- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
- When did science begin?
- Where was science invented?
scientific hypothesis
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - On the scope of scientific hypotheses
- LiveScience - What is a scientific hypothesis?
- The Royal Society - Open Science - On the scope of scientific hypotheses
scientific hypothesis , an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper .
The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method , the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition , or experience. Therefore, although scientific hypotheses commonly are described as educated guesses, they actually are more informed than a guess. In addition, scientists generally strive to develop simple hypotheses, since these are easier to test relative to hypotheses that involve many different variables and potential outcomes. Such complex hypotheses may be developed as scientific models ( see scientific modeling ).
Depending on the results of scientific evaluation, a hypothesis typically is either rejected as false or accepted as true. However, because a hypothesis inherently is falsifiable, even hypotheses supported by scientific evidence and accepted as true are susceptible to rejection later, when new evidence has become available. In some instances, rather than rejecting a hypothesis because it has been falsified by new evidence, scientists simply adapt the existing idea to accommodate the new information. In this sense a hypothesis is never incorrect but only incomplete.
The investigation of scientific hypotheses is an important component in the development of scientific theory . Hence, hypotheses differ fundamentally from theories; whereas the former is a specific tentative explanation and serves as the main tool by which scientists gather data, the latter is a broad general explanation that incorporates data from many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses.
Countless hypotheses have been developed and tested throughout the history of science . Several examples include the idea that living organisms develop from nonliving matter, which formed the basis of spontaneous generation , a hypothesis that ultimately was disproved (first in 1668, with the experiments of Italian physician Francesco Redi , and later in 1859, with the experiments of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur ); the concept proposed in the late 19th century that microorganisms cause certain diseases (now known as germ theory ); and the notion that oceanic crust forms along submarine mountain zones and spreads laterally away from them ( seafloor spreading hypothesis ).
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
How to Write a Great Hypothesis
Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips
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."
Have a language expert improve your writing
Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.
- Knowledge Base
Methodology
- How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples
Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .
Example: Hypothesis
Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.
Table of contents
What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.
A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).
Variables in hypotheses
Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .
- An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
- A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.
If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias will affect your results.
In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .
Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services
Discover proofreading & editing
Step 1. Ask a question
Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.
Step 2. Do some preliminary research
Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.
At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.
Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis
Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.
4. Refine your hypothesis
You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:
- The relevant variables
- The specific group being studied
- The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis
5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways
To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.
In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.
If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.
6. Write a null hypothesis
If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .
- H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
- H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.
Research question | Hypothesis | Null hypothesis |
---|---|---|
What are the health benefits of eating an apple a day? | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will result in decreasing frequency of doctor’s visits. | Increasing apple consumption in over-60s will have no effect on frequency of doctor’s visits. |
Which airlines have the most delays? | Low-cost airlines are more likely to have delays than premium airlines. | Low-cost and premium airlines are equally likely to have delays. |
Can flexible work arrangements improve job satisfaction? | Employees who have flexible working hours will report greater job satisfaction than employees who work fixed hours. | There is no relationship between working hour flexibility and job satisfaction. |
How effective is high school sex education at reducing teen pregnancies? | Teenagers who received sex education lessons throughout high school will have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy teenagers who did not receive any sex education. | High school sex education has no effect on teen pregnancy rates. |
What effect does daily use of social media have on the attention span of under-16s? | There is a negative between time spent on social media and attention span in under-16s. | There is no relationship between social media use and attention span in under-16s. |
If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.
- Sampling methods
- Simple random sampling
- Stratified sampling
- Cluster sampling
- Likert scales
- Reproducibility
Statistics
- Null hypothesis
- Statistical power
- Probability distribution
- Effect size
- Poisson distribution
Research bias
- Optimism bias
- Cognitive bias
- Implicit bias
- Hawthorne effect
- Anchoring bias
- Explicit bias
A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).
Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.
Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.
Cite this Scribbr article
If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.
McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 26, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/
Is this article helpful?
Shona McCombes
Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, what is your plagiarism score.
What Is A Research Hypothesis?
A Plain-Language Explainer + Practical Examples
Research Hypothesis 101
- What is a hypothesis ?
- What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
- Requirements for a research hypothesis
- Definition of a research hypothesis
- The null hypothesis
What is a hypothesis?
Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:
Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.
In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:
Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.
This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.
But that’s not good enough…
Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .
What is a research hypothesis?
A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .
Let’s take a look at these more closely.
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:
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.
Learn More About Methodology
Triangulation: The Ultimate Credibility Enhancer
Triangulation is one of the best ways to enhance the credibility of your research. Learn about the different options here.
Research Limitations 101: What You Need To Know
Learn everything you need to know about research limitations (AKA limitations of the study). Includes practical examples from real studies.
In Vivo Coding 101: Full Explainer With Examples
Learn about in vivo coding, a popular qualitative coding technique ideal for studies where the nuances of language are central to the aims.
Process Coding 101: Full Explainer With Examples
Learn about process coding, a popular qualitative coding technique ideal for studies exploring processes, actions and changes over time.
Qualitative Coding 101: Inductive, Deductive & Hybrid Coding
Inductive, Deductive & Abductive Coding Qualitative Coding Approaches Explained...
📄 FREE TEMPLATES
Research Topic Ideation
Proposal Writing
Literature Review
Methodology & Analysis
Academic Writing
Referencing & Citing
Apps, Tools & Tricks
The Grad Coach Podcast
17 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
Hi” best wishes to you and your very nice blog”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…
Submit a Comment Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Submit Comment
- Print Friendly
- Privacy Policy
Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide
What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide
Table of Contents
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
Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...
Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples
Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...
Data Interpretation – Process, Methods and...
Research Project – Definition, Writing Guide and...
Data Analysis – Process, Methods and Types
What is a scientific hypothesis?
It's the initial building block in the scientific method.
Hypothesis basics
What makes a hypothesis testable.
- Types of hypotheses
- Hypothesis versus theory
Additional resources
Bibliography.
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research.
The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).
A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .
Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:
- If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
- If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
- If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.
A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."
An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.
Types of scientific hypotheses
In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .
For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."
If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (BCcampus, 2015).
There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.
Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley .
A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.
Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis
The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.
"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
- Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
- Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
- Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .
Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis
Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.
California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm
Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.
Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.
University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf
William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/
University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf
University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19
Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now
Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.
Experts predicted way more hurricanes this year — here's the weird reason we're 'missing' storms
Deep below the Arctic Ocean, some plants have adapted to photosynthesize in almost near darkness
Watch extremely rare footage of a bigfin squid 'walking' on long, spindly arms deep in the South Pacific
Most Popular
- 2 'The secret to living to 110 was, don't register your death': Ig Nobel winner Saul Justin Newman on the flawed data on extreme aging
- 3 New self-swab HPV test is an alternative to Pap smears. Here's how it works.
- 4 Nuking an asteroid could save Earth from destruction, researchers show in 1st-of-its-kind X-ray experiment
- 5 Experts predicted way more hurricanes this year — here's the weird reason we're 'missing' storms
- Research Process
- Manuscript Preparation
- Manuscript Review
- Publication Process
- Publication Recognition
- Language Editing Services
- Translation Services
Step-by-Step Guide: How to Craft a Strong Research Hypothesis
- 4 minute read
- 384.5K views
Table of Contents
A research hypothesis is a concise statement about the expected result of an experiment or project. In many ways, a research hypothesis represents the starting point for a scientific endeavor, as it establishes a tentative assumption that is eventually substantiated or falsified, ultimately improving our certainty about the subject investigated.
To help you with this and ease the process, in this article, we discuss the purpose of research hypotheses and list the most essential qualities of a compelling hypothesis. Let’s find out!
How to Craft a Research Hypothesis
Crafting a research hypothesis begins with a comprehensive literature review to identify a knowledge gap in your field. Once you find a question or problem, come up with a possible answer or explanation, which becomes your hypothesis. Now think about the specific methods of experimentation that can prove or disprove the hypothesis, which ultimately lead to the results of the study.
Enlisted below are some standard formats in which you can formulate a hypothesis¹ :
- A hypothesis can use the if/then format when it seeks to explore the correlation between two variables in a study primarily.
Example: If administered drug X, then patients will experience reduced fatigue from cancer treatment.
- A hypothesis can adopt when X/then Y format when it primarily aims to expose a connection between two variables
Example: When workers spend a significant portion of their waking hours in sedentary work , then they experience a greater frequency of digestive problems.
- A hypothesis can also take the form of a direct statement.
Example: Drug X and drug Y reduce the risk of cognitive decline through the same chemical pathways
What are the Features of an Effective Hypothesis?
Hypotheses in research need to satisfy specific criteria to be considered scientifically rigorous. Here are the most notable qualities of a strong hypothesis:
- Testability: Ensure the hypothesis allows you to work towards observable and testable results.
- Brevity and objectivity: Present your hypothesis as a brief statement and avoid wordiness.
- Clarity and Relevance: The hypothesis should reflect a clear idea of what we know and what we expect to find out about a phenomenon and address the significant knowledge gap relevant to a field of study.
Understanding Null and Alternative Hypotheses in Research
There are two types of hypotheses used commonly in research that aid statistical analyses. These are known as the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis . A null hypothesis is a statement assumed to be factual in the initial phase of the study.
For example, if a researcher is testing the efficacy of a new drug, then the null hypothesis will posit that the drug has no benefits compared to an inactive control or placebo . Suppose the data collected through a drug trial leads a researcher to reject the null hypothesis. In that case, it is considered to substantiate the alternative hypothesis in the above example, that the new drug provides benefits compared to the placebo.
Let’s take a closer look at the null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis with two more examples:
Null Hypothesis:
The rate of decline in the number of species in habitat X in the last year is the same as in the last 100 years when controlled for all factors except the recent wildfires.
In the next experiment, the researcher will experimentally reject this null hypothesis in order to confirm the following alternative hypothesis :
The rate of decline in the number of species in habitat X in the last year is different from the rate of decline in the last 100 years when controlled for all factors other than the recent wildfires.
In the pair of null and alternative hypotheses stated above, a statistical comparison of the rate of species decline over a century and the preceding year will help the research experimentally test the null hypothesis, helping to draw scientifically valid conclusions about two factors—wildfires and species decline.
We also recommend that researchers pay attention to contextual echoes and connections when writing research hypotheses. Research hypotheses are often closely linked to the introduction ² , such as the context of the study, and can similarly influence the reader’s judgment of the relevance and validity of the research hypothesis.
Seasoned experts, such as professionals at Elsevier Language Services, guide authors on how to best embed a hypothesis within an article so that it communicates relevance and credibility. Contact us if you want help in ensuring readers find your hypothesis robust and unbiased.
References
- Hypotheses – The University Writing Center. (n.d.). https://writingcenter.tamu.edu/writing-speaking-guides/hypotheses
- Shaping the research question and hypothesis. (n.d.). Students. https://students.unimelb.edu.au/academic-skills/graduate-research-services/writing-thesis-sections-part-2/shaping-the-research-question-and-hypothesis
Systematic Literature Review or Literature Review?
How to Write an Effective Problem Statement for Your Research Paper
You may also like.
Submission 101: What format should be used for academic papers?
Page-Turner Articles are More Than Just Good Arguments: Be Mindful of Tone and Structure!
A Must-see for Researchers! How to Ensure Inclusivity in Your Scientific Writing
Make Hook, Line, and Sinker: The Art of Crafting Engaging Introductions
Can Describing Study Limitations Improve the Quality of Your Paper?
A Guide to Crafting Shorter, Impactful Sentences in Academic Writing
6 Steps to Write an Excellent Discussion in Your Manuscript
How to Write Clear and Crisp Civil Engineering Papers? Here are 5 Key Tips to Consider
Input your search keywords and press Enter.
- 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)
- Thesis Action Plan New
- Academic Project Planner
Literature Navigator
Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.
- See Success Stories
- Access Free Resources
- Why we are different
- All Products
- Coming Soon
What Makes a Good Hypothesis? Key Elements and Examples
A well-crafted hypothesis is the cornerstone of effective scientific research. It serves as a tentative explanation or prediction that guides the direction of study and experimental design. Understanding what makes a good hypothesis is essential for students, researchers, and anyone involved in scientific inquiry. This article delves into the key elements of a good hypothesis, its types, formulation steps, common pitfalls, and examples across various fields.
Key Takeaways
- A good hypothesis should be clear, precise, and testable, providing a focused direction for research.
- Distinguishing between a hypothesis and a research question is crucial for proper scientific investigation.
- Testability and falsifiability are fundamental characteristics of a robust hypothesis, ensuring it can be empirically examined.
- Formulating a hypothesis involves identifying variables, crafting if-then statements, and ensuring specificity and measurability.
- Avoiding common pitfalls such as ambiguity, overly broad statements, and double-barreled hypotheses enhances the quality and reliability of research.
