

Factor levels : 2 (treatment, no treatment)

Dependent variable : capacity for physical activity

Moderator variable: severity of initial symptoms

Control variables : sex and age

Intervening variable : alteration in myocardial work

In sum, many research designs, particularly those intended to test hypotheses about cause or prediction and effect, contain independent, dependent, control, and intervening variables. Some also contain moderator variables. Figure 3.5 illustrates their interrelationship.

Interrelation among variables in a study design

Role of Operational Definitions

As indicated earlier, one of the characteristics of a hypothesis that sets it apart from other types of statements is that it is testable . The hypotheses discussed thus far are conceptual. A conceptual hypothesis cannot be directly tested unless it is transformed into an operational hypothesis. To accomplish this, operational definitions must be developed for each element specified in the hypothesis.

An operational definition identifies the observable characteristics of that which is being studied. Its use imparts specificity and precision to the research, enabling others to understand exactly how the hypothesis was tested. As a corollary, it enables the scientific community to evaluate the appropriateness of the methodology selected for studying the problem. Operational definitions are required because a concept, object, or situation can have multiple interpretations. While double entendre is one basis of Western humor, inconsistent (or vague) definitions within a study are not comical as they typically lead to confused findings (and readers). Imagine, for example, what might occur if one member of an investigative team, studying the relative impact of two procedures for treating hemodynamically important coronary artery disease, defined “important” as >50% luminal diameter narrowing of one or more ­coronary vessels and another, working in the same study, defined it as ≥70% luminal diameter narrowing; or if one investigator studying new onset angina used 1 week as the criterion for “new” and another used 1 month. Operational definitions can describe the manipulations that the investigator performs (e.g., the intervention), or they can describe behaviors or responses. Still others describe the observable characteristics of objects or individuals. Once the investigator has selected appropriate operational definitions (this choice is entirely study dependent), all hypotheses in the study can be “operationalized.”

A hypothesis is rendered operational when its broadly (conceptually) stated variables are replaced by operational definitions of those variables. Hypotheses stated in this manner are called operational hypotheses , specific hypotheses , or predictions .

Let us consider two hypotheses previously given in this chapter:

“Patients with heart failure who are treated with adrenal corticosteroids will have better systolic performance than those who are not” is sufficiently general to be considered a conceptual hypothesis and, as such, is not directly testable. To render this hypothesis testable, the investigator could operationally define its constituent elements as follows:

Heart failure  =  “secondary hypodynamic cardiomyopathy”

Adrenal corticosteroids  =  “cortisol”

Better systolic performance  =  “higher left ventricular ejection fractions at rest”

The hypothesis, in its operational form, would state: “Patients with secondary hypodynamic cardiomyopathy who have received cortisol will have higher ventricular ejection fractions at rest than those who have not received cortisol treatment.”

Similarly, the hypothesis that “patients with angina who are treated with β-blockers will have a greater improvement in their capacity for physical activity than those not treated with β-blockers, and that this improvement will vary as a function of initial symptoms,” while complex, is still ­general enough to be considered conceptual. To render this hypothesis testable, its constituent elements could be defined as follows:

β-blockers  =  “propranolol” (assuming that the investigator was specifically interested in this drug)

Capacity for physical activity  =  “New York Heart Association functional class”

Severity of symptoms  =  angina class 1–2 ­versus angina class 3–4

This hypothesis, in its operational form, would be stated: “Patients with angina who are treated with propranolol will have greater improvement in New York Heart Association functional class than those not treated with propranolol, and this improvement will vary as a function of initial angina class (1–2 vs. 3–4).” In this form, the hypothesis could be directly tested, although the investigator would still need to specify measurement criteria and develop an appropriate design.

Any element of a hypothesis can have more than one operational definition and, as noted, it is the investigator’s responsibility to select the one that is most suitable for his or her study. This is an important judgment because the remaining research procedures (i.e., specification of subject inclusion/exclusion criteria, the nature of the intervention and outcome measures, and data analysis methodology) are derived from operational hypotheses. Investigators must be careful to use a sufficient number of operational definitions so that reviewers will have a basis upon which to judge the appropriateness of the methodology outlined in submitted grant proposals and manuscripts, so that other investigators will be able to replicate their work, and so that the general readership can understand precisely what was done and have sufficient information to properly interpret findings.

Once operational definitions have been developed and the hypothesis has been restated in operational form, the investigator can conduct the study. The next step will be to select a research design that can yield data to support optimal statistical hypothesis testing. The strengths, weaknesses, and requirements of various study designs will be discussed in Chaps. 4 and 5 .

Take-Home Points

A hypothesis is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator’s thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution.

There are three primary modes of inference by which hypotheses are developed: deduction (reasoning from a general propositions to specific instances), induction (reasoning from specific instances to a general proposition), and abduction (formulation/acceptance on probation of a hypothesis to explain a surprising observation).

A research hypothesis should reflect an inference about variables; be stated as a grammatically complete, declarative sentence; be expressed simply and unambiguously; provide an adequate answer to the research problem; and be testable.

Hypotheses can be classified as conceptual versus operational, single versus bi- or multivariable, causal or not causal, mechanistic versus nonmechanistic, and null or alternative.

Hypotheses most commonly entail statements about “variables” which, in turn, can be classified according to their level of measurement (scaling characteristics) or according to their role in the hypothesis (independent, dependent, moderator, control, or intervening).