Defining a Hypothesis: The Foundation of Scientific Inquiry
A hypothesis is a tentative, declarative statement about the relationship between two or more variables that can be observed empirically. It serves as a scientific guess about these relationships, grounded in intuition, theories, or relevant facts from previous observations, research, or experience. Hypotheses offer explanations for certain phenomena and guide the collection and analysis of research data. Implicit in hypothesis formulation is the notion that these statements must be tested, guiding the discovery of new knowledge.
Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
A well-crafted hypothesis is essential for any scientific inquiry. It serves as a foundation for your research and guides your experimental design. Here are the key characteristics that define a good hypothesis:
Types of Hypotheses in Research
Understanding the different types of hypotheses is crucial for targeted research . Each type serves a unique purpose and is formulated based on the specific research question at hand.
Steps to Formulate a Strong Hypothesis
Formulating a strong hypothesis is a critical step in the research process. It involves several key stages that ensure your hypothesis is clear, testable, and grounded in existing knowledge. Here are the essential steps to follow:
Identifying Variables and Relationships
Begin by identifying the key variables in your study. These include the independent variable, which you will manipulate, and the dependent variable, which you will measure. Understanding the relationship between these variables is crucial. Research always starts with a question , but one that takes into account what is already known.
Crafting If-Then Statements
A well-formulated hypothesis often takes the form of an if-then statement. This structure clearly defines the expected relationship between the variables. For example, "If the amount of sunlight increases, then the growth rate of the plant will increase." This format helps in making your hypothesis specific and testable.
Ensuring Measurability and Specificity
Your hypothesis should be specific enough to be measurable. Avoid vague terms and ensure that the variables can be quantified. This specificity enhances the testability of your hypothesis, making it easier to design experiments and analyze data. Clear, testable, and grounded hypotheses enhance research credibility and reliability.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid When Writing Hypotheses
Avoiding ambiguity and vagueness.
A hypothesis should be clear and specific. Ambiguity can lead to confusion and misinterpretation, which can undermine the entire research process. Ensure your hypothesis is straightforward and leaves no room for multiple interpretations. This clarity is crucial for demystifying research and understanding the difference between a problem and a hypothesis .
Steering Clear of Double-Barreled Hypotheses
A double-barreled hypothesis addresses two issues simultaneously, which can complicate the testing process. Instead, focus on one relationship or variable at a time. This approach not only simplifies your research but also enhances the precision of your findings.
Ensuring Hypotheses are Not Overly Broad
An overly broad hypothesis can be difficult to test and may lack the specificity needed for meaningful results. Narrow down your hypothesis to a manageable scope. This focus is essential for effective study design and impactful contributions to knowledge. By doing so, you can better apply key stats in experimental research, emphasizing hypothesis testing, significance, and practical implications in drawing conclusions from data .
Examples of Effective Hypotheses
Hypotheses in natural sciences.
In the natural sciences, hypotheses often predict relationships between variables in a clear and testable manner. For instance, a hypothesis might state, " Plants grow better with bottled water than tap water ." This hypothesis is specific and can be tested through controlled experiments, making it a strong example of an effective hypothesis.
Hypotheses in Social Sciences
Social science hypotheses frequently address human behavior and societal trends. An example could be, "Reducing prices will make customers happy." This hypothesis is grounded in existing knowledge about consumer behavior and can be tested through surveys or market analysis.
Hypotheses in Applied Research
Applied research hypotheses are designed to solve practical problems. For example, "Fixing the hard-to-use comment form will increase user engagement" is a hypothesis that is both relevant and specific to a particular issue. It can be tested by implementing changes and observing the outcomes, ensuring that the hypothesis is both observable and testable.
Testing and Refining Hypotheses
Designing experiments to test hypotheses.
To effectively test your hypothesis, you must design a robust experiment. This involves identifying the independent and dependent variables and ensuring that you have control over the independent variable. A well-designed experiment will allow you to isolate the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, thereby providing clear insights into the validity of your hypothesis. Remember, the essential function of the hypothesis in scientific inquiry is to guide the collection of research data and the subsequent discovery of new knowledge.
Analyzing Data and Drawing Conclusions
Once your experiment is complete, the next step is to analyze the collected data. This involves statistical analysis to determine whether the results support or refute your hypothesis. Pay close attention to statistical significance and p-values , as these will help you understand the reliability of your findings. If your data contradicts your hypothesis, consider revisiting your research design and evaluating alternative explanations.
Revising Hypotheses Based on Findings
Scientific inquiry is an iterative process. If your initial hypothesis is not supported by the data, don't be discouraged. Instead, refine your hypothesis based on the new insights gained from your experiment. This may involve adjusting your variables, refining your research question, or implementing additional controls. By continuously refining your hypothesis, you contribute to the advancement of knowledge and improve the robustness of your research.
Testing and refining hypotheses is a crucial step in any research journey. It allows you to validate your ideas and ensure that your thesis stands on solid ground. If you're struggling with this process, our step-by-step Thesis Action Plan can guide you through each stage, making it easier and more manageable. Don't let uncertainty hold you back. Visit our website to learn more and claim your special offer now !
In conclusion, a well-crafted hypothesis is the cornerstone of any scientific inquiry. It serves as a guiding framework that directs the research process, ensuring that the study remains focused and relevant. The key elements of a good hypothesis include clarity, testability, and a clear cause-and-effect relationship. By adhering to these principles, researchers can formulate hypotheses that are not only robust but also capable of withstanding rigorous scientific scrutiny. As demonstrated through various examples, a good hypothesis not only predicts an outcome but also provides a clear pathway for testing and validation. Therefore, mastering the art of hypothesis formulation is essential for any researcher aiming to contribute meaningful and impactful findings to their field.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a hypothesis in scientific research.
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon, serving as a starting point for further investigation. It is a statement that can be tested through experiments and observations.
How does a hypothesis differ from a research question?
A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in your study. A research question, on the other hand, is a broad question that guides your research but does not predict the outcome.
What are the key characteristics of a good hypothesis?
A good hypothesis should be clear and precise, testable and falsifiable, and grounded in existing knowledge. It should also include variables that can be measured and analyzed.
What are null and alternative hypotheses?
The null hypothesis states that there is no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states that there is an effect or a relationship. These hypotheses are tested to determine which one is supported by the data.
Why is it important for a hypothesis to be testable and falsifiable?
A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable to allow for empirical investigation. This means that it should be possible to design an experiment that can either support or refute the hypothesis.
Can you provide an example of a good hypothesis in social sciences?
Sure! An example of a good hypothesis in social sciences could be: "If students participate in group study sessions, then their academic performance will improve compared to those who study alone." This hypothesis is specific, testable, and based on existing knowledge.
Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: A Fun and Informative Guide
Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'
Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review
The Thesis Survival Kit: Essential Tools and Resources for a Successful Journey
Looking for a Thesis Proposal Example? Here’s the Best Format to Follow
How to Research for Your Thesis Paper Without Feeling Overwhelmed
Thesis Action Plan
- Rebels Blog
- Blog Articles
- Affiliate Program
- Terms and Conditions
- Payment and Shipping Terms
- Privacy Policy
- Return Policy
© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.
Your cart is currently empty.
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
The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
- R Soc Open Sci
- v.10(8); 2023 Aug
- PMC10465209
On the scope of scientific hypotheses
William hedley thompson.
1 Department of Applied Information Technology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
2 Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
3 Department of Pedagogical, Curricular and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
4 Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Associated Data
This article has no additional data.
Hypotheses are frequently the starting point when undertaking the empirical portion of the scientific process. They state something that the scientific process will attempt to evaluate, corroborate, verify or falsify. Their purpose is to guide the types of data we collect, analyses we conduct, and inferences we would like to make. Over the last decade, metascience has advocated for hypotheses being in preregistrations or registered reports, but how to formulate these hypotheses has received less attention. Here, we argue that hypotheses can vary in specificity along at least three independent dimensions: the relationship, the variables, and the pipeline. Together, these dimensions form the scope of the hypothesis. We demonstrate how narrowing the scope of a hypothesis in any of these three ways reduces the hypothesis space and that this reduction is a type of novelty. Finally, we discuss how this formulation of hypotheses can guide researchers to formulate the appropriate scope for their hypotheses and should aim for neither too broad nor too narrow a scope. This framework can guide hypothesis-makers when formulating their hypotheses by helping clarify what is being tested, chaining results to previous known findings, and demarcating what is explicitly tested in the hypothesis.
1. Introduction
Hypotheses are an important part of the scientific process. However, surprisingly little attention is given to hypothesis-making compared to other skills in the scientist's skillset within current discussions aimed at improving scientific practice. Perhaps this lack of emphasis is because the formulation of the hypothesis is often considered less relevant, as it is ultimately the scientific process that will eventually decide the veracity of the hypothesis. However, there are more hypotheses than scientific studies as selection occurs at various stages: from funder selection and researcher's interests. So which hypotheses are worthwhile to pursue? Which hypotheses are the most effective or pragmatic for extending or enhancing our collective knowledge? We consider the answer to these questions by discussing how broad or narrow a hypothesis can or should be (i.e. its scope).
We begin by considering that the two statements below are both hypotheses and vary in scope:
- H 1 : For every 1 mg decrease of x , y will increase by, on average, 2.5 points.
- H 2 : Changes in x 1 or x 2 correlate with y levels in some way.
Clearly, the specificity of the two hypotheses is very different. H 1 states a precise relationship between two variables ( x and y ), while H 2 specifies a vaguer relationship and does not specify which variables will show the relationship. However, they are both still hypotheses about how x and y relate to each other. This claim of various degrees of the broadness of hypotheses is, in and of itself, not novel. In Epistemetrics, Rescher [ 1 ], while drawing upon the physicist Duhem's work, develops what he calls Duhem's Law. This law considers a trade-off between certainty or precision in statements about physics when evaluating them. Duhem's Law states that narrower hypotheses, such as H 1 above, are more precise but less likely to be evaluated as true than broader ones, such as H 2 above. Similarly, Popper, when discussing theories, describes the reverse relationship between content and probability of a theory being true, i.e. with increased content, there is a decrease in probability and vice versa [ 2 ]. Here we will argue that it is important that both H 1 and H 2 are still valid scientific hypotheses, and their appropriateness depends on certain scientific questions.
The question of hypothesis scope is relevant since there are multiple recent prescriptions to improve science, ranging from topics about preregistrations [ 3 ], registered reports [ 4 ], open science [ 5 ], standardization [ 6 ], generalizability [ 7 ], multiverse analyses [ 8 ], dataset reuse [ 9 ] and general questionable research practices [ 10 ]. Within each of these issues, there are arguments to demarcate between confirmatory and exploratory research or normative prescriptions about how science should be done (e.g. science is ‘bad’ or ‘worse’ if code/data are not open). Despite all these discussions and improvements, much can still be done to improve hypothesis-making. A recent evaluation of preregistered studies in psychology found that over half excluded the preregistered hypotheses [ 11 ]. Further, evaluations of hypotheses in ecology showed that most hypotheses are not explicitly stated [ 12 , 13 ]. Other research has shown that obfuscated hypotheses are more prevalent in retracted research [ 14 ]. There have been recommendations for simpler hypotheses in psychology to avoid misinterpretations and misspecifications [ 15 ]. Finally, several evaluations of preregistration practices have found that a significant proportion of articles do not abide by their stated hypothesis or add additional hypotheses [ 11 , 16 – 18 ]. In sum, while multiple efforts exist to improve scientific practice, our hypothesis-making could improve.
One of our intentions is to provide hypothesis-makers with tools to assist them when making hypotheses. We consider this useful and timely as, with preregistrations becoming more frequent, the hypothesis-making process is now open and explicit . However, preregistrations are difficult to write [ 19 ], and preregistered articles can change or omit hypotheses [ 11 ] or they are vague and certain degrees of freedom hard to control for [ 16 – 18 ]. One suggestion has been to do less confirmatory research [ 7 , 20 ]. While we agree that all research does not need to be confirmatory, we also believe that not all preregistrations of confirmatory work must test narrow hypotheses. We think there is a possible point of confusion that the specificity in preregistrations, where researcher degrees of freedom should be stated, necessitates the requirement that the hypothesis be narrow. Our belief that this confusion is occurring is supported by the study Akker et al . [ 11 ] where they found that 18% of published psychology studies changed their preregistered hypothesis (e.g. its direction), and 60% of studies selectively reported hypotheses in some way. It is along these lines that we feel the framework below can be useful to help formulate appropriate hypotheses to mitigate these identified issues.
We consider this article to be a discussion of the researcher's different choices when formulating hypotheses and to help link hypotheses over time. Here we aim to deconstruct what aspects there are in the hypothesis about their specificity. Throughout this article, we intend to be neutral to many different philosophies of science relating to the scientific method (i.e. how one determines the veracity of a hypothesis). Our idea of neutrality here is that whether a researcher adheres to falsification, verification, pragmatism, or some other philosophy of science, then this framework can be used when formulating hypotheses. 1
The framework this article advocates for is that there are (at least) three dimensions that hypotheses vary along regarding their narrowness and broadness: the selection of relationships, variables, and pipelines. We believe this discussion is fruitful for the current debate regarding normative practices as some positions make, sometimes implicit, commitments about which set of hypotheses the scientific community ought to consider good or permissible. We proceed by outlining a working definition of ‘scientific hypothesis' and then discuss how it relates to theory. Then, we justify how hypotheses can vary along the three dimensions. Using this framework, we then discuss the scopes in relation to appropriate hypothesis-making and an argument about what constitutes a scientifically novel hypothesis. We end the article with practical advice for researchers who wish to use this framework.
2. The scientific hypothesis
In this section, we will describe a functional and descriptive role regarding how scientists use hypotheses. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] investigated and summarized the different uses the concept of ‘hypothesis’ had in philosophical and scientific texts. They identified five meanings: assumption, tentative explanation, tentative cause, tentative law, and prediction. Jeong & Kwon [ 21 ] further found that researchers in science and philosophy used all the different definitions of hypotheses, although there was some variance in frequency between fields. Here we see, descriptively , that the way researchers use the word ‘hypothesis’ is diverse and has a wide range in specificity and function. However, whichever meaning a hypothesis has, it aims to be true, adequate, accurate or useful in some way.
Not all hypotheses are ‘scientific hypotheses'. For example, consider the detective trying to solve a crime and hypothesizing about the perpetrator. Such a hypothesis still aims to be true and is a tentative explanation but differs from the scientific hypothesis. The difference is that the researcher, unlike the detective, evaluates the hypothesis with the scientific method and submits the work for evaluation by the scientific community. Thus a scientific hypothesis entails a commitment to evaluate the statement with the scientific process . 2 Additionally, other types of hypotheses can exist. As discussed in more detail below, scientific theories generate not only scientific hypotheses but also contain auxiliary hypotheses. The latter refers to additional assumptions considered to be true and not explicitly evaluated. 3
Next, the scientific hypothesis is generally made antecedent to the evaluation. This does not necessitate that the event (e.g. in archaeology) or the data collection (e.g. with open data reuse) must be collected before the hypothesis is made, but that the evaluation of the hypothesis cannot happen before its formulation. This claim state does deny the utility of exploratory hypothesis testing of post hoc hypotheses (see [ 25 ]). However, previous results and exploration can generate new hypotheses (e.g. via abduction [ 22 , 26 – 28 ], which is the process of creating hypotheses from evidence), which is an important part of science [ 29 – 32 ], but crucially, while these hypotheses are important and can be the conclusion of exploratory work, they have yet to be evaluated (by whichever method of choice). Hence, they still conform to the antecedency requirement. A further way to justify the antecedency is seen in the practice of formulating a post hoc hypothesis, and considering it to have been evaluated is seen as a questionable research practice (known as ‘hypotheses after results are known’ or HARKing [ 33 ]). 4
While there is a varying range of specificity, is the hypothesis a critical part of all scientific work, or is it reserved for some subset of investigations? There are different opinions regarding this. Glass and Hall, for example, argue that the term only refers to falsifiable research, and model-based research uses verification [ 36 ]. However, this opinion does not appear to be the consensus. Osimo and Rumiati argue that any model based on or using data is never wholly free from hypotheses, as hypotheses can, even implicitly, infiltrate the data collection [ 37 ]. For our definition, we will consider hypotheses that can be involved in different forms of scientific evaluation (i.e. not just falsification), but we do not exclude the possibility of hypothesis-free scientific work.
Finally, there is a debate about whether theories or hypotheses should be linguistic or formal [ 38 – 40 ]. Neither side in this debate argues that verbal or formal hypotheses are not possible, but instead, they discuss normative practices. Thus, for our definition, both linguistic and formal hypotheses are considered viable.
Considering the above discussion, let us summarize the scientific process and the scientific hypothesis: a hypothesis guides what type of data are sampled and what analysis will be done. With the new observations, evidence is analysed or quantified in some way (often using inferential statistics) to judge the hypothesis's truth value, utility, credibility, or likelihood. The following working definition captures the above:
- Scientific hypothesis : an implicit or explicit statement that can be verbal or formal. The hypothesis makes a statement about some natural phenomena (via an assumption, explanation, cause, law or prediction). The scientific hypothesis is made antecedent to performing a scientific process where there is a commitment to evaluate it.
For simplicity, we will only use the term ‘hypothesis’ for ‘scientific hypothesis' to refer to the above definition for the rest of the article except when it is necessary to distinguish between other types of hypotheses. Finally, this definition could further be restrained in multiple ways (e.g. only explicit hypotheses are allowed, or assumptions are never hypotheses). However, if the definition is more (or less) restrictive, it has little implication for the argument below.
3. The hypothesis, theory and auxiliary assumptions
While we have a definition of the scientific hypothesis, we have yet to link it with how it relates to scientific theory, where there is frequently some interconnection (i.e. a hypothesis tests a scientific theory). Generally, for this paper, we believe our argument applies regardless of how scientific theory is defined. Further, some research lacks theory, sometimes called convenience or atheoretical studies [ 41 ]. Here a hypothesis can be made without a wider theory—and our framework fits here too. However, since many consider hypotheses to be defined or deducible from scientific theory, there is an important connection between the two. Therefore, we will briefly clarify how hypotheses relate to common formulations of scientific theory.
A scientific theory is generally a set of axioms or statements about some objects, properties and their relations relating to some phenomena. Hypotheses can often be deduced from the theory. Additionally, a theory has boundary conditions. The boundary conditions specify the domain of the theory stating under what conditions it applies (e.g. all things with a central neural system, humans, women, university teachers) [ 42 ]. Boundary conditions of a theory will consequently limit all hypotheses deduced from the theory. For example, with a boundary condition ‘applies to all humans’, then the subsequent hypotheses deduced from the theory are limited to being about humans. While this limitation of the hypothesis by the theory's boundary condition exists, all the considerations about a hypothesis scope detailed below still apply within the boundary conditions. Finally, it is also possible (depending on the definition of scientific theory) for a hypothesis to test the same theory under different boundary conditions. 5
The final consideration relating scientific theory to scientific hypotheses is auxiliary hypotheses. These hypotheses are theories or assumptions that are considered true simultaneously with the theory. Most philosophies of science from Popper's background knowledge [ 24 ], Kuhn's paradigms during normal science [ 44 ], and Laktos' protective belt [ 45 ] all have their own versions of this auxiliary or background information that is required for the hypothesis to test the theory. For example, Meelh [ 46 ] auxiliary theories/assumptions are needed to go from theoretical terms to empirical terms (e.g. neural activity can be inferred from blood oxygenation in fMRI research or reaction time to an indicator of cognition) and auxiliary theories about instruments (e.g. the experimental apparatus works as intended) and more (see also Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses below). As noted in the previous section, there is a difference between these auxiliary hypotheses, regardless of their definition, and the scientific hypothesis defined above. Recall that our definition of the scientific hypothesis included a commitment to evaluate it. There are no such commitments with auxiliary hypotheses, but rather they are assumed to be correct to test the theory adequately. This distinction proves to be important as auxiliary hypotheses are still part of testing a theory but are separate from the hypothesis to be evaluated (discussed in more detail below).
4. The scope of hypotheses
In the scientific hypothesis section, we defined the hypothesis and discussed how it relates back to the theory. In this section, we want to defend two claims about hypotheses:
- (A1) Hypotheses can have different scopes . Some hypotheses are narrower in their formulation, and some are broader.
- (A2) The scope of hypotheses can vary along three dimensions relating to relationship selection , variable selection , and pipeline selection .
A1 may seem obvious, but it is important to establish what is meant by narrower and broader scope. When a hypothesis is very narrow, it is specific. For example, it might be specific about the type of relationship between some variables. In figure 1 , we make four different statements regarding the relationship between x and y . The narrowest hypothesis here states ‘there is a positive linear relationship with a magnitude of 0.5 between x and y ’ ( figure 1 a ), and the broadest hypothesis states ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’ ( figure 1 d ). Note that many other hypotheses are possible that are not included in this example (such as there being no relationship).
Examples of narrow and broad hypotheses between x and y . Circles indicate a set of possible relationships with varying slopes that can pivot or bend.
We see that the narrowest of these hypotheses claims a type of relationship (linear), a direction of the relationship (positive) and a magnitude of the relationship (0.5). As the hypothesis becomes broader, the specific magnitude disappears ( figure 1 b ), the relationship has additional options than just being linear ( figure 1 c ), and finally, the direction of the relationship disappears. Crucially, all the examples in figure 1 can meet the above definition of scientific hypotheses. They are all statements that can be evaluated with the same scientific method. There is a difference between these statements, though— they differ in the scope of the hypothesis . Here we have justified A1.
Within this framework, when we discuss whether a hypothesis is narrower or broader in scope, this is a relation between two hypotheses where one is a subset of the other. This means that if H 1 is narrower than H 2 , and if H 1 is true, then H 2 is also true. This can be seen in figure 1 a–d . Suppose figure 1 a , the narrowest of all the hypotheses, is true. In that case, all the other broader statements are also true (i.e. a linear correlation of 0.5 necessarily entails that there is also a positive linear correlation, a linear correlation, and some relationship). While this property may appear trivial, it entails that it is only possible to directly compare the hypothesis scope between two hypotheses (i.e. their broadness or narrowness) where one is the subset of the other. 6
4.1. Sets, disjunctions and conjunctions of elements
The above restraint defines the scope as relations between sets. This property helps formalize the framework of this article. Below, when we discuss the different dimensions that can impact the scope, these become represented as a set. Each set contains elements. Each element is a permissible situation that allows the hypothesis to be accepted. We denote elements as lower case with italics (e.g. e 1 , e 2 , e 3 ) and sets as bold upper case (e.g. S ). Each of the three different dimensions discussed below will be formalized as sets, while the total number of elements specifies their scope.
Let us reconsider the above restraint about comparing hypotheses as narrower or broader. This can be formally shown if:
- e 1 , e 2 , e 3 are elements of S 1 ; and
- e 1 and e 2 are elements of S 2 ,
then S 2 is narrower than S 1 .
Each element represents specific propositions that, if corroborated, would support the hypothesis. Returning to figure 1 a , b , the following statements apply to both:
- ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.5’.
Whereas the following two apply to figure 1 b but not figure 1 a :
- ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.4’ ( figure 1 b ).
- ‘There is a positive linear relationship between x and y with a slope of 0.3’ ( figure 1 b ).
Figure 1 b allows for a considerably larger number of permissible situations (which is obvious as it allows for any positive linear relationship). When formulating the hypothesis in figure 1 b , we do not need to specify every single one of these permissible relationships. We can simply specify all possible positive slopes, which entails the set of permissible elements it includes.
That broader hypotheses have more elements in their sets entails some important properties. When we say S contains the elements e 1 , e 2 , and e 3 , the hypothesis is corroborated if e 1 or e 2 or e 3 is the case. This means that the set requires only one of the elements to be corroborated for the hypothesis to be considered correct (i.e. the positive linear relationship needs to be 0.3 or 0.4 or 0.5). Contrastingly, we will later see cases when conjunctions of elements occur (i.e. both e 1 and e 2 are the case). When a conjunction occurs, in this formulation, the conjunction itself becomes an element in the set (i.e. ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is a single element). Figure 2 illustrates how ‘ e 1 and e 2 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 ’, and ‘ e 1 ’ is narrower than ‘ e 1 or e 2 ’. 7 This property relating to the conjunction being narrower than individual elements is explained in more detail in the pipeline selection section below.
Scope as sets. Left : four different sets (grey, red, blue and purple) showing different elements which they contain. Right : a list of each colour explaining which set is a subset of the other (thereby being ‘narrower’).
4.2. Relationship selection
We move to A2, which is to show the different dimensions that a hypothesis scope can vary along. We have already seen an example of the first dimension of a hypothesis in figure 1 , the relationship selection . Let R denote the set of all possible configurations of relationships that are permissible for the hypothesis to be considered true. For example, in the narrowest formulation above, there was one allowed relationship for the hypothesis to be true. Consequently, the size of R (denoted | R |) is one. As discussed above, in the second narrowest formulation ( figure 1 b ), R has more possible relationships where it can still be considered true:
- r 1 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.1’
- r 2 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.2’
- r 3 = ‘a positive linear relationship of 0.3’.