De Morgan A, De Morgan S. A budget of paradoxes. London: Longmans Green; 1872.

Google Scholar  

Leedy Paul D. Practical research. Planning and design. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan; 1960.

Bernard C. Introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Dover; 1957.

Erren TC. The quest for questions—on the logical force of science. Med Hypotheses. 2004;62:635–40.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 7. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1966.

Aristotle. The complete works of Aristotle: the revised Oxford Translation. In: Barnes J, editor. vol. 2. Princeton/New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1984.

Polit D, Beck CT. Conceptualizing a study to generate evidence for nursing. In: Polit D, Beck CT, editors. Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. Chapter 4.

Jenicek M, Hitchcock DL. Evidence-based practice. Logic and critical thinking in medicine. Chicago: AMA Press; 2005.

Bacon F. The novum organon or a true guide to the interpretation of nature. A new translation by the Rev G.W. Kitchin. Oxford: The University Press; 1855.

Popper KR. Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach (revised edition). New York: Oxford University Press; 1979.

Morgan AJ, Parker S. Translational mini-review series on vaccines: the Edward Jenner Museum and the history of vaccination. Clin Exp Immunol. 2007;147:389–94.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pead PJ. Benjamin Jesty: new light in the dawn of vaccination. Lancet. 2003;362:2104–9.

Lee JA. The scientific endeavor: a primer on scientific principles and practice. San Francisco: Addison-Wesley Longman; 2000.

Allchin D. Lawson’s shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated, ‘X’? Science and Education. 2003;12:315–29.

Article   Google Scholar  

Lawson AE. What is the role of induction and deduction in reasoning and scientific inquiry? J Res Sci Teach. 2005;42:716–40.

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1965.

Bonfantini MA, Proni G. To guess or not to guess? In: Eco U, Sebeok T, editors. The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; 1983. Chapter 5.

Peirce CS. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 5. In: Hartshorne C, Weiss P, editors. Boston: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1965.

Flach PA, Kakas AC. Abductive and inductive reasoning: background issues. In: Flach PA, Kakas AC, ­editors. Abduction and induction. Essays on their relation and integration. The Netherlands: Klewer; 2000. Chapter 1.

Murray JF. Voltaire, Walpole and Pasteur: variations on the theme of discovery. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172:423–6.

Danemark B, Ekstrom M, Jakobsen L, Karlsson JC. Methodological implications, generalization, scientific inference, models (Part II) In: explaining society. Critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2002.

Pasteur L. Inaugural lecture as professor and dean of the faculty of sciences. In: Peterson H, editor. A treasury of the world’s greatest speeches. Douai, France: University of Lille 7 Dec 1954.

Swineburne R. Simplicity as evidence for truth. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press; 1997.

Sakar S, editor. Logical empiricism at its peak: Schlick, Carnap and Neurath. New York: Garland; 1996.

Popper K. The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books; 1959. 1934, trans. 1959.

Caws P. The philosophy of science. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company; 1965.

Popper K. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. 4th ed. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul; 1972.

Feyerabend PK. Against method, outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London, UK: Verso; 1978.

Smith PG. Popper: conjectures and refutations (Chapter IV). In: Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2003.

Blystone RV, Blodgett K. WWW: the scientific method. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2006;5:7–11.

Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiological research. Principles and quantitative methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1982.

Fortune AE, Reid WJ. Research in social work. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press; 1999.

Kerlinger FN. Foundations of behavioral research. 1st ed. New York: Hold, Reinhart and Winston; 1970.

Hoskins CN, Mariano C. Research in nursing and health. Understanding and using quantitative and qualitative methods. New York: Springer; 2004.

Tuckman BW. Conducting educational research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich; 1972.

Wang C, Chiari PC, Weihrauch D, Krolikowski JG, Warltier DC, Kersten JR, Pratt Jr PF, Pagel PS. Gender-specificity of delayed preconditioning by isoflurane in rabbits: potential role of endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:274–80.

Beyer ME, Slesak G, Nerz S, Kazmaier S, Hoffmeister HM. Effects of endothelin-1 and IRL 1620 on myocardial contractility and myocardial energy metabolism. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 1995;26(Suppl 3):S150–2.

PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stone J, Sharpe M. Amnesia for childhood in patients with unexplained neurological symptoms. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002;72:416–7.

Naughton BJ, Moran M, Ghaly Y, Michalakes C. Computer tomography scanning and delirium in elder patients. Acad Emerg Med. 1997;4:1107–10.

Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–72.

Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.

Stevens SS. On the theory of scales and measurement. Science. 1946;103:677–80.

Knapp TR. Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: an attempt to resolve the controversy. Nurs Res. 1990;39:121–3.

The Cochrane Collaboration. Open Learning Material. www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod14-3.htm . Accessed 12 Oct 2009.

MacCorquodale K, Meehl PE. On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening ­variables. Psychol Rev. 1948;55:95–107.

Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: ­conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173–82.

Williamson GM, Schultz R. Activity restriction mediates the association between pain and depressed affect: a study of younger and older adult cancer patients. Psychol Aging. 1995;10:369–78.

Song M, Lee EO. Development of a functional capacity model for the elderly. Res Nurs Health. 1998;21:189–98.

MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge; 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Avenue, 1199, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA

Phyllis G. Supino EdD

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phyllis G. Supino EdD .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Cardiovascular Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Clarkson Avenue, box 1199 450, Brooklyn, 11203, USA

Phyllis G. Supino

, Cardiovascualr Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Clarkson Avenue 450, Brooklyn, 11203, USA

Jeffrey S. Borer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Supino, P.G. (2012). The Research Hypothesis: Role and Construction. In: Supino, P., Borer, J. (eds) Principles of Research Methodology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3360-6_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3360-6_3

Published : 18 April 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3359-0

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3360-6

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Market Research

Research Hypothesis: What It Is, Types + How to Develop?

A research study starts with a question. Researchers worldwide ask questions and create research hypotheses. The effectiveness of research relies on developing a good research hypothesis. Examples of research hypotheses can guide researchers in writing effective ones.

In this blog, we’ll learn what a research hypothesis is, why it’s important in research, and the different types used in science. We’ll also guide you through creating your research hypothesis and discussing ways to test and evaluate it.

What is a Research Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is like a guess or idea that you suggest to check if it’s true. A research hypothesis is a statement that brings up a question and predicts what might happen.

It’s really important in the scientific method and is used in experiments to figure things out. Essentially, it’s an educated guess about how things are connected in the research.

A research hypothesis usually includes pointing out the independent variable (the thing they’re changing or studying) and the dependent variable (the result they’re measuring or watching). It helps plan how to gather and analyze data to see if there’s evidence to support or deny the expected connection between these variables.

Importance of Hypothesis in Research

Hypotheses are really important in research. They help design studies, allow for practical testing, and add to our scientific knowledge. Their main role is to organize research projects, making them purposeful, focused, and valuable to the scientific community. Let’s look at some key reasons why they matter:

• A research hypothesis helps test theories.

A hypothesis plays a pivotal role in the scientific method by providing a basis for testing existing theories. For example, a hypothesis might test the predictive power of a psychological theory on human behavior.

• It serves as a great platform for investigation activities.

It serves as a launching pad for investigation activities, which offers researchers a clear starting point. A research hypothesis can explore the relationship between exercise and stress reduction.

• Hypothesis guides the research work or study.

A well-formulated hypothesis guides the entire research process. It ensures that the study remains focused and purposeful. For instance, a hypothesis about the impact of social media on interpersonal relationships provides clear guidance for a study.

• Hypothesis sometimes suggests theories.

In some cases, a hypothesis can suggest new theories or modifications to existing ones. For example, a hypothesis testing the effectiveness of a new drug might prompt a reconsideration of current medical theories.

• It helps in knowing the data needs.

A hypothesis clarifies the data requirements for a study, ensuring that researchers collect the necessary information—a hypothesis guiding the collection of demographic data to analyze the influence of age on a particular phenomenon.

• The hypothesis explains social phenomena.

Hypotheses are instrumental in explaining complex social phenomena. For instance, a hypothesis might explore the relationship between economic factors and crime rates in a given community.

• Hypothesis provides a relationship between phenomena for empirical Testing.

Hypotheses establish clear relationships between phenomena, paving the way for empirical testing. An example could be a hypothesis exploring the correlation between sleep patterns and academic performance.

• It helps in knowing the most suitable analysis technique.

A hypothesis guides researchers in selecting the most appropriate analysis techniques for their data. For example, a hypothesis focusing on the effectiveness of a teaching method may lead to the choice of statistical analyses best suited for educational research.

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a specific idea that you can test in a study. It often comes from looking at past research and theories. A good hypothesis usually starts with a research question that you can explore through background research. For it to be effective, consider these key characteristics:

• Clear and Focused Language: A good hypothesis uses clear and focused language to avoid confusion and ensure everyone understands it.
• Related to the Research Topic: The hypothesis should directly relate to the research topic, acting as a bridge between the specific question and the broader study.
• Testable: An effective hypothesis can be tested, meaning its prediction can be checked with real data to support or challenge the proposed relationship.
• Potential for Exploration: A good hypothesis often comes from a research question that invites further exploration. Doing background research helps find gaps and potential areas to investigate.
• Includes Variables: The hypothesis should clearly state both the independent and dependent variables, specifying the factors being studied and the expected outcomes.
• Ethical Considerations: Check if variables can be manipulated without breaking ethical standards. It’s crucial to maintain ethical research practices.
• Predicts Outcomes: The hypothesis should predict the expected relationship and outcome, acting as a roadmap for the study and guiding data collection and analysis.
• Simple and Concise: A good hypothesis avoids unnecessary complexity and is simple and concise, expressing the essence of the proposed relationship clearly.
• Clear and Assumption-Free: The hypothesis should be clear and free from assumptions about the reader’s prior knowledge, ensuring universal understanding.
• Observable and Testable Results: A strong hypothesis implies research that produces observable and testable results, making sure the study’s outcomes can be effectively measured and analyzed.

When you use these characteristics as a checklist, it can help you create a good research hypothesis. It’ll guide improving and strengthening the hypothesis, identifying any weaknesses, and making necessary changes. Crafting a hypothesis with these features helps you conduct a thorough and insightful research study.

Types of Research Hypotheses

The research hypothesis comes in various types, each serving a specific purpose in guiding the scientific investigation. Knowing the differences will make it easier for you to create your own hypothesis. Here’s an overview of the common types:

01. Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis states that there is no connection between two considered variables or that two groups are unrelated. As discussed earlier, a hypothesis is an unproven assumption lacking sufficient supporting data. It serves as the statement researchers aim to disprove. It is testable, verifiable, and can be rejected.

For example, if you’re studying the relationship between Project A and Project B, assuming both projects are of equal standard is your null hypothesis. It needs to be specific for your study.

02. Alternative Hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis is basically another option to the null hypothesis. It involves looking for a significant change or alternative that could lead you to reject the null hypothesis. It’s a different idea compared to the null hypothesis.

When you create a null hypothesis, you’re making an educated guess about whether something is true or if there’s a connection between that thing and another variable. If the null view suggests something is correct, the alternative hypothesis says it’s incorrect. 

For instance, if your null hypothesis is “I’m going to be $1000 richer,” the alternative hypothesis would be “I’m not going to get $1000 or be richer.”

03. Directional Hypothesis

The directional hypothesis predicts the direction of the relationship between independent and dependent variables. They specify whether the effect will be positive or negative.

If you increase your study hours, you will experience a positive association with your exam scores. This hypothesis suggests that as you increase the independent variable (study hours), there will also be an increase in the dependent variable (exam scores).

04. Non-directional Hypothesis

The non-directional hypothesis predicts the existence of a relationship between variables but does not specify the direction of the effect. It suggests that there will be a significant difference or relationship, but it does not predict the nature of that difference.

For example, you will find no notable difference in test scores between students who receive the educational intervention and those who do not. However, once you compare the test scores of the two groups, you will notice an important difference.

05. Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis predicts a relationship between one dependent variable and one independent variable without specifying the nature of that relationship. It’s simple and usually used when we don’t know much about how the two things are connected.

For example, if you adopt effective study habits, you will achieve higher exam scores than those with poor study habits.

06. Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is an idea that specifies a relationship between multiple independent and dependent variables. It is a more detailed idea than a simple hypothesis.

While a simple view suggests a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between two things, a complex hypothesis involves many factors and how they’re connected to each other.

For example, when you increase your study time, you tend to achieve higher exam scores. The connection between your study time and exam performance is affected by various factors, including the quality of your sleep, your motivation levels, and the effectiveness of your study techniques.

If you sleep well, stay highly motivated, and use effective study strategies, you may observe a more robust positive correlation between the time you spend studying and your exam scores, unlike those who may lack these factors.

07. Associative Hypothesis

An associative hypothesis proposes a connection between two things without saying that one causes the other. Basically, it suggests that when one thing changes, the other changes too, but it doesn’t claim that one thing is causing the change in the other.

For example, you will likely notice higher exam scores when you increase your study time. You can recognize an association between your study time and exam scores in this scenario.

Your hypothesis acknowledges a relationship between the two variables—your study time and exam scores—without asserting that increased study time directly causes higher exam scores. You need to consider that other factors, like motivation or learning style, could affect the observed association.

08. Causal Hypothesis

A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables. It suggests that changes in one variable directly cause changes in another variable.

For example, when you increase your study time, you experience higher exam scores. This hypothesis suggests a direct cause-and-effect relationship, indicating that the more time you spend studying, the higher your exam scores. It assumes that changes in your study time directly influence changes in your exam performance.

09. Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement based on things we can see and measure. It comes from direct observation or experiments and can be tested with real-world evidence. If an experiment proves a theory, it supports the idea and shows it’s not just a guess. This makes the statement more reliable than a wild guess.

For example, if you increase the dosage of a certain medication, you might observe a quicker recovery time for patients. Imagine you’re in charge of a clinical trial. In this trial, patients are given varying dosages of the medication, and you measure and compare their recovery times. This allows you to directly see the effects of different dosages on how fast patients recover.

This way, you can create a research hypothesis: “Increasing the dosage of a certain medication will lead to a faster recovery time for patients.”

10. Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement or assumption about a population parameter that is the subject of an investigation. It serves as the basis for statistical analysis and testing. It is often tested using statistical methods to draw inferences about the larger population.

In a hypothesis test, statistical evidence is collected to either reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis or fail to reject the null hypothesis due to insufficient evidence.

For example, let’s say you’re testing a new medicine. Your hypothesis could be that the medicine doesn’t really help patients get better. So, you collect data and use statistics to see if your guess is right or if the medicine actually makes a difference.

If the data strongly shows that the medicine does help, you say your guess was wrong, and the medicine does make a difference. But if the proof isn’t strong enough, you can stick with your original guess because you didn’t get enough evidence to change your mind.

How to Develop a Research Hypotheses?

Step 1: identify your research problem or topic..

Define the area of interest or the problem you want to investigate. Make sure it’s clear and well-defined.

Start by asking a question about your chosen topic. Consider the limitations of your research and create a straightforward problem related to your topic. Once you’ve done that, you can develop and test a hypothesis with evidence.

Step 2: Conduct a literature review

Review existing literature related to your research problem. This will help you understand the current state of knowledge in the field, identify gaps, and build a foundation for your hypothesis. Consider the following questions:

• What existing research has been conducted on your chosen topic?
• Are there any gaps or unanswered questions in the current literature?
• How will the existing literature contribute to the foundation of your research?

Step 3: Formulate your research question

Based on your literature review, create a specific and concise research question that addresses your identified problem. Your research question should be clear, focused, and relevant to your field of study.