Additionally, even broader hypotheses will be compatible with more types of relationships. In figure 1 c , d , nonlinear and negative relationships are also possible relationships included in R . For this broader statement to be affirmed, more elements are possible to be true. Thus if | R | is greater (i.e. contains more possible configurations for the hypothesis to be true), then the hypothesis is broader. Thus, the scope of relating to the relationship selection is specified by | R |. Finally, if |R H1 | > |R H2 | , then H 1 is broader than H 2 regarding the relationship selection.
Figure 1 is an example of the relationship narrowing. That the relationship became linear is only an example and does not necessitate a linear relationship or that this scope refers only to correlations. An alternative example of a relationship scope is a broad hypothesis where there is no knowledge about the distribution of some data. In such situations, one may assume a uniform relationship or a Cauchy distribution centred at zero. Over time the specific distribution can be hypothesized. Thereafter, the various parameters of the distribution can be hypothesized. At each step, the hypothesis of the distribution gets further specified to narrower formulations where a smaller set of possible relationships are included (see [ 47 , 48 ] for a more in-depth discussion about how specific priors relate to more narrow tests). Finally, while figure 1 was used to illustrate the point of increasingly narrow relationship hypotheses, it is more likely to expect the narrowest relationship, within fields such as psychology, to have considerable uncertainty and be formulated with confidence or credible intervals (i.e. we will rarely reach point estimates).
4.3. Variable selection
We have demonstrated that relationship selection can affect the scope of a hypothesis. Additionally, at least two other dimensions can affect the scope of a hypothesis: variable selection and pipeline selection . The variable selection in figure 1 was a single bivariate relationship (e.g. x 's relationship with y ). However, it is not always the case that we know which variables will be involved. For example, in neuroimaging, we can be confident that one or more brain regions will be processing some information following a stimulus. Still, we might not be sure which brain region(s) this will be. Consequently, our hypothesis becomes broader because we have selected more variables. The relationship selection may be identical for each chosen variable, but the variable selection becomes broader. We can consider the following three hypotheses to be increasing in their scope:
- H 1 : x relates to y with relationship R .
- H 2 : x 1 or x 2 relates to y with relationship R .
- H 3 : x 1 or x 2 or x 3 relates to y with relationship R .
For H 1 –H 3 above, we assume that R is the same. Further, we assume that there is no interaction between these variables.
In the above examples, we have multiple x ( x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , … , x n ). Again, we can symbolize the variable selection as a non-empty set XY , containing either a single variable or many variables. Our motivation for designating it XY is that the variable selection can include multiple possibilities for both the independent variable ( x ) and the dependent variable ( y ). Like with relationship selection, we can quantify the broadness between two hypotheses with the size of the set XY . Consequently, | XY | denotes the total scope concerning variable selection. Thus, in the examples above | XY H1 | < | XY H2 | < | XY H3 |. Like with relationship selection, hypotheses that vary in | XY | still meet the definition of a hypothesis. 8
An obvious concern for many is that a broader XY is much easier to evaluate as correct. Generally, when | XY 1 | > | XY 2 |, there is a greater chance of spurious correlations when evaluating XY 1 . This concern is an issue relating to the evaluation of hypotheses (e.g. applying statistics to the evaluation), which will require additional assumptions relating to how to evaluate the hypotheses. Strategies to deal with this apply some correction or penalization for multiple statistical testing [ 49 ] or partial pooling and regularizing priors [ 50 , 51 ]. These strategies aim to evaluate a broader variable selection ( x 1 or x 2 ) on equal or similar terms to a narrow variable selection ( x 1 ).
4.4. Pipeline selection
Scientific studies require decisions about how to perform the analysis. This scope considers transformations applied to the raw data ( XY raw ) to achieve some derivative ( XY ). These decisions can also involve selection procedures that drop observations deemed unreliable, standardizing, correcting confounding variables, or different philosophies. We can call the array of decisions and transformations used as the pipeline . A hypothesis varies in the number of pipelines:
- H 1 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 .
- H 2 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 .
- H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 or pipeline p 2 , or pipeline p 3 .
Importantly, the pipeline here considers decisions regarding how the hypothesis shapes the data collection and transformation. We do not consider this to include decisions made regarding the assumptions relating to the statistical inference as those relate to operationalizing the evaluation of the hypothesis and not part of the hypothesis being evaluated (these assumptions are like auxiliary hypotheses, which are assumed to be true but not explicitly evaluated).
Like with variable selection ( XY ) and relationship selection ( R ), we can see that pipelines impact the scope of hypotheses. Again, we can symbolize the pipeline selection with a set P . As previously, | P | will denote the dimension of the pipeline selection. In the case of pipeline selection, we are testing the same variables, looking for the same relationship, but processing the variables or relationships with different pipelines to evaluate the relationship. Consequently, | P H1 | < | P H2 | < | P H3 |.
These issues regarding pipelines have received attention as the ‘garden of forking paths' [ 52 ]. Here, there are calls for researchers to ensure that their entire pipeline has been specified. Additionally, recent work has highlighted the diversity of results based on multiple analytical pipelines [ 53 , 54 ]. These results are often considered a concern, leading to calls that results should be pipeline resistant.
The wish for pipeline-resistant methods entails that hypotheses, in their narrowest form, are possible for all pipelines. Consequently, a narrower formulation will entail that this should not impact the hypothesis regardless of which pipeline is chosen. Thus the conjunction of pipelines is narrower than single pipelines. Consider the following three scenarios:
- H 3 : XY has a relationship(s) R with pipeline p 1 and pipeline p 2 .
In this instance, since H 1 is always true if H 3 is true, thus H 3 is a narrower formulation than H 1 . Consequently, | P H3 | < | P H1 | < | P H2 |. Decreasing the scope of the pipeline dimension also entails the increase in conjunction of pipelines (i.e. creating pipeline-resistant methods) rather than just the reduction of disjunctional statements.
4.5. Combining the dimensions
In summary, we then have three different dimensions that independently affect the scope of the hypothesis. We have demonstrated the following general claim regarding hypotheses:
- The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P .
And that the broadness and narrowness of a hypothesis depend on how large the three sets XY , R and P are. With this formulation, we can conclude that hypotheses have a scope that can be determined with a 3-tuple argument of (| R |, | XY |, | P |).
While hypotheses can be formulated along these three dimensions and generally aim to be reduced, it does not entail that these dimensions behave identically. For example, the relationship dimensions aim to reduce the number of elements as far as possible (e.g. to an interval). Contrastingly, for both variables and pipeline, the narrower hypothesis can reduce to single variables/pipelines or become narrower still and become conjunctions where all variables/pipelines need to corroborate the hypothesis (i.e. regardless of which method one follows, the hypothesis is correct).
5. Additional possible dimensions
No commitment is being made about the exhaustive nature of there only being three dimensions that specify the hypothesis scope. Other dimensions may exist that specify the scope of a hypothesis. For example, one might consider the pipeline dimension as two different dimensions. The first would consider the experimental pipeline dimension regarding all variables relating to the experimental setup to collect data, and the latter would be the analytical pipeline dimension regarding the data analysis of any given data snapshot. Another possible dimension is adding the number of situations or contexts under which the hypothesis is valid. For example, any restraint such as ‘in a vacuum’, ‘under the speed of light’, or ‘in healthy human adults' could be considered an additional dimension of the hypothesis. There is no objection to whether these should be additional dimensions of the hypothesis. However, as stated above, these usually follow from the boundary conditions of the theory.
6. Specifying the scope versus assumptions
We envision that this framework can help hypothesis-makers formulate hypotheses (in research plans, registered reports, preregistrations etc.). Further, using this framework while formulating hypotheses can help distinguish between auxiliary hypotheses and parts of the scientific hypothesis being tested. When writing preregistrations, it can frequently occur that some step in the method has two alternatives (e.g. a preprocessing step), and there is not yet reason to choose one over the other, and the researcher needs to make a decision. These following scenarios are possible:
- 1. Narrow pipeline scope . The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables (i.e. H holds for both p 1 and p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline).
- 2. Broad pipeline scope. The researcher evaluates the hypothesis with both pipeline variables, and only one needs to be correct (i.e. H holds for either p 1 or p 2 where p 1 and p 2 can be substituted with each other in the pipeline). The result of this experiment may help motivate choosing either p 1 or p 2 in future studies.
- 3. Auxiliary hypothesis. Based on some reason (e.g. convention), the researcher assumes p 1 and evaluates H assuming p 1 is true.
Here we see that the same pipeline step can be part of either the auxiliary hypotheses or the pipeline scope. This distinction is important because if (3) is chosen, the decision becomes an assumption that is not explicitly tested by the hypothesis. Consequently, a researcher confident in the hypothesis may state that the auxiliary hypothesis p 1 was incorrect, and they should retest their hypothesis using different assumptions. In the cases where this decision is part of the pipeline scope, the hypothesis is intertwined with this decision, removing the eventual wiggle-room to reject auxiliary hypotheses that were assumed. Furthermore, starting with broader pipeline hypotheses that gradually narrow down can lead to a more well-motivated protocol for approaching the problem. Thus, this framework can help researchers while writing their hypotheses in, for example, preregistrations because they can consider when they are committing to a decision, assuming it, or when they should perhaps test a broader hypothesis with multiple possible options (discussed in more detail in §11 below).
7. The reduction of scope in hypothesis space
Having established that different scopes of a hypothesis are possible, we now consider how the hypotheses change over time. In this section, we consider how the scope of the hypothesis develops ideally within science.
Consider a new research question. A large number of hypotheses are possible. Let us call this set of all possible hypotheses the hypothesis space . Hypotheses formulated within this space can be narrower or broader based on the dimensions discussed previously ( figure 3 ).
Example of hypothesis space. The hypothesis scope is expressed as cuboids in three dimensions (relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ), pipeline ( P )). The hypothesis space is the entire possible space within the three dimensions. Three hypotheses are shown in the hypothesis space (H 1 , H 2 , H 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are subsets of H 1 .
After the evaluation of the hypothesis with the scientific process, the hypothesis will be accepted or rejected. 9 The evaluation could be done through falsification or via verification, depending on the philosophy of science commitments. Thereafter, other narrower formulations of the hypothesis can be formulated by reducing the relationship, variable or pipeline scope. If a narrower hypothesis is accepted, more specific details about the subject matter are known, or a theory has been refined in greater detail. A narrower hypothesis will entail a more specific relationship, variable or pipeline detailed in the hypothesis. Consequently, hypotheses linked to each other in this way will become narrower over time along one or more dimensions. Importantly, considering that the conjunction of elements is narrower than single elements for pipelines and variables, this process of narrower hypotheses will lead to more general hypotheses (i.e. they have to be applied in all conditions and yield less flexibility when they do not apply). 10
Considering that the scopes of hypotheses were defined as sets above, some properties can be deduced from this framework about how narrower hypotheses relate to broader hypotheses. Let us consider three hypotheses (H 1 , H 2 , and H 3 ; figure 3 ). H 2 and H 3 are non-overlapping subsets of H 1 . Thus H 2 and H 3 are both narrower in scope than H 1 . Thus the following is correct:
- P1: If H 1 is false, then H 2 is false, and H 2 does not need to be evaluated.
- P2: If H 2 is true, then the broader H 1 is true, and H 1 does not need to be evaluated.
- P3: If H 1 is true and H 2 is false, some other hypothesis H 3 of similar scope to H 2 is possible.
For example, suppose H 1 is ‘there is a relationship between x and y ’, H 2 is ‘there is a positive relationship between x and y ’, and H 3 is ‘a negative relationship between x and y ’. In that case, it becomes apparent how each of these follows. 11 Logically, many deductions from set theory are possible but will not be explored here. Instead, we will discuss two additional consequences of hypothesis scopes: scientific novelty and applications for the researcher who formulates a hypothesis.
P1–P3 have been formulated as hypotheses being true or false. In practice, hypotheses are likely evaluated probabilistically (e.g. ‘H 1 is likely’ or ‘there is evidence in support of H 1 ’). In these cases, P1–P3 can be rephrased to account for this by substituting true/false with statements relating to evidence. For example, P2 could read: ‘If there is evidence in support of H 2 , then there is evidence in support of H 1 , and H 1 does not need to be evaluated’.
8. Scientific novelty as the reduction of scope
Novelty is a key concept that repeatedly occurs in multiple aspects of the scientific enterprise, from funding to publishing [ 55 ]. Generally, scientific progress establishes novel results based on some new hypothesis. Consequently, the new hypothesis for the novel results must be narrower than previously established knowledge (i.e. the size of the scopes is reduced). Otherwise, the result is trivial and already known (see P2 above). Thus, scientific work is novel if the scientific process produces a result based on hypotheses with either a smaller | R |, | XY |, or | P | compared to previous work.
This framework of dimensions of the scope of a hypothesis helps to demarcate when a hypothesis and the subsequent result are novel. If previous studies have established evidence for R 1 (e.g. there is a positive relationship between x and y ), a hypothesis will be novel if and only if it is narrower than R 1 . Thus, if R 2 is narrower in scope than R 1 (i.e. | R 2 | < | R 1 |), R 2 is a novel hypothesis.