Step 4: Identify variables

Determine the key variables involved in your research question. Variables are the factors or phenomena that you will study and manipulate to test your hypothesis.

• Independent Variable: The variable you manipulate or control.
• Dependent Variable: The variable you measure to observe the effect of the independent variable.

Step 5: State the Null hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that there is no significant difference or effect. It serves as a baseline for comparison with the alternative hypothesis.

Step 6: Select appropriate methods for testing the hypothesis

Choose research methods that align with your study objectives, such as experiments, surveys, or observational studies. The selected methods enable you to test your research hypothesis effectively.

Creating a research hypothesis usually takes more than one try. Expect to make changes as you collect data. It’s normal to test and say no to a few hypotheses before you find the right answer to your research question.

Testing and Evaluating Hypotheses

Testing hypotheses is a really important part of research. It’s like the practical side of things. Here, real-world evidence will help you determine how different things are connected. Let’s explore the main steps in hypothesis testing:

• State your research hypothesis.

Before testing, clearly articulate your research hypothesis. This involves framing both a null hypothesis, suggesting no significant effect or relationship, and an alternative hypothesis, proposing the expected outcome.

• Collect data strategically.

Plan how you will gather information in a way that fits your study. Make sure your data collection method matches the things you’re studying.

Whether through surveys, observations, or experiments, this step demands precision and adherence to the established methodology. The quality of data collected directly influences the credibility of study outcomes.

• Perform an appropriate statistical test.

Choose a statistical test that aligns with the nature of your data and the hypotheses being tested. Whether it’s a t-test, chi-square test, ANOVA, or regression analysis, selecting the right statistical tool is paramount for accurate and reliable results.

• Decide if your idea was right or wrong.

Following the statistical analysis, evaluate the results in the context of your null hypothesis. You need to decide if you should reject your null hypothesis or not.

• Share what you found.

When discussing what you found in your research, be clear and organized. Say whether your idea was supported or not, and talk about what your results mean. Also, mention any limits to your study and suggest ideas for future research.

The Role of QuestionPro to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

QuestionPro is a survey and research platform that provides tools for creating, distributing, and analyzing surveys. It plays a crucial role in the research process, especially when you’re in the initial stages of hypothesis development. Here’s how QuestionPro can help you to develop a good research hypothesis:

• Survey design and data collection: You can use the platform to create targeted questions that help you gather relevant data.
• Exploratory research: Through surveys and feedback mechanisms on QuestionPro, you can conduct exploratory research to understand the landscape of a particular subject.
• Literature review and background research: QuestionPro surveys can collect sample population opinions, experiences, and preferences. This data and a thorough literature evaluation can help you generate a well-grounded hypothesis by improving your research knowledge.
• Identifying variables: Using targeted survey questions, you can identify relevant variables related to their research topic.
• Testing assumptions: You can use surveys to informally test certain assumptions or hypotheses before formalizing a research hypothesis.
• Data analysis tools: QuestionPro provides tools for analyzing survey data. You can use these tools to identify the collected data’s patterns, correlations, or trends.
• Refining your hypotheses: As you collect data through QuestionPro, you can adjust your hypotheses based on the real-world responses you receive.

A research hypothesis is like a guide for researchers in science. It’s a well-thought-out idea that has been thoroughly tested. This idea is crucial as researchers can explore different fields, such as medicine, social sciences, and natural sciences. The research hypothesis links theories to real-world evidence and gives researchers a clear path to explore and make discoveries.

QuestionPro Research Suite is a helpful tool for researchers. It makes creating surveys, collecting data, and analyzing information easily. It supports all kinds of research, from exploring new ideas to forming hypotheses. With a focus on using data, it helps researchers do their best work.

Are you interested in learning more about QuestionPro Research Suite? Take advantage of QuestionPro’s free trial to get an initial look at its capabilities and realize the full potential of your research efforts.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

MORE LIKE THIS

21 Best Customer Advocacy Software for Customers in 2024

Apr 19, 2024

10 Quantitative Data Analysis Software for Every Data Scientist

Apr 18, 2024

11 Best Enterprise Feedback Management Software in 2024

17 Best Online Reputation Management Software in 2024

Apr 17, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

How to Develop a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

Table of Contents

What is Hypothesis?

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

What is a Research Hypothesis?

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

Characteristics of a Good Research Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Educational Hub

How to formulate a research hypothesis.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Define the variables

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

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

4. Scrutinize the hypothesis

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

Types of Research Hypothesis

The types of research hypothesis are stated below:

1. Simple Hypothesis

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

2. Complex Hypothesis

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

3. Directional Hypothesis

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

4. Non-directional Hypothesis

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

5. Associative and Causal Hypothesis

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

6. Null Hypothesis

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

7. Alternative Hypothesis

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

Research Hypothesis Examples of Independent and Dependent Variables

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

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

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

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

Importance of a Testable Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for your valuable guidance.

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

Useful piece!

This is awesome.Wow.

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

Nicely explained

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

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

clear and concise. thanks.

So Good so Amazing

Good to learn

Thanks a lot for explaining to my level of understanding

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

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

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Reporting Research

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

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

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

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

• Industry News

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

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

• Career Corner

Unlocking the Power of Networking in Academic Conferences

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

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

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

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

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

How to Design Effective Research Questionnaires for Robust Findings

Sign-up to read more

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

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

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

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

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?

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

Overview of the Scientific Method

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

Definition of a Hypothesis

What it is and how it's used in sociology

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

A hypothesis is a prediction of what will be found at the outcome of a research project and is typically focused on the relationship between two different variables studied in the research. It is usually based on both theoretical expectations about how things work and already existing scientific evidence.

Within social science, a hypothesis can take two forms. It can predict that there is no relationship between two variables, in which case it is a null hypothesis . Or, it can predict the existence of a relationship between variables, which is known as an alternative hypothesis.

In either case, the variable that is thought to either affect or not affect the outcome is known as the independent variable, and the variable that is thought to either be affected or not is the dependent variable.

Researchers seek to determine whether or not their hypothesis, or hypotheses if they have more than one, will prove true. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they do not. Either way, the research is considered successful if one can conclude whether or not a hypothesis is true. 

Null Hypothesis

A researcher has a null hypothesis when she or he believes, based on theory and existing scientific evidence, that there will not be a relationship between two variables. For example, when examining what factors influence a person's highest level of education within the U.S., a researcher might expect that place of birth, number of siblings, and religion would not have an impact on the level of education. This would mean the researcher has stated three null hypotheses.

Alternative Hypothesis

Taking the same example, a researcher might expect that the economic class and educational attainment of one's parents, and the race of the person in question are likely to have an effect on one's educational attainment. Existing evidence and social theories that recognize the connections between wealth and cultural resources , and how race affects access to rights and resources in the U.S. , would suggest that both economic class and educational attainment of the one's parents would have a positive effect on educational attainment. In this case, economic class and educational attainment of one's parents are independent variables, and one's educational attainment is the dependent variable—it is hypothesized to be dependent on the other two.

Conversely, an informed researcher would expect that being a race other than white in the U.S. is likely to have a negative impact on a person's educational attainment. This would be characterized as a negative relationship, wherein being a person of color has a negative effect on one's educational attainment. In reality, this hypothesis proves true, with the exception of Asian Americans , who go to college at a higher rate than whites do. However, Blacks and Hispanics and Latinos are far less likely than whites and Asian Americans to go to college.

Formulating a Hypothesis

Formulating a hypothesis can take place at the very beginning of a research project , or after a bit of research has already been done. Sometimes a researcher knows right from the start which variables she is interested in studying, and she may already have a hunch about their relationships. Other times, a researcher may have an interest in ​a particular topic, trend, or phenomenon, but he may not know enough about it to identify variables or formulate a hypothesis.

Whenever a hypothesis is formulated, the most important thing is to be precise about what one's variables are, what the nature of the relationship between them might be, and how one can go about conducting a study of them.

Updated by Nicki Lisa Cole, Ph.D

• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• Understanding Path Analysis
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• What It Means When a Variable Is Spurious
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• How Intervening Variables Work in Sociology
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Structural Equation Modeling
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Lambda and Gamma as Defined in Sociology

How to write a research hypothesis

Last updated

19 January 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

Start with a broad subject matter that excites you, so your curiosity will motivate your work. Conduct a literature search to determine the range of questions already addressed and spot any holes in the existing research.

Narrow the topics that interest you and determine your research question. Rather than focusing on a hole in the research, you might choose to challenge an existing assumption, a process called problematization. You may also find yourself with a short list of questions or related topics.

Use the FINER method to determine the single problem you'll address with your research. FINER stands for:

I nteresting

You need a feasible research question, meaning that there is a way to address the question. You should find it interesting, but so should a larger audience. Rather than repeating research that others have already conducted, your research hypothesis should test something novel or unique. 

The research must fall into accepted ethical parameters as defined by the government of your country and your university or college if you're an academic. You'll also need to come up with a relevant question since your research should provide a contribution to the existing research area.

This process typically narrows your shortlist down to a single problem you'd like to study and the variable you want to test. You're ready to write your hypothesis statements.

Make research less tedious

Dovetail streamlines research to help you uncover and share actionable insights

• Types of research hypotheses

It is important to narrow your topic down to one idea before trying to write your research hypothesis. You'll only test one problem at a time. To do this, you'll write two hypotheses – a null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha).

You'll come across many terms related to developing a research hypothesis or referring to a specific type of hypothesis. Let's take a quick look at these terms.

Null hypothesis

The term null hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis type that assumes no statistically significant relationship exists within a set of observations or data. It represents a claim that assumes that any observed relationship is due to chance. Represented as H0, the null represents the conjecture of the research.

Alternative hypothesis

The alternative hypothesis accompanies the null hypothesis. It states that the situation presented in the null hypothesis is false or untrue, and claims an observed effect in your test. This is typically denoted by Ha or H(n), where “n” stands for the number of alternative hypotheses. You can have more than one alternative hypothesis. 

Simple hypothesis

The term simple hypothesis refers to a hypothesis or theory that predicts the relationship between two variables - the independent (predictor) and the dependent (predicted). 

Complex hypothesis

The term complex hypothesis refers to a model – either quantitative (mathematical) or qualitative . A complex hypothesis states the surmised relationship between two or more potentially related variables.

Directional hypothesis

When creating a statistical hypothesis, the directional hypothesis (the null hypothesis) states an assumption regarding one parameter of a population. Some academics call this the “one-sided” hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis indicates whether the researcher tests for a positive or negative effect by including either the greater than (">") or less than ("<") sign.