Consider the following example. Study 1 hypothesizes, ‘There is a positive relationship between x and y ’. It identifies a linear relationship of 0.6. Next, Study 2 hypothesizes, ‘There is a specific linear relationship between x and y that is 0.6’. Study 2 also identifies the relationship of 0.6. Since this was a narrower hypothesis, Study 2 is novel despite the same result. Frequently, researchers claim that they are the first to demonstrate a relationship. Being the first to demonstrate a relationship is not the final measure of novelty. Having a narrower hypothesis than previous researchers is a sign of novelty as it further reduces the hypothesis space.
Finally, it should be noted that novelty is not the only objective of scientific work. Other attributes, such as improving the certainty of a current hypothesis (e.g. through replications), should not be overlooked. Additional scientific explanations and improved theories are other aspects. Additionally, this definition of novelty relating to hypothesis scope does not exclude other types of novelty (e.g. new theories or paradigms).
9. How broad should a hypothesis be?
Given the previous section, it is elusive to conclude that the hypothesis should be as narrow as possible as it entails maximal knowledge gain and scientific novelty when formulating hypotheses. Indeed, many who advocate for daring or risky tests seem to hold this opinion. For example, Meehl [ 46 ] argues that we should evaluate theories based on point (or interval) prediction, which would be compatible with very narrow versions of relationships. We do not necessarily think that this is the most fruitful approach. In this section, we argue that hypotheses should aim to be narrower than current knowledge , but too narrow may be problematic .
Let us consider the idea of confirmatory analyses. These studies will frequently keep the previous hypothesis scopes regarding P and XY but aim to become more specific regarding R (i.e. using the same method and the same variables to detect a more specific relationship). A very daring or narrow hypothesis is to minimize R to include the fewest possible relationships. However, it becomes apparent that simply pursuing specificness or daringness is insufficient for selecting relevant hypotheses. Consider a hypothetical scenario where a researcher believes virtual reality use leads people to overestimate the amount of exercise they have done. If unaware of previous studies on this project, an apt hypothesis is perhaps ‘increased virtual reality usage correlates with a less accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is broad). However, a more specific and more daring hypothesis would be to specify the relationship further. Thus, despite not knowing if there is a relationship at all, a more daring hypothesis could be: ‘for every 1 h of virtual reality usage, there will be, on average, a 0.5% decrease in the accuracy of reported exercise performed’ (i.e. R is narrow). We believe it would be better to establish the broader hypothesis in any scenario here for the first experiment. Otherwise, if we fail to confirm the more specific formulation, we could reformulate another equally narrow relative to the broader hypothesis. This process of tweaking a daring hypothesis could be pursued ad infinitum . Such a situation will neither quickly identify the true hypothesis nor effectively use limited research resources.
By first discounting a broader hypothesis that there is no relationship, it will automatically discard all more specific formulations of that relationship in the hypothesis space. Returning to figure 3 , it will be better to establish H 1 before attempting H 2 or H 3 to ensure the correct area in the hypothesis space is being investigated. To provide an analogy: when looking for a needle among hay, first identify which farm it is at, then which barn, then which haystack, then which part of the haystack it is at before we start picking up individual pieces of hay. Thus, it is preferable for both pragmatic and cost-of-resource reasons to formulate sufficiently broad hypotheses to navigate the hypothesis space effectively.
Conversely, formulating too broad a relationship scope in a hypothesis when we already have evidence for narrower scope would be superfluous research (unless the evidence has been called into question by, for example, not being replicated). If multiple studies have supported the hypothesis ‘there is a 20-fold decrease in mortality after taking some medication M’, it would be unnecessary to ask, ‘Does M have any effect?’.
Our conclusion is that the appropriate scope of a hypothesis, and its three dimensions, follow a Goldilocks-like principle where too broad is superfluous and not novel, while too narrow is unnecessary or wasteful. Considering the scope of one's hypothesis and how it relates to previous hypotheses' scopes ensures one is asking appropriate questions.
Finally, there has been a recent trend in psychology that hypotheses should be formal [ 38 , 56 – 60 ]. Formal theories are precise since they are mathematical formulations entailing that their interpretations are clear (non-ambiguous) compared to linguistic theories. However, this literature on formal theories often refers to ‘precise predictions’ and ‘risky testing’ while frequently referencing Meehl, who advocates for narrow hypotheses (e.g. [ 38 , 56 , 59 ]). While perhaps not intended by any of the proponents, one interpretation of some of these positions is that hypotheses derived from formal theories will be narrow hypotheses (i.e. the quality of being ‘precise’ can mean narrow hypotheses with risky tests and non-ambiguous interpretations simultaneously). However, the benefit from the clarity (non-ambiguity) that formal theories/hypotheses bring also applies to broad formal hypotheses as well. They can include explicit but formalized versions of uncertain relationships, multiple possible pipelines, and large sets of variables. For example, a broad formal hypothesis can contain a hyperparameter that controls which distribution the data fit (broad relationship scope), or a variable could represent a set of formalized explicit pipelines (broad pipeline scope) that will be tested. In each of these instances, it is possible to formalize non-ambiguous broad hypotheses from broad formal theories that do not yet have any justification for being overly narrow. In sum, our argumentation here stating that hypotheses should not be too narrow is not an argument against formal theories but rather that hypotheses (derived from formal theories) do not necessarily have to be narrow.
10. Other approaches to categorizing hypotheses
The framework we present here is a way of categorizing hypotheses into (at least) three dimensions regarding the hypothesis scope, which we believe is accessible to researchers and help link scientific work over time while also trying to remain neutral with regard to a specific philosophy of science. Our proposal does not aim to be antagonistic or necessarily contradict other categorizing schemes—but we believe that our framework provides benefits.
One recent categorization scheme is the Theoretical (T), Auxiliary (A), Statistical (S) and Inferential (I) assumption model (together becoming the TASI model) [ 61 , 62 ]. Briefly, this model considers theory to generate theoretical hypotheses. To translate from theoretical unobservable terms (e.g. personality, anxiety, mass), auxiliary assumptions are needed to generate an empirical hypothesis. Statistical assumptions are often needed to test the empirical hypothesis (e.g. what is the distribution, is it skewed or not) [ 61 , 62 ]. Finally, additional inferential assumptions are needed to generalize to a larger population (e.g. was there a random and independent sampling from defined populations). The TASI model is insightful and helpful in highlighting the distance between a theory and the observation that would corroborate/contradict it. Part of its utility is to bring auxiliary hypotheses into the foreground, to improve comparisons between studies and improve theory-based interventions [ 63 , 64 ].
We do agree with the importance of being aware of or stating the auxiliary hypotheses, but there are some differences between the frameworks. First, the number of auxiliary assumptions in TASI can be several hundred [ 62 ], whereas our framework will consider some of them as part of the pipeline dimension. Consider the following four assumptions: ‘the inter-stimulus interval is between 2000 ms and 3000 ms', ‘the data will be z-transformed’, ‘subjects will perform correctly’, and ‘the measurements were valid’. According to the TASI model, all these will be classified similarly as auxiliary assumptions. Contrarily, within our framework, it is possible to consider the first two as part of the pipeline dimension and the latter two as auxiliary assumptions, and consequently, the first two become integrated as part of the hypothesis being tested and the latter two auxiliary assumptions. A second difference between the frameworks relates to non-theoretical studies (convenience, applied or atheoretical). Our framework allows for the possibility that the hypothesis space generated by theoretical and convenience studies can interact and inform each other within the same framework . Contrarily, in TASI, the theory assumptions no longer apply, and a different type of hypothesis model is needed; these assumptions must be replaced by another group of assumptions (where ‘substantive application assumptions' replace the T and the A, becoming SSI) [ 61 ]. Finally, part of our rationale for our framework is to be able to link and track hypotheses and hypothesis development together over time, so our classification scheme has different utility.
Another approach which has some similar utility to this framework is theory construction methodology (TCM) [ 57 ]. The similarity here is that TCM aims to be a practical guide to improve theory-making in psychology. It is an iterative process which relates theory, phenomena and data. Here hypotheses are not an explicit part of the model. However, what is designated as ‘proto theory’ could be considered a hypothesis in our framework as they are a product of abduction, shaping the theory space. Alternatively, what is deduced to evaluate the theory can also be considered a hypothesis. We consider both possible and that our framework can integrate with these two steps, especially since TCM does not have clear guidelines for how to do each step.
11. From theory to practice: implementing this framework
We believe that many practising researchers can relate to many aspects of this framework. But, how can a researcher translate the above theoretical framework to their work? The utility of this framework lies in bringing these three scopes of a hypothesis together and explaining how each can be reduced. We believe researchers can use this framework to describe their current practices more clearly. Here we discuss how it can be helpful for researchers when formulating, planning, preregistering, and discussing the evaluation of their scientific hypotheses. These practical implications are brief, and future work can expand on the connection between the full interaction between hypothesis space and scope. Furthermore, both authors have the most experience in cognitive neuroscience, and some of the practical implications may revolve around this type of research and may not apply equally to other fields.
11.1. Helping to form hypotheses
Abduction, according to Peirce, is a hypothesis-making exercise [ 22 , 26 – 28 ]. Given some observations, a general testable explanation of the phenomena is formed. However, when making the hypothesis, this statement will have a scope (either explicitly or implicitly). Using our framework, the scope can become explicit. The hypothesis-maker can start with ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ as a scaffold to form the hypothesis. From here, the hypothesis-maker can ‘fill in the blanks’, explicitly adding each of the scopes. Thus, when making a hypothesis via abduction and using our framework, the hypothesis will have an explicit scope when it is made. By doing this, there is less chance that a formulated hypothesis is unclear, ambiguous, and needs amending at a later stage.
11.2. Assisting to clearly state hypotheses
A hypothesis is not just formulated but also communicated. Hypotheses are stated in funding applications, preregistrations, registered reports, and academic articles. Further, preregistered hypotheses are often omitted or changed in the final article [ 11 ], and hypotheses are not always explicitly stated in articles [ 12 ]. How can this framework help to make better hypotheses? Similar to the previous point, filling in the details of ‘The variables XY have a relationship R with pipeline P ’ is an explicit way to communicate the hypothesis. Thinking about each of these dimensions should entail an appropriate explicit scope and, hopefully, less variation between preregistered and reported hypotheses. The hypothesis does not need to be a single sentence, and details of XY and P will often be developed in the methods section of the text. However, using this template as a starting point can help ensure the hypothesis is stated, and the scope of all three dimensions has been communicated.
11.3. Helping to promote explicit and broad hypotheses instead of vague hypotheses
There is an important distinction between vague hypotheses and broad hypotheses, and this framework can help demarcate between them. A vague statement would be: ‘We will quantify depression in patients after treatment’. Here there is uncertainty relating to how the researcher will go about doing the experiment (i.e. how will depression be quantified?). However, a broad statement can be uncertain, but the uncertainty is part of the hypothesis: ‘Two different mood scales (S 1 or S 2 ) will be given to patients and test if only one (or both) changed after treatment’. This latter statement is transparently saying ‘S 1 or S 2 ’ is part of a broad hypothesis—the uncertainty is whether the two different scales are quantifying the same construct. We keep this uncertainty within the broad hypothesis, which will get evaluated, whereas a vague hypothesis has uncertainty as part of the interpretation of the hypothesis. This framework can be used when formulating hypotheses to help be broad (where needed) but not vague.
11.4. Which hypothesis should be chosen?
When considering the appropriate scope above, we argued for a Goldilocks-like principle of determining the hypothesis that is not too broad or too narrow. However, when writing, for example, a preregistration, how does one identify this sweet spot? There is no easy or definite universal answer to this question. However, one possible way is first to identify the XY , R , and P of previous hypotheses. From here, identify what a non-trivial step is to improve our knowledge of the research area. So, for example, could you be more specific about the exact nature of the relationship between the variables? Does the pipeline correspond to today's scientific standards, or were some suboptimal decisions made? Is there another population that you think the previous result also applies to? Do you think that maybe a more specific construct or subpopulation might explain the previous result? Could slightly different constructs (perhaps easier to quantify) be used to obtain a similar relationship? Are there even more constructs to which this relationship should apply simultaneously? Are you certain of the direction of the relationship? Answering affirmatively to any of these questions will likely make a hypothesis narrower and connect to previous research while being clear and explicit. Moreover, depending on the research question, answering any of these may be sufficiently narrow to be a non-trivial innovation. However, there are many other ways to make a hypothesis narrower than these guiding questions.