Non-directional hypothesis

We refer to the alternative hypothesis in a statistical research question as a non-directional hypothesis. It includes the not equal ("≠") sign to show that the research tests whether or not an effect exists without specifying the effect's direction (positive or negative).

Associative hypothesis

The term associative hypothesis assumes a link between two variables but stops short of stating that one variable impacts the other. Academic statistical literature asserts in this sense that correlation does not imply causation. So, although the hypothesis notes the correlation between two variables – the independent and dependent - it does not predict how the two interact.

Logical hypothesis

Typically used in philosophy rather than science, researchers can't test a logical hypothesis because the technology or data set doesn't yet exist. A logical hypothesis uses logic as the basis of its assumptions. 

In some cases, a logical hypothesis can become an empirical hypothesis once technology provides an opportunity for testing. Until that time, the question remains too expensive or complex to address. Note that a logical hypothesis is not a statistical hypothesis.

Empirical hypothesis

When we consider the opposite of a logical hypothesis, we call this an empirical or working hypothesis. This type of hypothesis considers a scientifically measurable question. A researcher can consider and test an empirical hypothesis through replicable tests, observations, and measurements.

Statistical hypothesis

The term statistical hypothesis refers to a test of a theory that uses representative statistical models to test relationships between variables to draw conclusions regarding a large population. This requires an existing large data set, commonly referred to as big data, or implementing a survey to obtain original statistical information to form a data set for the study. 

Testing this type of hypothesis requires the use of random samples. Note that the null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing.

Causal hypothesis

The term causal hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis that tests a cause-and-effect relationship. A causal hypothesis is utilized when conducting experimental or quasi-experimental research.

Descriptive hypothesis

The term descriptive hypothesis refers to a research hypothesis used in non-experimental research, specifying an influence in the relationship between two variables.

• What makes an effective research hypothesis?

An effective research hypothesis offers a clearly defined, specific statement, using simple wording that contains no assumptions or generalizations, and that you can test. A well-written hypothesis should predict the tested relationship and its outcome. It contains zero ambiguity and offers results you can observe and test. 

The research hypothesis should address a question relevant to a research area. Overall, your research hypothesis needs the following essentials:

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

• How to develop a good research hypothesis

In developing your hypothesis statements, you must pre-plan some of your statistical analysis. Once you decide on your problem to examine, determine three aspects:

the parameter you'll test

the test's direction (left-tailed, right-tailed, or non-directional)

the hypothesized parameter value

Any quantitative research includes a hypothesized parameter value of a mean, a proportion, or the difference between two proportions. Here's how to note each parameter:

Single mean (μ)

Paired means (μd)

Single proportion (p)

Difference between two independent means (μ1−μ2)

Difference between two proportions (p1−p2)

Simple linear regression slope (β)

Correlation (ρ)

Defining these parameters and determining whether you want to test the mean, proportion, or differences helps you determine the statistical tests you'll conduct to analyze your data. When writing your hypothesis, you only need to decide which parameter to test and in what overarching way.

The null research hypothesis must include everyday language, in a single sentence, stating the problem you want to solve. Write it as an if-then statement with defined variables. Write an alternative research hypothesis that states the opposite.

• What is the correct format for writing a hypothesis?

The following example shows the proper format and textual content of a hypothesis. It follows commonly accepted academic standards.

Null hypothesis (H0): High school students who participate in varsity sports as opposed to those who do not, fail to score higher on leadership tests than students who do not participate.

Alternative hypothesis (H1): High school students who play a varsity sport as opposed to those who do not participate in team athletics will score higher on leadership tests than students who do not participate in athletics.

The research question tests the correlation between varsity sports participation and leadership qualities expressed as a score on leadership tests. It compares the population of athletes to non-athletes.

• What are the five steps of a hypothesis?

Once you decide on the specific problem or question you want to address, you can write your research hypothesis. Use this five-step system to hone your null hypothesis and generate your alternative hypothesis.

Step 1 : Create your research question. This topic should interest and excite you; answering it provides relevant information to an industry or academic area.

Step 2 : Conduct a literature review to gather essential existing research.

Step 3 : Write a clear, strong, simply worded sentence that explains your test parameter, test direction, and hypothesized parameter.

Step 4 : Read it a few times. Have others read it and ask them what they think it means. Refine your statement accordingly until it becomes understandable to everyone. While not everyone can or will comprehend every research study conducted, any person from the general population should be able to read your hypothesis and alternative hypothesis and understand the essential question you want to answer.

Step 5 : Re-write your null hypothesis until it reads simply and understandably. Write your alternative hypothesis.

What is the Red Queen hypothesis?

Some hypotheses are well-known, such as the Red Queen hypothesis. Choose your wording carefully, since you could become like the famed scientist Dr. Leigh Van Valen. In 1973, Dr. Van Valen proposed the Red Queen hypothesis to describe coevolutionary activity, specifically reciprocal evolutionary effects between species to explain extinction rates in the fossil record. 

Essentially, Van Valen theorized that to survive, each species remains in a constant state of adaptation, evolution, and proliferation, and constantly competes for survival alongside other species doing the same. Only by doing this can a species avoid extinction. Van Valen took the hypothesis title from the Lewis Carroll book, "Through the Looking Glass," which contains a key character named the Red Queen who explains to Alice that for all of her running, she's merely running in place.

• Getting started with your research

In conclusion, once you write your null hypothesis (H0) and an alternative hypothesis (Ha), you’ve essentially authored the elevator pitch of your research. These two one-sentence statements describe your topic in simple, understandable terms that both professionals and laymen can understand. They provide the starting point of your research project.

Get started today

Go from raw data to valuable insights with a flexible research platform

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 21 December 2023

Last updated: 16 December 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 15 February 2024

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Last updated: 20 December 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

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 © 2022 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

2.4 Developing a Hypothesis

Learning objectives.

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

Theories and Hypotheses

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

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

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

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

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

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the  number  of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how  easily  they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method  (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As  Figure 2.2  shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

Figure 2.2 Hypothetico-Deductive Method Combined With the General Model of Scientific Research in Psychology Together they form a model of theoretically motivated research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

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

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

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

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

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202. ↵
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92. ↵
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168. ↵

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Crit Care Med
• v.23(Suppl 3); 2019 Sep

An Introduction to Statistics: Understanding Hypothesis Testing and Statistical Errors

Priya ranganathan.

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

2 Department of Surgical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

The second article in this series on biostatistics covers the concepts of sample, population, research hypotheses and statistical errors.

How to cite this article

Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS. An Introduction to Statistics: Understanding Hypothesis Testing and Statistical Errors. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(Suppl 3):S230–S231.

Two papers quoted in this issue of the Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine report. The results of studies aim to prove that a new intervention is better than (superior to) an existing treatment. In the ABLE study, the investigators wanted to show that transfusion of fresh red blood cells would be superior to standard-issue red cells in reducing 90-day mortality in ICU patients. 1 The PROPPR study was designed to prove that transfusion of a lower ratio of plasma and platelets to red cells would be superior to a higher ratio in decreasing 24-hour and 30-day mortality in critically ill patients. 2 These studies are known as superiority studies (as opposed to noninferiority or equivalence studies which will be discussed in a subsequent article).

SAMPLE VERSUS POPULATION

A sample represents a group of participants selected from the entire population. Since studies cannot be carried out on entire populations, researchers choose samples, which are representative of the population. This is similar to walking into a grocery store and examining a few grains of rice or wheat before purchasing an entire bag; we assume that the few grains that we select (the sample) are representative of the entire sack of grains (the population).

The results of the study are then extrapolated to generate inferences about the population. We do this using a process known as hypothesis testing. This means that the results of the study may not always be identical to the results we would expect to find in the population; i.e., there is the possibility that the study results may be erroneous.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

A clinical trial begins with an assumption or belief, and then proceeds to either prove or disprove this assumption. In statistical terms, this belief or assumption is known as a hypothesis. Counterintuitively, what the researcher believes in (or is trying to prove) is called the “alternate” hypothesis, and the opposite is called the “null” hypothesis; every study has a null hypothesis and an alternate hypothesis. For superiority studies, the alternate hypothesis states that one treatment (usually the new or experimental treatment) is superior to the other; the null hypothesis states that there is no difference between the treatments (the treatments are equal). For example, in the ABLE study, we start by stating the null hypothesis—there is no difference in mortality between groups receiving fresh RBCs and standard-issue RBCs. We then state the alternate hypothesis—There is a difference between groups receiving fresh RBCs and standard-issue RBCs. It is important to note that we have stated that the groups are different, without specifying which group will be better than the other. This is known as a two-tailed hypothesis and it allows us to test for superiority on either side (using a two-sided test). This is because, when we start a study, we are not 100% certain that the new treatment can only be better than the standard treatment—it could be worse, and if it is so, the study should pick it up as well. One tailed hypothesis and one-sided statistical testing is done for non-inferiority studies, which will be discussed in a subsequent paper in this series.

STATISTICAL ERRORS

There are two possibilities to consider when interpreting the results of a superiority study. The first possibility is that there is truly no difference between the treatments but the study finds that they are different. This is called a Type-1 error or false-positive error or alpha error. This means falsely rejecting the null hypothesis.

The second possibility is that there is a difference between the treatments and the study does not pick up this difference. This is called a Type 2 error or false-negative error or beta error. This means falsely accepting the null hypothesis.

The power of the study is the ability to detect a difference between groups and is the converse of the beta error; i.e., power = 1-beta error. Alpha and beta errors are finalized when the protocol is written and form the basis for sample size calculation for the study. In an ideal world, we would not like any error in the results of our study; however, we would need to do the study in the entire population (infinite sample size) to be able to get a 0% alpha and beta error. These two errors enable us to do studies with realistic sample sizes, with the compromise that there is a small possibility that the results may not always reflect the truth. The basis for this will be discussed in a subsequent paper in this series dealing with sample size calculation.

Conventionally, type 1 or alpha error is set at 5%. This means, that at the end of the study, if there is a difference between groups, we want to be 95% certain that this is a true difference and allow only a 5% probability that this difference has occurred by chance (false positive). Type 2 or beta error is usually set between 10% and 20%; therefore, the power of the study is 90% or 80%. This means that if there is a difference between groups, we want to be 80% (or 90%) certain that the study will detect that difference. For example, in the ABLE study, sample size was calculated with a type 1 error of 5% (two-sided) and power of 90% (type 2 error of 10%) (1).

Table 1 gives a summary of the two types of statistical errors with an example

Statistical errors

In the next article in this series, we will look at the meaning and interpretation of ‘ p ’ value and confidence intervals for hypothesis testing.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None