11.5. The confirmatory–exploratory continuum
Research is often dichotomized into confirmatory (testing a hypothesis) or exploratory (without a priori hypotheses). With this framework, researchers can consider how their research acts on some hypothesis space. Confirmatory and exploratory work has been defined in terms of how each interacts with the researcher's degrees of freedom (where confirmatory aims to reduce while exploratory utilizes them [ 30 ]). Both broad confirmatory and narrow exploratory research are possible using this definition and possible within this framework. How research interacts with the hypothesis space helps demarcate it. For example, if a hypothesis reduces the scope, it becomes more confirmatory, and trying to understand data given the current scope would be more exploratory work. This further could help demarcate when exploration is useful. Future theoretical work can detail how different types of research impact the hypothesis space in more detail.
11.6. Understanding when multiverse analyses are needed
Researchers writing a preregistration may face many degrees of freedom they have to choose from, and different researchers may motivate different choices. If, when writing such a preregistration, there appears to be little evidential support for certain degrees of freedom over others, the researcher is left with the option to either make more auxiliary assumptions or identify when an investigation into the pipeline scope is necessary by conducting a multiverse analysis that tests the impact of the different degrees of freedom on the result (see [ 8 ]). Thus, when applying this framework to explicitly state what pipeline variables are part of the hypothesis or an auxiliary assumption, the researcher can identify when it might be appropriate to conduct a multiverse analysis because they are having difficulty formulating hypotheses.
11.7. Describing novelty
Academic journals and research funders often ask for novelty, but the term ‘novelty’ can be vague and open to various interpretations [ 55 ]. This framework can be used to help justify the novelty of research. For example, consider a scenario where a previous study has established a psychological construct (e.g. well-being) that correlates with a certain outcome measure (e.g. long-term positive health outcomes). This framework can be used to explicitly justify novelty by (i) providing a more precise understanding of the relationship (e.g. linear or linear–plateau) or (ii) identifying more specific variables related to well-being or health outcomes. Stating how some research is novel is clearer than merely stating that the work is novel. This practice might even help journals and funders identify what type of novelty they would like to reward. In sum, this framework can help identify and articulate how research is novel.
11.8. Help to identify when standardization of pipelines is beneficial or problematic to a field
Many consider standardization in a field to be important for ensuring the comparability of results. Standardization of methods and tools entails that the pipeline P is identical (or at least very similar) across studies. However, in such cases, the standardized pipeline becomes an auxiliary assumption representing all possible pipelines. Therefore, while standardized pipelines have their benefits, this assumption becomes broader without validating (e.g. via multiverse analysis) which pipelines a standardized P represents. In summary, because this framework helps distinguish between auxiliary assumptions and explicit parts of the hypothesis and identifies when a multiverse analysis is needed, it can help determine when standardizations of pipelines are representative (narrower hypotheses) or assumptive (broader hypotheses).
12. Conclusion
Here, we have argued that the scope of a hypothesis is made up of three dimensions: the relationship ( R ), variable ( XY ) and pipeline ( P ) selection. Along each of these dimensions, the scope can vary. Different types of scientific enterprises will often have hypotheses that vary the size of the scopes. We have argued that this focus on the scope of the hypothesis along these dimensions helps the hypothesis-maker formulate their hypotheses for preregistrations while also helping demarcate auxiliary hypotheses (assumed to be true) from the hypothesis (those being evaluated during the scientific process).
Hypotheses are an essential part of the scientific process. Considering what type of hypothesis is sufficient or relevant is an essential job of the researcher that we think has been overlooked. We hope this work promotes an understanding of what a hypothesis is and how its formulation and reduction in scope is an integral part of scientific progress. We hope it also helps clarify how broad hypotheses need not be vague or inappropriate.
Finally, we applied this idea of scopes to scientific progress and considered how to formulate an appropriate hypothesis. We have also listed several ways researchers can practically implement this framework today. However, there are other practicalities of this framework that future work should explore. For example, it could be used to differentiate and demarcate different scientific contributions (e.g. confirmatory studies, exploration studies, validation studies) with how their hypotheses interact with the different dimensions of the hypothesis space. Further, linking hypotheses over time within this framework can be a foundation for open hypothesis-making by promoting explicit links to previous work and detailing the reduction of the hypothesis space. This framework helps quantify the contribution to the hypothesis space of different studies and helps clarify what aspects of hypotheses can be relevant at different times.
Acknowledgements
We thank Filip Gedin, Kristoffer Sundberg, Jens Fust, and James Steele for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Mark Rubin and an unnamed reviewer for valuable comments that have improved the article.
1 While this is our intention, we cannot claim that every theory has been accommodated.
2 Similar requirements of science being able to evaluate the hypothesis can be found in pragmatism [ 22 ], logical positivism [ 23 ] and falsification [ 24 ].
3 Although when making inferences about a failed evaluation of a scientific hypothesis it is possible, due to underdetermination, to reject the auxiliary hypothesis instead of rejecting the hypothesis. However, that rejection occurs at a later inference stage. The evaluation using the scientific method aims to test the scientific hypothesis, not the auxiliary assumptions.
4 Although some have argued that this practice is not as problematic or questionable (see [ 34 , 35 ]).
5 Alternatively, theories sometimes expand their boundary conditions. A theory that was previously about ‘humans' can be used with a more inclusive boundary condition. Thus it is possible for the hypothesis-maker to use a theory about humans (decision making) and expand it to fruit flies or plants (see [ 43 ]).
6 A similarity exists here with Popper, where he uses set theory in a similar way to compare theories (not hypotheses). Popper also discusses how theories with overlapping sets but neither is a subset are also comparable (see [ 24 , §§32–34]). We do not exclude this possibility but can require additional assumptions.
7 When this could be unclear, we place the element within quotation marks.
8 Here, we have assumed that there is no interaction between these variables in variable selection. If an interaction between x 1 and x 2 is hypothesized, this should be viewed as a different variable compared to ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’. The motivation behind this is because the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not a superset of the interaction (i.e. ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’ is not necessarily true when the interaction is true). The interaction should, in this case, be considered a third variable (e.g. I( x 1 , x 2 )) and the hypothesis ‘ x 1 or x 2 or I( x 1 , x 2 )’ is broader than ‘ x 1 or x 2 ’.
9 Or possibly ambiguous or inconclusive.
10 This formulation of scope is compatible with different frameworks from the philosophy of science. For example, by narrowing the scope would in a Popperian terminology mean prohibiting more basic statements (thus a narrower hypothesis has a higher degree of falsifiability). The reduction of scope in the relational dimension would in Popperian terminology mean increase in precision (e.g. a circle is more precise than an ellipse since circles are a subset of possible ellipses), whereas reduction in variable selection and pipeline dimension would mean increase universality (e.g. ‘all heavenly bodies' is more universal than just ‘planets') [ 24 ]. For Meehl the reduction of the relationship dimension would amount to decreasing the relative tolerance of a theory to the Spielraum [ 46 ] .
11 If there is no relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a positive relationship. If we know there is a positive relationship between x and y , we do not need to test if there is a relationship. If we know there is a relationship but there is not a positive relationship, then it is possible that they have a negative relationship.
Data accessibility
Declaration of ai use.
We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.
Authors' contributions
W.H.T.: conceptualization, investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; S.S.: investigation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.
Both authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.
Scientific Method Example
Illustration by J.R. Bee. ThoughtCo.
- Cell Biology
- Weather & Climate
- B.A., Biology, Emory University
- A.S., Nursing, Chattahoochee Technical College
The scientific method is a series of steps that scientific investigators follow to answer specific questions about the natural world. Scientists use the scientific method to make observations, formulate hypotheses , and conduct scientific experiments .
A scientific inquiry starts with an observation. Then, the formulation of a question about what has been observed follows. Next, the scientist will proceed through the remaining steps of the scientific method to end at a conclusion.
The six steps of the scientific method are as follows:
Observation
The first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you. Taking an interest in your scientific discovery is important, for example, if you are doing a science project , because you will want to work on something that holds your attention. Your observation can be of anything from plant movement to animal behavior, as long as it is something you want to know more about. This step is when you will come up with an idea if you are working on a science project.
Once you have made your observation, you must formulate a question about what you observed. Your question should summarize what it is you are trying to discover or accomplish in your experiment. When stating your question, be as specific as possible. For example, if you are doing a project on plants , you may want to know how plants interact with microbes. Your question could be: Do plant spices inhibit bacterial growth ?
The hypothesis is a key component of the scientific process. A hypothesis is an idea that is suggested as an explanation for a natural event, a particular experience, or a specific condition that can be tested through definable experimentation. It states the purpose of your experiment, the variables used, and the predicted outcome of your experiment. It is important to note that a hypothesis must be testable. That means that you should be able to test your hypothesis through experimentation . Your hypothesis must either be supported or falsified by your experiment. An example of a good hypothesis is: If there is a relation between listening to music and heart rate, then listening to music will cause a person's resting heart rate to either increase or decrease.
Once you have developed a hypothesis, you must design and conduct an experiment that will test it. You should develop a procedure that states clearly how you plan to conduct your experiment. It is important you include and identify a controlled variable or dependent variable in your procedure. Controls allow us to test a single variable in an experiment because they are unchanged. We can then make observations and comparisons between our controls and our independent variables (things that change in the experiment) to develop an accurate conclusion.
The results are where you report what happened in the experiment. That includes detailing all observations and data made during your experiment. Most people find it easier to visualize the data by charting or graphing the information.
Developing a conclusion is the final step of the scientific method. This is where you analyze the results from the experiment and reach a determination about the hypothesis. Did the experiment support or reject your hypothesis? If your hypothesis was supported, great. If not, repeat the experiment or think of ways to improve your procedure.
- Glycolysis Steps
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: chrom- or chromo-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: proto-
- 6 Things You Should Know About Biological Evolution
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Aer- or Aero-
- Taxonomy and Organism Classification
- Homeostasis
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: diplo-
- The Biology Suffix -lysis
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes Index
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: tel- or telo-
- Parasitism: Definition and Examples
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: Erythr- or Erythro-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: ana-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: phago- or phag-
- Biology Prefixes and Suffixes: -phyll or -phyl
5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: A Guide for Researchers
- by Brian Thomas
- October 10, 2023
Are you a curious soul, always seeking answers to the whys and hows of the world? As a researcher, formulating a hypothesis is a crucial first step towards unraveling the mysteries of your study. A well-crafted hypothesis not only guides your research but also lays the foundation for drawing valid conclusions. But what exactly makes a hypothesis a good one? In this blog post, we will explore the five key characteristics of a good hypothesis that every researcher should know.
Here, we will delve into the world of hypotheses, covering everything from their types in research to understanding if they can be proven true. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this blog post will provide valuable insights on how to craft a sound hypothesis for your study. So let’s dive in and uncover the secrets to formulating a hypothesis that stands strong amidst the scientific rigor!
(Keywords: characteristics of a good hypothesis, important characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, types of hypothesis in research, can a hypothesis be proven true, 6 parts of hypothesis, how to start a hypothesis sentence, examples of hypothesis, five key elements of a good hypothesis, hypothesis in research papers, is a hypothesis always a question, three things needed for a good hypothesis, components of a good hypothesis, formulate a hypothesis, characteristics of a hypothesis mcq, criteria for a scientific hypothesis, steps of theory development in scientific methods, what makes a good hypothesis, characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, five-step p-value approach to hypothesis testing , stages of hypothesis, good hypothesis characteristics, writing a good hypothesis example, difference between hypothesis and hypotheses, good hypothesis statement, not a characteristic of a good hypothesis)
5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
Clear and specific.
A good hypothesis is like a GPS that guides you to the right destination. It needs to be clear and specific so that you know exactly what you’re testing. Avoid vague statements or general ideas. Instead, focus on crafting a hypothesis that clearly states the relationship between variables and the expected outcome. Clarity is key, my friend!
Testable and Falsifiable
A hypothesis might sound great in theory, but if you can’t test it or prove it wrong, then it’s like chasing unicorns. A good hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable – meaning there should be a way to gather evidence to support or refute it. Don’t be afraid to challenge your hypothesis and put it to the test. Only when it can be proven false can it truly be considered a good hypothesis.
Based on Existing Knowledge
Imagine trying to build a Lego tower without any Lego bricks. That’s what it’s like to come up with a hypothesis that has no basis in existing knowledge. A good hypothesis is grounded in previous research, theories, or observations. It shows that you’ve done your homework and understand the current state of knowledge in your field. So, put on your research hat and gather those building blocks for a solid hypothesis!
Specific Predictions
No, we’re not talking about crystal ball predictions or psychic abilities here. A good hypothesis includes specific predictions about what you expect to happen. It’s like making an educated guess based on your understanding of the variables involved. These predictions help guide your research and give you something concrete to look for. So, put on those prediction goggles, my friend, and let’s get specific!
Relevant to the Research Question
A hypothesis is a road sign that points you in the right direction. But if it’s not relevant to your research question, then you might end up in a never-ending detour. A good hypothesis aligns with your research question and addresses the specific problem or phenomenon you’re investigating. Keep your focus on the main topic and avoid getting sidetracked by shiny distractions. Stay relevant, my friend, and you’ll find the answers you seek!
And there you have it: the five characteristics of a good hypothesis. Remember, a good hypothesis is clear, testable, based on existing knowledge, makes specific predictions, and is relevant to your research question. So go forth, my friend, and hypothesize your way to scientific discovery!
FAQs: Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
In the realm of scientific research, a hypothesis plays a crucial role in formulating and testing ideas. A good hypothesis serves as the foundation for an experiment or study, guiding the researcher towards meaningful results. In this FAQ-style subsection, we’ll explore the characteristics of a good hypothesis, their types, formulation, and more. So let’s dive in and unravel the mysteries of hypothesis-making!
What Are Two Important Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis possesses two important characteristics:
Testability : A hypothesis must be testable to determine its validity. It should be formulated in a way that allows researchers to design and conduct experiments or gather data for analysis. For example, if we hypothesize that “drinking herbal tea reduces stress,” we can easily test it by conducting a study with a control group and a group drinking herbal tea.
Falsifiability : Falsifiability refers to the potential for a hypothesis to be proven wrong. A good hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be refuted or supported by evidence. This characteristic ensures that hypotheses are based on empirical observations rather than personal opinions. For instance, the hypothesis “all swans are white” can be falsified by discovering a single black swan.
What Are the Types of Hypothesis in Research
In research, there are three main types of hypotheses:
Null Hypothesis (H0) : The null hypothesis is a statement of no effect or relationship. It assumes that there is no significant difference between variables or no effect of a treatment. Researchers aim to reject the null hypothesis in favor of an alternative hypothesis.
Alternative Hypothesis (HA or H1) : The alternative hypothesis is the opposite of the null hypothesis. It asserts that there is a significant difference between variables or an effect of a treatment. Researchers seek evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.
Directional Hypothesis : A directional hypothesis predicts the specific direction of the relationship or difference between variables. For example, “increasing exercise duration will lead to greater weight loss.”
Can a Hypothesis Be Proven True
In scientific research, hypotheses are not proven true; they are supported or rejected based on empirical evidence . Even if a hypothesis is supported by multiple studies, new evidence could arise that contradicts it. Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement. Therefore, the goal is to gather enough evidence to either support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it absolutely true.
What Are the Six Parts of a Hypothesis
A hypothesis typically consists of six essential parts:
Research Question : A clear and concise question that the hypothesis seeks to answer.
Variables : Identification of the independent (manipulated) and dependent (measured) variables involved in the hypothesis.
Population : The specific group or individuals the hypothesis is concerned with.
Relationship or Comparison : The expected relationship or difference between variables, often indicated by directional terms like “more,” “less,” “higher,” or “lower.”
Predictability : A statement of the predicted outcome or result based on the relationship between variables.
Testability : The ability to design an experiment or gather data to support or reject the hypothesis.
How Do You Start a Hypothesis Sentence
When starting a hypothesis sentence, it is essential to use clear and concise language to express your ideas. A common approach is to use the phrase “If…then…” to establish the conditional relationship between variables. For example:
- If [independent variable], then [dependent variable] because [explanation of expected relationship].
This structure allows for a straightforward and logical formulation of the hypothesis.
What Are Examples of Hypotheses
Here are a few examples of well-formulated hypotheses:
If exposure to sunlight increases, then plants will grow taller because sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis.
If students receive praise for good grades, then their motivation to excel will increase because they seek recognition and approval.
If the dose of a painkiller is increased, then the relief from pain will last longer because a higher dosage has a prolonged effect.
What Are the Five Key Elements to a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis should include the following five key elements:
Clarity : The hypothesis should be clear and specific, leaving no room for interpretation.
Testability : It should be possible to test the hypothesis through experimentation or data collection.
Relevance : The hypothesis should be directly tied to the research question or problem being investigated.
Specificity : It must clearly state the relationship or difference between variables being studied.
Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make predictions that can be refuted or supported by empirical evidence.
What Makes a Good Hypothesis in a Research Paper
In a research paper, a good hypothesis should have the following characteristics:
Relevance : It must directly relate to the research topic and address the objectives of the study.
Clarity : The hypothesis should be concise and precisely worded to avoid confusion.
Unambiguous : It must leave no room for multiple interpretations or ambiguity.
Logic : The hypothesis should be based on rational and logical reasoning, considering existing theories and observations.
Empirical Support : Ideally, the hypothesis should be supported by prior empirical evidence or strong theoretical justifications.
Is a Hypothesis Always a Question
No, a hypothesis is not always in the form of a question. While some hypotheses can take the form of a question, others may be statements asserting a relationship or difference between variables. The form of a hypothesis depends on the research question being addressed and the researcher’s preferred style of expression.
What Are the Three Things Needed for a Good Hypothesis
For a hypothesis to be considered good, it must fulfill the following three criteria:
Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that allows for empirical testing through experimentation or data collection.
Falsifiability : It must make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.
Relevance : The hypothesis should directly address the research question or problem being investigated.
What Are the Four Components to a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis typically consists of four components:
Independent Variable : The variable being manipulated or controlled by the researcher.
Dependent Variable : The variable being measured or observed to determine the effect of the independent variable.
Directionality : The predicted relationship or difference between the independent and dependent variables.
Population : The specific group or individuals to which the hypothesis applies.
How Do You Formulate a Hypothesis
To formulate a hypothesis, follow these steps:
Identify the Research Topic : Clearly define the area or phenomenon you want to study.
Conduct Background Research : Review existing literature and research to gain knowledge about the topic.
Formulate a Research Question : Ask a clear and focused question that you want to answer through your hypothesis.
State the Null and Alternative Hypotheses : Develop a null hypothesis to assume no effect or relationship, and an alternative hypothesis to propose a significant effect or relationship.
Decide on Variables and Relationships : Determine the independent and dependent variables and the predicted relationship between them.
Refine and Test : Refine your hypothesis, ensuring it is clear, testable, and falsifiable. Then, design experiments or gather data to support or reject it.
What Is a Characteristic of a Hypothesis MCQ
Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) regarding the characteristics of a hypothesis often assess knowledge on the testability and falsifiability of hypotheses. They may ask about the criteria that distinguish a good hypothesis from a poor one or the importance of making specific predictions. Remember to choose answers that emphasize the empirical and testable nature of hypotheses.
What Five Criteria Must Be Satisfied for a Hypothesis to Be Scientific
For a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must satisfy the following five criteria:
Testability : The hypothesis must be formulated in a way that allows it to be tested through experimentation or data collection.
Falsifiability : It should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by empirical evidence.
Empirical Basis : The hypothesis should be based on empirical observations or existing theories and knowledge.
Relevance : It must directly address the research question or problem being investigated.
Objective : A scientific hypothesis should be free from personal biases or subjective opinions, focusing on objective observations and analysis.
What Are the Steps of Theory Development in Scientific Methods
In scientific methods, theory development typically involves the following steps:
Observation : Identifying a phenomenon or pattern worthy of investigation through observation or empirical data.
Formulation of a Hypothesis : Constructing a hypothesis that explains the observed phenomena or predicts a relationship between variables.
Data Collection : Gathering relevant data through experiments, surveys, observations, or other research methods.
Analysis : Analyzing the collected data to evaluate the hypothesis’s predictions and determine their validity.
Revision and Refinement : Based on the analysis, refining the hypothesis, modifying the theory, or formulating new hypotheses for further investigation.
Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis is characterized by:
Testability : The ability to form experiments or gather data to support or refute the hypothesis.
Falsifiability : The potential for the hypothesis’s predictions to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence.
Clarity : A clear and concise statement or question that leaves no room for ambiguity.
Relevancy : Directly addressing the research question or problem at hand.
Remember, it is important to select the option that encompasses all these characteristics.
What Are the Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis
A good hypothesis possesses several characteristics, such as:
Testability : It should allow for empirical testing through experiments or data collection.
Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.
Clarity : It must be clearly and precisely formulated, leaving no room for ambiguity or multiple interpretations.
Relevance : The hypothesis should directly relate to the research question or problem being investigated.
What Is the Five-Step p-value Approach to Hypothesis Testing
The five-step p-value approach is a commonly used framework for hypothesis testing:
Step 1: Formulating the Hypotheses : The null hypothesis (H0) assumes no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (HA) proposes a significant effect or relationship.
Step 2: Setting the Significance Level : Decide on the level of significance (α), which represents the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The commonly used level is 0.05 (5%).
Step 3: Collecting Data and Performing the Test : Acquire and analyze the data, calculating the test statistic and the corresponding p-value.
Step 4: Comparing the p-value with the Significance Level : If the p-value is less than the significance level (α), reject the null hypothesis. Otherwise, fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Step 5: Drawing Conclusions : Based on the comparison in Step 4, interpret the results and draw conclusions about the hypothesis.
What Are the Stages of Hypothesis
The stages of hypothesis generally include:
Observation : Identifying a pattern, phenomenon, or research question that warrants investigation.
Formulation : Developing a hypothesis that explains or predicts the relationship or difference between variables.
Testing : Collecting data, designing experiments, or conducting studies to gather evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis.
Analysis : Assessing the collected data to determine whether the results support or reject the hypothesis.
Conclusion : Drawing conclusions based on the analysis and making further iterations, refinements, or new hypotheses for future research.
What Is a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis
A characteristic of a good hypothesis is its ability to make specific predictions about the relationship or difference between variables. Good hypotheses avoid vague statements and clearly articulate the expected outcomes. By doing so, researchers can design experiments or gather data that directly test the predictions, leading to meaningful results.
How Do You Write a Good Hypothesis Example
To write a good hypothesis example, follow these guidelines:
If possible, use the “If…then…” format to express a conditional relationship between variables.
Be clear and concise in stating the variables involved, the predicted relationship, and the expected outcome.
Ensure the hypothesis is testable, meaning it can be evaluated through experiments or data collection.
For instance, consider the following example:
If students study for longer periods of time, then their test scores will improve because increased study time allows for better retention of information and increased proficiency.
What Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Hypotheses
The main difference between a hypothesis and hypotheses lies in their grammatical number. A hypothesis refers to a single statement or proposition that is formulated to explain or predict the relationship between variables. On the other hand, hypotheses is the plural form of the term hypothesis, commonly used when multiple statements or propositions are proposed and tested simultaneously.
What Is a Good Hypothesis Statement
A good hypothesis statement exhibits the following qualities:
Clarity : It is written in clear and concise language, leaving no room for confusion or ambiguity.
Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that enables testing through experiments or data collection.
Specificity : It must clearly state the predicted relationship or difference between variables.
By adhering to these criteria, a good hypothesis statement guides research efforts effectively.
What Is Not a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis
A characteristic that does not align with a good hypothesis is subjectivity . A hypothesis should be objective, based on empirical observations or existing theories, and free from personal bias. While personal interpretations and opinions can inspire the formulation of a hypothesis, it must ultimately rely on objective observations and be open to empirical testing.
By now, you’ve gained insights into the characteristics of a good hypothesis, including testability, falsifiability, clarity,
- characteristics
- falsifiable
- good hypothesis
- hypothesis testing
- null hypothesis
- observations
- scientific rigor
Brian Thomas
Is july really a 31-day month unraveling the puzzling calendar quirk, how long does it take to become l5 at amazon, you may also like, what color does black and yellow make.
- by Willie Wilson
- November 3, 2023
Is It Safe to Drink Coffee with Mono?
- by Mr. Gilbert Preston
- October 12, 2023
Who Is Raven in “Titans Go” and How Old Is She in 2023?
- by Travis Heath
- October 28, 2023
What is the R-value of Plexiglass?
- by Richard Edwards
- October 8, 2023
How Many Americans Make Over $300,000 Per Year?
- October 29, 2023
Is the Spear .308 Real? Exploring the Truth Behind Rainbow Six Siege’s Iconic Weapon
- by Brandon Thompson
- A to Z Guides
What Is the Scientific Method?
The scientific method is a systematic way of conducting experiments or studies so that you can explore the things you observe in the world and answer questions about them. The scientific method, also known as the hypothetico-deductive method, is a series of steps that can help you accurately describe the things you observe or improve your understanding of them.
Ultimately, your goal when you use the scientific method is to:
- Find a cause-and-effect relationship by asking a question about something you observed
- Collect as much evidence as you can about what you observed, as this can help you explore the connection between your evidence and what you observed
- Determine if all your evidence can be combined to answer your question in a way that makes sense
Francis Bacon and René Descartes are usually credited with formalizing the process in the 16th and 17th centuries. The two philosophers argued that research shouldn’t be guided by preset metaphysical ideas of how reality works. They supported the use of inductive reasoning to come up with hypotheses and understand new things about reality.
Scientific Method Steps
The scientific method is a step-by-step problem-solving process. These steps include:
Observe the world around you. This will help you come up with a topic you are interested in and want to learn more about. In many cases, you already have a topic in mind because you have a related question for which you couldn't find an immediate answer.
Either way, you'll start the process by finding out what people before you already know about the topic, as well as any questions that people are still asking about. You may need to look up and read books and articles from academic journals or talk to other people so that you understand as much as you possibly can about your topic. This will help you with your next step.
Ask questions. Asking questions about what you observed and learned from reading and talking to others can help you figure out what the "problem" is. Scientists try to ask questions that are both interesting and specific and can be answered with the help of a fairly easy experiment or series of experiments. Your question should have one part (called a variable) that you can change in your experiment and another variable that you can measure. Your goal is to design an experiment that is a "fair test," which is when all the conditions in the experiment are kept the same except for the one you change (called the experimental or independent variable).
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on it. A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in your question. A good hypothesis lets you predict what will happen when you test it in an experiment. Another important feature of a good hypothesis is that, if the hypothesis is wrong, you should be able to show that it's wrong. This is called falsifiability. If your experiment shows that your prediction is true, then your hypothesis is supported by your data.
Test your prediction by doing an experiment or making more observations. The way you test your prediction depends on what you are studying. The best support comes from an experiment, but in some cases, it's too hard or impossible to change the variables in an experiment. Sometimes, you may need to do descriptive research where you gather more observations instead of doing an experiment. You will carefully gather notes and measurements during your experiments or studies, and you can share them with other people interested in the same question as you. Ideally, you will also repeat your experiment a couple more times because it's possible to get a result by chance, but it's less possible to get the same result more than once by chance.
Draw a conclusion. You will analyze what you already know about your topic from your literature research and the data gathered during your experiment. This will help you decide if the conclusion you draw from your data supports or contradicts your hypothesis. If your results contradict your hypothesis, you can use this observation to form a new hypothesis and make a new prediction. This is why scientific research is ongoing and scientific knowledge is changing all the time. It's very common for scientists to get results that don't support their hypotheses. In fact, you sometimes learn more about the world when your experiments don't support your hypotheses because it leads you to ask more questions. And this time around, you already know that one possible explanation is likely wrong.
Use your results to guide your next steps (iterate). For instance, if your hypothesis is supported, you may do more experiments to confirm it. Or you could come up with a hypothesis about why it works this way and design an experiment to test that. If your hypothesis is not supported, you can come up with another hypothesis and do experiments to test it. You'll rarely get the right hypothesis in one go. Most of the time, you'll have to go back to the hypothesis stage and try again. Every attempt offers you important information that helps you improve your next round of questions, hypotheses, and predictions.
Share your results. Scientific research isn't something you can do on your own; you must work with other people to do it. You may be able to do an experiment or a series of experiments on your own, but you can't come up with all the ideas or do all the experiments by yourself .
Scientists and researchers usually share information by publishing it in a scientific journal or by presenting it to their colleagues during meetings and scientific conferences. These journals are read and the conferences are attended by other researchers who are interested in the same questions. If there's anything wrong with your hypothesis, prediction, experiment design, or conclusion, other researchers will likely find it and point it out to you.
It can be scary, but it's a critical part of doing scientific research. You must let your research be examined by other researchers who are as interested and knowledgeable about your question as you. This process helps other researchers by pointing out hypotheses that have been proved wrong and why they are wrong. It helps you by identifying flaws in your thinking or experiment design. And if you don't share what you've learned and let other people ask questions about it, it's not helpful to your or anyone else's understanding of what happens in the world.
Scientific Method Example
Here's an everyday example of how you can apply the scientific method to understand more about your world so you can solve your problems in a helpful way.
Let's say you put slices of bread in your toaster and press the button, but nothing happens. Your toaster isn't working, but you can't afford to buy a new one right now. You might be able to rescue it from the trash can if you can figure out what's wrong with it. So, let's figure out what's wrong with your toaster.
Observation. Your toaster isn't working to toast your bread.
Ask a question. In this case, you're asking, "Why isn't my toaster working?" You could even do a bit of preliminary research by looking in the owner's manual for your toaster. The manufacturer has likely tested your toaster model under many conditions, and they may have some ideas for where to start with your hypothesis.
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on it. Your hypothesis should be a potential explanation or answer to the question that you can test to see if it's correct. One possible explanation that we could test is that the power outlet is broken. Our prediction is that if the outlet is broken, then plugging it into a different outlet should make the toaster work again.
Test your prediction by doing an experiment or making more observations. You plug the toaster into a different outlet and try to toast your bread.
If that works, then your hypothesis is supported by your experimental data. Results that support your hypothesis don't prove it right; they simply suggest that it's a likely explanation. This uncertainty arises because, in the real world, we can't rule out the possibility of mistakes, wrong assumptions, or weird coincidences affecting the results. If the toaster doesn’t work even after plugging it into a different outlet, then your hypothesis is not supported and it's likely the wrong explanation.
Use your results to guide your next steps (iteration). If your toaster worked, you may decide to do further tests to confirm it or revise it. For example, you could plug something else that you know is working into the first outlet to see if that stops working too. That would be further confirmation that your hypothesis is correct.
If your toaster failed to toast when plugged into the second outlet, you need a new hypothesis. For example, your next hypothesis might be that the toaster has a shorted wire. You could test this hypothesis directly if you have the right equipment and training, or you could take it to a repair shop where they could test that hypothesis for you.
Share your results. For this everyday example, you probably wouldn't want to write a paper, but you could share your problem-solving efforts with your housemates or anyone you hire to repair your outlet or help you test if the toaster has a short circuit.
What the Scientific Method Is Used For
The scientific method is useful whenever you need to reason logically about your questions and gather evidence to support your problem-solving efforts. So, you can use it in everyday life to answer many of your questions; however, when most people think of the scientific method, they likely think of using it to:
Describe how nature works . It can be hard to accurately describe how nature works because it's almost impossible to account for every variable that's involved in a natural process. Researchers may not even know about many of the variables that are involved. In some cases, all you can do is make assumptions. But you can use the scientific method to logically disprove wrong assumptions by identifying flaws in the reasoning.
Do scientific research in a laboratory to develop things such as new medicines.
Develop critical thinking skills. Using the scientific method may help you develop critical thinking in your daily life because you learn to systematically ask questions and gather evidence to find answers. Without logical reasoning, you might be more likely to have a distorted perspective or bias. Bias is the inclination we all have to favor one perspective (usually our own) over another.
The scientific method doesn't perfectly solve the problem of bias, but it does make it harder for an entire field to be biased in the same direction. That's because it's unlikely that all the people working in a field have the same biases. It also helps make the biases of individuals more obvious because if you repeatedly misinterpret information in the same way in multiple experiments or over a period, the other people working on the same question will notice. If you don't correct your bias when others point it out to you, you'll lose your credibility. Other people might then stop believing what you have to say.
Why Is the Scientific Method Important?
When you use the scientific method, your goal is to do research in a fair, unbiased, and repeatable way. The scientific method helps meet these goals because:
It's a systematic approach to problem-solving. It can help you figure out where you're going wrong in your thinking and research if you're not getting helpful answers to your questions. Helpful answers solve problems and keep you moving forward. So, a systematic approach helps you improve your problem-solving abilities if you get stuck.
It can help you solve your problems. The scientific method helps you isolate problems by focusing on what's important. In addition, it can help you make your solutions better every time you go through the process.
It helps you eliminate (or become aware of) your personal biases. It can help you limit the influence of your own personal, preconceived notions . A big part of the process is considering what other people already know and think about your question. It also involves sharing what you've learned and letting other people ask about your methods and conclusions. At the end of the process, even if you still think your answer is best, you have considered what other people know and think about the question.
The scientific method is a systematic way of conducting experiments or studies so that you can explore the world around you and answer questions using reason and evidence. It's a step-by-step problem-solving process that involves: (1) observation, (2) asking questions, (3) forming hypotheses and making predictions, (4) testing your hypotheses through experiments or more observations, (5) using what you learned through experiment or observation to guide further investigation, and (6) sharing your results.
Top doctors in ,
Find more top doctors on, related links.
- Health A-Z News
- Health A-Z Reference
- Health A-Z Slideshows
- Health A-Z Quizzes
- Health A-Z Videos
- WebMDRx Savings Card
- Coronavirus (COVID-19)
- Hepatitis C
- Diabetes Warning Signs
- Rheumatoid Arthritis
- Morning-After Pill
- Breast Cancer Screening
- Psoriatic Arthritis Symptoms
- Heart Failure
- Multiple Myeloma
- Types of Crohn's Disease
Scientific Method: Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
- Step 1: QUESTION
- Step 2: RESEARCH
- Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
- Step 4: EXPERIMENT
- Step 5: DATA
- Step 6: CONCLUSION
Step 3: State your hypothesis
Now it's time to state your hypothesis . The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what will happen during your experiment.
The hypothesis is often written using the words "IF" and "THEN." For example, " If I do not study, then I will fail the test." The "if' and "then" statements reflect your independent and dependent variables .
The hypothesis should relate back to your original question and must be testable .
A word about variables...
Your experiment will include variables to measure and to explain any cause and effect. Below you will find some useful links describing the different types of variables.
- "What are independent and dependent variables" NCES
- [VIDEO] Biology: Independent vs. Dependent Variables (Nucleus Medical Media) Video explaining independent and dependent variables, with examples.
Resource Links
- What is and How to Write a Good Hypothesis in Research? (Elsevier)
- Hypothesis brochure from Penn State/Berks
- << Previous: Step 2: RESEARCH
- Next: Step 4: EXPERIMENT >>
- Last Updated: Aug 26, 2024 10:04 AM
- URL: https://harford.libguides.com/scientific_method
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
hypothesis. science. scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If…then" statement summarizing the idea and in the ...
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 ...
One of the experts in the field defines "hypothesis" as a well-argued analysis of available evidence to provide a realistic (scientific) explanation of existing facts, fill gaps in public understanding of sophisticated processes, and propose a new theory or a test.4 A hypothesis can be proven wrong partially or entirely. However, even such ...
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. If a first-year student starts attending more lectures, then their exam scores will improve.
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.
A hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested through experiments. Good hypotheses are clear, precise, and can be proven wrong. There are different types of hypotheses, like simple, complex, null, and alternative. Variables play a big role in forming a hypothesis, including independent, dependent, and control variables.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observation. The definition depends on the subject. In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.
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 ...
Bibliography. A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an ...
A research hypothesis is a concise statement about the expected result of an experiment or project. In many ways, a research hypothesis represents the starting point for a scientific endeavor, as it establishes a tentative assumption that is eventually substantiated or falsified, ultimately improving our certainty about the subject investigated.
In summary, forming a hypothesis is a critical step in the scientific process. It provides a clear direction for research, helping to define the variables and guiding the entire study. A well-crafted hypothesis allows researchers to make predictions and test them through experiments, which is essential for advancing scientific knowledge.
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.
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 ...
A well-crafted hypothesis is the cornerstone of effective scientific research. It serves as a tentative explanation or prediction that guides the direction of study and experimental design. Understanding what makes a good hypothesis is essential for students, researchers, and anyone involved in scientific inquiry.
A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction: "If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen." State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing.
2. The scientific hypothesis. In this section, we will describe a functional and descriptive role regarding how scientists use hypotheses. Jeong & Kwon [] investigated and summarized the different uses the concept of 'hypothesis' had in philosophical and scientific texts.They identified five meanings: assumption, tentative explanation, tentative cause, tentative law, and prediction.
Keep in mind that writing the hypothesis is an early step in the process of doing a science project. The steps below form the basic outline of the Scientific Method: Ask a Question. Do Background Research. Construct a Hypothesis. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion.
growth.To begin formulating a hypothesis:1. Review. ll. the information gathered during research 2. Fig. re. out what the main question of the study is3. Form a general statement outlining this question. and the overall expectation of the experimentThe goal is to create a rough version of the statement seen in Exam.
The hypothesis is a key component of the scientific process. A hypothesis is an idea that is suggested as an explanation for a natural event, a particular experience, or a specific condition that can be tested through definable experimentation. It states the purpose of your experiment, the variables used, and the predicted outcome of your ...
Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis. A good hypothesis is characterized by: Testability: The ability to form experiments or gather data to support or refute the hypothesis. Falsifiability: The potential for the hypothesis's predictions to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence.
Form a hypothesis and make predictions based on it. A hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between two or more variables in your question. A good hypothesis lets you predict what ...
Now it's time to state your hypothesis. The hypothesis is an educated guess as to what will happen during your experiment. The hypothesis is often written using the words "IF" and "THEN." For example, "If I do not study, then I will fail the test." The "if' and "then" statements reflect your independent and dependent variables.